Friday, December 14, 2007

Richard Dawkins: Presbyterian.

The truth is out. Richard Dawkins, popularizer of the current petty-minded lumpen-intelligentsia's public identity flag, "atheism," has refined his pose to show his contempt yet further for all things 'all-things.' Yes, Dawkins has proclaimed himself to be a Presbyterian, an intellectual marketplace Christian in the department store bargain basement of ideas. How totally cool, dude.

This BBC report exposes the whole shocking Truth!

Yes, dear reader, you might have thought Dawkins would try to raise his cache this holiday season by proclaiming himself an Anglican, but honestly, he has more depth than that. Being too sophisticated to claim he's a same/same only different, Dawkins has struck out into new and unexplored intellectual territory to wow the kiddie masses. No, he's gone way beyond the pallid Anglican confession, beyond claiming identity as an Anglican Atheist, as a redundancy repetition repeated: Dawkins is a Presbyterian. So you dedicated followers of fashion, toss off last season's glad rags and don the new Dawkins's cloak of intellectual invisibility. Everybody's doing it. Don't be left behind. For gawd's sake, don't stand out in the crowd. Presyterians. The newest in New.

"Dawkins: I'm a cultural Christian"

Scientist Richard Dawkins, an atheist known worldwide for arguing against the existence of God, has described himself as a "cultural Christian".

He told the BBC's Have Your Say that he did not want to "purge" the UK of its Christian heritage.

The comments came after Tory MP Mark Pritchard accused "politically correct" people of undermining Christmas.

Professor Dawkins, author of the God Delusion, added that he liked "singing Carols along with everybody else".
[Dawkins in blue, seated center, caroling, Xmas, 2006.]

On Have Your Say, Mr Pritchard told Prof Dawkins there was an "increasing feeling" that "many of the main Christian festivals are being sidelined and marginalised, sometimes by stealth, sometimes openly".

This, he argued, would allow groups such as the British National Party, to utilise Christian imagery for their own ends.

'Singing carols'

Prof Dawkins, who has frequently spoken out against creationism and religious fundamentalism, replied: "I'm not one of those who wants to stop Christian traditions.

"This is historically a Christian country. I'm a cultural Christian in the same way many of my friends call themselves cultural Jews or cultural Muslims.

"So, yes, I like singing carols along with everybody else. I'm not one of those who wants to purge our society of our Christian history.

"If there's any threat these sorts of things, I think you will find it comes from rival religions and not from atheists."

[....] Published: 2007/12/10

Yes, dear reader, you might be thinking at this point, "Dawkins has an opinion? So what?"

Uh.... Well, to keep this going a bit rather than just concede the point let's think of the benefits of being a Presbyterian. One can still be an atheist as a Presbyterian but the advantage over the old Dawkins' position is that one can now continue to receive presents in good faith on the 25th. What say? And, most importantly, one can sing carols! Jolly, what? The best of both supposed worlds: One eats too much, gets dreadful ties and argyle socks, and one is also smirkingly "One of the people." Ho, Ho, Ho, and all that rot.

It's my sincere hope that all our Muslim cousins will take a page from the Dawkins rite and they too will become Muslim in the way Dawkins is Christian. Yes, let's called it Reformed Islam. Works for me. I look forward to the very first mainstream trans-sexual imam in Boston working it out with a gang of hippie anarcho-communist vegans. Bound to happen soon.

We wish Richard Dawkins much luck in his latest career, though we must admit he was much funnier as a young man, as wikipedia points out:

Richard Dawson (born November 20, 1932) is a British-born American actor, comedian, game show panelist and host, and scientist. He is best known for his role as Bob Crane's British non-commissioned officer, Corporal Peter Newkirk, on the World War II situation comedy Hogan's Heroes, and as the original host of the Family Feud game show from 1976–1985 on ABC and in syndication, and again from 1994 to 1995, replacing Ray Combs. Dawson also appeared as a panelist on the 1970s version of Match Game on CBS, from 1973–1978. He is also more recently known as a famous scientist who writes long books. Hurrah.

Wednesday, December 12, 2007

Deus Ex Nihilo Machina

I think often that science is nothing more than bad religion. But I often think religion is bad science. What do I know? Well, I know a few things, as it turns out. I know, for example, that when science reduces people to lab rats and rhesus monkeys science is bad religion-- and bad science, too.

"No volunteers for orgasm implant."

Experts do predict a demand for the device.

A scientist claiming to have invented a device which produces orgasms at the touch of a button can't find women to help him conduct trials into it.

The implant, inserted under the skin at the base of the spine, triggers a reflex response to produce sensation.

Dr Stuart Meloy, from North Carolina, told New Scientist: "I thought people would be beating my door down."

However, British experts said that a surgical implant was not an appropriate answer to women's sexual problems.

The US Food and Drug Administration has approved trials of the device, but this cannot go ahead until enough volunteers have been found.

Dr Meloy - originally a pain specialist - stumbled on the concept when he inserted a pacemaker-like device under the skin in a bid to alleviate severe back pain in a patient.

The pronounced side-effects of the electrical current it delivered prompted him to diversify into a different field of research.

The device works because of a natural reflex in the body which produces an orgasm.

Dr Meloy told New Scientist magazine: "I don't see it any differently from procedures such as breast implants.

"But so far I am struggling to find people."

Yes, Modernity has its banal side. It has its philistines. But they don't come about because of Modernity. Bad ideas are universal. Does modernity create more bad ideas and make more bad come into being than primitivism? Is it a bad trade-off? We can always reject what is, but we can't take what isn't. Machines for sex? No, that's not Modernity, it's just bad science, and a lack of religion too. It's as empty as the relationship one would have as above. Modernity is living long enough to celebrate a long lifetime; sometimes, for those who try, time to live a long marriage. Machines? It misses the whole point. Hello, dear reader. How are you? I'm feeling pretty fine myself. What are you up to?

Tuesday, December 11, 2007

... coward ....

I don't know of the man. Robert Spencer calls him "MSNBC's Senior Political Analyst and a panelist on 'The McLaughlin Group.' "

Hot Air describes him as "one of the MSM's prominent pundits.That pundit is Larry O'Donnell, who was last seen going nuts on Mormons . O'Donnell appeared on the Hugh Hewitt show yesterday and over the course of the conversation, made this admission."

Larry O'Donnell admits he's afraid to criticize Islam publicly

posted at 2:03 pm on December 11, 2007 by Bryan

HH: Would you say the same things about Mohammed as you just said about Joseph Smith?

LO'D: Oh, well, I'm afraid of what the…that's where I'm really afraid. I would like to criticize Islam much more than I do publicly, but I'm afraid for my life if I do.

HH: Well, that's candid.

LO'D: Mormons are the nicest people in the world. They're not going to ever…

HH: So you can be bigoted towards Mormons, because they'll just send you a strudel.

LO'D: They'll never take a shot at me. Those other people, I'm not going to say a word about them.

HH: They'll send you a strudel. The Mormons will bake you a cake and be nice to you.

LO'D: I agree.

HH: Lawrence O'Donnell, I appreciate your candor.

OK, I'll admit I don't know of this guy. Neither do I have any idea why he would say the things he said. He says he's a coward. I can understand that a guy might make some kind of joke like that. I night say something about myself like that in reference to my girlfriend or my cat or about opening the fridge door after being on the road for a week. But Islam? I don't get it.

I'm like anyone else in that I avoid pain wherever and whenever possible. I avoid pain if I can, and if I can't I endure it as well as I'm able. Sometimes I can't endure it and I scream and thrash around. I don't get ashamed of it. Pain is pain because it hurts. That's the reality of living in a material world. That which does not kill me makes me crippled and bitter. Then I move on and live my life knowing that sometime it will end. I understand and accept all that. This other guy? Lawrence O'Donnell, Jr.? There, folks, I'm not getting it. I understand this guy as well as I understand a spider on the wall in the toilet. I read the copy above but I don't get it. I think he's saying he's afraid of Muslims who might hurt him if he says things about them they don't like. Yeah? So? If someone is threatening the guy, he should address that person. If a group of unknown people are threatening him, he should seek out those under the same threat and make a group of his own and attack those likely to attack him. Reader, what kind of person are you? Can you begin to comprehend a coward? I'm utterly baffled.

To cleanse my soul of the foulness of Mr. O'Donnell, I present this, years old now:

There's more to war than killing the enemy. It comes down to what kind of man you are. Look at mine:

and compare the beauty of them to the beauty of another kind of man involved in war:

I don't know if those links turned out right, so I'll summarize a bit.

Mine fought the Battle of the Shirts. They met in the morning, swung their claymores till the heat was too much, and then they took off their kilts and fought in their shirts till there were a few exhausted men left alive on either side, men too tired to finish killing each other.

There's a difference between a soldier and a warrior. The latter is out to kill and die, not for "a" cause but "be"cause. Mine were heroes. They were thieves and drunkards and bullies and cringeing cowards in the face of the clan chief; but in the fields and the glens and in the tors they were men who fought and killed and screamed and bled and died. They were mad-men who fought.

When the English slaughtered mine at Culloden and cleared the Highlands to graze sheep and destroy the land, well, I could scream and bellow and want to wreak havok on the English for it; but I look at the damage done, and I thank God for it: I was fortunate enough because of that to live my life, not on a barren wasteland scrambling from groats and haggis, but as an American.

Mine were fighting men, and they died like men, beautiful and fantastic and brave. The children, some of them, the fortunate, who survived went on to America and became Americans. Thank God for it.

As good as mine are they didn't raise up among them Henry Dunant, and they didn't live his hard life. That man was a hero, too, a man deeply involved in war. His war won't ever end, and the suffering will never cease.

And what about us? We have the best of both in us,
the maniac killers who fight for the blood of man and a place at the hand of God; and we are those who will tend our fellows in spite of the grief and the pain we suffer for it. We are, as I've written here many times before, blessed by living in this time when we can take the fight to the world of evil and conquer it for the Good. Crazed and savage though we might be in battle we have also in us the Humanity lacking in the majority of the world's population. We are able to crush our enemies totally, and we have the duty to do so to bring to them the hope of Humaness they now lack. what could be better in life?

Ha Zahal, the IDF, they fight for Israel, and rightly so. But we can fight for the whole world. It really doesn't get much better. And if at the end of the day there are few of us left standing, then maybe some beggar will come to tend us and take us back to our wives and babies so we can all be Americans in peace till the next time.


The piece above is the last of three, the first two of which I'll present here in sequence for the record.

We mostly scoff at "arm-chair warriors," sloughing them off as day-dreamers and fools. We read of the brave exploits they would perform if only they could. I'd like to look briefly at those who are out of the arm-chair and in the position to act, who are required to act.

Knowing where bin Laden is will not do us any good at all unless we have men and women who will take it upon themselves to rid us of that beast. And who will those men and women be? Not you or I, I'm sorry to say. Those who will act will be the few of the few. Aside from my anecdotal experiences which back up the following, I'll rely here on the published work of Joanna Bourke, An Intimate History of Killing. London: Granta, 1999. For further information on this topic one may go to google for "Killology."

Most soldiers do not kill their enemies. They don't generally even fire their weapons.

" matter how thourough the training, it still failed to enable most combatants to fight. During the First World War, it was commonly believed that only 10 per cent of soldiers could be called brave and many military commentators deplored the 'live and let live' principle. [p.73.]

During the Second World War,... no more than 15 per cent of men had actually fired at enemy positions or would have been possible for 80 per cent of the men to have fired and nearly all men were (at some stage) within firing distance of the enemy. To be counted as a 'firer,' a man would only have had to fire his weapon or lob a grenade 'roughly in the direction of the enemy' once or twice." [p.75.]

For all the writing back and forth here about how we are or are not violent and fascistic and hatefilled, when the crunch comes, few if any of us would act any differently in the face of our enemies than did soldiers in WWL, WW2, and the war in Viet Nam, as covered in the book above.

What does this say about us as anti-jihadists? I'll venture that of the 15 per cent of us who think of ourselves as badass guys only 15 per cent of those would ever pull the trigger on bin Laden. and ask yourselves just how many rounds would actually hit the man? We leave these things to professionals for good reason: most of us couldn't shoot a man face-to-face if he were shooting at us.

"Marshall found that there were some men who identified targets yet did not shoot, and there were other men who were under attack yet did not attempt to use the weapons to retaliate or in self protection. Furthermore, passive troops were not 'green' troops." [p. 76.]

The most remarkable thing about the IDF wasn't their professionalism, which most Western soldiers possess to the nth degree, it was their ability to remain Human in the midst of war, to kill the enemy without devolving into animal hatred even in the smoke and shock of battle. The enemy, on the other hand, were indistinguishable for maniacs crazzed and screaming, one going so far as to rush head-long into a burning building in search of a phantom. I'm sorry to admit that I'm the only one who laughed.

All the violent words that splash down these columns are so much nothing. There might be a will to triumph over our enemies but it's passive. That's not a condemnation of our readers. We do not want to be soldiers in the field. If we were, chances are we would not fire our weapons at men who are much like us. That's nothing to be ashamed of.

"The passive 75 per cent of men would generally remain passive. But...even those soldiers who did not fire were crucial to the battle: their presence was essential for morale. Active combatants were too busy fighting to notice what their comrades were (or were not) doing. In fact, it was the presence of passive soldiers which enabled active soldiers to continue fighting. They contributed thier weight to the mass of the attack, even if they contributed little to its velocity." [p.87.]

What is the serious objection to killing an individual in a crowd, Yassin, for example? The message is clear and precise. One man is responsible fror his actions, and that man is dead. Our opponents would set off a car bomb, killing at random, and call it good. Allah is responsible for that action, and the group understands the irrationality of it in its own terms. Our experience in Jugoslavia is contrary: we fired laser-guided missles from the ether. The average Serb has to this day no idea why that happened. Jets were long past the target before they were seen, and then the fires were raging long since. That speck brought death! There was no sense of who did that or why, because one cannot hate a speck, only an idea one might associate with that speck. And since there is no way to fight a speck it isn't a defeat no matter how badly one is beaten, for no speck is viable as an enemy. It has no meaning whatsoever. The science of war loses wars because there is no art to war by machines, and there is therefore no enemy to lose to.

If we are to win any war against any enemy, we must have men on the ground, face to face with our enemies so they can see us and fight us man to man till one man is still standing. We will not win any war until the enemy is in the dust begging not for mercy but crying out "I am you!" When that defeated man sees my face and knows I'm the better man, then he will not be defeated but he will be my ally. When I beat a man who beats a woman I must beat him till he beats men who beat women. He will do that when he is me and mine. I cannot make him one of mine from inside a tank. I can do that by beating him man to man so he knows who I am and what I do. Killing a murderer doesn't make me a murderer, it makes his survivors moral.

Who among us will take up arms and fight man to man against bin Laden? Who will run the man down and kill him face to face? Who will stand with bin Laden's head in hand and say: "Now you work for me!"

I'll retire to my armchair to wheeze and read of imaginable glories, to dream of William Walker and his Immortal Filibusters who could have made the world America.


Look at the Moslem world: bin Laden hides in a rock pile and we read of Epaminondes.They fetishize Mohammed while we rejoice in the wisdom of Solon. Taliban and Caliban. Aisha and Catherine. Zarqawi and Jabotinski. Hamas and Zahal. Kaba and Kotel.

Yes, the Moslems love their own filth as much as we admire our heroes and our great symbols and centers of Good. Islam is not a religion of peace, nor are we going to live in peace with its adherents. We choose our side, or by not choosing we decide anyway. Regardless, the sides are divided, and it's up to us to make our moves. And not a one of us in a million has chosen a side based on inductive reasoning and rational discourse.

Let us, with Georges Sorel, reflect on violence: We move according to "myth." If my myth is greater in violence than is the force of the myth of Islam, then I will succeed. Our vision of triumph is our myth. The Myth of American Triumphalism.

We need, writes Sorel, a "...body of images which, by intuition alone, and before any considered analyses are made, is capable of evoking as an undivided whole the mass of sentiments which corresponds to the different manifestations of the war undertaken by progressive Humanity against Islam and dhimmitude. By concentrating [o]n the drama there is no longer any place for the reconcilliation of equivocations; everything is clearly mapped out, only one interpretation is possible [with] all the advantages which 'integral' knowledge has over analysis....

The Myth must be judged as a means of acting on the present....It is the Myth in its entirity which is alone important..... The question whether the Myth is a partial reality, or only a product of popular imagination, is of little importance. All that is necessary to know is whether the Myth contains everything our Myth expects of us. To solve this question we are no longer compelled to argue learnedly about the future; we are not obliged to indulge in lofty reflections about philosophy, history, or economics; we are not on the plane of theories, and we can remain on the level of observable facts.

[Our Myth is] a body of images capable of evoking instinctively all the sentiments which correspond to the different manifestations of the war we've undertaken against Islam and dhimmitude."

KJ, Kemaste, Kepha: We are our Myth. Our mythlogos does not include Islam or dhimmitude. We are as irrationally Baconian as we are irrationally Christian or Jewish or Hindu. Our Socratic Myth is irrational. Only the Violence of our Myth needs to be rational. When we celebrate the irrationality of our Myth our Violence will prevail over the Force of Islam and dhimmitude. Ours is the Will, the Myth, and the Violence.

Again and again I have urged the adoption of the 'phaze-shift" symbol and the reification of our party. Today I urge the adoption of the Myth of our Triumphalism. Embrace foundationalism-- elenchus and aporia-- and abandon the relativism of the dhimmis and the Left defeatists. Organize around the Myth as the vanguard of the party to come.

What Myth? Our Myth. Socrates and William Walker. The sword and the hammer, the gun and the pen.

Every man on every block is a seed of the Myth. Every block has a woman who bears the fruit of the Myth in our midst. We know what we know, and we need know little more. We have only to embrace the Violence against the Force to ensure that the Will of the Myth is triumphant.

9/11. Beslan. We know Islam. We know our Myth. We know our destiny. We begin to know our Path.


"It's just like deja vu all over again."

I look to see who has the girlfriend. Is it this group or that group? Who do girls find attractive? Do girls find tough guys on their way to prison attractive? Or do they find clean-cut and employed guys attractive? Gee, I don't know. Let's see if we can get a clue from this below.

"Police: 10 arrested in Hanukkah attack on NYC subway train." The Associated Press; December 11, 2007

NEW YORK (AP) — New York City police say they are investigating an attack on a group of Hanukkah celebrants on a subway train as a hate crime.

Police say the Hanukkah celebrants were approached by another group who began hurling anti-Semitic remarks at them and assaulting them on a southbound Q train at Canal Street in Manhattan. Police responding to the attack at the Flatbush and DeKalb avenue station in Brooklyn arrested 10 people, ages 19 to 20. Each is charged with either assault and unlawful assembly or both. Police say the Hannukah celebrants had bruises and welts on their faces and heads, but were not taken to the hospital.

"Police investigating possible Hanukkah-related attack." NEW YORK; December 11, 2007

An attack on four subway riders during Hanukkah last week is being investigated as a possible hate crime, police and prosecutors said Tuesday.

Four people were approached Friday night by another group who began yelling anti-Semitic remarks at them and assaulting them on a southbound Q train at Canal Street in Manhattan, police said.

Police caught up with the train at the Flatbush and DeKalb avenues station in Brooklyn and arrested eight men and two women, ages 19 and 20. They were arraigned Saturday on third-degree assault and menacing, second-degree riot and harassment, and disorderly conduct, the Brooklyn district attorney's office said. The case was being handled by the office's civil rights bureau, and charges could be upgraded to a hate crime, prosecutors said Tuesday.

The two men and two women who were attacked had bruises and welts on their faces and heads, but were not hospitalized, police said.

One of the men charged, Joseph Jirovec, 19, pleaded guilty last year to attempted robbery as a hate crime and was awaiting sentencing, prosecutors said. Jirovec, who is white, was part of a group that yelled racial epithets and assaulted two black teenagers in the Gerritsen Beach section of Brooklyn, prosecutors said.

Jirovec's lawyer, Peter Mollo, said Tuesday it was very unlikely his client would attack another person because he or she was Jewish. "His mother was Jewish," he said. "It's very unlikely he would do something like this at all."

State Assemblyman Dov Hikind, who represents Brooklyn, said he was disturbed by news of the incident.

"Where is this coming from when young people are involved in this kind of behavior?" he asked. "You would think we've learned from the past. Something rotten is going on."
[Original copy here.]



When cops questioned Joseph Jirovec about his alleged role in an attack on four black youths in Brooklyn's mostly white Gerritsen Beach neighborhood last summer, he offered a highly unusual defense: membership in the Bloods gang.

According to court papers made public yesterday following his arraignment in the June 26 attack, Jirovec, 18, a metalworker, said his street name was "Bloody Fitted" and that he held the rank of two-star general in the violent street gang.

A gang admission normally wouldn't score points with cops, but Jirovec said yesterday it showed how baseless the charges of hate-crime robbery and assault were.

"Most of my friends are black and Spanish," said Jirovec, the son of a city firefighter now serving as an Army staff sergeant in Iraq.

The papers also noted that Jirovec was arrested wearing a black hat, red and black beads, a red T-shirt and red and black sneakers - signature Bloods colors.

Jirovec was arraigned with five others yesterday in Brooklyn Supreme Court, including William Dunphy, 23, who surrendered yesterday morning in response to a secret grand-jury indictment.

Daniel in Brooklyn has a copy of a news report on the first incident involving the Jirovecs:

The ten suspects, all of whom face misdemeanor assault charges, were released by a judge on their own recognizance, a spokesman for the Brooklyn District Attorney's office, Jonah Bruno, said. With the police department's hate crime task force and the district attorney's bureau of civil rights investigating the case, the charges could be increased to felony hate crimes.

One of the suspects, Joseph Jirovec, 19, has already pleaded guilty to attempted robbery in the third degree as a hate crime for his involvement in the gang beating and robbery of a black teenager in the Gerritsen Beach section of Brooklyn in June 2006, according to court records.


In America it seems to be the loser guys who can't find a date who go on violent rampages against anyone they can. Maybe it's better in sophisticated Europe where they don't have cowboy presidents and television watching moron populations like us. Hey! Let's find out:

Only in systemically racist America, you say? Esther in Europe has written recently on the surge of Muslims in Europe. She provides an interesting break-down of population figures. In response, here is a comment just in:

weepopstar has left a new comment on the post " Muslim population in European cities":

I don't think it's that low in Marseille... You hardly see any non-Arabs/Muslims there... It's not very safe for a city known for it's high population of Jews... Jews who, when we walk the streets, must hide anything that displays our Jewishness... Like rabid animals they attack... and the government will not protect you... They started hiring more Muslim officers for the PC police - sort of like putting the Nazis back in charge of Germany... They protect their own...

There is nothing new under the Sun. It's like deja vu all over again. Who gets the girls? The hostile and violent guy? The Jew-hater? Let me think.... Oh yeah, I have it now: Just because you criticize Jews doesn't mean you hate Israel. Next: What kind of get-up should you wear to attract girls since there are eight guys and only two girls to go round? Who cares? Go to prison, and there you'll never be lonely and looking for a partner. Be a hater, find a lover for the next 25 years. What a deal.

An update:

Very few people in the anti-jihad business hate Muslims. I don't hide my hatred of Islam, but I have nothing in particular against Muslims. There will be some who claim it's a distinction without a difference. I can't account for everyone's mental abilities. Often, life is cruel.

This is an up-date, a bit of interesting background it would be wrong to leave out of this story now that I have it. It shows that a Muslim helped fight off a large gang beating a small group, half of whom were girls. Where I come from it wouldn't be remarkable that a guy would jump into a scrum and start wailing on the bad guys, and too hell with the consequences. The consequence of doing nothing would last a life time, would be a pain no one I know could endure. So, I think it's normal to fight back. I think it's normal that a Muslim would defend a small group of Jewish kids. It isn't, and that's why the media make such a big deal over this. It's a terrible thing that it's remarkable that a Muslim is feted over this. He's just a normal guy. Why don't we think of all Muslims as being normal? That this is so strange just makes me ill.

December 12, 2007 -- A Brooklyn man whose "Happy Hanukkah" greeting landed him in the hospital said he was saved from a gang of Jew-bashing goons aboard a packed Q train by a total stranger - a modest Muslim from Bangladesh.

Walter Adler was touched that Hassan Askari jumped to his aid while a group of thugs allegedly pummeled and taunted him and his three friends. So Adler has invited his new friend over to celebrate the Festival of Lights.

The two new pals - Adler, 23, with a broken nose and a fat lip, and Askari, 20, with two black eyes - broke bread together and laughed off the bruises the night after the fisticuffs.

"A random Muslim guy jumped in and helped a Jewish guy on Hanukkah - that's a miracle," said Adler, an honors student at Hunter College.

"He's basically a hero. Hassan jumped in to help us."

But Askari, who is studying to be an accountant, shrugged off the praise.

"I just did what I had to do," he recalled. "My parents raised me that way."

Ten people were arrested in the underground attack on Friday night - including two men who have been arrested for race crimes before.

None of the suspects had been charged with a hate crime in the Q train attack as of last night, but the Brooklyn DA's Civil Rights Bureau is handling the case.

From the New York Post via Boker tov, Boulder!

To everybody on the Q train, to everyone on any line at all, Muslims and everyone else, I don't care who,

"Happy Hanukkah"

Final up-date:
This story of four Jewish kids on the Q Train has taken on mythic dimensions, now reaching across the void to the far shores of Islamic weirdness where the tale of a lone Muslim hero is the key feature, a good Muslim, an obedient son, a caring American resident, a kind friend, a hard-working but poorly paid student who can't afford medical insurance in the hatefully greedy and violently Christian city. If the syrup were any thicker on this account one might well choke. As is, the gang of 14 Christians and the lone Muslim is worth a laugh.

Saves Jewish group from Christian gang
US Muslim breaks up Christmas-Hanukkah fight


A Muslim boy is being touted as a "hero" after he saved a group of young Jewish subway-goers from a brutal beating by a gang of Christian thugs in New York, press reports said Wednesday.


Soon, the group of about 14 Christian men and women attacked the Jewish group, calling them "dirty Jews" and "Jew bit***s," the New York Post reported.

Amid the huge scrum, 20-year-old Bangladeshi Muslim student, Hassan Askari jumped in. He pushed one of the men away, and was then pounced on by the group.

"They grabbed me and punched and beat me up," Askari said. "I didn't get a chance to punch him back," the New York Daily News quoted him as saying.

Askari's interference allowed Adler to pull the emergency brake, which alerted police to trouble on the train, the paper said.

Askari, who was left with two black eyes and a sore nose, said he has no regrets: "I just did what I had to do…My parents raised me that way."


Askari, who is studying to be an accountant, said he hasn't gone to the doctor because he's too busy working two waiter jobs and doesn't have money for medical care, the Daily News said....

This post begins with the rhetorical question, "Who gets the girls?" Implicit in that is "What kind of girls?"

Photos from the suspects' Facebook and MySpace Web pages show the pals making a mockery of violence. In one picture, Joseph Jirovec - who is to start six months in jail in January for a 2006 hate crime - is pointing a weapon at the head of his friend Kimberly Babajko. In another, the 19-year-old Babajko is the one playing with the handgun, and in a third, she is shown provocatively posing in lingerie. In a fourth, she looks almost like someone else as she poses demurely in what looks like a floor-length prom dress. In many photos, the group flashes gang signs or their middle fingers.[6]
Hate-crime talk is 'ridiculous,' says one of accused Chanukah Q train attackers

Of course, not being one to judge others, all people being equal and deserving, I write no further comments.

Monday, December 10, 2007

Mob Rule Triumphs in Vancouver, Canada.

Canadian law at the federal level again proved itself to be next to non-existent for certain types of people. Usually the law doesn't apply equally to native Indians and women and those who feel really, really bad about the crimes they've committed. Some times the law doesn't apply equally to young psychopaths from other countries with a sizable voter bloc in Canada. And sometimes the law doesn't apply equally to those who are "young." The law doesn't apply to those who can muster a mob. An example? Today will do just fine.

"Mr. Singh came to Canada on a forged passport in 2003.... Last week the border services agency served Mr. Singh with papers ordering him to leave the country on Monday. The exclusion order, which enforces an earlier deportation order, required the 48-year-old Punjabi man to report to the airport for a flight to India.... [The Indian] government [he says] has falsely accused him of having links to terrorism.... Border services officials said they were not willing to wade into the crowd to escort Mr. Singh to his flight."

Today a mob of Sikhs at the aeroport stopped the federal government from deporting an illegal alien. The government ceded its natural and legitimate sovereignty to a mob at the gate. A small group of people kept the government from acting on its own orders. A mob of people attacked democracy in this country and got away with it, like most others here do with impunity. If the government refuses to act in its interest, which is the public interest, and instead accedes to the demands of a mob, then there is no legitimate government here. No, it's not the end of the world. There will be no revolution in the street. But this is another case of a government that is illegitimate. It can only remain so for a time and then the people will be forced to take its place: More mob rule. This kind of government behaviour below is what leads nations to civil war and anarchy.

ERIK MJANES, "Crowd prevents Vancouver deportation." Canadian Press; December 10, 2007

RICHMOND, B.C. — The Canada Border Services Agency has stayed the deportation of a paralyzed Indian man after a standoff at Vancouver International Airport. "For safety and security reasons, Mr. Singh's deportation has been delayed," Derek Mellon, a spokesman for the agency, said Monday. He would not provide any information about when the removal order would be enforced.

About 500 people gathered Monday morning outside the departures level of the airport surrounding a van carrying Laibar Singh. By noon, the crowd had grown to over a thousand, many holding signs and chanting slogans. Supporters stood atop cars with a megaphone leading chants in English and Punjabi against the Conservative government and immigration officials. The agency was forced to delay Mr. Singh's deportation once it became clear officials would have to transport him through the crowd of supporters. Border services officials said they were not willing to wade into the crowd to escort Mr. Singh to his flight. For more than three hours, a standoff between supporters and security officials filled the street in front of the international departures area.


Harsha Walia of the human rights group No One is Illegal broke the news Mr. Singh's deportation had been stayed around 2 p.m.


Earlier, Ms. Walia disputed the border services agency's suggestion that the crowd was a safety hazard, calling it a smear tactic. "We are here as peaceful protesters. CBSA is welcome to go through the crowd. But they will have to answer to people's questions," she said. "They haven't been able to answer me or anyone else whether they believe this deportation is just. Their fear is not of violence, their fear is dealing with the legitimate concerns of people." She said the agency gave no timeline for further action.

"It's up to the government. The government has the ability to stop this deportation on a permanent basis if they don't want to keep playing this cat and mouse game." Within an hour of the announcement, the crowd was almost completely dispersed.

Swara Gill, head of the Kalgidhar Khalsa Darbar temple in Abbotsford where Mr. Singh had been staying, said the Khalsa Diwan Society in New Westminster, B.C., would be taking over Mr. Singh's care. Mr. Singh came to Canada on a forged passport in 2003but suffered a massive stroke three years later that left him a quadriplegic. Last week the border services agency served Mr. Singh with papers ordering him to leave the country on Monday.

He is fighting to stay in Canada on humanitarian grounds because he fears he will not receive necessary medical care if he is returned to India, where he says that government has falsely accused him of having links to terrorism.

NDP MLA Raj Chouhan said deporting Mr. Singh would be inhuman. "People are very angry," Mr. Chouhan said. "They are very concerned about it. "I caution this government if they don't resolve this issue to the satisfaction of the community, this government will pay a big price in the next election."

The federal government in this country is surely not going to call out the troops-- if there are any in this province [not kidding] --to deal with a thousand Sikhs, a group known and proven to commit world-scale terrorist attacks on civilians in this country, in the skies, and abroad. The federal government caved in to coercive behaviour today. There's more and it's as bad or worse.You think Europe sucks? Look:

Naresh Raghubeer, "How ethno-politics poisons democracy." National Post. July 31, 2007

Last week, Ontario Auditor-General Jim McCarter reported that the province's Immigration and Citizenship Ministry has been dispensing millions of dollars in grants to ethnic groups under a process that is "not open, transparent or accountable." In many cases, groups got money simply because their members were chummy with ministry insiders.... Mr. McCarter's report does not merely highlight a failure of process in an otherwise sound government disbursement program. What the Auditor-General documents is nothing less than a taxpayer-funded political black market based on "ethnic" and religious vote-buying.


Awestruck Sikhs beheld $250,000 landing in a temple that was embroiled in a court battle over the alleged mismanagement of funds. Meanwhile, two grants of $100,000 each went to Sikh gurdwaras in Malton and Rexdale, where certain Sikh devotees promote the Khalistan movement and push to break up India. Photos of Sikh "martyrs" cover the Malton Gurdwara's walls. Even an image of Talwinder Singh Parmar is posted there, despite his masterminding 329 murders --including 280 Canadians and 136 children -- in the 1985 Air India bombing, the worst terrorist attack in this nation's history. It is the equivalent of funding a mosque that venerates Osama bin Laden.

The quest for votes means politicians are less willing to differentiate between moderates and extremists: Whoever is seen to control the microphone at the local temple -- and is therefore in a position to guide voting decisions -- gets the cash. Hence, federal and provincial politicians now shamelessly attend Sikh and Tamil events where terrorists are glorified. The same phenomenon may well explain why Liberal leader Stephane Dion had his party vote down crucial expiring provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Act, a law introduced by his own party in 2001. This placated the Muslim and Sikh supporters who helped him win the Liberal leadership. They know the Act's demise will help scuttle the RCMP's last chance to definitively fix guilt in the Sikh terrorist plot against Air India Flight 182, and thereby deny any sense of closure to the families of the murdered victims.

Full story here.

What does a government do when a thousand chanting people show up to defy the people of the nation? For all the rubbish talk in the first story about "The People" it is plain that the people are not a group or groups of ethnic voters. The people are referred to in this country as "The Crown." The people here are those who vote for the government rather than a mob who can get away with anything they can get away with. This country is in deep trouble. In this country, in this country where people only obey laws if they feel like it, there is a coming chaos. There cannot be laws for one group, laws of a different kind for another. That's no law at all. Canada is on the verge of chaos.

The original stories on this claimed the mob was estimated at 500 people. Then it went up to a thousand. Next day in the Vancouver Province, a rag tabloid in the city, raised the number at the aeroport to 1,500. But the more prestigious paper, The Vancouver Sun (for what it's worth) upped the number to a round number of 2,000. Yes, I do complain about government employees being over-paid. But I don't think there's any amount of money that should persuade them to try to wade through a mob, not of 500, not of 2,000. That mob must be confronted, not by some esorts service workers but by the nation and its citizens. Good luck to that.

YWAM and Some of its Opposition.

At Aravada, Colorado there are two dead and two wounded by an unidentified gunman. The shootings began around midnight, Dec. 9, mst. Roughly twelve hours later, at Colorado Springs, Colorado, another shooting took place at New Life Church, a stadium-like building for its 14,000 members, leaving at least two dead, not including the killer who was shot by a security guard and died.

The first shooting took place at a dormitory of "Youth With a Mission," aka YWAM.

The Black Knight's Anti YWAM Anti Youth With A Mission Counterintelligence Page

Stopping the shock troops of "Youth With A Mission" a.k.a. YWAM (pronounced Why-Wham), is the duty of every Muslim. YWAM is a shadowy Cold War organization founded in 1960 that furnished a pretext for CIA involvement in third world countries that were thought vulnerable to communism. YWAM provided fresh-faced youth that masked the operations of the Central Intelligence Agency worldwide in such hotspot locations as Guatemala. Since the downfall of the Soviet Union, YWAM's "mission" has changed from combatting communism to the destabilization of Islam and the Muslim countries. What follows are links to information about YWAM, from them as well as from those opposed to them. It is the duty of every conscientious Muslim to oppose YWAM whenever and wherever possible. Always assume that missionaries are connected with YWAM, for (as noted in the GroupWatch Report) it is their policy to maintain a low profile.

From the L.A. Times: "The first shooting occurred about 12:30 a.m., when a man wearing a dark coat and a beanie entered the Youth With a Mission dorm in the Denver suburb of Arvada. When he asked to spend the night and was turned away, he opened fire, authorities said."

Accounts say the killer was a white man with a beard. None of us, of course, will be surprised to find the man is Jewish from a competing yeshiva. Thanks to interestingconundrum at Jihad Watch.

Matthew Murray, 24 year old living with his parents in suburban Colorado. Not a Jewish settler. This is my surprised look. : O

Sunday, December 09, 2007

Family, Friendship, Business, Sport, War, and Moloko

Occupied Israel: "Muslim gunmen in the Gaza Strip tried to kill another Palestinian Christian over the weekend, sources in Gaza City told The Jerusalem Post...."

Occupied England: "S
ofia Allam simply could not believe it. Her kind, loving father was sitting in front of her threatening to kill her. He said she had brought shame and humiliation on him, that she was now "worse than the muck on their shoes" and she deserved to die...."

Occupied Greece: "Turkey has launched an investigation into alleged collusion between police officers and at least one of the suspects charged with killing three Christians earlier this year at a publishing house that produces Bibles, an official said Saturday...."

There's something not quite right in the lead sentences of the three stories above. Let me think oh I get it.

It would be that three random stories all have to do with Muslims killing people. What kind of Muslims? The tinyminorityofextremist Muslims? Noooo. The Muslim religious scholars who don't understand their religion as well as the New York Times editorial staff do? Maybe definitely noooo again. It seems to be that all three stories are simply about Muslims. Good, ordinary, Shari'a-abiding Muslims. I can live with it. Muslims do what Muslims do, not what I think they should do. It's not up to me to tell Muslims how to be Muslims. They know.

The question of import is what kind of relationship should we have with Muslims, practical relations, real and day-to-day relations. Forget about what kind of relationship I would like to have with Muslims, forget about what Muslims say to us about getting along. Let's look at the possible.

No matter how we slice it, there are simply no mixed families of Muslims and others. No one can go to a mosque and claim to be a convert to Christianity from Islam without expecting to be murdered, and no Muslim woman is allowed to marry a non-Muslim man, because if she does, she will b killed according to the rules of Islam. Muslim men marry non-Muslim women who convert to Islam. Maybe there are practical exceptions but there are no religiously valid Muslim ones. Those practical exceptions? They are in effect apostates, and hence must be murdered. So, our relationship with Islam is never going to be a family one. Not ever.

As often as we hear "racism" in regard to Islam, it ain't no race. The closest Islam come to being a race is in that Muslims are the world's ultimate losers. It means that I can eye any girl on Earth with the idea of having kids with her, of making her and me and the babies a family. But not with Muslims. They are not, cannot be family.

If I must I can dig out the sura and the hadiths prohibiting friendship between a Muslim and others. If a Muslim tells you he's your friend, either he's lying to you, taqiyya, or he's an apostate who isn't practicing his religion. Not my opinion, sorry to say, but canonical Islam. Here's a start: Sura (5:51) - "O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people." There's more here. If you do things that fundamentally betray your religion it's a long stretch to claim you're specifically religious. Betray Islam, you're not a Muslim. Not my opinion. We ain't gonna be friends. I can be a friend to anyone I like, but no Muslim can be my friend without ceasing to be a Muslim. We might possbily have something like friendly relations, but not really. Islam doesn't allow for it. There are Muslims, "the best of all people," and there are dhimmis and pagans and the dead. It's not a basis for a lasting relationship. Not one we would care for, at least. No friendship. Even friendly relations can only last for a short and practical period (hudna) before Muslims are required by law to convert us to Islam, enslave us and make us pay protection money (or in some cases ones children,) or we can just be killed. It isn't a really friendly relationship when you look at it in that light.

Khaled Abu Toameh, "Muslim gunmen target Christian in Gaza," The Jerusalem Post. 8 Dec. 2007

Muslim gunmen in the Gaza Strip tried to kill another Palestinian Christian over the weekend, sources in Gaza City told The Jerusalem Post.

They said four masked gunmen tried to kidnap Nabil Fuad Ayad, who works as a guard at a local church. Nabil's cousin, Rami, was kidnapped and murdered two months ago by the same group, the sources said.

The sources identified the gunmen as members of the radical Islamic Salafi movement.

"They were dressed in the traditional Salafi clothes," said an eyewitness. "They were also carrying guns."


Salafism represents a Sunni Islamic school of thought whose followers argue that Islam was perfect and complete during the days of Prophet Muhammad, but that undesirable innovations have been added due to materialist and cultural influences.

The Salafis, who have become very active in the Gaza Strip in recent months, are totally opposed to common Western concepts like economics, constitutions and political parties. They refer to the 2,500 Christians in the Gaza Strip as Crusaders and have vowed to drive them out of the area.

Hamas denied any involvement in the attack, saying its security forces had launched an investigation after receiving a complaint from the victim.

Christians living in the Gaza Strip told the Post that they were very worried about the increased attacks on members of their community and religious institutions. "The latest incident is aimed at sending a message to all the Christians here that we must leave," said a Christian leader. "Radical Islamic groups are waging a campaign to get rid of us and no one seems to care."

Oh, those guys are salafi, puritans, not real Muslims. We can have a business relationship with most Muslims because they are Human like all others. We can engage them in the marketplace and eventually bring them into the world of trade and profit and monetary exchange wherein all sides gain and no side loses. Except that that's not going to happen.

Hassan al-Banna, founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, writes: "It is the nature of Islam to dominate, not to be dominated, to impose its law on all nations and to extend its power to the entire planet." Al-Banna writes: "God is our purpose, the Prophet our leader, the Quran our constitution, jihad our way and dying for Allah our supreme objective."

Just because al-Banna wrote the lines above doesn't mean they're true to Islam. No, the're true to Islam and that's why al-Banna wrote them. He isn't making up stuff to piss of Americans. Any Muslim who doesn't believe fully that Allah is the supreme everything on Earth and beyond is a Muslim in the same way as is the man who doesn't believe in God or in the divinity of Jesus a Christian. Take some advice from the movies while movies are still allowed, from All That Jazz: "Never bullshit a bullshitter." There is no business to be done between one who is into sharing a profit and a product or service or so on and one who wants it all and is willing to kill to get it. That's not business. There are other words for it. Islam is one of them.

[No By-line], "Muslim apostates threatened over Christianity," The Telegraph.U.K .
09 Dec. 2007

When Sofia Allam left the Muslim faith for Christianity, the response from her family was one of persecution and threats. Alasdair Palmer explores the dangers facing Islam's apostates

Sofia Allam simply could not believe it. Her kind, loving father was sitting in front of her threatening to kill her. He said she had brought shame and humiliation on him, that she was now "worse than the muck on their shoes" and she deserved to die.

And what had brought on his transformation? He had discovered that she had left the Muslim faith in which he had raised her and become a Christian.

"He said he couldn't have me in the house now that I was a Kaffir [an insulting term for a non-Muslim]," Sofia - not her real name - remembers.

"He said I was damned for ever. He insulted me horribly. I couldn't recognise that man as the father who had been so kind to me as I was growing up.

"My mother's transformation was even worse. She constantly beat me about the head. She screamed at me all the time. I remember saying to them, as they were shouting death threats, 'Mum, Dad - you're saying you should kill me… but I'm your daughter! Don't you realise that?'?"

They did not: they insisted they wanted her out of their house.

After three weeks of bullying, and just before her parents physically threw her out, Sofia left. "They put their loyalty to Islam above any love for me," she says, her voice faltering slightly.

"It was such a shock. I remember thinking when they brought all my uncles round to try to intimidate me - all these men were lined up telling me how terrible a person I was, how the devil had taken me - I remember thinking, how can this be happening? Because this isn't Lahore in Pakistan. This is Dagenham in London! This is Britain!"

Religious persecution of the kind Sofia suffers, however, is increasingly common in Britain today. It is hard to get an accurate notion of the scale of the problem, not least because very few of the people who leave Islam are willing to complain to the police about the way they are treated.

"Intimidation is very widespread and pretty effective," says Maryam Namazie, a spokesperson for the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain. She believes that many of the deaths classified as "honour killings" are actually murders of people who have renounced Islam.

"I get threatened all the time: emails, letters, phone calls," she says. "When I returned home this afternoon, for example, there was a death threat waiting for me on my answering machine…" She laughs nervously.

"A lot of them aren't serious, but occasionally they are. I went to the police about one set of threats. They took a statement from me but that was it - they never contacted me again."

That treatment is in sharp contrast to the seriousness with which the Dutch and German police responded when members of the Council of Ex-Muslims in those countries made complaints to the police about death threats.

"The heads of the Dutch and German organisations are today both living under police protection," Ms Namazie explains.

Last week, it was reported that the daughter of a British imam was living under police protection, after receiving death threats from her family for having left Islam.

But it is not only extreme Muslim families that believe it is their religious duty to threaten, and even kill, members who renounce the religion.

"My father could not be described as an extremist," insists Sofia, who is now 31. "We read the Koran and prayed regularly together, but he never insisted on my wearing Islamic dress and he was quite happy that I went to the local comprehensive, which was all girls, but not by any means dominated by Muslims."

There were conflicts when Sofia's parents tried to arrange a marriage for her at the age of 18, but they seemed to accept her decision to continue her education.

"They even let me go away to university," she explains. "I appreciated how difficult it was for them to grant me that freedom, and I was very grateful for it. In the event, though, I only lasted three months - I just got so homesick that I had to come back to Mum and Dad."

Sofia got a job in a hotel and quickly became a manager. Her interest in Christianity was entirely self-generated. She acquired a Bible, which she hid in her bedroom. But four years ago, her mother found it.

"She confronted me one morning with, 'Are you still a Muslim?' I had to tell the truth: I didn't think I was. From that moment on, she basically disowned me. My father was shocked and saddened. But the reality was that my parents behaved to me as if they thought it would be much better if I was dead."

Most leading Muslims in Britain are unequivocal in their denunciation of British Muslim parents who threaten to kill their children for leaving Islam.

Ibrahim Mogra, of the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB), says that it is "absolutely disgraceful behaviour… In Britain, no Muslim has the right to harm one hair of someone who decides to leave Islam."

Inayat Bunglawala, also a spokesman for the MCB, insists that such behaviour in Britain is "awful and quite wrong. The police should crack down on it."

And yet a significant portion of British Muslims think that such behaviour is not merely right, but a religious obligation: a survey by the think-tank Policy Exchange, for instance, revealed that 36 per cent of young Muslims believe that those who leave Islam should be killed.

There is considerable support, from the Koran and other sacred Islamic texts, for that position - which may explain why, out of the 57 Islamic states in the world today, seven have a legal code that punishes Muslims who leave the religion with death.

That number may soon increase: Pakistan is currently considering a Bill that would make apostasy a capital crime for men and one carrying a sentence of imprisonment for women.

As it is, ordinary Pakistanis take the law into their own hands and kill Muslim apostates. The same thing happens in Turkey where, earlier this year, two people were killed for "having turned away from Islam".

Patrick Sookhdeo was born a Muslim, but later converted to Christianity. He is now international director of the Barnabas Fund, an organisation that aims to research and to ameliorate the conditions of Christians living in countries hostile to their religion.

He notes that "all four schools of Sunni law, as well as the Shia variety, call for the death penalty for apostates. Most Muslim scholars say that Muslim religious law - sharia - requires the death penalty for apostasy.

"In 2004, Prince Charles called a meeting of leading Muslims to discuss the issue," adds Dr Sookhdeo. "I was there. All the Muslim leaders at that meeting agreed that the penalty in sharia is death. The hope was that they would issue a public declaration repudiating that doctrine, but not one of them did."

The reluctance to condemn sharia law is widespread. I asked Mr Bunglawala, for instance, to condemn the Islamic states that imposed the death penalty for apostasy. He did not do so, merely commenting that "it was a matter for those states".

Given the acceptance by some that Muslim religious law does indeed require that apostates be killed, it is hardly surprising that many ordinary Muslims think that it is their religious duty to carry out that punishment - or at least to threaten it.

"There can't be freedom of religion in Britain while so many British Muslims take that attitude," Sofia says. "It frightens me, because attitudes have hardened over the past decade."

Still, won't her parents eventually just recognise that she has chosen to change her religion? Won't they, in 10 years' time, accept her back? "No," Sofia says, her eyes full of tears. "That will never happen. I know it. They will never accept me the way I am."

In the field of engineering, something our Muslim cousins seem attracted to for devious reasons, there is a description of change: it is, six alterations make a new thing.

Am I claiming that Islam cannot be reformed? Yes, but let's ignore me for a while. Hey, I'm used to that.

A believing Muslim, a legitimate Muslim according to Islam, is one who believes he and his co-religionists are "the best people." Islam is perfect. Allah is the only god to worship. The Koran is immutable and perfect. Mohammed was perfect. Yadda, yadda, yadda perfect. "Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them...." Perfect. There is, according to the multiple thousands of canonical primary Islamic texts, i.e. The Quran, ahadith, and sira, no getting along with non-Muslims. It's clear and it's not changeable without making Islam into something not Islam. So, if no getting along is possible, what kind of adversarial relationship can we have? I know! How about sports?

Here's the deal with sports: we agree that we are playing a game. We agree on the purpose of the game, i.e to do this and that and keep score till one wins and the other loses. If we aren't sort of evenly matched one side will handicap itself to make things fairer. And we'll agree to play by rules.

I'm your coach. You hear me say this in the locker room before you head out to play:

"We're not here today to win or lose but to play the game in the hope that both sides can sit down and come to some kind of mutually satisfactory agreement about who should have which score and who should get which rewards. We're going to play by the rules but we have to accept that our opponents will possibly come over to us and shoot us. That's OK because a few generations ago the other side claimed to have had a great team and we beat them. Now it's their turn to beat us, even if it means killing some of us and stripping us of our freedom and even our wives and children. Now, I know some of you are going to resist this, maybe claiming you don't have any relatives from some colonial nation or something but not to worry, we are all guilty anyway in some metaphysical sense. The other players have rules that we might not agree with, like murdering us and raping our wives and selling our children into slavery, but hey, we aren't perfect either. So go out there and give 'em one for the ... well, whatever his name was. Rah, Rah, Rallah!"

I'm thinking a sporting relationship isn't all that likely.

[No By-line], "Turkey investigates alleged ties between police and alleged killers of Christians," Canadian Press. Dec. 8, 2007

ANKARA, Turkey - Turkey has launched an investigation into alleged collusion between police officers and at least one of the suspects charged with killing three Christians earlier this year at a publishing house that produces Bibles, an official said Saturday.

Two senior police inspectors will be assigned to investigate whether any officers provided assistance to the suspects, an Interior Ministry official said on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the media. He did not provide further details.

The three Christians - a German and two Turks - were killed in the southern city of Malatya on April 18. The killings - in which the victims were tied up and had their throats slit - drew international condemnation and added to Western concerns about whether Turkey can protect its religious minorities.

Five people were arrested and charged with murder. The trial opened last month, but was quickly adjourned until Jan. 14 because defence lawyers requested more time to prepare their arguments.

The Interior Ministry decided to open an investigation after several newspapers published stories Saturday alleging co-operation between police and at least one of the suspects.

Radikal newspaper quoted two of the suspects, Abuzer Yildirim and Salih Guler, as saying in their testimonies that a third suspect Emre Gunaydin told them that he had met with police officials and learned about the locations of Christian churches in the city.

"I asked him who are the police chiefs that you are speaking to, he said: 'Don't ask, take it easy,"' Radikal quoted Yildirim as saying.

Similar allegations have also emerged after the January killing of an ethnic Armenian journalist, Hrant Dink, who was detested by hardline nationalists because he described the mass killings of Armenians in the early 20th century as genocide.

Turkey denies the deaths constituted genocide, insisting those killed were victims of civil war and unrest.

Critics have accused authorities of failing to act on reports of a plot to kill Dink but there has been no evidence that directly implicates any police or government officials in the slaying of Dink outside his office.

Many Turks are convinced that a so-called "deep state" - a network of state agents or ex-officials, possibly with links to organized crime - periodically targets reformists and other perceived enemies in the name of nationalism.

Christian leaders have said they are worried that nationalists are stoking hostility against non-Turks and non-Muslims by exploiting uncertainty over Turkey's place in the world.

The uncertainty - and growing suspicion against foreigners - has been driven by Turkey's faltering EU membership bid, a resilient Kurdish separatist movement and by increasingly vocal Islamists who see themselves - and Turkey - as locked in battle with a hostile Christian West.

There are roughly a billion or so Muslims in the world today. What kind of practical relationship are we going to have with them? The title suggests I'm going to end this post with the idea of war. Well, yeah.

Islam, according to those who don't understand it, is a religion. As a religion it can adapt and change into anything its practitioners wish it to. If Islam were a private and individual thing about worship, even if it were done communally at a mosque, we wouldn't care much, and we wouldn't be feeling the need to go to war against Islam. But Islam is not a religion. It is a poligion. It is a public war programme. Take away six parts of the Quran and there will still be countless other canonical and legitimate elements that will require the legitimate practitioner to go to war. Islam is a seventh century tribal code dressed up as a revealed religion. It isn't any such thing. And to make it into a religion at this late date would mean to make it what it is not and what it has never been, and to make it into not-Islam.

Is every Muslim a war-mongering jihadi? No. But those who are not are required to aid and abet those who are. Shirkers go to Hell, according to Islam. Go ahead and change that. Change the other things to do with Islam as a war cry. Then you have nothing left of Islam as it is and has been. "Not-Islam."

What kind of practical relationship are we able to have with people we can't marry, can't be friends with, can't do business with, can't expect fair-play from?

We can hope they change.

Back to the real world.

We are going to see extermination campaigns against Muslims in Europe. We will see a continent fed up and frightened and enraged. The people of Europe will rise up and retake their native lands, and rightly so. Muslims want the universe for themselves, and to get it they have to take from those who have already. It is only reason and nature that those who have will resist losing to those who come to take. Looking at history tells us that the United States of America waged war on two fronts in World War Two against two highly sophisticated empires, Germany and Japan, and that we beat them both till they surrendered unconditionally. The Western world has advanced technologically in the past 60 odd years since the end of WWII. Has the Islamic world matched our feats of weaponry and war? You say the Romans could beat the Muslims today? You say the Europeans were disgusting in the past war? You say they'll act differently now because they have outgrown Human nature since the end of the war?

I don't see any hope for a peaceful resolution of our conflict with Islam. They don't want one.

We can't rightly decide that all people are just like us. There is no "us." There is a Muslim world, and it's made up of millions of individuals who act like a rock falling off a mountain side. Everything they believe in is a failure in terms of life as it is among others all around them. Those who give it up and defect to the rest of the world will possibly survive. Those who cling to the ways of Islam will be forced to die to maintain their Islamic identity. The Muslims have an identity. Westerners do not have such a thing. Westerners do have an inheritance, a grasp of Humanness that they haven't let go of because they are Human. Westerners have a sense of family, hence the nativist movements brewing across the land. Westerners have a sense of friendship with others that the tribalists of the ummah do not have. Westerners have a concern for business that keeps us alive and healthy and more or less content much of the time. We have a sense of fair-play that extends to others who play fair and by the rules. We have the proven nature of the world's greatest killers. We are not we, though. We are individuals. We in the West are a long beast: We have a head, a middle, limbs, and a long tail. The tip is not the opposite tip. As a mass we are a killing beast. Not a rock falling into space to crsh and stall. We are a moving thing that kills and eats. We do it better than any others. We do everything better than others. We do so because we are not we. We can think: Is this good for me? We don't blow ourselves up for the sake of translucent virgins. We drop atom bombs on cities and blow them up instead because it's good for each of us to win. It's good for me, good for my family, good for my friends, good for business, good sport, and the enemy had to die.

Muslims are fucking with us badly. Something has to give. We have to resolve an unbearable relationship. "What's it going to be then, eh? A bit of the ol' ul-tra Vi Oh Lence, oh my brothers?"


A British Reader

Maybe it's not a fair comparison. The comment below is from a reader at Brussels Journal. One would suspect that he's a typical person reading and commenting there. I find his comment to be dead-on and funny. Maybe it's just me. Then I compared this writer below to the Muslim Thinker in the post directly below. Maybe it's not a fair comparison.

Did you say "Church"?
Submitted by Aisling on Fri, 2007-12-07 16:36.

The Church of England has a lot to answer for. It's never stood for much theologically speaking (the best definition comes from the Irish playwright Brendan Behan, who in a famous quatrain said that its foundation stones were "the b***s of Henry the Eighth"); attendance has had, very often, a lot more to do with social conformity than with religious devotion, and in the last few years the CofE has, rightly, become the laughing stock of television programmes. It's basically a bunch of cretinous, politically correct semi-atheists who haven't got the guts to follow their non-belief to its logical and honourable conclusion, i.e. resign and get a real job somewhere.
Dr Nazir-Ali seems to be an honourable exception in this sea of dhimmitude and vacuous do-goodism; hopefully he'll try to explain to his brethren that Muslim religious leaders are not going to change from bigots to reasonable people just because of a few invitations to tea and bickies.


A Muslim Intellectual

Omaha massacre raises issues of American hypocrisies

By Ray Hanania

(Jerusalem, Israel/Palestine) When an unknown man pulled out his gun and started randomly shooting shoppers killing nine and wounding more than five at an Omaha, Nebraska shopping Mall, Wednesday, the first thing I feared was terrorism. I wondered, "Was he Arab or was he Muslim?" When they identified the "terrorist" as Robert Hawkins, a White unemployed 19 year old who had complained about losing his job and being kicked out of his home, I asked myself, "Isn't he a terrorist, too?"
I bet millions of Americans asked the same question.

But once we learned he was not Arab or Muslim, the killer went from being a "terrorist" to just another murderer.

It made me wonder why Americans do not describe killers by their race and religion unless they are Arab or a Muslim?

Isn't Hawkins a White American Christian terrorist killer?

Some will argue he probably didn't kill his victims in the name of his religion – which I assume is Christianity. But I say he is the victim of an American society that has serious moral and ethical problems when it comes to how they treat other people.

Hawkins was a young kid kicked out of his home by his parents. He was unemployed after he was fired from his low-paying job at McDonalds. He broke up with his girlfriend. He even had some problems with the law.

These are all American and Christian traditions, whether he declares his actions to be a devotion to his religion and lifestyle or not.

The Israelis did not miss the similarities between Hawkin's terrorist rampage and the violence they and Palestinians face in the Middle East.

As Hawkins was entering the Von Maur Store in the Westroads Omaha Mall in Nebraska on Wednesday, I was entering the Malha Shopping Mall in West Jerusalem.

But, while Hawkins easily strolled in with his guns, apparently, I walked through a security net that includes metal detectors, guards at all Mall entrances, and sharpshooters on nearby buildings....

I'm sorry to cut it off there but I couldn't take any more of it. The writer above is just short of the natural genius of [one of our C.Z. commentators], and it's too much for me. Obviously it's just the right thing for many people. The above is the usual level of intelligence one meets in Leftist writers and Leftist (so-called) thinkers. It is so profoundly stupid that one must ask if it's genuine or if some evil comedian made it up. Sorry, dear reader, that stuff is all to common. If that is what the average American Muslim reads and accepts, then what does it tell us about the average American Muslim? And then, So what?

If we know and if we openly acknowledge (even if only to ourselves) that the level of understanding of reality shown in the above work is typical of Muslim intellectuals, then we can learn to deal with them in our midsts as they are rather than as what we might have thought they are. The question is to decide whether the above is typical of the level of understanding of the average American Muslim. My anecdotal evidence is yes. Maybe you disagree. But if I'm right, then we must deal with Muslim intellectuals in a way entirely different from the way we would deal with intellectuals of a different level of competence.

Just making a circle in the sand with my toe here. Will return with three stories of Islam later in the day.