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.
#1 by backbaygrouch on 07/05/2010 - 8:18 am
A religion is many things. It is a theology, a culture, a rallying point, among others. These often conflict. The intellectual structure of religion usually develops a corruptive Wordism over whatever function it advances. As such it is stultifying, counterproductive and potentially oppressive.
In the West Islam has pluses and minuses. Its theology is close to agnosticism, or at least compatible with it and agnosticism is the theology of the Western educated classes. It proclaims God without going into details which is an excellent marketing ploy. A plus for Islam. Like all universal religions such as Christianity and Buddhism on a cultural level its flexibility renders it nigh meaningless. It can be found on both sides of any war. It adapts to everything. A tie for Islam. As a rallying point it does not work in the West because of history. Which brings us to race. It is not ours. A minus for Islam.
The conflict we are confronting is about race. Any universal religion can provide us with banners, bugles and drummers. Our crusade is not about religion. The Most Catholic Kings of Spain on more than one occasion halted Papal legates at the border to prevent entry of pernicious doctrines via the latest pronouncement from the Pope called Bulls which some say is only half a description. Those rulers were good Catholics and better Kings. The rise of Islam in the West should bring the Christian clergy to its senses and remind it to render unto Caesar what is his.
#2 by Simmons on 07/05/2010 - 9:13 am
All this cult code is a joke, thank god for respectables to sit there and nod their empty heads in agreement.
Bob wrote, I don’t believe you. Those words basically will destroy any cultist who learns maybe a sentence and a half or up to two full sentences of rhetoric to endlessly repeat.
The cultists live in a fog of cognitive dissonance and provincialism. They don’t even deserve the respect they are given, even here.
But those on our side are trained by Mommy Prof and those old habits die hard, very hard.
At Kuntsler’s blog on peal oil doom and disaster there are the usual free thinkers (no doubt in full uniform of Big Mommas graying temple hair) posting their paragraphs long sentence or two of cult rhetoric.
What does our side do? They post AmRen articles on IQ and crime studies. Just like college kids stuck in English 101 with Mommy Prof..
#3 by Dave on 07/05/2010 - 11:22 am
“A majority colored is a majority colored. Period. It makes not a jot of difference what religion they claim to subscribe to.”
I walk into a Catholic Church and here is what I see: In one segment of the pews all the Koreans are gathered. In another, all the Mexicans are gathered, and in a third, all the Anglos are gathered. Occasionally, there will be Chinese familes, and they are all gathered together. None of these people talk to each other.
I know things are different in Europe, but here in America, I have many Moslem friends. Here is the situation of Islam in America: You walk into a Mosque in America and what you will see is a gathering of people from the many different countries of the Moslem world. All these people have NOTHING in common. In fact the situation is so severe, these Mosques barely function.
Then we have the Nation of Islam. It is a real head scratcher to figure out with that has to do with Islam.
I have been around these Nation of Islam types. The IQ level of these people is something to behold. You need to go to the bottom level of Grand Central Station to even get a glimpse of their IQ. It is somewhere below Downs Syndrome, but far more nasty.
It is only out the strange requirements of diplomacy that any real Moslem would have anything to do with the Nation of Islam. The Nation of Islam is a huge embarrassment to real Moslems. The Nation of Islam is one of those weird infiltrations that bedevil religions. In fact, it is all because of Wordism. Real Moslems have to PRETEND that members of the Nation of Islam are Moslems, because they claim TO BE Moslems. Go figure. This kind of infiltration is so common in Christianity, we no longer even think about it.
Islam is as susceptible to being taken down through infiltration as Christianity is.
You see the process in Europe.
It has to do with semantic domains. When I am with one of my Moslem friends and I hear them mixing in Marxist words among their patter, I know they are goners.
It is no different than seeing a Mormon missionary walking around with a nonwhite convert to Mormonism.
You can’t be a Moslem and not be anti-Communist. No comprise whatsoever is possible in any way shape or form. The line is crystal clear and not even the little toe can cross that line, not even one millimeter.
That is why I don’t mind Islam, real Islam, for nonwhites. A Moslem nonwhite world is a nonwhite world we whites can cope with and do business with. And as long as we can sic ‘em on the Socialists and the Communists, they are great friends to have.
That what Nick Griffen of the BNP doesn’t get. That, however, is a different subject than segregation.
Segregation comes first before all else. We should never lose sight of that.
#4 by Scrivener on 07/05/2010 - 7:13 pm
One of my friends has a wife who “doesn’t notice that kind of thing.”
But the thing is, she does. Even though she studiously never mentions skin color, I can always tell when she’s describing a non-White. I can “hear” in her phrasing when she’s avoiding skin color.
It would be comical if it wasn’t such a common phenomenon.