The American people, that is the people which created the Great American Constitution, are being led into the jaws of dictatorship, which has at its centre an Alliance between extreme right wing dictatorial forces inside capitalism, represented above all by the CIA, and the most reactionary force on earth, Sharia Islam.

The woman who stood closest to the defence of The First Amendment was Sarah Palin. When she withdrew Romney was inevitable. But Romney even though he is intelligent and independent has by his very business position all the cards stacked against him.

The withdrawal of Palin was hasty and somewhat strange. I wonder was she threatened. Was her life placed in danger and was this somehow made known to her?

It is no accident that the corrupt Communist Party of America, a Stalinist and anti-working class organisation, working from inside the working class, is heavily involved in much to do with Obama.

The history of the Communist Party of America was to act directly in the elimination of the only real hope for a new socialist leadership which centred on Leon Trotsky. It is simply a factual matter that the CPA did act as the conduit by which the Stalinist agents, some of whom were recruited among Stalinist forces inside the Spanish Revolution and Francoist Counter Revolution, where Franco came to power thanks to Stalin’s agents literally murdering all of the potential revolutionary socialist leaders.

Movements are infiltrated. The Good Friday Agreement happened because British Intelligence took over the Provisionals.

Something very similar is happening in America. In a very direct way Obama in winning the election in 2008 is a part of this Stalinist movement. His mother was a Stalinist, his real Father MOST PROBABLY BUT CERTAINLY POSSIBLY was a Stalinist, and it is also known that the CIA had infiltrated the Stalinist Communist Party  of America as well.

The American Conservative and Americans rightly proud of their American constitution lose the plot here. They are brain-washed to see such Stalinists as Obama as being Marxist.


Also involved in this is the racist Black Middle Class Movement to which the CIA agent provocateur Bill Ayers was heavily involved, to lead the black movement, against the wishes of Martin Luther King, into a racist and antisemitic direction.

The whole purpose in a general overall sense is to sow confusion, to create a situation where the American working class is literally beheaded, left in the hands of trade union bureaucrats who support the very forces (Obama and his CIA backers), who are at the front of preparation of military rule and dictatorship in America.

The Jews are dragged into these affairs because the actual and material force of Antisemitism has always been used by every ruling class and elite in history, in order to use the Jews as a scapegoat for the actual real crisis in their system.


Many people are confused by such conspiracy speculation. But not every actor in a situation has to be totally conscious.


So, for example, Obama may hate Netanyahu because Obama has bought into the reactionary and lying “Palestinian Narrative”, the Nakba, the Occupation, and all that old Antisemitic bull.


And Obama may be trained to believe that Islam is not so reactionary at all, and that words can convince the iranian Mullahs to desist. So Obama snubs Netanyahu and thus by snubbing Israel encourages the Muslim Brotherhood to continue and to be ever more dangerous to Israel, though a new Alliance of Syria, Iran, hamas and Hizbullah.




“Very possibly Vernon Jarrett’s path crossed that of Frank Marshall Davis when Barack Obama, Frank Marshall Davis’ son, needed financing to attend Harvard,” Gilbert said.

“Remarkably,” he continued, “Obama was in Chicago at the time, and Jarrett was on the scene to find politically favorable funding from a former Black Panther turned Black Muslim in the person of Khalid Al-Monsour, who had a convenient relationship with one of the richest men in the world – Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal.”
Gilbert carried the relationships full circle. As a former colleague of Davis in Chicago, he said, Jarrett had reason to want to connect Obama with al-Mansour’s funding program.

“But it doesn’t end there,” Gilbert continued. “Very possibly, Jarrett helped finance Frank’s son, possibly explaining why Obama would later return to use the connection once again, when he sought to get his wife, Michelle Obama, hired into Chicago Mayor Harold Washington’s office by none other than Valerie Jarrett, daughter-in-law of Vernon Jarrett.”
Gilbert noted the 1979 article also sheds light on the claim that veteran New York power broker and well-known attorney Percy Sutton intervened at the request of al-Mansour to write a letter of recommendation to get Obama into Harvard Law School.
“All it would have taken was for Vernon Jarrett to introduce Obama, the son of Frank Marshall Davis, to Al-Monsour,” Gilbert continued.

As WND reported in 2009, Sutton, then an octogenarian, explained on the New York-produced “Inside City Hall” television show that al-Monsour brought Obama to his attention.

Sutton said al-Mansour told him about Obama in a letter: “There’s a young man that has applied to Harvard. I know that you have a few friends left there because you used to go up there to speak. Would you please write a letter in support of him?”
Gilbert said al-Monsour might have known he could fund Obama through the Saudi prince, but first Obama had to get accepted into Harvard Law School for the plan to work. Al-Monsour realized Sutton had the necessary connections to make his recommendation credible to the Harvard Law School admittance committee, Gilbert said.

Gilbert also noted the 1979 article explains why Obama was so well accepted in the Chicago-based Muslim community, including by pro-Palestinian professor Rashid Khalidi and Syrian-born Democratic fundraiser Tony Rezko, who is now serving a prison sentence for fraud and bribery.

“Rezko and his many Arab-American partners funded Obama’s political campaigns, his state Senate races, his failed congressional race and his U.S. Senate campaign,” Gilbert explained. “It appears Obama’s academic career funders handed him off to Rezko’s Arab network to advance Obama’s political career. To what ends?”

Gilbert wondered if financial indebtedness to the Saudis might explain why Obama was so deferential as to bow to the Saudi king upon meeting him for the first time, at the G20 meeting in London in 2009.
“What did the Arab funders expect in return from Obama in return for the academic and political funding?” Gilbert asked.
“Is Barack Obama and the United States itself subject to blackmail, revealing the source of his academic funding, from those Arab funders if he does not follow their wishes?”

Gilbert continued speculating.
“Does the Jarrett-Al-Monsour connection dating from the time Obama went to Harvard explain why Obama has conducted an open-door policy for the Muslim Brotherhood to penetrate the White House, the State Department and even the U.S. military? How about Obama’s hostility toward Israel and Prime Minister Netanyahu? Maybe the roots there go back to 1979 as well.”
WND reported the testimony of Allen Hulton, a U.S. Postal Service carrier who delivered mail to the home of Weather Underground bomber Bill Ayers’ parents in suburban Chicago. Hulton says he was told by Mrs. Ayers that she and her husband helped finance Obama’s education at Harvard Law School.

“One thing is certain,” Gilbert concluded. “Obama comes out of a nexus of people in Chicago that includes not only Frank Marshall Davis and Vernon Jarrett but also Tony Rezko, Valerie Jarrett and the Bill Ayers family.”
He said the 1979 article “strongly suggests Obama used all of these connections to advance himself politically, and none of these connections were accidental.”






Pamela Geller has the blockbuster story:

Islamic supremacist journalist Mona Eltahawy was arrested today after assaulting a defender of freedom who caught her in the act of vandalizing one of AFDI’s pro-Israel ads in the New York Subway Stations.This again proves the Islamic supremacists and the Leftist thugs are dedicated to shutting down free speech. Anti-Israel ads ran all over the country without a murmur of protest; but this pro-Israel ad was hardly up an hour before fascist thugs like Eltahawy went to work to deface it.

At 12:42PM on Tuesday, September 25, Eltahawy tweeted: “Meetings done; pink spray paint time. #ProudSavage#FuckHate.”

Shortly thereafter, she was about to spray paint over AFDI’s pro-Israel ad in a subway station when freelance journalist and pro-freedom blogger Pamela Hall stood between her and the ad. Eltahawy thereupon sprayed Hall with paint; Eltahawy was arrested and Hall is pressing charges.

The attack was witnessed by Georgette Roberts of the New York Post. We look forward to the Post’s full report, since Roberts witnessed this entire incident.

This criminal behavior and fascism will be lauded in Leftist circles.

Eltahawy’s thuggish behavior is a telling indication of how relentlessly opposed the left and Islamic supremacists are to the freedom of speech, and how desperate they are to keep any pro-freedom, anti-jihad message from getting out.

AFDI’s ad reads: “In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man. Support Israel. Defeat jihad.”

Eltahawy’s behavior is all the more ironic in light of the fact that she was viciously sexually assaulted by “protesters” in Cairo’s Tahrir Square last year, and subsequently wrote a searching piece about the misogyny that is inherent in Islamic law. But she was roundly attacked by her fellow Islamic supremacist writers for that article, and made a full retreat. Now, in a classic case of Stockholm Syndrome, she is defending the same savages who brutally attacked her in Tahrir Square.

AFDI calls upon the NYPD to prosecute Eltahawy for her assault on Pamela Hall to the fullest extent of the law, and to guard the pro-Israel ads from further Leftist/Islamic supremacist vandalism.

Related: Left rejoices at vandalism of pro-freedom, pro-Israel ads


A brief update on the big story from yesterday: the arrest of Islamic supremacist journalist Mona Eltahawy after she spray painted our AFDI pro-freedom ad and assaulted blogger Pamela Hall in a New York subway station.

Why would a renowned and respected journalist resort to a juvenile act of vandalism and persist even when confronted? Here’s a clue: reading this ABC News report on the arrest, these lines leapt out at me:

“This is non-violent protest, see this America” Eltahawy said in the video as police officers were arresting her. “I’m an Egyptian-American and I refuse hate.”

You can see Eltahawy saying that in Pamela Hall’s video, above.

Now, in my May 31 piece for PJ Media, I wrote this:

Mona Eltahawy’s piece in the May/June issue of Foreign Policy criticized a series of practices that are justified in Islamic law, including child marriage, wife-beating, and female genital mutilation. Counter-jihadist activists and writers have been calling attention to these human rights abuses for years, but Eltahawy’s piece was singular in that she is a Muslim journalist….Harvard professor Leila Ahmed confronted Eltahawy on MSNBC:

Mona, I appreciate what you do. I would love it if — I understand if you want to get your message across. It’s an important message. But if possible [you should not] give fuel, fodder to people who simply hate Arabs and Muslims in this climate of our day.

Eltahawy, you see, told unwelcome truths about Islam and was accused of spreading “hate” — which is exactly what the Left and the Islamic supremacists do to those of us who have been telling those truths for years. But this was something new for Eltahaway, who had reliably been on the Left’s media reservation throughout her career. Now she was suddenly being criticized by her old friends, probably not invited to the best parties, etc.

So instead of having the courage of her convictions, Eltahawy folded, and cast about for a way to distance herself from counter-jihad freedom activists and prove that she was on the right (Left) side and would not make waves again. What better way than to vandalize our pro-freedom message, all the while accusing us of the “hate” she was accused of when she told the truth about Islam?

The arrest, even if she didn’t expect it or plan it, was icing on the cake: because of it, now she will be lionized as a hero and martyr by the very people who were shunning her for her Foreign Policy piece: the hate-filled Leftist totalitarians who despise free speech anyway.

Mona Eltahawy could have been a journalist of integrity, and almost was, for a brief moment. Instead, she is a fascist brownshirt.




As the Islamic world, in the guise of the 57-member state Organization of Islamic Cooperation, continues to push for the enforcement of “religious defamation” laws in the international arena—theoretically developed to protect all religions from insult, but in reality made for Islam—one great irony is lost, especially on Muslims: if such laws would ban movies and cartoons that defame Islam, they would also, by logical extension, have to ban the religion of Islam itself—the only religion whose core texts actively defame other religions.


  If films and cartoons defame Islam, the Quran itself defames other religions. 


To understand this, consider what “defamation” means. Typical dictionary-definitions include “to blacken another’s reputation” and “false or unjustified injury of the good reputation of another, as by slander or libel.” In Muslim usage, defamation simply means anything that insults or offends Islamic sensibilities.

However, to gain traction among the international community, the OIC maintains that such laws should protect all religions from defamation, not just Islam. Accordingly, the OIC is agreeing that any expression that “slanders” the religious sentiments of others should be banned.

What, then, do we do with Islam’s core religious texts—beginning with the Quran itself, which slanders, denigrates and blackens the reputation of other religions? Consider Christianity alone: Quran 5:73 declares that “Infidels are they who say Allah is one of three,” a reference to the Christian Trinity; Quran 5:73 says “Infidels are they who say Allah is the Christ, [Jesus] son of Mary”; and Quran 9:30 complains that “the Christians say the Christ is the son of Allah … may Allah’s curse be upon them!”

Considering that the word “infidel” (or kafir) is one of Islam’s most derogatory terms, what if a Christian book or Western movie appeared declaring that “Infidels are they who say Muhammad is the prophet of God—may God’s curse be upon them“? If Muslims would consider that a great defamation against Islam—and they would, with the attendant rioting, murders, etc.—then by the same standard it must be admitted that the Quran defames Christians and Christianity.

Similarly, consider how the Christian Cross, venerated among millions, is depicted—is defamed—in Islam: according to canonical hadiths, when he returns, Jesus supposedly will destroy all crosses; and Muhammad, who never allowed the cross in his presence, ordered someone wearing a cross to “take off that piece of idolatry.”

What if Christian books or Western movies declared that the sacred things of Islam—say the Black Stone in the Ka’ba of Mecca—are “idolatry” and that Muhammad himself will return and destroy them? If Muslims would consider that defamation against Islam—and they would, with all the attendant rioting, murders, etc.—then by the same standard it must be admitted that the hadith defames the Christian Cross.

Here is a particularly odious form of defamation against Christian sentiment, especially to the millions of Catholic and Orthodox Christians. According to Islam’s most authoritative Quranic exegetes, including the revered Ibn Kathir, Muhammad is in paradise married to and having sex with the Virgin Mary.

What if a Christian book or Western movie portrayed, say, Muhammad’s wife, Aisha the “Mother of Believers,” as being married to and having sex with a false prophet in heaven? If Muslims would consider that a great defamation against Islam—and they would, with all the attendant rioting, murders, etc.—then by the same standard it must be admitted that Islam’s most authoritative Quranic exegetes defame the Virgin Mary.

Nor does such defamation of Christianity occur in Islam’s ancient texts only; modern day Muslim scholars and sheikhs agree that it is permissible to defame Christianity. Qatar-based “Islam Web” even issued a fatwa that legitimizes insulting Christianity.

Now consider the wording used by Muslim leaders calling on the U.N. to enforce religious defamation laws in response to the Muhammad film on YouTube, and how these expressions can easily be used against Islam:

The OIC “deplored… an offensive and derogatory film on the life of Prophet Muhammad” and “called on the producers to show respect to the religious sentiments held sacred by Muslims and those of other faiths.”

But what about the “offensive and derogatory” depictions of Christianity in Islam’s core texts? Are Muslims willing to expunge these from the Quran and hadith, “to show respect to the religious sentiments held sacred … by those of other faiths,” in this case, Christians?

Turkish Prime Minister Erodgan said the film “insults religions” (note the inclusive plural) and called for “international legal regulations against attacks on what people [not just Muslims] deem sacred.”

Well, what about the fact that Islam “insults religions”—including Judaism and all polytheistic faiths? Should the West call for “international legal regulations against attacks on what people deem sacred,” in the case of Christianity, regulations against Islam’s teachings which attack the sanctity of Christ’s divinity, the Cross, and Virgin Mary?

Even Saudi Arabia’s Grand Mufti—who a few months ago called for the destruction of all Christian churches in the Arabian Peninsula (first reported here)—is calling for a “global ban on insults targeting all” religious figures, while the Grand Imam of Egypt’s Al Azhar is calling for “a U.N. resolution outlawing ‘insulting symbols and sanctities of Islam’ and other religions.” Again, they, too, claim to be interested in banning insults to all religions, while ignoring the fact that their own religion is built atop insulting all other religions.

And surely this is the grandest irony of all: the “defamation” that Muslims complain about—and that prompts great violence and bloodshed around the world—revolves around things like movies and cartoons, which are made by individuals who represent only themselves; on the other hand, Islam itself, through its holiest and most authoritative texts, denigrates and condemns—in a word, defames—all other religions, not to mention calls for violence against them (e.g., Quran 9:29).

It is this issue, Islam’s perceived “divine” right to defame and destroy, that the international community should be addressing—not silly cartoons and films









My latest entry there on that thread is today:


The left as it stands is reactionary

author by Felix Quigley
One thing that is most noticeable about Geller, Spencer, Kincaid and all others in that field is that they equate the American Communist Party as being Marxist.

It is of course not in the slightest bit Marxist. It is Stalinist.

But then Spencer and Geller can be forgiven for doing this because the Left, for example www.wsws.org, is joining with the Muslim Jihadists AGAINST the First Amendment.


By eliminating Saddam Hussein Bush also eliminated the main counter to the Khomeini Islamist Revolution, really a counter revolution against the Iranian workers. Saddam was relatively speaking a secularist.

As I said at top Obama travelled to Cairo in June 2009 and insisted on the Muslim Brotherhood being present even though Mubarak had them well boxed in and illegal. Obama was in that promoting the Jihad, the replacement of secular with Sharia. That has been the pattern of US and European policy.

Who will suffer from Sharia. Primarily minorities, such as Christian Copts, or Christian Syrians.

Then the Jews of Israel and Israel finds itself more and more surrounded by Sharia and Jew Hating states.

How is therefore this US elite on the side of Israel. it is not.

Bush did enormous damage by elinating Saddam. But that is only a fraction of what Obama has done.

And the Republican Party as well as the Democrats are involved in this betrayal of the principles of the Great American Revolution. Whatever happens in the election this is not going to be over. The American people are based on the GAINS of the Great American (Bourgeois) revolution.

But if the Left cannot defend Free Speech, the First Amendment, then of course it cannot call itself Left in any case.

Pamela Geller has this very day drawn our attention to the terrible hatred of Islam towards ordinary people in Southern Thailand, and Pamela makes the point that if you were depending on the present Media, such as the BBC, you would have no clue as to what has been happening.
And this report is taken from the site of Pamela Geller, Atlas Shrugs.
While the Left is silent on the torture that these poor WORKING CLASS people in Southern Thailand are going through. But the Left have the nerve to attack Geller.

Jihad in Thailand: Heavy civilian casualties in latest Islamic attack

Our correspondent in Thailand, Chai, reports:

Thailand 920 3
Jihad in Thailand

BREAKING: Celebrating the Muslim Jumu’ah Friday prayer day with more Jihad murder in Thailand. Heavy civilian casualties in latest attack.
Are 6 dead and 39 injured in a Muslim terror attack worth reporting in the international news media?
The Muslim terror attacks continue daily in Thailand’s south with innocent people wounded or murdered on average every six hours for the last eight years.* 
The international news media doesn’t bother reporting the daily terror unless the body count in one in attack exceeds some unknown threshold. Kill seven or ten in one attack and it might be reported, but kill one a day for a week and nobody in the West seems to care. 
Over 5,000 dead and 9,000 injured attest to the scale of Jihad in only a small area of Thailand. There is a war going on in Thailand’s south, coupled with a massive population shift as non-Muslim Thais abandon lands, homes and businesses built over generations; but you would never know the truth by relying upon the international news media.
Will this latest attack be reported by American news media? We will see.
Time of attack: Friday, September 21, 2012 12:40pm (Thailand time)
Friday, September 21, 2012 1:40am (New York time)
Story by Chai sourced as it is breaking on Thai language press, broadcasters and social media.
Thailand 920 1

Muslim terrorists killed 6 civilians and injured 39 in Pattani Province’s on Friday afternoon. Reports in the Thai language media indicate that at least half of the injured are in ‘serious’ or ‘critical’ condition and that more may succumb to their wounds.
The terrorists increased the civilian casualties by first machine gunning staff and customers at the Kamolphan jewellery store in the Sai Buri business district. After the shooters fled, other terrorists then waited for the police to arrive and further waited for a large crowd of onlookers to gather before remotely detonating a pickup truck bomb of an estimated 50kg size.
Five civilians died at the scene, with one more dying in hospital so far. More deaths are expected. Local news reports that twenty-five of the dead and wounded are civilians including some children.  
The attack followed the terrorist murder of a Pattani police officer on Thursday evening. Sub-Lieutenant Abdulloh Doloh, 56, was ambushed and shot by four men on his way home from work.  
Photos courtesy of krobkruakao.com 
Thai language news article, photos and video here:
News from Thai English language press:here
Six killed, 39 injured in Pattani car bomb attack
Pattani – Insurgents fired at a gold shop in this southern border province before detonated a car bomb Friday, killing six people and injuring 39 others, police said.
The explosion occurred at about 12:40 pm in the business area of Sai Buri district.
About five insurgents opened fire at the Kamolphan gold shop and when police and rangers rushed to check the scene. Although the officials tried to block onlookers away, a huge crowd gathered to watch. The explosion occurred about 20 minutes later after the officials arrived at the scene.
* Source for the statement that Muslim terror attacks continue daily in Thailand’s south with innocent people wounded or murdered on average every six hours for the last eight years: here
Thailand 920

Five killed by Pattani car bomb
Published: 21/09/2012 at 04:21 PM
Online news:  
PATTANI – At least five people were killed and 37 wounded on Friday when a car bomb detonated in a packed market in Thailand’s insurgency-hit far south, officials told AFP.
“As of now five are dead including a paramilitary ranger and four civilians,” a Sai Buri district hospital official told AFP, adding 14 of the injured were in “serious condition”.
Local police confirmed the death toll and said 37 had been wounded, among them 25 civilians.
More than 5,000 people have been killed and over 9,000 hurt in more than 11,000 incidents, or about 3.5 a day, in the three southernmost provinces and the four districts of Songkhla since the violence erupted afresh in January 2004, according to Deep South Watch – an independent research group that monitors the southern unrest.


Why Islam Does Not Belong in the Western World
by Fjordman

Many observers in the press thought that I would disappear as a writer after I stepped forward with my real name during the Breivik case.

They were wrong.

I will continue using Fjordman as a pen name, but I have no intention of changing my views as Peder Jensen, either. I started out writing about Islam. I later diversified to include other subjects, too, since there are many things wrong with the modern West, but I do not regret what I have written about Islam previously. I told the truth then, and will continue to do so in the future.

The fact is that the much-vilified Islam-critics and so-called “Islamophobes” have been entirely correct in their comments and analyses for years. Political leaders and media commentators throughout the Western world keep telling us that Islam is at heart a peaceful religion which is being abused by “extremists” and that continued Muslim immigration to our countries is good and should continue. They are not telling the truth.

Yes, mass immigration can be a problem by itself, also of non-Muslims, but Islam is a uniquely aggressive and violent creed. No other major, established religion on this planet stipulates the death penalty for criticizing or mocking its founder and its teachings. Traditional Islamic law does. That’s why no other religious community on Earth behaves the way Muslims are doing globally this September, attacking Western embassies in multiple countries over a single, somewhat amateurish movie most people had never even heard of. Attacking embassies can easily be seen as an act of war. The people and groups doing this have already declared war on us and our societies, whether we like this or not.

Needless to say, movies, cartoons, novels and other objects merely constitute convenient pretexts as targets for the eternal Muslim rage and aggression against the rest of humanity. What these riots and threats are really about is imposing dhimmitude on the West, as Bat Ye’or has prophetically warned. Muslim leaders — from the Prime Minister of NATO member Turkey, via the Western-backed Muslim Brotherhood President of Egypt, to the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), the largest voting bloc at the United Nations — are pushing for national and international laws or speech codes banning any criticism of Islam, its founder and its teachings. Although Western mass media virtually never explain this to their audiences, this would essentially imply submission to Islamic law and Islamic rule.

For over a thousand years, Islamic teachings have stipulated only three options for non-Muslims: Convert to Islam, submit to Islamic rule as a virtual hostage in your own country, or fight. Once you start kneeling to Islam, though, there is no going back. You will have to live on your knees every single day for the rest of your life, and your children and grandchildren will be condemned to doing the same, under an eternal shadow of fear of Muslim abuse, violence and aggression.


Islam means “submission.” If you are not willing to submit to Islam or Islamic rule then Islam is your mortal enemy, always has been and always will be. Yes, Islam itself. Not “radical Islam,” “militant Islamism” or “evildoers abusing the peaceful teachings of the Koran.” Islam.

Islamic culture is incompatible with all of the best aspects of European civilization. No form of Islam as it exists today belongs in any Western country.

If you think the above statement sounds “extreme,” this is only because you have been fed a steady diet of misleading nonsense for decades by Western media and academia. I don’t have the time or space to provide a detailed theological explanation for my statements here, but I can do so whenever I need to. I intend to complete a book next year about precisely this issue. Spending years studying Islamic teachings and history and partly living in the Middle East has only convinced me of one thing: Islam cannot be reconciled with our way of life. It is incompatible with any civilization worthy of that name, Eastern or Western.

Any discussion of an Islamic “Reformation” projects a Western European phenomenon, the Protestant Reformation, onto a totally different religion with more violent core teachings and religious texts than all other major religions on the planet combined. If by “reformation” we mean to imply a peaceful, tolerant religion with no Jihad and secular laws, then no, it is very unlikely whether such a form of Islam will ever exist. There are a few types of what we might term “diluted Islam” that are slightly less violently aggressive than the mainstream version of it, but these are all marginal in the greater scheme of things and are frequently persecuted precisely because they deviate from traditional Islamic practices.

If by “reformation” we simply mean a return to the earliest practices of the religion then we have already had a Muslim Martin Luther: the terrorist leader Osama bin Laden. He was a violent Jihadist because the earliest followers of Mohammed were also violent Jihadists. You can base a peaceful Christian religion with secular laws on the peaceful example of Jesus and his disciples as contained in the Christian Gospels. In Islam, however, such an example can only be found in the early Mecca period. As long as the example of Mohammed and his followers in Medina remain in force, along with the chapters of the Koran supposedly introduced there, any form of Islam based on traditional Islamic texts is bound to be potentially repressive, aggressive and violent. You may successfully question whether the story of Mohammed as told in traditional text is historically accurate. It probably isn’t. But if you abandon traditional sources and state that Mohammed as we think of him never existed, Islam may not be reformed, but could collapse instead.

Another factor which usually isn’t brought up in discussions is that the Protestant Reformation was no picnic when it happened. It caused generations of turmoil and war, even though it was mainly confined to Europe at the time. An Islamic reformation is unlikely to materialize, but even if it did, it would probably be a very turbulent and messy affair with global consequences in an age of nuclear weapons. On the other hand, if Islam cannot be reformed, the result will be a continuation of the violence we see today.

Immigrants in Birmingham

We are currently mass importing this very conflict to all of our major cities, a process which is already well underway. It is criminal negligence on the part of our so-called leaders to continue this madness and conduct a dangerous Multicultural experiment with hundreds of millions of people as guinea pigs. This needs to end. Now.

If you believe that this analysis is correct then you are left with only one possible conclusion: We must physically separate ourselves from Islam and Islamic culture as much as is practically possible. The American essayist Lawrence Auster has dubbed this strategy “separationism,” which is not a bad term.

We cannot continue as we are today, or our freedoms will slowly be eroded and our societies gradually destroyed. We need to halt Muslim immigration to all Western countries on a permanent basis. Any agreements or charters that prevent such a policy from being implemented must be changed. This probably means that Westerners in return have to accept less freedom of movement in Muslim majority countries, but given that these are becoming more dangerous and less hospitable year by year, the age of mass tourism there may soon be over, anyway.

The writer Hugh Fitzgerald has for years advocated the strategy of making Western countries as unfriendly to Islamic practices as humanly possible, which is an excellent idea. We must immediately ban any and all applications of sharia law in all Western countries, including minarets, calls to prayer, halal meat and veils in public places.

We should not try to export “democracy” to Islamic societies that are not ready for them. The attempt to do so has been a costly failure in Iraq and Afghanistan and has brought hostile Islamic regimes to power in places like Egypt. Muslims should not be in our suburbs, but neither should we occupy their countries. We should maintain an armed and vigilant separation. If we need to briefly invade their countries to take out terrorist camps or neutralize serious military threats then we should do so, and leave again afterwards.

A final, but crucial point to emphasize in the separationist strategy is that we should never bail out Muslims from their own failures. Islamic culture is backward and aggressive, but also in many ways an immense failure in a modern society. The only hypothetical situation in which Muslims may change their ways is if they are forced to enjoy the bitter fruits of their own failures.

Don’t bail them out. Don’t send them aid of any kind, which will only feed local corruption and possibly be used to finance Jihad against us. They’re adults who can fix their own problems.

The idea that Islamic violence and aggression is somehow caused by “poverty,” a notion that has been echoed by Western politicians from Tony Blair to Hillary Clinton, is a Marxist-inspired fallacy. Mohammed Bouyeri did not murder film director Theo van Gogh in the streets of Amsterdam because he was poor, but because his religious beliefs commanded him to wipe out those who criticize or mock Islam. Islamic aggression is caused by Islamic teachings.

Those who harbor the belief that Muslims will somehow “like” us more if we give them money are deluded and fail to grasp Islamic mentality. To Muslims, anything good happens because Allah wills it. If they feel gratitude to anybody it will be to Allah, not to worthless and inferior infidels. Besides, according to sharia law, non-Muslim dhimmis who retain their lives are supposed to pay protection money — jizya — in “willing submission” to Islamic rule. Non-Muslims giving Muslims money is the way Allah has ordained it. Muslims will feel no gratitude to us for doing this. On the contrary, they may in fact become more aggressive, because they will interpret your behavior as a sign of submission.

Is separation a viable long-term strategy in the twenty-first century? It’s not yet possible to supply detailed answers about how such a policy can be successfully implemented in an age of rapid global communications, but I see the urgent need for us to implement as much of it as possible if we want our societies to survive and remain free. Perhaps separationism will not be sufficient to deal with a nuclear-armed Iran, for instance, but it is the very minimum we as a civilization can live with.

For the record: If any Multiculturalists want to charge me with “hate speech” or “racism” for what I have just written here, come and get me. I will repeat the same statements in court and make sure that millions of people hear this message. When faced with the dangerous and escalating wave of Islamic aggression we are now witnessing, we can no longer afford to hide behind convenient lies. Our children will never forgive us for the mess we leave behind if we do nothing substantial about the threats we face.

For a complete archive of Fjordman’s writings, see the multi-index listing in the Fjordman Files.










Has the whole world gone mad? Why is this even a question? Let’s say you call me a racist, bigoted Islamophobe. I am deeply insulted. At that moment I have a huge range of options before me. I can calmly explain to you that Islamic supremacism is not a race, fighting for free speech and equality of rights for all is not bigotry, and “Islamophobia” is a manipulative concept used by the Muslim Brotherhood and its allies to stifle resistance to Islamic supremacism and jihad. Or I can start yelling and calling you names. Or I can start muttering into my vodka tonic about the injustice of it all. Or I can murder you, drag your body through the streets, set fire to your embassy, and demand laws against insulting me. Or I can do any number of other things.

Which one will I choose? It’s up to me, not to you. You might have a strong hunch as to how I will react, and say to your companion, “That Spencer, he is going to come out with another windy, closely reasoned refutation of my charges that everyone will ignore,” or “That Spencer, he is going to burn down my embassy,” but you still can’t be absolutely sure what I am going to do, because I am not an automaton, I am a human being endowed with the faculty of reason, and I may always choose to react in a way that will surprise you.

Or I may not. But in any case, it is up to me. If I kill you, there is absolutely no justifiable basis on which anyone could say, “Well, he had it coming. Look how he provoked him.” My choice was my own, and only I bear responsibility for it.

But today that basic and elemental truth is lost. If Muslims rage, riot and murder for any reason, they bear no responsibility. The only ones who bear any responsibility for their raging, rioting and murdering are the non-Muslims who somehow provoked them.

That I have to take the time to explain this at all, and that it will be universally ignored, is an indication of how much our public discourse has degenerated. The road is being swiftly paved for the destruction of the freedom of speech. When, in another year or so, I am safely imprisoned for daring to speak the truth and a new era of peace has dawned between the West and the Islamic world, and yet the jihad keeps coming, and the full implications of the new “hate speech” laws start to become clear in the quashing of all political dissent, don’t say you weren’t warned.

Of course, maybe none of that will happen, and the freedom of speech will suddenly sport a thousand articulate defenders who have not yet been completely demonized and marginalized out of the public square. But I don’t see them on the horizon right now.




“‘I’m not the one going into the streets with stones and Kalashnikovs’: Charlie Hebdo editor rejects responsibility for violence over naked Mohammad cartoons,” by Nicholas Vinocur for Reuters, September 19 (thanks to Kenneth):

The editor of French magazine Charlie Hebdo has said that when his magazine ridiculed the Prophet Mohammad on Wednesday by portraying him naked in cartoons, he and his organization were not responsible for fuelling the anger of Muslims around the world who are already incensed by a video depicting him as a lecherous fool.The editor, Stephane Charbonnier, also known as Charb, rejected criticism. “We have the impression that it’s officially allowed for Charlie Hebdo to attack the Catholic far-right but we cannot poke fun at fundamental Islamists,” he said.

“It shows the climate. Everyone is driven by fear, and that is exactly what this small handful of extremists who do not represent anyone want: to make everyone afraid, to shut us all in a cave,” he told Reuters.

“Muhammad isn’t sacred to me,” he said in an interview at the weekly’s offices on the northeast edge of Paris. “I don’t blame Muslims for not laughing at our drawings. I live under French law; I don’t live under Koranic law.”

Charbonnier said he had no regrets and felt no responsibility for any violence.

“I’m not the one going into the streets with stones and Kalashnikovs,” he said. “We’ve had 1,000 issues and only three problems, all after front pages about radical Islam.”

One cartoon alluded to the scandal over a French magazine’s publication of topless photos of the wife of Britain’s Prince William. It showed a bare female torso topped by a beard with the caption “Riots in Arab countries after photos of Mrs Mohammad are published”….

“We know that these images will be deeply offensive to many and have the potential to be inflammatory. But we’ve spoken repeatedly about the importance of upholding the freedom of expression that is enshrined in our constitution,” White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters.

“In other words, we don’t question the right of something like this to be published, we just question the judgment behind the decision to publish it.”…


That’s the first step.




The great New York freedom fighter Pamela Geller who publishes a principled American blog called Atlas Shrugs was attacked viciously this very morning by the BBC World Service.


This lying filth of the BBC goes out all over the world, they transmit everywhere, and especially to Arab and African countries.


The British Establishment are the biggest liars in the world. Thus the mouthpiece of the British Establishment, which is undoubtedly the BBC, IS the biggest liar bar none in the world.


The BBC this morning hung its lies against Geller around the hate campaign against Christians in America being waged by the Jihad, in the form of CAIR. They had the CAIR representative from New York in studio. A total set-up. Geller had no right to reply. Justice out the window!


Thus…The BBC this very morning had on this representative of CAIR in New York. This person talked in a slick manner with a clear American accent, but do not be fooled by the American accent, CAIR is an organization which has been proven in an American Court of Law to be supporters of the terrorist group Hamas.


Documents which have been recovered and accepted in an American Court of Law have proved that this group is engaged in Jihad in America, that is to overthrow the American Constitution, and to replace it with Sharia Law (their very own words)


CAIR this morning (again remember broadcast around the world) referred continually to Pamela Geller as a hate group figure. This is the Big Lie technique. Invert the truth, that is the lie, repeat it hundreds of thousands of times, that is the Big Lie.


Calling Pamela Geller and her group SOAS a hate group and a hate figure CAIR this morning with the help of the BBC was broadcasting this filthy lie. Pamela Geller does not ever, ever preach hate as CAIR repeated on the BBC about a hundred times in one interview. What Geller does is explain what Islam is all about, and by the way the people who suffer most under Islam are obviously the poor or rebellious Muslims, and especially women, and it is these women that Geller often defends.


In fact it is the opposite. CAIR is the hate group in America. It is promoting the Jihad which promotes a Nazi type hatred against Catholics, Protestants, Hindus, Buddhists, and so on and also mark you against Muslims who do not toe the line. In fact hatred against anybody who is not a devout Muslim.


As improbable as it sounds when you listen to these slick talkers CAIR has made it known that it is Jihadist and is preaching the Jihad, which is the violent imposition of Sharia Law on the whole world.


But because of the American Revolution the Great American Constitution of separation of Church and State, WHICH KARL MARX SUPPORTED, stand in the way of CAIR and World Jihadism, then America is really in their eyes the GREAT SATAN. (It is often misunderstood, the Jihad is also against Socialism)


Also, because Judaism played a big role in the forming of these concepts in the American Constitution, Israel in their eyes becomes LITTLE SATAN.




This is an extract. To provide “balance” since the BBC was doing a hit job on Geller without Geller being able to answer back, the interviewer said


BBC…She would probably dispute those terms (Hate Group)


CAIR…Her organisation speaks for itself and is why her organisation has been designated as a hate group in the United States of America.





Right there that is where responsible reporters would say something like “Where, When, By whom and how exactly”.


Sadly the BBC has long abandoned the old reporters adage, get the facts, check the facts, report the facts.




A truthful organisation would have had Pamela Geller sitting there in the studio along with CAIR so that Geller could put her point of view ALSO!


There followed another long spiel by the CAIR man. He uses the Nazi technique of repetition, repetition. And he uses Goebbels style methods.


This low level group, which supports terrorist Hamas, which seeks to overturn the American First Amendment and replace it with Sharia, in the most brazen fashion ASSUMES the High Ground. They as Hamas supporting CAIR, as providing the finance to buy arms for Hamas, is of course according to this guy the holiest of the holiest, they are the most honest to goodness Americans you are likely to meet from the Bronx to Nevada deserts, they are the most moderate, they are the most sensible. And fighting the thankless battle against hate. You know, this guy from CAIR had his spiel on Geller off to a t. It brought home to me as an Irish person what people like Spencer have been saying about how practised in the seductive art of lying these CAIR are in America, and what a danger in their lies they are.


Because, you know, this type of stuff ties in with another level of lying about Islam where media people like Steven Gilmour of Talk Radio Europe, I heard him last week talking about giving Morsi a chance in Egypt, and maybe according to Gilmour he Morsi is on the road to reform, just like Adams of PIRA. You know, that kind of shallowness from Gilmour that equates Irish Republicanism with Islam!!! And Gilmour is the chief of that station thanks to the owner Nathan Thomas who is Jewish. And also there is widespread lies in Europe against Israel. The BBC this morning is also running a hit piece on Israel over African immigrants into Israel, without pointing the difficulties of Israel being only the size of Munster.


But the very acute listener will have spotted the lies of CAIR. Towards the end of the interview the lady interviewer (there were two) introduced this desperate moaning plea from this lady:



“Briefly though what can you do given that the Courts have already given her advice that she can put out these ads.”



Ah, the courts! The courts of America. The courts of the American Constitution. The truly great American Constitution.


The BBC lady introduced this element and you want to have heard the poor lady as she moaned about Geller having the backing of the courts. It was the deathly dirge of a Brit who just cannot understand the Great American Constitution.


And with this you will have noticed that this vapid British hag of the BBC was not defending Geller for having, God forbid, taken the trouble to square her campaign against Islam with the American Constitution. In other words Geller taking the time and trouble to visit the Court and the Constitution.


No for the BBC hag excuse of reporter this was a Big Moan.


The BBC hag was mournful that Geller was following the American Constitution!


And just there, you will understand if you are even half a student of history, is where the Islam Jihad and the British Establishment come together.





Look now at these words of Mr CAIR man this morning. In response to Geller getting the backing of the Courts (Constitution) he replied to the lady BBC Hag reporter, exact words and I place in capitals




Oh really Mr Testosterone CAIR Man! Is that what you have done now!




But naturally the obtuse British BBC could not pick up on that. By its very nature it could not pick up on that. The BBC does not understand the American Constitution!







Pamela Geller takes the Constitutional route, gets the train and bus ads squared with the Constitution via the Courts. Does this before she even goes to the printers.


This CAIR guy bypasses the Constitution. Repeats and repeats Nazi propaganda style the big lie that Geller equals Hate. Says repeatedly he speaks for the sensible Americans. Goes to elected officials (again he depends on the gutless BBC reporters not to ask precise details) and talks about the bus and train companies placing riders to Geller’s ads to disown the ads, that is for the bus companies to add a disclaimer to the ads of Geller, ads that they have already taken money from Geller to show, and which Geller has cleared from a legal constitutional standpoint.


Now THAT is Fascism.


Geller plays by the rules of the Constitution and Congress. The other side, CAIR, in a populist Mussolini type fashion, steps out of the boundaries of the Constitution. 







Egypt: Christian gets six years in prison

for insulting Muhammad

and Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood president





(from www.jihadwatch.org)


If the Left and Islamic supremacists get their way, this is the sort of sentence we will see handed down in the U.S. before too long. “Egyptian court sends Copt to prison over anti-Islam post,” from Egypt Independent, September 18 (thanks to Twostellas):

An Egyptian court on Tuesday sentenced a Christian teacher to six years in prison after convicting him of blasphemy and defamation of President Mohamed Morsy and a plaintiff lawyer, according to Egyptian news reports.The Sohag Misdemeanor Court found Bishoy Kamil Kamel guilty of insulting Prophet Mohamed, sentencing him to three years. He was also sentenced to two years for insulting the country’s president, and another year for insulting a plaintiff lawyer.

Independent daily Al-Watan newspaper said on its website that security has been heightened outside churches in Sohag to preempt any violence in response to the verdict.

Sohag’s prosecutor referred Kamel to trial in August after receiving a complaint from Mohamed Safwat Tammam, 32, accusing Kamel of posting insulting caricatures of Prophet Mohamed on his Facebook page, as well as abusing the country’s president in his comments.

Kamel denied the charges during interrogations, claiming that his account had been hacked. Investigators say they had managed to detect his address through the account and arrested him.

A number of lawsuits have been filed against public figures recently over charges of blasphemy and defaming the president, who belongs to the Muslim Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party….