The Delights of Faithlessness, Part 3

This is the final installment of a three-part guest-essay by Thucydides. Previously: Part 1, Part 2.

The Delights of Faithlessness
by Thucydides

Part 3: What Is To Be Done?

I have described a self-serving, immensely empowering and gratifying worldview, one that protects one from the adverse consequences of failure and betrayal by transferring allegiance away from those supposedly to be served to the group of which they are a part; one that is hermetically sealed off from argument, from evidence, from shame and guilt, from remorse, and from contrition and penitence by means of group solidarity. This worldview, if not vigorously combatted, will lead the West to drift inexorably away from republican forms of government and toward a fascist variant, one that in time, as tensions and contradictions become more apparent and more insoluble, will evolve from a soft despotism into something harder and more overtly menacing.

What then is to be done?

Freud said, “Reason is no avail against human passion.” It certainly is of no avail against this hermetically sealed worldview, one that privileges holders and leads them to believe that they possess a special kind of esoteric insight that renders them immune from criticism by “know nothings.”

So what is to be done? Certainly not to bewail our fate. Nor to attempt to re-analyze our situation, which God knows has been endlessly analyzed by minds far better than mine. Nor can it be to make impassioned appeals to our faithless leaders, almost all of whom share French Socialist Premier Hollande’s contempt for the “toothless” poor, whom Trierweiler reports he calls the sans dents. Most members of traditional-values coalitions and the counterjihad are certainly poor, and any amount of money we could raise would pale in comparison to the wealth the oligarchs and governmental elites can mobilize.

Some in the counterjihad hope that when the day of overt conflict comes, the governing elites will have no choice but to side with the indigenous population. I think this is by no means certain. What is clear to me is that European leaders fear widespread civil unrest. And they do so for many reasons:

1)   They fear widespread Muslim military defections, and even Muslim soldiers turning on their own comrades.
2)   EU countries are financially broke and have decimated their military budgets to prop up their expensive social welfare systems, so that it may no longer be adequate to the task of containing widespread insurrection.
3)   They fear that a prolonged civil insurrection and the devastation wrought by it will break the economy.

These fears, which all but ensure a continued dual policy of appeasement of Muslims and intimidation of their non-immigrant populations, are most acute in France and the UK, but exist everywhere Islamic populations are large and militant, e.g. Belgium, Holland, and Germany.

No, there is only one available strategy: Raising consciousness. But raising consciousness does not mean consciousness of our situation. That has already been done. It means raising consciousness of the faithlessness of the West’s ruling elites and their media allies.

Can this be done through reasoned debate? Doubtful. Instead, we must take a page from those on the Left who have waged successful social insurgencies, from those on the Left who understand the futility of reasoned debate where deeply, almost religiously held, beliefs are involved, and who therefore adopt a strategy rooted in relentless psychological intimidation; in essence in psychic warfare.

Take homosexuals. Some in the US, even those sympathetic to their cause, have called gay activists the “gay mafia” for their brutal, take-no-prisoners rhetorical and legal bullying. Like Islamists, gay activists have lied about only wanting acceptance. Like the Islamist, what they really want is to stamp out opposition to their increasingly ambitious agenda, and this they have pursued, like Muslims, by all possible means, including legal bullying. What this means is that one lawsuit won is worth a hundred brilliant analytical essays.

Conclusion? Spend less time writing essays and more time enlisting attorneys like the UK’s Gavin Boby, whose work in stopping the building of mosques in the UK is more valuable than a hundred or even a thousand essays. Ten Gavin Bobys on the loose on behalf of the counterjihad would be worth more than a thousand or even ten thousand brilliant counterjihad essays, because the essays, while they make us feel less alone, do not arouse additional hope and the harnessing of militant energies, whereas even one legal victory does. How much more, then, will ten or a hundred legal victories?

For those who must limit themselves to rhetorical activity, let me stress that being able to return meaningful fire will require that we loosen the rules of civil discourse, and adopt the playbook of the faithless, who rely on ad hominem attacks and the dishonest framing of their opponent’s position more than reasoned argument; who realize that argument exists not to arrive at a deeper understanding of the truth, but to delegitimize not only one’s adversaries’ arguments but their adversaries themselves, by which means they delegitimize their opponents’ very right to hold any respectable position.

To accomplish this will not be easy, and one can expect enormous pushback. But that said, still one must concentrate one’s energies on exposing the pervasive faithlessness and its present and future consequences in media venues that will gain a larger audience than traditional counterjihad websites. One must attack the faithless frontally and if possible, publicly; one must punish them relentlessly, especially their media lapdogs. Maul them. By means of one’s rhetorical blows, make them bleed. You will know you are having an effect when they become as apologetic and defensive as we who oppose them have been forced to become.

How often has one seen a conservative or traditionalist adopt a defensive tone? When can you recall a member of the media, or a Liberal or Leftist politician pre-emptively apologize for fear they will be slandered? In the psychic struggle being fought everywhere in the West, the goal is to define and to avoid definition. Therefore, never apologize, never defend. Follow Patton’s advice: Attack. Attack. And be very personal.

Too ugly, you say. Of course — that’s the point! But that does not mean this playbook does not work. Sadly, it works all too well. We have previously mentioned gays, but others could be mentioned — the Palestinians, for example. Ugliness is how and why the Palestinians successfully delegitimize Israel, despite their militarily losing.

Demonization is the Left’s primary playbook. They argue not that your arguments are poor, but that you are a bad person, and thus no decent person should listen to your arguments. Essentially, your arguments are bad because you are a bad person.

Turn the tables. Show that they are bad people, very bad people.

Obama’s foreign policy is a disaster. Yet so cowed by the pervasive slanderous ugliness are most commentators that the most even courageous commentators can bring themselves to say about it is to paraphrase Dinesh D’Souza’s anti-colonial argument about Obama, namely that Obama thinks US influence in the world has been malign, and that US Global influence and the US footprint should be made smaller for the good of the world. But Obama was not elected to protect the world’s interests but to protect US interests, and those of the citizens he supposedly serves. But he has privately deconstructed his service oath and reconstructed it to serve his larger, more grandiose vision.

EU leaders are even worse, sacrificing national interest almost everywhere, paradoxically even in Germany as Thilo Sarrazin makes clear in his book, Germany Does Away with Itself (Deutschland schafft sich ab). How one must ask, does the behavior of any of these leaders differ from faithlessness to their oath of office? It doesn’t.

One might ask the same thing about EU foreign policy toward the Palestinians. How can all this be reconciled with one’s oath to defend the national interests of any European nation, let alone, the EU? It can’t.

To fully understand the faithlessness of UK and EU leaders, one must analogize it. Imagine the Director of Communicable Disease for Europe arguing that he cannot issue a quarantine because not everyone in the infected area is infected by the pathogen, and to punish the uninfected because of the infected would not be “fair” to them. And yet this is the same argument insisted upon as justification for allowing massive Muslim immigration into Europe, despite the fact that everyone knows that a significant percentage carry the pathogen of Islamic jihad, and that even those who show no present symptoms, may carry a dormant strain of this virulent pathogen.

What would one call such a Director? Would one allow such a Director to finesse such behavior in the name of “fairness”?

In sum, never defend. Only attack. The more one’s attack addresses the true faithlessness manifested at every turn throughout the West from the smallest bureaucrat to that non-entity who is the President of the European Council, where all real decisions are made away from the prying eyes and interfering whims of Euro-sceptics and other European troglodytes.

The more personal and punishing the attack, the more effective it will be.

39 thoughts on “The Delights of Faithlessness, Part 3

  1. “their brutal, take-no-prisoners rhetorical and legal bullying. Like Islamists, gay activists have lied about only wanting acceptance. Like the Islamist, what they really want is to stamp out opposition to their increasingly ambitious agenda, and this they have pursued, like Muslims, by all possible means, including legal bullying. What this means is that one lawsuit won is worth a hundred brilliant analytical essays.”

    And once again, the counter-jihad movement betrays its frothing homophobia.

    The acceptance of gay people in the UK did not come from the elite or from “the gay mafia”. It came from ordinary people coming out, and the general population thus realising that gay people were perfectly ordinary (and not particularly interesting).

    Let’s see this commenter provide a list of legal battles won by “the gay mafia” in the UK.

    And incidentally, I’m fairly certain that lawyers like Gavin Boby and Anne-Marie Waters would want nothing to do with a movement that decided that stoking hostility towards gay people was the way to combat islam.

    • ‘Gay Pride’ is not about acceptance. It’s about demands. And, true to form, as soon as anyone (like Thucydides, here) questions the pretensions of the homosexual fascists, up pops the accusation of ‘homophobia’ … ‘frothing homophobia’, indeed! (Presumably, the ‘frothing’ is intended to conjure up the image of a wild-eyed maniac. You do know what ad hominem means, don’t you?) I doubt whether the intended reference was to those ‘ordinary’ gay people who are just as invisible as ‘ordinary’ straight folk. It is the activists who are being compared to the jihadists. And the cap fits.

    • You were sadly selective in where you began your quote, Joe from the UK. You neglected this beginning part of that paragraph:

      Take homosexuals. Some in the US, even those sympathetic to their cause, have called gay activists the “gay mafia” for their brutal, take-no-prisoners rhetorical and legal bullying.

      Some in the US
      even those sympathetic to their cause
      have called gay ACTIVISTS the “gay mafia” for their brutal….rhetorical and legal bullying…

      And that is the truth of our present-day reality.

      You claim:

      And once again, the counter-jihad movement betrays its frothing homophobia.

      Proving your own ability to froth with the best of them, sir. The “counter-jihad movement” in the US contains a number of gay people. A tiny minority, in fact, for when people are left to their own devices, the numbers of gay people turn out to be about two percent of the population in any culture.

      It’s what the culture decides about deviant behavior that decides its fate. Yes, homosexual behavior deviates from the norm. World-wide. The norm is for two heterosexual people to enter into a relationship that will eventually produce offspring which the couple is honor-bound by the community to raise by community standards so that the children can join the next generation. That norm has been savagely trampled.

      If you don’t believe the gay mafia exists in the US, then I suggest you do some reading since you contend it’s not so. And prove, too, your contention that the counterjihad movement is “frothing homophobia”. It is insulting to us that you come on here and make this claim.

      Perhaps it’s different in the UK. Maybe the long tradition of homosexuality among the literati has made a “gay mafia” unnecessary. But it’s hard to tell now, since free speech in the UK has ceased to exist.

      Here in the US, the agenda for the “activists” – not the average Gay Joe down the street – is useful for the Marxists. If they can destroy the legitimacy of heterosexual relationships, that’s the foot in the door for the illegitimacy of all PRIVATE relationships. Only those recognized by the state will be legal and they will not have the right of privacy.

      Here’s the sad story of gays in the US:

      Making Gay Okay: How Rationalizing Homosexual Behavior Is Changing Everything

      Read the 133 comments on the book. Amazon, since it aggregates opinion, serves as a barometer of sorts. Yes, the opinion is just as polarized as it is in other venues, but there is no way around that.

      People here are no longer free to express an opinion without Draconian push-back. I’ve seen it personally, ad infinitum, ad aeternitatem. As a “breeder” – so named by the gay ACTIVISTS – it is my duty to turn out children – as one fellow said to me, for the poor pedophiles.

      Above all, the gay ACTIVISTS demand their victimhood – look at the Hollywood stereotypes of bad heteros/good homos. Predictable cutout characters. It is similar to the aggressive war against heterosexual men in general. The feminist strictures by which modern discourse is pinioned makes modern mainstream discourse predictably tedious.

      And you sound like them. That’s unfortunate; it makes you an unreliable interlocutor regarding the fight against Islam’s supremacist world-view.

      • You think I’m being “sadly selective”. Selective is exactly what you and Thucydides are being. He compares gay activists to islamists and the mafia. Where have gay activists killed their critics? We have the Baron editing Thucydides articles, and neither you nor the Baron clearly have any problem with the bigoted and invalid comparisons being made by Thucydides. When the first gay activists fly planes into the newly-built WTC, get back to me on why the Baron thought this was not a stupid and hate-filled comparison. Until then GoV shamefully cheapens what muslims do. No gay people have assassinated the Westboro Baptist Church or Terry Jones. And gay activists like me have continued to play our role within the counter-jihad movement, even though sites like GoV are happy to peddle homophobia every few days.

        I challenge you Dymphna to provide evidence that it is anything other than absolutely exceptional for gay people to refer to straight people as “breeders”. I will bet that from the millions of pages of gay news/activist websites, or the millions of pages of gay magazines and books, you cannot provide more than 10 instances of gay people calling straight people “breeders”. In 35 years of being immersed in gay culture, I can think of a single instance where I have seen that word used: Class War produced a magazine called “Wolverine” around 1990 aimed at gay people, and they had an article where they used that word. That magazine went through about 3 issues, then folded – so popular was its antagonistic attitude towards straight people.

        Why does Thucydides find it necessary to invoke the idea of a “gay mafia”, when there are some people using the legal system to demand rights? Would GoV have allowed him to make the same claims about a “jewish mafia” doing this? The mafia used extreme violence and the fear of such violence to extract money in an extra-judicial fashion. How is that anything other than a hate-filled image when applied to people who use the courts to extract damages (whether those people be jewish or gay). Why doesn’t he instead refer to a “jewish mafia” using brutal legal and rhetorical means to stop discrimination against jews?

        I see stories surface at places like GoV where businesses in the US are (supposedly) penalised for refusing to serve gay customers. Does GoV think that businesses should be able to refuse to serve jews or blacks? I doubt you will answer that question. Talk about selective.

        The homophobia that surfaces on GoV every few days (usually through your “unedited” newsfeed) would not be allowed by you if it was targeting jews and any demands “jew activists” make not to be treated as second class citizens: I suspect your “unedited” news feed is indeed selective in not pushing anti-jewish submissions. Perhaps some of your funders are jewish, and you don’t want to bite the hand that feeds you. Perhaps you don’t want GoV to be a magnet for Nazis (little realising that they will be drawn to homophobia as well as anti-semitism).

        Just like the behaviour of some “gay activists” might be useful for the Left to destabilise society, so is GoV useful for those who would like to see a eugenic society return. The UK has not seen a transformation in attitudes and rights of gay people due to a “gay mafia”, and the UK has got mosque busters and an anti-islamic street protest movement (with a gay division). Thucydides is clueless when it comes to activism, and I doubt that Thucydides even practices what he preaches.

        “Conclusion? Spend less time writing essays and more time enlisting attorneys like the UK’s Gavin Boby, whose work in stopping the building of mosques in the UK is more valuable than a hundred or even a thousand essays. ”

        What does Thucydides do? He writes 3 lengthy essays for GoV, advising others what to do. Has he spent anything like that amount of time actually helping Gavin Boby fight mosques? Of course not. It’s left up to activists like me and my friends to actually do things, whilst Thucydides advises us from on high about what needs to be done.

        I know of gay activists who have left the counter-jihad movement, precisely because they were sick and tired of the homophobia found at Gates of Vienna. And it makes me question why I bother too. It’s not my children and grandchildren who are going to be fighting the civil war.

        • Joe —

          The homophobia that surfaces on GoV every few days… would not be allowed by you if it was targeting jews and any demands “jew activists” make not to be treated as second class citizens: I suspect your “unedited” news feed is indeed selective in not pushing anti-jewish submissions. Perhaps some of your funders are jewish, and you don’t want to bite the hand that feeds you.

          I’m going to cauterize this aspect of the thread shortly, but it’s only fair to let you have your say.

          We have a variety of “funders” from many different countries, including Israel. Some of them are Jewish, some of them are not. Some of them don’t even particularly like Jews, but they put up with the philosemitic tone here because there are other things that they like about Gates of Vienna.

          You’re not the first person to posit the existence of Jewish “funders” for this site, and you probably won’t be the last. The only thing I have to say about that assertion is: I wish!

          We get no major funding, none whatsoever. The average donation to this blog during a fundraiser is probably 0.01% of the average grant or donation delivered to “Jew-funded” organizations — or gay rights organizations, for that matter.

          If we ever get any form of major financial backing, it will be announced publicly. That’s the way I do business: full disclosure. If the source won’t allow that, we won’t take the money.

          I don’t have to agree with Thucydides on everything he says to allow his essays to appear here. The same goes for Paul Weston, Takuan Seiyo, Fjordman, or any of the others. We need a variety of opinions to help us find our way through the thicket of lies and obfuscation we have been trapped in for the last few decades.

          I don’t mind gay people. All the ones I have known personally, including a very close friend, have been good, kind, decent people.

          I don’t care what consenting adults decide to do with their private parts in private. However, I object to gay marriage, because that is a state institution, not a cultural one, and instituting it does not in any way serve the cause of liberty.

          Politically-oriented gays and their allies object to what they call “heteronormative” values in popular culture. I contend that the exact opposite has been taking place for at least two decades: Homonormative values have been imposed on people through television, films, pop music, and even through legislative action. There has never been anywhere near a majority in support of the homosexualization of the culture; it has been imposed against the will of the people.

          This may be the doing of a “gay mafia”, or cynical Hollywood moguls out to make a buck, or cultural Marxists implementing a Cloward-Piven strategy, or proponents of the New World Order trying to break down traditional national cultures, or some combination of all four processes. I don’t know; I’ll leave that to wiser minds than mine to determine.

          But there’s no doubt that a gay agenda is being pushed on the average person against his or her will. You might not personally notice it, because it doesn’t grate against your basic tastes and tendencies the way it does with a straight person. But it is DEFINITELY happening.

          Thucydides may well have been over-the-top and excessive in his use of rhetorical devices. But the issue that disturbs him is a real one, and slinging around the “homophobia” epithet is not going to get us any closer to dealing with it and resolving it.

        • Additional discussion on this topic is going to be severely limited by the moderators. If your comment doesn’t get approved, that may well be the reason.

          If that makes us “homophobic”, so be it.

          • I couldn’t agree more with your response to Joe who appears to allow his ‘victimhood’ mentality to blindside him to what the real issues are. A response very well put indeed!

    • Hi Joe,

      I hope this gets posted. I’m not adding to the debate on homophobia, but I think the term “gay leftist” would have been more appropriate than “gay activist”.

      In seeing the total denial by leftist feminists of the vicious treatment of women by Islam, it is apparent to me that leftist feminists care about socialism rather than women, and use so-called feminist issues as a wedge. I would think the same thing of gay leftists, who by allying with Islam, show themselves to be unconcerned with the well-being of gays, or anyone else. Gay leftists are not synonymous with gay activists.

  2. There is a fine line in the “attack attack”

    Know the precise point of your attack. Target it. Keep it to that point. Then Hit it hard.

    Keep it short, as any longer will open up flanks and then you will have a following deflection that has been set up in their defenses.

    Keep repeating, as they will be unable to deflect and so that you also, polish and hone your point with minimal fine tuning.

    Like knowing the koran chronologically with the abrogation, then certain hadiths and sira that back what mohammad was about.

    I am still learning and figuring.
    Gather your resources and background to the issue. I use a blog to file up my background understandings on the issues, and make the points. The majority of it stays in draft with comments I make elsewhere, and also can file supportive and derogatory comments on my comments. That way I can focus, not waste my energy, and try and take real decent hard hitting pot shots, and can fire back very quickly, on target.
    I have started on the blogs I follow and so easily find support, that also hones your skills as other commenters can be helpful, then to move to some other blog types.

    The knowledge you gain and practice will give you more confidence to go to attack modes. For myself it has been a slow start, though like a snow ball , it starts small, and time, energy, perseverance will build, and with fine tuning direction will become overwhelming.

    At the same time you will discover how faithfulessness led from kindergarten, schools, colleges, churches, judiciary, media, government departments and etc we have been inculcated.
    In one fight back, that with a few changes of the topics words parallel the anti-jihadists.

  3. Thucydides,

    Many, many thanks to you and this fine website for publishing your insightful essays.

    Please come back.

    John Galt III

    • But homosexuality, in the brutal forms practiced by Islam will be part of the law. It will become again a cynical work-around of a death wish supremacism.

  4. Okay. That’s it for the gender wars and victims, etc.

    This thread has been shredded by one person’s spurious claim that the counter jihad is homophobic.

    It ain’t and the discussion about gays is done. Any further mention of the subject of sexual orientation on this post, Part Three of “The Delights of Faithlessness” will be deleted in hopes of moving on.

    As John Galt III said, it’s a good post. Let us take up the reins again at that point and start over.

  5. everyone should read alinsky’s “rules for radicals.” it’s short and easy-reading and obviously the playbook of the leftist-islamist mafia.

  6. As a Christian who is not ‘of this world’ but rather a citizen of heaven by virtue of what Jesus Christ has done, I am able to view the present goings on and the history that fomented with a studious detachment instead of being caught up in the maelstrom of conflicting agendas. Though I am comforted in knowing that both Jesus Christ and the apostles saw these days coming and described them with prophetic accuracy, I am deeply saddened over the carnage, societal and otherwise, that the humanistic rebellion has wrought. What troubles me the most, and speaks to the topic being discussed here, is what Jesus said to the disciples during the Olivet Discourse. He said, “Because iniquity will abound, the love of many will wax cold.” There is no love for one another that can be seen. Conversing with friends, family or neighbors has become the same as reporting to a manager or co-worker while on the job, as what Paul Simon said, “People talking without listening.” We have shut our hearts up in our castle keeps, lowered the portcullis and raised the drawbridge out of fear and have retreated to the safety of our self-imposed womb.
    We, especially us Christians, are commanded to love our enemies and pray for those who despitefully use you. Rome was not brought down by a Christian counter attack. Rather, Rome was shamed and embarrassed into repentance by the loving behavior of the Christians which stood in stark contrast to the mendacious arrogance that was typical behavior then, and becoming more typical now. God in heaven sees all this squabbling in our sandbox and is not pleased at all with our behavior or what we are doing with the planet that He made for us.
    I, and my household, will love our neighbors whoever they are. However, that does not mean to say that we will condone their behavior when it breaches the bounds that God (YA) has set, or participate in their debauchery or iniquity. Rather, we will lovingly tell them the truth and be there for them as or when needed. YA can make ready use of our obedience to His command to love one another as He has loved us to gain entrance to their hearts and work His wonders of repentance and salvation. Our part is to love one another as we have been loved. the rest is up to YA. BTW, a time is coming soon when the elite will throw their gold out into the streets as so much refuse as they realize that their wealth cannot feed them. Maybe the streets will then be paved with gold. 🙂

    • Well acuara, bless you with your “studious detachment”. I don’t believe in your god, but I care very much about my fellow-humans, now and after I’ve gone, especially as this may be the only life we get. And humanism is the greatest thing to have happened in history, ever (IMHO); I forget who said it, but good people do good things, bad people do bad things, but religion makes good people do bad things.

      • but religion makes good people do bad things.

        What kind of “religious” people do you hang out with? Or maybe it’s just the religion King Henry VIII imposed on everyone and started all the blood-letting.

        The religion of humanism gave us the French Revolution…it’s quite flawed also. When man is the measure of all things? Not for me.

        • Dymphna, I only hang out with the good ones like yourself, and you’re far too smart not to be aware of the many religious wars and persecutions in history; just ask MC in Sderot (where is he these days?), or check out the Hussite Wars, etc…

          The French Revolution carried the ideals of the Enlightenment to extremes, but that same movement helped create the US Constitution, and (partly) end slavery and liberate women.

    • Well, acuara,

      I believe Jesus said “Render onto Caesar that which is Caesar’s, and onto God, that which is God’s”.

      Whether you adhere to Christian ethos or not, you have to admit that government must not strictly follow the doctrine of “love they neighbor”. It is necessary for the government to protect our borders, even if it means leaving boat people and homeless children to their fate.

  7. Faithless as opposed to faith, Islam is a faith, Catholicism is a faith. Divine rights. Freedom, democracy, republic. Social issues, elitism. Freedom. Did Eisenhower leave something out in those Constitutions when they implemented the Marshall plan? What is the point of integrating peoples from opposite religious civilizations in defined land masses? Cheap labor for elites? Homage to Asiatic political doctrines in exchange for Methane? I think Jihad may be just a dangerous superficial manifestation of “enlightenment”, but I am not sure how the rigging works.

    • Faithless as opposed to faith, Islam is a faith, Catholicism is a faith.

      Yes, Catholicism is a faith with a creed, cult, and code. Islam is a political movement; it is a supremacist, juridical utopian worldview. To classify it as a faith is to miss the point of its reality. Jihad has worked for 1,400 years by stealth, by murder, and by relentless cruelty. It makes people afraid and that is Islam’s reason for being: visceral terror.

  8. Most people will find attacks based on foreign policy too abstract.
    Campaigns around specific issues that are concrete and affect people directly may work better. E.g. mosque planning applications, halal food in schools, charity funding by local councils.
    And you don’t have too look to gay activists or left radicals on how to do this at a local level. Back in the 80’s the Association of Liberal Councillors (UK) produced a series of booklets for their Liberal Focus Teams – ie their activists. There was outcry that their tactics were dirty – but they were effective. Using these tactics the Liberals ran Tower Hamlets from 1986 to 1994 on a platform that was openly identified as pro indigenous residents and not sympathetic to Bangladeshis. Dig out these publications if you are thinking of campaigning.

  9. One of Joe’s claims is that the term breeder is practically non-existent in gay writing or gay conversation, when all of us with even the slightest acquaintance with gays have read the term used in writings and online comments by gays, have overheard the term used in conversations between gays and have had the term tossed at us when being addressed directly by gays. Heterosexuals are commonly referred to as both straights and breeders, terms of contempt. And both terms are used constantly. In short, Joe has employed the big lie to bury a very unpleasant truth about the homosexual attitude toward heterosexuals.

  10. A jolly good read Thucydides! You have obviously given your subject much thought. I have sometimes pondered why it is that individuals who speak out against the narrative of the Collective suddenly lose their voice when the Collective’s attack dogs become stirred up. And when they are stirred up become very effective in closing down any dissention that is perceived as having a whisker’s chance of gaining attention. It soon becomes obvious to the astute observer that the Collective has much to hide from the ‘group’ and nothing at all to offer those who truly value their personal liberty and can think for themselves.

    It is now self evident, that at any point in a democracy’s lifetime, the majority will happily go along with those who seem to provide whatever means the majority consider makes them the happiest, for example; provision of welfare – which is really a tight restriction of liberty while feeding the ‘animals’, and entertaining the masses via controlled media and sporting events. In other words, the old bread and circus trick to maintain and control those who ‘vote’ to be fed and controlled. But that is the ‘majority’, so what about the minority who can see through that charade?

    Well, from that ‘minority’ we can then identify the ‘controllers’, as you have exposed in your essay, who abandon all pretext of working for their constituent’s betterment, and then we have the ‘exposers’, the constituents who are able to cut through the charade that is Western civilization today and go out of their way to ‘notify’ their particular ‘controller’ that they are no longer doing what they are being paid to do.

    But the ‘controllers’ have been very busy in shoring up their utopian lifestyles and have purposely undermined the law of the land by adopting the anti-national policies of the United Nations. Through those policies, such as MC/PC and high immigration levels, they have alienated and have almost sacrificed their own peoples on the altar of inclusiveness and tolerance that has served a dual purpose, the division and alienation of their own people while forcing them to tolerate the most intolerable of imported people, the Muslims.

    It must also be recognized that within all Western countries the ‘election’ of government is really just a one horse race with two riders vying to screw the life’s blood out of the country the government represents while riding roughshod over those who put the government into office. Surely we can’t all be masochists!

    The bets are now being waged as to which Western country will be the first to legalize Sharia Law and declare itself as part of the Islamic Caliphate, and when one takes a look around from their daily grind that kind of thinking can appear to have some merit to it because there is an obvious plan behind what we are now experiencing – the agenda for One World Government or The New World Order. Personally, I believe we are not yet at that point where a mass awakening to the real agenda of One World Government is first, taken seriously and second, something is done to finally reject that agenda within each individual country. Even though the world elite are at this time seeming to panic over the refusal of Russia and China to be dragged kicking and screaming into their little scheme – and there has been an admission of such – hence the sanctions and propaganda and preparations for a third world war that is being paraded daily in the controlled Western media and is being laid squarely at Russia and China’s feet. For example; why won’t the US release satellite photo’s of the shooting down of flight MH17 and the sabre rattling between Japan and China and the American military build up around the Pacific?

    It is all leading to an inevitable conclusion, if we allow it!

  11. “Therefore, never apologize, never defend. Follow Patton’s advice: Attack. Attack. And be very personal.”

    We must always bear in mind that everyone has a so-called “skeleton in his or her closet”. We have to dig up the truth – the dirt if you will – on our enemies, one enemy at a time. Once it becomes apparent that members of the enemy forces are being taken apart one-by-one, the arrogance and smugness will give way to fear, which is what we want.

    As the greatest Samurai warrior, Miyamoto Musashi said:

    “When the enemy makes a quick attack, you must attack strongly and calmly, aim for his weak point as he draws near, and strongly defeat him.”

    “You must achieve the spirit of not allowing the enemy to attack a second time.”

    “You must do this. The chasing attack is with a strong spirit. You must utterly cut the enemy down so that he does not recover his position.”

    “Fix your eye on the enemy’s collapse, and chase him, attacking so that you do not let him recover. You must do this. The chasing attack is with a strong spirit. You must utterly cut the enemy down so that he does not recover his position. You must understand how to utterly cut down the enemy.”

    These quotes may seem irrelevant as the appear to refer to the sword. But as what we are dealing with is in fact a war, they may be taken in some sense metaphorically. The spirit/intent of the quotes is what counts.

  12. I should add that one Richard Rose – also known as “The Backwoods Buddha” – was known to have said:

    “Behind every bizarre state-of-mind lies a bizarre sex-act.”

    This takes a little consideration, but if true and if used effectively as a weapon (not merely as mindless slander), it could be extremely potent, as we all know.

    • Hmmm…food for thought. Or perhaps that’s the wrong metaphor.

      A good case could be made for your aphorism in the paternity of Obama and the sad consequences of his mother’s futile attempt to make his conception seem less goatish. To give him a mythic father instead of a pornographer friend of his grandfather’s…

      It’s not so much bizarre – how could the woman making that myth for her son have known he was going to freakin’ campaign for the office of President? But using the Kenyan was just a way for the family to cover over an even more unpleasant reality.

      At some point, bizarre turns to pathetic. I think we’ve arrived.

    • Just to be difficult: those shiny-paper receipts are coated with a noxious substance:

      And to be even more difficult, if you clean your hands with a wash containing triclosan (spelling?) you add insult to injury.

      To make it lethal, use those fingers to grab a few greasy french fries and kiss your fertility goodbye.

      Modern life is awash in peril…while you’re watching for Ebola, the small sins of civilization are out to get you.

      Had your flu vaccine yet?

  13. We are currently playing a huge game of chess, and you don’t win in chess by being meek and “gentlemanly”. Chessplayers now that in order to win you have to gain the initiative, attack, keep the pressure up, and don’t give your opponent any chance of counter-play when you are in the lead. Bu if you only keep responding to your opponents moves, if you are forced to defend, you will eventually loose. We must get on the offense soon, or It’s game over. When it comes to the elites, I’m pretty certain they will throw us all under the bus. They will ally with the Islamists, going against the people that elected them. We should make it clear to them that we will regard them as traitors, and really force them to choose sides.

    • The first step would be to publish names, organizational affiliations, roles in said organizations, etc. Let them know we know who they are. I call this the Mossad approach; make them a little nervous.

      The question is, where to publish such a list for maximum effect. I have seen lists such as this, but have a hard time remembering where…

    • Not sure about the chess analogy… White has the initiative, black is forced to respond to white’s moves until s/he has the initiative – which may not come until the end game. There is nothing wrong with defensive chess…

Comments are closed.