Fjordman: Superman, Harry Potter and the War Against Jihad

Fjordman puts it: "I have commented that there is an undercurrent of anti-Western self-loathing permeating parts of our popular culture and our news media."

I think this is way too gingerly a way to put it. Western Anti-Westernism is a far broader and deeper and more profoundly entrenched syndrome than Fjordman's phrase would imply.

Far from being an "undercurrent", Western Anti-Westernism is the mainstream ocean and atmosphere, and the West continues to survive in robust health only because the millions of Westerners (elites and commoners alike) who wittingly and unwittingly and semi-consciously perpetuate this Anti-Westernism are either incoherent thinkers or hypocrites, or a little of both.

Re: the new Superman, his motto changed from "Truth, Justice and The American Way" to "truth, justice and stuff". Not so super. It's like in order to get play overseas the producers are afraid of offending other nations sensibilities.

I am begenning to think that there is one problem with democracy, especially the US kind. Politicians at almost all levels are interested in one thing - their own re-election - and to hell with the rest of us. They try to cater to all constituencies, especially the Senators. A state is made up of many different political persuasions, and Senate candidates think that they must satisfy everyone. Presidential candidates do the same, there was the absolutely halarious campaign gimmick of Bill Clinton (or was it Kerry?) going hunting. When Al Gore became a US Senator, he abandoned his pro- 2nd Amendment stance he had as a Congressman.

Some candidates could get elected to the Senate, but they would not stand an infidels chance in Pakistan of winning some Congressional Districts in their own state. AL Gore could never, ever get elected to Congress from Tennessee's First District. It has been held by the Rebublicans since before the Civil War.

As long as people like Schumer, H. Clinton, Ried are in office we're doomed.

Even Bush is no satesman; his conduct so far appears to be calculated to make everybody happy.

It is so galling to see them grovel at the feet of Muslims, that I want to grab them by their collars and rub their noses in the blood of everyone murdered by Islam.

Interesting. I also notice that widely popular Science Fiction television shows include Stargate SG1 and Stargate Atlantis, which have ongoing story lines consisting of defending humanity against triumphalist alien foes. The current enemies on SG1 are the propagators of a "religion", known in the show as "Origin". Origin is rather reminiscent of islam in its division of the Universe into believers and unbelievers, and the imperative of believers to kill or convert unbelievers. Also the requirement of attack after what one might call da'wa by the "Priors" (sort of super-clerics) of Origin is really quite reminiscent of islam. I've been wondering if the writers base some of this on current events on the real planet Earth.

Stargate is also quite a different Science Fiction approach than the multicultural Star Trek spinoffs... similiar to what Fjordman points out in his essay above about the 1990s.

If you want to see a poster child for moonbat Left self-loathing and admiration of Islamic terrorism, I've got a classic for you. Cecelia Lucas, female grad student at Berkeley (where else?), actually wrote a love poem to Hezbollah, which I have excerpted here. I put in boldface four lines near the end, that I think say it all:

I Don’t Want to Love You, But I Do

You were born out of death to a life in a cage
Where bombs are not the only reason people die
Fed by the violence of hunger and homelessness
Raised by colonialism
Your heart and your will still grew strong

You scare me
Not just because they tell me to be scared
Not just because they repeat, repeat, repeat
The story of 1983
Begging me to understand
Americans are worth more than Lebanese

Why do they never tell me about Jihad al Bina
That you have created so much
Saved so many lives
Improved so many more

It scares me
When I admit to myself
That I would be more scared without you
If I still took the time to see

To see the violence that does not just fall from the skies
that exists in hunger and homelessness
in colonialism

It scares me
That my hope is tangled up
In actions I would never want to commit

But I don’t sleep much these days
And I’ve tried hard
But I haven’t found
Anything
to give me hope that they will listen

They repeat, repeat, repeat
The story of Gaza withdrawal
Hoping we won’t see
The violence that continues
That kills in so many ways
Hoping we will now support it
Or at least stop looking

They insist talk does not work
When there is no one to talk to
It is hard to find an interlocutor
When you’re not willing to listen
To see
To feel

How do you keep faith that talk will work
When even they are insisting it won’t?

I am learning to have hope in you
I am learning to see you as so much more
Than those actions I would never want to commit

You amaze me.
Born out of death to a life in a cage
Raised by colonialism
You did not accept imprisonment as natural
You did not accept hunger as justice
You did not accept
the ceaseless killing in so many ways
Of those next to you
Or those farther away

I love you
But I will never be yours
I don’t want you inside me
You are too male for me

And I cannot, gratefully, fully silence the voice that insists:
Some deaths you did accept
Including of some who were listening

That is why the full statement that the question-marks pry me with reads:
It is sad, but I’m learning to have hope in Hizbulla

Maybe it is the naivety
of one whose life has never been directly threatened
I still believe:
Be the change you want to see in the world.

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0724-22.htm

What can I say.

From the article: "Naipaul has called Islam ''parasitic on that world',' meaning that the Islamic world itself creates very little, it can only feed off the achievements of others. The economic development of India and China he said, will ''completely alter the world,'' and ''nothing that's happening in the Arab world has that capacity.''"

This optimistic conclusion seems to be based on the assumption that the Arab world (Islam) would try to compete on an economic basis. But Islam does not operate on that basis. Historically, its sole purpose is its own political expansion, and its method is simply to wreck any civilization it encounters completely and then to live off the wreckage.

Islam's great power stems from the fact that the process of destroying (wrecking) economic infrastructure takes a tiny fraction of the energy needed for the process of building it. Such demolition also takes a minimum investment in human capital. An army of ignorant, brainwashed robots with a 4th grade education is all that is required to accomplish Islam's only goal--the dominance of Islam everywhere. The builders of civilization, on the other hand, need open-minded, adaptable, and articulate citizens with 20 plus years of education.

The Arab world (Islam) DOES have the capacity to alter the outcome of the balance of power in the world. They can destroy everything. Quoting Tolkien, concerning Sauron's army of orcs: "It is an army built for a single purpose--to destroy the world of men." That is Islam, in a nutshell.

Don't be too hard on Superman, its not hollywood liberal agit-prop simply because of that one line. On the contrary, its the most Christo-centric movie released this year next to Narnia. Did anyone notice that besides me?

That Brando speech about how humans have the capacity for good, and so he sends his only son to earth. The theme throughout the movie asking, "Does the world need a savior?" Superman getting beaten on the cryptonyte island like its Passion of the Christ...and then getting stabbed in the ribs! Also, Superman dies and falls to earth in the crucified position and is "ressurected." Finally, the speech at the end to the boy, "The father will become the son and the son will become the father..."

Its all there. Don't dis superman.

Why now, Superheroes?

quote: Still, even though V. S. Naipaul is optimistic on behalf of the West, he does notice a loss of cultural confidence, which Multiculturalism is the most obvious indication of. Western Europe today lacks ''a strong cultural life,'' making it vulnerable to Islamicization. He says Muslim women shouldn't wear headscarves in the West. ''If you decide to move to another country and to live within its laws you don't express your disregard for the essence of the culture,'' he said. ''It's a form of aggression.''

Yes, aggression and disrespectful of the local culture. However, as more Muslim women move into western countries, they are becoming a default counter culture, so in a politically correct multiculturalism, they now gain the right to be aggressive against the host culture. It would be like western women moving en masse to Saudi Arabia and demanding that they dress in their western styled clothes, so their bodies could breathe more freely in the stifling heat. Would the Saudis be offended by such a request?

On the surface, we all try to push for our own values on the world at large, but what values are those? Values of tolerance and equality, or values of forced isolationism and exclusivity, where those who disobey will be punished severely, maybe with their lives? The first is open ended and freedom loving, while the latter is closed and freedom hating, even evil in its aggressive coercive authority over everyone, especially against their own, but in time also against the host culture. So the headscarf is but a minor indication of this forced isolationism and exclusivity the invading women, though themselves oppressed, pushing onto the local culture, as a vanguard for their men, those mousy men who beat women, to advance their exclusivity and coercions onto the local culture. But below the surface, it is simply, without any niceties, invasion by the headscarf. The rest leads to further aggressions against the local culture, until they are strong enough to really show their invasion in force, and demand the world surrender to their intolerant coercive point of view, i.e., push push push, until we surrender to their Sharia.

People aren't stupid. They talk. Words gets around that the streets of London or Paris or Rome are no longer safe at night. Muslims are attacking whites, women, raping women in Oslo or Stockholm. In a world of cell phones and the web, these talks go beyond the neighborhood, and now go world wide, as these pages testify. Email get forwarded to dozens of names in our address books, as do damning news articles and videos. The western world is gaining consciousness that something is wrong in their midst, that they are under attack. The media, and politicians, try to play this down, fearing mass reaction against the growing threat from within, from these violent and ungracious outsiders who are attacking our world. Universities play along, trying to find some intellectual justification for appeasement, especially of the masses they inherently distrust. They fear mob reaction, and it is not in their nature to face up to force if it suddenly spontaneously manifests itself. These superhero films may be the first market reactions of the people's growing consciousness that they are under attack, so it manifests in ticket sales at the box office. Politicians, and media and universities, better pay attention to those ticket sales, because they are symptomatic of a latent discontent among their populace. People talk, and word is getting out, that Islam is hardly a religion of peace, but instead as shown by its practitioners a violent religion of intolerance, bigotry, and aggression. They hate us and our freedoms, and will show it in non too subtle ways with disrespect and violence, while their women are more circumspect, as they are supposed to be, by passive-aggressive head scarves. Do they think we don't notice what they are doing? The people know, deep in their gut, they know.

The superheroes, unfortunately, are products of our creative imagination, so are in reality powerless to stop the aggressions. But they do voice our discontent, and by winning on the big screen or in the written page, they are speaking for us. Too bad they cannot be real and win in real life. But if we take inspiration from what their battles against evil are telling us, then perhaps before long, we too will find the courage to stand against it, and push it back. Why now the superheroes? Because we know, at the grass roots of our culture, that our freedoms way of life is being threatened, by an evil that hates it and will do what it can to take it away. We are not stupid, and if our elected officials or intelligensia cannot see it, they can be replaced, fired and retired. The superheroes are only the first shots. Multiculturalism can be replaced, without any loss of our freedoms. To the contrary, losing this spineless ideology will engender and enhance our freedoms, and our culture. As an extension of mass psyche, our superheroes would approve, since they are only telling us what we already are saying: Evil is gaining, time is short, and we must push back.

The production posted above, in which a Berkeley graduate student, one Cecelia Lucas, declares her love for Hezbollah's black-balaclaved, kalashnikov-clutching goose-stepping bezonians, is in the shopworn, banal "every-woman-loves-a-fascist" tradition established not so very long ago. The locus classicus, I suppose, of this idiotic topos is Plath's "Daddy":

"I have always been scared of you,
With your Luftwaffe, your gobbledygoo.
And your neat mustache
And your Aryan eye, bright blue.
Panzer-man, panzer-man, O You--

Not God but a swastika
So black no sky could squeak through.
Every woman adores a Fascist,
The boot in the face, the brute
Brute heart of a brute like you."

Plath was playing around in these verses, and at times unacceptably (use of Birkenau or Auschwitz in the way she did it is intolerable). She was, of course, unstable, as unstable, and not as winning, I think, as Hughes's other love Assia Wevill. But compared to the lunatic Cecelia Lucas, Sylvia Plath was as sturdily commonsensical as Dr. Phil.

"Our dealings with the world should be adjusted accordingly. We have no obligation to "save" the Islamic world, and do not have the financial strength or the demographic numbers to do so even if we wanted to. We are not all-powerful and are not in the position to help all of the Third World out of poverty, certainly not by allowing all of them to move here. The West must first of all save itself."
-- from the article above

On the "we have a duty to save ourselves" theme:

1. "In other words, she [Naseem] is hoping that Islam will convert those Westerners who will still have retained their non-Muslim rationality, ability to think and to question, sense of decency, and so on, and that somehow these "Western Muslims" will rescue Muslims from Islam itself.

A telling notion. It is exactly, in a sense, what the Shi'a exiles wanted the Americans to do in Iraq. It is what some would-be Muslim "reformers" in Egypt and elsewhere want. They cannot admit that Islam is the problem. They cannot take our side, the Infidel side, and warn the Western world or the larger Infidel world not to squander resources trying to make the Islamic states somehow fairer, more just, better. And they will not warn us about halting Muslim migration to the West (for god's sake, they want to take advantage of that, they want that possibility to remain always open to them). They want the West to share Islam's pain -- or rather, the pain of the reformers, and in some cases, the secularists (look at Turkey's secularists -- they desperately want Turkey to be admitted to the E.U., and don't give a damn what the consequences would be for the Infidels in that E.U., for they are thinking only about how to share the problem of Islam with Infidels in Europe, hoping that somehow they will be able to cope, to modify and to reform the problem of Islam that will not go away).

That's Naseem. Desperately seeking Western Muslims, who will rescue her, and others like her. That's the Iraqi Shi'a. That's Said Eddin Ibrahim. That's the handful of "reformers" in Syria, in North Africa, in the Gulf states, even perhaps a tiny group -- see The Religious Policeman -- who call themselves Saudis.

Sorry. No can do. We have to save ourselves. And we certainly are not about to commit civilizational suicide by becoming Muslims, or even, as Naseem would put it, Wuslims."

[Posted by: Hugh at June 14, 2006 05:52 P]

On the "we have no obligation to" do thus and so for Muslims theme:

2. "Muslim populations have to be monitored. The mosques have to be monitored, and those who do not go to mosques have to be monitored. The khutbas (sermons) have to be recorded and analyzsed. The stores selling videocassettes and audiocassettes have to be put under surveillance. The madrasas have to be put under surveillance. The storefront operations, the fly-by-night propaganda places, the Internet websites, all those who receive their world-view from Al Jazeera and similar channels, which includes hundreds of thousands of people in the United Kingdom, and many more millions in Holland, France, Belgium, Italy, Germany, Spain. And of course within the United States, every single subscriber to Al Jazeera, if not a member of the security services, is a potential threat to indigenous Infidels and the Infidel nation-state, given what the world-view of Al Jazeera offers.

How many men, how much money, will need to be diverted by Infidel governments in order to cope with this problem, a problem that grows in direct proportion to the size of the Muslim population? And who will discuss this expense, this worry, that does not diminish, not with the second or third or fourth generations, who by all accounts are far more susceptible to "discovering their Muslim identity" than some of the first generation, at least of Pakistanis -- the Arabs in particular seem never to have lost that "identity," one which is so tied up with Uruba, Arab-ness, that even many Arab Christians are promoters for, and apologists of, the Jihad -- against Israel, of course, but also elsewhere in North Africa and the MIddle East (not a word by any Arab, anywhere, about the mass murders of non-Arabs in the southern Sudan, for example).

At what point will the nonsense stop, and the truth-telling begin? We have no obligation to allow into our midst, or allow to remain in our midst, what is without a doubt the most dangerous group of people that have ever been voluntarily allowed -- out of ignorance, out of the diseased Idols of the Age -- "tolerance" and "diversity" -- that have no relevance here.

We Infidels do not deserve this. Our elites, our governments, have let us down. In Europe, above all, but also here. They must put things right. They must lessen the threat. They must do nothing to allow it to grow still larger.

[Posted by: Hugh at July 17, 2005 08:59 PM]

3. We have no obligation to commit civilizaional, or national suicide. The tolerant and naive people in Holland, in France, in Denmark, in Sweden and in all other European countrie have discovered with horror and dismay and sometimes with a sense of "but what can we do know?" that they allowed into their countries people who adhere to a belief-system that flatly contradicts everything in which the indigenous Infidels believe, and which makes their own lives worth living. There is not a single person in Europe who could disagree with this sentence: "The existence of large numbers of Muslims in our country has made our own lives far more unpleasant, expensive, and dangerous than they would otherwise be." They differ in the degree of passivity or fury they exhibit, all the way from Oriana Fallaci to the appeasement of Chirac and Dominique de Villepin.

We are in a good position to0 learn from Europe's experience, and from our own. Look at the video of the Islamic Thinkers, ruminating deeply as they stomp on the flag, scream their hysterical hatred for America, and I have no doubt you too will want to burn the midnight oil figuring out how to remove people who, even if they managed to perjure themselves to obtain citizenship, cannot possibly be loyal to anything like the United States of America.

And what will those whose duty it is to protect us -- do?

[Posted by: Hugh at June 10, 2005 08:07 AM]

Well, we have heard the chimes at midnight, and tomorrow I must master Mistress Shallow -- Judy Swallow -- and so to bed.

I saw Superman Returns and while I thought it was a good movie, the Political Correctness was its downfall. Just as Islam will be the downfall for civilization as we know it.

I recently watched V for Vendetta. It's interesting that one of the most prominently displayed features of the totalitarian government is its hate for Islam. Possessing a copy of the Quran will get you killed. Extreme, but much better than the alternative of succumbing to Islamofascism. A gay character in the movie has an old Quran in his home, and he says something about enjoying the poetry of the book. I'm not sure if he ever checked to see what the Quran has to say about homosexuals.

The movie's protagonist, V, is a terrorist of a sort. He blows up buildings and wants to bring down the government. When you connect the movie's sympathy towards Islam with the protagonist's nature, it would seem that the movie glorifies Islamic terrorism, but I don't think the two are related. Or, at least I didn't interpret them as being related. I don't know what the writers were thinking.

V wants to bring down a fascist and religiously fanatic 1984 dictatorship that uses biological weapons againts its own citizens to make people feel that the government is needed to protect theme. Well, could the movie be referring to the Bush administration? Bush supposedly runs an ultra-religious 1984 society and supposedly orchestrated the destruction of the WTC to instill a false fear of terrorism in the populace, and the movie seems to have a pretty strong anti-American perspective. Could be. Personally, I just took the whole thing at face value: V is fighting a cruel dictatorship.

Some angry reviewer said: "But close your eyes and think of the World Trade Center as the explosions fill the theater in the movie's bombastic and operatic ending and see if you are still willing to applaud." Huh? Does this mean that any form of legitimate resistance that involves the use of explosives is immediately the same thing as ramming jets into the WTC? the reviewer goes on to say that the movie tries to "manipulate" viewers into thinking that the government is bad. Well, I don't know about the reviewer, but an iron-fisted dictatorship that uses bioweapons on its citizens doesn't seem to me like a very morally ambiguous case.

The Lord of the Rings by British author J. R. R. Tolkien, written against the backdrop of WW2,

Yes but I would not tie it too closely to WWII simply because The Hobbit was conceived long before being published in 1937 and paper-rationing in Britain may have slowed development of LOTR.

You could equally well take WWI as the parallel -the destruction of the monarchies of Europe in Russia, Germany, Austria-Hungary and the emergence of Marxism-Leninism in Russia being the most overt attack on Christianity since the French Revolution.

It is the rise of Hegelian Dialectic, Darwinism, and industrialisation which led to the mechanistic path of Marxism with Fatalism at its core that probably made Tolkien, like his friend C. S. Lewis reflect on Judaeo-Christian Ethics in a world driven by "Scientific Socialism".

Since Islam is also Fatalistic and seemingly devoid of "Election" through Baptism, or "non-situational" Ethics; it could be considered a
similar Materialist Creed to Marxism-Leninism in that it lacks the sophistication of Judaeo-Christian Ethics and is really a crude power-play predicated on deceit and betrayal to gain political power.

Unfortunately, Fjordman is way too optimistic. While it is true that the founders of the fantasy genre were Christians who believed in Western values (and the founders of the superhero genre were Jews), fantasy fiction and superhero comics have, like all things, been since then colonized by a foul brood of screaming PC left-wingers. The mark of it in superhero comics is the success of the horrible X-Men franchise over the last twenty years; in fantasy fiction, I can do no better than to point you to a devastating account of the intolerance and ignorance of the current scene, by a man who knows something about it. http://superversive.livejournal.com/24101.html. It is not a coincidence that the enormous success of the Harry Potter novel has been immediately followed by the deliberate promotion of the aggressively PC atheist Philip Pullman in a deliberately anti-Rowling function.

I don't know about Fjordman's interpretation of this new Superman movie, which I haven't seen, but a film reviewer friend of mine has, and recommends highly. Shuster and Spiegel, of course, were Jews who created Superman during the Depression, but trouble had already started to emerge in Germany for Jews too. The Superman story has always been something of a re-telling of the story of Moses (baby sent forth in a rocket instead of a basket of bullrushes to survive). Superman is also a re-telling of the Golem story as well (mythical creature with superhuman powers, created by a rabbi during a time of great oppression in Eastern Europe from some earth, who serves as a guardian/saviour).

Paolo,

I really do believe that the true fruit of the PC remaking of the superhero is to be found in the "Matrix" movies series. I really do believe that the reason why the "Pirates of the Carribean" movie series has been popular is because of the anti-PC outlook connected to that series.

Stendec,

I consider the LOTR series to not only be a reflection of the times that the book series has been writen WW II, but also a reflection of the present world war.

bigcatgirtl13106,

I agree with your take on LOTR. I had always avoided LOTR because of its fantasy aspects (an engineer, I have never cared much for fiction of any kind, except for some science fiction), but my daughters convinced me to go with them to see the first movie, and then the second, and then the third. As I watched, I realized I was seeing in the Orcs the Muslim assault on civilization, a bit of which we all witnessed on 9/11. It was clear to me that the gathering storm that faced Middle Earth, and the obvious disarray of the various kingdoms, many of them having suffered steady decline from previous glorious ages, was similar to the state of our world today, as it blunders toward a decisive confrontation.

This "epiphany" of mine, which I am sure many others have had as well, occurred way before my discovery of JW/DW.

To me, one of the things that made LOTR so engaging and timeless was the detailed "back story," including royal lineaages and entire spoken and written languages, that Tolkien meticulously built behind the fantasy drama of the Triology (which my avid reader daughters briefed me on after we watched each 4-hour installment).

In similar fashion, Jihad Watch now provides us the accurate real-world "back story" for the unfolding drama that we are witnessing across the globe. And for that service, Robert and Hugh and staff deserve effusive praise and support.

But this is the real world now, so we Rohanians and Gondorians and Hobbits and Elves cannot all just sit back and view the show. We are the ones that need to form the Fellowship, and defend our Middle Earth from the merciless and mindless onslaught of the Mohammedans.

I think people should stop trolling comic books and magical stories for their western identity.

Dumbo,

So, what do you recommend? Mein Kampf? Or the Communist Manifesto?

For those who base their "The orcs are Muslims bent on taking over our world" view on the Lord of the Rings movies, I would referr them to the end of the last book. "The Scouring of the Shire" was cut out of the movies, but it's certainly worth noting, as it mirrors our world today.

Half-orcs, bred for the purpose, began immigrating into the Shire, and gradually took over, ruling with an iron hand, taking all the food and alcohol, rationing it, making ridiculous rules about who can do what, when, how, and mostly, who CAN'T do anything. Hobbits were kicked out of their homes and businesses, had their lives turned upside down, and all because the immigrants came in, unchecked, and gradually took power, taking advantage of the tolerant Hobbit people.

The hobbits allowed all this, because it was so gradual, and they were a welcoming lot, who didn't want to upset the big men. Then the big men got more powerful, and the hobbits were too afraid to upset the big men, knowing that they'd just make it worse. Appeasement, anybody?

At the end, it took a battle to physically force the half-orcs and their converted followers to leave the country, and let the people have their freedom back.

Oh, for movie-watchers who want to go straight there in the books, know that Saruman was not killed at Orthanc, but was set free, without his staff, and threatened the Hobbits with vengeance, where it would hurt them the most.

But as Bookworm notes, some of the later books such as Order of the Phoenix are much darker than its predecessors. It "centers on Harry's desperate efforts to convince the Powers That Be that evil once again walks among them. Only with tremendous effort is he able to rally some believers to his side and prepare them for war."
...........

I belong to several Yahoo children's writers and illustrators groups. After the Order of the Phoenix came out several people said they considered it to be too dark or not as exciting as previous books.

I wrote that it was obviously a set-up for the coming full-scale war between Voldemort and his followers and the good people of the wizarding world. In it, the Ministry of Magic does all it can to downplay the danger from dark wizards, and the press actually turns on Harry Potter for stirring up fear. Most of the powers that be (except for Dumbledore, head of Hogwarts) are in full Neville Chamberlaine mode, in denial and ready to appease. Harry is both a version of the "ideal knight" and a much-younger Winston Churchill.

Interestingly. while some posters agreed with this analysis, many felt that this was much too "real world" and that the book was just light fantasy for children, after all.

Steven L... I went to link and read the poem to Hizbullah and it makes me want to laugh. I'm going to respond to her, since she gives her email address...

I'll quote her from the qur'an, ahadith and statements made from Hizbullah leaders and supporters... and I'll be civil.

she says:
Maybe it is the naivety [sic]
of one whose life has never been directly threatened
I still believe:
Be the change you want to see in the world.

I show her what change they want to see using their own words. That should be fun and educational at the same time.

Also on this:

I love you
But I will never be yours
I don’t want you inside me
You are too male for me

it's going to be most instructive. You see, Miss Lucas, whether you 'don't want' or not the hizbullah will enter you and think it's his right since you'll be a slave to him which his right hand possesses. It's not up to you, Ms. Lucus, you don't get to decide. Ever.

Thanks for pointing this out, Steven L. We need to find these people and truly show them what Islam and Hizbullah are really about. We don't have to do anything but quote verbatim!!!!!

in full Neville Chamberlaine mode, in denial and ready to appease

Neville Chamberlain was not "in denial". He was a realist. He became Prime Minister in 1937 and knew Britain could not fight Italy, Germany and Japan simultaneously.

The United States had been passing Neutrality Acts 1935 onwards

http://history.acusd.edu/gen/WW2Timeline/neutralityacts.html

Chamberlain recognised reality - Britain could not find another world war alone

in full Neville Chamberlaine mode, in denial and ready to appease

Neville Chamberlain was not "in denial". He was a realist. He became Prime Minister in 1937 and knew Britain could not fight Italy, Germany and Japan simultaneously.

The United States had been passing Neutrality Acts 1935 onwards

http://history.acusd.edu/gen/WW2Timeline/neutralityacts.html

Chamberlain recognised reality - Britain could not fight another world war alone

Fjordman, I have long ago ceased to take Leftist charges of "racism" seriously. It is the last card they have in a bad hand. Whenever you ask a Leftist why the social experiments he so admires failed to unleash the unprecedented productive forces promised by classical Marxist theory, his excuse is to blame it all on the poor Slavic Uentermensch or primitive Asiatic. The Left's indulgent attitudes towards "revolutionary catharsis" in non-Western areas reflects both a fascination for destruction and low expectations about non-Western peoples. If those attitudes aren't racist, I don't know what is.

The problem is Islam - the destroyer of all things...

Voyager wrote:

In full Neville Chamberlaine mode, in denial and ready to appease

Neville Chamberlain was not "in denial". He was a realist. He became Prime Minister in 1937 and knew Britain could not fight Italy, Germany and Japan simultaneously.
..............

I agree that Neville Chamberlain sometimes gets a bad rap. (I also see that I spelt his name wrong--where did that extra "e" come from?) In a recent column Pat Buchanan wrote:

' "War wins nothing, cures nothing, ends nothing... in war there are no winners, but all are losers." So said Neville Chamberlain on the eve of the war he had sought desperately to avoid, but which his own blunders would bring about.'

Well, clearly the above is absurd--Chamberlain *did not* bring about WWII--Hitler was responsible for that.

That being said, however, Chamberlain was not just "a realist", in my estimation. He was both cynical and naive in his virtual handing over of Czechoslovakia to Nazi Germany. I do agree with you that Britain, all by herself, and without the aid of others (especially the US, at this point) probably could not have saved Czechoslovakia.

But to act as though this appeasing act would somehow save Britain was clearly not realistic--in fact, it probably emboldened Hitler that there was not even a weak official protest. Certainly, Winston Churchill clearly understood that this did not offer "Peace in our Time." Of course, within a year Hitler would attack Poland, and drag Britain into war, anyway.