Archive for July 5th, 2010


People on the right say “Islam” when they mean colored immigration. When Nick Griffith spoke at Clemson he devoted his whole speech to Islam.

If one is not engaged in avoiding race, Islam has an importance for us. Christianity is being overcome because it has wimped out. Nobody talks about that. National Review uses anti-Islamic rhetoric to be fanatically pro-Israel. As I said, it is also the European code-word for third world immigration.

National Review had an article in its last issue about how Elie Wiesel was demanding that “all countries” should outlaw Holocaust denial. Since only one country does NOT outlaw it, he is using “all countries” the way respectable conservatives use “assimilation”: only demanding it of white countries.

Wiesel is using “all countries” the way political correctness uses “humanity” as a code-word for hating their own country and their own race.

I count three statements so far you will not find anywhere but in BUGS.

National review did point out that the Holocaust has been used for Moslems, not Jews. It opened up Europe to a majority Moslem population this century. The Hate Laws are used to outlaw criticism of the much more prevalent Moslems than the Jews. NR does not object to such laws — Buckley endorsed them — but it says it is only saying that Wiesel is not being as pro-Semitic as NR IS.

Meanwhile, nobody is really talking about ISLAM.

One of the ways American historians condemn America is by pointing out that in 1928 Al Smith, the Democratic candidate, was Catholic and a lot of Protestants refused to vote for him. Actually he did as well as any other Democratic candidate in the 1920s — they all got stomped, but they blame it all on Hate.

I hate to confuse historians with facts, but the Catholic Church denounced all governments that practiced ANY tolerance for anybody but Jews. Catholic doctrine does not change capriciously. In fact, it makes the Federal bureaucracy look like the Daytona 500.

My personal opinion is that that is admirable. Churches that rushed to “keep with the times” — the main line Protestant denominations, almost collapsed this century. But if someone had READ the official Papal doctrine on religious tolerance in 1928 to audiences, Smith would have gotten half the votes he did.

It had been formulated for the religious wars of the sixteenth century and was not changed until Vatican II in 1963. If Islam had the same official doctrine the Catholic Church did in 1928 it would be on every network nightly.

As Islam grows, more and more public officials in Europe are converting to it. My general thought has been that if Europe becomes majority Moslem, the world is in a fix.

But I have realized that I saw a majority Moslem as a majority colored. In short, I was fooled by the code words. A majority colored is a majority colored. Period. It makes not a jot of difference what religion they claim to subscribe to.

I think about the future, not about how to stay respectable in today’s politics. Moslems do not assimilate as readily as other groups do. That suits the hell out of me.

As the Islamic majority grows, “Christian” will become a code-word for “white.” Christian is already an excuse for interracial marriage, as per Hannity’s “I don’t notice a biracial couple. I only see two Children of God together.”

A cynic like me wonders how he knows he SAW such a biracial couple, if he doesn’t notice it.

Despite such race treason in the name of Christ, the fact that most of the colored population of Europe is Islamic is probably better than if it claimed to be “Christian.”

This observation comes of the fact that I am using “Islam” as meaning ISLAM, not as a code word.