Leftist Denial: On Islam and Socialism

Islam has been the darling child of the Left since I was a child. I would see adults on television clamoring to excuse Islam for this or that atrocity. There were good Muslims, we were told, and somehow Christians had wronged them all throughout history. It was always Christians doing the wrong, you see. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan is conveniently forgotten by the Left. The centuries of conflict between Hindus and Muslims is more or less whitewashed and, somehow, probably the fault of Christians anyway.

Can you imagine how confusing this might be to a child? My Armenian grandfather would tell me one thing, and the television would spout off something entirely different. I knew my Grandfather, he was a good, honest, and righteous man. He was also nobody’s fool. Despite the protestations of the media, the actions of the Muslim world lined up squarely with the worldview of my Grandfather.

In simple terms, reality was with my Grandfather, and the mutterings of the media were either a form of willful blindness and ignorance, or an outright lie. Even at the age of ten, I was able to see this and decide which was more likely to be the truth. If a ten year old could do it, why not fully grown, educated adults? The old saying “actions speak louder than words” applies.

If actions speak louder than words, what do you think radical Muslims are telling us here?

If actions speak louder than words, what do you think radical Muslims are telling us here?

Of course, it goes further. Socialism has been tried in many forms, from the Authoritarian, International model of the Soviets, to the Nationalistic, Xenophobic form of the Nazis. In each case, it has failed, and the death toll from this philosophy has reached the millions. Yet, again and again, we are told that Socialism is morally superior, that more equality is needed, and that it must come from the State, from taxation and redistribution.

More modern interpretations of it are softer, for we must at least give the Socialists credit for trying something slightly different with the Nordic idea. But, that too, appears to suffer a critical weakness: demography. The Nordic peoples are slowly giving way to their Islamic immigrants. It appears that the velvet glove variant of Socialism requires an ever-greater number of immigrants to sustain it, and at the same time, has had the effect of numbing the native population and dropping birth rates precipitously.

Children are difficult and expensive in any era, but it used to be that your hope for retirement and care of the family lay with your children. Before the days of Social Security, for instance, your son was probably your retirement plan. When you got too old to work, you would stay with him and, perhaps, help to look after the grand kids. Socialism destroyed one of the primary motivations to have a family. And also, the subsidy of birth control in many of these countries has contributed to this problem as well. Add to this the new strain of militant feminism and its hostility toward men, and you begin to see how Socialism can destroy the family and, in turn, destroy the nation’s ability to propagate itself.

In any event, children are seen as a major burden in the West, but not among the Islamic immigrants. Crime rates in Muslim-settled areas have gone up significantly as they import more people from violent parts of the world. As the native birthrates drop, the Muslim immigrant birthrates are far higher. Yet the Left doesn’t even seem concerned about this. This is repeated across Europe, as opposing mass immigration has become linked to racism, Nazism, etc… Debate on this subject gets shut down quickly and effectively by screaming rhetoric as loudly and obnoxiously as possible.

Mark Steyn makes the argument far more effectively than I can.

At this rate, in a century there will still be a place called Sweden, or even a country called Britain. But they will be Muslim countries, by and large, and the civilization which we know as the West will be gone. The alternative possibility, of course, is that native Westerners wake up to this phenomenon and turn violent and genocidal themselves. After all, Europe has some seriously dark history in this regard.

The Left assures us that this isn’t true. But, again, their actions speak louder than words. They import as many people as possible from the Third World, and especially from Muslim countries. At the same time, they push a narrative of White guilt to prevent any outcry. In effect, the Left desires to replace its native populations (whatever they are) with Muslims. Islam, of course, is a religion utterly incompatible with the Leftist notions of LBGT rights, freedom from religion, sexual liberation, feminism, etc…

They are, in effect, destroying themselves, but ensuring that we on the Right will be defeated first. Like the suicide bombers in the Muslim world, they are annihilating themselves in the effort to take their ancient enemy with them.

Again, I’m ignoring what the Left says they are doing, and instead noting the actions. Donald Trump’s surge in popularity is partly explained by a backlash against this. And what is he really saying he wants to do? Build a wall and deport illegals. That’s it. And yet this is viewed as controversy, as racism, as outright Nazism, by some. Those who ask for peaceful solutions to this problem, like myself, may very well be replaced with people who demand violent solutions. Yet this possibility, too, is ignored by the Left. If they cared at all for the Mexicans and the Muslims, they would consider their actions very carefully. This tells you that the Left doesn’t want America to control immigration. It wants the maximum amount of Third World immigration humanly possible at absolutely any cost, including war and genocide.

It wants to replace you, the existing Americans, with new and different Third World Americans. Mexico is closer, and so they concentrate on them, but don’t mistake the desire to import as many Muslims as they can, as well. Obama’s administration is telling us that 10,000 new Muslim immigrants is not enough. We need more.

Consider this in incredibly simple terms: Muslims come to America and blow up a bunch of buildings, killing thousands of people, and the Left’s reaction is to import as many of them as they possibly can. Ignore what they say, watch what they DO. They WANT more terrorist attacks, people. 

This isn’t conspiracy theory, it’s truth. Consider the motivations of prominent SJW, Arthur Chu.

His fantasy is to wipe out his own gender.

His fantasy is to wipe out his own gender.

Note the confessions of a self-declared white woman who wishes to destroy her own race. Now look at this, people. They want to destroy an entire race. I don’t want to destroy any races (least of all my own). I don’t want to annihilate either gender. And for believing this, they call us the Nazis.

Some Leftists overtly cry out for genocide but we are the bad guys. Yes, I know these are their extremists, the worst of the worst on the Left. At the same time, for every one of these people who admits their genocidal inclinations, there are many more who lie about them and say “but all we want is equality.” Right. I’m the f*cking Easter Bunny, too.

The #BlackLivesMatter hashtag, the Baltimore and Ferguson riots, the uptick in police officer assassinations are all symptoms of a nation in deep ethnic turmoil. President Obama has done nothing but pour fuel on this fire, attempting to spark violent revolution. Attempts to unify people with hashtags like #AllLivesMatter are spurned, because to the Left, if you’re a Right winger, your life categorically does not matter.

Again, ignore what Obama says, and watch what he does. I.e., nothing. Ferguson and Baltimore burn, and all he can manage is to spout off some platitudes about his theoretical, non-existent son looking like Mike Brown. Again, two conclusions are possible. One, he is such an idiot, so incredibly stupid, that he doesn’t see the danger in these riots and assassinations or two, he is fully aware and intends for them to happen.

Fortunately, nothing has snowballed into an avalanche yet, but the Left stirs this pot as much as they can, undoubtedly hoping for the day that some kind of insane ethnic violence is sparked. I cannot attribute this lunacy of throwing hundreds of thousands, even millions of Islamic immigrants into places where Islamic terror has struck many times in recent memory to anything but outright malice.

It’s time to face the truth: the Left wants terrorism. The Left wants ethnic and religious violence. The Left wants to replace the populations in Western nations because they believe the West is evil and must be destroyed at all costs — even their own survival. The immigrants will vote Left wing, at least for now, because they know where their gravy train comes from. So the Left can use them to win their war on the Right.

Think I’m wrong? Ask yourself this question. Take a prominent Leftist and give that person the power to let in as many immigrants as they wish to any country in the world that they wish. How many would they let in?

They would let in all of them, or at least every single one that wanted to go or could possibly be convinced to go. They foisted 800,000 Muslims on Germany only because they realized they could not foist 2 million on them. They don’t want border security in America because as far as they are concerned, it is a travesty that the entire population of Mexico cannot freely immigrate to the United States whenever they want to, as it is. If there is a problem with illegals in America, they will tell you, it is that there are not enough of them. “The Jobs Americans Won’t Do.” That’s the war cry, demanding more illegals. Ironically, they are half-right. There are 100 million able-bodied Americans who don’t work. So the only reason Americans won’t do those jobs, it seems, is because they don’t want to do anything.

Sometimes I wonder if they realized, deep down, that Socialism was never going to work, that it ultimately led either to mass murder and tyranny, or to the slow (but relatively comfortable) death of Europe today. But they figured if their time in history had come, they sure as well weren’t going to let us survive either. But, yeah, I’m reaching there.

What I do know, by careful application of Occam’s Razor and by watching the actions of the Left and those of the Islamic world, is that they are both deliberately attempting to destroy the West. This is not speculation, this is not conspiracy theory, this is truth.

I just hate that it’s come to this, you know? My own family escapes Islam, and here it is again, still promoting violence, only this time they demand entrance into the place my family has fled to. And the Left continually enables them, acting as their very own fifth column.

I can’t turn my eyes from it anymore. The Left and militant Islam wants the West destroyed, and I don’t give a flying fuck what names they call me any more. I oppose this. There is no compromise to be had with those who do not concede your right to EXIST.

And as a head’s up, Francis at Bastion of Liberty tells us what each us should be doing in this new world. Read it. Learn it. Live it.

More on Intolerance & Islam

I was going to post this as a reply to Friar Bob, but the reply became as long as the original post. Again, this is a subject which I could write a book on, and it defies quick and simple analysis.

Friar Bob explains the nature of Christ and peace:

Christians ARE enjoined to be “wise as serpents, yet harmless as doves”. Yet calling Him “pacifistic” isn’t really accurate by many contemporary uses of the word. Because today that often implies supine surrender regardless of the cost. It means go along with anything just to avoid a fight. It means Chamberlain-style negotiations with “Mr. Hitler” promising “peace in our time”. And none of that is an accurate description of Him.

He is, of course, entirely correct. Notions of the Just War entered into Christian thinking right around the time Constantine. Constantine was, of course, engaged in that perennial feature of Roman political life: the Civil War. Hardly a succession went by without intrigue, assassination and outright open war, the exception of the Five Good Emperors non-withstanding. Just War tells us that there are certain things for which Christians must fight, certain things that they cannot countenance.

Self Defense is, of course, paramount among these. But there are other things. Going to war to, say, stop the doings of Hitler is justified whether defensive or not. War purely for the sake of power, money, or love of killing is prohibited. But war to save innocents, defend your own territory and protect your loved ones is justifiable. Naturally, slippery Weasels will rationalize their wars thusly, claiming that the war they are fighting for money is really for the oppressed people of… wherever. But, nonetheless, the Just War theory requires a casus belli. World War I was, ostensibly, started by the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. This was the official casus belli even if the “unofficial” reasons were somewhat less pure.

The issue here is that in Christianity war must be justified. War for its own sake is not a feature of the religion.

Islam, on the other hand, requires the exact opposite. Against the denizens of the House of War, war is required unless there is some justification NOT to do it. Islamic nations do not require a casus belli. You not being a Muslim, or even being insufficiently Muslim is cause enough.

The reason is that Christ loved peace. It is true, he turned over the tables and cracked whips at the moneylenders. It is true he fought a culture war against the Pharisees. At the same time, Friar Bob’s assertion is on point: there are things Christ would not tolerate. Indeed, there are things that God has repeatedly declined to tolerate.

Nonetheless, the foundation of Christianity is peace and the foundation of Islam is war.

But Islam has been a good teacher for Western civilization. From Islam, the concepts of Jihad (Crusade), the ferreting out of the insufficiently pious, the heretic, the infidel were learned. Islam also brought back slavery into the Christian world.

It is difficult to overstate the damage Islam has done. Slavery continues to exist today in the Islamic world. Roman Christians BANNED the practice and freed their slaves. Rome, the great consummate slave regime of ancient history was forced to abolish the practice without even so much as a fight, because Christianity’s distaste for it was THAT great. Then Muslim slave traders, pirates and traffickers reintroduced the practice in places like Spain, and the borders of Byzantium, the Holy Land, etc… it is no coincidence that the Spanish & Portuguese were the first to reintroduce slavery, or that they formed, for a great while, the bulk of the slave traders. Even when the English picked up the practice, it was only after they had observed the other colonial powers doing it. This was around the time that increased contact with the Ottoman world was changing the perceptions of the West.

Even still, the Europeans knew the Good Book did not justify such activity, and made sure to practice these things only outside of their core territories. It was almost as if they felt guilt for what they were doing.

Islam feels no guilt for it.

Interestingly enough, as Europe finally achieved military supremacy over Islam in the 19th century, suddenly slavery begins to vanish. Imperialism has one last great flare in Africa and India, and then is gone forever. Religious Holy Wars become a thing of the past. Intolerance of heretics vanishes. Secular government, as in the 7th century Classical world, reasserts itself. The Divine Right of Kings is expunged. The Church loses power all over Europe, becoming ancillary to government, and finally cut off from it entirely.

Without the threat of militant Islam, Christianity dispensed with the foul tools they had copied from the Muslim world. They had no need of them any longer.

And yet history absolves the Muslims of guilt for these things, and blames Christianity instead. Christianity, which only used these tools when pressed for survival, and eliminated them soon after. While Islam has always practiced Holy War, and continues to do so today. They continue to ferret out Jews and Christians, exterminating them, exiling them or oppressing them. They continue to practice slavery and oppress women. And yet the WEST is decried as the Imperialist scum, the slavers, the oppressors, the killers. Furthermore, Christianity gets blamed for it, even though the Bible condemns these things.

It is disingenuous in the extreme, and proof of the Anti-Christian sentiment common in the West today. And, as Christians put down the tools of Tyranny, so did the Atheist Socialists pick them up and improve upon them.

Total Ideological Warfare

There was a historical story I came across when I was young, and it stuck with me. In it Jamukha, a sworn compatriot of Genghis Khan, rebelled against his master. For a time, the war went badly for Genghis Khan, for his former blood brother was an astute tactician and won many battles. Genghis proved to be the better strategist, however, and in the manner of Fabius Maximus against Hannibal, outlasted his enemy. When Jamukha was captured, betrayed by his own followers, Genghis Khan proved merciful. The Mongol lord offered to renew the blood bond between them and forget all that had transpired. Jamukha wanted no part of this and asked to be executed in bloodless manner, as befitted his station. Genghis Khan granted the request and had him rolled in carpet and trampled to death.

The movie Gladiator explores the concept further:

Quintus: People should know when they are conquered.
Maximus: Would you, Quintus? Would I?

Peculiar notions of honor surround war. Joseph E. Johnston surrendered to William T. Sherman in the Civil War. For the rest of his life, Johnston remained the closest of friends with Sherman, who had been thought of as brutal and cruel to the South. The friendship was so great that Johnston, himself an ancient man by this time, insisted on being a pallbearer at Sherman’s funeral, a thing contributing to his own death shortly thereafter.

Both the surrender of a tenacious opponent and the valiant struggle to the end of hopeless defenders are honored in the annals of military history. We admire the former for knowing when to quit and fighting honorably. We admire the latter for courage and conviction. Jamukha could have lied to Genghis, feigned submission, then moved against him again. But he would not, preferring to die on his own terms.

Honor of this sort began to die in the modern age. Warfare lost its personal component as the ranges grew greater. With the advent of the Total War doctrine, an entire state would mobilize in order to pursue the war. While devastating wars were nothing new, the industrialization of the business made it impersonal. Nothing was off limits. Propaganda made its appearance, which was basically the industrialization of ideology. Wars were fought for complete psychological, economic, and military dominance on a level unparalleled in history.

To say the World Wars were devastating affairs is a cosmic understatement. But the unwitting casualty of this affair was the extinction of the honorable opponent. A few still existed in World War II. Erwin Rommel was well-regarded as a good man and a cunning leader. Yamamoto was similarly regarded as a naval leader. But they were aberrations, throwbacks to an earlier age. Total War meant that you had to demonize your opponent in the press, propaganda meant that the enemy must be regarded as evil and devoid of all virtue. View propaganda posters on all sides of the conflict and you will see the same thing: the enemy was nearly demonic.


Total War also produced an unwillingness to pursue such violence in the future. With the advent of atomic weapons the possibility existed to not only defeat and subjugate your enemy, but to annihilate the Earth along with it. Even the lunatics running the Communist world did not want that.

Propaganda, however, continued its evolution. Indeed, it soon supplanted violence entirely as the primary means of waging war. Vox wrote a screed on the subject here. Propaganda is Total War on the moral and psychological levels, and it requires a complete dismissal of the honorable systems that tacitly governed war previously. To the modern Social Justice Warrior, the enemy cannot possess honor because he is the enemy. Francis commented further on how the radical progressive agenda (using gays as a mask) has become a complete and total annihilation of Christian belief systems. This is Total Ideological War, and it has become more destructive to the West than any number of Japanese bombs or Nazi warplanes. It has evolved from its primitive beginnings in the 20th century to embrace all forms of media. You are bombarded with it in everything from TV commercials to ads on your smartphone.

This commercial is modern Feminist propaganda, wherein a crying bald man calls his Empowered Female Agent (tm) for help.

This commercial is modern Feminist propaganda, wherein a crying bald man calls his Empowered Female Agent ™ for help. Think on how many similar commercials you’ve seen.

Once you have dehumanized your enemy, stripped him of honor, you can justify any action toward him, including complete ideological annihilation. You have no reason to accept a negotiated truce, nor obey one should you decide to. When the media asks why the Right doesn’t support an increase in background check activity for firearms it is because of this. They know, deep down, that the truce will not be obeyed by the Left. Progressives will take that strong point, then demand the surrender of the next thing. If the Right thought the Left had honor, and that an agreement would be upheld, they might be willing to find compromise.

Indeed, compromise might even be possible on the Gay marriage issue, if the Left were interested in a negotiated settlement. Naturally, they are not. They are practicing Total Ideological Warfare. Understand this: they will not stop until Christianity has been eradicated. They will not rest until men are slaves or do not even exist. There will be no peace until Whites are extinct or second-class citizens. War will not end until Western civilization has not only been destroyed, but its entire history has been burned and forgotten, until it has been erased from memory. Don’t believe me? Look up #KillAllMen on Tumblr. Even the male Social Justice Warriors are in on this:


This is your enemy. If he’s willing to off himself in an effort to win the war, what do you think he will do to you? This is the ideological equivalent of a suicide bomber.


Folks, you are facing a war of annihilation. For now, it has restricted itself to the ideological level. But this is only because, for the moment, our side still holds enough physical weaponry to make the issue contentious for them. Mark my words, the moment they believe they have physical supremacy, they will annihilate you. Not only you, but everything even tangentially related to you. Your religion will be erased, your books burned, your history lost, your bodies killed, and your genes wiped out.

This is Total Ideological War. Like civilian installations were bombed in World War II, like mass murder across the globe in that war, there is no neutrality, no sideline and no honorable surrender. Choose a side and defend yourself accordingly.

On Ron Paul & Libertarianism

Politically, I am a strange animal. Larry Elder once called himself a “Conservetarian,” a sort of hybrid between a Conservative and a Libertarian, or a right-leaning Libertarian, as it were. I don’t care for labels overmuch, but that is the closest fit I’ve been able to find. And so, individuals like Ron Paul produce mixed reactions from me. There is much to be said about his commitment, his economic and domestic values and his no-nonsense speaking style. Whatever his other faults, the man displays a minimum of hypocrisy and doesn’t waffle, a rarity for any modern political figure. Ron Paul would be perfectly correct in a world more like the one that existed prior to the 20th century. Even still, his ideas on economic and domestic policy are mostly sound, with few exceptions.

The problem is that he doesn’t understand the military situation, the nature of 4th Generation warfare and how to fight those battles. Even here, he has a few good ideas (the return of letters of marque and reprisal would actually be positive). But ignorance of the threat posed by radical Islam is a gargantuan black mark against him.

I see the logic of his positions, and if we were dealing with relatively civilized, reasonable enemies, he would be right. But that’s the whole point, they are AREN’T reasonable. He seems to think they would be if we left them alone, like a hornet’s nest: don’t disturb it and you’ll be fine. But in this case, the hornets are deliberately seeking to expand their territory and sting more people. The nest must be burned out, from time to time, to keep them from getting out of hand.

Western civilization used to have some idea of how to do this. Individuals like my esteemed colleague, KodeTen, definitely have notions on how this could be achieved. Islam does respect strength and threat of overwhelming force. It can be made to be (relatively) peaceful if they realize that the cost of waging war is too high. But their bar is set much higher than that of the Western World. Purchasing peace with them requires doing things that would, in any other scenario, be considered profoundly unethical and disturbing.

Ron Paul lives in a fantasy world where most nations of the world are civilized, Westernized and committed, underneath it all, to peace. He is a good man, nonetheless, his poor choice of words on Chris Kyle’s death non-withstanding. But I would not vote for him, especially not for the position of Commander-in-Chief. That position requires a modicum of understanding in matters of War. He has demonstrated that he possesses none.

%d bloggers like this: