The New Duranty Times notices that concern about jihad and the Islamization of Europe is not just the province of the "right wing." By Dan Bilefsky and Ian Fisher in the New York Times:
BRUSSELS, Oct. 10 — Europe appears to be crossing an invisible line regarding its Muslim minorities: more people in the political mainstream are arguing that Islam cannot be reconciled with European values.“You saw what happened with the pope,” said Patrick Gonman, 43, the owner of Raga, a funky wine bar in downtown Antwerp, 25 miles from here. “He said Islam is an aggressive religion. And the next day they kill a nun somewhere and make his point.
“Rationality is gone.”
Mr. Gonman is hardly an extremist. In fact, he organized a protest last week in which 20 bars and restaurants closed on the night when a far-right party with an anti-Muslim message held a rally nearby.
His worry is shared by centrists across Europe angry at terror attacks in the name of religion on a continent that has largely abandoned it, and disturbed that any criticism of Islam or Muslim immigration provokes threats of violence.
For years those who raised their voices were mostly on the far right. Now those normally seen as moderates — ordinary people as well as politicians — are asking whether once unquestioned values of tolerance and multiculturalism should have limits.
Horror of horrors! Moderates?
Read it all.
I'm shocked . . . this article was printed in the New York Times? WOW!
The idea is unthinkable to mainstream leaders, but many Muslims still fear that the day — or at least a debate on the topic — may be a terror attack away.
“I think the time will come,” said Amir Shafe, 34, a Pakistani who earns a good living selling clothes at a market in Antwerp. He deplores terrorism and said he himself did not sense hostility in Belgium. But he said, “We are now thinking of going back to our country, before that time comes.”
That is exactly what is wrong with immigration of muslims. The new country is never their country. Only the old country or the umma counts.
When push comes to shove, where will the indigenous move to? To get away? They have no where to go.
The anti-gay, anti-left, anti-right, anti-atheist and all the other 'anti' attitudes don't matter in the end. Only the anti-islam, anti-mohammad attitudes are really needed.
And as far as the fear of far right anti-immigration parties taking control -
Remember, you can always come back from the right, you can never come back from islam.
This article reperesents the tiniest tentative recognition by The Times of what ought to have been one of its major subjects for the last five years.
What should The Times have been doing, not now, but for years, to cover Islam -- in and out of Europe -- appropriately?
In the case of Islam in Europe, it ought to have familiarized readers with the views of Oriana Fallaci, Pim Fortuyn, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Jacques Ellul, and all the others who cannot be dismissed as "right-wing" and not one of whom can be considered a "fundamentalist" Christian or a mad-dog anything.
It ought to have shown the reasons for the immigration to different countries of Europe by different sets of Muslims -- for example, Pakistanis to England, Moroccans to Holland, Algerians and Moroccans to France, Somalis and Libyans and Egyptians to Italy, and so on. It ought to have provided figures on the Muslim population in those countries, over the past 30-40 years. For example, would it not have been eye-opening for readers to learn that there were 15,000 Muslims in Holland in 1970, and now there are a million?
It ought, that Times of New York, that New Duranty Times, to have noted that everywhere, in every Infidel land, there were problems with Muslim immigrants, no matter the political or economic regime, or background of the local Infidels. It ought to have noted, and not merely noted but attempted to explain to readers, why it was that in places as different as Denmark and Spain, or Italy and Germany, with widely disparate national cultures and expectations, the grim problem of Muslims who viewed their new surroundings not with gratitude, but as a place that as if by right belonged to them, and that when they repeat, as they do, that "we are here to stay" and "this is our country" those phrases, which ordinarily might be found stirring, take on an entirely different and sinister meaning.
And The New Duranty Times might have tried not only to understand why it is that wherever there are Muslim immigrants in sufficient numbers to give them the impression that they need not disguise forever their real attitudes, there have been problems -- so that, as epidemiologists could tell them, the problem must lie not with the hosts, but with the Muslim guests, and does not depend either on the nature of that host country, or of the place from whence those particular Muslim immigrants came.
And then it was the duty of The New Duranty Times to do a comparative study: to show how Hindus from India, Buddhists from Vietnam, Christians from sub-Saharan black Africa, Chinese who are Confucian or Christian or nothing at all, somehow have managed, without untoward incident, to fit in to the countries of Western Europe, no doubt in some cases with problems, but always without the sense that there is a permanent and irreducible problem, for there is a great difference between those who arrive bearing an alien creed, and those who arrive carrying undeclared, in their mental luggage, an alien and a hostile creed.
And then, the most important thing of all, the thing that has prevented people from understanding or making sense of the very small amount of "Jihad News" that The New Duranty Times permits, almost reluctantly, to appear in its newpaper of its own dismal record (a record not worse than that of other newspapers in the United States, but no better either), there has been no attempt at all to actually inform readers about Islam. You would not possibly know a thing about the actual disturbinig contents of the Qur'an from reading, diligently, the daily and Sunday New Duranty Times. You would know nothing of 9.29 or 9.5 or the entire Sura 9. You would know nothing, have read nothing, about the more than one hundred so-called Jihad verses in the Qur'an. You would have not been exposed to the Hadith or understood what they are, or how they have been ranked according to "autheniticity" and you would be at sea whenever the phrase "Qur'an and Sunnah" were to be invoked, as it is a hundred million times a day, by Muslim Believers.
And you would not only be unfamiliar with the most basic texts of Islam, but you would also not know "how to read the Qur'an." What do you do when you come across an obvious contradiction between two passages, in a book that is the uncreated Word of God, and that cannot be tampered with, cannot be changed? And what is a poor Infidel to make of the detectable difference in tone between what are often described as the "Meccan" or softer verses (the ones presumably written when Muhammad was less powerful, and still needed to placate or woo his enemies), and the "Medinan" or harsher verses, when Muhammad felt strong enough to no longer disguise his Will to Power, and the worldly goals of his militant and aggressive followers? Where, in what issue of The New Duranty Times, have you learned about "abrogation" or "naskh"? In what issue of The New Duranty Times have you learned who Al-Bukhari was, or Muslim, the two most important muhaddithin? In what issue of The New Duranty Times have you run across a single column by a single columnist, the prating, clownish Tom Friedman (a pet of the businessmen's conventions, where Tom Friedman, 'splains it all to you-- the world economy, the Middle East, the entire Future of Humanity all kinds of immigrants -- for a mere $45,000 per appearance, and it's a bargain at any price) and the entirely ill-infomred Nicholas Kristof, who still has no idea that the massacres in Darfur that he has made the subject of his Very Own Public Anguish, have something to do, everything to do, with the Arab supremacism of which Islam is a convenient and powerful vehicle, despite the outward universalist claims made for what Anwar Shaikh rightly calls "the Arab National Religion."
In what issue of The New Duranty Times will you find out how Islam is a belief-system that contains a Total Regulation of Life, and in what issue will that set of regulations, of everything from clothes and hairstyles to the most intimate details of personal hygiene, are set down, and where life consists of that which is Halal and that which is Haram, the entire universe dividied between Things Commanded and Things Prohibited? In what issue of The New Duranty Times will you find out about the Total Explanation of the Universe that Islam provides, so that the good Believer need not seek elsewhere for guidance, and ideally, will not. For the Qur'an contains everything -- including all of modern science -- if only we mere men have the minds to tease out its meaning, on everything from cosmology -- yes, no doubt we can find in the Qur'an predictions as to the anisotropy in the black-belt radiation as a result of our peculiar velocity, and the structure of recombinant DNA, and the origins of volcanoes, and fractals and chaos theory and the space-time continuum and positively everything, in this or any conceivable universe.
And where, in what past or present issue of The New Duranty Times, would one discover the nature of the God of Islam, of how he is whimsical, and obeys no laws, and is quite different, therefore, from the Christian God, and this difference helps to explain the non-development of science in Islam -- that and the discouragement, at every step, of free and skeptical inquiry in Islam?
And where, in what past or present issue of The New Duranty Times, would you have learned that sculpture and almost all of painting, is haram, forbidden, in Islam, that almost all music is similarly banned, and that the only outlets for artistic expression historically have been the architecture and geometric ornamentation of mosques, and the Quran'ic or other calligraphy which compares -- not favorably, but compares -- to the much more spectacular and sophisticated art of calligraphy of China and the East.
Where would one find studies, in The New Duranty Times, on the collectivist nature of Islam -- where those who are persuaded or coerced, as so many have been over time, to become Muslims are seen not as individuals but rather as conscripts for the army of Islam, a belief-system in which the Umma or Collective is everything, and the right of individual conscience -- as in exercising the right to leave Islam and choose another belief-system or none at all -- is denied, and individuals who dare to put their own thoughts above the good of the Umma al-Islamiyya can be punished, and should be punished according to the canonical texts, with death.
And where, in all the back issues of The New Duranty Times, will you, dear reader, find any discussion of the division of the world between Believer and Infidel that is central to the Muslim worldview, and that arises naturally out of the tenets of Islam. Not all Muslims may accept that worldview, but they do so only by ignoring those tenets, by ignoring above all the figure of Muhammad.
And that brings us to another great lapse, in the series of unforgivable and unforgettable lapses by The New Duranty Times in this, its third challenge after its miserable coverage of Russia under Stalin in the 1930s (with the eponymous Walter Duranty pooh-poohing the truth, elevating the lies) and then, at the same time, until it was too late for hundreds of thousands of its trusting readers to understand fully the threat faced by their own relatives in Europe so as to move heaven and earth to save them -- thus does The New Duranty Times in its minimizing what Hitler began doing to the Jews of Germany in the 1930s, and what he planned to do on a much larger scale when he had the chance, have real blood on its hands, and forever). The failure to cover Islam, to make sense of Islam, to tell us not what the editors of The New Duranty Times or their mediocre and hopelessly uncomprehending "foreign-affairs" columnists (Friedman, Kirstof) or the apologists they favor on their Op-Ed page, while keeping out all those who might actually offer some disturbing home truths about Islam.
And what about Ibn Warraq, and Ali Sina, and all the defectors from Islam? When was the last time you saw any of them mentioned in The New Duranty Times? When could you have found out, in more than a passing reference, in a small, ill-informed, and unpleasant article by Craig Smith a few years ago, about the important work of Bat Ye'or on the institution of the dhimmi, its legal framework, and the mental attitudes engendered, by such a system, not only in the Muslim overlord, and the non-Muslim over whom he lords it in Dar al-Islam, but also, curiously, in the ways in which Infidel foreign aid to Muslims has come to resemble, in the attitudes of both the giver and the receiver, the classic Jizyah. No, nothing about Bat Ye'or or her important work. Indeed, if you wished to find out about the status of the non-Muslim or dhimmi under Islamic rule, for nearly 1400 years, you would not find a word about it in the hundred thousand pages of print (well, often thin rivulet of print meandering between plump banks of swelling advertisements) that The New Duranty Times, the hideously inadequate New York Times, part of the hideously inadqeuate Western press, has published since 9.11.2001.
From the UK perspective I too have a feeling that a pivot point has been reached. For years, any discussion of Islam, lack of assimilation was simply not discussed. That has changed. It is not only that views have changed but that many people are feeling confident about talking, even to strangers, about how they feel. They are not worried any more about being called a racist because it is obvious that this is not a question of race.
The political elite is still in a deep coma of denial and claim that this is not a 'clash of civilisations' but a clash of civilisation against terrorism but I believe they too will see the reality some day. Hopefully before the streets of Bradford have to be reclaimed like the streets of Fallujah.
Here in suburbia, I have some good news to report, albeit an anecdotal story, but one that I hope is indicative of our general population's thinking.
A soccer mom, actually a hockey mom, but I digress, who thinks that George Bush is a redneck, okay laugh it up, and who loves Opray Winfrey, cringe if you must, and who spouts that nonsense about peace, and who thought so highly of those Amish that had no bad feelings toward the monster that just slaughtered their school girls, vomit discretely, yes, indeed, a soccer mom from suburbia, that kind of person, happened to mention to me that she, for the first time, saw a muslim in a burka in the neighborhood, and it shocked her. She apologized for thinking such bigoted thoughts, but I said, 'Not to feel bad, as those people deserve such bad thoughts". She then said, Yes, they're evil people, they want to blow us all up!"
So perhaps there is hope for the masses yet, when an Oprah-loving, anti-Bushite soccer mom says something like that.
There may be hope yet for Europe. Now if its leadership can wake from its coma some progress might be made on turning back this Islamaniac tide that threatens to engulf the continent.
And if the NYT printed this article then things must really be stirring in Europe, considering that it's virtually the print version of al- Jazeera.
There has been a change of political atmosphere in western Europe. This surely is an opportunity for the anti-jihadists to promote our ideas, impact legislation, and attempt to influence elections.
The rejection of the veil as a sign of repression can be used to re-define how the public wants to live with Muslims.
Whatever the degree of negativity one holds against dhimmi governments and media NOW is the time to become politically active to achieve change.
What a kick it would be if Bruce Bawer and Nidra Poller were European correspondents for the NY Times. In a more courageous world they would be http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/001852.php
For years those who raised their voices were mostly on the far right. Now those normally seen as moderates — ordinary people as well as politicians — are asking…
… who was right and who was wrong? Or, what is right and left, what is moderate and extreme?
The simple fact of the matter leading up to this juncture is that the all-wise moderates with their heads in the sand, in denial of reality, and their ostrich derrieres plumped up in the air and the Moslem Man was more than happy to unbuckle and take what he feels is rightfully his... were wrong. Dead wrong.
A more complex fact leading up to the next juncture will be how far the all-wise moderates equivocate. To the point of final disgust and en masse expulsion? Or to the point of never ending Fictive Reality and Sharia?
Myself, I love and admire Jews, but let’s be sensible here and admit that Jean-Marie was absolutely right from the outset, pun fully and unapologetically intended.
Americaningermany,
I agree with you that there are no "moderate" Muslims, no "moderate" Nazis, no "moderate" communists…… We are not living in a "moderate" world.
BTW, the Amish schoolgirl killer was a 30's something married white man, a milk delivery truck driver, who couldn't control his sexual demon and relived his sexual fantasy with teenaged girls 20 years ago. It was purely a random act of violence. It just happened to be one of the 3 Columbine-style murder cases in a month. It had nothing to do with Muslims. Americans can live with that. Life moves on….
-- Claude
What the NY Times states is absolutely true. In particular since the Pope rage the "multicultural society" is rather a nasty illness than a high moral achievement.
Finally, a dose of truth from the newspaper that prints the news they see fit to print. And the fact that more people in Europe are wising up and starting to speak out is good thing.
Hugh, you are absolutely correct when you say this is a topic the New Duranty Times should have been covering long ago. The same can be said of most of the mainstream media.
The blinders are starting to fall.
When we note the incipient split between the European elite and the ordinary citizenry, we should observe that the European Union is designed to keep decision-making out of the hands of the ordinary citizens. EU officials are not elected by the voters of the constituent nations. In fact, the long-range goal of the EU project is the abolition of nationhood. By no coincidence, Islam has the same goal. The only way the ordinary citizen of a member nation can re-take charge of his nation and re-assert its historic heritage is to vote in a referendum to withdraw his country from the EU. We have been brought up to deplore "nationalism" as the great evil of the twentieth century. On the contrary, the survival of a people's culture, which includes its religious heritage, its language, and patriotism (a devil word among leftists, the latest allies of universalist Islam) requires national sovereignty. So the defense of European culture against the Islamist invasion, if it is to happen, will depend on (among other things) the abolition of the EU and the reassertion of the sovereignty of the constituent nations.
The key to spreading this newfound, and correct, estimation of Islam, is to make absolutely sure that our criticism should focus on Islam and not Muslims in general. In spite of the lack of outspoken Muslims of a reasonable bent, they do exist in massive numbers, and many more are "on the fence" but either too intimidated, or ignorant, to express themselves. Nothing would be worse than to alienate Muslims by carrying on with blanket statements about them as people. It is MUCH more effective to say "their religous ideology is supremacist" than "Muslims are supremacist", or "we cannot allow Islam to become politically powerful" rather than "we cannot allow Muslims to become politically powerful". The problem is, after all, with the canonical texts of Islam in the end. Muslims can be good people in inverse proportion to the extent that they know them well and uncritically.
I can't believe that article was published in the NY Times, didn't they write that the Pope should apologise after he cited that quote about mohammad?
Hugh:
Great post.
Oh, and I forgot to mention, the thinnest end of the wedge is the character and actions of Muhammad. He is the weak link in the chain of Islam, and the religious authorities will fight tooth and nail to prevent crticism of him. This is a good indicator that exposing him is a winning strategy.
By the time the "center" finally wakes up in Europe their average age will be 64, while the average age of the unassimilated Muslims in their midst will be 24. The numbers game portends poorly for the West--artificial contraception has resulted in a scourge on Western reproduction.
It ought to have shown the reasons for the immigration to different countries of Europe by different sets of Muslims -- for example, Pakistanis to England, Moroccans to Holland, Algerians and Moroccans to France, Somalis and Libyans and Egyptians to Italy, and so on. It ought to have provided figures on the Muslim population in those countries, over the past 30-40 years. For example, would it not have been eye-opening for readers to learn that there were 15,000 Muslims in Holland in 1970, and now there are a million?
And thats the same Holland whose Jewish population was reduced from 140,000 in 1940 to just 35,000 by 1945.
I should have said "And thats the same Holland whose Jewish population was reduced from 140,000 in 1940 to just 35,000 by 1945, courtesy of the Gestapo and their treacherous Dutch collaborators".
The first step in addressing an issue is identifying the problem. The next step is engineering a solution. Then comes execution. Europe is coming to grips with Act 1 (the easy part).
This is an important story. Although many people here at this website are primarily concerned with jihad, and rightly so, there is another dimension that this article reveals.
Cultural capitulation to Islam by the West is the open sore through which the poison of jihad can most easily spread. Once infected, it is only a matter of time before the West will succumb to the disease and no longer be able to defend itself. This is the slow way of jihad.
As I linked yesterday to Paul Belien's piece at
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1480
"While Europe’s cities and major towns turn Muslim and red, the countryside will remain indigenous and will become ever more 'islamophobic' and hostile to the cities. The indigenous Europeans – at least if they can afford it – are moving out of the cities (indeed, they are fleeing them)."
"Currently a quarter of the population are immigrants. These people do not vote for us. Every year 4,000 indigenous Antwerpians move out [of the city] and 5,000 immigrants move in." "The former city dwellers have moved to suburbia..."
Sound familiar? The trend is unmistakable and universal, indeed, we see the same things in the US. There is nothing at all unusual about this. In fact, it is a natural human response. However, the time will inevitably arrive when this temporary solution will no longer work, especially with Islamic immigrants in smaller countries. You must either confront immigration head on and stop it or accommodate the foreign culture at the risk of losing your own.
I, and a growing number of realists, say let us separate peacefully. I believe Western culture is worth maintaining and defending. Unfortunately, this view is seen as "intolerant" by too many Westerners who are willing to dismantle their own cultures, traditions, and religions in the name of tolerance. They are blind and recognize neither the nature nor extent of the problem.
Thanks for this important post Robert.
Everyone with more than two braincells knows that
Islam (submission )is incompatible with democracy.
I have just read Robert Spencers The Truth About
Muhammad hoping to learn something more than i
could find on the internet.
I find Muhammad even more reprehensible than ever
knowing he founded a "religion" to excuse his
henious crimes.
He displayed all the traits of a megalomaniac.
I have no expectation that the NDT will be at all relevant in the battle for our freedom, any more than it has been in the past. However, I think that more print media (e.g., Western Standard) will join that battle. But most importantly, what we did NOT have at the time of stalin and hitler is the internet. It is our best hope for information, communication, and ultimately resisting the fascists. The ruling elite have not usurped control of the internet (at least not here, and not yet). But freedom loving people must think about and plan for the eventuality that there will be attempts to take it over and subvert it.
When it publishes articles that are considered pro "conservative", the NYT is called the New York Times, when it publishes articles that "conservatives" don't like it is called the New Duranty Times, meanwhile anyone who is not a rabid right winger that logs on here to find information about Islam and the Jihad, are turned off by the irrational and childish name calling..
Do you or anyone think that the way to win friends, influence allies is to hurl epithets and childish names at them? What you do guarantee is a self fulfilling prophecy.
The NYT supported Bush in two elections and was solidly behind the neo cons in justifying the invasion of Iraq, and squelching the lies and disnifo put out by the administration to justify this ostensibly treasonous act.. yes treason, to cook intelligence and lie to justify a pre emptive strike is treason.
Do you think we can win the war, all by ourself, fighting enemies (self created from within) and enemies (Islam) from without?
To show how wrong you are in your assessments, Reuters is called al Reuters, and inferences made that it is "leftist", That assessment is nullified by this act of censorship and suppression Reuters Editor Loses Job Because He Authored Anti-Coulter Book
Joe Maguire is -- or rather, was -- an editor in charge of markets coverage at Reuters. Last Tuesday, Maguire handed his bosses a copy of the galley of his new book, "Brainless: The Lies and Lunacy of Ann Coulter." On Wednesday, he no longer had a job. Was he fired for writing a book critical of Ann Coulter? Today's New York Times reports: Neither side in this dispute would say that he was fired. “There was a difference of opinion about the approval I received to write this book,” Mr. Maguire said. “I thought I had met the conditions, and proceeded accordingly. As a result, I no longer work there.”...
How about that Reuters who is adjudged "leftist" and pro Arab fires and editor who criticizes Ann Coulter the day after he submitted the manuscript to his bosses for review.
"Don't confuse me with facts" I can hear it now
A word of maturity from the wise to the ideologue.
News organizations depend on access to news, just like food distributors business depends on acccess to food.
Right Wingers, Evangelicals, pro neo con, pro Israel, Pro Bushers are not going to get any news from the mideast, much less are any such reporters will be able to walk the streets of Damascus, Tehran, Syria, Lebanon and interview at will anyone they wish, or state any opinion or view that they wish..Apparently steering blind on a hostile sea is exactly what Right Wingers want.. god forbid there be different voices, even when those voices will help them from making mistakes, or offer constructive and correcting suggestions.
The media are forced, by circumstances, to use Arabs and Iranians as sources, guides, photographers, and reporters.. which means of course that any information obtained will be biased.
So it is up to those who view the news to assess, question and filter, but when it comes to wholesale acceptance of crap spewed out on TV and in the News, well there is no discernment.. just look at the morons who turn on Talk Radio and high five the bombastic hypocrities and lying rabble rousers. Look at the number of non thinking morons that high five Bill Oreilly, who distorts news and facts and lies through his teeth.
Look what happened to those Fox Reporters kidnapped in Gaza, even those reporters who walked around Lebanon (Even Fox reporters) had to play the Hizballah game, otherwise they too would be kidnapped, killed or at least not able to access neighborhoods and countryside.
And talking of Fox reporters, Fox is the most right wing of all media outlets and the prime media supporter of Bush and Co.. Murdoch has been behind Bush since the beginning (then again the Saudis also own and control a good portion of Fox).. Fox's founder and president, Roger Ailes, was for decades one of the savviest and most pugnacious Republican political operatives in Washington,
The New York Times never publishes anything conservative. The fact that they produced this article is only proof of how bad things are getting in Europe, and the New Duranty Times was forced to do an article on it, much to their chagrin. They were also forced to report that islamic extremists attacked New York on 9/11, does that mean that they are fair and unbiased in their news coverage? The NDT has done everything possible to separate islam from terrorism. Even today, they will not run a single story with that as a premise, if they do, it is only to question the premise.
Look at the columinists for the Times. Lefties every one of them. Look at their editorals, pleading with their readership to NOT vote for Bush in 2004. The only reason why any of their columnists may have supported the invasion, was out of the belief that we would be doing a favor to muslim arabs under the oppressive thumb of a secular dictator. But as soon as the war was seen to drag on, and the enemy became islamic fighters, the New Duranty Times used that observation as the cue to bang the drums that the war was bad, Bush was bad, the neocons were bad, and then they adopted the strategy of being a wedge between the American people and their government, by focusing on Iraqi deaths, just as if it was the Americans that were killing those hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.
And Bush ain't no conservative. He is filling America with illegals, and islamic extremists, pandering to islamic sensibilities, and yet the NDT never targets his administration for THOSE sins. Not a word about that.
Islamic terror is stretching across the globe, murdering the defenseless at every turn, but the NDT can only scream about some Iraqi civilian perhaps shot by a marine, ohh my, did WE do something bad over there?
The NDT never runs stories on Sharia, never runs stories on honor killings, never runs stories on koranic-inspired terrorism, which is all of it, never runs stories on how CAIR and other organziations are fronts for terror, and never runs stories to do with anything negative connected in any way to anything islamic in America. No, of course not, they run stories on a Republican pedophile and a runaway bride. Much more important.
Nariz,
The reason Fox News is so popular is that the reporters and news analysts there present themselves as "one of us." They do not hold themselves out as some kind of all-knowing cosmopolitan elite. That is the orientation of the folks at the traditional networks and at the New York Times.
There is plenty of criticism, from the left and the right, on Fox News of everything the government does. But that criticism is directed at how we, a fundamentally good nation, can survive and better prevail in the current conflict.
In contrast, the left does not want us either to survive or prevail. By their poisoned ideological dogma, the United States is a unworthy and renegade imperialist exploiter that needs to be tied down internationally and defanged. Cindy Sheehan, poster child of the leftist agenda, epitomized this view when she stated "there is nothing in this country worth defending."
The left, which dominates all the other networks outside of Fox, is not on our side in the battle against Islamic domination. They want us to lose, because they want the traditional United States to be destroyed.
What was called as the Right, is now Centre.
Nariz says:
"The NYT supported Bush in two elections and was solidly behind the neo cons in justifying the invasion of Iraq, and squelching the lies and disnifo put out by the administration to justify this ostensibly treasonous act.. yes treason, to cook intelligence and lie to justify a pre emptive strike is treason."
Please cite articles I can look up. Otherwise I assume this is all bullshit.
“I think the time will come,” said Amir Shafe, 34, a Pakistani who earns a good living selling clothes at a market in Antwerp. He deplores terrorism and said he himself did not sense hostility in Belgium. But he said, “We are now thinking of going back to our country, before that time comes.”
Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
meharistes writes:
"Q: How do you know you're winning an argument with a liberal?
A: They call you a "white supremacist"
Wow, that was an intelligent response to my
deleted post! (JW "moderators", why was it deleted?)
Now, to your silliness. First, I'm not a
liberal, or, if I am, they've really changed their standards, as I'm an NRA member,
registered Republican, and I'm ashamed to say
now, voted for Bush twice. I oppose affirmative
action, favor less taxes, scrapping Social Security, school vouchers, ... I think that's enough to get me out of the "liberal" category,
though I admit I do think of myself as a liberal
in the classical sense.
Second, I doubt you are even capable of understanding "my kind of thinking". My approach
would be to limit immigration by using filters
on ideology (no Muslims) and IQ tests. Emma
Lazarus be damned, we don't need tired, poor,
huddled masses. But we can always use smart
people who like this country and its values,
regardless of their race. If that "depletes"
other countries, too bad for them!
So, answer my question. Are you a white
supremacist? It sure seemed like that was the
case from your post, but I'll be happy to be
proved wrong, and I'll apologize for my insinuation that you are if I misunderstood you. If you are, then why be ashamed?
Here in America, someone near and dear who is very liberal said "They're all my enemies now" long before I ever did--and I'm a Christian Rightist. Indeed, I still don't see all Muslims as necessarily the enemy.
Root cause --
Nothing personal: Please note that the comment you originally took issue with has also been removed. Your reply quoted that comment, and if I had removed the quotations from it, all that would have been left would have seemed out of place.
meharistes:
Thanks for clarifying, white supremacist it is,
and given your demonstrated reading ability (I
oppose mass immigration of any kind) you have nothing to feel supreme about, other than being
white, that is, which quite a lot of people have
managed to do.
Nope, no intention of silencing you. Better to
have you keep posting and "remove all doubt",
as the saying goes. Very pithy little retorts
you've come up with, I'm sure you're the
funniest white guy on the playground!
Marisol:
No offense taken, I was just curious as to why
my post was deleted, as I didn't think I said
anything offensive.
"root_cause"
Your purpose here seems only to be to remind "white supremacists" of their place.
"I'm sure you're the
funniest white guy on the playground!"
What is THAT about. Yes, you are part of the problem and NOT the solution. What is your nationality "root_cause"? Tell me that, so I'll know where you are coming from.
To me, you seem part of the 1960s, let 'em ALL in hippies.
Yep, meharistes, that or a certain white female who haunts these posts. I know Robert is an Arab, Christian, American, and he is one of us. "root_cause" is not! "root_cause" is why were here now.
Great post.
americaningermany writes:
"Get off it. These tired old accusations meant to shut someone up are just irritating. "
Let's see. He posts that nonwhites (Black Christians, Hindus, Chinese), even non-Muslim
ones, don't belong in the West. You did read
that, before it was deleted, right? And given
the chance to explain that statement, stands by
it, unreservedly.
So, what would you call someone who says that?
You think calling them a white supremacist is
unfair?
Root_cause:
I stand by my comments. I support them 100%, and there's nothing you can do about it. Your silly accusations mean nothing to me. Your harrassment is futile.
Root-cause,
Please have a big heart!
Americaningermany (AIG) got an irritating email from an irate Muslim troll 2 days ago. AIG is not in good mood today and everyday. AIG's outspokenness often gets AIG into trouble. AIG lives in the emptiness of cyber space and on the bullshit of anti-Islamic politics. See AIG's entire post below :
I received an e-mail from a Muslim called
KARIM KHAYAL just a few minutes ago. He thought that I, americaningermany, wrote the following comment:
"It's alright.
In Iraq Muslims are still killing each other.
According to the New York Times there's been 6oo,ooo of them killed in the passed five years alone."
Here's what the muslim scumbag called KARIM KHAYAL wrote to me:
Do you ever look in the mirror and contemplate on what a worthless human piece of shit you have become? This is not just meant as an insult, it is the absolute truth. Evil is as evil does.If you cheer genocide and mass death, why do you think removing 600 000 of your sort would in any way harm the world? Are you yourself in any way enriching the world, or the lives of your fellow man? Face it, your believes are absolutely identical to those of a Nazi, a white(possibly Christian)supremacist, or a heartless social Darwinist. Speaking in human standards, you are absolute scum.
Posted by: americaningermany at October 11, 2006 12:24 PM
white supremacist mehariste writes:
"I stand by my comments.I support them 100%, and there's nothing you can do about it."
OK. Then you also accept that you are a white
supremacist.
"Your silly accusations mean nothing to me."
It's not a silly accusation, unlike, say, your
statement that I have a nonwhite wife, as I
never said that I did, in fact, never said that
I am even male!
"Your harrassment is futile."
This is harrassment? Just pointing out the
obvious, that you are a white supremacist, and that it follows from your own words, which you
stand by 100%, right?
"And, I oppose anti-white racists such as yourself. "
From what do you infer that I am anti-white? My rather gentle ribbing of YOU?
You're a rather pathetic troll, and I'm tired of
responding to your fantasies about my marriage,
but I will keep pointing out what you are, even
though you are too cowardly to admit it. At
least William Shockley had the courage of his convictions. You make a statement, claim to stand by it, and then cry like a little baby when someone points out what it means. Coward!
Mr. root_cause,
Tell me what you know about the roots cause(s) of today's worldwide political conflicts between Muslims and infidels?
Anti-white racist Root_cause/control:
Oh no, so now I'm a so-called "coward" too? LOL!!! You're really cracking me up.
I stand by my comments 100%. No regrets. In fact, I will continue to make such comments. And guess what? There's absolutely nothing you can do about it.