Saturday, April 08, 2006

Six Pieces of Good News

There is actually a lot more good news bits but there's only one photo so far of six pieces. That should suffice.

Palestinian prime minister Ismail Haniya and president Mahmoud Abbas lashed out Friday at the decision by the United States and European Union to halt direct financial aid to the Palestinian Authority.

"These decisions were hasty and unjust," Haniya said in a press conference following his meeting with Palestinian Authority president Mahmud Abbas.

"The world should respect the choice of the Palestinian people," said Haniya, a senior member of the Islamic radical Hamas movement.

Abbas said that "the Palestinian people should not be punished for their democratic choice."
Respect the "Palestinians" for electing terrorists and then give them money and then watch them commit more terrorism.

Excuse me, I'm off to look for more photos.

Dead-beat Media Tell No Tales

Eight men were murdered in a farmer's feild in the past day or so in Nowhere, Ontario, Canada. The police are saying the followint things to the public about the case.

SHEDDEN, Ontario (AP) -- The bodies of eight men were found Saturday inside four vehicles abandoned in a remote wooded area on a farmer's property in rural Ontario.

Police were not disclosing many details about the deaths....

"We're not in a position to reveal how they were murdered," Ontario Provincial Police Sgt. Dave Rektor said.

The Ontario coroner and the attorney general's office declined comment.

During a news conference Saturday afternoon, OPP Sgt. Dave Rektor said it is too early to speculate on motives for the killings.

"At this point we're at the very early stages of this investigation and we're not in a position to speculate on what the motive may be," Rektor said.

Police are not revealing how the eight men died, brushing off reporters' questions about whether the victims had been shot.

Police also sidestepped questions about the deaths being gang-related.
Multiple murder discovered in a rural Ont. field CTV.

Shocked residents were in search of answers, although police were not disclosing many details about the bizarre crime scene.

They refused to make any link to organized crime or confirm reports that each of the men had been shot to death.

"We're not in a position to reveal how they were murdered," Ontario Provincial Police Sgt. Dave Rektor told a news conference about eight hours after the bodies were found by the property owner at about 8:30 a.m.

"I won't confirm at this point what the persons were killed by."

[A] tow truck was found parked on the shoulder with a small silver car hooked to the back. The tow truck was marked with the logo "Superior Towing." The owner of a firm by that name in the Toronto area denied that the truck was one of his.

"Whether or not it's connected to anything we're not sure," Rektor said.

Another man whose property borders the dirt road said he was frustrated by the lack of information provided by authorities.

"I've heard more from a friend in Calgary whose daughter was on the Internet than I've heard from around here," he said.

Neither Ontario's coroner nor the Attorney General's office would comment.

Police, whose cruisers blocked both ends of Stafford Line well into the evening, would not answer questions but were stopping cars to ask drivers what they had seen.

A covered transport truck was to remove the vehicles - bodies in tow - and take them to Toronto under the cloak of darkness.

-Fourteen women killed by anti-feminist Marc Lepine at Montreal's Ecole Polytechnique engineering school in December 1989. Lepine wounded another nine women and four men and fatally shot himself. [Lepine was a Muslim who left jihadi hate-rants behind. Somehow the authorities and the media always forget to mention that part.]


It's becoming impossible to care any longer what the legacy media do. If they do report on stories at all they get them wrong or they leave out essential details or they outright lie. The law enforcement agencies are no better. The civil government is worse. Did you know from the media that Marc Lepine is a Muslim who killed women because he learned from his Muslim father to hate women? Did you know that Islam is officially and canonically misogynistic? Do you think that our nations are hijacked by a small minority of extremist ideologues who are corrupting an otherwise pretty good system? No, of course not. We all know we're racist and Islamophic, like the thirteen year old Australians who were raped by a family of Muslims for being sluts. Shame on us. It's all our fault for humiliating Muslims.

Death to Israel.
Death to America
And so on.

Dar al- Intellects

In reasonable time I hope to include some details from the book by Jacques Barzun briefly reviewed below. Tomorrow we'll return to philobarbarism and John Carey, Intellectuals and the Masses. For now, three brief pieces on intellectuals.

The message of "The House of Intellect" is that its inhabitants, the intellectuals themselves, have trashed the house. The blame cannot be placed with the crassness or greed of big business, the shallowness of a consumer society, or the ignorance of the uneducated. The major malign influences are distorted perceptions of the nature and function of Art, Science and Philanthropy. These things have their value and their place, but Barzun shows how they have become diverted from their proper ends to impose in a destructive manner upon the conditions of scholarship and the life of the mind. Rafe Champion

Intellectuals or extremists? The case for and against leading Muslim figures

Backgrounds of moderates and radicals reveal wide range of beliefs

Hugh Muir and Brian Whitaker
Thursday July 21, 2005
The Guardian

Yusuf al-Qaradawi

Who is he?

An influential religious figure in the Arab world, based in Qatar, whose fame as a Sunni scholar has been spread by appearances on al-Jazeera television. Born in 1926 in Egypt, he became dean of the College of Sharia and Islamic Studies at Qatar University, is an adviser on Islamic affairs for Algeria, and is in overall charge of the website, where he heads a committee to ensure that none of its content violates the fixed principles of Islamic law.

The case for or against

In the west, Mr Qaradawi is often described as an extremist. He has been banned from the US since 1999 on the grounds that he advocates violence. On BBC Newsnight he appeared to condone suicide bombing against Israel, saying: "It is not suicide, it is martyrdom in the name of God."

He has also faced strong criticism for his social views, describing homosexuality as "a perverted act is a reversal of the natural order, a corruption of man's sexuality, and a crime against the rights of females". In the Arab world, however, he is regarded as relatively moderate. He condemned the September 11 attacks on the US and urged all Muslims to donate blood to help the injured. He also criticised the London bombings, calling them "evil acts characterised by barbarity and savagery, which are condemned by Islam in the strongest of terms".

How radical is he?

He appears to make a clear distinction between actions permissible in the Palestinian conflict with Israel and what can be justified elsewhere. Generally seen as a moderate.

Omar Bakri Mohammad

Who is he?

A self-styled cleric and the former leader of the Islamic group al-Muhajiroun. Omar Bakri, 45, has lived in Britain for 20 years. He won leave to remain in the country after being expelled from Saudi Arabia. Renowned for inflammatory anti-western preaching in mosques and community halls.

The case for and against

Yesterday he told the Guardian: "If we are saying that you are an extremist because you don't follow man-made laws, then I am an extremist. For years I was able to hold the youth together and prevent them from doing any kind of action in the UK. Now that I am banned, my organisation is banned, many of the youths are going abroad. They can put Omar Bakri behind bars ... but if they do and a bomb goes off, who will they blame?" Last year in an interview with Portugal's Publica news magazine, he predicted that London would be attacked. "It's inevitable because several [attacks] are being prepared by several groups," he said. Critics say he used his internet site to praise al-Qaida, adding: "You are obliged to join. There is no need ... to mess about."

He has apparently disbanded the British arm of al-Muhajiroun, which was also accused of inflammatory remarks - its website praised the 9/11 hijackers as the "magnificent 19". He claims to have given religious instruction to two Britons who went to Israel on a suicide bombing mission that killed four and is alleged to have said afterwards that they "will now go to paradise". This week he claimed that the London bombings were the fault of "the British people", both Muslim and non-Muslim. Mr Bakri accused Tony Blair and everyone who voted for him of helping to create a "cycle of bloodshed".

How radical is he?

Largely shunned by most in the Muslim communities. Regarded as a marginal, self-regarding figure by many but as a dangerous demagogue by others. His name and number was found on a mobile phone carried by the two Britons in Israel. He is not thought to have direct involvement in terrorist operations but is alleged to provide the spiritual encouragement and justification for them.

Abu Qatada

Who is he?

Jordanian-born, Abu Qatada is 45 and lives in west London. He fled to Britain in 1993 from Jordan where he was convicted of inciting terrorist acts.

The case for and against

Described as Osama bin Laden's ambassador in Europe, he was arrested in London in 2002 and held in Belmarsh prison. Though freed in March, he is subject to a control order which keeps him under effective house arrest. The government has accused him of involvement in a range of support activities, including fundraising, on behalf of terrorist organisations, including those linked with Bin Laden. During his appeal before the Special Immigration Appeals Commission, the judges concluded that he was "a truly dangerous individual".

It is understood that tapes of his sermons were found in the Hamburg flat used by some of the 9/11 hijackers. Spanish investigators have alleged he is al-Qaida's spiritual leader in Europe, and he has been linked to the Madrid bombings. His supporters claim he was against the 9/11 attacks on the basis that they were a tactical mistake. An Italian magazine published statements in which he is alleged to have called for an attack on Rome, saying: "Muslims' target is the west. We will split Rome open."

How radical is he?

Many in the western intelligence service believe he is a dangerous figure whose teachings and rhetoric provide spiritual inspiration for al-Qaida attacks.

Tariq Ramadan

Who is he?

The grandson of the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamic revival movement, Professor Ramadan was brought up in Geneva after his father, Said Ramadan, fled from Egypt in 1954. His books explore reinterpretation and reform within Islam and its relationship with other religions and cultures.

The case for or against

Critics cite an Italian magazine interview in which he is quoted as saying: "In Palestine, Iraq, Chechnya, there is a situation of oppression, repression and dictatorship. It is legitimate for Muslims to resist fascism that kills the innocent." He claims that he was misquoted. Last month the Sun newspaper said Prof Ramadan should be prevented from entering Britain. His employment visa was revoked by the US but he has been invited to reapply. A French ban has been challenged and rescinded. He is scheduled to give a lecture next week at The Middle Path conference, partly funded by the Metropolitan police, in London.

How radical is he?

He has been criticised in the US but also acclaimed by Time magazine as one of the 21st century's likely innovators. Seen by most as an important interpreter of events, rather than an extremist.

Killing of Intellectuals one of the most brutal and savage carnages in the history of Bangladesh. It was a planned killing of the Bangali intellectuals- educationists, journalists, literateurs, physicians, scientists, lawyers, artists, philosophers and political thinkers - executed by a group of collaborators under the directive and guidance of the Pakistani military rulers during the war of liberation in 1971. The blue print of crippling the intelligentsia is said to have been chalked out by Major General Rao Farman Ali, the military adviser to the governor of East Pakistan. The armed cadres of al-badr, a para-military force, is alleged to have executed the brutal killing having been provided with arms and support by the Pakistan army.

The killing of the intellectuals virtually began with the army crackdown in Dhaka on the night of 25 March, and continued till the surrender of the Pak-army on 16 December 1971. The act of killing was initiated in Dhaka and gradually spread over the whole of East Pakistan especially in the district and subdivisional towns. The brutality and killing took a serious turn especially in Dhaka during the days preceding the surrender of the Pak army, particularly on 14 December, the day now commemorated as Shaheed Buddhijibi Hatya Dibash (Martyred Intellectuals Day).

The killers used to abduct and carry away the targetted victims from their houses in gestapo style to particular camps or spots very often covering their face with black cloth. They mostly took advantage of curfew in the city and kidnapped the victims. The victims were physically tortured, brutaly killed mostly by indiscriminate bayonet charges. The main spots of execution in Dhaka city were the marshy land at Rayerbazar near Mohammadpur and another at Mirpur, where a huge number of dead bodies were found scattered in the ditches, plains and inside the heaps of bricks. The dead bodies, eyes covered and hands tied, were found wounded and swelled all over their bodies and bullet shots on the chest, head or back.

The number of intellectuals killed is estimated as follows: educationist 991, journalist 13, physician 49, lawyer 42, others (litterateur, artist and engineer) 16. [Muazzam Hussain Khan]

Muslim Filth-Weasel

Below is a piece of vile garbage by a scum-sucking Muslim. This is one extract from a long and disgusting load of shite one wishes could be read in public to expose the creepy slug who wrote it. We'll sit here patiently awaiting the fascist Muslim terrorists to scream and wail and cut their children or perhaps to blow up a bus full of civilians or to rape school children.

This is a personal attack on the person and reputation of the filth-weasel who wrote the hate-mongering trash below, and more, it's a personal attack on the persons who do not vocally denounce this Islamic hate-mongering and terrorist sponsorship. Shujaat Wasty, you and those like you are propagating the message of a murdering, child-molesting criminal psychopath, Mohammed. If you do not renounce Mohammed and Islam, I accuse you of crime against Humanity. In the meantime, I call you a piece of shit.

The caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad: Expression, Freedom, or Islamophobia?

Shujaat Wasty - April 5, 2006

Faith-Based Arbitration Law

In Canada, faith-based arbitration law was in place in Ontario since 1991, and many communities were taking advantage of it, including Jews, Catholics and Ismailis. When Muslims arranged to exercise their right under the same law, many groups, both right wing and leftists spoke out against it.

The problem was not the debate between the pros and cons of the law but that the Ontario government succumbed to the noisy minority and ignored the opinion of the silent majority and decided that rather than allowing Muslims to have the same right as everyone else, they would rather remove that right from everyone. That is a very dangerous and utterly racist message.

In Quebec, things took an uglier direction as hate-filled comments directed at Islam and Muslims were made at the government level. An MNA with an Arabic name does not constitute an expert on Islam, Ms. Fatima Houda-Pepin is no exception. Her proclamations in the media that anyone who supports Sharia' is a "fundamentalist" was absolutely despicable.

Bat Ye'or's Eurabia Now in French

Those interested in and concerned about France and Eurabia generally will definitely want to turn to the two posts linked below. They are of immediate interest, and regardless of world public opinion regarding the French elite, we must keep in mind they don't represent the French people any more than do the yoots, the Communists, and the anarchists. Keep in mind that all across the Western world we are in a state of civil war. Here are two pieces that show very clearly where that war is headed.

Friday, April 07, 2006

Maybe They're Still Virgins!

Stogie's got a line on the Islamo-babes. Here's Miss April:
The girls in the background aren't wives, Stogie points out: they're just sex toys.

Left, Right, Left, Right, Red, Green....

France is in a state of collapse economically, socially, and morally. When have we seen this before? Oh yes, in the late 1930s. The French socialists were in power for a time, like the French socialists are in power today. And then the French socialists were in power again, but then they weren't socialists anymore, they were fascists. And when the fascists were defeated, they became socialists again. Or Muslims. What's next?

Below we have some short biographical snippets ending with the socialist Mitterand, fascist war criminal and socialist career scum bag. Compare this lot to the onesin power today and ask: What's the difference?

Pierre Laval

(June 28, 1883 – October 15, 1945) was a French politician and four times Prime Minister of France, the final time being under the Vichy government. For his role in Vichy France during World War II, he was found guilty of high treason and executed after the war. Today, Pierre Laval is generally remembered in France as a despicable traitor.

A socialist, he was elected to the Chamber of Deputies as a member of French Section of the Workers' International (SFIO) in 1903. He did not serve in World War I but the period saw a change to his politics as he moved towards the right. He lost the first post-war election. He became mayor of Aubervilliers in 1924 and left the socialist party; he was elected to the French Senate in 1927.

Laval was enthusiastically pro-Nazi; his demands for a Franco-German military alliance led to him being sacked from the government and arrested in December 13, 1940. The German ambassador in France, Otto Abetz, had him freed and moved to Paris. He was injured in an assassination attempt on August 27, 1941 at a Légion des Volontaires Français review but recovered and was recalled into the Vichy government on April 18, 1942. This time he became Prime Minister and succeeded Admiral François Darlan as the leading figure in the regime after Pétain himself. Laval was largely blamed for the increase in anti-Jewish activities and the decision to send French workers to Germany through la relève and later the Service du Travail Obligatoire. The creation of the Vichy Milice, the wartime secret police, in January, 1943 has also been credited to Laval.

On July 30, 1945 he was handed over to the new French government. Charged with treason and violating state security, Laval was tried and after being found guilty despite vigorously defending himself in the first part of his trial, was sentenced to death. After a failed attempt at suicide (the cyanide had lost its full potency), he was executed by firing squad at Fresnes prison, near Paris, half-unconscious and vomiting.

Marcel Déat

(March 7, 1894, Guerigny—January 5, 1955, near Turin, Italy) was a French Socialist and then Fascist and politician prior to and during World War II.

Déat became a member of the French Socialist Party in 1914.

Déat entered politics in 1926, and got elected to the Chamber of Deputies as a Socialist delegate from Marne. He broke away from the party in 1932 due to disagreements with Leon Blum’s policies toward Prime Minister Édouard Herriot, and as such was officially expelled from the party in 1933. Without the support of the Socialists, Déat lost his seat in the Chamber, but continued to stay active in Socialist politics, and founded the Parti Socialiste de France, whose slogan was "Order, Authority and Nation". Two years later, he joined the Union Socialiste et Republicaine, and returned to the Chamber of Deputies in 1936 as a delegate from Angoulême.

Thoroughly disillusioned with Socialism, Déat turned to Fascism and soon became a fervent advocate of far right politics. He called for France’s government to remodel itself along Fascist lines, and when it appeared as if France would go to war to Nazi Germany in 1938, Déat published the article Why Die for Danzig? in the newspaper L'Oeuvre. In the article, he argued that France should avoid war with Germany if the latter seized Poland - the publication caused a widespread controversy, and propelled Déat to national fame.

A strong supporter of Germany’s occupation of northern France in 1940, Déat took up residence in Vichy France, and was initially a supporter of Philippe Pétain. When conservative Vichy did not become the Fascist state Déat had in mind, he moved to occupied Paris and was funded by the Germans. In February of 1941, he founded the Rassemblement National Populaire, a collaborationist political party which espoused Anti-Semitism and totalitarianism. He also founded, along with fellow Fascists Jacques Doriot and Marcel Bucard, the Légion des Volontaires Français (LVF), a French unit of the Wehrmacht (later affiliated with the Waffen-SS). While reviewing troops from the LVF with Vichy figure Pierre Laval in Versailles on August 27, 1941, Déat was wounded in an assassination attempt - carried out by French Resistance member Paul Collette. After recovering, he became a supporter of Laval, and in 1944 was made Minister of Labor and National Solidarity in Laval's cabinet (Laval became Prime Minister of Vichy France in 1942.

After the war, he had been convicted of treason and sentenced to death in absentia by a French court.


Jacques Doriot
(September 26, 1898, Bresles, Oise—February 22, 1945, near Mengen, Württemberg) was a French politician prior to and during World War II. He began as a Communist but then turned Fascist.

In 1916, in the midst of World War I, he became a committed Socialist, but his political activity was halted by his joining the French Army in 1917.

in 1920 joined the French Communist Party (PCF), quickly rising through the party - within a few years, he had become one of the PCF major leaders. In 1922 he became a member of the Presidium of the Executive Committee of the Comintern, and a year later was made Secretary of the French Federation of Young Communists.

In 1931, Doriot was elected mayor of Saint Denis. Around this time, he came to advocate an alliance between the Communists and French Fascists with whom Doriot sympathized on a number of issues. Doriot's defense of Fascism divided the Communist Party enough to alarm its leadership, which expelled Doriot in 1934. Still a member of the Chamber of Deputies, Doriot struck back at the Communists by becoming a devoted Fascist and forming the right-wing Parti Populaire Français (PPF) in 1936.

He was killed while traveling from Mainau to Sigmaringen in February of 1945 when his car was hit by Allied strafers.

Roger Garaudy

PARIS 17 MARCH (IPS) Roger Garaudy, a French philosopher formerly Communist turned Muslim was recently fined in a Paris Court to 120.000 French Francs fine because in a recent book "Political Myths of the State of Israel", in which he contested the existence of gas chambers in Hitler's Germany as well as the number of the Jewish population eliminated by the Germans in different concentration camps and elsewhere.

But at the same time, many Muslim nations and organisations had vigorously defended him. To pay his defence, he received hundreds of thousands of US dollars by wealthy Arab donators and his book is selling like "hot cake" from Tehran to Cairo.

Hubert Lagardelle

(1874-1958) was a French syndicalist thinker, influenced by Proudhon. He gradually moved to the right and served as Minister of Labour in the Vichy regime under Pierre Laval from 1942 to 1943.
François Mitterrand

François Mitterrand -- in case you didn’t already know -- was a highly placed collaborator in the Nazi government in WWII France. This is the government also known as the ‘Vichy regime’ (for its capital). Miterrand was an intimate friend of René Bousquet, who was nothing less than the secretary general of the Vichy police.[18] That’s right, the same police that deported so many French Jews to the slaughterhouse.

Mitterrand did not collaborate with the Nazis because of political expediency following the invasion of France (and that would have been bad enough). No, matters are much worse. Miterrand was in fact deeply committed to a fascist anti-Semitic ideology well before the German invasion, which invasion he welcomed.

“Miterrand was an ardent follower of collaborationist leader Philipe Pétain and believed in the ‘national revolution’ that begat the strict, anti-Jewish laws of 1940-41. As early as 1935, Mitterrand participated in an anti-foreigner rally in Paris.”[19]

In those times, “he had close ties with ‘La Cagoule,’ an outlawed extreme-right group that sought to overthrow the republic, and yes, he never repudiated his friendships with some of its leaders.”[19]

As if that were not enough, Mitterrand himself helped out with the roundup of Jews.

“After the French defeat of 1940, Mitterrand joined the ultranationalist ‘Legion des Combatttants’ (Fighter’s Legion) which later became the feared militia that relentlessly hunted Jews and Resistance fighters.”[19]

The Nazi Vichy regime was thankful: Mitterrand joined the ranks of the select few who received the ‘francisque’ -- the highest honor bestowed by Vichy. He only joined the resistance in 1943, when it became obvious that Germany would lose the war.

I can't see the difference. Can you see the difference?

Graphic above from-- and I love this--

Libertarian National Socialist Green Party


We had another weekly meeting that ended just recently, this being too late in the evening for me to carry on in detail.

Much of our discussion this evening concerned contracts and covenants. We talked of mountain climbing. I'll return to this tomorrow with further details.

The illustration above is by El Greco, "Mount Sinai."

Tertullian didn't ask: "What has Sparta to do with Jerusalem?" We ask that. We must; and we must answer it rightly.

We met last evening at the Vancouver Public Library in the atrium to discuss further our struggle against Islam, jihad, and Left dhimmi fascism, the collapse of the Will of the West. We began our discussion with a feast of Tim-Bits, donuts from Tim Horton's Doughnut Shop, in loving memory of the guy who died, the hockey player whose name is Tim.

Much of our discussion during the evening centred on the idea of an organic national unity in Canada. One might look on this as a model for other nations now submerged in multi-culti phantasies of communitarianism and elitist misrule: if your nation is a political junk pile of relativist ideologies heaped choc-a-block on fragmented voter groups, then whether you live in Canada or not, your public social and political problems are likely those of Canada anyway. We talked about nations. What are our nations? What does it mean to be French, American, German, English, Canadian? Does it mean, should it mean, anything at all? Can it mean something if now it doesn't but could? We are becoming politically involved. We are asking what we might do to transform our nations in positive ways according to organic reality. What has Sparta to do with Jerusalem? What does struggle and focus and aggression and competition have to do with the shopping mall? What does the meaning of a valid life have to do with the 35 hour work-week and early retirement?

What does nation have to do with multi-culti nonsense? And what do we have to do with the meaning of our own lives?

We are in solid agreement that the Left is in its death agonies. We recognize the Left as clinging to its worthless life. We see that once the Left is buried under the rubbish heap of history something must take its place, that some ruling idea will arise. What will that be, and who will make it? History is on the march to a new Jerusalem, and who will lead us there; what will we make of it once we arrive? Who will lead us? Cambyses?

We discussed the nature of contract and covenant. Our metaphorical contract is null and void; we are in need of a covenant. We are about to remake nation as Will. We, the people, are making as we live through this time of change, a new reality of political identity. We and others. As the Left dies and so too does Islam we will live, and we must live as something. We must have a new covenant, an encomium of Man, the ground of the aether: we will make a new covenant among us.

What has Sparta to do with Jerusalem?

Will of Coventry.

We'll return to this over the duration.

The second image is by J. Tintoretto.

Thursday, April 06, 2006

Bring the War Home.

All around the world we of the Modern West are engaged violently with Islam. It's time to bring the war home, to fight it on our own ground, to defeat our own homeland enemies.

'Anti-war' protestors of the 1960s used the slogan "Bring the War Home."

Let's use it too.

Bring the war home. We meet tonight again at 7-9:00 pm at the
Vancouver Public Library atrium for our weekly session of organizing against Islam and jihad in the West. Where will you be when the war comes to your home? Where will you be this evening?

Sin bomba: The Cutter Ants of Bo-Bo.

They swarm across the jungle floor, the cutter ants, across the leaf, leaving in their wake a mosaic leaf, one like the leaf but now without its integrity. Such are the cutter ants of bo-bo, our unlovely bourgeios bohemians. They swarm, they drift, they flutter across the intellectual and social landscape cutting to bits anything they like till there's nothing left but the semblance of what was a whole thing. They have a certain relationship to nature's way. One might even suggest they have a place in society. Unfortunately, they tend to feed on the delicate parts of democracies.

I wrote this the day after the London bombings of 7/7/05. I reprise it here as a companion piece to the essays on philobarbarism and the bo-bos.

Sin Bomba

These losers can't dance. No bomba, no shake it, no heart, no soul. They blow themselves up to be cool.

Islam-bombing is a fad for losers who can't get a date.

Fascist Islam appeals to losers who want something more out of life than the mediocre rewards they get from their own personal efforts, which amount to very little due to the confines of Islam, the endless pity-party they attend; and to be somebody, even anybody other than just another Muslim loser, they take on personae as Big-Time Heroes! in their own minds, Martyrs of Allah, rather than small-time dope dealers, clerks at a convenience shop, carwash boys, or whatever. Suddenly, transformingly, the nobody is a big deal in the community. And let's stop pretending that the Muslim community doesn't aprove of the grand gesture of homocide bombing. The whole rotten lot get to live vicariously as heroes, if only for just one day. The loser culture of Islam cannot compete against the real accomplishments of the Western world. So, to make a name, to make a pose, to make a dent in the world of the living who don't really care about the losers, the losers blow up some people and get celebrated in their Moslem loser communities. Can't get a life? Get a gun. Can't get a date? Then kill someone.

The Muslim losers and their dhimmi cheerleaders resent their own lives, and they'll kill you to make their hurt pride look a little better from the outside. These people have nothing happening in their lives, no hope for anything good because they're roughly stupid and boring and incapable of much in the general world; and to be big, to be heroic, to be important, they wear costumes, they speak a jargon or an argot, they play at terrorism, they put on a childish identity: It's: SUPER-BOMBER HERO-MAN! But the sad fact is these losers can't dance.

These little mama's boys can't get a date. So, like many guys who are too screwed up to do the wild thing, they play with themselves. Islam is for guys who jerk off. These guys can't score. Four wives, two dozen kids, and they still ain't makin' it. It's all a big empty show, cause these losers can't get it right with a girl. They can't dance, they got no bomba, they got no zip....

And who do we find holding their hand in the dark, stroking the Muslim ego?

Below we have three pieces on Islam, the skin-mag. religion, the first peices on the 7/7 London bombings and others focusing on the fiasco of the Manchester Guardian's employment of a Muslim terrorist supporter who crowed about one of his work-mates being murdered travelling to the office. What we'll see, of course, is a faddist who can't deal with his own mediocrity, who has to assume a cartoon identity in the hopes that others will be too afraid of him to look closely enough to find out he's nothing but a goof who can't get a date. The Moslems live in a world of sexy girls who pick and chose, and the Muslims can't stand being laughed at. Trained from birth to think they're hot, the average Muslim losers can't find a way to cope with a woman who isn't impressed with the fact that the guy is a loser, and he can't dance. Sin Bomba, girly-men.

Our stories today are about the Muslim jerk-off Aslam, reporter at the Manchester Guardian who wrote that young Muslims in England are sassy, and they don't care if they rock the British boat. Far from ruling the waves, Britania rolled over till it turned out that Aslam the bomber tout is actually a member of a terrorist group himself. The Manchester Guardian hired this creepy loser, knowing in advance that he's a member of a fascist hate group. But he's such an asset to the image of the paper that if he hadn't actually belonged to the group but merely spouted the usual cliches, then it's likely the paper would have kept him on, even when one of the mates at the paper is murdered for the fad. As is, even dhimmi shite like the Guardian management had to say Aslam the fascist had to go, as we read below:

By Steve Busfield / Guardian 06:31pm

Trainee journalist Dilpazier Aslam had his contract with the Guardian terminated today.

The move followed an internal inquiry into Aslam's membership of the political organisation Hizb ut-Tahrir.

A statement said: "The Guardian now believes continuing membership of the organisation to be incompatible with his continued employment by the company."

"Mr Aslam was asked to resign his membership but has chosen not to. The Guardian respects his right to make that decision but has regretfully concluded that it had no option but to terminate Mr Aslam's contract with the company."

The inquiry followed a piece written by Aslam for the Guardian's comment pages entitled "We rock the boat".

The statement added: "The Guardian accepts that it should have explicitly mentioned Mr Aslam's membership of Hizb ut-Tahrir at the end of his comment piece."

Below we get the full story from Robert Spencer's Jihad Watch a week after the first series of London bombings, and a week before the second:

From http//

July 14, 2005
"Sassy" suicide bombers
Today's Muslims aren't prepared to ignore injustice. So says Dilpazier Aslam in "We rock the boat," a piece published in the Guardian (thanks to Scott Burgess, who blogs superbly on this here).

The Guardian is hanging with an interesting crowd these days. Aslam apparently also writes for the Hizb-ut-Tahrir pro-Sharia, pro-caliphate site In this piece, he says the British shouldn't be shocked by the bombings: they're all their fault:

If I'm asked about 7/7, I - a Yorkshire lad, born and bred - will respond first by giving an out-clause to being labelled a terrorist lover. I think what happened in London was a sad day and not the way to express your political anger.
Then there's the "but". If, as police announced yesterday, four men (at least three from Yorkshire) blew themselves up in the name of Islam, then please let us do ourselves a favour and not act shocked.

Shocked would be to imply that we were unaware of the imminent danger, when in fact Sir John Stevens, the then Metropolitan police commissioner, warned us last year that an attack was inevitable.

Shocked would be to suggest we didn't appreciate that when Falluja was
flattened, the people under it were dead but not forgotten - long after we had moved on to reading more interesting headlines about the Olympics. It is not the done thing to make such comparisons, but Muslims on the street do. Some 2,749 people were killed in the 9/11 attacks. To discover the cost of "liberating" Iraqis you need to multiply that figure by eight, and still you will fall short of the estimated minimum of 22,787 civilian Iraqi casualties to date. But it's not cool to say this, now that London's skyline has also has plumed grey.

Shocked would also be to suggest that the bombings happened through no
responsibility of our own. OK, the streets of London were filled with
anti-war marchers, so why punish the average Londoner? But the argument that this was an essentially US-led war does not pass muster. In the Muslim world, the pond that divides Britain and America is a shallow one. And the same cry - why punish us? - is often heard from Iraqi mothers as the "collateral damage" increases daily.

Shocked would be to say that we don't understand how, in the green hills of Yorkshire, a group of men given all the liberties they could have wished for could do this.

The Muslim community is no monolithic whole. Yet there are some common
features. Second- and third-generation Muslims are without the
don't-rock-the-boat attitude that restricted our forefathers. We're much sassier with our opinions, not caring if the boat rocks or not.

Consider the British boat rocked, you sassy suicide bombers.

Posted by Robert Spencer at July 14, 2005 06:55 AM |


So what does it take to shake the dhimmis out of their pose? These geriatric hippies are up to "here" in black turtle necks, and if these stiffies had to make a sudden move one can just hear the breaking of hip bones. No, one of their own dying in a bomb-blast on the tube ride to work didn't do it. It took a blogger to shake their stuff:

"The Guardian of the Caliphate"
By Val MacQueen Published 07/22/2005

Did Britain's leftist newspaper The Guardian know that its trainee reporter is an active member of the radical terrorist organization Hizb ut-Tahrir and, if so, when did they know it?

Hizb ut-Tahrir, which seeks to reimpose the Caliphate by the sword or, in today's world, the bomb, is a radical Islamic splinter group banned in most countries but legal in Tony Blair's Britain.

British blogger Scott Burgess became suspicious when he read an article by "trainee journalist" Dilpazier Aslam in which the writer referred to today's youthful Muslim malcontents in Britain, including suicide bombers, as "sassy". Aslam suggested that no one should have been shocked by the suicide bombings on the London Transport system, because "shocked would be to suggest that the bombings happened through no responsibility of [Londoners'] own." Further down Aslam's article appeared this paragraph:

"The Muslim community is no monolithic whole. Yet there are some common features. Second- and third-generation Muslims are without the don't-rock-the boat attitude that restricted our forefathers. We're much sassier with our opinions, not caring if the boat rocks or not."

Burgess wrote about the curiously sassy Dilpazier in his blog, The Daily Ablution, and did some fast follow-up work. He discovered that the Guardian "apprentice" did, in fact, have previous journalistic experience. Aslam has had incendiary pieces published in Hizb ut-Tahrir's own blood-thirsty magazine with articles in which he specifically called for the overthrow of the state and the forceful imposition of the Kilafah (the Caliphate) -- especially with reference to Israel. Burgess quotes from one of his articles: "Muslims grant their loyalty and allegiance to their deen and the Ummah, not to a football team or nation state." Not even to a team! That's harsh!

The question Burgess, an American living in Britain, wanted cleared up was, when it hired Aslam as a trainee, did The Guardian know it was hiring a radical young man who had a history of promoting terrorism? Burgess guesses the answer is yes, on the theory that the best way for a young journalist to prove that he can write is to show the editors previously published work, and Aslam does not seem at first glance to be a young man who would miss a trick.

Burgess wrote a letter to The Guardian's comment editor, asking for an explanation that was met, of course, by a wall of silence.

Meanwhile, despite the fact that The Daily Ablution is a blog popular with people in the publishing industry, most mainstream media members kept their heads down and didn't rock the boat. Rocking radical Islamic boats, they are learning, is a dangerous business. However, surprisingly, fellow "liberal" paper, The Independent , (paid link omitted) home of loony anti-war greenies, haters of George Bush and carbon emissions jihadis, not only picked up the ball and ran with it, but succeeded in getting a response out of The Guardian, which wrote the weasel words that they had been thinking their journalistic staff was "too male and pale".

Hizb ut-Tahrir peddles such radical Islam that they don't even have time for Saddam's best friend and silver-tongued apologist for Islam George Galloway. When he was campaigning, during a recent by-election in London's heavily Islamic constituency of Bethnal Green & Bow, a crowd of Islamic thugs pushed their way into an apartment he was calling on and, refusing to allow him to leave, issued a freelance fatwah. Galloway, who knows these people better than do most Brits, was clearly frightened. In his own words: "Hizb ut-Tahrir suddenly filled the room and blocked the door.

"I tried speaking calmly. They then said I was parading as a false prophet and served a sentence of death on me. They were claiming I was representing myself as a false diety and for this apostasy I would be sentenced to the gallows."

Readers of Aslam's think pieces had no reason to know that they were tainted with the poisonous drip of radical Islam. Worse, though, was his reporting of events, rather than opinions, as though a dispassionate observer instead of a heavily involved activist.

A 15 year old Islamic schoolgirl in Luton decided the Islamic uniform the school had -- foolishly, in my opinion -- designed for Muslim girls wasn't Islamic enough to satisfy her burning religious fervor. She lobbied for permission to wear the full Muslim monty. The school said no. She was encouraged to fight her case all the way up to the court of appeal, along the way giving the papers some suspiciously sophisticated quotes for a little adolescent attention-seeker. Where was she getting the wherewithal and the encouragement to pursue this essentially vexatious case? Uh, none other than Hizb ut-Tahrir. She finally triumphed, with the help of famed "human rights" lawyer Cherie Blair, and sassy Dilpazier wrote of her ecstasy ("I could scream with happiness!") in The Guardian , supposedly as a dispassionate reporter, without mentioning that he was a member of the radical organization, which had promoted the case .

Even after he was outed by Scott Burgess, the paper continued to publish his work.

This whole disreputable episode is made even more ironic by the fact that, on that sickening morning, a British Guardian employee lost his life in the bombings.
Val MacQueen is a TCS contributing writer.

And what's the outraged response from the world of journalism? Hold your seat steady:

'We Don't Need to Fight, We Are Taking Over!'
By Paul J. Cello Published 07/22/2005

The bombings two week ago in London concentrate the mind on three questions, all of them exceedingly difficult, and the first two of which profoundly complicate the all-important third.

"We don't need to fight. We are taking over!" ["Abdullah," a Muslim watch-mender and evangelist] said. "We are here to bring civilization to the West. England does not belong to the English people, it belongs to God."

The first difficult question is: Is this the authentic voice of Islam? And it is a question that no non-Muslim can presume to properly answer. If I answered, "Emphatically yes, this is the authentic voice of Islam: and it is also the voice of our enemy," men would rise in righteous anger at my presumption. But when our leaders -- non-Muslims to a man -- pronounce in solemn tones, just as confidently, "No; Islam is a religion of peace," there are no charges of presumption.

What we can say confidently, while yet avoiding the presumption, is that those who believe that "civilization" should be "brought" to us by the gruesome massacre of London commuters, or Spanish commuters, or New York office-workers, believe this because, over and above it, they believe the claims of Islam. In short, we non-Muslims ( while we are still free to speak our minds) can appropriately say that our enemies strike against us in the name of Islam; they find their inspiration, their motivation, their justification, in the precepts of this great religion which has stood as the adversary of our once-unified civilization for many a long century. It may be that they have perverted the teachings of this religion; it may be that they have misunderstood some of its ambiguous teachings; but it may also be that they are faithfully applying those teachings. Again a non-Muslim is in no position to judge of this.

The second question goes to the very heart of the theoretical framework American leaders have sketched as a solution to the problems of the Muslim world. In brief, it calls into question the whole solution itself, and may force us back to the drawing broad, so to speak, if we are serious about facing it. The question is this. If it is demonstrated, as now seems pretty clear, that the perpetrators of the London bombings were British citizens or legal residents, will there be any reflection on what this means for the neoconservative theory that democracy is the cure for Islamic terrorism? If, in other words, the perpetrators of these bombings were citizens or long-time residents of one of the world's most stable and historic democracies, and thus partakers of all liberty and equality that is offered as the panacea for the troubles of the Muslim world, what does it say for the plausibility of said theory that London's first suicide bombers were reared up in the very cradle of Western liberal democracy?

Just maybe, it says that there is something unique about Islam that confounds our facile universalism, something unique and ancient about Islam that renders nugatory the easy platitudes so dear to us, something unique and ineradicable that reveals (yet again) that there are deeper things to stir the hearts of men than material prosperity and free elections.

But here is the really pulverizing question -- pulverizing not least because it is so muddled by the difficulty of the foregoing two. But being muddled, it is no less important. By now, every free nation in the world still possessed of its senses knows it must face this self-interrogation: Are we or are we not going permit (or perhaps continue to permit) the emergence, within our midst, of totalitarian Islam? Again I deliberately leave open the question of whether "totalitarian Islam" really means "Islam in the modern world" or merely "a perversion of Islam in the modern world." But to repeat: The people of the free nations of the world, the citizens of the West (or her descendents if in fact the West is no more), are now confronted with sufficient evidence that the efforts to call totalitarian Islam into existence in every free nation are well underway; that such efforts will be materially supported from the home bases of totalitarian Islam, and may be spiritually supported by the very nature of Islam as such*; and that those efforts can, at least to some degree, be encouraged or discouraged by the actions of our own governments.

The instinct of most of us is not even to face the question, to decline the self-interrogation altogether, and get on with our barbeques and reality shows; but face it we must, because ultimately the threat it signifies is neither fleeting nor mild, but rather persistent and existential.

The answer we should give is this. We -- whatever other free nations choose to do or not do -- are going to put certain considerable obstacles in the way of totalitarian Islam; we at least are not going to encourage its development on our shores; we at least are going to say, in the manner republics "say" things publicly, such that it is clear to the leaders of this movement, its sympathizers and facilitators, both here and abroad, to the world at large, and most importantly to ourselves, that we will not tolerate totalitarian Islam. Rather, we will place very substantial burdens and abridgements, of varying social, political and legal character, upon those holding the beliefs associated with totalitarian Islam. We will make the price for sympathy with it very high indeed. We will not extend to it our beloved constitutional and civil rights; we will not, to the extent possible, let its sympathizers and facilitators, much less its foot soldiers and officers, into our country, and we will deport with dispatch those already here; we will exclude its representatives from service in our government, status in our society, safety under our laws; we will, in short, prohibit totalitarian Islam, in thought, word and deed.

Now we will, to be sure, make every effort to distinguish between our real enemies and those merely linked to them by accident of birth or confession. We have always been a generous country, and we will take heed not to forsake that generosity now, not least because we know that extending it to the right people will help us in this war immensely. We will be discerning, and when failing to discern, genuinely contrite. But we will give no quarter to our enemy. We will make him fear: fear that we are onto him, fear that we have turned his neighbors against him, fear that we have made him our agent without his knowing, fear that perhaps this radical Islam thing may be more trouble than it's worth -- or better: fear that, after all, it may be a little off in its apprehension of the duties of man to God.

And make no mistake: this is no mere matter of Free Speech. The Islamist being struck at is generally not the Islamist attempting to exercise his constitution right to free speech; it is rather the Islamist who, having given his allegiance wholly to totalitarian Islam, has acted to systematically conceal this fact. We will not merely abridge his freedom of speech; we will also abridge his freedom of thought.

Now often the way a republic speaks is through legislation, and if legislation is called for, let our politicians find some time in their busy schedules to actually legislate. This is tough stuff: no one said it would be easy. If we must write laws to exclude totalitarian Islam from First Amendment protections under "clear and present danger" precedents, let it be done. If we must write laws to exclude totalitarian Islam from Equal Protection considerations, let it be done. Would such things be delicate business? Indeed it would: among the most delicate we as a people have ever undertaken. But that, friends, is the burden of self-government. And even if legislation along these (admittedly a bit shocking) lines is never enacted -- even if it is never even really considered -- we as a people must face the question I posed above: Are we or are we not going permit the emergence, within our midst, of totalitarian Islam? We must face it and answer, such that most everyone understands, No.

Paul J. Cella III edits the weblog, Cella's Review.

* I know this sort of talk makes many people, even some of my own political allies and friends, very nervous -- heck it makes me nervous. But I will not close this question; will not even pretend that it is a question we infidels can close. The true answer, I fear, is quite indifferent to our nervousness.

And you were nervous that the world wouldn't take this problem of out of control loser Muslim killers seriously! Heck, it makes me nervous too.

Oh, well, no it doesn't.

We're facing a billion people who don't have a clue how to live in the modern world. Most of them are so afraid of change and the unknown that they'd rather pull the covers over their eyes and go back to sleep-to-death than face the fact that they're finished if they don't wake up and get moving. They won't move on their own except to kill those who pester them in the course of their dreams.

Forced out of the cocoon of Islam and into the world of the actively alive they find children to explode. The majority of Muslims find any stupid excuse they can to pretend away the failure of Islam as a culture, and they have found enough allies in this phantasy, our very own dhimmi Leftists and idiot conformists who parrot any idiot cliches going, that the meme is that it is indeed the fault of the West for stirring up this trouble in the first place, like those damned Crusades about a thousand years ago. Or whatever today's excuse is. And the Guardians, those self-righteous pukes, scold us for this and that, who cares what it is on this or that ocassion. Oh well, one of the mates died in a bombing on the tube ride, but we were so pale, so classist, so petit-bourgeois that one of ours gone missing in the cause stands us good stead in the dhimmi community.

Like Christopher Walken's character in Next Stop Greenwhich Village, a girl who knows him too well says: "Under all that pose--you're just...more...pose.

This is a dirty game played by poseurs and losers, all of them playing at cartoon heroes. They dress up in blackshirt turtle necks and suicide bomb-belts and they make a big show. But these are losers who just can't dance.

Ladies, I happen to love to bomba.

Wednesday, April 05, 2006

The Birth of Nations

Islam is evil. To allow it to continue is a crime against Humanity. To lose a war against Islam is a war crime.

Just war is just.

"It is like writing history with Lightning."

Wilson worked hard to integrate new immigrants into the Democratic party, into the army, and into American life. For example the war bond campaigns were set up so that ethnic groups could boast how much money they gave. He demanded in return during the war that they repudiate any loyalty to the enemy, saying, "Any man who carries a hyphen about with him carries a dagger that he is ready to plunge into the vitals of this Republic whenever he gets ready."

Our nation must be re-born.

I have met them at close of day
Coming with vivid faces
From counter or desk among grey
Eighteenth-century houses.
I have passed with a nod of the head
Or polite meaningless words,
Or have lingered awhile and said
Polite meaningless words,
And thought before I had done
Of a mocking tale or a gibe
To please a companion
Around the fire at the club,
Being certain that they and I
But lived where motley is worn:
All changed, changed utterly:
A terrible beauty is born.

W.B. Yeates.

War Crime?

Legitimacy: Law and Anti-State Violence.

If others don't have to obey the law, do you have to?

Law, at base, is a matter of contract. The question is what makes a contract legitimate; by what authority is it valid?

We'll look briefly at four approaches to the theory of law, but our interest here is in terrorism as applied to Western states by Western citizens, i.e. by homegrown Modernist terrorists. The question is at what point, if ever, do the citizens of a Western state have a right and a duty to overthrow the state? At what point, if ever, is it legitmate to violently challenge the state?

We'll look first at some ideas on law in theory, then we'll look at an example of postivist law as practiced in Britain. If there is a law for them and another law for us, a law for the rich and a law for the poor, a law for x and another for y, is the contract valid? And if the contract by which we agree to abide, i.e. to be law abiding citizens, is invalid, what is our legitimate response? What is supra-legal?

The question that has received the most substantial attention from philosophers of law is What is law? Several schools of thought have provided rival answers to this question, the most influential of which are:

  • Natural law theory asserts that there are laws that are immanent in nature, to which enacted laws should correspond as closely as possible. This view is frequently summarized by the maxim: an unjust law is not a true law, in which 'unjust' is defined as contrary to natural law.
  • Legal positivism is the view that the law is defined by the social rules or practices that identify certain norms as laws. Historically, the most important legal positivist theory was developed by Jeremy Bentham, whose views were popularized by his student, John Austin. Austin's version of legal positivism was based on the notion that the law is the command of the sovereign backed by the threat of punishment.
  • Legal realism is the view that the law should be understood as it is practiced in the courts, law offices, and police stations, rather than as it is set forth in statutes or learned treatises.
  • Legal interpretivism is the view that law is not a set of data or of facts, but what lawyers aim to construct or obtain in their morality laden practice.

In the twentieth century, two legal positivists had a profound influence on the philosophy of law. On the continent, Hans Kelsen was the most influential theorist, and his notion of a Grundnorm or ultimate and basic legal norm is still influential. In the Anglophone world, the most influential figure was H.L.A. Hart, who argued that the law should be understood as a system of social rules. Hart's theory, although widely admired, was criticized by a variety of late twentieth century philosophers of law, including Ronald Dworkin, John Finnis, and Joseph Raz.

In recent years, debates over the nature of law have focused on two issues. The first of these is a debate within legal positivism between two schools of thought. The first school is sometimes called exclusive legal positivism, and it is associated with the view that the legal validity of a norm can never depend on its moral correctness. The second school is labeled inclusive legal positivism, and it is associated with the view that moral considerations may determine the legal validity of a norm, but that it is not necessary that this is the case. Any theory that held that there was a necessary connection between law and morality would not be a form of legal positivism.

The second important debate in recent years concerns interpretivism, a view that is strongly associated with Ronald Dworkin. An interpretivist theory of law holds that legal rights and duties are determined by the best interpretation of the political practices of a particular community. Interpretation, according to Dworkin's law as integrity theory, has two dimensions. To count as an interpretation, the reading of a text must meet the criterion of fit. But of those interpretations that fit, Dworkin maintains that the correct interpretation is the one that puts the political practices of the community in their best light, or makes of them the best that they can be.

'Let burglars off with caution', police told

08:08am 3rd April 2006

Burglars will be allowed to escape without punishment under new instructions sent to all police forces. Police have been told they can let them off the threat of a court appearance and instead allow them to go with a caution.

The same leniency will be shown to criminals responsible for more than 60 other different offences, ranging from arson through vandalism to sex with underage girls.

New rules sent to police chiefs by the Home Office set out how seriously various crimes should be regarded, and when offenders who admit to them should be sent home with a caution.

A caution counts as a criminal record but means the offender does not face a court appearance which would be likely to end in a fine, a community punishment or jail.

Is this justice? Should criminals be let off with just a caution? Tell us in readers comments below.

Some serious offences - including burglary of a shop or office, threatening to kill, actual bodily harm, and possession of Class A drugs such as heroin or cocaine - may now be dealt with by caution if police decide that would be the best approach.

And a string of crimes including common assault, threatening behaviour, sex with an underage girl or boy, and taking a car without its owner's consent, should normally be dealt with by a caution, the circular said.

The Home Office instruction applies to offenders who have admitted their guilt but who have no criminal record.

They are also likely to be able to show mitigating factors to lessen the seriousness of their crime.

The instruction to abandon court prosecutions in more cases - even for people who admit to having carried out serious crimes - comes in the wake of repeated attempts by ministers and senior judges to persuade the courts to send fewer criminals to jail.

The crisis of overcrowding in UK prisons has also prompted moves to let many more convicts out earlier.

It emerged last month that some violent or sex offenders, given mandatory life sentences under a "two-strike" rule, have been freed after as little as 15 months.

The latest move provoked condemnation yesterday from Tories and critics of the justice system.

Shadow Home Secretary David Davis said: "Yet again the Government is covertly undermining the penal system and throwing away the trust of ordinary citizens that criminals will be punished and punished properly.

"In the last few weeks we have witnessed a serial failure of Labour to protect the citizen, with murders of innocent people by criminals variously on early release or probation, and now we're finding that ever more serious crimes are not being brought to court at all."

Criminologist Dr David Green, of the Civitas think-tank, said: "They appear to have given up making the court system work and doing anything about delays and the deviousness of defence lawyers.

"This is part of the wider problem that the Home Office has an anti-prison bias. But while they regard prison as uncivilised, they don't seem to care whether the alternatives work or not."

The Home Office circular to police forces has been sent amid a Government drive to reduce the number of cases coming before the courts.

A number of crimes - notably shoplifting - are now regularly dealt with by fixed penalty notices similar to a parking fine.

A whole range of offenders who admit traffic and more minor criminal offences will in future have their cases "processed" by new Government bureaucracies rather than by the courts.

At the same time judges and magistrates have been bombarded with instructions from the senior judiciary to send fewer criminals to jail.

Burglars and muggers should be spared prison more often, courts have been told, and last week sentencing authorities ordered a further "raising of the custody threshold" to keep out of prison more offenders who would in the past have been given up to a year in jail.

The new instructions to police on how to keep criminals out of the courts altogether are given in a 'Gravity Factor Matrix'.

This breaks down offences into four categories, with the most serious rated as four and the least serious as one.

For criminals over 18, who admit offences ranked at the third level of seriousness, the instruction is: "Normally charge but a simple caution may be appropriate if first offence".

Officers dealing with those who admit level two crimes are told: "Normally simple caution for a first offence but a charge may be appropriate if (there are) previous convictions or appropriate to circumstances."

The Home Office said the guidance had been circulated nationally because there had been regional anomalies in the way offenders were dealt with and these needed to be removed.

A spokesman said: 'Cautioning in individual cases is an operational matter for the police and Crown Prosecution Service.

"'The new circular firstly provides up to date guidance on the use of cautions to encourage consistency across the country.

"Secondly, with the introduction of statutory charging, the guidance needed to clarify what the effect would be on police responsibility for cautions. Finally the guidance was introduced to outline the practical process of administering a caution."

Cautioning was used heavily in the late 1980s and early 1990s, particularly for juvenile offenders under 18.

Tory Home Secretary Michael Howard cracked down on cautions in 1994 because young thugs and thieves were getting repeated cautions but no punishment.

But cautioning for adult offenders is now on the rise. Dr Green said: "The Home Office is missing its target to achieve a set number of offenders brought to justice. But it seems they regard a caution as an offender brought to justice.

"This is a nod and a wink to police forces - deal with your cases by cautions and we will hit our target."
Our questions don't ask what is fair or what is just. Our question is what is legitimate?

Tuesday, April 04, 2006

France Echos.

Protest of Turkish skinheads in Lyon

April 4th, 2006

March 18, 2006 – Lyon, Rhône-Alpes, FRANCE.

Turkish Skinheads

The préfecture of the Rhône département authorized a demonstration of Turkish skinheads, that came from Germany by bus, to protest against a project of a memorial of the Armenian genocide.

The protest of the Turkish extremist group, called the 'Gray Wolves', started at place Bellecour, in front of the equestrian statue of king Louis XIV. They benefited of the protection of the CRS, and therefore of the French state. On the signs, the Turkish negationnists claimed "There never was an Armenian genocide!"


Grey Wolves (Bozkurtlar in Turkish) is the common name for the members of the Turkish Nationalist Movement Party ("Milliyetçi Hareket Partisi", MHP), an ultra-nationalist movement founded by Alparslan Türke in 1961.

They are named after a legendary wolf that led captive Turks to freedom. Their formal name in Turkish is ülkücüler (the idealists) and Ülkücü Hareket (The Idealist Movement) (see Actual Idealism). Their female supporters are called Asena.

Like all other parties, MHP was banned after the military coup of September 12, 1980 and it lost many of its core cadres to the neo-liberal Motherland Party or various vestiges of the Islamist movement.

The Nationalist Task Party ("Milliyetçi Çalışma Partisi", MÇP) was founded in 1983 as a successor to the MHP, which as of 1992 is once again known as the MHP.

A significant pillar of the MHP's ideology is the dream of creating the
Turan, the Great Turkish Empire, including all Turkish (sometimes referred as Turkic) peoples mainly in the successor Central-Asian countries of the former Soviet Union as well as China (the Uyghurs of East Turkestan).

The MHP opposes any concessions to Kurdish separatists, namely the PKK. Despite being anti-PKK they have also Kurdish supporters who are mostly of the Zaza-tribe.

The "Grey Wolves", in particular
Abdullah Çatlı, have allegedly worked with Gladio "stay-behind" networks, according to Le Monde diplomatique [1]. The 1981 attempt on Pope's life may even have been manipulated by this NATO clandestine structure, according to Lucy Komisar. She underlines the fact that Mehmet Ali Ağca, the failed assassin, was a Grey Wolves member who had worked with Abdullah Çatlı in the 1979 murder of a left-wing newspaper editor. "Çatlı then reportedly helped organize Ağca's escape from an Istanbul military prison, and some have suggested Catli was even involved in the Pope's assassination attempt" reports Lucy Komisar, adding that at the scene of the Mercedes-Benz crash where Çatlı died, he was found with a passport under the name of "Mehmet Özbay" - an alias also used by Mehmet Ali Ağca [2] .In 2004, the Grey Wolves successfully prevented the screening of Atom Egoyan's Ararat, a film about the Armenian Genocide
From: (ozgurluk)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.radical-left

Subject: Turkish fascism, the MHP
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 1995 21:17:30 GMT

Turkish Fascism, the MHP

Pianka and the The Bo-Bo Lizards of Death

The Bo-Bo's want to kill us. Bourgeois bohemians, sociology professors in torn and faded blue jeans at 500 dollars per pair, cashmere turtle neck jumpers, Harris tweed jackets with velvet elbow patches, the grey pony-tails: these people want us all to die. We are not worthy. We are boring. We are middle class and, if not American, then Americanised, hence not valuable but disgusting creatures. They quote Susan Sontag: "White Europeans are the cancer of History." That's us, folks. The hip and trendy Lefties, the urban cool sophisticates and philobarbarists, the UN wankers: The Bo-Bos want to kill us.

No, they don't actually want to kill us. They want us to be dead. They want someone else or something else to kill us. They would have us all die of bird flu or a flood, says those like the Lizard Man, Eric R. Pianka, " ecologist, [who] advocated for the extermination of 90 percent of the human species in a most horrible and painful manner." Pianka lives today, but his soul mates have lived forever, since at least the time of the compilation of the Epic of Gilgamesh when it is recorded that the gods wiped out the world's population for being too noisy.

Hatred of Humanity is not new, and it is not lovely. "War and famine would not do, he [Pianka] explained. Instead, disease offered the most efficient and fastest way to kill the billions that must soon die if the population crisis is to be solved."

Pianka doesn't actually want to kill anyone. That would mess up his hairdo and get his hands dirty. He prefers that nature kill billions these for him.

He is not alone. He is an ecologist, from what the reports claim. And that puts him into the camp of some illustrious fascists from our last and unloved century and before. To get a better look at Pianka and his ilk we'll turn to those past years and past people to see our own more clearly from this distance. It's so much easier for us to hate those who are already dead. We, after all, have some regard for the living, regardless of the Piankas among us who might otherwise draw our ire more directly.

There is a class of persons who wish to exterminate people en masse. Pianka seems to be one of those. He is and they are the "elite." They talk a lot. They write books. They speak to the media. Pianka, to his dubious credit, seems to be something of a woodsman. The rest are generally effeminate and effete. They are generally the cafe exterminationists. They talk and they talk and they talk. Once in an era one of them rises to the heights of power and gives direction to the phantasists who get to play dress-up, who get to indulge their phantasies, who get thugs to murder the masses.

And then they fall. And then they die.

Good-bye bo-bo's, Himmler, Goebbels, Goering. Hello Sontag, Derrida, Foucault. Oh, they're all dead. Never mind, there are others to take their places. Let's look at some more dead people and see if we recognize Herr Pianka in their words. Let's look at those who wished to murder Humanity. In them we will see today's Left dhimmi fascists.

All Pianka quotations from link above.

"We're no better than bacteria," Mims [see link above] quoted Pianka as saying in his condemnation of the human race, which, he claimed, is overpopulating the Earth.

The only way to save the planet for the rest of the species is to reduce the human population to 10 percent of its current number.

There is a pose to strike for the for the weak and the sick and the charmless: it is the pose of Natural Aristocracy. There is an affectation among the sickly and the resentful losers in this life: it is Assumed Superiority. In our modern times we see this clearly in T.S.Eliot, in Ezra Pound, in Virginia Wolfe.

In the following we will look at John Carey, The Intellectuals and the Masses. We shall compare his work and views to the Lizard Man and Ward Churchill and Noam Chomsky and Cindy Sheehan and the hairy tangle of snot hanging from the chin of mankind. Our elite.

From George Moore, Confessions of a Young Man of 1888 we get a good view of our intelligentsia today. In this we will see the university professors, the antiwar activists, the ecologists, the cheerleaders of fascist Islam, of the lot of them who would kill us for raping Mother Nature, for being inherently racist, for being middle class, for-- and so on:

Pity, that most vile of all virtues, has never been known to me. The great pagan world I love knew it not. Now the world proposes to interrupt the terrible austere laws of nature which ordain that the weak shall be trampled upon, shall be ground into death and dust.
Injustice we worship; all that lifts us out of the misery of life is the sublime fruit of injustice. Every immortal deed was an act of fearful injustice.... What care I that some millions of wretched Israelites died under Pharaoh's lash or Egypt's sun? It was well that they died that I might have the pyramids to look on. Is there one among us who would exchange them for the lives of the ignominious slaves that died? What care I that the virtue of some sixteen year old maiden was the price paid for Ingres' La Source? .... Nay more, the knowledge that a wrong was done-- that millions of Israelites died in torments, that a girl, or a thousand girls, died in hospital for that one virginal thing, is an added pleasure which I could not afford to spare. Oh for reticuled canopies of lilies; to see the great gladiators pass, to hear them cry the famous 'Ave Caesar', to hold the thumb down, to see the blood flow, to fill the languid hours with eh agonies of poisoned slaves! Oh, for excess, for crime! I would give many lives to save one sonnet by Baudelaire; for the hymn, 'A la tres-chere, a la tres-belle, qui remplit mon coeur de clarte," let the first born in every house in Europe be slain; and in all sincerity I profess my readiness to decapitate all the Japanese in Japan and elsewhere, to save one drawing by Hokee. Again I say that all we deem sublime in the world's history are acts of injustice; and it is certain that if man does not relinquish at once, and for ever, his vain, mad and fatal dream of justice, the world will lapse into barbarism.... But the old world of heroes is over now. The skies above us are dark with sentimentalism... nothing remains for us to worship but the Mass, the blind, the inchoate, insensate Mass; for and fenland before us, we shall founder in putrefying mud, creatures of ooze and rushes about us." [Carey: pp.: 55-56.]

Ah, Mr. Moore, art connoisseur, sensitive and cultured man of the world, would have us all killed to protect art from our grubby little fingers and our prying eyes, our dirty, common little minds. Life is reserved for Mr Moore and his friends, anything else meant only for their enjoyment. For Dr Lizard, life iis for the snakes. For our Left dhimmi fascists, life is for the Palestinians, for the wretched of the Earth. We, we middle class philsitines, we don't count because we are not authentic. We are the masses, the Americans, the great unwashed who eat at McDonald's and mess up the pristine beauty of the coinnesseurs' existence and we don't know our places, we being arrogant. We should be-- we must be-- we must be exterminated.

Pianka then displayed a slide showing rows of human skulls, one of which had red lights flashing from its eye sockets. AIDS is not an efficient killer, he explained, because it is too slow. His favorite candidate for eliminating 90 percent of the world's population is airborne Ebola (Ebola reston), because it is both highly lethal and it kills in days, instead of years. However, Professor Pianka did not mention that Ebola victims die a slow and torturous death as the virus initiates a cascade of biological calamities inside the victim that eventually liquefy the internal organs."

D.H. Lawrence, Fantasia of the Unconscious [writes that] [g]iven the condition of modern man, he feels inclined to say, "Three cheers of the inventors of poison gas." Hatred of mankind and the wish to exterminate it become associated in Lawrence's mind with the idea of being cleansed and happy: "To learn plainly to hate mankind, to detest the spawning human being," he writes in 1917, "that is the only cleanliness now." The thought of the earth "all grass and trees," and with no works of man at all, "just a hare listing to the inaudible-- that is Paradise." ....
Lawrence, writing to E.M. Forster in 196, feels gladdened by the prospect that war and violent death will wipe out all the hordes of mankind, and adds, "I think it would be good to die, because death would be a clean land with no people in it; not even the people of myself." [Carey: pp. 11-12.]

Most of the writers we'll look at here were living and working throughout the First World War. They can't claim not to have known the suffering of others. They cannot claim they were simply expressing a metaphorical weltschmertz. It won't do. Neither will it do for the Lizard Man to claim he was quoted out of context. This is the context.

Pianka notes in the online syllabus for his Diversity and Ecology class that the deadly form of Ebola – Ebola zaire – that has killed nine out of the 10 people infected currently only spreads by direct contact with infected blood, while Ebola reston, the close relative that currently kills only monkeys, is an airborne virus. Evolution, he says, will in time result in an airborne form fatal to humans.

Mims notes that when Pianka finished his remarks, the audience of fellow scientists and students burst out in sustained applause.

[Writer Clive] Bell's language figures himself and fellow aesthetes as engaged upon dangerous and energetic pursuits, when in fact they are merely looking at pictures or reading books. That might make the Nietzschean rhetoric seem somewhat fatuous. [Carey: pp. 74-75.]

Scientists of course, they are different. They do more than read books and look at pictures. They are environmentalists, some of them, and they know things we others do not. They seem to know, for example, that we should support them at universities, and that we should die. Social scientist, well, they know even more than physical scientists: they know that we should die, and in the meantime they know how we should live in accordance with their social science models. How lucky we are to be blessed by their concern for us. Of course, we have to pay for them to live in style. We have to send them to parliaments, to the U.N., to the E.U. and so on.

Applause reaches Dag's burning ears. I thank you. Thank you very much.

During a question-and-answer sessions, the audience laughed approvingly when Pianka offered the bird flu as another vehicle toward achieving his goal. They also chuckled when he suggested it was time to sterilize everyone on Earth.

Clive Bell in Civilization... [writes] that civilization depends on the existence of a small group of people of exquisite sensibility, who know how to respond to works of art, and who also have a refined appreciation sensory delights such as food and wine. Without this 'civilizing elite,' standards are bound to fall. Signs of decay are already apparent. 'There are now,' Bell regrets, 'but two or three restaurants in London where it is an unqualified pleasure to dine.'
What distinguishes these rare and gifted beings is their ability to detect 'pure form' in works of art. They pay no attention to the human interests or emotions which artworks might seem to arouse. Though these are what people incapable of aesthetic emotion look for in art, they are actually 'sentimental irrelevancies.' True art does not consist in 'what the grocer thinks he sees,' but in the ' sense of ultimate reality' the artwork yields to 'educated persons of extraordinary sensibility.' No artist, Bell feels sure, has ever believed in human equality. 'All artists are aristocrats....'
It follows that, if society wants to be civilised, it must establish conditions favorable to the preservation of the gifted few. connoisseurs of pure form cannot be expected to earn their own living, for 'almost all kinds of money-making are detrimental to the subtler and more intense states of mind' required for artistic appreciation. Consequently, people of taste and discernment must be supported by public funds. They alone will be fully educated, and the state will make them a regular and ample allowance throughout their lives. It may also take responsibility for their children should they have any. [Carey: pp. 80-81.]

We can see again the fruits of Plato's Republic ripening in the light of our brilliant Left dhimmi fascists's minds. turn later, if you will , to the Myth of the Metals, where you will read of the Golden Ones who, unlike the Iron people are special, even so special as our EU leaders unelected by any other than God and each other.

"What kind of reception have you received as you have presented these ideas to other audiences that are not representative of us?" asked one member of the audience.

"I speak to the converted!" Pianka replied.

In response to the revolt of the masses, intellectuals generated the idea of a natural aristocracy, consisting of intellectuals. On the question of precisely what makes natural aristocrats aristocratic, there was some disagreement. [Carey: p. 71.]

When we look at the Left dhimmi fascist intelligentsia today we see no one different from those who were the social Darwinists and eugenicists of yesteryear, only the cliches have changed. Today's philosopher kings and elect and gnostic knowers are the same as they have always been. Lizard Man is still a lizard man, no different from the fools above and below. Our problem is that we allow them space in our media, voice in our lecture halls, status in our lands.

Mims said he spoke glowingly of the police state in China that enforces a one-child policy.

"Smarter people have fewer kids," Mims quoted Pianka as saying.

[On] early twentieth century intellectuals. The intellectual code regards fondness for children as suburban or middle class. According to this view, parenthood is a distraction from the serious pursuit of culture.... Literary intellectuals in the first half of the twentieth century tended to opt for childlessness or child neglect. Wyndham Lewis, for example, refused to have children with his wife, and took no responsibility of the illegitimate children his mistresses gave birth to. His daughter and son were both given away. 'I have no children, though some, I believe, are attributed to me,' he told a friend. 'I have work to do.' [Carey: p. 170.]

One suggestion was that there was, or ought to be, a secret kind of knowledge which only intellectuals could posses-- a 'body of esoteric doctrine, defended from the herd.' as D.H. Lawrence put it. [Carey: p. 71.]

There is nothing more to write on this. Please find yourself time to read through some of the comments at Derek's blog:

Following the question-and-answer session, Mims says "almost every scientist, professor and college student present stood to their feet and vigorously applauded the man who had enthusiastically endorsed the elimination of 90 percent of the human population. Some even cheered. Dozens then mobbed the professor at the lectern to extend greetings and ask questions."

Natural law, as opposed to sentimental morality, 'recognises what is due to character, to creative genius, to personal power.' It is neglect of that law in modern democratic times that has sanctioned personal attacks upon the great men of literature, and other forms of cultural 'sansculottism.' Such disrespect for the truly gifted is, in the last resort, an offense against divinity. [Carey: p. 193]

Pianka et al are on the thrones of success in our modern times . They have the specialised and specialist knowledge the rest of us are never going to have. They, unlike us, do not suffer from the false consciousness of being middle class philistines. hey are gifted and aware, and the rest of us just clutter up the world with our noxious and destructive presence. A good ninety per cent of the rest of us should die.

The Lizard Man and his colleagues are certainly geniuses. Let's just accept it. Carey writes:

The principle underlying all nature's operations, he stresses, is the 'aristocratic principle.' This conforms with 'the eternal Will that governs the universe.' For Hitler, as for other intellectuals, it follows that there is or should be some connection between cultural eminence and political power. The supreme natural aristocrat, Hitler argues, is the genius, and it is the shining example o f genius that makes clear the baseness of the mass and the folly of parliamentary democracy. The creative act of genius is 'always a protest against the inertia of the mass.' Democracy, by vesting power in 'the dunderheaded multitude' flies in the face of 'the aristocratic principle of nature.' In common with other disciples of Nietzsche, Hitler conceives of a moral universe in which the 'dead weight' of the mass is pitted against 'the eternal privilege of force and energy' in the gifted intellectual. He also shares the customary intellectual scorn for the nouveaux riches, whom he regards as false aspirers to nobility, unacceptable 'from the stand-point of good breeding.' [Carey: p 200.]

Mims notes five hours later, the Texas Academy of Science presented Pianka with a plaque in recognition of his being named 2006 Distinguished Texas Scientist.

We'll return next time with more on this topic of the elitist hatred of the middle class and ther bo-bo desire to have us all gone away from them. The bo-bos who would have us all die are of a kind alone, and they have many of the rest of us convinced they actually know something we should accept as reality. This needs some specific address. Next time we'll look at those people the bo-bos would preserve while they would exterminate us. We'll look at the bo-bos as philobarbarists.