Saturday, February 25, 2006

A graphic from Maccusgermanis

I like this graphic very much.

Cartoon Madness" It's a Jewish Conspiracy.

What do you get when you cross a psychotic culture with a population of organically stupid people? Palestinians. And then there are those people in Boston who are every bit as stupid and repulsive and mentally ill as the average Palestinian. What one gets in combining a Palestinian with a Bostonian dhimmi leftist is the kind of garbage conspiracy theory that we excerpt below put here only to prove to the reader that you just can't make up shit this stupid.

Sayanim – Defenders of Western Civilization

The sayanim, derived, according to Victor Ostrovsky, from the Hebrew word 'to help' are a huge world-wide network of Jews in strategic or useful places (real estate, mass media, finance, car dealerships etc…) who have been agreed to help in Israeli Mossad actitivies within their own countries. This has been ascribed to the supra-national loyalty sayanim offer to Israel, above and not always in the interest of their home country. According to Gordon Thomas and Martin Dillon, in their detailed biography, Robert Maxwell, Israel's Superspy (Carroll and Graf Publishers, 2002), the notorious media mogul, Robert Maxwell, was a super-sayanim, providing cover, offices, political connections, money-laundering services and planted stories in the service of Israel at the Mossad's beheast. Jonathan Pollard, the American Naval Researcher jailed for espionage, is another notorious sayanim. The activities of these 'helpers' really range from the spectacular to the more mundane and, according to Victor Ostrovsky, in his 1990 biography By Way of Deception, the sayanim represent a pool of thousands of active and inactive individuals who can provide services discretely out of loyalty to 'the cause of Israel' as defined by any current Mossad operation. The cynicism of this arrangement is clear: It makes little difference to the Mossad if an operation, such as 'Flemming Rose', jeopardizes the national and economic interests of the sayanim's own country and , if exposed, might harm the status of Jews in the diaspora. The standard response from the Mossad would be: "So what's the worst that could happen to those Jews? They'd all come to Israel? Great." This recklessness clearly has ramifications for Jews who have refused to be recruited as Mossad helpers in affected countries.

The reasons that millions are demonstrating against a caricature of Mohammed published in an insignificant Scandinavian rightwing newspaper is that this is the last straw – the detonator – of a series of deliberate violations of fundamental social and political rights of Muslim, Arab and colonized peoples. While the Western media have focused exclusively on the religious content of the demonstrators, almost every country, where massive sustained demonstrations have taken place, has been subject to recent Western intervention, large-scale pillage of raw materials and/or experienced the destruction of their secular rights: countries invaded, homes, schools, hospital, systems of health and clean water demolished, agriculture and natural resources looted, museums, libraries and archeological sites pillaged and mosques desecrated. The present condition for material existence has been a Western inferno for all the people (both secular and observant) living in Arab or Islamic countries. Now their most profound, historic, spiritual reference point, the prophet Mohammed – the most cherished religious figure – has been repeatedly trampled with impunity by arrogant imperialists, their media servants, aided and abetted by the Israeli state and its overseas 'sayanin' operatives. It is cynical to suggest that practicing Moslems could desecrate the figure of Jesus Christ with impunity when that too is forbidden by the Koran.


There's more. There's much more. Lunatics can't help themselves from running on without end. And the problem is that many of our so-called Left intellectuals are not significantly better than the mornons responsible for the crap above. We often nod and smile when we hear the crap above voiced in public. We read it in the MSM, though put more or less euphemistically. We get this racist drivel from our universities, and now from the likes of Neil Bush, Jimmy Carter, Al Gore, and Bill Clinton. It's time to stand up in public and let the people around us know that this is too stupid and repulsive to go unchallenged any longer. When we hear this crap from people on the bus or in the market we have not only a right but a duty to tell them to go fuck themselves. We do not have to be polite to creatures like this. They deserve scorn and ridicule and spit. But there are those who will imprison us for "hate-speech" and "religious vilification" if we voice our oppostion to this kind of outrageous mental illness. To that I have this to say:

My name is Dag Walker. You can find me at our weekly meeting at McDonald's in Vancouver, Canada on Thursday evening from 7-9:00 pm at Main st and Terminal ave. I wear a blue scarf. You can't miss me. If you don't like it, arrest me.

Mohammed is a child molestor, a murderer, a criminal psychopath. Palestinians are garbage people who should be imprisoned whole. Those who support them should be hanged from lamp posts. If there's any ambiguity in my positon I am happy to elaborate.

Friday, February 24, 2006

Intellectuals and the Masses

The long-term reader here will know that our usual theme is not one of posting grotesque photographs of Mohammed but of examining closely the history of why we have arrived today at the social and political conclusions we take as given and normal; and that we trace those opinions, the history ideas of the right and good of multiculturalism, of welfare and state corporatism, of what we reduce to Left dhimmi fascism, as our main emphases.

Over the course of this blog we've looked at the modern Western intelligentsia as a corrupt and disgusting lot who, from at least the time of Plato have written of the "masses" as sub-human, as incapable creatures who must be controlled by the elites. In essay after essay we've looked at the history of this elitist fascism. Chronologically, our most recent looks at this idea has been Julian Benda's Treason of the Intellectuals, written in the 1920s, at the gnostic fascism of the proto-Nazis of the 19th to mid 20th centuries, and at the French "postmodernist" Left dhimmi fascist neo-feudalists of our time. Folks, it's not alway fun reading this blog. This installment, however, deals with the same theme in the form of three very short book reviews from amazon books. I've just acquired a copy of the book under discussion, and the reviews that follow should give at least as good an account for you as I will give when I finish it.

This topic is essential for us to understand if we are to effectively deal with our social decay and the creeping rot that destroys our democracies. Our elites, our political leaders, our clergy, university professors, school teachers, the media morons, all of these people are the very kinds of personalities we'll see in the discussions below. I'll follow as time allows when I finish my reading.

PARTHO ROY (Tampa, Florida USA) - See all my reviews

Strange to think that a well-chaired professor at Oxford, that ancient bastion of academic elitism (still, despite the sun setting on its hallowed but crumbling halls), would have so much criticism to level against the dawn of modern intelligentsia. But upon reading the first part of this concise and well-documented book, it became clear to me just how rotten at heart our intellectual heroes truly were. Carey finds a wealth of unnerving evidence that the great figures (self-appointed "greats," as this book shows us) of the modern literary canon festered with hatred of the common man, so much that they advocated (oftentimes straightforwardly) wiping out all of humanity. Moreso, the various case studies in the book's second part uncover further details about just how much these great writers loathed the "masses," and the strange, selfish reasons behind their disdain.

This is an excellent read for anyone struggling through "Ulysses," "To the Lighthouse," or even "The Wasteland." Carey's thorough research and well-argued points shed much-needed light on the dark side of our past century's most celebrated authors: why they wrote in such an unreachable voice, why they crafted their themes to be so alien to most people, why they lived where they did, and (most importantly) how much worthier they took themselves as human beings. I did groan a bit during the final chapter, which was about Wyndham Lewis and Hitler. Dropping the "H-bomb" can make anything seem evil and was therefore too easy a potshot for Carey to take at the intellectuals. Also, the two back-to-back case studies on H. G. Wells were somewhat redundant; Carey would have done better to write two case studies on two separate writers. Still, this book gives the reader an exciting, enlightening, and shocking view at the world of the intellectuals between 1880 and 1939 (and, in the Postscript, a look at similar currents in today's postmodern world), and I highly recommend it to any fan of modern literature who is not afraid to explore the ugly side of the great writers.

The Writer As Totalitarian Snob, January 30, 2003

Reviewer: R. W. Rasband

John Carey's "The Intellectuals and the Masses" is an eye-opening account of the fear and loathing many English writers had for ordinary people during the early days of Modernism. The intellectuals of the time hated and feared the growing power of the newly expanding middle class. Many famous and prominent writers came to dislike democracy and capitalism, because they thought they were losing influence. Carey theorizes that Modernism was invented in order to shut out the common reader of the day; to prove the elite's superiority and to put the upstarts in their places. Wyndham Lewis, a man with an amoral personal life, worshipped Hitler. D.H. Lawrence noted the efficiency of poison gas and imagined a large execution chamber where all the stupid people could be killed. Virginia Woolf sneered at the banality of the conversations she overheard from the women in the lavatory. The Bloomsbury set was especially guilty of the worst class-consciousness.

Some writers did battle with their impulses and the intellectual fashions of those years. George Orwell wrote with a minimum on condescension about "the proles" in his early novels and "1984." H.G. Wells seemed to advocate mass extermination of his inferiors in his non-fiction, but in his fiction his imaginative sympathies were usually with the failures and "losers" of the world. James Joyce's masterpiece was "Ulysses", a tribute of sorts to the common man (although written in a Modernist style that made it impossible for the common man to read it.) But on the whole the snobbery of most of the intellectuals of the day was unforgivable.

This book is an excellent companion to Modris Eksteins' "Rites of Spring" his cultural history of World War I. Both books argue that Modernism was in part responsible for the horrors of the 20th century, with its ruthless elitism and emotional coldness. Shaw, Pound and Forster dreamed of ridding the world of "superfluous" people; did this make it possible for Hitler and Stalin to actually attempt it? The necessary ideas were in the air. And they still are. Carey notes that, as the masses began to catch up in sophistication, post-modernism and literary theory was invented to create a new elite artistic language for its aristocratic initiates to revel in. The Modernist loathing for the mass media of newspapers was replaced by hatred of television and America, the middle-class nation par excellence. (And I would add, they really hate the Internet.) If you want to know why so many celebrities seem so sour and cynical about everything but themselves, read this book.


Intellectual hatchet-job., June 21, 2000
Reviewer: A reader
When I adjudicated secondary-school debating competitions, there was always one dependable red flag that signalled a crumbling argument: the comparison with Hitler. Hitler was the teenager's favourite: if you could infect your opponent's argument with just a touch of Hitlerism, the crowd was instantly on your side and your opponent now had to climb a mountain of odium to win them back. The biggest and most facile cliche was always the favourite amongst the weak speakers for knocking down an argument with one brute blow. All that was required to make it work was the unthinking presence of a large crowd.

With this in mind, it is disturbing to discover that an Oxford Professor of Literature is able to do no better. Carey has written an entire book that appeals to the masses (for its dishonest nature similarly requires an unthinking audience for its success). It confirms from on high the masses' most vulgar stereotypes about some of our most well-respected intellectuals and writers: their snobbery, elitism, wilful esoterica and even their supposed personal problems. Given this fact, it's no surprise that a comparison with the lowest common denominator of villains crops up - yes, Hitler.

The most objectionable aspect of the book is that instead of examining the validity of the selected writers' ideas on their own merit, Carey focuses mainly on their personal shortcomings. In attempting to appeal to a not especially bright readership, Carey certainly knows what he's doing: after all, once you are made to think that Nietzsche was resentful and unfulfilled, that H.G. Wells had sexual problems, that Virginia Woolf was annoyed by bland banter because she was approaching madness, and that Wyndham Lewis had similar thoughts about art and culture to Hitler, it's difficult to warm to their ideas, whether right or wrong. The chapter on Lewis and Hitler is particularly funny since on the basis of the incidental similarities Carey finds between the two, thousands of other writers could be accused of Nazism.Why would an academic take on such a mission? Why write an entire book deliberately quoting the top writers out of context and classifying them as maladjusted fools? Why stoop to such such low-bred ad hominem attacks? If the Professor feels that literature suffers from a lack of popular appeal, demonising some of its finest luminaries is hardly going to help.

If any of this has been of interest to you and if you wish to know more of what our focus is here we suggest a google search of our title and such names and words as benda, plato, darre, gnosticism, neo-feudalism, left dhimmi fascism. There are roughly 30o essays in the archives here on this topic alone. Some of it might be interesting to the dedicated reader. I hope so.


This comes via Aisha's lost doll. What the hell kind of religion is this? Why are we putting up with it? It's time to put a stop to this. I don't care if it hurts some people's feelings. And if they riot over feeling insulted, I don't care about that either. Islam is intolerable. Toss 'em.

Blue Scarf Meeting in Vancouver, Canada

We had a special guest speaker for this evening's Blue Revolution meeting in Vancouver, Canada. I won't identify him, but as one might expect we had the pleasure of another unique and valuable contributor to our discussion. Our topics this evening concerned Islam and Left dhimmi idiots, as usual, and this time we got more and different perspectives because of our speaker. I won't go into the details because to do so might jeopardize our speaker's identity. Suffice it to write here that I am highly impressed and found our evening enlightening in ways I didn't expect.

Our speaker gave us details that we would likely never have discovered from our own investigations into Islam. We had the pleasure of being able to ask questions face to face and get necessary details and to get elaborations on those answers till we came away late in the evening with a far deeper and better understanding of our situation than we had before. All of this is generalised, and I'm sorry I can't go into detail about it. I expect that with my new and better understanding of the situation of Islam and dhimmitude that further posts will reflect this evening's discussions.

Our attendance here is growing, if only slightly. Still, we are making progress. And not only we. Others are joining us in their various locations. I hope to have news in the coming days of France that might give us all a chance to feel better about our plight. The main thing is that we show that this can work. We are improving our organising and communications. We will in time rival and excel and we will triumph over our opponents. It's not easy to defeat Islam in a matter of months, and it's not easy for us to sit alone week after week waiting for friends to join us. But they will come if we wait long enough and ask enough people often enough. And they in turn will bring others. In time we will have a movement of free men and women meeting to effect chance that will transform our world from the problem it is to something better. I know it's hard. We will win though. If you sat waiting and no one joined you, think of it this way: we were with you in spirit, and in time we'll meet to shake your hand.

Regardless of how your evening turned out, please let us know. Let us know that even though it might not have turned out as well as you'd hoped that you tried. That alone makes you something I like a lot.

I can't make this any easier for you. You don't need me to if I could. It might well be hard, but when we remember why we do this it makes us better able to endure. Good luck next week, friend.

1689 : Le premier café, le Procope, est fondé à Paris par un gentilhomme de Palerme : Francesco Procopio dei Coltelli. Il existe encore actuellement et se situe rue des Fossées Saint Germain. Il y en aura 300 au début du 18ième, 3000 vers 1850 et 15000 actuellement.

Voltaire, Diderot, d'Alembert, La Harpe, Condorcet, au café Le Procope.

Thursday, February 23, 2006

Go Alabama!

Gathering of Redneck Infidels for Pork Eating
A weekly GRIPE.

Tomorrow is another Thurs.

Pilgrim suggests a change of venue.
The two of us will be at the nightly infidel pig fest that is Jim & Nicks in Homewood.

All that happen by this post are welcome to join us at 7pm. I'm the one that reads Mohammed Comics.

The purpose of this meeting is to offer any knowledge and opinions, we have, of the sustaining threat to all free people that is islam. And, to engender a discussion/debate about what we can do to engage this prevaricating evil.
posted by maccusgermanis at 2/22/2006

Revolution Bleue: France

Below is a letter from our friend Sebastian who reports on some events and conditions in France. The situation is only hopeless if people give up hope and quit caring enough about their own lives to act on the behalf of themsleves and the nations they live in. We are meeting this evening at McDonald's in Vancouver, Canada, not because we have such a problem as France or America or Denmark or Australia but because to do nothing is to have a problem that will be as bad if we do nothing. We won't wait for things to get that bad. We act.

Tonight a confrontation is expected between the porc soup kitchen and the authorities in Maubert Mutualite, a rather nice area on the Left Bank. I will be popping round to take a look. You will be able to read about it tomorrow on France Echos.

Tomorrow, a very large demonstration of support is expected in front of the Danish Embassy. It has been called jointly by all the main anti dhimmi organisations such as Occidentalis and the Revolution Blue. The details are here.

You are also no doubt aware of the horrific murder of Ilan, who was tortured to death over a period of three weeks, mostly because he was jewish. This is a story that the state can no longer run away from, despite the fact that no one from the government attended his funeral. Last night they caught the ringleader Yossef Fofana, who had fled to the Ivory Coast. He had flown with Air France under his real name and was booked into a hotel in Abidjan under his real name. It reminds me of failed suicide bomber who left London via Eurostar and took a train to Rome from Paris despite his face being on every poster in Britain. Judging by the amount of muslims working at border controls I think we can say that we are totally undefended.

It appears that the police in Abidjan were very helpful in apprehending this Youssef Fofana (link here )

On the 26th of February, numerous jewish organisations have organised a walk through Bagneux, the town where Ilan was martyred. They plan to to place a wreath at the foot of the building where he was systematically mutilated for 24 days. It appears (although it is not confirmed) that certain organisations have been advised by the police not to go to this march because their security cannot be assured. If this is true, then Bagneux is truly Dar al Harb.

The parents were telephoned by the torturers so that they could hear his screams. Verses of the Koran were also recited over the phone. Not all the gang were muslim. There is a portuguese man involved and some of the girls used as bait were French. It also appears that the building janitor, who gave Fofana the keys to the boiler room where Ilan was tortured, was of French origin.

The President of France Jacques Chirac called the parents of the victim on Tuesday night to recite an expression of condolence. He will be attending a memorial ceremony in a synagogue in Paris on Friday.

I don't really want to go into a great of detail about resistance movements but they are emerging. A lot of people are talking to each other, meeting like minded people and planning ahead. The Eurabian scenario envisaged by Bat Ye'or and Mark Steyn are only likely if no one does anything to stop it.

In one month the Blue Scarf meeting by Claude Reichman went from 1 to 2 thousand. The next meeting will hopefully show more numbers.

The support vigil for the catholic priest murdered in Turkey had about 3 hundred people. None of whom seemed to have a blue scarf, so were unaware of this movement, yet shared the same ideas.

The words dhimmitude and eurabia are part of the lexicon of all these movements.

Yesterday, 4 of us were involved in putting around 800 stickers all over central Paris with pictures of the cartoons, slogans such as 'Support Denmark Support Free Speech", "If you are pissed off with Islam, you are not alone, join us at France Echos" Or simply "Allah Poubelle"

To our great pleasure, near the Louvre we found two stickers with the words "Islam out of Europe, Now"

We are really not alone.

Best Regards


Wednesday, February 22, 2006

Sleep Walking to Death

Thursday we will again hold our Blue Revolution meetings across the world. We'll meet at local McDonald's diners. You'll know us because we'll wear blue scarves to identify ourselves. We assemble at 7:00 and meet till 9:00 pm, though our meetings consistently go over-time. We cannot continue to sleepwalk to death.

It's time we take control of our lives and our societies. It's time to speak the truth to each other and in pulbic. No more lies.

Why are they lying to us?

Security fears about infiltration by terrorists

By Bill Gertz
February 22, 2006
Several Bush-administration security officials expressed concerns yesterday that terrorists could infiltrate seaports through a United Arab Emirates company that is vying to manage six U.S. ports.

Intelligence and security officials opposed to the deal with Dubai Ports World said ports are vulnerable to the entry of terrorists or illicit weapons because of the large number of containers that enter U.S. territory, regardless of who manages them.

A Persian Gulf state such as the United Arab Emirates could provide an infrastructure for terrorists to penetrate U.S. security as part of a major terrorist operation, the officials said.

George Tenet: U.S. Didn't Target Bin Laden Because He Was With UAE Royal Family

Of course, this was in the days before 9/11:

The Central Intelligence Agency did not target Al Qaeda chief Osama bin laden once as he had the royal family of the United Arab Emirates with him in Afghanistan, the agency's director, George Tenet, told the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks on the United States on Thursday.

Had the CIA targeted bin Laden, half the royal family would have been wiped out as well, he said.


posted by Pastorius

When are our public intellectuals, our moral leaders, our politicians going to stop lying to us? When will we reach the breaking point?

Tuesday, February 21, 2006

HAMAS and the Great White (Wash) North.

If you get through the moving, if not touching, graphic HAMAS provides below, go on to read the statement from the Canadian prime minister. And in pursuit of fairness, more from HAMAS. And to be really extra extra fair, we'll conclude with a Canadian newspaper columnist who represents the largest newspaper in the largest city in Canada. Yes, he's on about HAMAS. He thinks their not extra extra nice, but hey, boys will be boys, eh?

Here's a link to Hamas' website, where they are featuring a moving graphic which depicts a nuclear weapon destroying Israel .
Picked this link up from Patorius at

It takes a moment to load.


Harper speaks on Hamas:

Statement by the Prime Minister on the situation in the Palestinian Authority
February 14, 2006
Ottawa, Ontario

Prime Minister Stephen Harper today issued the following statement :

"Canada remains committed to the goal of a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East, and the creation of a sovereign and viable Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security with Israel.

The Government of Canada fully supports the Quartet's statement of January 30, 2006. Future assistance to any new Palestinian government will be reviewed against that government's commitment to the principles of non-violence, recognition of Israel and acceptance of previous agreements and obligations, including the Roadmap.

We commend President Abbas for his leadership and commitment to the peace process in the Middle East. During this interim period, President Abbas has Canada's full support, although our government will continue to review the situation on an ongoing basis."

The government's position was communicated to President Mahmoud Abbas in a telephone conversation today.


Hamas calls for the nuclear destruction of Israel
Margot Dudkevitch, THE JERUSALEM POST Feb. 21, 2006

Details released by the Palestinian Media Watch (PMW) on Tuesday revealed that graphics appearing on the Hamas website call for the destruction of Israel in a nuclear holocaust.

On the website, a red Star of David is encased in a black rectangle which is then obliterated in a nuclear explosion.

Arabic words then appear saying "The Az A-Din Al Qassam website exclusively tells the whole story of the most elusive squad [to be uncovered] in the history of the Entity [Israel], in the city of Ramallah." Every few seconds there are repeated images of a nuclear explosion destroying the Star of David.

In an undated interview on the website posted after the recent Palestinian legislative elections, the Hamas military wing vows to continue its resistance. "As long as there is occupation, there will be resistance," the statement says.

We should not cut aid to Palestinians
Feb. 17, 2006. 01:00 AM

For how long is it likely that Canadians will be content to watch Palestinians starve? A couple of nanoseconds, at a guess. For even shorter than that, at a further guess, once the Palestinian leader whom we like, as do all in the West, namely President Mahmoud Abbas, appeals for food and money to be sent in to keep his people from starving. Early this week, Prime Minister Stephen Harper declared that all future Canadian aid to Palestine would be "reviewed" in the light of whether the incoming Palestinian government, which will be dominated by the extremist Hamas party, is prepared to renounce violence and recognize the state of Israel.Harper's statement echoed those made by the U.S. and Britain, and a number of other major donor countries who together dispatch some $1 billion U.S. a year to Palestine.Not of all donors, though. Not, of course, Arab ones such as Saudi Arabia and Jordan. Not Russia, which has invited Hamas to send a delegation to Moscow for talks.Nevertheless, Canada is walking along safely in the midst of the majority. And quite properly so, since we cannot and ought not to give assistance to a terrorist organization like Hamas. Except that we would be hurting ordinary Palestinians, not Hamas. Indeed, Hamas might benefit since any of its own future administrative failures can be blamed on the punitive actions of countries like Canada. Even more difficult, we would be punishing Palestinians for having exercised their democratic rights in exactly the manner we wanted them to. They did so by defeating a corrupt and incompetent government in an election that was fair and open.The reality, therefore, is that we cannot and should not cut off aid to the Palestinians. Nor, in actual fact, is there any way we are going to do this.There's simply no way we can resist appeals such as that just made by UN official Ehab Shanti: "It's really essential that at this critical juncture the world does not abandon the needy." Even less could we resist the pictures of emaciated Palestinian children that might soon fill our television screens.Nor will most of the other donors be able to resist this reality.Instead, a convoluted diplomatic dance is about to begin. Canada, the U.S. and Britain and the others will refuse to support a Hamas government, except in the improbable event it totally changes its policies toward Israel (although it may well tone these down).Instead, we will support Abbas. We will do this by agreeing to continue aid programs administered by those non-Hamas members that Abbas appoints to the new Palestinian government.There is a deep irony here. The U.S., and even more so Israel, have until now failed conspicuously to give Abbas any practical help at all. That Israeli settlements in the West Bank have continued to expand without any restraint and that the Israeli occupation practices have continued to quite deliberately humiliate the Palestinians, is a major reason why Abbas's Fatah party lost the election to Hamas.And while all this has been going on, Canada has said not a peep to help Abbas.We said we wanted the Arabs to become democratic. They are becoming that, if still in a very rough way. Now we're going to have to practise what we've been preaching. Palestine is going to be difficult enough. Wait until the same thing happens in Egypt when most of its 70 million people choose, freely and democratically, to elect the Muslim Brotherhood. The Middle East is now scary and unpredictable. But, for the first time ever in its political history, it actually is changing itself.
We should not cut aid to Palestinians

I am now accepting plane tickets to Iceland. Yes, I'll go to Borneo. I'll go anywhere that doesn't have creatures like this in positions of public responsibility. Come to think of it, I'd rather go to Hell than stay with this lot. But Hell must be full of Presbyterians, so nix that. How about Bermuda?

My Name is Fallah

What about FDR's dog?

Picked this up from Jihadwatch. What next? Maybe we'll have jihadis running our port systems. Naw, I'm joking.

Good choice of enemies fellas...
By John Oates
Published Monday 20th February 2006 16:27 GMT
Yahoo! is banning the use of allah in email names - even if the letters are included within another name.

This was uncovered by Reg reader Ed Callahan whose mother Linda Callahan was trying to sign up for a Verizon email address. She could not get it to accept her surname.

Enquiries to Verizon revealed that a partnership with Yahoo! was to blame. Yahoo! will not accept any identies which include the letters "allah".

Nor will Yahoo! accept yahoo, osama or binladen. But it will accept god, messiah, jesus, jehova, buddah, satan and both priest and pedophile.

Ed Callahan told us: "On one level this is just silliness. But we have a war on terrorism and it's migrating to be a war on Muslims - this just shows the confusion there is between the two and how pervasive this is."

The Callahans are still waiting to hear back from Yahoo!

A spokesman for Yahoo! UK said: "This sounds like a glitch. But we will get back to Ed and Lindy Callahan with a full answer as soon as possible." . More from the blogosphere here.

French Stories Get Stupider

Are the French suddenly a nation of idiots? Is the nation that raised Racine and Rabelais now incapable of raising up a man who can read a simple text and come to a logical conclusion? One would wonder from reading the media texts. Suffer through the following, if you will, and see such a jumble of stupidities that only the most deliberately obtuse can digest it without reeling.

Either a gang of Muslims tricked and tortured and murdered a Jewish man or they were not a gang of Muslims who did this. Either they preyed on Jews and killed one young man or they simply found Jewish men by chance. And to suggest that Muslims killed a Jewish man because he was Jewish and they were Muslims is somehow to create a racially divisive atmosphere? Hey, last time anyone bothered to speak to a Frenchman it was clear that they're not any stupider than anyone else. In fact, a great number of them are pretty sharp. So, how do we account for such stories as the one below?

France sees anti-Semitic link in Jew's death

French interior minister denounces torture, killing of young Jewish Parisian man as anti-Semitic crime, says police found literature linking some suspects to Muslim causes

French Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy denounced the torture and killing of a young Jewish man as an anti-Semitic crime on Tuesday and said police had found literature linking some suspects to Muslim causes.

[Now we find out there's confusion.]

He spoke after days of confusion over the case and confirmed the local Jewish community's fears about the death of Ilan Halimi on February 13. Police had said it was motivated by greed for a ransom and not any religious motive.

[So, is it a religously motivated hate crime or are the Jews confused about this?]

Lethal Flirtation

Paris murder: Anti-Semitism suspected / AP and Ynet

French officials: Anti-Semitism may have played role in torture, murder of Jewish man; earlier, authorities denied anti-Semitism was involved

Sarkozy called the killers barbaric criminals and urged people not to draw racist conclusions – a clear warning against blaming France's Muslim community, which was widely suspected in a wave of anti-Jewish attacks several years ago.

"The truth is that these crooks acted primarily for sordid and vile motives – to get money – but they were convinced that 'the Jews have money' and ... his family and community would provide it," Sarkozy told parliament.

"That's called anti-Semitism by conflation," He said, adding four of six other people the gang tried to kidnap were Jewish.

Sarkozy said police had linked some suspects to documents supporting Palestinian and arch-conservative Islamic causes. Judicial sources said these involved literature for Muslim charities found at homes of relatives of some suspects.

Halimi, 23, was found naked, tortured and burned south of Paris after being held for three weeks by a gang demanding a large ransom. He died of his injuries shortly afterwards.

A magistrate said on Monday seven suspects were being investigated for "Murder linked to the victim's religion".

The whole truth

France has Europe's largest Muslim and Jewish minorities, but the former numbers about five million and the latter only 600,000. Many Arabs and Jews are immigrants and live uneasily side-by-side in poor neighborhoods.

Speaking a day after Jewish community leader Roger Cukierman urged the government to "provide the whole truth and nothing but the truth," Sarkozy said he had to release the details he had but did not want them to arouse hate or fear.

"What we don't need now, in addition to this barbarity, is misunderstanding, intolerance and racism," He said.

Disaffected Muslim youths were widely blamed for a wave of anti-Semitic violence earlier this decade.

The slow official reaction back then earned France stiff criticism from other countries, especially the United States and Israel, and the debate over the Halimi case seemed to echo the confusion that prevailed then.

Police initially said the gang was ethnically mixed and did not only prey on Jews. But this did not end suspicions in the Jewish community that they were Muslims.

Two French police officers flew to Ivory Coast on Tuesday to track down Youssef Fofana, suspected head of the gang who apparently fled back to his native country after the murder.

Police said Fofana called himself the "brain of the barbarians" and that his gang used young women to lure potential targets to locations where they could be kidnapped. The woman who lured Halimi has given herself up to police.,7340,L-3219439,00.html

People in France are fed up. They are sick of the government, the media, the intellectuals and leaders of all sorts who lie and lie and lie. For those who read French, we suggest a turn through the following pages:

For those who don't read French we'll follow up as we may with translations in as timely a fashion as possible. The bottom line is that the French are as fed-up as anyone else. The only ones who don't get this are the ones who'll find themselves seated in carts on the way to the chopper. One can olnly lie ofr so long before the whole disgusting charade is intolerable. It's reaching that point. the French aren't stupid. They're as pissed-off as any one else. I'm looking at the clock on the wall.


Cairo International Book Fair

While Muslims go berserk, randomly killing Christians and any others who get in the way of their rampages, the Egyptian government says nothing about its book fair that would land even Danish imams in the dock in Copenhagen. Below is a list of titles. Covers available at the link at bottom.

Saturday, February 11, 2006
Anti-Semitic and Anti- Christian publications at the Cairo International Book Fair Above: Banner posted on Muslim websites boasting about the display of their anti-Semitic and anti- Christian publications at the 2006 Cairo International Book Fair "Despite objections of the Diaspora Filthy Gypsies" as they say.

(Below: Samples of Islamic publications displayed at the 2006 Cairo International Book Fair, which was held in Cairo between January 17th to February 3, 2006)

Translation of titles (Starting from the top left)

1- It Is Not Holy (Referring to the Holy Bible)

2- Hidden Hands 3- Why they broke the Cross?" (Attacking Christian beliefs)

4- Role of the crusade church in the fall of Islamic Caliphate

5- Convert to Islam to Enjoy Security

6- Christians of Egypt; how many and who are they? (Hateful publication inciting Muslims against the Copts, Egypt's indigenous people)

7- A call to Christians of Egypt; Abandon your grieves (i.e.Convert to Islam)

8- Who killed the dog? (Referring to the murder of Egyptian intellectual Farag Fouda , a free thinking Muslim intellectual who was killed because of his anti fanatic attitude, this book is considered a direct incitement to kill other Egyptian intellectiuals who take the same position)

9- Islamic Enlightment (A hate filled periodical that incites hatred against Jews, Christians and non-Mulsims in general).

10- Inter-faith dialogue, a big scam (Portraying inter-faith dialogue as a conspiracy against Islam and the Muslims)

11- O ye filthy gypsies, a message to the Diaspora Christians

12- Pharaohs, the worshippers of cows, dogs and donkeys (Even the ancient Egyptian civilization was not spared the racist attacks of Islamists in the Cairo Book Fair supposedly held to encourage Egyptians to pride themselves of their ancient heritage as well)

The above vulgar and hate promoting publications, which were on display at the Cairo International Book Fair are also sold publicly in every Egyptian town. Mosque Imams and extremists alike are allowed to publicly insult Jews, Christians, the Bible, the Cross-, and Christianity. They have done this, not just through cartoons in the press, but also through the wide use of media such as TV channels, radio stations, and newspapers all over the Arab and Muslem world.

The publisher ; Mr. Ahmad who prefers the name Abu Islam Ahmad, and many like him, have made it their mission in life to publicly attack the Jewish and Christian faiths, Jews and Copts and Christians in general. They are willing to use all and every method to achieve what they want. Fabrications, lies, and double standards are their usual methods. They are the people who are now crying and screaming that Islam has been insulted by few cartoons published in Denmark

The above publications are not printed in secrecy but publicly, as a matter of fact each and every one of these publications is given an International Standard Book Number (ISBN) by the Egyptian government.

Abu Islam also runs what he calls " Islamic Enlightment Center" that holds a tax ID number "317-910-930" and licensed to operate in Cairo under number 3242.

Not only that, his center located at 145 Misr and Sudan street, Hadayek Al Quba, Cairo is also a location where Muslim youth receive an intensive dose of Anti-Christian and anti-Semitic brain washing and incitement.

Will president Mubarak who warned the West against the "Prophet Muhammad Cartoon" and the Egyptian government do something to stop the ongoing incitement and offenses against Christians and Jews in the Egyptian media and bring to trial those who are promoting hatred? Or Muslims are superior to everybody and it's a fair game to attack Christians and Jews?

Is the Egyptian government really Egyptian? If so, why allow publications that rip Egypt of its identity and ancient civilization that marveled the entire world in favor of the sick agenda of Islamists who pride themselves in the racist wahabi culture?
Posted by Copts @ 11:03 AM

We read CNN banners claiming they don't run the Danish cartoons because of their sensitivities toward Islam. We see ex-presidents Carter and Clinton grovelling in front of Muslim warlords. We see this. We know. And yet we read that Islam is a religion of peace That we must respect Islam. That we are fools who should shut up and behave ourselves because we are stupid and racist. But it won't wash. I want to choke these bastards. Who do they think they are?

Monday, February 20, 2006

Cartoon Madness Map

We picked this up from our commentator, Kevin. Thanks.

Michelle Malkin February 06, 2006 08:36 PM

The Face of Muhammed blog has created an interesting map of the Cartoon Jihad, with color coding indicating where various countries stand on the conflict (neutral/dhimmi, violence/boycotts, acts of war, defenders of free speech):

The Cartoon Clash: Who defends freedom - and who opposes it?

countries have printed the cartoons. Mozambique & Uruguay. Bosnia. Russie prints then shuts down newspaper. Islam responds to free speech by killing children, priests and burning churches in Nigeria.

Read comments for more info. Please post country updates only.
posted by sbrant at 4:26 AM

Islamic Reform, he spat bitterly.

Muslims today have no affection for Western calls to reform Islam. We like to think they'll change their collective mind on this issue. If they don't, we're in serious trouble. What are we going to do if a billion or so Muslims continue to spread across the world, having babies like no other group, and in fact swamping Europe? What are we going to do if Muslims continue their unabated violent take-over of the world? Those who call for reform seem resigned to that, to Islamic triumph and the conquest of the world under a new caliphate. If it happens, how best can we find a way to live with Islam as the ruling meme? What can we do to make our lives under Islam acceptable? If Islam is to rule, how can we make it workable for us?

Ijtihad, says Irshad Manji.

For those who think we've lost our minds here, no, we have no interest in any such thing as living under a reformed Islam. Nor is there any sympathy here for ijtihad as a reforming vehicle. What is ijtihad? It is interpretation, the early Persian approach some intellectuals took to Islam during the early Middle Ages. It was a new idea to some Muslims 1,000 years after Aristotle died and left his ideas for the Mutazilites to find. It's now over a thousand years since any Muslim other than Irshad Manji has taken it seriously. Really, it doesn't even sound good in theory unless we all wish to have a world in which we revert to pre-Socratic science. Philosophically it's no better. And in practical terms, well, let's look at it and then forget it.

Below we'll post two short accounts and links for further enquiry for those who wish to be disappointed.

When reading the accounts below, keep in mind that Islam is not a race; that not being a race doesn't men it isn't an Arab tribal code; and that not being a race, Islam is an ethnic supremacy in practice even though it's ostensibly non-racial. We often conflate Islam and Arabism, thinking wrongly that Islam is an Arab religion. In truth, it is. But it is not.

Only 20 per cent of Muslims in the world are Arabs. Of the Arabs in the United States, according to the CIA census, 80 per cent are Christians. The largest population of Muslims on Earth is Indonesians, followed by Pakistanis. Arabs make up, in their 22 shit-hole nations, only 20 percent of the Muslim population. Those numbers mean little to most people who insist that Islam is a race. Anyone can be, in practice, a Muslim. But Islam is not the non-racial multi-culti paradisaical solution to "racism." Muslims adopt Arab names and Arab customs over their traditional names and customs and attempt in all ways to be ersatz Arabs when they become Muslims by conversion. To be a Muslim is to try to be an Arab. To be an Arab doesn't mean to be a Muslim. And to look at the Arab world is not to see a place inherently Muslim but to see one conquered by Arabs, to see people whose ancestors for a thousand years in some cases were Christians. And to look at the Arab world and to see Arabs is a mistake of vocabulary as well, because only a small part of the "Arab" world is Arab at all, the majority being anything but Arabs, that Arabness being a self-appointed religious identity rather than an ethnicity. Yes, "Arabs" speak Arabic. That's where Arabism begins and ends for most so-called Arabs. To be Arab is to live in "Arab" lands and to speak Arabic and to have forgotten or to have never known of ones own history.

This brings us to the Islamic reformers of the 8th century. They were not, for the most part, Arabs or "Arabs" at all but were Persians. They were not only Persians, they were Muslim Shiites. What Shia? What Party of Ali? And where do we find Islamic reform in all of this? We find a group of new converts to Islam who are not, were not, won't ever be Arabs. They, the ruling class of early Islam, were outsiders from the start, rulers due to intelligence and skill, due to a thousand years of high civilization prior to the Islamic conquest. The Persians excelled. Within 200 years, the Arabs had receded from history, never to be heard from again as a force till the West required their oil supplies. But those who claimed Arabness, regardless of themselves, followed not the Persians, not Shia, not the party of Ali, but the Sunna, the traditional, the legitimately Arab Islam. Today only 15-20 per cent of all Muslims are Shi'ites. They are the ones who promoted ijtihad, the hope that some in the West base their optimistic plans on for reform in the Islamic world. Good luck.

But let's look at this plan to reform Islam, this plan we hope to validate from searching for precedent. Yes, over 1,000 years ago there was a very unpopular clique of Muslims from Iran who decided to take up Aristotelian philosophy and who tried to apply it to Islam. Yes, it came to a brutal end. No it has not been heard of since. Yes, it is still an Iranian and heretical form of sectarian Islam from the discredited past. Al bab al-ijtihad, the gates of interpretation, the reform of Islam through reason and rationality, is still disallowed-- for the very reasons it was banned in the first place: to use reason and logic is to question the already set and unalterable word of Allah as it was received by Moahmmed and compiled in the unalterable Qur'an. To question the unquestionable is to defy Islam. It's a non-starter for Muslims. But here is is anyway.

The Mu'tazilites are an offshoot of the Shiite branch of Islam. The Mu'tazilites believe that instead of the Prophet the true arbritrar is reason. The Mu'tazilites believe that no sin can harm a true believer (manzileh bain al-manzilatain). They believe that the wise can only do what is salutory and good, and that God's wisdom always keeps in view what is salutory for his servants. They believe that Gnosis is intellectual and that only a reasonable person can possibly have it.

The Mu'tazilites believe that all objects of knowledge fall under the supervision of reason and receive their obligatory power from rational insight. Consequently, obligatory gratitude for divine bounty precedes the orders given by divine Law; and beauty and ugliness are qualities belonging intrinsically to what is beautiful and ugly.

The Mu'tazilite school of theology emerged out of the question raised by the Kharijites whether works are integral to faith or independent of faith. On the question of the relationship between faith and works, the Mu'tazilites adopted the position that someone who commits a grave sin without repenting occupies a middle state between being a Muslim and not being a Muslim.

A second doctrine concerned the nature of God. God is pure Essence and, therefore, without eternal attributes such as hands. Passages in the Qur'an that ascribe human or physical properties to God are to be regarded as metaphorical rather than literal.

The Mu'tazilites also argued that the Qur'an was created and not eternal. The basis of this doctrine was the claim that the eternal coexistence of the Qur'an beside Allah gave the impression of another god beside Allah.

Human acts are free and, therefore, people are entirely responsible for their decisions and actions. Divine predestination is incompatible with God's justice and human responsibility. God, however, must of necessity act justly; it follows from this that the promises of reward that God has made in the Qur'an to righteous people and the punishments he had issued to evildoers must be carried out by him on the day of judgement.

Mu'tazilites are generally seen as responsible for the incorporation of Greek philosophical thought into Islamic theology. This is particularly apparent in their belief that knowledge of God can be acquired through reason as well as revelation.

History The term Mu'tazilah derives from the Arabic al-mu'tazilah, which means the one who separated. It was applied to the school established in Iraq by Wasil b. 'Ata (699-749), a student of the distinguished scholar Hasn al-Basri (642-728).

At the time of the rise of the 'Abbasids in 750 the Mu'tazilites began to become prominent in the Islamic world. In the 9th century the 'Abbasid caliph, al-Ma'mun, raised Mu'tazilah doctrine to the status of the state creed. Openly supported by the caliphate, the Mu'tazilites became increasingly intolerant and began to persecute their opponents. On one occasion the eminent Sunni scholar and founder of one of the four orthodox jurisprudential schools, Ahmad b. Hanbal (d.855), was subjected to flogging and imprisonment for his refusal to subscribe to the Mu'tazilite doctrine that the Qur'an was created in time.

Always unpopular with the ordinary people, the Mu'tazilites' power gradually began to wane. They lost the support of the caliphs and by the 10th century the Traditionist (Sunni majority) opposition to Mu'tazilah found a spokesman in Abu al-Hasan al-Ash'ari (d.935), who himself had previously been a Mu'tazilite. Al-Ash'ari's new school of theology and the school of Abu Mansur al-Maturidi (d.945) provided the new basis of orthodox Islamic theology, leading to the complete disappearance of the Mu'tazile movement.
So, over 1000 years ago the "reformists" lost their power, and they haven't had a hope since. What's going to bring them back and give them credibility? Nothing on Earth. They were hated in their time, and they remain unloved by all but a few Western intellectuals today. I conclude that we must look in other directions for any hope of a practical solution to the billion or so savages who today pose the most dire threat to our world and to themselves as well. I am open, of course, to correction. I welcome further input.

Sunday, February 19, 2006

Reform, Rebellion, Revolution, and Reaction.

Reform, Rebellion, Revolution, and Reaction.

Islam as it is cannot continue. Muslims of all sects and opinion realise as well as anyone outside that Islam is in a state of catastrophic upheaval and it is incapable of co-existing with other modes in the world today. This conflict began with Napoleon's conquest of Egypt in 1799, and it is at a crisis point today that cannot fall back into another splendid torpor of times past. Islam faces the Modernist world, and Islam is psychotic in reaction: insane, suicidal, and murderous. Something must be done, and in our immediate future. Islam is not compatible with the greater world, nor is it competent to sustain its own adherents in any sense economic, social, religious, or moral. Islam is a disaster. What is to be done?

There are four alternatives to Islam as it is. Our preferred design, the complete annihilation of Islam as a public concept, is not yet on the table for discussion in meaningful terms; hence we must deal with the possible in this time.


For those outside of Islam the greatest hope they have is for internal and self-directed reform of Islam. What that reform entails no one seems able to say. At their most naive, those who call for Islamic reform claim, without understanding Islam, without having read even the primary texts of Islam, certainly without having studied Islam beyond the local newspapers and a few select magazines or a bit of blather from a snake-oil Islamic salesman, that Islam is a religion of peace recently hijacked by a small minority of extremists who misinterpret Islam for their own personal and vile interests. To make such claims, that Islam is a religion of peace, betrays a willing and determined ignorance of Islam as it is and as it has always been. No one in good faith can know Islam and make the claim that Islam is a religion of peace, and few can make a claim that Islam is a religion at all. Islam is a violent poligion, a political religion, a 7th century warrior creed of ideological tribal supremacy. The whole of the ideology is premised on the sayings and doings, mostly mythological of one savage, ie Mohammed. To strip away the life and doings of Mohammed is to eviscerate Islam to the point there is literally nothing left; and to leave it as it is is to retain nothing more than the sayings and doings of a primitive and unrestrained violent criminal. Islam, is religion according to Saddam Hussein-like phantasies or those of any other unrestrained primitive warlord. There is nothing to reform.

But, to claim that there is nothing to reform leaves little for the cautious of this world to deal with in the struggle to accommodate Islam, a movement of over a billion people in today's world. What to do? How do we cope with an insane population driven to madness and violence by despair and rage and self-pity and self-righteousness? How do we deal rationally with irrational primitives who make up such a large population of our world? The cautious claim we must encourage reform.

What is reform? Reform is a matter of doing what is always done with minor or even significant adjustments, leaving everything structural intact. Reform is to continue as before but differently. For Islam to reform and still accommodate itself to the modern and greater world is not possible. To be a triumphalist poligion that requires the domination of Islam throughout the entire world by whatever means necessary is not a good place to look for reform. To strip out the references to violent conquest from the Qur'an, the ahadith, the sira, is to annul Islam as the perfection Muslims accept it to be. The alternative, to simply ignore the violent bits as Christians and others do in their canonical texts, is to delay the problem only, to give breathing space to those who can and will and do claim that violence is an Islamic religious duty. To suggest that Muslims say "Yes, but...." is to ignore the legitimacy of violence as it is in the canon. They cannot legitimately ignore the precepts of the religion and still be Muslims. Islam is not capable of reform. One cannot be gently violent. Islam, in spite of what many believe, does not mean "peace." It means "slavery." Muslims are "The slaves of Allah." Central to Islam, it's core precept, is that all must submit to the will of Allah. Without that core belief there is no Islam. To believe in the total submission to the will of Allah in every aspect of life and death is to engage in its triumph. There is no outlet for anyone, even the incapable who are required by the poligion to assist those who are able. Consider Christianity without Jesus, without the Bible. Islam without violence and conquest is not Islam. It is apostasy, the penalty for which, under Islamic law, is death. There is no way to practice Islam differently from the way it has always been authentically been practiced. The history of Islam is one of continuous war against its neighbours and others. And inside Dar al Islam the history of Islam is one of decay in all terms, economic, social, and moral. For refences to the history of Islam, one may look to Andrew Bostom, The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims .

Reform: To improve by alteration, correction of error, or removal of defects; put into a better form or condition.

To abolish abuse or malpractice in: reform the government.
To put an end to (a wrong). See synonyms at correct.
To cause (a person) to give up harmful or immoral practices; persuade to adopt a better way of life. v.intr.

To change for the better.


Rebellion is one alternative seemingly preferred by today's political practitioners in the West. One sees in our current antics in Afghanistan, Iraq, the Palestine Authority attempts at imposing rebellion from outside. Rebellion is a change of leadership with the retention of the system intact. Rebellion is the exchange of one ruling group for another. One might hope that new rulers will rule better than the last group, but when faced with Saddam on the one side and sharia on the other, one wonders if rebellion is in fact preferable. A coup d'etat is a rebellion in which the state remains but the players rotate.

Rebellion: NOUN:1. Open, armed, and organized resistance to a constituted government. 2. An act or a show of defiance toward an authority or established convention.


All leaders in power fear and hate the word. Revolution is what transformed the world from feudalism to Modernity. We, whether we are conscious of it or not, are revolutionaries in a profound sense. 5,000 people began an experiment in crop planting and harvesting that became the Agricultural Revolution. With it began the long road to Modernity. there are numerous and tragic side roads in this history. One group who refrained from joining that revolution were the bedouin of the Arabian Peninsula, the to-be Muslims. They maintained their earlier primitive economic hunter/gatherer mode of production, and it is in place today as one sees in the foraging merchant values embedded in Muslim societies. We of the greater world moved slowly and unstoppably toward greater plantation and productivity and surplus. Our revolution in agriculture have recently, in the past 250 years, given rise to Modernity, to industry and technology and high science. In those regards we are the revolutionaries of our time, unlike any other peoples in history, and we are few. Our revolutions are more profound than any other changes in the human condition. The triune revolutions of America, France, and Industry have separated us from the mass of today's people and from the history of Mankind in ways so fundamental that we are in effect a different species. The purpose of this blog over this past nine moths has been to explore the revolutions of Modernity and the reactions against it.

Today our revolutions are under threat by the Muslim world. Our world is under threat from those who hate our revolutions, and they are not only Muslims. They are primarily the prime beneficiaries of Modernity: Ourselves.

We, revolutionaries of Modernity, are under threat from Muslims and Left dhimmi fascists. We are bifurcated, and there is no return to co-existence of our two worlds. Thus: one norm or the other must prevail without compromise. There will be a triumph of the cave man or a triumph of the space man. If Islamic populations are to survive, they must either join the revolutions of Modernity or destroy them and return the world of man to his previous and historical position as farm animal. One group or the other must undergo a revolution. There is no practical alternative.

Revolution: The overthrow of one government and its replacement with another.


As things were, so things should be. Today's reactionaries include not only those who wish to restore the caliphate and the rule of the times of the Rightly Guided Caliphs of Islam. Today's most menacing reactionaries are our own: they are the neo-feudalists who wish to restore the age of European feudalism in which the privileged, those who ruled by divine right and title assigned by God from Heaven lead the masses from the cradle to the grave. Those are the Left dhimmi fascists who are our greatest enemies, the enemies of Modernity. In conjunction with Muslim rulers and the mass of the ummah the neo-fuedalists hope to restore the world of elitist rule, and they do so by promising security, the legitimation and validation of the feudal rule of ago. To restore the time of manorial rule, of privilege and entitlement and superstition, of gnostic awareness from those who rule as philosopher kings, that is the agenda of the European elites to restore. This blog is an examination of that struggle by the fascist reaction over the past 250 years in the West, those who would destroy our revolutions and return us to the times of primitivism. Europeans in particular attempt to return people to the simplicity of rural idiocy, to the communalism of feudal living, to the control of the manor, the crown, the pulpit. That they are obviously allied with the most violent and prolific of savages is hardly surprising. That they are allied with the most idiotic of courtiers and intellectual pretenders is also not surprising. And that many people wish for that long ago lost simplicity is not surprising either. It is the simplicity of primitivism, savagery, barbarism, and violence. That, dear reader, is our future if we do not extend our revolutions to the entire world.

Reactionary: (or reactionist) is a political epithet typically applied to extreme ideological conservatism, especially that which wishes to return to a real or imagined old order of things, and which is willing to use coercive means to do so. The term is primarily used as a term of opprobrium (groups rarely identify themselves as reactionary), meant to assert the idea that the opposition is based in merely reflexive politics rather than responsive and informed views. More specifically, the term "reactionary" is frequently used to refer to those who want to reverse (or prevent) some form of claimed "progressive" change. (An equivalent term would be regressivism. The term reaction is sometimes used as a general term for the program or philosophy of designated reactionaries.)

It was coined in the context of the French Revolution to refer to those who wished to restore the conditions of the Ancien Régime, as a synonym of counter-revolutionary. Through the nineteenth century, it was used to refer to those who wished to preserve feudalism or aristocratic privilege against industrialism, republicanism or classical liberalism. Marxists used the term in a dialectical sense to refer to those who resist revolutionary change whether they be the conservatives who opposed the liberal revolutions of the eighteenth and early to mid nineteenth centuries or those in the bourgeoisie and their allies who opposed socialist demands for power to be given to the working class and particularly those who resisted socialist revolution.

The same bourgeois who is a "revolutionary" in one context could be considered to be a "reactionary" in another, as the bourgeoisie refers to an intermediate upper-middle class who thrived on service, but not absolute loyalty, to the aristocracy.

The future of Modernity today is in relation to Islam today. It is more importantly a division between our own: are we committed to Modernity or are we interested in returning to an imagined Golden Age? We must make our stand on the basis of our relationship to the revolutions of Modernity: either we are for them or we are against. That is the defining position of man today. Islam and its Left dhimmi fascist supporters wish to return to the past. The rest of us must decide if we wish to aid them or fight them.

Can we reform ourselves? Must we rebel? Are we forced to stage a revolution in our states? And if we fail at all of the above, will we accept reaction as a legitimate alternative?

Art, Iranian Style.

A very fine entry to the Iranian cartoon cannon canon. For details, please go to the following link: Fun and Mentalism