Saturday, April 24, 2010
Some wag has declared May 20, 2010 as "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day." Count me in on that too. I'm all for insulting Islam all the time. Yes, I'm so out of shape I can't draw breath, and I'm so dense at times I can't draw a conclusion; but I can draw a picture of Mohammed with my eyes closed. Here's a sample of how clever I am, me an artiste.
Here's my version of Mohammed seeing a six year old girl he can't rape, unlike his wife Aisha:
I particularly like the way I rendered his down-turned mouth. Feel free to praise me there. The three eyes is a nice touch on my part, too. It's why they call me an artiste. The beard is fabulous, if I do say so myself.
And this is one of Mohammed's mind even while he sleeps:
I had friend tell me this artistic drawing of Mohammed's mind looks an awful lot like heart disease. I laugh out loud. We all know Mohammed didn't have a heart. It's his mind. Sleeping.
Here's one of my favourites, Mohammed working as a greeter-lady at Walmart.
I think its the prettiest version I've seen of Mohammed at work. It was really hard to draw, but I don't care. It's worth it.
May 20, 2010. Everybody draw Mohammed. I'm gonna do it some more. You can too, even if you don't have the artistic abilities I have. Send your submissions here and I'll try to post them as they come. Post them everywhere. Everybody can draw Mohammed. Good luck, good hunting.
Look for a moment at the size of our nation, of America. Look, if you will, at the size of the average city. Look even at the size of the walk from your home to the grocery store and the distance back. How would you, without petroleum, get from here to there and back again, with or without what you carry? Man's personal energy, his ability to move from here to there and back again, is limited to the strength of his body. Is yours capable of even getting to the store and back with food for you and your family? Without gas and oil, how would food get to to the store in the first place for you to buy it? No trucks, no roads, no distribution, no employees to make it possible for you to live. Energy, that which comes from gasoline, from oil, is power, a power no single man has enough of to make life as we live it today possible in any regard. It's about oil. It's Power to the People.
Friday, April 23, 2010
Update: French blog Bivouac-ID posted a picture of the poster (content warning!). The caption reads "Mohammed with wife, he's 53, she's 9. Is this the type of marriage we want to see in Skåne?"http://islamineurope.blogspot.
The anti-Islam Skåne Party put posters with cartoons in twenty different places in Malmö. The posters portray the prophet Muhammed naked with a 9 year old wife by his side. The posters have been reported to the police by both the police and at least one person. The reporters think it could be hate speech.
"There's no reason for that. We're attacking Islam, not people who believe in Islam. We consider Islam to be very dangerous and psyco-social infectious disease," said Carl P Herslow, head of the Skåne Party, who thinks the posters defend freedom of expression and the press.
The party held seats in municipal councils in the past. In the 2006 elections the party got 1.8% of the votes and therefore dropped out. The party will run in the next elections.
On Tueday Björn Lagerbäck (FP) contacted Sydsvenskan. He heads the municipality's recently established Dialog Forum, where different groups in Malmö can convene to discuss "the values that divide and unite".
"The city of Malmö clearly opposes the posters. We appeal to all Muslim groups not to let themselves be provoked. The Skåne Party is a small, isolated sect," he said.
According to the Skåne Party, at least nine of the posters were vandalized since they were put out Monday. The party did not want to say who designed the cartoons.
The Muslim Association of Sweden demands an apology from Skåne Party leader Carl P Herslow.
"The party's posters are hate speech," the association's leader Mahmoud Aldebe said in a statement.
"The Skåne Party is ," said Mahmoud Aldebe.
And what do we call a politically driven religion that promotes child marriage if not "a small, isolated, terrorist sect which should be banned from participating in the fall election"? Well, we could call it a large, triumphalist, terrorist movement which should be banned from participating in the fall or any other election. But then, we'd have to call that Islam.
What do Muslims say to each other when they think no one else is reading?
Aisha: (Allah be pleased with her) reported: "Allah's Apostle (may peace beSahih Muslim 8:3310
upon him) married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his
house when I was nine years old."
"My mother came to me while I was being swung on a swing between twoTabari IX:131.
branches and got me down. My nurse took over and wiped my face with some
water and started leading me. When I was at the door she stopped so I could
catch my breath. I was brought in while Muhammad was sitting on a bed in our
house. My mother made me sit on his lap. The other men and women got up and
left. The Prophet consummated his marriage with me in my house when I was
nine years old. Neither a camel nor a sheep was slaughtered on behalf of
Narrated Aisha: "The Prophet engaged me when I was a girl of six (years).Sahih Bukhari 5:58:234
We went to Medina and stayed at the home of Bani-al-Harith bin Khazraj. Then
I got ill and my hair fell down. Later on my hair grew (again) and my
mother, Um Ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some of my
girl friends. She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she wanted
to do to me. She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the
house. I was breathless then, and when my breathing became Alright, she took
some water and rubbed my face and head with it. Then she took me into the
house. There in the house I saw some Ansari women who said, "Best wishes and
Allah's Blessing and a good luck." Then she entrusted me to them and they
prepared me (for the marriage). Unexpectedly Allah's Apostle came to me in
the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a
girl of nine years of age.
(Allah be pleased with her) reported that Allah's Apostle (may peace be uponSahih Muslim 8:3311
him) married her when she was seven years old, and he was taken to his house
as a bride when she was nine, and her dolls were with her; and when he (the
Holy Prophet) died she was eighteen years old.
Sahih Bukhari, affirms in no less than five places that Aisha was six when Muhammad took her and nine when he consummated the marriage
(vol. 5, bk. 58, no. 234; vol. 5 bk. 58 no. 236; vol. 7 bk. 62 no. 64; vol. 7 bk. 62 no. 65; and vol. 7 bk. 62 no. 88).
It is also in Sunan Abu Dawud (bk. 41 no. 4915), another of the Sahih Sittah, the six hadith collections Muslims accept as most reliable.
We can change that by working hard to make our nation healthy and strong, which is much a matter of telling whingers to shut up. It's not deep philosophy, it's just simply telling the next person who tells you, "America is the most evil nation on Earth," to "Shut the f*ck up."
Will you win an argument with that? will you make a friend? Will you do anything to change the fool's mind, such as it is? Not a chance. All you'll do is get off your knees and give others around you a chance to cheer when they hear you. Off our knees. It's our turn to kick some arse.
Thanks to David: Graphics from:
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Comedy Central submits to Islamic intimidation -- now South Park cannot even say the word "Muhammad"
This is why Islamic supremacists issue threats and practice intimidation in the first place: because it works. These Hollywood dhimmis are only making sure that this sort of thing will happen again. an update on this story, and a Free Speech Death Watch Alert: "'Muhammad' now a dirty word on 'South Park,'" from The Hollywood Reporter, April 22 (thanks to Pamela Geller):Now "South Park" can't even say the words "Prophet Muhammad."
After last week's episode of the Comedy Central series sparked a threat (and yes, it was certainly a threat) from a radical Islamic website, the network has cracked-down-for-their-own-
good on creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone during last night's continuation of the show's storyline.
For those who missed the drama, the show's 200th episode last week mocked the one "celebrity" that the series has been largely unable to depict, the Prophet Muhammad, who was hidden from view in a bear costume. A U.S.-based website RevolutionMuslim.com then warned Parker and Stone they could end up like Theo Van Gogh (the Dutch filmmaker who was murdered by Muslim extremists after depicting Muhammad on his show) and even posted the address of the show's production office. The site has since been shut down.
Last night, "South Park" continued the controversial Muhammad storyline, but with a key difference: every instance of the words "Prophet Muhammad" was bleeped out, making the episode practically incomprehensible, especially to anybody who missed the previous week.
Do English people have a natural right to stop England from being over-run by Muslims intent on implementing shari'a in England? do English people have a right to maintain the heritage of England? Do they have a right to a "nation" at all?
Derek Devereaux's graphic of the day illustrates the question nicely. Below that, a bit of exposure of the class-hatred of the English ruling classes of the rest of the English, not docile enough, not colourful enough to make the landscape attractive to those looking past the reflecting pools either side of the walk way to the fields beyond, the deep-cut trench holding back wandering cattle and the working class and their low style of living.
The release of a previously unseen document suggested that Labour’s migration policy over the past decade had been aimed not just at meeting the country’s economic needs, but also the Government’s “social objectives”.
The paper said migration would “enhance economic growth” and made clear that trying to halt or reverse it could be “economically damaging”. But it also stated that immigration had general “benefits” and that a new policy framework was needed to “maximise” the contribution of migration to the Government’s wider social aims.
However, the paper, which was written in 2000 at a time when immigration began to increase dramatically, said controls were contrary to its policy objectives and could lead to “social exclusion”.
Last night, the Conservatives demanded an independent inquiry into the issue. It was alleged that the document showed that Labour had overseen a deliberate open-door policy on immigration to boost multi-culturalism.
Voting trends indicate that migrants and their descendants are much more likely to vote Labour.
The existence of the draft policy paper, which was drawn up by a Cabinet Office think tank and a Home Office research unit, was disclosed last year by Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett.
He alleged at the time that the sharp increase in immigration over the past 10 years was partly due to a “driving political purpose: that mass immigration was the way that the Government was going to make the UK truly multi-cultural”.
However, the full document was made public only yesterday following a Freedom of Information request by Migrationwatch, a pressure group. A version of the paper was published in 2001, but most of the references to “social objectives” had been removed. In the executive summary alone, six out of eight uses of the phrase were deleted.
Labour has overseen an unprecedented rise in immigration, which has led to a rise of about three million in the UK population since 1997. Until recently, it accused opponents who called for tougher controls of playing the “race card”. Labour was forced to change its rhetoric amid concerns that the economic and social reality of immigration had alienated voters in its heartlands.
Gordon Brown pledged to secure “British jobs for British workers” as the recession led to a rise in unemployment and, just four months ago, he was accused of a U-turn when he insisted that it was “not racist” to discuss the issue.
The document released yesterday suggested that Labour originally pursued a different direction. It was published under the title “Migration: an economic and social analysis” but the removal of significant extracts suggested that officials or ministers were nervous over references to “social objectives”.
The original paper called for the need of a new framework for thinking about migration policy but the concluding phrase — “if we are to maximise the contribution of migration to the Government’s economic and social objectives” — was edited out.
Another deleted phrase suggested that it was “correct that the Government has both economic and social objectives for migration policy”.
Sir Andrew Green, the chairman of Migrationwatch, said the document showed that Mr Neather, who claimed ministers wanted to radically change the country and “rub the Right’s nose in diversity”, had been correct in his account of Labour’s immigration policy.
“Labour had a political agenda which they sought to conceal for initiating mass immigration to Britain,“ he said. “Why else would they be so anxious to remove any mention of social aspects?
“Only now that their working-class supporters are deserting them in droves have they started to talk about restricting immigration.”
There will always be an England. The question is, will there be any Englishmen left there to live in it free or dhimmified? will it be a land of Muslim masses and the satisfied Labour aristocrats gazing down at them all in bliss that things are all in their proper order, the poor knowing their place? Now we know:
“If the government doesn't trust the people, why doesn't it dissolve them and elect a new people?” Berthold Brecht.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
The central core of what we refer to as Russia, the European part, is less than a thousand years old, and it was founded by Vikings. To an extent one can make a similar claim of England, in that we had the Viking invasions, and they stayed and blended nicely into the culture we today, or until recently, called our own. But Russian history is not European by a far sight. Russian history as connected to the West is one of competition, primarily beginning in the 19th century, with what we call The Great Game, the rivalry between Russian and the West for power and land in Asia, from Tibet to Turkey and beyond. Because of that rivalry between European powers we left the Great Game for the Cold War, Russians again becoming our natural enemies. Too bad, I think, because though Russians aren't Western in any real sense, they are "Us" in many significant ways we could like if only only. Now they are dying, and we lose not only a rival for power in the world, we lose a bulwark against other evils in our world, particularly Islam. There's nothing good in the destruction of Russia. Mostly it's a tragic thing to see a people die from apathy. Russians don't want to have children. Muslims do. The future is bleak.
DEMOGRAPHİC CRİSİS. The extinction rate of Russians considerably quickened
20 April 2010
According to Russian media outlets, Russia is covered with a new wave of demographic crisis. A natural reduction in number of Russian women of active childbearing age has been going on since early 2008.
According to forecasts of the head of health ministry of Russia, Golikova, by 2020 the number of Russian women at the age of 20-29 would decrease by 4.6 million, or 38%.
For normal growth of the population of Russia 3 million should be born every year, this figure does not exceed 2.08 million today. And now it will only decrease.
To keep the growth of demographic indicators, the average Russian family must have at least 4-5 children, that is completely excluded for Russians in present conditions.
"Today many talk about the impending "demographic hole", but in fact Russia is firmly seated in it, - says director of the institute of international studies of family, deputy director of the Institute of demography school of economics, Zakharov. - Today only to replace the dead Russian families need to have at least two or three children. Thus, an inevitable continuation of the process of population decline expected for Russia.
The depopulation of Russia can be avoided if annually accept on a constant residence up to 1 million migrants. But it is also unlikely, as well as large-scale migration to Russia of "compatriots abroad", on what for some reason the Russian athorities seriously hope.
"Firstly, Russia is waiting for the reduction and the aging of workforce - continues Zakharov. - World history has no examples of such a strong reduction in the population of working age. "Battle of the staff" is ahead.
Secondly, the final collapse threatens the existing pension system - numerically small taxpayers will not take out the necessary level of compulsory contributions for the benefit of children and the elderly.
Thirdly, numerous migrants with diffrent culturies root into the Russian society, who are needed for the Russian economy, even in a crisis. Similarly, many civilizations had disappeared from the world map.
Fourthly, we are waiting for the inevitable decline in the FSB, the Interior Ministry, the army.
Fifthly, Russia will face the problem of demolition or preservation of the vast amounts of housing and social and economic infrastructure in the emptying small cities and towns ..."
Russia expanded its territory at roughly the same period America did. But whereas America became an ever-greater republic of free men and women, Russia became an ever more paranoid empire of Byzantine-like terror, serfdom, and poverty. Where America absorbed the natives into the solid body of the nation, the Russians destroyed whatever they could of the colonized peoples, mostly Muslims. Today we see the Muslims seeping back in where they had been pushed out before. Russia, have thrown off the Mongol Yoke, seems now close to donning the Muslim-imposed yoke of dhimmitude. Trading all the miserable evils of Russian history for dhimmitude at this stage is a shame, and one we must prevent if we too are to remain free peoples. How? Who? What is to be done?
I mean this not in the sense of Leftard economics, so to say, but regarding Muslims. Here I'm serious. I mean that if we don't address Islam in a rational and humane fashion we will very likely, as I am often tempted to do, toss the bastards to the high seas and let 'em drown in their own filth. Then I come to my senses and feel... well, not guilty, but concerned for the future of our race. No, not a racist statement, dear reader, I mean the Human race.
Some people think we must, as a moral position, live in poverty. It's noble to give up the material world in favour of spiritual things. Money? That's dirty, meant only for philistines and Jews and capitalist greedy pig people, not good for artists, intellectuals, and spiritual seekers. And it's just not good at all, is money, because it promotes greed, the taking of more than ones fair share. If you take more than your fair share, then what about everyone else? They won't have any. We'll all die. Mother Earth will be angry. Global Warming! The end of the world! Better to be poor. Don't have children. They eat too much and ruin the Earth we all share. Toss 'em, the hungry little bastards. It's a lifeboat. Poverty is good, according to the Povertarians. But not all are such. Some think it's the right thing to do to risk life and limb to save those who've fallen overboard. Yeah, it's weird. A lifeboat is so crowded. But, if one chucks the moralisms of so many, then there seems to be lots of room. Funny that. So, this kid is swimming and a giant shark comes up from the depths and bites the kid's leg off....
John Singleton Copley, "Watson and the Shark," oil-on-canvas, (1778)
It depicts the rescue of Brook Watson from a shark attack in Havana, Cuba. The original of three versions by Copley is in the National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C..
The painting is based on a real attack that took place in Havana harbour in 1749. Brook Watson was a 14-year-old orphan, serving as a crew member on a trading ship. While swimming alone in the harbour, he suffered multiple attacks by a single shark. On its first attack, the shark bit off a chunk of flesh from Watson's right leg below the calf; on the second attack, it removed his foot at the ankle. The crew of a small boat, who had been waiting to escort their captain to shore, fought off the shark and rescued Watson. His leg was amputated below the knee, but he went on to live a full life, including a term as Lord Mayor of London. The attack is the earliest shark attack to be fully documented.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Saved a kid for what reason?
They that go down to the sea in ships, that do business in great waters; These see the works of the LORD, and his wonders in the deep. For he commandeth, and raiseth the stormy wind, which lifteth up the waves thereof. They mount up to the heaven, they go down again to the depths: their soul is melted because of trouble. They reel to and fro, and stagger like a drunken man, and are at their wits' end. Then they cry unto the LORD in their trouble, and he bringeth them out of their distresses. He maketh the storm a calm, so that the waves thereof are still. Then are they glad because they be quiet; so he bringeth them unto their desired haven.
My guess, ignorant atheist that I am, is that charity arises from faith.
Shark, zawahiri in Arabic. I'm guessing that if you fell off a raft full of Muslims they'd figure you got Allah's reward for infidels. If a Muslim fell off, I'm thinking they'd figure it as Allah's reward for being a Muslim. A raft full of Leftards would likely call a social worker for grief counselling. Normal folks try to save a drowning man attacked by a shark. There are too few normal folks left today, I think so.
If a group of people think in terms only of poverty and limitedness in the world, then they're likelier to let sharks take the weak. Why save anyone whose just going to deplete the resources held by the few, unsustainable consumers all. Better to feed the sharks anyway. It's Mother Gaia. Back to nature.
Here's a lifeboat story that I like a lot, and I hope it resonates with you too, dear reader.
Théodore Géricault, "The Raft of the Medusa" (French: Le Radeau de la Méduse) oil on canvas, (1818–1819)
[D]epicts a moment from the aftermath of the wreck of the French naval frigate Méduse, which ran aground off the coast of today's Mauritania on July 5, 1816. At least 147 people were set adrift on a hurriedly constructed raft; all but 15 died in the 13 days before their rescue, and those who survived endured starvation, dehydration, cannibalism and madness. The event became an international scandal, in part because its cause was widely attributed to the incompetence of the French captain acting under the authority of the recently restored French monarchy.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
In June 1816, the French frigate Méduse departed from Rochefort, bound for the Senegalese port of Saint-Louis. ... Viscount Hugues Duroy de Chaumereys had been appointed captain of the frigate despite having scarcely sailed in 20 years....
In an effort to make good time, the Méduse overtook the other ships, but due to its speed it drifted 100 miles (161 km) off course. On July 2, it ran aground on a sandbank off the West African coast, near today's Mauritania. The collision was widely blamed on the incompetence of De Chaumereys, a returned émigré who lacked experience and ability, but had been granted his commission as a result of an act of political preferment. Efforts to free the ship failed, so, on July 5, the frightened passengers and crew started an attempt to travel the 60 miles (97 km) to the African coast in the frigate's six boats. Although the Méduse was carrying 400 people, including 160 crew, there was space for only about 250 in the boats. The remainder of the ship's complement—at least 146 men and one woman—were piled onto a hastily-built raft that partially submerged once it was loaded. Seventeen crew members opted to stay aboard the grounded Méduse. The captain and crew aboard the other boats intended to tow the raft, but after only a few miles the raft was turned loose. For sustenance the crew of the raft had only a bag of ship's biscuit (consumed on the first day), two casks of water (lost overboard during fighting) and a few casks of wine.
According to critic Jonathan Miles, the raft carried the survivors "to the frontiers of human experience. Crazed, parched and starved, they slaughtered mutineers, ate their dead companions and killed the weakest." After 13 days, on July 17, 1816, the raft was rescued by the Argus by chance—no particular search effort was made by the French for the raft. By this time only 15 men were still alive; the others had been killed or thrown overboard by their comrades, died of starvation, or thrown themselves into the sea in despair. The incident became a huge public embarrassment for the French monarchy, only recently restored to power after Napoleon's defeat in 1815.
I'm much like you, dear reader, in that I can't think of one good scenario that would lead me to think of our collective ship of state running aground to the point that the Modern world will ditch the Muslims and leave them to suffer for attacking us with nuclear weapons or chemical or biological weapons or attack us with computer warfare. It's just not likely that we'll ever be so pissed off at the Muslim world that we'll stop sending them food and medicine and technology they need on a daily basis to survive just because they managed to murder millions of our civilians, a 9-11 on a grander scale. Yes, true, they want to kill us, but they're obviously too fucking stupid to pull it off. I think we can continue to count on that. but then there's maybe, like maybe we can't count on that. Maybe we will, deliberately, cut them loose to drift to death. It might be art, but the picture's not so pretty. It would, as they say, embarrass us.
Nor are normal folks likely to allow the marooning on the high seas a large number of our fellows just because they piss us off in a serious way. We have to share this world, and part of that means we need a captain to steer this ship of state like a man who knows where he's going and how to safely get us there. Our captain can't be there just cause he's pretty and has the right friends.If that's all he ha going for him, we are in serious trouble. Part of that is that we'll watch a very nasty picture emerge from our own lack of courage in ridding ourselves of him and his crew. A lot of lives depend on this. Some will no doubt risk themselves to save those going down to the sea in ships, those attacked by monsters from the profoundest darkness. But many will think it good thing because it's all the fault of the others, the greedy, the rich, the philisitines. That its a good thing to rid ourselves of the weak and hungry. That it's all a matter of not having too much, of being moral and poor. Whose going to save the rotten bastard Muslims? Maybe it'll be Christians, if any one. Won't be me.
Why do we in the modern world suck up to Muslims? They often rob, rape, randomly assault, shoot, burn, commit murder, bomb, and generally act like animals in the Western world, and most people either turn a blind eye to it, pretending it's not happening; or we get "sophisticated" types who blame America, Israel, or the Modern world for the violence demanded of Muslims by Islam itself. Who do these fools think they're foolin'? Well, let's look at some of that according to Kupelian:
Everyone’s heard of the Stockholm syndrome, named after the Swedish bank robbery when two escaped convicts terrorized four hostages in a bank vault for five and a half days, during which time the hostages grew increasingly sympathetic toward their captors and antagonistic toward the police who were risking their lives to rescue them. The hostages, who had been tied to chairs, had nooses around their necks and guns trained on them day after day, ended up siding with their captors wholeheartedly, later raising money for their defense and refusing to testify against them at trial.This is how it spreads, by traumatizing people. Many, just to survive, join the religion.
When we’re seriously intimidated, in a life-threatening way, some of us start to side with whomever or whatever is intimidating us. I don’t mean just cooperating and “agreeing” with a captor as a survival strategy, which makes perfect sense. Extreme intimidation has a way of sometimes flipping our sympathy and loyalty in favor of the people doing the intimidating.
Radical Islam is extremely intimidating – by design. The more crazy it acts, the more powerful it becomes.
If you wonder why people convert to Islam after they have survived Islamic conquest, that is in large part your answer. It's not pretty, and most would never admit their motivation.
Islam, to those who come looking for a definition of dhimmitude, is clear enough in the ideas above: dhimmitude is one option among the very few that a people or person has if and when conquered by Muslims. If Muslims conquer, which is the general history of Islam, the conquered have these choices: They can die. If they do so, their goods are forfeit to the Muslim conqueror.
A second option for the conquered non-Muslim is to convert to Islam and become "one of them." It's not a free pass: many Muslims practice slavery, even against fellow Muslims, in spite of the lofty rhetoric about the universality of the Muslim brotherhood, i.e. the umma. Don't believe that just 'cause they say so.
And a third option for those conquered by Muslims is the soon to be famous condition of "Dhimmitude." It's limited to those who are "People of the Book," al-Ahl Kitab, meaning monotheists, e.g. Jews, Christians, some few like Chaldeans and occasional Zoroastrians. It's less than pretty. If you are killed, your possessions go to he who killed you, minus 20 per cent to Mohammed, in his day, or the successor to Mohammed, the Caliph. If you live, and if you are a monotheist, and if you won't convert to Islam, then you have to give what could have easily been taken from you if you'd died. You, as a "dhimmi," a living lesser being, are in bondage like a dead person forever made to pay for your life. The payment is jizya. Normal folk would call it a permanent shake-down, an extortion tax. It's more than that: it has to be paid "in a state of humiliation." Imagine if a school bully tells you that forever and forever in the lives of your descendents you and they can live only if you hand over your lunch money. Act that out in the adult world. That's dhimmitude.
Some people in the Modern world, and many of them, are so brainless and so deluded that they seem to think that aggressively acting out as dhimmies is a cool thing, an act that shows the world how smart and sensitive and "moral" they are for atoning for imaginary past sins of capitalism and imperialism or any fancy term from post Marxist jargon they pick up without understanding much of it. For Muslims, for the history of Islam, dhimmitude and conquest are the life's blood of the religion, such as it is. Many Westerners, knowing nothing of the history or values of Islam, think it's cool to play at handing over their lunch money, their very lives, and the lives of others, to play this nasty game with serious bad-guys. Some might have Stockholm syndrome, but many are just stupid and conformist and say and do what those around them say and do. Our leaders play this game. Our intelligentsia play this game. Many follow along, stupidly, and demand of the rest of us that we do so as well.
Dhimmitude. Here we say, "NO DHIMMITUDE." Can't have my lunch money, can't make my life miserable, ain't putting up with it. Muslim reaction to that resistance? Jihad. Our right reaction?
"Their madness is neutralized only by strength."
I think this longing for dhimmitude is more than Stockholm syndrome, and so does K. I think it has to do with a deep masochism in Humanness. K. writes of anti-Americanism:
[T]he Left’s very identity and sense of righteousness are tied up in hating America for all its supposed wrongs, arrogance, injustices, exploitations and wars of oppression. And since, as we all know, “the enemy of your enemy is your friend,” cultures that hate and revile America are therefore respected and even admired by the Left, which also hates America. This is one reason Attorney General Eric Holder has pushed to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in civilian court; he secretly – maybe unconsciously – has a certain amount of sympathy for the 9/11 mastermind. The logic of this is straightforward and incontrovertible: KSM hates and blames America, and because leftists like Holder also hate and blame America, leftists “understand” and even sympathize on some level with terrorists, no matter how despicable their crimes.I have a lengthy manuscript on this subject, a story for another time and place. As you will guess, I prefer my thesis to that of others. However, K.'s insights are interesting and valuable in this field. for the whole of the interview, turn to the link below. I hope you find it as interesting as I do.
Monday, April 19, 2010
My friend writes:
This is the first 35mm film ever. It was taken by camera mounted on the front of a cable car. It was filmed only four days before the quake and shipped by train to NY for processing. This film was "lost" for many years.
This film was long thought to be from 1905 until David Kiehn with the Niles Essanay Silent Film Museum figured out exactly when it was shot. The dates was figured from New York trade papers announcing the film showing, to the wet streets from recent heavy rainfall, & shadows indicating time of year & actual weather and conditions on historical record, even when the cars were registered (they even know who owned them and when the plates were issued!)
The clock tower at the end of Market Street at the Embarcadero wharf is still there. The number of automobiles is staggering for 1906. (I'm also wondering... How many "street cleaning" people were employed to pick up after the horses?* Talk about going green!) I can’t believe how disorganized the street scene is – cars, horses, horses and buggies, horses and wagons, street cars, pedestrians (notice all the men in suits) – all going every which way! Good thing they are moving at a slow pace! Also bicycles....
Freedom. Too bad San Francisco has lost it today.Cities in Civilization; Paul Johnson, Modern Times, and Simon Winchester, A Crack in the Edge of the World.
I suspect the police see "self-defence" as a usurpation of their roles and duties as police. That, if it's true, must rile them against such as the EDL.
Also, if the EDL and such defend anything, the police must see this as a conflict with them in that the police are primarily, again I suppose, agents of social control, regardless of what the social situation is. Police are seldom revolutionaries. They seem to crave at all costs, order, public and private. Thus, we can see such things as democrats being caged while Trotsyites are allowed to run wild, the latter being "allowed" in the socialist utopia that is England these benighted days. Trotskyites are favoured among the radical union of government and the day's order; democrats are not.
And if the democrats, i.e. the people, are defending the culture, then they are in a major sense provoking a reaction against the order, not to say the order, as is. This dissension puts the demos at odds with the defenders of the order. Defence creates a tension where otherwise there would be none.
Where, the police might ask, will defence end? Will defence come to more than placard waving? Will the people act in defence of themselves and their nation and culture in more and increasingly aggressive ways? I can see the police siding with Trotsyites for the simple reason that the police don't care who rules or what rules are the nature of the game. So far, and I suspect things will change soon enough, the culture will shift jihad and Trotskism out of general favour in the government, and then the police will favour such as the EDL. Till then, probably not so much. One must be patient.
As much as I hate Gandhi, I think this is an appropriate time to practice some public "passive/aggressive" civil disobedience. I will suggest also that being "though" isna matter of how much punishment one can deliver on another, but how much one can take without caving in and crying. Can EDL demonstrators take some real beatings without running amok? Can they show the world, if only through the Internet, just how tough they are by bleeding on t.v. cameras?
We should have the strength to crush the fascists' fists with our faces. All that takes is will of iron, not physical strength. And in truth, if not so pleasant, nothing makes a man a firmer believer in something than his having shed his blood for it.
It matters not a whit whether Muslims will trample passive non-Muslim resistance in Britain at this time. That is to be welcomed in some sense, in that it will motivate greater resistance among the passive/apathetic and the usual conformist-authoritarian citizen who sides with Force against the people as a matter of course once they see the disregard for custom and law being physically bloodied. Thus: most people will listen politely and nod in agreement with any lies the authorities tell them right up to the point they themselves are able to see that innocent blood is spilled unjustly. If Muslims beat up a woman in broad daylight and kick a man or shove a broken bottle at his neck, and if there is no counter-charge, then the outrage is shocking even to the usually antagonistic conformist in favour of "Order." This is not a game for dilettantes; it is a real and serious effort to destroy a counter-culture of dhimmitude and Left dhimmi fascism as dangerous as a take-over by jihadis themselves. It requires serious and disciplined people willing to suffer physically for the sake of the nation just as they would, perhaps will, in the face of any national emergency in war-time. That the government is the enemy of the people is neither here nor there: that the people are the nation and the government is the state is something to be learned in blood. That, played dramatically and properly in public for the sake of propaganda in war-time, is a serious and needed tactic that serious people have to consider as right. Public martyrdom. It's not for the sake of Muslims to add to their coup-counting; it is for the sake of steeling the masses to the inevitability of physical resistance against their usual resistance to challenges to routine and challenges to authority. If non-Muslims are beaten or even killed, this is a natural advance in the struggle we are engaged in. In the real world, that's the way it is. We don't have to like it, we just have to endure till we can change tactics.
That Muslims might, as we have seen in N.Carolina, for example, run over civilians with their cars, is a good thing for the people to witness, hard as it is for people run over. But the point is to show by example that the Muslims are the aggressors; and then, over and over, if it takes so long, slowly there will be a natural resistance to brutalizing of the innocent. It matters not that Muslims will become more aggressive in the face of passive resistance: that is to the good. We will see more, and more open, disgust against Islam as "Force," i.e the government, does less and less to protect the people from the harm of jihad. Then the people will refuse to believe anything the government claims, will stop supporting the powers that be simply because of a natural inclination to support any Power in power. Then we will see, having the names and bodies to prove our point, that the jihadis are a menace.
One would think that there are more than plenty as of 9-11 if not long prior. Such, obviously, is not the case. There needs be yet more blood spilled and more agony shown to the world and to the people particularly in this case of England before we can rightly take up an aggressive resistance against the jihad.
We can't rightly concern ourselves in this state of conflict over such sentimentalities as blood loss and lives lost on our side. That's a part of war, and this, as much as some vocally claim it to be so and seemingly only, really is war. War requires discipline and sacrifice and will, all based on intelligent action, not just stupid fury and rage.
We don't need to see any jihadi blood spilled at this time. We have to see our own blood shed. Feed the people with their own blood and they will grow from it into a genuine army of righteous avengers.
No, the police are not stupid; they are not intelligent either: they are in-the-moment pragmatic. The last thing a democracy needs is intelligent police. Intelligent police come up with ideas of their own, see things according to their independent lights, and have the skills, organization, and force to make it so: a police state.
David in Thailand claims, to paraphrase slightly, that police attempt to defuse the situation by removing the lesser pressure from the conflict: Islamic groups will quickly turn violent; anti-Islam groups do not-- even if provoked. Police prudently curtail anti-Islamic activities. For political expedience, since the presence of anti-Islamic groups are likely to inflame Islamic groups, police neutralise pro-civilisation groups to keep the peace. It's easy and generally effective. It's practical, prudent, and easier. The police can maintain an acceptable level of conflict and mayhem at low levels they can cope with. They remain in control of the otherwise out of control. It is our job to increase the unrest, not by engaging in counter-violence ourselves, but by adding blood to the fire. Our blood.
We would be wrong to think the police will recognize the justice of our positions. We will be wrong and foolish to think so. The police are not, and should not be, a moral force in society: they are a communitarian force of order-keeping. Ideally, right and wrong should mean nothing to the police, only the law should matter and its legitimate enforcement. We do not, in our democracies, desire a moral police force taking upon themselves the arbitration of the moral, taking that from the courts and parliament where it rightly belongs, that power being delegated to representatives of the people through elections. If it were to come to it, we should expect the police to enforce Shari'a in Britain. It is not the place of the police to mutiny against the government, regardless of what the government is, so long as it is legitimate, i.e. in firm and lasting control of the state. We do not want police deciding of themselves right and wrong. If they must, they should resign and be civilians. Thus, we have to look at the police for what they are, not who they are. The police is a tool of the state.
The police, as individuals, are meaningless to our position vis a vis jihad and Left dhimmi fascism. As a machine, we can determine the moves of the police before hand, can manipulate its limited moves in our favour, and gain our needed ends through effective use of the police. We can make the police make the public sympathetic to our cause by making the police helpless to stop the jihadis from attacking us. we cannot expect another man's hammer to be our friend: we might hope that soon we will own his hammer to use as we will. We might have to take a lot of beatings till he tires and we can grab it; but then, dear reader, it's our turn.
To have a turn and to return to our homeland ways, we have to be patient and strong enough to wait out the minor disruptions of this day's evils. The brainless Troksyites, the simpering hippies, the bo-bos, and the dole-sated rioters do not have the strength to maintain a war against us. They can only maintain a façade of control because we do not, as yet, resist effectively. We do not resist effectively because this particular war is one most are not familiar with in their daily experiences: the war of moralisms and sentimentality, the war of the Gnostics against the people. We face an enemy who wield a power of pseudo-religion over the people who do not, as yet, grasp the nature of the enemy.
At the risk of offending against the reason for our being here, some of us for many years now on a daily basic of genuine and dedicated service, Muslims are a tiny minority of savages, unsophisticated and weak primitives who cannot resist anything of Modernity concerted against them. Islam and its Muslim adherents are sh*t on a stick. Islam is a dead dog on the roadside of history. Muslims are scavengers in the modern world living by charity, doomed to starvation in a month's time if the Modernist world cuts off their donated food supplies. Muslims are garbage people incapable of living in this Modern world. They exist by our collective indulgence. They will die in a month should we determine to stop feeding them. They are not the serious threat we face: we are our serious threat. Islam is the sh*t covered stick our own Left dhimmi fascists use to beat the people into submission with. The police do not have an opinion. They care only for order. It's our own people who are our enemies first and foremost.
Before I proceed, allow me to point out that Islam is a world-threat, though I argue it is not a Modernist threat. By no means have I wasted my years in studying Islam: it is a threat to face in the greater world when that comes due. I feel that our first and essential enemy today in the Modernist world is not primarily Islam but is Left dhimmi fascism. There is the rest of the world that is Muslim, and that is a menace we must face sooner than later, armed and aware of it's true nature. But today, on the streets of Britain and Europe, on the streets of America, we face a more immediate threat: our own people. Our Anti-People. We face a force of the false religious: of Gnostics, fanatics and freaks; Irrationalists, anti-intellectuals, anti-Semitic and chthonic; we face creatures of a lost time reified today in the midst of shopping malls and freeways, people who are stark, raving crazy and know it not at all, seeing in their delusions only demons and hatred, Gods and Monsters, themselves-- and the others, others being us. Of course the police will stand aside and defer to such a force. Who would dare to rile such a mob in such a dangerous time? It had better be us.
I argue that we face a movement of religious fanatics, but not at base the Muslims: I argue we face a mob of Gnostics. We face a mob of Irrationalist lunatics under the spell of self-proclaimed, fervently held, and probably unshakeable "gnosis." We face a mob of anti-Christian religious fanatics.
As Swift writes, "One cannot reason a man out of something he didn't reason himself into." I have no sympathy for passive resistance on moral grounds. I'm entirely in favour of necessary violence, though not more. I am in favour of passive resistance if it will turn the passive mass of more or less apathetic authoritarians against the Gnostic mob, against them and toward us. Let the police do their best, as they will, and let us know how to play that same game to our own good favour.
Our time will come.
Traeh. I'm not too optimistic about the mass of Muslims as "just folk," as it were. I've lived among them for too many years to be naive or now even friendly. However, given my overt and oft stated hatred of Islam, (and no worry01, I am not a Muslim,) [Grrr] I do not hate Muslims simply because they are people who are Muslims. They are people first, and that, unless other considerations force themselves upon us, is that. But.
Islam is a slavery, as we know from simple etymology, and it is a horror against Humanness. I'm not interested in the false and sentimental moralisms of the Gnostic Left. Nor am I, (whoever you were who referred to me as a "rightwing religious bigot,) [you f***ing moron,] religious. I am, like most people, Muslims included, a normal guy with a private life. Part of that bundle of privacy that I call my life includes my culture and civilization, shared, necessarily and a priori, with others. It means I must defend and extend my own Humanness where I can to enrich my own life. I cannot rightly live a private life in the midst of a world of slavery, i.e. Islam. My private life means my life is devoted to ending Islam qua slavery. I can't live a good private life in a world of Islamic slavery. Maybe others can. I wouldn't know about that.
Now, who am I, and why do I think I know better how others should live, slavery being a culturally relative matter, a matter of successful adaptation among peoples in specific environs over time?
I'm just one man living a private life that I take to be based nthe notion that all men are created equal. In that I find a moral imperative, aghast as our anti-Kantians will be. That the good of Human freedom is axiomatic, and further, that I have a Will to Power that one must deal with by greater Will if they wish to defeat it. If, as I take to be axiomatic, that freedom and equality under the rational and positive law is good for me and others, then it is universally so without further argument. Those with a bigger gun or a faster draw are welcome to argue, should it come to that. I accept the truth of Robespierre's observation that "No one loves an armed missionary." I repeat, for those who didn't write it down the first hundred times, "Love is vastly over-rated." One must deal with reality; and such sometimes means dealing with Force, as Sorel puts it, i.e. government, or with Violence, i.e. with the temper of the people.
In short summary, my point is that we face a usurpation of legitimate governance of our democracies by a Gnostic elite of oligarchs who must, if we are to regain our liberties as citizens in interdependence, be overthrown, by whatever means we might require to do so. Assuming the good of self-governance of the people as a positive, which I do, the only worthy question is how one attains and maintains such a state. How, having attained the democracy of free-acting peoples in ones homeland, does one live in a world of slavery? I argue for a filibuster for universal Modernity. I won't get myself banned here again by explaining that further. I will conclude by saying that first e take back our democracies from Gnostic usurpers, and then we continue across the world till we are universally Modernist. In that there will be no end. We have much to look forward to.
Eleanor, thank you for so succinctly putting my case to the public. I will refer to a man who bears an uncanny resemblance to me, whose photograph I use as my own in many internet posts, the lovely and clever Jean-Paul Marat, who claimed that the French Revolution and the Terror could mostly have been avoided have the Jacobins simply killed ten thousand in the beginning, rather than having waited till it became necessary to kill a million.
I never know if these links will work. If not, please assume that I'm every bit as handsome as a dead French revolutionary from 1793.
Funny, you! I do like that.
I've been sitting at the feet of our leader for too many year now not to know pretty well the dangers of Islam, even if I hadn't my own personal history in the Middle East and the Muslim wars in Jugoslavia and other places not to go into at this time. and yes, I have not only been studying here and elsewhere on the Internet but have my own small and personal library that makes my floor sag under the weight of the material, much on Islam. I know the threat full well. I don't dismiss it or disparage it as total. I might find others who hate Islam more than I, but what's the profit in that? My hatred f it is that it destroys not only our beautiful Modernity, it destroys the Muslim people who suffer under it as if from a terminal and generational illness, which I have seen in person, congenital illness made real due to Islam and its cultures. I'm not sentimental, and I'm not, regardless of my call for "Machiavellian" pacifism, a non-violent guy. I'm particularly happy to use necessary and rational violence against Force.
My point is that the only reason Muslims in the Western world, increasingly including such places therein as India and others, is because we have a "Povertarian" collectivist movement of anti-Modernists who seem not to have actually read but who deeply love the works, as such, of Rousseau. We have a movement of children, a near crusade, of ugly religious fanatics who know nearly nothing but the catechism of what I refer to as the "German Revolution." Let me explain that briefly.
Muslims have only the power our own people give them, which is too much. Muslims have no organic power in the Modern world because they cannot match their needs to their productivity. Money, for example, is a power tool. To make and retain money on such as scale as needed to be as powerful in America as Muslims are today in America would require centuries of effort and success in the nation, but that would mean assimilation, cultural and social, into the fabric of the nation. Muslims don't have it by right of success in social terms, economic or cultural terms. They got the power they have by the majority ceding power to them. Muslims haven't earned their power at all. And because they haven't earned it, they have no genuine right to it. They can instantly lose it if the legitimate owners of the power Muslims have decide even on a whim to take it away. If suddenly people generally start taking Robert and Hugh, et al, seriously, then Muslims in America will find themselves with the organic, i.e. legitimate power of, say, Maronite Christians as a group. It takes hard-working generations to amass the social capital to become politically and economically significant in a nation as large and wealthy as America. Muslims have gotten their power illegitimately. In a moralistic play-act, some, those Eric Vogelin refers to as Gnostics, have seen, seemingly literally, to it that they, the post-Modernist (po-mo)Gnostics, should rearrange the organic nature of the nation, of Modernity itself, to suit their Gnostic visions of the pleroma. The po-mo Gnostics have decided, and have made real, a new political paradigm on the spot simply because their families over the generations have accumulated and passed on the social capital that the po-mo Gnositcs are now spending on transforming our societies into their Gnostic visions of the way they think we should live, i.e, our nations as Povertarian Utopias.
Muslims have only social capital lent. We are faced with an enemy of Modernity that is, for want of better terms, Hippies. These hippies are the children of a very wealthy and successful American revolution that has nearly alone created a Modernity the likes of which were never imagined in times even so short ago as 100 years. This world of ours, a world of, for example, plastic, is inconceivable to many people even today in the midst of it. I, my own self here and now, can hardly contain my delight in the face of plastic things on my desk. It is, for me, a wonder and a joy. To the rich benefactors of their families, i.e, hippies, the fact that I have beautiful things on my desk, or a desk at all, is a hateful thing to behold. That I have things I don't, as a working class man and child of peasants, deserve by right of class should have things of beauty, and worse, cheap plastic things of sort-of beauty, (for those with low philistine taste,) is an offence against the Natural Order of History. I'm a painfully ordinary guy, and yet, in the face of others superior to me, I dare to have plastic flowers in a coloured vase on a wooden desk. Aesthetically, I am, my existence, my way of living, all of it and me, it is an affront to those with "taste." I presume to be equal in my own mind to those who have more and better and entitlement to the good of Life. I do not know my place. I should, according to Natural Order, be poor and wanting. I should be poor; and hence I would then be "moral." But I have plastic flowers on my desk. This, in this miserable country I live in now, is winter, and I have no right to flowers at this, and likely any other time. I am supposed to be poor and grateful to my betters for anything they might give me. I should accept poverty as a moral good, leaving material things" to my betters who have a higher aesthetic sense and can fully appreciate what is good in the material world, leaving me t the "spiritual" things of ordinary received morality. I have "things." I don't act the servile role, and because I have things, I have distracted myself from my right role as a poor person. I, and most other people in our Modernity, are alienated from our right roles as "poor." we are not real people any more. We are phony-rich. we have taken on roles we do not deserve. They must be stripped from us. It is the moralism, (not a morality at all,) that I term "Povertarianism." According to this religiosity, (not a religiousness) all who offend against the noble poverty they should live in are sinners, greedy, and c. man, according to this hippie neo-feudalist vision of the natural Order, should be, as he once was, before our Modernist Revolutions, a farm animal, Owned and tended and used by his natural superiors. Freedom and privacy, i.e. ownership of ones own life as ones own property, is an offence to the Povertarian aesthete. Only he, the smartest and the wealthiest, should be smart and wealthy. The rest of us, living inauthentically, are like Sarah Palin, stupid and evil and so on. We are bad, clinging bitterly and inaesthetically to our guns and our religions and c. Our colourful lives, our colourful clothing and our colourful homes and stuff therein, is an affront to the aesthete elite. We should be returned to our natural states of poverty and gratefulness to our natural betters.
Now, it's a hard sell to make a Povertarian claim like that based on plain aesthetics. Even the elitist won't like himself saying it. So, he creates a patina of religion to justify his hubris. "Nature" is no longer a sufficient authority for him to claim superiority; he then uses "science" to justify his claim to our inferiority and our place in a state to slavery and poverty. He, the aesthete might claim that it is scientifically true that working class people are using up scare resources to the point of destroying the very planet we all live on. We should thus be poor to save the planet. e should give up the Modernist Revolution that has saved us from poverty.
On top of saving the planet, we would be "authentic" again, in touch with Mother Nature. We would be, ah the joy, happy peasants like my ancestors, happily wandering the Highlands, hand-spun kilts wafting in the balmy breezes of Culloden's bloodied heather. Ah, the natural porridge, the groats, the haggis. No more of that Earth destroying junk food at the supermarket, that "preserved" food from the far corners of the Earth at all times of the year. No Mc Donald's but the neighbours in the Highlands scouting our thin sheep for their dinner, we using the pot for ours we stole from them. Authentic!
The elite know better than to pull such fabricated wool over their own eyes. More, they have an aesthetic need to make a good tale of it all: Rousseau. For the sensitive man of breeding and high taste who desires us all to live our potential best, i.e. as farm animals in his benign care, noblesse oblige, appanage, we should listen to the way it was, la la la, in the time of the golden Age when people didn't encumber their souls with "plastic." People then, when people were "real" had fine lives of no possessions, just living for the moment, mating and frolicking and fooling around in bliss. Yes,like Rousseau says it was. Yes,we might all starve to death, but how romantic and authentic our short lives would be them. and ths philobarbarist nightmare is a pretty story as told by Rousseau and his hackneyed paraphrasers. Hippies across the globe have bought it and resell it.
But in the world of real activity, such a beautiful Utopia as Rousseau's doesn't quite work. The paradise of Bismarck's Prussian socialist paradise does though. If one uses enough force. If one can cajole enough fools into selling their freedom for authoritarian safety from the horror of being alone in the universe as private being. Act it Prussian but call it Rousseau. Call it, let's just say, Obamanation. Call it the German Revolution. None of that fancy French égalité, fraternité, or that damnable liberté. Let's call it Rousseau but let's make it Bismarck.
The Industrial Revolution, the American Revolution, and even the mostly psychotic French Revolution were and are a revolution of significance only matched by the slowly spread Agricultural Revolution. In all those thousands of years of life between, nasty, brutish and short, life was a horror. But life as horror with meaning: It was a life of binding, of belonging, of what some Italian peasants called fasciste, referring to an old Roman symbol of unity of peasants and Power. There was safety in belonging to the collective under the protection of the State. then came the Industrial revolution an its children of Individualism and privacy. a revolution the likes of which no one has seen in the mind ever till it happened, and for many it's worse, continues to happen: Freedom for people like me. I don't need no fucking master, and the master class know it and hate it. They hate me. They hate my low class freedom and my plastic flowers and my dinner at McDonald's.
How can they destroy my freedom if I'm too stupid to see the beauties of a Rousseauesque parardise? If they can't corral me into a Bismarckian commune? If they can't convince me of how unhappy I am being free to destroy the planet? they can give up some of their power to those who would destroy my free nation by violence and subversion. The elitists can flood my free nation with violent jihadis and then condemn me for "racism." they can refer to their gnostic wisdom, their vision of the beyond-the-beyond, and their state as Philosopher Kings to cement their authority over my nation and its force against my Violence.
I'm immoral. I'm stupid. I'm greedy. I'm inauthentic. I'm like Sarah Palin! I prove my ugliness by not being nice to Muslims. Maybe I should die. Maybe, since the police don't want any disruptions in the societies we live in, I should get the Hell out of town and live in the woods. Then perhaps, when we are all living like bandits again or starving on the commune, the Gnostics will see their visions of happy peasants toiling authentically in the fields where they belong, and all will be right again in the world.
But there will be me, a son of Walker! Walker, a walking nightmare of fury and murder and American manifest destiny in the whole of the world. Oh, unlike Marat, I'm not so pretty after all. Not so aesthetically pleasing that the hippies will ever be satisfied with looking at me toiling in their Gnostic fields burying my own for their enjoyment. No, no, no: Walkers walk; and if they trample, it's all to the good.
I'm no expert in anti-Semitism, by which I mean I've never delved into it as a formal study. Let me toss out some random ideas based on what little I know empirically and anecdotally, and perhaps we can go from there into something better over time.
From the near beginning I think we can identify Jewish anti-Semitism, as it were, as one of the more virulent strains of such. Look to the Old Testament for examples of Jewish betrayal of Jews, from, for example, Isaac's family turning on him, David turning on Uriah, the divided Kingdom of Israel itself, and so on. Worse, we can see, if memory serves, and keeping in mind I'm no scholar of such things, the Book of John, in which "The Jews" are despised and hated as a thing abominable. There, I believe, we find the earliest form of Christian anti-Semitism full-blown. That (Jewish) Christians hate Jews for not being Christians. What does this lead to?
Rene Girard who discusses "scapegoats," a universal form of expiating collective guilt. His thesis is that Jesus is at last the God who turns the scapegoat around and halts the practice. Look: James. g. Frazer spends much good ink on describing the near universality of vegetable kings, those who live, blossom, and die for the collective good; and they are often, if not always, sacrificed to the chthonic, i.e. they are killed to ensure their blood fertilizes the Earth for the coming growing seasons. The dead god is resurrected in the flesh of the next crop. The cycle is time, rather than the linear time we live in now. Nothing can change without catastrophe, a lapse into chaos and the primordial rage of unhappy gods Man is at the mercy of. Man's only control over the temper of the gods is to expiate Man's sins by giving to the chthonic gods all the sins of the collective, hence the scapegoat. He is piled high with honours and status, making him worthy of sacrifice to the gods, and his death is seen as a benefit to the masses. Over and over and over; all sacrifice given to keep the order stable and passive. Such is the limit of control of Man over the gods. Such control offers man a safety in an otherwise frightening universe. When time is cycle after cycle of anticipated anger from the gods, one must find a scapegoat to sacrifice. Such a sacrifice must be both worthy of sacrifice and also expendable to the masses.
Jews, being the fount of Christianity, are the patrimony of our time; Judaism being that which we use and live as our own, without our having made it ourselves. Jews came first, and without them, where would the rest of it be? It would not be at all. We might still be pagans and cyclically oriented savages. But, thanks to the Jews, our fathers, we are linear. Do not be surprised to see that the lingering resentment of the Jews as founders of our line are hated for the constant reminder that we didn't create this line ourselves. They came first and are the foundation upon which Christianity is built. Christians are indebted, permanently, and to a group of people they turn to to sacrifice to the angry gods. Now, please wait.
Two themes run universally through our common humanness: resentment and fear.
Resentment is always a part of our experience of living in that we are out of control of our lives without others, both those with us and those around us. We did not come into a new world of our own making and design. Others came before us, leaving us what we have. We have, for example, language. We cannot, as so lengthily put by Wittgenstein, our own private language. we see clearly, in Fichte's efforts, the collective nature of the authenticity of language vis a vis the individual, and with some care, we can see the resentments therein, both a puritanical originist resentment and a "secondist" resentment of, for example Danes. The puritan first are resentful of the impurity of the secondist, and so forth, as we can see in many instances of living. who is original and "authentic," and who is secondary and "alien"?
If we see a Christian base, or a Jesus-centred "ground" of social and cultural existence; and further, if we, like Fichte and others,see culture as organic, "rooted in the soil" of traditional lands, which is to say that man today is connected to man of previous times in one place like the landscape's bounty, then his resentment is co-mingled with the organic language he did not create, cannot be a part of the communal experience without, and cannot change. His resentment must fester; and then his resentment might turn toward those who are within the culture inauthentically, they being his outlet for hostility and resentment against his fear and powerlessness.
Man, seeing himself in time and place as inauthentic, without the boundaries of place and language and people, is not a self: Man is limited and defined by who and what he is not; and he is therefore who he is by what he can connect to what he is not, e.g. language and soil. Man, if we may use the obvious German example, is German because his life springs from the German land from which is forefathers sprang; German due to his speaking the language of his German forebearers, those who had lives previous to him in the place he is now, giving him his identity, his knowledge of others as not him-- but akin. Man, German, for example, is authentic because he is directly related to his collective Germanness through place and language; but he is not other for the same reason; thus he is part of a whole, subsuming himself t the great that gives him his selfness. And being given, as we know, is a punishment that leads to resentment. Being "first" in Germanness is thus an authentic identity. Jews, regardless of their ability to speak and be known to Germans, are not "first" in Germanness but are interlopers in the authentic German ground of being. they are obvious scapegoats for the resentful German. The Jew, living and acting" Germanness in his life, is an affront to German authenticity, much so for the Christian, and moreso for the neo-pagan German nationalist.
If Jews are "first" in monotheism and Christians are "inauthentic," then why no puritan resentment on the part of the Jews toward the Christians in the same way the Germans are resentful of Jewish firstness? Possibly, and I am no expert, the covenant of the Jews is a burden rather than a blessing from God. It is a hardship given to a people who have no reason of themselves for such. The Jews didn't choose themselves to be who they are in the relationship with God. It is a terrible gift, one that doesn't create a pride but a humility that destroys any feeling of superiority. and imagine how that must make others feel toward the Jews.
If the Germans, and I use them only as a convenient example, are "authentic" in their firstness in the land and language, purer than, for example, the wandering Danes and Dutch who have been cut off from the authenticity of the language and land, then what of the Jews who have come from elsewhere and settled in Germanness? That Jews are referred to as "weeds" is inescapable.
How does one reconcile ones feelings of resentment in the face of others having what one desires for oneself? What do one do when, for example, one has a language given to oneself that one cannot be oneself without? One might, if nothing else comes to give meaning to the self, e.g. transcendental and catholic Christianity, resolve to find a purity of self that gives one essential authenticity, i.e one might turn to ones Ethnicity. One might say that one is entitled to (x) due to ones innate belonging to the collective that legitimately had and should have. If one might not in practice have (x), then one might at least collectively have (x) in that ones master might have (x) through which one might share vicariously, as is the case of the Clan Chief system of Scotland, or perhaps more accessibly, that movie stars might have for us so we can imagine. But if the movie star is not-us, is Other, then one might become more resentful than ever.
Let me turn next to fear.
[For further discussion of the burden of the covenant, c.f., I think, to Martin Buber.]
In the universe prior to Modernity the mass was at the mercy of the angry gods. Man was a passive victim of the gods' wrath, and all one could do is propitiate the anger, at best, b saddling the most likely scape-goat with the sins of the collective, sending it into the wilderness to die and take the collective sins with it to perdition.
To laud the scape-goat is to create in the mind a vision of the good made necessarily bad and deserving of perdition. The gods want some great thing sacrificed, but once the sacrifice is made, the guilt of having killed a good thing has to turn to guilt. Thus, one can see resentment against the scape-goat as cause of guilt. Thus, what was revered in its time has been made into something now evil and deserving of death. the act of sacrifice is seen as a good and moral act, saving the authentic from evil carried in the collective by the scapegoat, now gone. But given the nature of Man and time, the sins of the collective build again, necessitating the renewal of the sacrifice. Bring out more Jews.
Girard, as I know second-hand for the most part, says that Jesus is the first to become a reverse scapegoat, and the final one for man. Look at it this way: if man sacrifices to the angry gods, Jesus says he will be the goat, or in this case, the paschal lamb. God says he will offer himself to man as the needed scapegoat so there need be no more sacrifice of scapegoats, the final act being one of generosity of God to man. A rather large act, in my opinion. those whose resentments are as large can look to Jesus as the final sacrifice, and can find resolution in the death of a resurrected Jesus, a vegetable god who will come again without further need for sacrifice, it being guaranteed by God. Man can stop sacrificing others and accept that the last is over.
But Man is often in his own mind so much smarter than God. Man is so often demiurge, or gnostic seer. I'll come to that and fear when I return.
There is the phenomenal Earth and World, i.e. the physical place and the built environment of man as he knows it, roughly the objective as known to the mind and experience as thing in itself. There is also the nuomenal Earth as not experienced by man, objectivity that might have nothing genuine to do with our Earth and world. There is a reality that we can try to know through our experience of the world of senses and the world of reality we can try to know through Reason. There is beyond that, the Is as is. For Jews and Christians, reality is knowable by guarantee of God. A bit off-topic but relevant in the sense of leading to a clearer conclusion, and nothing better springing to mind, allow me to quote a bit of Pope Ben.
“SPE SALVI facti sumus”—in hope we were saved, says Saint Paul to the Romans, and likewise to us (Rom 8:24). According to the Christian faith, “redemption”—salvation—is not simply a given. Redemption is offered to us in the sense that we have been given hope, trustworthy hope, by virtue of which we can face our present: the present, even if it is arduous, can be lived and accepted if it leads towards a goal, if we can be sure of this goal, and if this goal is great enough to justify the effort of the journey. Now the question immediately arises: what sort of hope could ever justify the statement that, on the basis of that hope and simply because it exists, we are redeemed? And what sort of certainty is involved here?
God promises a coherent world knowable to man through Reason. I haven't given the best example from Christianity for that argument, but for now I hope it does the job.
And to conclude:
Islam contradicts that thesis by stating that Allah can and does change the constants of the Rational as his will decides it. "Allah is not constrained," as they say. Thus, the world is unknowable to the Muslim; and thus he must live in fear, having no control over his life by rules of Reason or Faith. Fr the Muslim there is no coherence in either the phenomenal nor the noumenal. (Imagine then what the world is for the atheist.)
In some ways, for the atheist life is far better in light of the unknowableness of the telos; man can become the demiurge of the telos itself by Will. Where there is no God, man is god. Where there is no order or reason, man can make it so by Will of himself.Where there is fear in a frightening universe, man can make it knowable and make it right according to man, man as demiurge, as creator of the universe. man as demiurge no longer must live in fear of the unknowable universe, he can simply reknow it according to how he would desire it to be, and to be right. He need not resent the First Principal or Prime Mover, that being replaced by the Big Bang, and man thereafter being the Prime Mover of Man.
Unfortunately for Man-God, the world never quite conforms to his demiurges, as it were. Man as gnostic, i.e. he who knows the Pleroma, the beyond the beyond, who can see the whole as perfect Man-Creation of his own self, can "see" the perfection of his own vision, but something always makes it not happen as it should. Man-Creator must have a scapegoat, this being the case, someone to lade with the sins of Man so that perfection may be manifest. If his attempts, which he sees as the work of God, ie. himself, are perfect, and if perfection is corrupted, then their must be some evil force in the universe that corrupts, i.e. takes away the good. The scapegoat, if it is rid of, will allow the good to emerge, emanate from Man as demiurge rather than as "descend" from the Titanic Transcendent. Gnostic man can emanatise the eschathon himself, he having replaced the Transcendent, i.e having become God, a Voegelin says. thus, one has control over the universe, and one is not in a state of fear of the gods.
So, where is the eschathon? Why, since the Gnostic knows all, sees all, and is in his mind perfect, the Heaven on Earth he promises? It is wrecked by the Manichean forces of evil such as Sarah Palin and other stupid people like me and you. We are evil. That is why the eschathon is not emanatised. And who are we, generally? Not just stupid masses, we are stupid masses manipulated by the cosmic Manichean evil of-- The Jooos!
That is a hasty nutshell of my own making, is my best at this hour on anti-Semitism and Gnostic hatred of the people, ie. the demos.