CraigRead.com - Recent Articles

We need more Islamophobia – not less. Islam is a death cult, not a religion.

Fri, 30 Jul 2010 00:00:00 GMT

Cultural Marxists, a category whose members include most of the political elite, academia and the media, often descry and rage with populist affectation against 'Islamophobia'. Cultural Marxists moralize that being offended by a pagan Arab fascism, one dedicated to submitting the individual into a collective communal in which the church and state are permanently commingled, is somehow an act of irrationality, almost racist in its scope, and unsophisticated in its approach. As with all matters to do with Cultural Marxism the opposite is of course true. What the vendors of cultural destruction are trying to sell you is the inversion of reality.

'Islamophobia' is another juvenile mindless label. We need more Islamophobes not less. We need more people who are educated about the real Islam, and the real nature of 'Jihad', not less. We need more realism in identifying the pagan fascist reality of a political theology centered around the racist Koran, founded by an Arab military adventurer who went mad at age 40, deifying the male moon deity of Mecca. Can there be anything more absurd than stating that a program of mindless ritualization, prayer, prostration, irrationality, and following laws emanating from a book which is worse than Mein Kampf, is a religion? Cultural Marxists, are ignorant. It is plainly insipid to criticize someone who understands and resists the evils of Islam.

As with most destructive cultural changes and posturing, the Marxist uses slander, accusing those who defend traditions, Western superiority, or the modern world with calumnies and distortions. So now we have abortion which is simply the killing of a human, turned into a 'female right to choose'. How kind. Globaloney Warming fear-mongering is now defined as a 'science'. Queer coupling and Gay culture is now recasted as normal, perhaps superior, in spite of psychological evidence, treatment and studies to the contrary. Misandry or man-hatred is promoted as female liberation. Anti-semitic racism and hating Jews is simply support for the underdog-Arab. Defaming Christianity and inventing lies about the theology which formed the modern world is recasted as being progressive and 'secular'. Slandering capitalism and industry is turned into 'defending the poor and the minorities'. Those who protest against illegal immigration are racists, and are against all immigration. Anyone who disagrees with the Black Jesus obviously hates Blacks and probably all people of any color. When Muslims war that is okay, but if you defend yourself, you are a Bushitler goon. And so on.......

Islamophobia is thus a word like racism, which the Cultural Marxists will use to beat down anyone who opposes a fascist pagan moon cult from Mecca, responsible for some 300 million dead over 1400 years and the conquering via the sword, which still goes on today, of huge tracts of the planet. So how intelligent are these Cultural Marxists?

Anyone who uses Islamophobia is plainly a simpleton. First, most of the people against the theocratic fascism called 'submission', are not against individual Muslims. We know from Nazi records that only 2 million Germans were part of the official Nazi party. In Russia, the Communist party numbered no more than 8 million. This would indicate that superficially at least, most Germans and most Russians were not deployed inside non-Western organizations dedicated to the destruction of the modern world. Most likely, most citizens of Nazi Germany were not interested in Germanic race theory, nor in universalist ambition and supremacy. Same for the Russians of the Cold War. But that is immaterial. The cults which ruled these states, and their liturgy, philosophies, ideals and beliefs, certainly were interested in universal rule, and destroying the reality of the 5 senses. Islam is no different.

Second, no one knows if the individual Muslim is a great and good person, or someone sending money to Hamas and reading Qutb. You don't know. And if you don't know, it is highly specious to be lecturing people that all Muslims are moderate peace-loving democrats. Reality and facts are against you. The FBI and CIA are pretty sure that at least $50 million per year leaves the US and is sent overseas to fund Jihad and Muslim-Fascist groups. A similar amount must be escaping Europe. These funds are being used to promote Islamic rule across the world. They are used to finance conflicts, wars, missiles, and Koranic indoctrination of the young. The Saudi's have spent some $100 billion in the past 40 years promoting Salafist-Islamic fascism around the world. Huge mosques have been and will continue to be erected in every major Western city and urban area. The Koran does not preach love and hope, but intolerance, conquest and war. Read it.

Islamophobia is a badge of honor. We need a lot more of it. Print up the tshirts, the hats, and put on the tattoos. Display your knowledge of mankind's worse pagan fascism and most destructive theology yet constructed. As written before;

“What is Islamophobia anyways? The word is quite similar to the connotations around Homo or Queer-phobia. Queer like Islam is not a very nice word. Queer means off the straight line, strange, mis-shapened. Islam is much the same. Meaning submission, it smacks of slavery, self-loathing, collective self-hatred, off the normal, mental and rational track, suffused with knee-bending and ass in the air ignorance.

How else do you describe an Arabian moon cult in which the victims have to submit themselves 5 times daily to the moon deity for forgiveness?”

1204 and the Crusader 'sack' of Constantinople. A necessity.

Thu, 29 Jul 2010 00:00:00 GMT

Historical revisionists, cultural Marxists, and those who piously intone that Islam-Is-Peace and merriment, always without exception, use the 'Crusades' to highlight Christian 'barbarity' and 'imperialism'. Such attitudes are puerile, mendacious, and the products of deformed intellects. Real investigation, archaeology, and true history make it clear that the Crusades were necessary and in the main, successful. They in effect saved Europe from Islamicization [see here as to why that is]. The Crusades were a laggardly response, by a superior cadre of civilized yet divided and disunited nation states, against 400 years of Muslim aggression, conquest, slave-trading, raiding, plundering and rapine. Vast tracts of former Jewish and Christian territories stretching from Armenia, the Levant, North Africa and into southern France and Spain, had been conquered by the Muslim Jihad, with all the attendant murder, enslavement, Dhimmitude, and effacement of civilization that would entail. Islam is history's most successful barbaric pagan fascism. Such ideological constructs do not promote civilization.

The more informed of the anti-Christian and anti-Western zealots, including Muslimophiles and apologists for Islamic Jihad, will highlight the 'sack of Constantinople' in 1204 by the Fourth Crusade, as the apogee of Western uncivilized savagery. According to almost every account of this event, the Fourth Crusade's indiscriminate destruction of Christendom's most important city, was the greatest and most heinous crime in medieval history. Nothing like it – according to these 'scholars' and 'students' – can be seen within Islamic history since Islam is peace and love [notwithstanding the fact that the Muslim rape, slaughter and enslavement of the same city's 80.000 remaining citizens in 1453 far exceeded any bloodletting in 1204]. No 'crime' like it would be seen again until the 'criminal actions' during World War II such as the bombing of Dresden by those imperialist British, [which the Russians demanded since it was the major German communications and transport center for the Eastern war], and the uncultured Americans wiping out Hiroshima and Nagasaki with atomic bombs, killing 100.000 [and only saving most likely 5 million casualties during a prolonged assault on the Japanese home islands].

For those who equivocate between West and East, and who need to find reasons to detest the Crusades, which saved Europe and civilization, the 1204 sack of Constantinople is a main argument. But are the recriminations against the sack true or based on historical fact and common-sense? In almost every account I have read about the Fourth Crusade, I cannot find any historical data to support the key suppositions which are forwarded and which include inter-alia;

1. The 1204 sack of Constantinople was unprovoked;
2. The Byzantines were innocents who were 'murdered' en masse, and
3. The siege and plunder was particularly vicious or violent for the era;

None of these assumptions is right. In fact they are lies. The reality of the Fourth Crusade is this: after almost 100 years of 'Crusading' in the Holy Land, the Western 'Franks' had learnt very well that the Greeks or Byzantine Romans could not be trusted. In fact I would state that the taking of the city in 1204 by the Latins was overdue and deserved. This is not based just on Western propaganda but on reality. For 100 years the Greeks had done their best to disrupt the Crusades, profit from them without doing anything, and even actively aiding the Turks. Greek perfidy which rightly excited Western hatred included:

1. Never fighting with the Westerners to retake once Christian lands;
2. Never financing the expeditions;
3. Expecting that the lands once conquered would be returned without compensation to Byzantium;
4. Leading the second crusade into a trap and destruction which doomed the entire Crusading enterprise and made the defence of the First Crusades gains highly improbable; and
5. Demonstrating an arrogance in dealing with the 'Franks' that shocked the Westerners.

Review: Susan Bauer, 'The History of the Medieval World'.

Wed, 28 Jul 2010 00:00:00 GMT

The book is 667 pages long broken into short, quick, readable chapters covering global history from the 4^th century AD to the 13^th. Bauer is a writer and historian and faculty member at William and Mary University [see susanwisebauer.com]. This book on the medieval world could have been an excellent summation of the world, which covers a gigantic period one full of change, innovation, war, political-economic mutation and socio-environmental upheaval. Bauer's book might have been a magnificent compendium considering the rather Napoleonic ambitions of the project. The problem is Islam and her views of its founder and its spread. The cultural Marxism and impurity of what she writes about Mohammed and Islam essentially destroys 500 pages of other information, which is highly valuable and well-written.

The book is chronologically based and cut up into small chapters of 5-10 pages on each region during its long survey period of nearly 1000 years. On the positive side, China, India, Africa, Latin America, as well as the North Atlantic regions and Russia are covered. Given this architectural reality, the various chapters cannot be too detailed or mired in too much obscurantism. This must be plain, direct and get to the main issues quickly. This is important. Too many texts delve into arcane and truly deranged theorizing, detail, or suppositions – much of which is not supported by archaeology, facts, common-sense, or independent investigation. Bauer's self-imposed limitation of space is an asset. Yet she still engages in a-historical Marxist rants and revisionism when it comes to Islam and Arab imperialism. This is in essence destroys the value of the work.

It must be said that many of the chapters on non-Muslim, Arab, or Turkish histories are excellent. Bauer is quite at home when discussing the late days of the Roman empire, the irruptions into Europe of the violent and untutored clans and tribes such as the Huns, Avars, or Northmen; the development of Russia, or the various phases of Byzantine glory and decline. She is also very well studied and erudite in Asian and African history. Many facts rendered in this book are novel, or little discussed, adding flavor and stimulation for the reader. But alas she fails horribly with Islam, the Arabs, and Mohammed.

The two poorest chapters of this book deal with Mohammed. One named the 'Prophet' is simply terrible. It is false, mendacious, inaccurate and looks like it was written for Bauer by an Arab-Muslim apologist and hypocrite from CAIR, Hamas or the Muslim Brotherhood. It contains only one interesting and arresting artifact. The rich Sabean kingdom, famous from the times of Queen Sheba or Queen Sabea of Solomon fame, collapsed in about 590 AD when the main dam, which captured water and was used for irrigation, broke. This destruction eradicated the large center of Sabea and some 50.000 people became migrants. Many went to Medina and Mecca. This created a torrent of social and economic tensions. How to support such a wave of people in a desolate, desert country? How to grant charity to these poor travelers? What to do with them and how to house them and keep them busy? As with today's illegal waves of migratory welfare-state and economic-asylum seekers, the Sabean emigration must have put a very large strain indeed on Arab life.

The Koran sanctions the murder of non-Muslims.

Tue, 27 Jul 2010 00:00:00 GMT

The Old and New Testaments which inform the entire cultural-legal legacy of the 'West', are very clear – thou shall not kill. The only exceptions to this rule can be in the Old Testament's descriptions of Israel's various wars with very select enemies – Canaanites [the Hebrews were once the slave class within the Canaanite empire], the Philistines [who were Greek and Hittite's not Arabs or the apocryphal Palestinians which have never existed in history]; Edomites, Aramites, Aramatheans; and the Moabites. Nowhere in the Old or New Testaments is there an invocation to kill for the sake either of war or murder. Any of the warring violence of the Old Testament is quite specific and historically accurate. There is no injunction to universal or non-specific acts of war, brigandage or killing. None. The Koran however, is profoundly different. It demands universal and general war and murder against non-believers.

The Koran sanctions murder of non-Muslims. This is just a simple fact which can be gleaned from the hundreds of verses advocating violence against Kufars or non-Muslims, which one can find on any page of this racist-supremacist and highly illiterate tome of gibberish. Witness Sura 5 verse 33:

“The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land...”

Suffering through the Koran, Sura 56, 'The Inevitable Event'.

Mon, 26 Jul 2010 00:00:00 GMT

The Koran is the supremacist-racist theology of Fascism par excellence. Violence, hate, no Golden Rule and swaggering, uncivilized Muslim incantations litter the execrable tract. This Sura named 'The Inevitable Event' was written after the Muslims conquered Mecca in 630 A.D, a feat which united the Arab tribes into one political unit. This Sura was used as a 'revelation' against Jews, Christians and pagan Animists who refused to submit to the Meccan male moon deity cult run by the exaggeratedly insane Mohammed. The chapter is nothing more than a litany of hate.

This Sura has 96 lines or verses. Of these, 57 are full of hate against non-Muslims, describing in graphic detail how they will burn and boil in Hell for the sin of rejecting the Meccan moon cult. 16 lines praise the fundamentalist followers of the Koran as being the most cherished by Al-Allah. 14 verses wax redolent about those Muslims who are not perfect followers of Koranic law, but who nonetheless do support the Allah-cult. They, like the fundamentalist defenders of the moon cult, shall also be rewarded with ever-lasting bounty, water, wine, women and painless existence in Heaven.

The 'Inevitable Event' according to this Sura and the Koran, is the end of times. Judgement Day. This is when all humans will be 'called to account' and judged by the celestial deity Al-Allah. It is never made clear in the Koran if this is one single gigantic event, or if it happens immediately after a person dies [in Christian theology, time post death does not exist, so the future and present are welded together and Judgement Day would occur upon the fact of death]. This Sura makes it clear that every person will be placed into one of three categories. The 'great supporters' of the moon cult. The less fundamentalist but extremely useful and pious submitters to the cult of the Meccan moon object. And the rest.

“When the earth shall be shaken to its depths, And the mountains shall be crumbled to atoms....And you will be sorted our into three classes. Then (there will be) the Companions of the Right Hand....And the Companions of the Left Hand....And those foremost (in Faith) will be Foremost (in the Hereafter). These will be nearest to Allah;” [56:4-11]

The winners in the lottery of Allah are the Companions of the Right Hand; and 'those foremost in Faith'. The third group the Companions of the Left Hard are the 'others' and they are doomed. The Left-Hand cadre will be punished by the vengeful, angry Allah. If you are not foremost in faith, or with Allah's right hand, you have no claim to exact tolerance, love, or compassion from the moon deity. Apparently he does not take kindly to those who don't follow Koranic law.

Notice that this Sura, like every Sura is utterly devoid of immanent and universal, ethics or morality. No Golden Rule exists in this Sura or anywhere else in the Koran. Islam and the Koran are race and ideology-specific. If you follow, you will win. If you don't, we will kill you. This is not a religion or faith, but simply a cult.

Paul Johnson: 'The Quest for God: A Personal Pilgrimage'

Fri, 23 Jul 2010 00:00:00 GMT

Johnson is a superb historian and a Catholic. He has kept his faith over his 82 years. This is commendable. Johnson is much criticized for his pro-market; pro-individual and 'conservative' views. He was after all a well regarded speech writer for Margaret Thatcher, a position anathema to all the coveted beliefs of the really-smart-people. Today the Catholic church is a left-wing institution, whose members vote in a plurality for left-wing parties and programs. Johnson is one the few extant members who is still a conservative.

This book is an excellent read. It offers insights into how a person with a long and varied life such as Johnson, kept his faith. It is full of facts, ethics, and questions. You might hate religion, but there is little denying that some sort of faith, and spirituality is a necessity. Without a framework of belief, a person is easy prey for any state propagated cult which arises, that desires the complete control of the individual and the sublimation of the person into the communal. Without a framework of belief the natural egoism of the person supersedes other concerns and morality disappears from civilized society. As Johnson so rightly frames it:

“There are no commands to follow except what society imposes upon us, and even these we may evade if we can get away with it. In a Godless world, there is no obvious basis for altruism of any kind, moral anarchy takes over and the rule of self prevails.”

It is not the 'Church' that Johnson is defending or criticizing. It is 'faith' in the abstract. Morality as an existential and social program. Ethics as a means to personal fulfillment and success.

“Far more dangerous than the humanist impact have been the twentieth-century attempts to find substitutes for God – attempts both conscious and unconscious – which appeal not so much to the intellectual pretensions as to much deeper, darker, and stronger instincts in mankind.”

Quite right. The greatest crimes in history have been made by Statist governments who were morally anarchic and atheist. Today we have such cultish fantasies as Islam; Globaloney Warming; Gay Sex; Obama-socialism and other anti-reality constructs posing as moral-spiritual alternatives to fill the spiritual vacuum.

“Such totalitarian substitutes for religion spread rapidly in the 1960s, following the withdrawal of the colonial powers, to Africa and parts of Asia. Voltaire's dictum that religion was the enemy of mankind.....In the minds of almost all intelligent people in the West, these totalitarian alternatives to God...have now been demonstrated to be incorrigibly destructive and evil.”

Statism is evil, but its theology of control is mutable. Eco- Fascism; Corporate Fascism, various welfare policies, illegal immigration, appeasement of Islam, all geared to the destruction of the individual can and will find expressions in new and even more ludicrous programs and rhetoric. Yet the mass seems to indulge the state and even buy into many of the 'progressive' programs with nice, tear-jerking names and objectives.

How was the universe created? Why is there evolution? Is pantheism even rational? How can 'God' be in nature, in us and all around us? Johnson believes that God is a power, a definite and to the human-mind, supremely powerful 'thing'. He is not in a tree, a rock, a sparrow or the wind. He is in the human consciousness but also quite physically, separate from the human mind and body. He is the embodiment of love.

The myth of Muslim charity or 'Zakat' – money for the Umma not for the infidel.

Thu, 22 Jul 2010 00:00:00 GMT

There are six 'pillars' or duties for Muslims and the moon cult followers: These duties are 1. Follow the Koran [or as the moon cult prefers to name it, professing 'faith']; 2. Fasting, 3. Saying your 5 daily prayers whilst facing Mecca, 4. The Hajj or journey to Mecca to pay homage to the great moon cult monuments and to Mohammed's birth place [and make Arab merchants and hoteliers rich], 5. Jihad and spreading Islam by war and 6. The giving of alms. Multi-culturalists usually ejaculate and expostulate absurd theories about Muslim greatness over the last duty – the giving of charity. Alas for the hard-of-thinking, Islamic 'Zakat' or alms-giving has nothing whatsoever to do with charity. It is a payment by Muslims for Muslims, to safeguard the collective strength of the Umma. Alms-giving is denied to non-Muslims. Its purpose is societal and demographic – not one of charity.

Judeo-Christian charity is defined as not only the giving of money to anyone in need; but more importantly the giving of love and toleration to anyone in need. J-C charity is thus real charity. It is not just a monetary contribution, but an investment of human love, affection, toleration and time, for people who have less. Nothing like this concept exists in the moon-cult Fascism called Islam. Nothing like the following verse from the New Testament can be found anywhere in the Koran, or Islamic liturgy. This is how Christianity views charity:

1 Corinthians, 13:3

"And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing."

In Judeo-Christian tradition charity is not buying off your sins by handing money to the poor. Charity is in the main, a spiritual project, one infused with true love for the plight of the poor and unfortunate. Nothing like this exists within Islam.

For the Meccan moon cult charity is a social-political program – only for Muslims. Non-Muslims are excluded.

"Who do not give the obligatory charity (Zakat), and with regard to the Hereafter, they are disbelievers." [57:7]

No love. No toleration. No investment of time. Pay the tithe and be quiet.

Wilders' speech on the difference between Islam and Muslims

Wed, 21 Jul 2010 00:00:00 GMT

When you criticize the state managed and financed cults; or the preferred Fascist theologies of the intellectuals; names aplenty are trebucheted in your direction. No one must dare criticize what the state deems to be the protected classes and groups; Gays, Muslims, Feminists, Green Nazis, the Abortionists, the Socialists; and those who hate Whites, Jews and Christians, are dearly coveted and coddled. The more 'victim' groups there are, the more power the state can demand, in order to facilitate their protection and erect caring, munificent programs to ensure equality and compassion.

It is a gigantic multi-cult scam. Wilders like most critics of the Meccan moon cult, desires in part, the liberation of Muslim people from their pagan-Fascist moon cult. 1.6 billion people are enslaved by the mindlessness of Islam. Imagine what these people could do once they liberated themselves and joined reality?

“Islam deprives Muslims of their freedom. That is a shame, because free people are capable of great things, as history has shown. The Arab, Turkish, Iranian, Indian, Indonesian peoples have tremendous potential. It they were not captives of Islam, if they could liberate themselves from the yoke of Islam, if they would cease to take Muhammad as a role model and if they got rid of the evil Koran, they would be able to achieve great things which would benefit not only them but the entire world.”

This is all true. Just think about how much better off the world would be without Islam. 1.6 billion freed from Jew-hate, supremacism, idiotic beliefs about the moon-cult ruling the planet, repetitive and mind-numbing ritualization and prayers. No more Muslim swagger, death threats, war with the infidel, terror, female mutilation and murder; and an end to Muslim illiteracy. The wealth and intelligence of the world would markedly increase over night, if Islam just simply disappeared from history right now.

Yet when a politician like Geert Wilders who believes in social health-care, open-trade, individual responsibility, Dutch and European culture, literacy, female equality, and free speech, denounces a theological monstrosity like the moon-cult from Mecca, he is called names such as Nazi, Fascist, Conservative, or 'Far Right'. Notice the absolute incoherency in the ad-hominem attacks. Wilders' philosophy is a mixture of agnosticism, socialism, responsible conservatism, individuality and pride in pan-European history. It is the opposite of Fascistic ideals. Fascism is of course a left-wing statist construct, similar to Communism, and derived from pagan Marxism. To call Wilders a 'Far Right' politician is only to show the ignorance of the writer and reporter involved. Wilders is anything but a statist which is what 'Far Right' actually denotes. He is the emblematic standard bearer of freedom and responsibility, not to mention Western civilizational exceptionalism. He needs to be supported not denigrated.

In a recent debate with Muslims about the moon cult Wilders made the clear distinction between the ideology and the individual. This is vital. But just as important is the clear reality that Islam is a pagan Fascism, in which its members are trapped in a cult, which is in the main, opposed to life, civilization, development, human freedom, Jews, the female and non-Muslims. The ideology is what matters. Not the individual. Why are there so few Muslims who know anything their own cult, the history of Islamic imperialism, or the racist rantings of the Koran? Is it because 50% of Muslims are illiterate? Is it because they do believe in world supremacy for Islam? Is it because they do tacitly support acts of Muslim war and terror? Is it because they did dance in the streets in places like Patterson NJ after 9-11?

“However, Muslim protests against Islamic inhumanity are rare. Most Muslims, even in Western countries, visit mosques and listen to shocking Koranic verses and to repulsive sermons without revolting against them.”

Robert Paxton, 'Anatomy of Fascism'.

Tue, 20 Jul 2010 00:00:00 GMT

Fascism is a misused term. The basic ideal of Fascism is not a modern conception, but one with ancient lineages. Fascist theology is fundamentally this: a pagan cult which imposes the destruction of the individual, the eradication of free-will, ethical beliefs and morality, and the submergence of humans into a communal cult, with specific aims and objectives, much of them ideological, tribal, national, or racially specific. This is my definition. I much prefer it to others for the simple reality, that pagan Fascist governance certainly antedates the modern period. The attributes of Islamic Fascism including Sharia Law, misogyny, racism, supremacism and a stupid supine belief in irrational non-human powers; can be found in the liturgy of Nazism, Communism, Castroism, or the societal creations of Chavez, Nasser, Mao, and Idi Amin.

Enter Paxton's seminal work on the topic. Paxton is a former Professor who taught the subject of Fascism for years, he was perplexed that in discussions with students, no clear definitions or models were apparent. Why was Franco's militarism, which certainly had aspects of Fascist governance, so different than the Romanian variety, or that of Mussolini's Italy? Wasn't Russian Communism just another variety of Fascism, with different claims but similar objectives as Hitler's Reich?

Paxton erroneously believes that Fascism is a modern phenomenon, with the use of technology and communications making a state-military occupation of territory and populations much easier. I would completely disagree with this. Paxton identifies the dislocations and misery during and post World War I, as the progenitor of modern Fascism. This is undoubtedly true. But the beliefs, the dogma, the emotional irrationality, the will-to-power, the love of violence, the lust for destruction, the rampant racism, the sick supremacism, the use of propaganda – all these and more long predate the breakdown of the European system in 1914:

“The mobilizing passions of fascism are hard to treat historically, for many of them are as old as Cain. It seems incontestable, however, that the fevers of increased nationalism before World War I and the passions aroused by that war sharpened them. Fascism was an affair of the gut more than of the brain, and a study of the roots of fascism that treats only the thinkers and the writers misses the most powerful impulses of all.”

The cultural zeitgeist of the late 19^th century prepared the way for the various Fascisms of the 20^th. With a marked decline in religion, the Enlightenment period gave way in the 19^th century to theories of racial and cultural superiority, might-makes-right, and nationalist prerogatives including the redress of historical 'wrongs'. Social Darwinism quickly mutated through academics, writers and philosophers, into intolerant systems of thought espousing conflict, war, national differences, and theories of dialectical inevitability. Modern Fascisms, along with Marxist programs, seized on these and proffered solutions, doctrines and national programs which neatly and quite simplistically, 'explained it all', to the masses. With World War I, the depression and social upheaval on a colossal scale from 1914 to 1930, the time was ripe and ready for Fascism, premised on economic, cultural, and social Marxism, to assume power.

Even given Paxton's correct analysis that the Great War was the initiator and abettor of modern Fascism, there is precious little that is unique or novel in the modern forms of Fascist governance, which cannot be viewed in the Orientalisms of Pharoanic Egypt; or the empire of Sargon the Great in Mesopotamia. This is a main objection one can have with Paxton's book. Fascism, in its Oriental, pagan, and communal ideal, is not a modern creation. Fascism as an ideology is undeniably ancient, quite pagan, and consumed with death and a belief that humans are individually worthless, and that the cult of the state is the only important matter in life.

Ban the Muslim Bed Sheets in North America. Now.

Mon, 19 Jul 2010 00:00:00 GMT

Barbarism's can win over civilizations. War is not always the means to the end. Cultural destruction or at least domination of the 'other', is often-times more important. This is especially true in long conflicts. In the 1400 year war between the Arab Fascism named 'Submission' and European civilization, the side which controls culture, ideas, and which has a clear idea of who and 'what' it is and represents, will be the victor. Islam resplendent in a 7^th century Arab pagan barbarity feels sure of itself. The West, mired in cultural Marxism, statism and differing degrees of socialism, does not.

Many European states are rightly banning the Muslim Bed Sheet attire. There is no good argument or rational analysis which supports this expression of Arab and Muslim supremacism. The Bed Sheets are not about 'choice', 'freedom of expression', or 'tolerance'. Tolerating everything denotes a weak, wicked and clueless mind. The Bed Sheets are part of the cultural war between the better instincts and attributes of Western civilization and the pagan savagery of a 7^th century Arab fascism. We would not tolerate marching Neo-Nazis in our streets, dressed in polished black uniforms sporting Nazi armbands, and screaming that the Jews must die and civilization destroyed, and a new pagan world created. Likewise we should not tolerate marching morons dressed in Bed Sheets, their bodies and faces covered, who are silently expressing the exact same thing as any band of marching, goose-stepping Nazi goons.

I find the argument forwarded by Bill O'Reilly and most in the media, that many Muslim women want to wear the Bed Sheets particularly stupid. Many people want to do things that are against the law, common-sense and the ethos of a civilized culture. Many people want more than one wife – a practice which leads to a variety of social and familial problems. Some people would like to walk to work naked; sacrifice children to Baal the thunder god; hold public orgies; smoke dope on the job; not pay their taxes; drive too fast; or blow up police cars. None of these actions are acceptable for social, cultural, moral and common sensical reasons.

Neither is wearing a Bed Sheet.

The Muslim Bed Sheet attire comes out of the Koranic injunction that all women should cover themselves. Mohammed had only ruled that Arab and Muslim females must cover up their breasts and show modesty. For centuries prior to Mohammed, Arab women – some of them at least – had the rather immodest desire to bear their breasts at all times. This created social tension. Mandating the covering of sexual organs is necessary and civilized. There is nothing inherently wrong therefore in the idea that women should try to dress somewhat modestly. But the Islamic anti-culture, has of course taken the concept to extremes.

We find the law demanding the wearing of some form of Bed Sheet dress, expressed in Sura 24:31:

“And say to the believing women that they cast down their looks and guard their private parts and do not display their ornaments except what appears thereof, and let them wear their head-coverings over their bosoms, and not display their ornaments except to their husbands or their fathers, or the fathers of their husbands, or their sons, or the sons of their husbands, or their brothers, or their brothers' sons, or their sisters' sons, or their women, or those whom their right hands possess, or the male servants not having need (of women), or the children who have not attained knowledge of what is hidden of women; and let them not strike their feet so that what they hide of their ornaments may be known.”