Happy New Year to all the Hammer Folk!
It's been a long time since I posted on this blog. A whole year, in fact. I've felt much guilt over neglecting this site but it's not just Hammer Folk Woman that I've ignored. I haven't kept up with any of my blogs like I used to. Having cancer in 2010 is the reason. That was a physically, mentally, and emtionally trying time which I spent 2010 and 2011 recovering from. One of the lingering effects of my cancer treatment is "chemo brain", that mental condition where thinking and expressing thoughts is more difficult than before chemo. It's just harder for me to write now. The words won't come like they used to. Still, I'm going to try to post more regularly on Hammer Folk Woman in 2012. The issues that inspired the creation of this blog are still extant and need to be dealt with. I will try hard to do that and I hope I won't disappoint you.
Thank you, Lord, for letting me see another year.
God bless the West and God bless the Hammer Folk!
Sunday, January 1, 2012
Saturday, January 1, 2011
A Deadly Beginning To The New Year
It's 2011 today but the beginning of a new year hasn't instilled a new attitude in radical Muslims. Their thirst for jihad remains as fierce as ever, with Egyptian Christians being the first "infidels" of the new year to feel their wrath.
Just minutes after midnight on January 1st, a bomb exploded as Coptic Christians exited the Qidiseen or Saints Church in Alexandria, Egypt after attending a New Year's Mass. Twenty-one people were killed and nearly 100 were injured.
Coptic Christians, who make up 10% of Egypt's population and face increasing persecution, didn't take this attack lying down. Riots broke out almost immediately after the bombing, with Copts targeting Muslims passersby and a mosque across the street from the church. Police responded with rubber bullets and other methods to disperse the understandably angry crowds. Calm eventually returned to Alexandria's streets, but tensions between Muslims and Copts remained high.
The Egytian Interior Ministry claimed that "foreign elements", and not Egytian citizens, were responsible for the church bombing. Alexandria's governor, Adel Labib, blamed the bombing on Al Qaeda in Iraq, citing the threats the terror organization made against Egytian Christians in November. Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) promised attacks on the Egytian Church because it believes the Church is imprisoning two Christian women who converted to Islam in order to get divorces from their husbands (the Coptic Church forbids almost all divorces). Both AQI and hard-line Egytian Muslims accuse the Coptic Church of trying to force the two women to renounce Islam. The Church denies holding the women against their will.
This brutal attack on innocent Egyptian Christians could just as easily have happened in the West against American or European Christians. It serves as a bloody reminder that jihad is still on and that radical Muslims are commited to fighting "infidels" wherever we are. Their war on us is a religious duty commanded by their "prophet" in their "holy" book. And the aim of their war is to convert, subjugate, or kill us.
We must be courageous and resolute in fighting this evil and tenacious foe, and we must have no goal but victory. Without victory we in the West will find ourselves degraded to the same miserable, second-class status as the Copts in Egypt. Don't think that can happen? Remember, the Christians were once the majority in Egypt. No, sadly, the Muslims are. We must not let that happen in the West or that will be the end of Christian civilization. I, for one, believe that Christian civilization is worth defending whether in the West, in Egypt, or the Middle East. So I shout with the Coptic faithful who filled the streets of Alexandria after Saturday's attack, "With our blood and soul, we redeem the cross!" Amen.
Just minutes after midnight on January 1st, a bomb exploded as Coptic Christians exited the Qidiseen or Saints Church in Alexandria, Egypt after attending a New Year's Mass. Twenty-one people were killed and nearly 100 were injured.
Coptic Christians, who make up 10% of Egypt's population and face increasing persecution, didn't take this attack lying down. Riots broke out almost immediately after the bombing, with Copts targeting Muslims passersby and a mosque across the street from the church. Police responded with rubber bullets and other methods to disperse the understandably angry crowds. Calm eventually returned to Alexandria's streets, but tensions between Muslims and Copts remained high.
The Egytian Interior Ministry claimed that "foreign elements", and not Egytian citizens, were responsible for the church bombing. Alexandria's governor, Adel Labib, blamed the bombing on Al Qaeda in Iraq, citing the threats the terror organization made against Egytian Christians in November. Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) promised attacks on the Egytian Church because it believes the Church is imprisoning two Christian women who converted to Islam in order to get divorces from their husbands (the Coptic Church forbids almost all divorces). Both AQI and hard-line Egytian Muslims accuse the Coptic Church of trying to force the two women to renounce Islam. The Church denies holding the women against their will.
This brutal attack on innocent Egyptian Christians could just as easily have happened in the West against American or European Christians. It serves as a bloody reminder that jihad is still on and that radical Muslims are commited to fighting "infidels" wherever we are. Their war on us is a religious duty commanded by their "prophet" in their "holy" book. And the aim of their war is to convert, subjugate, or kill us.
We must be courageous and resolute in fighting this evil and tenacious foe, and we must have no goal but victory. Without victory we in the West will find ourselves degraded to the same miserable, second-class status as the Copts in Egypt. Don't think that can happen? Remember, the Christians were once the majority in Egypt. No, sadly, the Muslims are. We must not let that happen in the West or that will be the end of Christian civilization. I, for one, believe that Christian civilization is worth defending whether in the West, in Egypt, or the Middle East. So I shout with the Coptic faithful who filled the streets of Alexandria after Saturday's attack, "With our blood and soul, we redeem the cross!" Amen.
Monday, May 17, 2010
Sacrificing Children To Multiculturalism
There's a barbaric ritual that's widely practiced in parts of Africa and the Middle East. This ritual is performed on female minors as young as infants and it's meant to "protect" their sexual purity by keeping them virginal until marriage. This ritual is often performed without anesthesia and with unsterilized instruments or even pieces of glass. This causes immense pain and trauma to the youngsters who are forced to endure this torture and exposes them to death from infection and/or excessive bleeding. What is this horror? It's female genital mutilation (FGM), also known as female circumcision. And this uncivilized--yes, uncivilized--practice has reared its ugly head in the West.
Female genital mutilation was brought to the West by immigrants from FGM-practicing cultures. Most Western nations have been both socially and legally hostile to the practice, but just this month a prestigious organization in America has given a nod to a "mild" form of the ritual. In a reversal of its 1998 policy, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) has suggested that American law allow doctors to perform a "nick" on girls from immigrant families. The AAP has compared the severity of the proposed "nick" to that of ear piercing. What's the reason for the AAP's stunning reversal? Ostensibly, it's protection. Allowing this "gentler" form of FGM, the AAP argued, could prevent some girls from being sent to Third World countries for full circumcision, thereby preventing needless suffering and even saving lives. Ah, saving lives. Sounds so humane; too bad it's a total farce.
The real reason the American Academy of Pediatrics endorsed this genital "nick" was to show its cultural sensitivity. Apparently, the organization thought its previous zero tolerance policy toward FMG was too intolerant. So, the AAP chose to advocate this "modified" form of female circumcision to show its open mindedness and to appease certain immigrant communities. Let's make sure we understand what's happened here.
The American Academy of Pediatrics, an organization dedicated to the health of children has, in the name of a dubious sociopolitical dogma, chosen to give legitimacy to a medically unnecessary and barbaric practice performed almost exclusively on children. In short, the AAP has sacrificed children to multiculturalism. To call this an outrage would be an understatement.
Female circumcision is not only barbaric and unnecessary, it's also not a part of Western civilization. The West does not mutilate its daughters. And within the borders of our own countries we, the Western people, have not only the right but the duty to preserve, protect, and promote our own culture with all its morals, values and traditions. Cutting out our daughters' genitals is not a Western value, and we don't need to apologize for that. In fact, we need to be fiercely unapologetic about practicing our own culture in our own lands and expecting immigrants to do the same.
We, the Hesperian people, must make it clear that entrance into our lands is not an unconditional right. Rather, it is contigent upon the willingness of the foreigner to assimilate. Once they enter any one of our countries foreigners should understand, in no uncertain terms, that they are now living under Western culture and their native culture no longer applies. If foreigners don't want to accept this then they should leave or, better yet, not come to the West in the first place. The one thing they definitely have no right to do is demand that we change who we are in order to accommodate them. And the one thing no true Westerner should do is make such a change voluntarily. That's what the AAP has done.
Cultural sensitivity may have some benefits (although none come to mind), but when it extends to legitimizing barbarism it's gone horribly too far. The American Academy of Pediatrics should scrap multiculturalism and return to its job of promoting the medical well-being of children. The AAP should remember the cornerstone of the Hippocratic Oath: First, do no harm. This precept of Western medicine will not only protect Western children but Third World children as well. Did you get that? Western cultural values are beneficial even to people not of the West.
Too bad the American Academy of Pediatrics is blind to the goodness of its own heritage.
Female genital mutilation was brought to the West by immigrants from FGM-practicing cultures. Most Western nations have been both socially and legally hostile to the practice, but just this month a prestigious organization in America has given a nod to a "mild" form of the ritual. In a reversal of its 1998 policy, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) has suggested that American law allow doctors to perform a "nick" on girls from immigrant families. The AAP has compared the severity of the proposed "nick" to that of ear piercing. What's the reason for the AAP's stunning reversal? Ostensibly, it's protection. Allowing this "gentler" form of FGM, the AAP argued, could prevent some girls from being sent to Third World countries for full circumcision, thereby preventing needless suffering and even saving lives. Ah, saving lives. Sounds so humane; too bad it's a total farce.
The real reason the American Academy of Pediatrics endorsed this genital "nick" was to show its cultural sensitivity. Apparently, the organization thought its previous zero tolerance policy toward FMG was too intolerant. So, the AAP chose to advocate this "modified" form of female circumcision to show its open mindedness and to appease certain immigrant communities. Let's make sure we understand what's happened here.
The American Academy of Pediatrics, an organization dedicated to the health of children has, in the name of a dubious sociopolitical dogma, chosen to give legitimacy to a medically unnecessary and barbaric practice performed almost exclusively on children. In short, the AAP has sacrificed children to multiculturalism. To call this an outrage would be an understatement.
Female circumcision is not only barbaric and unnecessary, it's also not a part of Western civilization. The West does not mutilate its daughters. And within the borders of our own countries we, the Western people, have not only the right but the duty to preserve, protect, and promote our own culture with all its morals, values and traditions. Cutting out our daughters' genitals is not a Western value, and we don't need to apologize for that. In fact, we need to be fiercely unapologetic about practicing our own culture in our own lands and expecting immigrants to do the same.
We, the Hesperian people, must make it clear that entrance into our lands is not an unconditional right. Rather, it is contigent upon the willingness of the foreigner to assimilate. Once they enter any one of our countries foreigners should understand, in no uncertain terms, that they are now living under Western culture and their native culture no longer applies. If foreigners don't want to accept this then they should leave or, better yet, not come to the West in the first place. The one thing they definitely have no right to do is demand that we change who we are in order to accommodate them. And the one thing no true Westerner should do is make such a change voluntarily. That's what the AAP has done.
Cultural sensitivity may have some benefits (although none come to mind), but when it extends to legitimizing barbarism it's gone horribly too far. The American Academy of Pediatrics should scrap multiculturalism and return to its job of promoting the medical well-being of children. The AAP should remember the cornerstone of the Hippocratic Oath: First, do no harm. This precept of Western medicine will not only protect Western children but Third World children as well. Did you get that? Western cultural values are beneficial even to people not of the West.
Too bad the American Academy of Pediatrics is blind to the goodness of its own heritage.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Civilians! Civilians!
It looks like American, NATO, and Afghan forces are close to completely securing the Taliban-held city of Marjah in Afghanistan's southern Helmand province. This is, of course, great news, although not much is being said about it in the mainstream media. What makes this impending victory really impressive is that the Americans and other forces are achieving it while being handicapped by strict rules of engagement designed to protect civilians. Apparently, Barack Obama, the oh-so-apologetic American president, wants to show the Muslim world what considerate fighters American and American-led forces can be. Even if it puts his own soldiers at risk. This is insane.
We are at war with Muslim terrorists. There is no option but victory for us because without victory there is no survival. The lives we should be concerned with first and foremost are the lives of our troops, not those of Muslims, civilian or terrorist. Sound harsh? Consider this. The Muslim world always shrieks with sanctimonious outrage when Muslim civilians are killed by non-Muslims, but there's nothing but deafening silence from the 'ummah when the killing goes the other way.
When the horror of 9/11 took place, killing almost totally civilians, there was no outrage from the Islamic world. Instead, we saw Muslims cheering and dancing in the streets.
When three Christian girls in Indonesia were beheaded on their way to school, there was no outrage from the Muslim world.
When journalist Daniel Pearl was kidnapped and then beheaded in Pakistan, there was no outrage from the Muslim world.
When Leon Klinghoffer, a wheelchair bound Holocaust survivor, was shot and thrown overboard during the hijacking of the cruise ship "Achille Lauro", there was no outrage from the Muslim world.
When hundreds of thousands of Kurds were murdered by Saddam Hussein in his infamous Al Anfal campaign, there was no outrage from the Muslim world.
When hundreds of Russian adults and children were held hostage and brutalized in their school by Muslim terrorists, there was no outrage from the Muslim world.
Are you seeing the pattern here?
Muslims' concern for civilians is utterly hypocritical...and revealing. It exposes how Muslims selectively value human life. To the 'ummah, non-Muslim civilians being killed by Muslims is acceptable. Muslim civilians being killed by Muslims is acceptable. The only killing of civilians that's not acceptable is the killing of Muslim civilians by non-Muslims. That is the only killing of noncombatants that provokes rage in Muslims. And no one dares to call them on it.
I have no problem with trying to protect civilians in wartime if it's at all possible. I DO have a problem with trying to protect Muslim civilians when the Islamic world has never shown any concern for non-Muslim civilians. The American president is convinced that the West can stop terrorism by being respectful towards Muslim civilians--and even combatants--in war. Would that president Barack Obama had the courage to demand reciprocal respect for non-Muslim civilians from Muslims.
We are at war with Muslim terrorists. There is no option but victory for us because without victory there is no survival. The lives we should be concerned with first and foremost are the lives of our troops, not those of Muslims, civilian or terrorist. Sound harsh? Consider this. The Muslim world always shrieks with sanctimonious outrage when Muslim civilians are killed by non-Muslims, but there's nothing but deafening silence from the 'ummah when the killing goes the other way.
When the horror of 9/11 took place, killing almost totally civilians, there was no outrage from the Islamic world. Instead, we saw Muslims cheering and dancing in the streets.
When three Christian girls in Indonesia were beheaded on their way to school, there was no outrage from the Muslim world.
When journalist Daniel Pearl was kidnapped and then beheaded in Pakistan, there was no outrage from the Muslim world.
When Leon Klinghoffer, a wheelchair bound Holocaust survivor, was shot and thrown overboard during the hijacking of the cruise ship "Achille Lauro", there was no outrage from the Muslim world.
When hundreds of thousands of Kurds were murdered by Saddam Hussein in his infamous Al Anfal campaign, there was no outrage from the Muslim world.
When hundreds of Russian adults and children were held hostage and brutalized in their school by Muslim terrorists, there was no outrage from the Muslim world.
Are you seeing the pattern here?
Muslims' concern for civilians is utterly hypocritical...and revealing. It exposes how Muslims selectively value human life. To the 'ummah, non-Muslim civilians being killed by Muslims is acceptable. Muslim civilians being killed by Muslims is acceptable. The only killing of civilians that's not acceptable is the killing of Muslim civilians by non-Muslims. That is the only killing of noncombatants that provokes rage in Muslims. And no one dares to call them on it.
I have no problem with trying to protect civilians in wartime if it's at all possible. I DO have a problem with trying to protect Muslim civilians when the Islamic world has never shown any concern for non-Muslim civilians. The American president is convinced that the West can stop terrorism by being respectful towards Muslim civilians--and even combatants--in war. Would that president Barack Obama had the courage to demand reciprocal respect for non-Muslim civilians from Muslims.
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Only In The Kingdom
I first heard of this last year and thought it was a fluke, but now it's happened again. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has banned the celebration of Valentine's Day. Yes, you read that right. A holiday dedicated to honoring and celebrating love, especially romantic love, is verboten in the Kingdom. And to make sure every Saudi got the point, the Kingdom's police confiscated every item, every product, in the nation's stores that was connected in any way to the heinous holiday. Still, many love struck Saudis risked the wrath of the religious police to buy tokens of love for their significant others. Red roses, now contraband, were selling at very high prices for days before today.
Can you imagine? Roses as contraband?! Forget drugs! Forget porno movies! It's those damn roses that are destroying the Kingdom's morals!
What accounts for this absurd policy in the Kingdom? Well, last year the explanation was that Valentine's Day was a Western holiday and its celebration in Saudi Arabia was an unacceptable encroachment of Western Christian culture into the birthplace of Islam. I didn't believe that last year and I don't believe it now. I think the real problem with Valentine's Day is that Saudi officialdom's fanatical brand of Islam is just antithetical to love. Don't think so? Then consider this.
If Saudi Islam is opposed to Western cultural celebrations of love, but not to love itself, then why ban Valentine's Day? Why not just Islamize it? Why not call February 14 Aisha's Day, after Mohammed's favorite wife? On that day Saudi men could buy gifts rooted in Islamic culture and faith and give them to their wives to show they loved them as much as Mohammed was said to love Aisha. The Kingdom could even use Aisha's Day to counter the "stereotype" that Islam, especially its brand of Islam, is a misogynist faith. And changing Valentine's Day to Aisha's Day wouldn't be totally unprecedented. In the past Islam had no problem turning Christian churches into mosques, so changing a Christian holiday into an Islamic one shouldn't be hard or distasteful. This would be the best solution to the Valentine's Day "problem"...if the Kingdom's faith believed in love. It doesn't.
Saudi Arabia is ruled by the fanatically puritanical and fundamentalist version of Islam called Wahhabism. This faith can't stomach a celebration of love, whatever its origin, because it can't stomach love itself. For Saudi officialdom, love is the real problem, not Valentine's Day.
Only in the Kingdom, and I don't mean the magic one.
Saturday, December 26, 2009
It's Terrorism This Time
On Christmas Day an attempted bombing of a US airliner was averted when the would be bomber's explosive device failed to go off. Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, a 23-year-old Nigerian with suspected links to al-Qaeda, tried to blow up Delta-owned Northwest Airlines flight 253 as it descended toward Detroit Metropolitan Airport. Nearly 300 people would've been killed had the bomb detonated as planned. Perhaps because of the withering criticism it received over its guarded response to the Fort Hood attack, the Obama administration wasted no time calling this attempted bombing an act of terrorism. Unfortunately, the new American administration is still committed to a pre-9/11 mentality regarding Islamic terrorism.
Rather than being put into military custody and "enhancedly" interrogated--or, better yet, summarily executed--Abdulmutallab was treated like a common criminal, taken into regular police custody and read the charges against him by a civilian judge who worried if he was pronouncing the Muslim's name right. All this while Abdulmutallab was being treated, presumably at taxpayers' expense, for burns received during his failed detonation attempt. But don't throw up just yet.
Back at the White House, Attorney General Eric "lets-try-KSM-in-New-York" Holder boldly declared that the US government was "vigorously" investigating the case and all those responsible would be "brought to justice". Wow! If that doesn't strike terror into the hearts of our enemies nothing will.
This is insane. How many Americans--how many Westerners of any nationality--have to die before the "progressive", multi-culti, don't-offend-the-Muslims crowd that's now in power will wake up and smell the proverbial coffee? Terrorists don't need to be "brought to justice"; they need to be killed. And if we're going to treat terrorism like a law enforcement problem, why didn't we stop Abdulmutallab before he got anywhere near a plane? I mean, there were warning signs about him just as there were about the Fort Hood terrorist.
Just weeks before he boarded flight 253, Abdulmutallab's own father had warned US officials about his son, saying he might be becoming militant. This led to A (tired of writing out the whole name) being put into a terrorism database but not on a no-fly list. He also wasn't put on a list for additional security checks. Apparently, that's how A was able not only to get near a plane but board with a bomb on his person. Can you say, incompetent? I knew you could!
This pre-9/11, law enforcement approach to terrorism has to go! It was tried all through the '70's, '80's, and '90's and was a colossal failure. The greatest testament to that failure was September 11, 2001. TREATING TERRORISM LIKE CRIME DOESN'T STOP TERRORISM. And the mojo of a left-wing Black president attuned to Third World grievances won't work, either. Barack Obama was supposed to end terrorism by brown nosing Muslims and apologizing for America's existence. Obviously, the Nigerian didn't get that memo.
We must wait and see what will happen to Abdulmutallab. The most likely scenario, given the current administration, is that he'll spend years tying up the civilian court system while using it as a pulpit to spew hateful anti-American, anti-Western jihadist rhetoric. And the American people will have the privilege of paying for it.
Now you can throw up.
Rather than being put into military custody and "enhancedly" interrogated--or, better yet, summarily executed--Abdulmutallab was treated like a common criminal, taken into regular police custody and read the charges against him by a civilian judge who worried if he was pronouncing the Muslim's name right. All this while Abdulmutallab was being treated, presumably at taxpayers' expense, for burns received during his failed detonation attempt. But don't throw up just yet.
Back at the White House, Attorney General Eric "lets-try-KSM-in-New-York" Holder boldly declared that the US government was "vigorously" investigating the case and all those responsible would be "brought to justice". Wow! If that doesn't strike terror into the hearts of our enemies nothing will.
This is insane. How many Americans--how many Westerners of any nationality--have to die before the "progressive", multi-culti, don't-offend-the-Muslims crowd that's now in power will wake up and smell the proverbial coffee? Terrorists don't need to be "brought to justice"; they need to be killed. And if we're going to treat terrorism like a law enforcement problem, why didn't we stop Abdulmutallab before he got anywhere near a plane? I mean, there were warning signs about him just as there were about the Fort Hood terrorist.
Just weeks before he boarded flight 253, Abdulmutallab's own father had warned US officials about his son, saying he might be becoming militant. This led to A (tired of writing out the whole name) being put into a terrorism database but not on a no-fly list. He also wasn't put on a list for additional security checks. Apparently, that's how A was able not only to get near a plane but board with a bomb on his person. Can you say, incompetent? I knew you could!
This pre-9/11, law enforcement approach to terrorism has to go! It was tried all through the '70's, '80's, and '90's and was a colossal failure. The greatest testament to that failure was September 11, 2001. TREATING TERRORISM LIKE CRIME DOESN'T STOP TERRORISM. And the mojo of a left-wing Black president attuned to Third World grievances won't work, either. Barack Obama was supposed to end terrorism by brown nosing Muslims and apologizing for America's existence. Obviously, the Nigerian didn't get that memo.
We must wait and see what will happen to Abdulmutallab. The most likely scenario, given the current administration, is that he'll spend years tying up the civilian court system while using it as a pulpit to spew hateful anti-American, anti-Western jihadist rhetoric. And the American people will have the privilege of paying for it.
Now you can throw up.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Honor Killing I Can Believe In
This may come as a surprise, but I kind of like the idea of honor killing. No, not the sick kind of "honor" killing done by Muslims, but a truly honorable form of honor killing. Let me explain.
In the Islamic world there's this weird obsession with family "honor", epitomized by the chastity of the family's women. A family is only as honorable as it's women are virginal. Any breach of female purity brings egregious disgrace on the family, disgrace that can be alleviated only by the death of the sullied woman. And it doesn't matter how the female became impure, nor does her age make any difference in applying the "remedy". A victim of rape or incest is just as much a cause of disgrace as a purposely promiscuous woman. A child can be just as much a cause of disgrace as an adult female. In Iran a man living in a podunk village beheaded his 7-year-old daughter because he suspected his brother of molesting her. He killed his daughter, not her alleged attacker. This is barbaric, and isn't the kind of honor killing I believe in.
When I hear the phrase "honor killing", I ask myself this question: what's more dishonorable, to have a rape victim in the family or a rapist in the family? Those of us in the West know the right answer to that question; Muslims don't. We Westerners know that the real disgrace is being the relative of a man who brutalizes women and/or children. The real disgrace is seeing all of your child training effort end in the creation of a predator. Honor killing should be about expunging the shame of the rapist's family. If a rapist's father or brother kills him as the ultimate way to say, "We're sorry", and in order to remove the family's shame, that's honor killing I can believe in.
That father in Iran should've beheaded his brother, not his daughter. A child or woman who's been attacked by a larger and stronger male isn't the cause of anyone's shame. The Iranian father murdered his baby girl because of Islam's perverted vision of morality and justice. And to think some PC whipped Westerners want to facilitate the spread of that perverted vision into the West. Perhaps they should be beheaded. That, too, would be honor killing I can believe in.
In the Islamic world there's this weird obsession with family "honor", epitomized by the chastity of the family's women. A family is only as honorable as it's women are virginal. Any breach of female purity brings egregious disgrace on the family, disgrace that can be alleviated only by the death of the sullied woman. And it doesn't matter how the female became impure, nor does her age make any difference in applying the "remedy". A victim of rape or incest is just as much a cause of disgrace as a purposely promiscuous woman. A child can be just as much a cause of disgrace as an adult female. In Iran a man living in a podunk village beheaded his 7-year-old daughter because he suspected his brother of molesting her. He killed his daughter, not her alleged attacker. This is barbaric, and isn't the kind of honor killing I believe in.
When I hear the phrase "honor killing", I ask myself this question: what's more dishonorable, to have a rape victim in the family or a rapist in the family? Those of us in the West know the right answer to that question; Muslims don't. We Westerners know that the real disgrace is being the relative of a man who brutalizes women and/or children. The real disgrace is seeing all of your child training effort end in the creation of a predator. Honor killing should be about expunging the shame of the rapist's family. If a rapist's father or brother kills him as the ultimate way to say, "We're sorry", and in order to remove the family's shame, that's honor killing I can believe in.
That father in Iran should've beheaded his brother, not his daughter. A child or woman who's been attacked by a larger and stronger male isn't the cause of anyone's shame. The Iranian father murdered his baby girl because of Islam's perverted vision of morality and justice. And to think some PC whipped Westerners want to facilitate the spread of that perverted vision into the West. Perhaps they should be beheaded. That, too, would be honor killing I can believe in.
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Hail The Hammer!
In honor of the defeat of the Muslim invaders of France by Frankish king Charles "The Hammer" Martel, I'm reprinting a post from the blog Arthur's Hall of Viking Manliness. The piece was originally posted in February but is most appropriate for today, October 10, the nearly 1300th anniversary of The Hammer's historic victory over the real infidels. Read and be inspired to continue the fight against Mohammed's insatiable horde.
Arthur's Man Of The Month: Charles Martel
[On October 10], 732 [AD] a major event took place that shaped the world we live in. In fact, it may have been one of the [most] important events in the course of Western [Christian] Civilization. Yet...I'm guessing that 99% of you have no clue what I'm talking about, which is why I bring it up. The event I am alluding to is the Battle of Tours [where] the forces of Frankish king Charles "The Hammer" Martel defeated the boy raping Muslim invaders who'd set their sites on Continental Europe after subduing the pussy Spaniards.
It is hard to overstate the importance of this victory. The goat herding hordes had already turned Spain into a Muslim nation and were set on conquering the rest of Europe. Obviously, had they been successful it is possible that I would be praising Mohammed and his patron saint Obama...but because of men like Martel, the truth can still be told.
We all know that the Muslims would've never had a chance against the Germanic folk in the north of Europe, but Martel and his men were the first to halt the advance of the Muslims in Europe. He must be turning over in his grave at this point, seeing the destruction of the continent...culture, [and Faith] that he helped save nearly 1300 years ago. The story of "The Hammer" should be told all over Europe to inspire a sense of pride in being European. Modern Euros are such disgraceful pussies that they are literally welcoming their own extinction and everyone knows it but them. They are an insult to their ancestors, the ancestors who created this world and everything that is good on the planet Earth. My disgust for the modern people of Continental Europe knows little bounds. But back to Martel...
Charles Martel was born in [what is now] Belgium to a local leader and a concubine. He was said to have been a powerfully built man. His early career as a military leader foreshadowed his tactical genius. His first major victory was one with an army [that] was far smaller [than the opposing army], and he used tactics like "feigned retreat" that were new to European warfare. His attacks were always coordinated to happen in places and times that were unexpected to the opposing force. Another unusual trait of Martel was his fairness after scouring victory. Dark Ages Europe was beset with cruelty; vengeance, sacking, pillaging, and widespread rape were the norm for a victorious force. Martel would have none of that. He would generally allow the losing commanders to leave in peace.
After capturing power of much of the Frankish Kingdom in 718, [Martel] set out against the [Germans], who had continually been a nuisance, as the Romans found out 300 years earlier. [Martel] did something that the Romans could never do...he defeated the Germans at Teutoberg Forest, the site of an epic massacre of three Roman legions. Later in his reign, he subdued southern Germany, and the Frankish Kingdom at that point encompassed nearly all of what is now Germany, as well as Holland, Belgium, and most of France. South and east of the Frankish strongholds the Muslims were starting to invade southern Gaul (France) and Martel realized that he needed a full time...professional army to defeat the forces of the Emir of Cordoba. He seized Church lands and treasure in order to pay his troops so that they could train year round. An excellent decision but a difficult one, [for] at the time the Church was all powerful. His actions were possible grounds for excommunication, but because he is the type of man we are to celebrate...he did not care.
The Battle of Tours is seen as a "macrohistorical" event, literally meaning that the history of the world could've been altered had the outcome been different. It is thought that only the Franks were capable of opposing the professional and lethal cavalry of the Muslim invaders. After Martel's victory at Tours, the Caliphate would never again regain a foothold in Europe proper, instead being confined to Iberia. It would take another 700 years to rid [Europe] of the goat herders, but the eventual victory of Europe over Islam was set in motion by the heroism and genius of Charles "The Hammer" Martel. Perhaps no man was more important in the political structure and practices of Dark Ages Europe. Before Martel, Europe was a series of small fiefdoms with small, unprofessional, barbarian type military forces. [Martel] was the first since the fall of Rome to organize an army and lay the groundwork for a nation.
[Charles Martel's] genetic legacy is also outstanding. We all know that leaving behind strong and able sons is a big part of what goes into being a man. Legacies of great men like Alexander [the Great]...were not secured because of the lack of a legitimate heir. Unlike Alexander, Charles Martel's son Pippin the Younger, was recognized by the Church as the unquestioned leader of the Franks. He shared his father's vision of eradicating Islam from Europe and continued to battle the Moors in Gaul and Iberia. Most importantly, Pippin had a son named Charlemagne. If you don't know about the importance of Charlemagne, go read something. He may have been (next to his grandfather) the most important leader in Europe's history. Needless to say, Charles Martel made an impact in his own time and for centuries to come. Very few men can challenge his importance or legacy in Europe. Charles "The Hammer" Martel is unquestionably a legendary man, more than worthy of his selection as the Arthur's Hall Man of the Month. Hail the Hammer!
First published in Arthur's Hall of Viking Manliness on 2/28/09.
This guest column has it spot on! Far too few are brave enough in this politically correct age to hail the victory of Christian Europe over Islam, or to admit Islam's insatiable imperialism. Arthur did it and for that I give him a big slap on the back. You go Arthur! You are truly living in the spirit of Martel!
Arthur's Man Of The Month: Charles Martel
[On October 10], 732 [AD] a major event took place that shaped the world we live in. In fact, it may have been one of the [most] important events in the course of Western [Christian] Civilization. Yet...I'm guessing that 99% of you have no clue what I'm talking about, which is why I bring it up. The event I am alluding to is the Battle of Tours [where] the forces of Frankish king Charles "The Hammer" Martel defeated the boy raping Muslim invaders who'd set their sites on Continental Europe after subduing the pussy Spaniards.
It is hard to overstate the importance of this victory. The goat herding hordes had already turned Spain into a Muslim nation and were set on conquering the rest of Europe. Obviously, had they been successful it is possible that I would be praising Mohammed and his patron saint Obama...but because of men like Martel, the truth can still be told.
We all know that the Muslims would've never had a chance against the Germanic folk in the north of Europe, but Martel and his men were the first to halt the advance of the Muslims in Europe. He must be turning over in his grave at this point, seeing the destruction of the continent...culture, [and Faith] that he helped save nearly 1300 years ago. The story of "The Hammer" should be told all over Europe to inspire a sense of pride in being European. Modern Euros are such disgraceful pussies that they are literally welcoming their own extinction and everyone knows it but them. They are an insult to their ancestors, the ancestors who created this world and everything that is good on the planet Earth. My disgust for the modern people of Continental Europe knows little bounds. But back to Martel...
Charles Martel was born in [what is now] Belgium to a local leader and a concubine. He was said to have been a powerfully built man. His early career as a military leader foreshadowed his tactical genius. His first major victory was one with an army [that] was far smaller [than the opposing army], and he used tactics like "feigned retreat" that were new to European warfare. His attacks were always coordinated to happen in places and times that were unexpected to the opposing force. Another unusual trait of Martel was his fairness after scouring victory. Dark Ages Europe was beset with cruelty; vengeance, sacking, pillaging, and widespread rape were the norm for a victorious force. Martel would have none of that. He would generally allow the losing commanders to leave in peace.
After capturing power of much of the Frankish Kingdom in 718, [Martel] set out against the [Germans], who had continually been a nuisance, as the Romans found out 300 years earlier. [Martel] did something that the Romans could never do...he defeated the Germans at Teutoberg Forest, the site of an epic massacre of three Roman legions. Later in his reign, he subdued southern Germany, and the Frankish Kingdom at that point encompassed nearly all of what is now Germany, as well as Holland, Belgium, and most of France. South and east of the Frankish strongholds the Muslims were starting to invade southern Gaul (France) and Martel realized that he needed a full time...professional army to defeat the forces of the Emir of Cordoba. He seized Church lands and treasure in order to pay his troops so that they could train year round. An excellent decision but a difficult one, [for] at the time the Church was all powerful. His actions were possible grounds for excommunication, but because he is the type of man we are to celebrate...he did not care.
The Battle of Tours is seen as a "macrohistorical" event, literally meaning that the history of the world could've been altered had the outcome been different. It is thought that only the Franks were capable of opposing the professional and lethal cavalry of the Muslim invaders. After Martel's victory at Tours, the Caliphate would never again regain a foothold in Europe proper, instead being confined to Iberia. It would take another 700 years to rid [Europe] of the goat herders, but the eventual victory of Europe over Islam was set in motion by the heroism and genius of Charles "The Hammer" Martel. Perhaps no man was more important in the political structure and practices of Dark Ages Europe. Before Martel, Europe was a series of small fiefdoms with small, unprofessional, barbarian type military forces. [Martel] was the first since the fall of Rome to organize an army and lay the groundwork for a nation.
[Charles Martel's] genetic legacy is also outstanding. We all know that leaving behind strong and able sons is a big part of what goes into being a man. Legacies of great men like Alexander [the Great]...were not secured because of the lack of a legitimate heir. Unlike Alexander, Charles Martel's son Pippin the Younger, was recognized by the Church as the unquestioned leader of the Franks. He shared his father's vision of eradicating Islam from Europe and continued to battle the Moors in Gaul and Iberia. Most importantly, Pippin had a son named Charlemagne. If you don't know about the importance of Charlemagne, go read something. He may have been (next to his grandfather) the most important leader in Europe's history. Needless to say, Charles Martel made an impact in his own time and for centuries to come. Very few men can challenge his importance or legacy in Europe. Charles "The Hammer" Martel is unquestionably a legendary man, more than worthy of his selection as the Arthur's Hall Man of the Month. Hail the Hammer!
First published in Arthur's Hall of Viking Manliness on 2/28/09.
This guest column has it spot on! Far too few are brave enough in this politically correct age to hail the victory of Christian Europe over Islam, or to admit Islam's insatiable imperialism. Arthur did it and for that I give him a big slap on the back. You go Arthur! You are truly living in the spirit of Martel!
Saturday, August 8, 2009
The Sultan Of Surrender, Part 2
The American president is at it again.
Overlooked amid the raucous debate that's erupted over his proposed health care reform, Barack Obama declared that America is no longer at war with jihadis but only with Al Qaeda terrorists who, of course, are jihadis. The incompetence of the American president is astounding, yet not all together surprising.
Barack Obama is a child of the American Left, a political crowd that, at best, has a love-hate relationship with their own country. The American Left, like the international Left, has never been able to bring itself to recognize Islamic terrorism for the threat that it is. To do that would mean leftists would have to jettison their whole paradigm for seeing the world. That paradigm places the West in general and America in particular at the center of all world unrest. In short, Islamic terrorism is the West's, particularly America's, fault. So believes the world Left. And the American president is beholden to them. He is one of them.
Barack Obama is not only the president of America, he is also the commander-in-chief of the American military. As such, he certainly has access to information showing what's really going on in the world. He may really want to fight radical Islam but if so, he wants to do it while remaining true to the paradigm described above. Hence these Orwellian word games.
America is no longer fighting terrorism; she's conducting "overseas contingency operations". And she's no longer at war with jihadis, only with Al Qaeda. Why? Because only Al Qaeda attacked America on September 11, 2001, says the Obama administration. But what about those non-Al Qaeda jihadis? Does Barack Obama think they will just change their beliefs and lay down their arms if America declares she's no longer at war with them? Apparently, yes. They have to, because the Left's paradigm says they're aggressive only in reaction to American/Western provocation. If America will--let's call it what it is--surrender, the other terrorists will drop their guns and go home. War over.
When the American people elected Barack Obama they elected a far-left true believer who's ambivalent, at best, about his country. Obama would never shout, "God damn America!" as did his good friend Jeremiah Wright, but the sentiments behind those words are his guiding principle. How, then, could he possibly want America to prevail even against Al Qaeda? Answer: he doesn't. Oh, Obama will play at defense. He'll talk tough and might even take some token action here and there, but victory won't be the goal. As a good leftist, the only thing Obama believes America deserves is defeat, and he'll work overtime to deliver. It'll be disguised as diplomacy, humility, reaching out to the world community, but it'll still be ignoble, self-inflicted defeat. That's all that Obama has the capacity to give. He's no commander-in-chief; he's the sultan of surrender. And we will all pay for that one day.
Overlooked amid the raucous debate that's erupted over his proposed health care reform, Barack Obama declared that America is no longer at war with jihadis but only with Al Qaeda terrorists who, of course, are jihadis. The incompetence of the American president is astounding, yet not all together surprising.
Barack Obama is a child of the American Left, a political crowd that, at best, has a love-hate relationship with their own country. The American Left, like the international Left, has never been able to bring itself to recognize Islamic terrorism for the threat that it is. To do that would mean leftists would have to jettison their whole paradigm for seeing the world. That paradigm places the West in general and America in particular at the center of all world unrest. In short, Islamic terrorism is the West's, particularly America's, fault. So believes the world Left. And the American president is beholden to them. He is one of them.
Barack Obama is not only the president of America, he is also the commander-in-chief of the American military. As such, he certainly has access to information showing what's really going on in the world. He may really want to fight radical Islam but if so, he wants to do it while remaining true to the paradigm described above. Hence these Orwellian word games.
America is no longer fighting terrorism; she's conducting "overseas contingency operations". And she's no longer at war with jihadis, only with Al Qaeda. Why? Because only Al Qaeda attacked America on September 11, 2001, says the Obama administration. But what about those non-Al Qaeda jihadis? Does Barack Obama think they will just change their beliefs and lay down their arms if America declares she's no longer at war with them? Apparently, yes. They have to, because the Left's paradigm says they're aggressive only in reaction to American/Western provocation. If America will--let's call it what it is--surrender, the other terrorists will drop their guns and go home. War over.
When the American people elected Barack Obama they elected a far-left true believer who's ambivalent, at best, about his country. Obama would never shout, "God damn America!" as did his good friend Jeremiah Wright, but the sentiments behind those words are his guiding principle. How, then, could he possibly want America to prevail even against Al Qaeda? Answer: he doesn't. Oh, Obama will play at defense. He'll talk tough and might even take some token action here and there, but victory won't be the goal. As a good leftist, the only thing Obama believes America deserves is defeat, and he'll work overtime to deliver. It'll be disguised as diplomacy, humility, reaching out to the world community, but it'll still be ignoble, self-inflicted defeat. That's all that Obama has the capacity to give. He's no commander-in-chief; he's the sultan of surrender. And we will all pay for that one day.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Pride And Remembrance
Today is July 7th, the fourth anniversary of the deadly London subway bombings. The bombings were perpetrated, of course, by Muslim terrorists. As we remember the innocents who died that day we Hesperians must also reawaken our courage and pride and resolve to fight for the survival of our civilization in the face of the Islamic threat .
The Muslim terrorists who attacked London want what the Muslim terrorists who attacked America on September 11 want: our destruction. They want the end of our Western Christian civilization. They purpose to achieve that end by either converting, subjugating, or killing us. And they are serious about it.
Muslims have a religion that tells them to conquer the world. Faithful Muslims seek to do that by the methods mentioned above, and by another method of conquest that's only recently opened up for tnem: immigration. Infiltration of our civilization through immigration is the Muslims' "nonviolent" jihad. The strategy is simple.
Muslims come here by the tens of thousands, and then increase their numbers even more through reproduction. As mostly non-White people, they then exploit our aversion to racism by claiming any opposition to them, their faith, or their radicalism is racist. As this specious accusation gathers steam, the Muslims just wait for us to have the expected reaction: a sickening round of brown nosing of Muslims to prove how non-racist we are. In a rush to show our racial enlightenment, we spit on our own heritage and glorify those who would conquer us. Slavishly adhering to the "anti-racist" doctrine of multiculturalism, we enthusiastically become participants in our own demise. I wish I could say the above strategy isn't working but, unfortunately, it is.
On this day we need to remember that we must honor the innocents who were slaughtered by Muslim killers four years ago. We can give them that honor by committing ourselves to the defense of our own culture, faith, heritage, and civilization. We must repudiate the debililitating left-wing belief that self-hatred is a virtue. Pride in who we are is the real virtue. And we in the West have much to be proud of. Don't let ANYONE tell you we don't.
In the spirit of Martel may we live!
The Muslim terrorists who attacked London want what the Muslim terrorists who attacked America on September 11 want: our destruction. They want the end of our Western Christian civilization. They purpose to achieve that end by either converting, subjugating, or killing us. And they are serious about it.
Muslims have a religion that tells them to conquer the world. Faithful Muslims seek to do that by the methods mentioned above, and by another method of conquest that's only recently opened up for tnem: immigration. Infiltration of our civilization through immigration is the Muslims' "nonviolent" jihad. The strategy is simple.
Muslims come here by the tens of thousands, and then increase their numbers even more through reproduction. As mostly non-White people, they then exploit our aversion to racism by claiming any opposition to them, their faith, or their radicalism is racist. As this specious accusation gathers steam, the Muslims just wait for us to have the expected reaction: a sickening round of brown nosing of Muslims to prove how non-racist we are. In a rush to show our racial enlightenment, we spit on our own heritage and glorify those who would conquer us. Slavishly adhering to the "anti-racist" doctrine of multiculturalism, we enthusiastically become participants in our own demise. I wish I could say the above strategy isn't working but, unfortunately, it is.
On this day we need to remember that we must honor the innocents who were slaughtered by Muslim killers four years ago. We can give them that honor by committing ourselves to the defense of our own culture, faith, heritage, and civilization. We must repudiate the debililitating left-wing belief that self-hatred is a virtue. Pride in who we are is the real virtue. And we in the West have much to be proud of. Don't let ANYONE tell you we don't.
In the spirit of Martel may we live!
Monday, April 6, 2009
The Sultan of Surrender
Barack Obama, the new American president, seems to be trying to pass Europeans in the race down the dhimmi brick road. In a speech before the Turkish parliament today, Obama declared that the US is not at war with Islam. He claimed that the great majority of Muslims have nothing in common with terrorist groups such as Al-Qaeda. He went on to claim that Muslims have "enriched America" and then touted his own Muslim roots. Obama then stated that he was converting to Islam and would replace the US Constitution with Sharia law. Just kidding. But not by much.
In his speech at the Democratic National Convention last year, Obama shouted with great passion, "Don't tell me Democrats don't want to defend America!". Well, I'm telling you, Democrats, led by Obama, don't want to defend America nor Western Christian civilization. The American president's performance in Turkey proved that. Not only did he grovel to Muslims but he took swipes at his own country. Obama dredged up America's past injustices to Blacks and Native Americans, as if that had anything to do with Muslims. He repudiated Gitmo and stated that, under his administration, America would not torture, all but saying that under the previous administration she had. This is a frightening shame.
Americans and Christian Westerners at large ARE at war with Islam, not because we want to be but because Islam chose to be at war with us. And Islam made that choice centuries ago. In 652 AD Arab Muslims first attacked Christian Sicily. In 717 AD Muslims laid seige for the first time to Constantinople, capital of the Byzantine (Eastern Roman) Christian Empire. In 711 Muslims began their conquest of Christian Spain and tried to conquer the rest of Europe but were stopped in France by Charles Martel in 732 AD. All of this Islamic aggression against the West occurred hundreds of years BEFORE the Crusades, Christendom's belated defensive wars that are always blamed for causing the animosity between the West and Islam. And Muslims kept attacking Europe for hundreds of years AFTER the Crusades, inflicting great oppression and suffering on the native Christian population. Obama mentioned none of this.
When Barack Obama spoke before the Turkish Parliament he spoke like the perfect dhimmi. He apologized for America's "sins" while not demanding or even expecting a reciprocal mea culpa from the Muslim world, even though one was definitely in order. Instead, he purposely left the impression that America, the West in general, is the only civilization to have done wrong in history. Obama did mention the Armenian genocide, but he didn't call it a genocide in deference to the Muslim Turks. He wasn't so concerned with the feelings of his fellow Christians, though, nor with historical truth.
Barack Obama is hailed by the American and international Left as a great new leader, the bringer of much needed change after the "arrogant" and "warmongering" Bush administration. And the Left is right. Barack Obama is leading a wave of change in America and the West, but it won't bring the results the Left is promising us. Obama's conciliatory, self-hating pose before the Islamic world will only breed contempt for us in the hearts of our Muslim enemies. They now see that not only is America, the world's lone super power, weak, but we are celebrating that weakness as a great leap forward. Obama has stepped onto the world stage as the Great Surrenderer and he's being lionized for it. The jihadis are watching, and we will pay...dearly.
In his speech at the Democratic National Convention last year, Obama shouted with great passion, "Don't tell me Democrats don't want to defend America!". Well, I'm telling you, Democrats, led by Obama, don't want to defend America nor Western Christian civilization. The American president's performance in Turkey proved that. Not only did he grovel to Muslims but he took swipes at his own country. Obama dredged up America's past injustices to Blacks and Native Americans, as if that had anything to do with Muslims. He repudiated Gitmo and stated that, under his administration, America would not torture, all but saying that under the previous administration she had. This is a frightening shame.
Americans and Christian Westerners at large ARE at war with Islam, not because we want to be but because Islam chose to be at war with us. And Islam made that choice centuries ago. In 652 AD Arab Muslims first attacked Christian Sicily. In 717 AD Muslims laid seige for the first time to Constantinople, capital of the Byzantine (Eastern Roman) Christian Empire. In 711 Muslims began their conquest of Christian Spain and tried to conquer the rest of Europe but were stopped in France by Charles Martel in 732 AD. All of this Islamic aggression against the West occurred hundreds of years BEFORE the Crusades, Christendom's belated defensive wars that are always blamed for causing the animosity between the West and Islam. And Muslims kept attacking Europe for hundreds of years AFTER the Crusades, inflicting great oppression and suffering on the native Christian population. Obama mentioned none of this.
When Barack Obama spoke before the Turkish Parliament he spoke like the perfect dhimmi. He apologized for America's "sins" while not demanding or even expecting a reciprocal mea culpa from the Muslim world, even though one was definitely in order. Instead, he purposely left the impression that America, the West in general, is the only civilization to have done wrong in history. Obama did mention the Armenian genocide, but he didn't call it a genocide in deference to the Muslim Turks. He wasn't so concerned with the feelings of his fellow Christians, though, nor with historical truth.
Barack Obama is hailed by the American and international Left as a great new leader, the bringer of much needed change after the "arrogant" and "warmongering" Bush administration. And the Left is right. Barack Obama is leading a wave of change in America and the West, but it won't bring the results the Left is promising us. Obama's conciliatory, self-hating pose before the Islamic world will only breed contempt for us in the hearts of our Muslim enemies. They now see that not only is America, the world's lone super power, weak, but we are celebrating that weakness as a great leap forward. Obama has stepped onto the world stage as the Great Surrenderer and he's being lionized for it. The jihadis are watching, and we will pay...dearly.
Saturday, December 27, 2008
Shock And Awe In The Gaza Strip
It's about time!!!!! Today Israel finally took decisive action against the terrorist training camp otherwise known as the Gaza Strip. The Jewish state finally got fed up with Hamas, which controls the Strip, firing rockets at its citizens and began a punishing air offensive to stop it. Again, I say it's about time!!!!
It's about time Israel committed itself to it's own defense no matter what the anti-Semitic "world community" thinks. Hamas is committed to Israel's destruction. Instead of improving the lives of the Gazan Palestinians since gaining control there last year, Hamas has done nothing but attack Israel. The Israelis have been patient, even naive, in dealing with these Palestinian scumbags. Trying to please the world, trying to be humane, Israel let its people get bombarded by endless rocket attacks without fighting back. And what did the Jewish state get for that? Nothing but contempt and condemnation just for existing. That stopped today.
Today, Israel unleashed its armed might against that nest of vipers in Gaza. Israeli planes bombed Hamas strongholds, killing at least 200 people, and the offensive shows no sign of slowing. I hope and pray that this is just the beginning. I hope and pray that Israel is determined not to stop until Hamas is utterly decimated, no matter how many civilian casualties that requires. The last thing Israel needs is a repeat of the disastrous Lebanon war of '06, when she caved to world opinion and stopped fighting way short of victory. The result of that is that Hezboallah is now stronger than it was two years ago. Israel can't afford that again.
So far, Israel has said that its aim in this offensive is to stop Hamas's rocket attacks. That doesn't sit well with me. While stopping the rocket attacks is good, Israel's goal should be larger than that. Her goal should be to ensure her survival. Personally, I think that should mean cleansing Gaza entirely of Palestinians. Israel should force the Gazan Palestinians into the Sinai desert and let their Arab "brothers" take care of them. She should then repopulate Gaza with patriotic Israelis who are unapologetically committed to their nation's survival. Israel almost certainly won't do this but she should, and then tell the "world community" to f**k off.
Where ever Israel's current offensive leads I pray the Jewish state has the resolve to fight to total victory for, as Winston Churchill said in his nation's darkest hour, without victory there is no survival. Hail Israel!!!!
It's about time Israel committed itself to it's own defense no matter what the anti-Semitic "world community" thinks. Hamas is committed to Israel's destruction. Instead of improving the lives of the Gazan Palestinians since gaining control there last year, Hamas has done nothing but attack Israel. The Israelis have been patient, even naive, in dealing with these Palestinian scumbags. Trying to please the world, trying to be humane, Israel let its people get bombarded by endless rocket attacks without fighting back. And what did the Jewish state get for that? Nothing but contempt and condemnation just for existing. That stopped today.
Today, Israel unleashed its armed might against that nest of vipers in Gaza. Israeli planes bombed Hamas strongholds, killing at least 200 people, and the offensive shows no sign of slowing. I hope and pray that this is just the beginning. I hope and pray that Israel is determined not to stop until Hamas is utterly decimated, no matter how many civilian casualties that requires. The last thing Israel needs is a repeat of the disastrous Lebanon war of '06, when she caved to world opinion and stopped fighting way short of victory. The result of that is that Hezboallah is now stronger than it was two years ago. Israel can't afford that again.
So far, Israel has said that its aim in this offensive is to stop Hamas's rocket attacks. That doesn't sit well with me. While stopping the rocket attacks is good, Israel's goal should be larger than that. Her goal should be to ensure her survival. Personally, I think that should mean cleansing Gaza entirely of Palestinians. Israel should force the Gazan Palestinians into the Sinai desert and let their Arab "brothers" take care of them. She should then repopulate Gaza with patriotic Israelis who are unapologetically committed to their nation's survival. Israel almost certainly won't do this but she should, and then tell the "world community" to f**k off.
Where ever Israel's current offensive leads I pray the Jewish state has the resolve to fight to total victory for, as Winston Churchill said in his nation's darkest hour, without victory there is no survival. Hail Israel!!!!
Sunday, December 21, 2008
Quotable Quotes: On Multiculturalism
"If all cultures are equal then cannibalism would just be a matter of taste. That's what the multi culti people just don't understand." Pela68, blogger.
Saturday, December 20, 2008
Merry Dhimmitude!
I can't believe what I'm about to write here. No wait, I CAN believe it; I just don't want to. I came across this story on Angel's blog at Woman Honor Thyself and I thought I'd put my spin on it here. Read it and weep.
In Armonk, New York the Islamic star and crescent has been added to the village's Christmas display along with the Christmas tree and the menorah. Never mind that there isn't an Islamic holiday in December; the PC whipped townlet felt it was time to be inclusive--man I hate that word!--and celebrate all cultures during this Christian holiday. Actually, this wasn't the town's idea. Asad Jilani, a Muslim resident of Armonk, felt left out--poor thing!--and asked the village to include the symbol for his religion, you know, the one that inspires people the world over to murder "infidels", i.e. you and me. Such inclusiveness. All to promote peace, you see. Good, good, good vibrations!
When the star and crescent went up Jilani and two other townspeople expressed the majority opinion, calling the Islamic display "very attractive" and Armonk "magnificent" for being so open. The director of the Armonk Chamber of Commerce, Judy Wesley, was pleased at Armonk's "spirit of inclusion" and claimed that "Jesus Christ himself would have gathered everyone around Him." What ARE these people smoking?!?!
Let me explain something to the clueless, self-hating dhimmis of Armonk. Armonk is a town in New York. New York is a state in the United States of America. The U.S. of A is a country in Western civilization. The religious heritage of Western civilization is CHRISTIAN. During Christmas we Westerners celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ who gave us our Christian heritage. Christmas was never meant to be "inclusive". It is an expression of our great Judeo-Christian culture, a culture we should CHERISH, not submerge into a messy, multicultural composite.
The culture that should be celebrated in the West is Western culture, and it should be celebrated without apology. Islam is not part of our heritage, except when we fought against its efforts to conquer us. We have NO obligation to put the star and crescent in our Christmas displays or any where else, for that matter. And if Muslims complain? Tough. Their demands for tolerance and inclusion would have more credibility if they practiced those things themselves. How tolerant is the Islamic Republic of Iran, which hangs homosexuals? How inclusive is the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, where Islam is the only legal religion?
Instead of whining about being left out of our holiday festivities, Asad Jilani and other Western Muslims should be out protesting the tyranny and intolerance of Muslim societies. And we true Westerners should firmly reject unilateral tolerance, unilateral inclusiveness, and unilateral multiculturalism and recommit ourselves to pride in OUR OWN culture. We need to reawaken ourselves to the greatness of Western Christian civilization and fight for its survival. Otherwise "Merry Christmas" will be replaced with "Merry Dhimmitude".
In the Spirit of Martel may we live!
In Armonk, New York the Islamic star and crescent has been added to the village's Christmas display along with the Christmas tree and the menorah. Never mind that there isn't an Islamic holiday in December; the PC whipped townlet felt it was time to be inclusive--man I hate that word!--and celebrate all cultures during this Christian holiday. Actually, this wasn't the town's idea. Asad Jilani, a Muslim resident of Armonk, felt left out--poor thing!--and asked the village to include the symbol for his religion, you know, the one that inspires people the world over to murder "infidels", i.e. you and me. Such inclusiveness. All to promote peace, you see. Good, good, good vibrations!
When the star and crescent went up Jilani and two other townspeople expressed the majority opinion, calling the Islamic display "very attractive" and Armonk "magnificent" for being so open. The director of the Armonk Chamber of Commerce, Judy Wesley, was pleased at Armonk's "spirit of inclusion" and claimed that "Jesus Christ himself would have gathered everyone around Him." What ARE these people smoking?!?!
Let me explain something to the clueless, self-hating dhimmis of Armonk. Armonk is a town in New York. New York is a state in the United States of America. The U.S. of A is a country in Western civilization. The religious heritage of Western civilization is CHRISTIAN. During Christmas we Westerners celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ who gave us our Christian heritage. Christmas was never meant to be "inclusive". It is an expression of our great Judeo-Christian culture, a culture we should CHERISH, not submerge into a messy, multicultural composite.
The culture that should be celebrated in the West is Western culture, and it should be celebrated without apology. Islam is not part of our heritage, except when we fought against its efforts to conquer us. We have NO obligation to put the star and crescent in our Christmas displays or any where else, for that matter. And if Muslims complain? Tough. Their demands for tolerance and inclusion would have more credibility if they practiced those things themselves. How tolerant is the Islamic Republic of Iran, which hangs homosexuals? How inclusive is the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, where Islam is the only legal religion?
Instead of whining about being left out of our holiday festivities, Asad Jilani and other Western Muslims should be out protesting the tyranny and intolerance of Muslim societies. And we true Westerners should firmly reject unilateral tolerance, unilateral inclusiveness, and unilateral multiculturalism and recommit ourselves to pride in OUR OWN culture. We need to reawaken ourselves to the greatness of Western Christian civilization and fight for its survival. Otherwise "Merry Christmas" will be replaced with "Merry Dhimmitude".
In the Spirit of Martel may we live!
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Another Capitulation To Muslims
While watching The O'Reilly Factor last night I found out about another capitulation to the sensitive sensibilities of Muslims. It seems that Random House book publishing company has pulled the plug on a novel about the "romance" between the "prophet" Mohammed and his child bride Aisha, whom he married when she was six years old. Just days before the book, titled "The Jewel of Medina" (TJoM), was to be released Random House backed off, citing concerns that the novel might incite violence from the followers of the religion of peace. And what's really upsetting about this is that concern over the novel wasn't raised by Muslims but by University of Texas professor Denise Spellberg who, apparently, has appointed herself Protector of Islamic Feelings. And there are other such protectors around.
In Serbia--Serbia!--TJoM was pulled off bookstore shelves and the publisher apologized for publishing it after some Muslim group threatened to protest. When are we in the West going to stop doing this? Muslims kill us or threaten to kill us repeatedly; they oppress their religious and/or ethnic minorities; they execute homosexuals and "unchaste" women; they call for the destruction of an entire nation; yet we strain to be sensitive to their little feelings. This Spellberg person felt she had to warn Muslims about a novel that supposedly "made fun of [them] and their history". Ah yes, it's MUCH worse for a Westerner to make fun of Muslims than it is for Muslims to actually kill Westerners. You see, they wouldn't feel compelled to murder us if we understood them better. So goes the thinking of Quislings like Spellberg. I ask again, when are we in the West going to stop this?!
Freedom of speech used to be a cherished principle in Hesperia. Now, protecting Muslims' feelings is the highest good. What's wrong with a little censorship if it serves the cause of not offending Mohammed's followers? Isn't refraining from giving such offense the best way to prevent terrorism? The more we show Muslims that we like them, that we're on their side, to the point of violating our own rights and freedoms, then surely they'll drop this jihad nonsense and live in peace with us. Sherry Jones, the auther of TJoM, claimed that she wrote "respectfully" of the "great historical figures" Mohammed and Aisha, and that her book was meant to be a "bridge-builder" between Muslims and Westerners. Well Ms. Jones, just look at what your appeasement got you.
Muslims don't want to intergrate into Western civilization; they want to Islamize it. Appeasement emboldens them. They use fear of terrorist violence or mere protests to cow us Westerners into living by Islamic rules, chief of which is the rule that Islam, Mohammed, and Muslims must NEVER be offended. You can photograph a crucifix in a jar of urine. You can make an image of the Virgin Mary out of elephant dung. You can trash the Catholic church in books like "The Da Vinci Code" and mock evangelical Protestants in movies like "Saved!" and in inumerable tv shows. Freedom of speech absolutely allows that. But we must not think that freedom of speech protects criticism of Islam. What a warmongering notion!
Muslims will keep pushing and pushing the envelope until we wake up one morning and find that Sharia law has become the law of the land. I repeat, appeasement only emboldens them. It convinces Muslims that they can win because the West is too self-loathing to defend itself. Canadian author Mark Steyn, who had his own battle with protect-the-Muslims censorship, wrote that the future belongs to the fertile and the confident. We Westerners consistenly show that we are neither while Muslims are definitely both.
But all is not yet lost. There is reason for hope. Shortly after "The Jewel of Medina" was cancelled by Random House publishers in Italy, Spain, and Hungary bought rights to the book. Bravo to them! There are still those in the West who cherish our liberties and our civilization and will not be intimidated by Islam. The Italian, Spanish, and Hungarian publishers of TJoM will, no doubt, come in for such intimidation but I have a strong feeling that they will not cave. Their steadfastness will tell the Muslims that the Islamization of the West is not assured. There are still Westerners with the will and the guts to fight for their land. They are the Hammer Folk, the shield of Hesperia, and with God's help they will save Western civilization.
In the spirit of Martel may we live!
In Serbia--Serbia!--TJoM was pulled off bookstore shelves and the publisher apologized for publishing it after some Muslim group threatened to protest. When are we in the West going to stop doing this? Muslims kill us or threaten to kill us repeatedly; they oppress their religious and/or ethnic minorities; they execute homosexuals and "unchaste" women; they call for the destruction of an entire nation; yet we strain to be sensitive to their little feelings. This Spellberg person felt she had to warn Muslims about a novel that supposedly "made fun of [them] and their history". Ah yes, it's MUCH worse for a Westerner to make fun of Muslims than it is for Muslims to actually kill Westerners. You see, they wouldn't feel compelled to murder us if we understood them better. So goes the thinking of Quislings like Spellberg. I ask again, when are we in the West going to stop this?!
Freedom of speech used to be a cherished principle in Hesperia. Now, protecting Muslims' feelings is the highest good. What's wrong with a little censorship if it serves the cause of not offending Mohammed's followers? Isn't refraining from giving such offense the best way to prevent terrorism? The more we show Muslims that we like them, that we're on their side, to the point of violating our own rights and freedoms, then surely they'll drop this jihad nonsense and live in peace with us. Sherry Jones, the auther of TJoM, claimed that she wrote "respectfully" of the "great historical figures" Mohammed and Aisha, and that her book was meant to be a "bridge-builder" between Muslims and Westerners. Well Ms. Jones, just look at what your appeasement got you.
Muslims don't want to intergrate into Western civilization; they want to Islamize it. Appeasement emboldens them. They use fear of terrorist violence or mere protests to cow us Westerners into living by Islamic rules, chief of which is the rule that Islam, Mohammed, and Muslims must NEVER be offended. You can photograph a crucifix in a jar of urine. You can make an image of the Virgin Mary out of elephant dung. You can trash the Catholic church in books like "The Da Vinci Code" and mock evangelical Protestants in movies like "Saved!" and in inumerable tv shows. Freedom of speech absolutely allows that. But we must not think that freedom of speech protects criticism of Islam. What a warmongering notion!
Muslims will keep pushing and pushing the envelope until we wake up one morning and find that Sharia law has become the law of the land. I repeat, appeasement only emboldens them. It convinces Muslims that they can win because the West is too self-loathing to defend itself. Canadian author Mark Steyn, who had his own battle with protect-the-Muslims censorship, wrote that the future belongs to the fertile and the confident. We Westerners consistenly show that we are neither while Muslims are definitely both.
But all is not yet lost. There is reason for hope. Shortly after "The Jewel of Medina" was cancelled by Random House publishers in Italy, Spain, and Hungary bought rights to the book. Bravo to them! There are still those in the West who cherish our liberties and our civilization and will not be intimidated by Islam. The Italian, Spanish, and Hungarian publishers of TJoM will, no doubt, come in for such intimidation but I have a strong feeling that they will not cave. Their steadfastness will tell the Muslims that the Islamization of the West is not assured. There are still Westerners with the will and the guts to fight for their land. They are the Hammer Folk, the shield of Hesperia, and with God's help they will save Western civilization.
In the spirit of Martel may we live!
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Monday, June 2, 2008
Woman, Kill Thyself
Feminisim has come to Islam! That's right. Some Muslim women are shaking up the ranks of radical Islam by demanding the right to--are you ready?--blow themselves up for Allah! No more just having babies for jihad. No, these women want to become full blown gun toting, suicide belt wearing jihadis. Just like the men. And you thought Islam couldn't be progressive on gender issues. You bigot you!
So, what trigged this distaff rebellion? It was a statement by Al Qaeda's number two man, Ayman al-Zawahiri who, on a jihadi website, denied there were women in Al Qaeda, thereby angering many of the women who are, in fact, part of the organization. On the website al-Zawahiri took a very traditional Islamic position, saying that women's role in jihad is to raise children and support their "brothers" who are fighting. This didn't sit well with a lot of the liberated ladies of radical Islam. Oh no. Just supporting the brothers isn't enough. They want any willing Muslim woman to be allowed to kill herself for Allah and experience martyrdom. Just what female martyrs will receive on their entrance to paradise--are they even guaranteed paradise?--isn't said, but I highly doubt it'll be a mansion full of virgins like the men get.
Some militant Muslims have been using female suicide bombers for some time. Those progressive Palestinians lead the way on that. Al-Zawahiri, though, wasn't willing to give the feminine martyrs their proper due. The hungry-for-martyrdom feminists are out to change that. It'll be interesting to see how this gender spat turns out. Who could imagine women complaining that they aren't allowed to kill themselves or aren't given proper kudos when they do? Only in the religion of peace, folks. Only in the religion of peace.
So, what trigged this distaff rebellion? It was a statement by Al Qaeda's number two man, Ayman al-Zawahiri who, on a jihadi website, denied there were women in Al Qaeda, thereby angering many of the women who are, in fact, part of the organization. On the website al-Zawahiri took a very traditional Islamic position, saying that women's role in jihad is to raise children and support their "brothers" who are fighting. This didn't sit well with a lot of the liberated ladies of radical Islam. Oh no. Just supporting the brothers isn't enough. They want any willing Muslim woman to be allowed to kill herself for Allah and experience martyrdom. Just what female martyrs will receive on their entrance to paradise--are they even guaranteed paradise?--isn't said, but I highly doubt it'll be a mansion full of virgins like the men get.
Some militant Muslims have been using female suicide bombers for some time. Those progressive Palestinians lead the way on that. Al-Zawahiri, though, wasn't willing to give the feminine martyrs their proper due. The hungry-for-martyrdom feminists are out to change that. It'll be interesting to see how this gender spat turns out. Who could imagine women complaining that they aren't allowed to kill themselves or aren't given proper kudos when they do? Only in the religion of peace, folks. Only in the religion of peace.
Friday, May 16, 2008
Chalk Up One For The Aussies!
I must admit I wasn't expecting this. I came across this startling information while surfing one of my favorite blogs, Woman Honor Thyself. Being shocked at what I read, I did a google search and discovered that WHT was right. And just what is it that had me staring at my computer screen in disbelief? The Australian government is taking legal action in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against Iran's Ahmadenijad for inciting hatred against Israel. You read that right.
Australia's new prime minister, Kevin Rudd, is taking Iran's president to court! Rudd is making good on a campaign promise he made to Australia's Jewish community. Rudd said if elected he would take Ahmadenijad to court in the ICJ for inciting hatred against Jews, calling for the destruction of Israel, and denying the Holocaust. What makes this shocking is that Rudd is a center-left PM, the head of the Australian Labor Party. Such unabashed opposition to Iran from a left-leaning politcian is almost unheard of. What we usually get from them is a witch's brew of anti-Zionist and anti-American justifications for Islamic terrorism and anti-Semitism. Rudd is a refreshing change of pace.
What will become of Australia's lawsuit against Ahmadenijad? Will the International Court of Justice actually do anything to Iran? Probably not. I suspect that body will prove to be as impotent and anti-Western as the UN. Still, I'm jubilant that a country besides the United States and a leader besides George W. Bush sees the mullahs' Iran for the evil entity that it is. Chalk up one for Kevin Rudd! Chalk up one for the Aussies! Now if only the rest of Hesperia will get it.
Australia's new prime minister, Kevin Rudd, is taking Iran's president to court! Rudd is making good on a campaign promise he made to Australia's Jewish community. Rudd said if elected he would take Ahmadenijad to court in the ICJ for inciting hatred against Jews, calling for the destruction of Israel, and denying the Holocaust. What makes this shocking is that Rudd is a center-left PM, the head of the Australian Labor Party. Such unabashed opposition to Iran from a left-leaning politcian is almost unheard of. What we usually get from them is a witch's brew of anti-Zionist and anti-American justifications for Islamic terrorism and anti-Semitism. Rudd is a refreshing change of pace.
What will become of Australia's lawsuit against Ahmadenijad? Will the International Court of Justice actually do anything to Iran? Probably not. I suspect that body will prove to be as impotent and anti-Western as the UN. Still, I'm jubilant that a country besides the United States and a leader besides George W. Bush sees the mullahs' Iran for the evil entity that it is. Chalk up one for Kevin Rudd! Chalk up one for the Aussies! Now if only the rest of Hesperia will get it.
Monday, March 31, 2008
Fitna The Movie -Original English Version- [Part 1]
Here's part one of Dutch PM Geert Wilders' courageous film exposing the truth of Islam. I'm amazed that it's still on YouTube, but it probably won't be for long. I'm sure YT will eventually cave to the threats of those peaceful Muslims just like its British counterpart LiveLeak did. That's why I'm snagging "Fitna" for HFW now. As we watch this film I hope all Hammer Folk will be strengthened in their mission to save Western, Christian civilization from the deadly ideology of Islam.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
