'cookieChoices = {};'

The Right of the People to be Secure in their Persons, Houses, Papers, and Effects,
Against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures,
Shall Not Be Violated


Saturday, November 24, 2007

Race, Ethnicity, And Culture

Words can have more than one meaning. The definition of a word is not necessarily that which is in the dictionary. In some cases, the dictionary may provide more than one definition for a word, and yet still not cover all of its popular usages.

Largely, a word is defined by how people use it.

However, when we are debating important issues, with an eye towards eventually influencing public policy, it is important that those of us who are on various sides of an issue tighten up our definitions, so that we can come to an agreement on precisely what we mean to say. The first step in a debate is to define our terms. If a word is being used in a sloppy manner, then it muddies up the water of debate.

The engine of a word is its definition. The word can accomplish nothing if it does not have some sort of agreed upon meaning. This is not to say that words may not have multiple meanings. They certainly may. Often the multiple meanings may cause a kind of diffuse cloud of meaning in the collective mind of our society. Sometimes, as with a word like love, or family, such a diffuse cloud of meaning may be desirable, because the feeling we have of love and/or family is so large an all-encompassing that we don't believe a precise definition the feeling any justice. This is the land of poetry.

The words ethnicity and culture are extensions of our feeling of family. First, there is family. Out of family comes community. Out of community comes culture. Because these words grew out of family, since the ideas which make up the definitions of such words are complex with emotion, since community and culture are, in a sense, extensions of what is known as the "family romance", they betray the elasticity of meaning in language.

I am certainly not trying to kill poetry here, nor am I trying to kill that which is undefinable in culture.

However, if a person uses a word and yet can not tell you exactly what they mean by the word at the center of the argument, then their argument, to some extent, lacks meaning, not only for the individual making the argument, but also for the person hearing the argument. Indeed, the person on the receiving end of the argument will likely have an entirely different idea of the ideas being discussed.

This happens, in particular, when certain words have one meaning for public use, and yet another occult meaning which is shared only by initiates. We recognize that there are people who use words in such ways so as to pull off sleights of meaning. An example is the use of the word "rock n' roll" back in the 1950's. The word sounded innocent enough to parents. "Oh yes, my kid likes that rock n' roll music." But, of course, the occult definition of the word "rock n' roll" was to have sex. Thus the innocent sounding music of the rock n' roll genre betrayed a worldview which was much less innocent than parents may have been led to believe. As such, the word had a subversive quality.

If the Vlaams Belang and its members are using words such as ethnicity and culture in a subversive way, then we ought to be aware of it? Agreed?

I contend that, thus far in the current blog war, the word ethnicity is being used to mean both race and culture. If this is so, then let us be clear about it. In order to clear up such confusion, I would suggest that we define our terms so we are all talking about the same thing. Instead of using the words "ethnicity" and "culture" as synonyms, let us use, instead, the words "race" and "culture", so that we know what we mean, and so people like DeWinter can not pull any sleights of meaning by using words with double definitions, one for the public purview, and one with an occult meaning intended only for initiates.
Bookmark and Share
posted by Pastorius at permanent link# 0 Comments

In Memoriam

George Mason of Brushfires of Freedom and 6th Column Against Jihad has passed away.

I mourn the loss of this passionate counter-jihadist and fearless patriot.


Bookmark and Share
posted by Always On Watch at permanent link# 2 Comments

The Toxic Blogosphere

For the past several weeks, ever since I posted this about the October 2007 counter-jihad conference in Brussels, I have dreaded turning on my computer to access my email and the various Internet blogs which I frequent. A whack-a-mole discussion has been raging as to how much support should be given to certain political parties in Europe. In my view, the divide has centered on two opposing positions:

• Go to battle with the troops that you have, i.e., “The enemy of my enemy” is my friend

• Association with certain political parties is dangerous because those parties’ have a history of advocating white supremacism (“a white Europe”) and could lead to the discrediting of all those involved in the counter-jihad

For a summary, please read this by Robert Spencer.

In the course of the discussions in which I’ve been engaged, I’ve been accused of racism, fascism, and stupidity, all from people I considered friends in the blogosphere—the first two accusations because I wasn’t issuing condemnations of the political parties and the last accusation because I made a mistake on the air of The Gathering Storm Radio Show of November 16, when, as WC and I were waiting for an inter-Atlantic phone connection, I mistakenly said that the British National Party was present at the Brussels conference. Please listen to the first half hour of the show. Very informative!

The attempt to correct my on-the-air error by means of a statement at the radio show’s web site led to additional salvos fired in my direction and the making of an even longer statement of correction, which you can read in the comments at the bottom of this page.

I cannot begin to tell you the time that I’ve spent on this rift among the counter-jihadists. I not only have needed to read, read, read about the political alignments in Europe (Another steep learning curve!), but also have spent hours upon hours upon the phone in pursuit of trying to sort out where lies the truth.

Poor Merry Widow! She has listened to me for countless hours! I wonder that she doesn’t disconnect her phone line altogether.

The Merry Widow is but one of those in what amounts to an audience I’ve been holding captive and patiently listening to what I have to say as I have worked through my own thoughts on the controversy. Pastorius, Mark Alexander, and, to a lesser extent because of time constraints, Christine have also been regaled by my mounting concerns.

I cannot begin to catalog the list of others with whom I’ve consulted. In this age of electronic communications, email has been another method of discussion, though neither as fluid nor as effective as the telephone. Here at home, I almost dare not mention again the topic to Mr. AOW, who has listening to me non-stop on the topic for at least three weeks.

In the course of all the various exchanges, I’ve come to feel that nothing I say or do is good enough. Yes, my feelings got hurt. I’ll get over it. No big deal.

Of more concern to me is that I am also seeing manifestations of “My counter-jihad is better than your counter-jihad” and “I’m smarter than you are.” Such is how far we have slid down the ladder of reason and courtesy.

At what conclusion have I arrived? No longer is there one counter-jihad — if, indeed, ever such a unity really existed in the first place. Perhaps that unity was simply wishful thinking on our part. Anyway, I no longer believe that we’re all going to get along. This question still remains, however: Can we all manage to coexist without cannibalizing the counter-jihad efforts? Time will tell, but time can also be the enemy as Islamization proceeds apace in the West.

The last thing which all anti-jihadists need is to be tarred with same brush. After all, when one looks at the various anti-jihadists, we fall at various points on the political spectrum — excluding the far left, of course, which is in bed with the Islamists. In the end, I believe that having separate counter-jihads is not so bad because, unless a hideous event occurs, all counter-jihadists will have to define what is stood for — not merely what is stood against.

Labels: , , ,

Bookmark and Share
posted by Always On Watch at permanent link# 25 Comments

David Duke's defenders and Vlaams Belangs defenders...just one tiny difference

The jewish people.
But according to Duke, this week, just the extreme jews. (He insisted that his words only target "Jewish extremists")
Any buyers?
I thought not.

However, according to some, jewish people are not exactly running out to support (that's double sourced below) Vlaams Belang and Mr DeWinter
October 2006:

"Orthodox Jewish residents packing the streets of Antwerp's diamond-trading quarter scorned the idea that Vlaams Belang would win up to a third of their community's votes, as party mayor candidate Filip Dewinter said last week.

Wearing Orthodox black suits and Homburg hats, the men were carrying palm fronds in honor of the feast of Sukkot, celebrated this weekend. That festival meant it was forbidden for Jews to cast their votes, Jeremy Sulzbacher said, unless they had organized a proxy vote. "Vlaams Belang doesn't convince Jewish people," he said."

"Once they've finished with the Muslims and the North Africans, who will they start on next? They'll start on us, the Jews."

So last night I was re-listening to the marvelous debate.
Resolved - we should not be reticent to assert the superiority of western values

Ibn Warraq wins it outright with his introducing position.
So what are we asserting.

In the last few days as the issues have become much more tightly focused, the defense of european rightist movement of ethnic nationality as an ally of those who DO assert the above, breaks down to one thing only...Phillip Dewinter (Vlaams Belang).."would consider them (insistence and demands on outright repudiation of the white europe he called for as a goal) impertinent and irrelevant to his cause if he were aware of them."

Is that the superiority we shall assert?

Shall we assert PRECISELY that we can't help it if white power is among our allies?
Shall we assert that white power is a natural cultural defense because europe was all white, against all demographic perils as we fight off sharia and 9:29 and 9:5?

This is precisely what I have been told in the last few days, and precisely what David Duke says. He just likes the jews less than Mr. DeWinter.

Shall we assert that Le Pen might really be so bad after all? Is that a superiority of western values?

Is there anyone who thinks the mantle of god's blessing will fall on them simply because they are NOT anti semitic?

I assert that it is the GOOD FIGHT to oppose those who believe these things. I assert that to be for white europe as a metaphor or in reality is equal in every single way equal to what Stormfront and David Duke proselytize, regardless of what one thinks of the existence of Israel, and as a jew I can tell you IT SHAMES ME PERSONALLY to have the support of these people in the belief that Israel must exist.

David Duke, Le Pen, and Phillip DeWinter all want the same thing.
It is indefensible.
It i not a western value which can be defended let alone asserted, and I'm sure people I see as allies in the fight I am a part of, such as Ibn Warraq would agree.
Robert Spencer already does.

The very factors which caused europe to be unable to assimilate these mass immigrants, and grant them complete social mobility places them in the position of defending the indefensible.

To such people the only defense left is to brand such as me self righteous do gooder multiculturalists.
I wonder if they understand the irony, and the joke.

They complain that in being called neo nazis by some (not me btw), this ends all rational debate. But now because it really IS impossible to defend racial culture as a political program, they perform exactly the same act.

That's okay.

Rational debate is over. We now have two completely separate anti-salafist and anti khomeinist movements. One of them accepts white europe as valid, with an excuse.

I assert that theirs is going to be in more and more trouble, as those values receive more and more sunshine. Just as more exposure has damaged the the idea that Islam is a religion of peace, and demonstrated the kind of thing taught in too many mosques, so now to white europe.
I hope this is my last post on this subject.
Bookmark and Share
posted by Epaminondas at permanent link# 20 Comments

The Blog Wars: What Is Ethnic Nationalism?

History is driven by ideas. Ideas are driven by words. And, the engine of a word is its definition.

History is played out in the marketplace of ideas. One idea wins over another because a population of people find the idea to be more attractive. An idea wins out over time when it benefits a preponderence of the population.

When two groups of people argue over an idea, the side which has tighter, stronger definitions of their words and ideas will win.
If we expect to beat back the Jihad, we can not merely stand against Islam, we had better understand what it is we stand for.

The current blog wars have broken out, I suspect, over a series of misunderstandings of terminology. So, let's define our terms.
I believe we stand for our culture. Our culture is defined by a set of ideas upon which we generally agree.
Those on the other side of the Blog War seem to believe the culture we stand for is defined by ethnicity as much as it is by ideas. In fact, many of those on the other side in this blog war seem to believe that Ethnicity is the progenitor of culture.
This runs counter to my experience as an American. America is made up of people of many different ethnicities, and yet we have an idea of what it means to be an American. America has a distinct culture. If it did not, we would not have a problem understanding the idea that there are some immigrants who assimilate into American culture, while others don't.

Those who believe Ethnicity is the progenitor of culture believe that Ethnicity must be protected along with culture, or else the culture will be lost.
This is called Ethnic Nationalism.
I believe the Vlaams Belang is an Ethnic Nationalist Party. Their main priority is to see the Flemish area of Belgium break off from the Walloon (French area). Their objective is that the indigenous Flemish people have a right to self-determination. Such a priority is a hallmark of Ethnic Nationalsim.

However, Vlaams Belang's leader, Filip DeWinter, extends his Ethnic Nationalsim beyond the borders of Flanders to encompass all of Europe. DeWinter has been quoted as saying,

‘Yes, the Vlaams Blok (Flemish Block) chooses our own people first (slogan: Eigen Volk Eerst). And yes, the Vlaams Blok chooses a Flemish Flanders. And yes, the Vlaams Blok chooses a white Europe.’

So, let us look at the definition of Ethnic Nationalism (I look forward to hearing other definitions if you have a differing opinion):

Ethnic nationalism is a form of nationalism wherein the "nation" is defined in terms of ethnicity. Whatever specific ethnicity is involved, ethnic nationalism always includes some element of descent from previous generations. It also includes ideas of a culture shared between members of the group, and with their ancestors, and usually a shared language.

Whereas a purely cultural definition of "the nation" allows people to become members of a nation by cultural assimilation, and a purely linguistic definition seeing "the nation" as all speakers of a specific language would make all those who learned the language members of the nation, the emphasis in the definition of nations (among nationalist movements) since the 19th century has shifted from language, culture, and folklore to a basis in ethnic origin.

The central political tenet of ethnic nationalism is that each ethnic group on earth is entitled to self-determination.

The problem with Ethnic Nationalism, as defined above, is, when it asserts that Europe, for instance, ought to maintain its ethnic heritage, it runs up against the realities of demographics and reproduction. For instance,

1) Europe already has many citizens who are not white.

2) The European citizens who are not white are outbreeding the white citizens, and they are breeding at above replacement rate (therefore, their population is increasing),

3) the white citizens in Europe are NOT breeding at replacement rates (therefore, their population is decreasing),

Therefore, the only way to ensure that Europe remains white is for government to intervene.

I can only see four possible solutions,

1) grant tax-breaks to indigenous population as an incentive to have children, and HOPE that the indigenous population will eclipse the non-indigenous,

2) Enforce a cessation in breeding for all non-indigenous peoples,

3) round up non-indigenous people and ship them out of the country,

4) kill the non-indigenous people.

So, it is my opinion that, since the first method can not be guaranteed to work as it is based on hope, there are really only three choices, and


Bookmark and Share
posted by Pastorius at permanent link# 42 Comments

Storm Track Disinformation: Pre-Islamic State Given Medal of Democracy Award

Get your barf bag ready for this piece of blatant disinformation that I’ve read in along time. Tell the Big Lie often enough and the world will believe it. Indonesia has won an award. The award is, get ready for this, their unique blend of democracy and Islam.

Read the rest at The Gathering Storm.
Bookmark and Share
posted by WC at permanent link# 0 Comments

Islam-- Survival of the fittest?

The great 19th century British naturalist Charles Darwin's singular contribution to the annals of science was his (still) provocative idea of "survival of the fittest." In other words, the species best adopted to their environment tend to survive and thrive, while those less than ideally suited tend to perish. Furthermore, changing conditions can and do cause the emergence of newly dominant organisms. The fossil record is full of the remnants of species--dinosaurs, mammoths, et al--that were, for whatever reason, not up to the task of surviving in a changing world.

Darwin's theory can also be extended to fields outside the natural sciences. Other entities also rise and fall in their respective realms depending on their ability to cope with a dynamic environment and how they deal with their competitors. Corporations succeed or fail based on how well they have 'read' their chosen marketplace(s) and operating conditions. What happens if companies are no longer able to perform these functions well? Ask anyone who used to work for Montgomery Ward or Eastern Airlines, for instance.

Other human organizations/systems also must cope with the same dynamic. They must attract new members, care for and retain existing ones, address funding issues, handle administrative matters with reasonable levels of efficiency, manage their culture/ideology over time, and effectively deal with competitors.

Islam is a belief system and it faces the same sort of issues. Whatever can be said about Islam's supposed merits, Islam works. By 'works', I mean that Islam is successful in gaining new followers, retaining existing ones, and dealing with competing belief systems.

Islam manages all these functions, simply put, through coercion, intimidation, fanaticism, deception and violence. Muslims, once 'born' or converted into the belief system, cannot leave under pain of death. Other belief systems that Islam bumps up against are mislead, oppressed, marginalized, or outright annihilated, as the followers of Zoroaster in Persia, Buddha in Afghanistan, or YHWH in Arabia could readily attest to. If they could still testify to anything, that is. Islam's murderous Jihad, having liquidated all of them, has relegated many of its competitors to the dusty and forgotten pages of history.

By accident of geology, Muslim nations sit on top of massive quantities of oil, which requires little processing, is in high demand, and thus can be sold at vast profit. This not only takes care of fundraising, but also finances additional growth and offensive operations (information warfare, 'martydom' operations, etc.) against those competiting ideologies. Such sales also have the added bonus (for Islam of course) of draining the coffers of non Muslims.

Is Islam the 'fittest' ideology? Is it fated to dominate by outmuscling or destroying all others in its path? The followers of Mohammed can certainly be encouraged by the historical record. Wherever Islam invades, it conquers and rules supreme. Half of the Hindu world, most of the Buddhist states, the vast majority of Jews and Christians in the Middle East...all destroyed utterly by the sword of Mohammed.

Only two major territorial setbacks for Islam can be found in 14 centuries of its existence-- the Reconquista of Spain, completed in the 15th century, and the founding of the modern state of Israel in 1947. And the Ummah has every reason to believe that these two setbacks are only temporary.

Are environmental conditions changing before our eyes to favor Islam once and for all? The West (Islam's chief strategic competitor at present) no longer bears enough children to even replace its own numbers, let alone grow in any meaningful way. The West's core Judeo-Christian ideology, discredited by its own ruling elite, has now been supplanted by the dictum of 'Political Correctness/Multiculturalism', a pernicious self-destructive creed of defeat that all but begs for victimization from aggressors (i.e. Islam). Furthermore, Muslims are also free to permanently migrate into the territory of their main rivals (Europe and North America) in ever-growing numbers. Emasculated Western leaders are either incapable or unwilling to alter the situation.

The Islamic World, on the other hand, has a surplus of manpower (a by-product of polygamy, and the banning of birth control), trillions in oil-funded capital, and is more than ever confident in its own core ideology--that Islam is fated to rule the world. Why should they doubt it, with it coming true before our eyes?

Islam, with its murderously simple fascist ideology, utterly ruthless methods, and enfeebled opposition, appears (heavens forfend) best posed to survive.


Bookmark and Share
posted by The Anti-Jihadist at permanent link# 2 Comments

When Black Friday Comes

The Neo-Nazi Cabal

The above photo was recovered from an archive through the dedicated sleuthing of a Gates of Vienna operative. In it you can see (L to R) Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, Gerald Ford, and Jimmy Carter. You can also see that the four men are smiling, enjoying themselves, and even sharing a toast.

Take note: Former President Jimmy Carter can be seen sharing a white power moment with three extreme-right American Nationalists.

Mr. Carter is associated here with the racist Ronald Reagan, and — even more significantly — with the paleo-Nazi Richard Nixon, the Lord of the Underworld, the Prince of Darkness, SATAN HIMSELF!

I have no definitive information about what Jimmy Carter was doing there with those other men, but his presence in the photo certainly raises questions which need to be answered. Otherwise, Mr. Carter risks damaging the Democrat Party and the entire trans-national progressive movement.

I don’t know about you, but I’m going to be leery in the future of supporting Cynthia McKinney, Michael Moore, Hugo Chavez, and even Fidel Castro. All of these people would be well advised to disavow any association with such a questionable figure.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

The ongoing hostility towards the Center for Vigilant Freedom was renewed last night in another Little Green Footballs post, this one directing its fire at the country report on Belgium given at Counterjihad Brussels 2007 by Filip Dewinter of Vlaams Belang.

The report itself was a concise and useful summary of the grave crisis that Belgium faces from a massive influx of unassimilated Muslim immigrants. An excerpt:

In Brussels more than one fifth of the municipal councillors are now immigrants of non-European origin. Most of them are Muslims, and most of them have been elected as Socialists, though many have also been welcomed as Christian-Democrat trade unionists on the lists of the Christian-Democrat Party.

But, if one believes the accusations hurled at Mr. Dewinter, the taint of his associations invalidates his message and precludes us from paying attention to it.

The LGF post went on to recycle the same old accusations against Dewinter, including the ludicrous funeral photo, in which Mr. Dewinter attended a funeral which Jean-Marie Le Pen also attended.

Which reminds me — I remember seeing Jimmy Carter standing next to George H. W. Bush at Richard Nixon’s funeral!

Case closed.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

A reader tipped me to the LGF post, so this morning, for the first time in weeks, I actually read an LGF comment thread. I noticed at least three commenters in open rebellion against the lizardoid party line, with the leader very much in evidence commenting against them and throwing contemptuous insults in their direction.

It reminded me of a group of hobbits holding fast in defiance against the Nazgûl.

Concerning the issue of Vlaams Belang, the three commenters — Jeppo, Blogagog, and EtNorskTroll — said it better than I can, so I will simply quote excerpts below:

From Jeppo:

You have to remember that Dewinter was just one delegate among the 80 or so from more than a dozen European countries plus the US, Canada and Israel at the Counterjihad Summit. Just to list some of the anti-jihadist worthies in attendance: Bat Ye’or, Spencer, Bostom, Eldad, Littman, Sookhdeo, Fjordman, Ekeroth, Geller, Bodissey, Kepiblanc, Conservative Swede, etc. This conference was also supported by mainstream US conservatives like Diana West and Richard Miniter. This was not in any way, shape or form a fascist-friendly event.

…LGF should be one of the worldwide leaders of this movement, not self-marginalized because of disagreements with only one of its members.


This split has left LGF and few others on one side, and virtually the entire anti-jihadist movement on the other. The VB and SD along with several other similar European political parties will continue to grow as Europe continues to Islamize. Most conservatives recognize this and welcome it. The ones who don’t will gradually become irrelevant. The Vlaams Belang are your allies whether you like it or not.


It’s not about you or me supporting the VB, it’s about the 800,000 (and growing fast) Flemings who do. It is them, not us, who are pro actively standing up against the Islamic immigration invasion of their country. This is why they are applauded by serious anti-jihadists everywhere. Hopefully one day soon the artificial and corrupt nation of Belgium will split up, and an independent Flanders will have a VB government that will stop Muslim immigration once and for all. Maybe you will disapprove of this. I won’t.

From Blogagog:

I’m not a white nationalist, and I support Israel pretty much as strongly as I support America (well, close). But you are really misrepresenting potential allies against islamofascism, and I think I’ve seen enough.

LGF, once a uniting force of all who support an end to islamic supremacism, jihadism, and terrorism, is developing a 1984 attitude. Frankly, I’m creeped out.

You will no doubt ban me for saying this (I’ve seen examples of bannings for lesser slights) but STOP DIVIDING THE GOOD GUYS! Is it wrong to be a fan of the Democrats since Robert Byrd was in the KKK? Of course not. He grew, and got over that. It IS wrong to support the Democrats, but for entirely different reasons.

So why is it wrong to support VB if some of its members were scumbags in the past? EVERY political movement has scumbags in its past. As an American, I support the Flemish as much as I support the Israelis. Danes, Swedes, likewise.

From EtNorskTroll:

I was trying to stick up for sense and reason. This schism benefits no one except the Jihadis….and that angers me to no end.


Even as there is no racially pure group, there is also no politically pure group, ‘multi culturally thinking’ or otherwise. Life is all about compromise. Adults know this. It is only children who are allowed the luxury of indulging in absolutes.

Charles Johnson has made an encouraging gesture by allowing these comments to remain on the thread and by not banning the commenters. His magnanimity gives me hope that the current unpleasantness is in the process of winding down.
Bookmark and Share
posted by Baron Bodissey at permanent link# 1 Comments

Iran's new nuclear negotiator ...SHOW ME THE MAHDI !

Iran's new nuclear negotiator believes nukes will trigger Armageddon, coming of Shi'ite messiah

Jalili is a firm loyalist of Ahmadinejad and his spiritual guide, Ayatollah Mesbah Yazdi. Mesbah believes Iran requires nuclear weapons in an Islamic global war that would finally demonstrate the Shi'ite claim of divine right.

Saeed Jalili

  • Task: Iran's new chief nuclear negotiator

  • Age: 41

  • Whereabouts: Teheran
    GERTZ:Saeed Jalili believes he is negotiating to maintain Iran's nuclear weapons program from a position of strength. Unlike his predecessor, Ali Larijani, Jalili believes that nuclear weapons are the key to the Armegeddon that will usher in the Shi'ite messiah.

    Larijani was replaced because of his criticism of Teheran's nuclear policy and the hardline approach of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

    Oh, so Larijani is a MODERATE?

    Jalili does not have that problem. He is a firm loyalist of Ahmadinejad and his spiritual guide, Ayatollah Mesbah Yazdi. Mesbah believes Iran requires nuclear weapons in an Islamic global war that would finally demonstrate the Shi'ite claim of divine right.

    Ayatollah Mesbah "If someone tells you he has a new interpretation of Islam, sock him in the mouth.", Yazdi? That guy again?

    "This [Jalili] is a man not paid to think but to repeat the same Iranian mantra," a Western intelligence source said.

    Jalili lost his leg in the Iran-Iraq war and soon became a devout follower of the mullah regime who rejected material benefits, such as a luxury cars. Over the last two years, Jalili, who received a doctorate from Imam Sadegh University in Teheran, has been regarded as a key adviser to Ahmadinejad on foreign affairs, particularly relations with the United States and Venezuela.

    Indeed, earlier this year Jalili, a former IRGC senior officer, urged Ahmadinejad to write an 18-page letter to President George Bush that sought to justify Iran's nuclear program and domination of the Gulf. The letter referred to the messianic philosophy held by many supporters of Ahmadinejad.

    Under Ahmadinejad, membership in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps has become a virtual requirement to attain a senior position in government.

    Who believes that these guys can be deterred in any way from obtaining nuclear weapons?

    Who believes that these guys can be deterred from FIRST USE, either via Hizballah or outright?

    Bookmark and Share
    posted by Epaminondas at permanent link# 0 Comments

    Moderaterna Blows Hot and Cold

    Moderaterna (the Moderate Party) is the party currently governing Sweden under the leadership of Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt.

    The party is “moderate” only by Swedish standards. To an American, its policies might seem slightly to the left of International ANSWER. The Moderates, like all other parties in Sweden except for Sverigedemokraterna, fully support Sweden’s immigration policies, and have reached out to Hamas in the past.

    “Moderate”, min röv.

    Their rule is only a lacuna in the long reign of the Social Democrats, who were unexpectedly ousted in the last elections. Given the political culture of Sweden, a return of the Social Democrats seems all but assured, unless Mr. Reinfeldt’s party can find and forge an alliance with a smaller party that would never form a coalition with the Social Democrats.

    Enter Sverigedemokraterna (the Sweden Democrats). They are the pariahs of Swedish politics: the only party in the country to oppose the open-ended immigration policies of the Swedish ruling establishment.

    That’s why this headline from a couple of days ago came as such a surprise:

    Moderate council strikes deal with Sweden Democrats

    Members of Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt’s Moderate Party in a town in southern Sweden have defied the party leadership to start cooperating with the right-wing populist Sweden Democrats.

    Karlskrona council leader K-G Svensson, a Moderate, reached a deal last week with the Sweden Democrats’ group leader Richard Jomshod, on education in the town.

    The Moderate Party’s policy is that its politicians should not cooperate with, negotiate with or become reliant on the Sweden Democrats, which have their roots in racist far-right movements.

    Moderate officials in Stockholm were on Wednesday insisting that there was nothing they could do about the situation in Karlskrona.

    “We should avoid doing deals with the Sweden Democrats, but local situations sometimes mean that you have to. There are no mechanisms for sanctions for people who break with the policy. It would be wrong to impose diktats centrally,” said the party’s head of communications, Pär Henriksson, to Blekinge Läns Tidning.

    Can you tell how worried the Moderates at party HQ were? They were shocked — shocked! — to find their Karlskrona affiliate contemplating an alliance with those evil racist xenophobic neo-Nazi Islamophobes in Sverigedemokraterna.

    Fortunately for the party’s reputation, the infatuation with SD didn’t last. Two days later we see this:

    Moderates: ‘no more deals’ with Sweden Democrats

    After days of heavy criticism, councillors representing Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt’s Moderate Party in the southern Swedish port of Karlskrona have said they will strike no more deals with the right-wing populist Sweden Democrats.

    A deal between Karlskrona Moderates and Sweden Democrats on education policy revealed on Wednesday led to strong reactions from Reinfeldt and other leading Moderates. The party’s policy is for its elected representatives not to cooperate with the anti-immigrant party.

    Moderate council leader K-G Svenson wrote in an internal letter to party colleagues that there would be no further deals with the Sweden Democrats. The two parties’ local branches could still conduct informal talks, but not formal negotiations, he wrote.

    Richard Jomshof, group leader for the Sweden Democrats in Karlskrona, said he was not worried by the move, adding that the Moderates would be forced to negotiate with his party later in the current term.

    “If they’re not willing to negotiate with us, they will have problems getting their proposals passed,” he said.

    This very much resembles the recent movement in Belgium towards Flemish independence: two steps forward and one step back.

    There’s no doubt about it: Sverigedemokraterna are a force to be reckoned with. They know it, Moderaterna know it, and everybody else knows it. At some point one or more of the acceptable political parties — the real players in Sweden — are going to have to cut a deal with them.

    It’s only a matter of time.

    Thanks to KGS, Fjordman, and Paul for keeping me informed on this story.
    Bookmark and Share
    posted by Baron Bodissey at permanent link# 0 Comments

    Culture Jihad, cuts both ways

    Here's a memo to President Bush: Remember that pro-democracy drive pitched when Condi Rice was appointed secretary of state? Well, Arab states are about to show what they really think of democracy.

    Arab League states have agreed to restrict satellite-based media. They plan to seek technological ways to block satellite media broadcasts under the guise of a campaign to boost morality.


    "The privately owned channels broadcast a lot of immoral material that harm the youngsters across the Arab world," Mohammed Al Ghazali, an official of the Supreme Authority for Audio and Video Communication, told the "Challenges of Arab Satellite Media" symposium on Nov. 17 in Tunis.

    Arab information ministers could formulate controls on the Arab satellite media sector at their forthcoming meeting in Cairo in January 2008. One proposal was for Arab states to standardize restrictions on the satellite media.

    Still, delegates acknowledged the difficulty of controlling a sector with more than 30 Arabic-speaking satellite channels. Maybe that's where the United States comes in: American companies could sell the latest technology that could block or ensure government monitoring of satellite channels.
    Bookmark and Share
    posted by Epaminondas at permanent link# 0 Comments

    The Allies Of My Friends Are My Enemy

    I am greatly saddened to see that some of my best friends continue to hold on to the idea that they can ally themselves with parties such as the Vlaams Belang. Yesterday, of course, Christine Brim the leader of Center for Vigilant Freedom, posted on the subject of how to make tentative moves towards forging a relationship with the French National Front, headed by Jean-Marie Le Pen.

    In other words, rather than admitting they have made a mistake, my former allies are pushing on ever deeper into the territory of far right Ethnic Nationalism.

    Let us look at Jean-Marie Le Pen and learn a little bit about the kinds of alliances he forms:

    The interview (click here to see video of the interview) brings up the participation of a Front National official in a recent white supremacist conference, an event which Monsieur Le Pen declares no knowledge of.

    The conference was the 2005 American European Conference convened May 20 - 22 by David Duke and the Front National member who attended was Jean-Michel Girard (Directeur de cabinet des affaires étrangères de Front National).

    The conference ended with a panel debate, which included the following speakers:

    Kevin Alfred Strom - National Vanguard
    Don Black - Stormfront
    Nick Griffin - British National Party
    David Duke - representing Euro
    Paul Fromm - Canadian Association for Free Expression
    Jean-Michel Girard - Front National
    Lady Michele Renouf
    Vávra Suk - Nationaldemokraterna

    Furthermore David Duke also recollects the following on his website:

    "Dr. Gollnisch introduced me to Jean Marie LePen, and LePen then also proudly introduced me around the EU Parliament and invited me to a private dinner that evening. LePen and I discussed almost every critical issue facing our people. I can assure you that he is as fully knowledgable and committed as I am on the issues dear to my heart. We formed a friendship and understanding that has endured to this day, and I believe it will continue after he is, as we hope, elected France’s next president."
    - - The Official Website of Representative David Duke, PhD » Interview with EU Parliamentarian Bruno Gollnisch

    Charles, at Little Green Footballs, posts additional information on the same subject, and adds this bit of editorializing:

    It’s political suicide for US counter-jihadists to make alliances with these kinds of people, and those bloggers who are throwing their wholehearted support behind these groups will regret it.

    I wish I could say, along with Charles, that these people will regret their actions. Not that I want to watch them suffer, but that I would like to see this resolved before the inevitable pain such alliances will cause really kicks in.

    But, considering the nature of this war, and the time it will take for this history to unfold, I expect they will go to their graves believing they did the right thing. Some years after they are dead, historians will look at the record and their contributions will be noted.

    They won't know what hit 'em.
    Bookmark and Share
    posted by Pastorius at permanent link# 3 Comments

    Friday, November 23, 2007

    The Independence of Flanders

    Our Flemish correspondent ProFlandria sends a report with the latest news on the legislative proposal to divide Belgium into two independent states, Flanders and Wallonia. It seems that not all of the Flemish political parties are in agreement over what must be done, and Vlaams Belang has been left standing high and dry by some of its former allies.

    ProFlandria has translated a post from the VB website, and follows it with his commentary:

    11.22.2007 17.46u — The Flemish parties in the federal House [of Representatives] have just voted against considering Vlaams Belang’s proposal to split Belgium. In doing so, they have provided the proof of their devotion to the Belgian state, as demanded by the Walloons. This is remarkable given that the consideration of a proposal is a formality which does not contain a judgment on the core of the issue. Voting for the consideration is, in fact, a sign that in a democracy any proposal can at least be discussed. After debate, when the proposal is to be evaluated on its merits, one can still vote against [adopting the proposal].

    This is the reason why the consideration of this same identical proposal from Vlaams Belang in the previous legislature was supported by all Flemish parties without reservation. Today, however, those same parties are folding in the face of the [Walloon] dictate to, as “Le Soir” puts it, “Isolate Vlaams Belang, the party which proposes the independence of Flanders”, and in doing so, those parties prove their unconditional loyalty to Belgium. The positions of Bart De Wever and Jan Jambon (N-VA), who were strategically absent during the vote, was flatly disappointing.

    ProFlandria comments:

    These proceedings once again demonstrate how pernicious the Belgian construct is. As soon as the prospect of participating in a Federal government is dangled in front of the Flemish “mainstream” parties, they voluntarily submit themselves to Walloon pressure to conform to the existing status quo — which is uniformly detrimental to Flanders. Vlaams Belang is shunned into lonely opposition due to its pro-independence platform, while the other Flemish parties time and again experience the fact that the Belgian construct cannot be reformed from within.
    Bookmark and Share
    posted by Baron Bodissey at permanent link# 2 Comments

    Our Lying, Cheating Do-Gooders

    Guest Commentary by Edward Cline:

    An unusually trenchant article ran on MSNBC on November 15, “Do-gooders can become the worst cheats: Study says that sense of moral superiority might lead to rationalizing bad behavior.”

    “In the new study, detailed in the November issue of the Journal of Applied Psychology, researchers find that when this line between right and wrong is ambiguous among people who think of themselves as having high moral standards, the do-gooders can become the worst of cheaters.

    “’The principle we uncovered is that when faced with a moral decision, those with a strong moral identity choose their fate (for good or for bad) and then the moral identity drives them to pursue that fate to the extreme,’ said researcher Scott Reynolds of the University of Washington in Seattle. ‘So it makes sense that this principle would help explain what makes the greatest of saints and the foulest of hypocrites.’

    “Why would a person who thinks of himself as honest cheat? The researchers suggest an ‘ethical person’ could view cheating as an OK thing to do, justifying the act as a means to a moral end.”

    The rest of the article focuses on college students and employees who rationalize their cheating on tests and in the workplace. But, if we accept the premise that cheating is a form of lying – that is, of faking reality – and focus instead on more notorious “do-gooders” who pose as individuals imbued with and moved by “higher” moral standards, whom does the phenomenon remind one of? Hillary and Bill Clinton? Al Gore? Mitt Romney? Michael Bloomberg? John Edwards? Ted Kennedy?

    The Journal article did not define the concept of “moral.” It simply implied that the “superior” morality was one of altruism and sacrifice. The “moral identity” of most politicians today is linked to that morality. Some of them are sincere (and the more dangerous for it), while others are pragmatists who adopt a second-hand “identity,” and pose as moral men. And, in the name of that morality, both kinds are willing to cheat, lie, and steal their way to power. Power is the end that justifies their means – which includes faking reality.

    And because they are willing to cheat and lie in the name of that “superior” morality, so they can “do good,” they exempt themselves from any moral judgment. Their supporters exempt them from it, as well. After all, they rationalize, their idols have “sacrificed” their alleged reputations to pursue and impose “the good” on all who are not professional “do-gooders.”

    The cheating and lying can have disastrous consequences and affect the lives and livelihoods of uncounted millions.

    The myth (or religion?) of anthropogenic global warming is an example of the ends justifying the means, in this instance, of fudging statistics and scientific data – or completely omitting pertinent data – in order to convince others of the cause and consequences of global warming. Although the myth has been propagated for over a decade (and before it, the myth of global cooling), it reached a crescendo with the debut and marketing of former vice president Al Gore’s Oscar-winning An Inconvenient Truth, for which he also netted a Nobel Prize, shared by the United Nations Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

    It is not so much a myth as a conscious fabrication to advance a collectivist ideology and politics. Gore’s motive for making the movie and seeing it publicized and endorsed by the scientific community is compatible with the motives of those who agree with its conclusions and seek the same end, which is the drastic subordination of industrial civilization to the “needs” of an undisturbed, climatically static, “unviolated” earth.

    Whatever the extent of Gore’s “study” of the subject of global climate change, he cannot help but have encountered data and arguments that contradicted his own thesis that man is wholly responsible for increases in carbon dioxide output into the atmosphere. The data and arguments are ubiquitous. These data and arguments were ignored, misrepresented, or suppressed in order to weave a “credible” fairy tale of anthropogenic global warming and to put it over the whole world with the least opposition and a minimum of rebuttal.

    (Gore also authored a book, The Assault on Reason, his manifesto for remaking the world but chiefly a bully pulpit for attacking the “radical” and religious right, and for venting his spleen against President Bush and his administration. In both the book and in the “documentary,” it is Gore who not so much “assaults” reason, but dispenses with it.)

    No honest scientist (or is the adjective redundant?) would resort to such fraud, but a career politician with frustrated political ambitions and pretensions of wanting to “do good,” one with a congenital need to wield power over others, would stoop to such a tactic. In his attempt to fake reality by “scientifically” blaming man for catastrophic climate change, Gore needed to lie. His greatest enemies were truth-tellers in the scientific community, and reality itself.

    Dr. Tara Smith, in her seminal study of Ayn Rand’s moral philosophy, Ayn Rand’s Normative Ethics: The Virtuous Egoist, remarks in her discussion of why Rand dismissed all social reasons for why one must adhere to the virtue of honesty:

    “…Rand…contends that the only effective way of achieving objective values is through refusing to fake things – regardless of how successfully a person might be able to fool others. Others’ perceptions do not dictate reality any more than one’s own do….Rand’s case for honesty, in sum, is this: Because reality sets the ultimate terms of a person’s survival, reality – rather than one’s own or others’ beliefs or wishes – must command a person’s paramount allegiance. Faking reality is futile….” (p. 88, softcover)

    Gore has been successful in fooling and frightening countless people, and has been aided in this mass deception by others who share his desire to wield power, and who, at the very least, wish man to do penance for the “sin” of existing, and at the very most, wish him to cease to exist.

    The fudging of statistics and scientific data by Gore and other past advocates of man-caused global warming has been exposed in numerous papers and testimonies, and the thesis itself refuted.

    Even while Gore’s “documentary” was in production with the help of his Hollywood sycophants, the London Daily Telegraph of September 4, 2006, featured an article, “There IS a problem with global warming…it stopped in 1998,” by Prof. Bob Carter, a geologist at James Cook University in Queensland, Australia.

    “For many years now, human-caused climate change has been viewed as a large and urgent problem. In truth, however, the biggest part of the problem is neither environmental nor scientific, but a self-created political fiasco. Consider the simple fact that, drawn from official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero).

    “Yes, you did read that right. And also, yes, this eight-year period of temperature stasis did coincide with society’s continued power station and SUV-inspired pumping of yet more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.”

    Al Gore was not, of course, mentioned once in the Daily Telegraph article. At the time, he was a political has-been not yet launched by the news media and Hollywood as a prophet of environmental doom.

    In many scientific papers, one finding is that an increase of carbon dioxide trails a rise in average global temperature, not the other way around, as Gore and his yea-sayers assert. That is, carbon dioxide does not cause temperature rises. Its greater or lesser presence is entirely dependent on temperature, and what causes global temperature reductions and increases is not understood. It is…unknown.

    The papers, studies and reports that debunk anthropogenic global warming are as numerous as the frequent sanctimonious urgings of the teleprompter reading news anchors on ABC’s “Good Morning, America.” A search on the Internet using the terms “Global warming scam” will turn up about a dozen. For example, to pick one at random, The Heartland Institute in Chicago, in February 2003, published “Eight Reasons Why ‘Global Warming’ is a Scam.” Two of those reasons deserve mention. No. 3 reads:

    “Global climate computer models are too crude to predict future climate changes. All predictions of global warming are based on computer models, not historical data. In order to get their models to produce predictions that are close to their designers’ expectations [read wishes], modelers resort to ‘flux adjustments’ that can be 25 times larger than the effect of doubling carbon dioxide concentrations, the supposed trigger for global warming. Richard A. Kerr, a writer for Science, says ‘climate modelers have been “cheating” for so long it’s almost become respectable.’”

    That is, the “do-gooding” modelers prefer to fake reality by spiking their non-historical “data” with flux adjustments, which guarantee their a priori conclusions with bells, whistles, and red danger flags. For them, wishing makes it so.

    No. 4 of the Heartland report is a minor shocker, and stresses that global warming alarmists cherry-pick statements from a supposed authority, the IPCC:

    “The IPCC report [Climate Change 2001] did not prove that human activities are causing global warming.” That is, it concluded that predicting the weather ten years from now is as chancy and unreliable as predicting next week’s. But the “public” panel is composed of politicians and bureaucrats, not of the scientists who contributed to the report, many of whom have resigned in dissent from the IPCC or contested the veracity of the panel’s politically correct statements.

    Another paper found by a random search is Derek Kelly’s “The global warming scam” from the Asia Times of February 25, 2005, when Al Gore’s “proof” of man-caused global warming was just a slide show. Kelly presents a chronology of climate change covering 15,000 years, beginning with the last major glaciation period and ending in 2005. He shows, stage by stage, that glaciers advanced and retreated in this period, that sea levels rose and fell, and that average global temperatures also rose and fell, together with carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere. And most of these changes occurred long, long before the Industrial Revolution with its smoke stacks and internal combustion engines.

    “4,000 years ago to A.D. 900: Global cooling begins. The Arctic Ocean freezes over, mountain glaciers form once more in the Rocky Mountains, in Norway and in the Alps. The Black Sea freezes over several times, and ice forms on the Nile in Egypt. Northern Europe gets a lot wetter, and the marshes develop again in previously dry areas. The sea level drops to approximately its present level. The temperatures on the surface of the Earth are about 0.5-1 degree cooler than at present. The causes of this period of cooling are unknown.”

    In every one of the nine periods described by Kelly, which altogether is a climatic roller-coaster ride, the causes of the climate changes are unknown and are understood only in terms of post-event observations. One of his conclusions is that the more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the better, since it and the warmth accompanying it promote life. Among other things (although Kelly does not mention them), growing seasons in Canada would be longer and more productive, while the inhabitants of south Greenland are now able to grow much of their own food instead of having to import it.

    What scientists like Kelly and honest, objective journalists like Bob Carter (author of the Daily Telegraph article cited above), not to mention their unheralded and besieged compatriots in science and the news media, do not understand about the “moral identity” of anthropogenic global warming alarmists is that, fundamentally, the alarmists are at root man-haters. That is their “identity,” which is “driven” by an anti-life philosophy.

    Even if they “pursued that identity to the extreme,” as Scott Reynolds in the Journal expressed it (as they must pursue it to its logical end) and succeeded in destroying Western civilization and reducing the survivors of that collapse to huddling around campfires in a post-apocalyptic wilderness, the man-haters would even object to the smoke rising from those fires to “pollute” the atmosphere.

    Note that when volcanoes spew billions of tons of super-heated gases into the atmosphere, when earthquakes or tsunamis crumble whole regions or erase whole coastlines, and when wild fires destroy thousands of acres of forest and kill countless animals, the environmentalist “do-gooders” have little or nothing to say, especially not about the cost in human lives. But let an oil tanker accidentally spill its cargo into San Francisco Bay and a few fish and fowl perish as a result, they are ready to kill in the name of “protecting” nature.

    The lying, cheating “do-gooders” at large today may claim that their intentions are benign. But, it is their “good” intentions which must be examined, grasped, understood in all their ramifications, and exposed. Their solutions require force and fraud. That ought to be enough to indict the “custodians of the earth,” who also wish to lord it over us in prisoner road gangs, or be our executioners.

    Once that is done, it will be seen that the “do-gooders” are neither saints nor hypocrites, but vicious predators who seek man’s subservience to unconquered “nature,” or his extinction.

    Crossposted at The Dougout
    Bookmark and Share
    posted by Grant Jones at permanent link# 0 Comments

    Exit The Editrix

    I guess my disenchantment with blogging is obvious for some time now. During the last weeks I went through an intense thought process. It started with a campaign in the mainstream media here in Germany against Islam-critical blogs and specifically against the most-read political blog in Germany, Politically Incorrect.

    A lot of what a reader from abroad needs to know about the German blogger scene, including my stance on Politically Incorrect, I wrote here already.

    After Stefan Herre, the owner of PI received threats following an article in the MSM he considered serious enough to leave the country for a while, I found that enough was enough. I think my blogging efforts are more needed at home than abroad.

    The demented "war" between Islam-critical bloggers has strengthened that decision. If an original and unique thinker like Fjordman is vilified by other Islam-critics among the major bloggers, something stinks. But then, and as far as the German scene is concerned, maybe it was naive to assume that bloggers who range from those who have been moved into action because of the imminent threat to Israel and somewhat grudgingly concede that Germany will have to be saved in the process as well, and those who are acting out of exactly the opposite reasons and equally grudgingly concede that Israel will have to be saved together with Germany and the rest of the West, between the "anti-German" Israel-friendly Left at one end and those just stopping short of hating Jews to a self-destructive extent at the other, will ever feel that they have a common cause.

    I will by no means delete Roncesvalles and go on publishing the odd brief snippet of information, and if it is of interest to an international readership, I will come back and post it here.

    I am not quite sure what I will do yet. What I will certainly not do is going on blogging as The Editrix at a new German blog, because most of my friends of various degrees know my real identity anyway, as The Editrix had always been a gimmick and not an attempt at anonymity. Maybe I will start a new German blog of my own, maybe I will go on as co-blogger somewhere, should somebody want me.

    However, thanks to all the -- considering -- amazingly many who read my blog over the years, most (I hope) sympathetically, some less so. But thanks anyway.

    Labels: ,

    Bookmark and Share
    posted by The_Editrix at permanent link# 3 Comments

    An Army of Midgets

    This essay was posted earlier today at Gates of Vienna.

    *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
    Accept disgrace willingly.
    Accept misfortune as the human condition.
    What do you mean by “Accept disgrace willingly”?
    Accept being unimportant.
    Do not be concerned with loss or gain.
    This is called “accepting disgrace willingly.”

    — Lao Tzu, from The Tao Te Ching (XIII)

    *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

    Under the streetlightEverybody knows the old joke about the man who encounters an elderly gentleman looking for something intently along the gutter under a streetlight.

    “What are you looking for, old fellow?” asks the first man.

    “My car keys,” says the old man. “I know I dropped them somewhere in the park.”

    “The park!? The park’s across the road! Why don’t you look for them over there?”

    “The light’s better over here.”

    And so it is with the Counterjihad. Here at Gates of Vienna you’ll find a little zone of illumination, the place where we gather to talk and argue and discuss. Somewhere out there in the murky dark beyond the circle of light the real Counterjihad is going on, but here we are: the light’s better over here.

    *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

    I bring all of this up because during the past twenty-four hours the intense hostility directed at Gates of Vienna has expanded to include the Center for Vigilant Freedom. I’ll be dealing with all the latest pernicious nonsense in a future post, but this morning I’d like to harken back to the early days of the current unpleasantness.

    The other day, in a long Gates of Vienna comment thread, AngleofRepose reminded me this comment by “Tasty Beverage” in a thread on Little Green Footballs:

    LGF has around eight times as many members — something like 20,000, with thousands and thousands more non-members who come here daily just to read the front page.

    Gates of Vienna and Brussels Journal are lucky if they get eight comments in a thread. These are marginal people reaching out to other marginal people, i.e., SD and VB.

    So all of you bloggers who deigned to set yourselves up as our “leaders” in the Anti-Jihad movement (what you called “Counter Jihad”) — and who organized a conference without talking to or asking us about it first — what we want, what we think — and then decided all on your own that our movement was going to ally with these “questionable” political parties in Europe — you had the unbelievable chutzpah to piss and moan at us lowly peons when we had the nerve to say to you, (our self-appointed leaders, deciding all on your own that we must ally with these people), “NO WAY IN HELL!” —————

    Get this in your heads:

    We don’t need you.

    You need US. Without us, without LGF, you are for the most part isolated backwaters on the internet. LGF is the mainstream, you are the fringe, or otherwise just minor in the grand scheme. Understand? And after the inevitable denunciation and repudiation you are going to receive from LGF if you do not immediately disassociate from these political parties, what you call your “Counter-Jihad” is going to remain fringe and discredited as a cynical, dishonest vehicle of neo-nazis and bigots who aren’t really opposed to islam so much as anyone duskier than you, because they can’t possibly assimilate and believe in “European culture”, even if they are born and raised in it, as their genes preclude them from doing so.

    You are never going to convince us that your new “friends” and fellow-thinkers can be trusted. Never — they have too much baggage, even if they have “reformed”, which I doubt. Get this through your thick skulls.

    So the decision is yours. You will be formally and publically separated from this flagship, denounced, and you will remain on small, pathetic sites with twenty commenters, where you can all talk to each other about how much smarter you are than LGFers, and how you guys are the ones who will save Western Civilization.

    (what a joke)

    I suspect Charles is not going to allow all of his incredibly hard work, 365 days a year for the last six years, to be utterly and irreversibly ruined by association with your friends.

    Meanwhile, the Lizard Nation will grow ever bigger and more influential, and you will only be able to watch in envy from the sidelines, self-marginalized, and thoroughly convinced that you guys are the real saviors of us all. You couldn’t be more wrong. [emphasis added]

    I read this comment when it first appeared, and it’s one of the reasons I quit reading LGF. When people are saying that kind of thing about you in a public forum, you realize that it’s not a place you want to hang out.

    Consider the implications of the bolded phrases in the above excerpt:

    • organized a conference without talking to or asking us about it first
    • “questionable” political parties
    • self-appointed leaders, deciding all on your own
    • LGF is the mainstream, you are the fringe
    • the inevitable denunciation and repudiation you are going to receive from LGF
    • You will be formally and publically [sic] separated from this flagship
    • Charles is not going to allow
    • you will only be able to watch in envy from the sidelines

    Admittedly, these words are from a lizardoid reader, and were not written by Charles Johnson himself. And I’m sure that Mr. Johnson would deny that the sentiments expressed by Tasty Beverage reflect the official policy of Little Green Footballs.

    Still… Mr. Johnson has banned people for saying things like, “I don’t agree with this.” One is led to assume that the commenter’s words reflect the party line, given the tendency of the leader to bring his followers quickly to heel when their views do not align with his own.

    Ignoring for a moment the fact that Charles Johnson was indeed invited to Counterjihad Brussels 2007, and has acknowledged that he received the three invitational emails, consider the implications of these sentiments.

    • It is expected that Charles Johnson, the proprietor of the blog Little Green Footballs, shall approve in advance any gathering of anti-jihad groups.
    • No group or groups opposing the Great Jihad may gather for that purpose without notifying Mr. Johnson in advance and obtaining his approval. No party or organization may be represented at such meetings without being cleared with Mr. Johnson, nor may attendees associate themselves with proscribed parties or organizations. No one who has been friends with, talked to, had his photograph taken with, or indeed been in the same room with people belonging to suspicious groups may be invited to such a conference.
    • Violation of these edicts will be punished swiftly and severely by irrevocable excommunication.

    Let’s overlook the arrogance, grandiosity, and megalomania implied by the policies outlined above. What about their practical effectiveness?

    The weapons of punishment employed to maintain lizardoid ideological purity consist mainly of the flame war and the email spam attack. There is no gainsaying the effectiveness of these methods in dividing and demoralizing the Counterjihad. But how well will they serve our common cause, the struggle to confront and roll back the encroachment of sharia in the West?

    LGF fields no candidates in any elections, and is not consulted in the making of government policy. The lizardoids send no lobbyists to Capitol Hill, nor do they introduce legislation in any parliaments. Charles Johnson does not appoint ambassadors to journey to Strasbourg and discuss the latest immigration issues with their EU counterparts. His order does not mobilize armies or scramble air force pilots.

    Little Green Footballs is, in short, simply a talk shop, just as Gates of Vienna is. Its traffic profile is an order of magnitude greater than ours, but it’s still nothing more than a talk shop.

    Real action occurs elsewhere.

    *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

    The LGF comment quoted above includes the gleeful assertion that Gates of Vienna and the Brussels Journal are pitifully small in traffic and comments compared to the huge and influential numbers displayed at Little Green Footballs.

    The number of comments at LGF is indeed huge — although quantity does not guarantee quality — and Charles Johnson’s blog is truly mighty in its number of visitors.

    But focusing on the traffic or comments at any given blog obscures more important facts. When you consider one blog’s traffic, you’re circling the lamppost looking intently at the sidewalk. Out there in the darkness beyond the little circle of light are more interesting facts; they’re just not as easy to see.

    The relative traffic numbers are only significant if you let your ego get snared by such concerns and become pridefully attached to a single blog or website.

    What’s being overlooked is the enormous new network that has formed, and is still forming. I don’t know how many bloggers are involved — there are a lot of them — but their numbers collectively amount to far more than those of LGF in terms of traffic or comments.

    Add in the forums and other types of websites, the members of political parties, activists, and ordinary folk who are involved but only lurk at the blogs, and the Counterjihad becomes huge.

    It just doesn’t show on Technorati, Alexa, or TTLB.

    Nobody has a site meter that can track it.

    That’s why all of this recent nonsense is not significant. It’s full of sound and fury. It’s annoying and occasionally infuriating, but it’s trivial and transient, and it will pass.

    Something is happening out there in the dark that’s real and good and true, something that will make a difference. It can’t be seriously impeded by bloggers, journalists, or even politicians, because it arises from a source which is inherently unstoppable: the people themselves.

    I know this because I’m actively involved with it.

    Tasty Beverage is right: I’m a nobody. I’m just one guy bloviating here at GoV and emailing people I know and occasionally taking planes to discuss things at meetings. My part is insignificant.

    But when all the parts are aggregated, something major takes form. It won’t be obvious for some time yet, but it’s happening out there in the dark all the same.

    Everyone is welcome to stay here circling the lamppost, but rest assured: your keys are elsewhere.

    *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

    Prominent people and politicians will be the last to climb aboard the Counterjihad because they are so attuned to conventional wisdom and received opinion. Their careers and reputations depend on it. They flee in terror from the accusations of “racism”, “xenophobia”, “Islamophobia”, and “neo-Nazism” flung so indiscriminately in all directions.

    Journalists, political leaders, major academics, and CEOs of large corporations will not be among those who initiate dramatic change. They have too much to lose; their stake in the existing system is too great.

    Real change does not occur in these circles. It starts out there in the dark and only moves into the light when it has become too large to escape notice. Then, without warning, the tipping point is reached, an alternative way of thinking arrives, and a new consensus forms.

    In order to bring these changes about, thousands of unimportant people throughout the West will have to labor without recognition for years. It’s already happening: people are organizing in groups to stop the building of mosques, protest the Islamization of school textbooks, object to the separation of the sexes in public swimming pools, and insist on the enforcement of immigration laws. These efforts will continue, whether or not they obtain the Lizardoid Seal of Approval.

    And CVF, along with innumerable other coordinating groups, will help bring these various networks together and keep them in communication. That’s our mission.

    Trivial and tedious though these tasks may be, they are not without risk. Consider the example of Lars Vilks, the Swedish artist who decided to draw a picture of Mohammed as a roundabout dog. Such a small and innocuous act! But now he has a price on his head.

    Someone asked him if drawing the Modoggies was worth dying for, and he said simply, “Yes, it is.”

    We’re nothing special. We’re all nobodies. Our blogs are small, and nobody important reads them. We’ll never be interviewed by Wolf Blitzer or make the cover of Wired. We don’t get to hang out with the movers and shakers or ride first class on airplanes.


    Even though we’re midgets, there are a lot of us.

    We’re an army of midgets.

    *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

    In times of stress or difficulty I find solace in mathematics or poetry, which are my two great passions. Nothing combines both disciplines as effectively as The Tao Te Ching. Within its eighty-one chapters can be found an economy of wisdom, guaranteed to provide a calming focus for the task at hand.

    I began this rumination with a passage from Lao Tzu, and am returning to his words, this time from Chapter II, for its conclusion.

    Under heaven all can see beauty as beauty only because there is ugliness.
    All can know good as good only because there is evil.
    Therefore having and not having arise together.
    Difficult and easy complement each other.
    Long and short contrast each other:
    High and low rest upon each other;
    Voice and sound harmonize each other;
    Front and back follow one another.

    Therefore the sage goes about doing nothing, teaching no-talking.
    The ten thousand things rise and fall without cease,
    Creating, yet not.
    Working, yet not taking credit.
    Work is done, then forgotten.
    Therefore it lasts forever.
    Bookmark and Share
    posted by Baron Bodissey at permanent link# 5 Comments

    Storm Track Infiltration: Listen Up Infidels! This Is Your Future Under Islam

    In the “Schmoozing with Terrorists” Aaron Klein petitioned Mideast terror leaders to describe day-to-day life in the U.S. if al-Qaida won the war on terror.

    Hat tip to the Lone Voice.

    "Once Islam dominates, anyone living inside the Islamic state must abide by our rules. There is no choice. You will abide or face the punishment," said Muhammad Abdel-El, the spokesman and a senior leader of the Popular Resistance Committees terror organization.

    Sheik Abu Saqer, a prominent Gaza-based preacher, a founder of the Sword of Islam terror group and a subscriber to the ideology of al-Qaida, explained if Islam controls the U.S., all American women, whether Muslim or not, must cover their hair.

    "This is the demand of our religion. Being and walking naked doesn't mean that you are enjoying more freedom; it means that you are going against Allah's laws and you are serving the enemies of Islam who want to empty our Islamic society from its values. Uncovered heads is a form of nudity."Yasser Hamad, a cleric and a Hamas leader in the northern West Bank, explained in "Schmoozing.”

    So not covering a woman’s hair is tantamount to being naked. You have to have a constipated mind to think something like that up.

    Read the rest at The Gathering Storm.
    Bookmark and Share
    posted by WC at permanent link# 1 Comments

    "Let this land go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world"

    There are some publications it pays to go thru slowly. Commentary is just such a one.
    Norman "Bush please bomb Iran" Podhoretz, and unrepentant believer that all men want to be free, REALLY FREE, not free like in certain places where the people cannot be sovereign EVER because of a certain book, writes in Commentary a few words of import.
    The upshot is an argument that Iran CANNOT be deterred, certainly from pursuit and acquisition of nuclear weapons, but also more probably of first use of same on their own, or by hand off in their pursuit of what every leader of Iran has uttered since 1979.


    In my article “The Case for Bombing Iran” (COMMENTARY, June 2007), in my book World War IV: The Long Struggle Against Islamofascism, and in various public appearances (including a televised debate with Fareed Zakaria of Newsweek), I quoted the Ayatollah Khomeini as having said the following:

    We do not worship Iran, we worship Allah. For patriotism is another name for paganism. I say let this land [Iran] burn. I say let this land go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world.


    My source for this statement was Amir Taheri, the prolific Iranian-born journalist now living in London, who has also contributed a number of articles to COMMENTARY. Now, however, the Economist, relying on another Iranian-born writer, Shaul Bakhash of George Mason University, has alleged on its blog “Democracy in America” that Khomeini never said any such thing. “Someone,” says Mr. Bakhash, “should inform Mr. Podhoretz he is citing a non-existent statement.”

    That “someone” has turned out to be Andrew Sullivan in his widely read blog, “The Daily Dish.” Linking to the Economist post, Sullivan accuses me of intellectual dishonesty for failing to admit that I have made an “error” in relying on a “bogus quotation” to bolster my argument that if Iran were to acquire nuclear weapons, it would not be deterred from using them by the fear of retaliation.

    I do not usually bother responding to Sullivan’s frequent attacks on me, which are fueled by the same shrill hysteria that, as has often been pointed out, deforms most of what he “dishes” out on a daily basis. But in this case I have decided to respond because, by linking to a sober source like the Economist, he may for a change seem credible.

    The Economist concludes its piece by challenging Amir Taheri to produce “the original source for this quote.” In response to a query from me, Mr. Taheri has now met that challenge. He writes:

    The quote can be found in several editions of Khomeini’s speeches and messages. Here is one edition:

    Paymaha va Sokhanraniyha-yi Imam Khomeini (“Messages and Speeches of Imam Khomeini”) published by Nur Research and Publication Institute (Tehran, 1981).

    The quote, along with many other passages, disappeared from several subsequent editions as the Islamic Republic tried to mobilize nationalistic feelings against Iraq, which had invaded Iran in 1980.

    The practice of editing and even censoring Khomeini to suit the circumstances is widely known by Iranian scholars. This is how Professor Ahmad Karimi-Hakkak, the Director of the Center for Persian Studies at the University of Maryland and a specialist in Islamic censorship, states the problem: “Khumayni’s [sic] speeches are regularly published in fresh editions wherein new selections are made, certain references deleted, and various adjustments introduced depending on the state’s current preoccupation” (Persian Studies in North America, 1994).

    In any case, Mr. Taheri continues in his letter to me:

    Your real argument is that Khomeini is not an Iranian nationalist but a pan-Islamist and thus would not have been affected by ordinary nationalistic considerations, including the safety of any “motherland.” This is known to Iranians as a matter of fact. Khomeini opposed the use of the words mellat (“nation”) and melli (“national”), replacing them with Ummat (“the Islamic community”) and ummati (“pertaining to the Islamic community”).

    Thus, Majlis Shuray e Melli (“The National Consultative Assembly”) was renamed by Khomeini as Majlis Shuray Islami (“Islamic Consultative Assembly”). He also replaced the Iranian national insignia of Lion and Sun with a stylized calligraphy of the word Allah.

    Bookmark and Share
    posted by Epaminondas at permanent link# 0 Comments

    And then Achmadinejad ordered the swarm attack

    Bookmark and Share
    posted by Epaminondas at permanent link# 0 Comments

    Older Posts Newer Posts