Is Islam a threat?
by Jose do Carmo
A few days ago, someone said to me that in his opinion, Islam is a religion like others, and he casually rejected the idea that it was a threat to the rich, strong, and civilized West.
Are there really no reasons to fear?
Well, beyond the very clear and explicit exhortations to violence and conquest, which can be read in the sacred texts of Islam, it is always history that shows us that since this religion emerged about 1,400 years ago, Muslims have consistently followed the Koranic command to make war on the infidels, on the House of War.
As a result, almost 75% of what was then called “Christendom” was definitively conquered by the House of Islam, including all of North Africa, Anatolia, Syria, etc.
Many European territories were under Muslim occupation, at times for centuries, from Portugal to Russia, passing through Spain, France, Italy, Ukraine, Lithuania, Serbia, Romania, etc. etc, only being liberated by force of arms.
More than 15 million Europeans were captured and enslaved in the name of jihad, in a process that lasted until the 19th century, reaching faraway Iceland. In fact, one of the first external wars waged by the USA (Jefferson and Adams) was precisely against the Muslim slavers, with Portugal as an ally.
All in all, for more than 1,000 years, Islam has been the principal and permanent threat to Western Civilization and has always been on the offensive when the relative potential of combat has been in its favor.
In the 20th century, Europe modernized itself and managed to neutralize jihad, but now seems to have forgotten everything about this old and constant threat.
For many Westerners, Islam is just a religion like others, and some, without knowing anything of history and the texts, even proclaim that it is “a religion of peace”.
No, it is not.
What history tells us is that it is the most formidable and persistent enemy that our civilization has faced up to today, and this has not changed just because circumstantially, we believe that we are on top.
The major problem, still, is not the forgetting of history, but its rewriting, so that it fits into new, politically correct narratives.
And this woke narrative, conveyed in the schools, in the media, and in the cinema, is that Muslims are part of the extensive group of historical victims of the West, that is, of the “heteropatriarchal whites” or by definition, the “oppressor”.
For example, the Crusades, effectively a military reaction to the Islamic conquest of the so-called Christian holy places, is described as a cruel and unjust attack on the poor Muslims, who were peacefully in their lands drinking tea and smoking water pipes. Moreover, the Muslim invasions are not even described as such, rather as innocuous “advances” by Arabs, Moors, Almoravids, Tatars, Mamluks, Ottomans, etc., deliberately hiding their true rational aggregate, jihad against the infidel.
But that is history, the appeasers will say. That time has passed. We have to look to the future and enter into a new era of mutual respect and tolerance, even if to do this, we have to gild history a bit.
The original version of following essay by the late Mike Vanderboegh was written before the turn of the millennium. Ten years later, when he wrote this revised version (posted at the old WRSA site), he noted that it had stood the test of time. Another thirteen years have passed since then, and as Spicy Time draws closer the relevance of his words is even greater.
A Handgun Against an Army — Ten Years After
by Mike Vanderboegh
July 29, 2008
Almost a decade ago now, I penned “A Letter From Hagood’s Crossroads, Alabama,” subtitled “What Good Can a Handgun Do Against an Army?”
Over the years it has proven to be the single most popular piece I have ever written. To this day, I get emails and snail mails from folks who have stumbled across it for the first time, thanking me for writing it. It is a humbling experience for a scribbler such as myself to realize that he has struck a chord in his audience — humbling and gratifying.
Still, I have always meant to rework “Handgun” to correct some of the minor errors and irritating flaws that always occur whenever you whip out a topical opinion piece, as I did this one. For example, one of the things that always bothered me was that I was forced to paraphrase Hopper explaining the facts of life to his marauding gang of ATF/biker/bandido grasshoppers in “A Bug’s Life.” In the re-issue below, I correct that. Indeed, thanks to technological advances in the intervening years, I am now able to give you the YouTube link so you can HEAR Hopper’s presentation of the dialectic of tyranny yourself with just a click of the mouse.
Another area requiring work was the wolf-sheep metaphor, which if I had just hewed to the wisdom of my grandpa imparted to me years ago would have more properly been (as I have corrected it below) a wolf-sheep-sheepdog metaphor. Don’t ask me why I did it that way the first time. I wrote it, as most of my pieces back then and since, at one sitting in the wee hours of the morning.
And equally importantly, without the steadying hand of a good editor. (Here, I tip my hat to my friend David Codrea.)
In truth, for something that has been so well received for so long, at the time I gave it no more thought or care than any of the other many things I wrote during the Era of the Clintonista-Militia Cold War. Yet it is “Handgun” that has, apparently, stood the test of time. I will explore why I think this is in the afterword to this reissue.
For now, let me present again, with slight updated revision, “What Good Can A Handgun Do Against an Army?,” with many thanks to my friends — Peter at Western Rifle Shooters Association and Chris at Mindful Musings — for the firm nudge prompting me to do so. — MBV
“What Good Can A Handgun Do Against an Army?”
A friend of mine forwarded me a question a friend of his had posed:
“If/when our Federal Government comes to pilfer, pillage, plunder our property and destroy our lives, what good can a handgun do against an army with advanced weaponry, tanks, missiles, planes, or whatever else they might have at their disposal to achieve their nefarious goals? (I’m not being facetious: I accept the possibility that what happened in Germany, or similar, could happen here; I’m just not sure that the potential good from an armed citizenry in such a situation outweighs the day-to-day problems caused by masses of idiots who own guns.)”
If I may, I’d like to try to answer that question. I certainly do not think the writer facetious for asking it. The subject is a serious one to which I have given much research and considerable thought. I believe that upon the answer to this question depends the future of our Constitutional republic, our liberty and perhaps our lives.
My friend Aaron Zelman, one of the founders of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, told me once:
“If every Jewish and anti-nazi family in Germany had owned a Mauser rifle and twenty rounds of ammunition AND THE WILL TO USE IT (emphasis supplied — MBV), Adolf Hitler would be a little-known footnote to the history of the Weimar Republic.”
Note well that phrase: “and the will to use it,” for the simply-stated question, “What good can a handgun do against an army?” is in fact a complex one and must be answered at length and carefully.
It is a military question.
It is also a political question.
But above all it is a moral question which strikes to the heart of what makes men free, and what makes them slaves.
First, let’s answer the military question.
Most military questions have both a strategic and a tactical component. Let’s first consider the tactical.
A friend of mine owns an instructive piece of history. It is a small, crude pistol [see the image at the top of this post], made out of sheet-metal stampings by the U.S. during World War II. While it fits in the palm of your hand and is a slowly-operated, single-shot arm, its powerful .45 caliber projectile will kill a man with brutal efficiency. With a short, smooth-bore barrel it can reliably kill only at point blank ranges, so its use requires the will (brave or foolhardy) to get in close before firing. It is less a soldier’s weapon than an assassin’s tool. The U.S. manufactured them by the millions during the war, not for our own forces but rather to be air-dropped behind German lines to resistance units in occupied Europe and Asia. They cost exactly two dollars and ten cents to make.
Crude and slow (the fired case had to be knocked out of the breech by means of a little wooden dowel, a fresh round procured from the storage area in the grip and then manually reloaded and cocked. It was so wildly inaccurate it couldn’t hit the broad side of a French barn at 50 meters, but to the Resistance man or woman who had no firearm it still looked pretty darn good.
The theory and practice of it was this: First, you approach a German sentry with your little pistol hidden in your coat pocket and, with Academy-award sincerity, ask him for a light for your cigarette (or the time the train leaves for Paris, or if he wants to buy some non-army-issue food or a half-hour with your “sister”). When he smiles and casts a nervous glance down the street to see where his Sergeant is, you blow his brains out with your first and only shot, then take his rifle and ammunition. Your next few minutes are occupied with “getting out of Dodge,” for such critters generally go around in packs. After that (assuming you evade your late benefactor’s friends) you keep the rifle and hand your little pistol to a fellow Resistance fighter so he can go get his own rifle.
Or, maybe, you then use your rifle to get a submachine gun from the Sergeant when he comes running. Perhaps you get very lucky and pick up a light machine gun, two boxes of ammunition and a haversack of hand grenades. With two of the grenades and the expenditure of a half-a-box of ammunition at a hasty roadblock the next night, you and your friends get a truck full of arms and ammunition. (Some of the cargo is sticky with “Boche” blood, but you don’t mind, not terribly.)
The situation in Austria is devolving to full totalitarian at an astonishing rate. First the authorities ordered a full lockdown of all “unvaccinated” citizens. Shortly afterwards they announced that mandatory vaccination (backed by threats of fines and/or imprisonment) would be imposed as of February 1, 2022.
To add insult to injury, by law Austrians are forbidden to compare the current political situation to the Nazi dictatorship, because that would “trivialize National Socialism”.
Citizens of Austria have no choice: they must experience the same thing all over again.
Below are three articles about the current situation in Austria, all translated by Hellequin GB. The first article, from the Austrian news portal Report24, concerns protests by health care workers:
Austria’s health workers against compulsory vaccination: We are laying down our tools!
Thousands of employees in the Austrian health system have already networked and jointly wrote an open letter to Health Minister [Wolfgang] Mückstein, in which they urgently warn that they will not endorse the government’s harassment against unvaccinated people. The decision for or against the Covid vaccination is of a personal nature and must remain so. The authors call for a change of course — if this does not happen, be prepared to stop work and strike collectively: “We are many and we will make our voices heard!”
Consistent resistance pays off: In Quebec, Canada, the compulsory vaccination for health workers has already been withdrawn. Worldwide there are increasing warnings from trade unions that the installation of a compulsory vaccination will lead to collapse not only in health care, but also in other essential areas such as the emergency services. The employees have the longer lever — because ultimately the security and supply of the population depend on them. Austrian health workers are sending an overly clear warning signal to politicians with their open letter. The MFG [Upper Austrian party Menschen Freiheit Grundrechte, People — Freedom — Fundamental Rights] also sent it as an attachment to its own letter to Health Minister Mückstein — you can read it here: ‘MFG clarifies in a letter to Mückstein: Compulsory vaccination is unconstitutional!’
It really looks like this!
We healthcare workers turn to you in complete disbelief in view of the latest measures you decided to take. As employees of a social area, which the health system now represents, we feel obliged to draw attention to human grievances.
We healthcare workers have been working hard and inhuman hours for some time. Many of us are already at our psychological and physical limits. It is we who have been compensating for all the shortcomings that the personnel situation has had for a long time, and who are constantly doing service beyond our extent of employment. This is a condition that was already prevalent before the Covid pandemic and has only increased in intensity as a result.
Discrimination and bullying from the highest levels
As a thank you for this, you are now promoting a split in society as a whole, which has also found its way into the health sector. A split that leads to employees who have carried out their work for years with passion and the greatest dedication are now degraded to second-class employees. You are now publicly discrediting a large part of a professional group that was recently applauded. We are deeply ashamed to watch the way discrimination and bullying find the tolerance of the highest authorities and are ultimately even fueled by them. We strictly refuse to participate in discrimination against groups of people who think differently just because it takes place under the guise of solidarity.
The way out of the split can never be to put one opinion over the other. Only mutual acceptance can represent our solution for a peaceful coexistence. Social diversity should also be your goal, because only from this emerge the values which our society should actually stand up for. The decision for or against a vaccination is and must remain the personal decision of each individual. Forcing this decision indirectly or directly lacks any sense of empathic and democratic behavior.
If vaccination is compulsory: strike!
We represent values that do not coincide with such compulsion and should have no place in a society like ours, values that you are currently trampling on. We follow our understanding of a united society in which there is neither discrimination against individual groups of people nor bullying, and we strongly defend ourselves against the mandatory vaccination imposed by them and all other measures that aim to create an indirect mandatory vaccination, be it in the health care system or elsewhere in our society.
We have found countless like-minded people in our professional area, or to put it more clearly, we have networked. So now we know: WE ARE MANY and we will make ourselves heard. All of us are also ready to resign from our duties and to go on strike in order to give our demands emphasis, because we feel compelled to put an end to these inhumane conditions which, among other things, have been taking over our workplaces for some time. Many of us will turn our backs on this profession rather than bow to your instructions. How is it possible that something like this can be provoked in an area in which chronic staff shortages have been known for years?
We stand up against the discrimination against us as employees in the health care system, but also against the patients entrusted to us and against society as a whole.
We say NO and demand an end to the harassment
We (8659) health care workers from Austria
The second article from Krone discusses a proposed special tax to be paid by unvaccinated citizens, modeled on the tobacco tax:
We are approaching Endgame after more than a hundred years of the Culture Wars. In the essay below MC picks his way through the grotesque highlights of what is currently underway.
Most modern medicine assumes that God does not exist, and that mankind (‘experts’) must therefore control medical ethics in order to ensure that doctors and others with an interest in medicine do not sacrifice their ethical integrity in order to either maximize their wealth from an exceedingly profitable industry, nor pursue greater knowledge at the expense of the health of their patients.
In 1947, following cruel and murderous experimentation by seemingly normal doctors on inmates of concentration camps in Nazi Germany, international law was laid down concerning human experimentation, coercion and informed consent.
These laws are now being violated on a daily basis by politicians, doctors, nurses and health administrators who advocate and enforce the COVID-19 vaccine. This is not new; it is an old, old story. We are back to bleeding, scoring and purging, leeches and mercury; the medicine of barbers and barbarity.
The Covid vaccine is experimental, and under the Nuremburg and Helsinki LAWS, it cannot be mandated. YOU cannot be forced to violate your bodily integrity — even if granny is in danger.
But granny is not in danger, at least in any statistical sense any more than she usually is, and if she were to take the correct prophylactic treatment to raise her zinc and vitamin D levels then her chances of surviving a CV19 attack are much improved. Unfortunately, it seems, the Powers That Be in medicine and politics want her dead, so they are withholding the real science and the real medicine from her. Granny dead from Covid is a bounty that can be collected…
The ‘science’ as dictated by the government/Big Pharma alliance is to leave CV19 granny alone until her lips turn blue, then put her on a killer ventilator until she dies. For this, a hospital gets a substantial government grant. She is a useless eater — Aktion T4 for her. Do we inject her with phenol, gas her, or put a plastic bag over her head? No, we withhold crucial and effective treatment and inject her with an experimental gene therapy — and this is ethically acceptable?
We are so, so ignorant, we don’t realize that although all the names have changed, the methods have not.
On the whole, the billionaires who are financing this modern Holodomor are stupid frightened individuals who believe in a humanist-based cult whereby:
- There are too many people on the planet.
- The planet is being poisoned by too much ‘carbon’
- That the ultra-rich are entitled to rule over all other groups and use all available resources.
- That Islam, by its ultra-controlling influence, can be used to divide and rule dangerous ‘Christian’ populations.
- That fossil fuels can be replaced by ‘batteries’ (where does the electricity come from to charge the batteries?).
- That solar and wind power can provide enough energy for the remnant population to survive.
- That putting God at the centre of the Constitution in 1776-1784 had no effect on the subsequent rise of the American Dream; it was purely a coincidence.
- And that removing God from society is therefore no problem and will not turn the dream into a nightmare.
It is difficult for us to understand the role of God in society, for without God, societies are basically two-tier master/slave societies where the masters work hard to keep the peons in abject slavery.
In the historical British feudal system, the serfs were largely village idiots, kept in a state of abject poverty and malnutrition. The role of the then-Church was to perpetuate the system by removing any intelligent children at an early age into the cloisters for special indoctrination. Wise lords of the manor also took bright children into their service, thus removing leaders from the peasant body.
Britain at the time did not have a skin colour problem; everybody was white. Even in my childhood 1950s England was overwhelmingly white, I had seen non-white people because I had travelled to Singapore as a very young ‘britbrat’ (child of armed forces personnel), but to others in my class at school, they were an abstract from the pages of National Geographic and Hollywood.
A reader came across this 1938 speech in which key terms have been modified to reflect current events:
From Das Schwarze Korps [SS Newspaper], 24 November 1938
“So, we are now going to have a total solution to the Covid-19 question. The programme is clear. It reads: total separation, total segregation! What does this mean? It does not only mean the total exclusion of the Unvaccinated from the economic system… It means much more! No Vaccinated person can be expected to live under the same roof as The Unvaccinated. The Unvaccinated must be chased out of our houses and our residential districts and made to live in rows or blocks of houses where they can keep to themselves and come into contact with The Vaccinated as little as possible. They must be clearly identified.”
(Benno Müller-Hill, Murderous Science, New York: CSHL Press, 1998, p.48)
Today is the fifty-eighth anniversary of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. I don’t expect much attention to be paid to the occasion; the fiftieth in 2013 was probably the last big fling of the Camelot industry. With the Boomers currently wheezing their way under the sod, the date is passing out of popular recollection and into history.
The image at the top of this post shows the cover of the album “Single Bullet Theory”, by a band of the same name. It’s actually an EP — containing only four songs — rather than a full LP. The cover was too big to put in my scanner, so I had to take a photo of it.
SBT was relatively local to me, in the Richmond area. One member was a friend of a friend, so I actually knew the band a little bit. I heard them play once or twice in the late 1970s.
The image on the album cover was created when irony was just becoming ascendant, so in 1978 it was about as cool and hip as it could get. And at the time it appeared, it would have been instantly recognizable to virtually any American adult.
The original photo — one frame of the 8mm Zapruder film taken in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963 — was iconic. Everyone had seen it. Fifteen years after the assassination, the context of that photo was still totally familiar. It even made its way into an Elvis Costello song from the same period, “Less Than Zero” (especially the “Dallas version”). Everyone knew what the singer meant when he said, “…her husband rides a bumper in the president’s procession” and “calling Mr. Oswald” and “…if you were taking home movies, there’s a chance you might have seen him.”
But forty-five more years have passed since then. How well-known is all that Dallas iconography now? I don’t immerse myself much in popular culture these days, but I suspect the events of 11/22/63 are not as generally familiar as they were two generations ago.
Any kid who was old enough to pay attention to public affairs — say, ten or older — experienced November 22, 1963 as a watershed moment, dividing the continuum into Before and After what happened in Dallas that day.
I was just starting junior high school at the time. Since I was born after World War Two and was too young to remember the Korean War, I had experienced nothing similar in my lifetime. And I experienced nothing like it afterwards until 9-11 came along thirty-eight years later. I was seasoned and jaded by then, however, so it didn’t make as much of an impact, but it was a similar cultural moment.
As far as I could tell, adults were similarly affected by the assassination. I was in band practice that day when the news came in, and I remember the stricken face of our band teacher as he relayed the news to his students.
That was late on a Friday afternoon. The shock and horror on TV continued throughout the weekend, augmented by the murder of Lee Harvey Oswald on Sunday, which meant that the principal suspect would never face a public trial. The solemn, elaborate funeral for JFK took place on Monday, and we watched it live on TV. Kids got out of school for the occasion, if I remember correctly.
In retrospect the Kennedy assassination seems to mark the end of one era — which might be called the Post-WW2 Period — and the beginning of another one, for which a succinct name does not come readily to mind. The attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan in 1981 did not have the same effect, partly because he survived the attempt, and partly because times had changed by then. The next divide might have been 9-11, but that’s still too recent for me to decide.
The following essay by Michael Copeland was originally published in September 2014 at LibertyGB (as “BBC Draws A Veil Over Islamic State”), then edited in 2021.
BBC Misinformation: Islamic State
by Michael Copeland
“What does Islamic State want? They want to enforce their view of conservative Islamic traditions.” — BBC
This appallingly inadequate statement is on the BBC’s 6o-second video. It is, in fact, the only statement in it that actually answers their own question.
No, BBC, Islamic State apply Islamic law, Sharia, by force. They not only “want to” but are already doing so. To refer to Sharia as “their view of conservative Islamic traditions” is shameful, dishonest, and inadequate. No author is shown.
The BBC is being careful to draw the spotlight away from Islam itself. To throw the reader off the scent they are nourishing the propaganda line that Islamic State is not Islamic, that they are pursuing “their idea” which, we are left to suppose, is somehow mistaken. Notice that the text skillfully does not actually say so, but leaves that conclusion to be formed by the reader. There is no mention of law or religion: oh no, only of “conservative traditions”. This is an old chestnut, and a tired and worn one at that. Remember the British detective helpfully assuring the public that a murder (a Muslim honour-killing) was nothing to do with Islam (which it is), but was a product of conservative cultural practices of rural Pakistan? How touching that an English policeman be so expert on tribal practices of rural South Asia! So sensitive!
No: Islamic State is applying Islam. The leader has a Ph.D. in Islamic Studies, unlike Mr. Cameron, so is well-informed. He has proclaimed himself Caliph, in the same way as earlier Caliphs did. As Abu Imran (Fouad Belkacem) of Sharia4Belgium has helpfully explained, “Islam is Sharia, and Sharia is Islam.” The Caliph is enforcing Sharia, “the path of Allah.”
Sharia is as defined in the Manual of Islamic Law, drawn from the Koran and the “reliable” traditions, “Hadith”, concerning the life and sayings of Mohammed. Together these all form Islamic Law. The Koran can be consulted online and the Manual, “Reliance of the Traveller”, is available as a download.
A second piece by the BBC, “What is Islamic State?” (again, no author shown), is rather more helpful.
Author’s note: since the LibertyGB article appeared the BBC has silently changed the text of this second article. What follows relates to the original text, no longer shown.
Once again, though, it quickly steers the reader away from Islam by dictating, with no explanation, that Islamic State is “a radical Islamist group”. We can note that Islamic State does not call itself “Radical Islamist State”: no, the BBC does that for them.
“The group aims to establish a “caliphate”“. No, it has already declared one. Now for another chestnut: “the group implements a strict interpretation of Sharia”. No: there is not a non-strict or benign interpretation of “Kill”. “Kill” means kill. What the BBC means is a strict application of Sharia, “forcing women to wear veils, non-Muslims to pay a special tax or convert, and imposing punishments that include floggings and executions.” The law is there: it is just that not all Muslim societies apply it to the letter. Yet another old chestnut is rolled out: “IS members are jihadists who adhere to an extreme interpretation of Sunni Islam”. What, BBC, is the non-extreme “interpretation” of “Kill”? That is right. There is not one. This is just a device to draw attention away from Islam.
There is nothing new under the sun, and what is happening now in Europe and throughout the West has been seen before within living memory.
The following account by a 91-year-old German woman discusses the parallels between the current situation in Germany and what happened under the Third Reich and the DDR (Deutsche Demokratische Republik, German Democratic Republic).
Many thanks to Hellequin GB for translating this op-ed from Epoch Times:
Guest Comment — Contemporary Witnesses
Is the third dictatorship coming?
By Marianne von Rosen November 16, 2021
Marianne is 91 years old. What she’s currently experiencing reminds her of times gone by. She wrote this story down herself.
I, Marianne, am the senior citizen of the family, born in 1930, 91 years old. What I am currently experiencing reminds me strongly of the times that I have already experienced twice.
I was born near Stralsund, Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania. My grandmother was Jewish, so I was one quarter Jewish. My mother was half-Jewish, but red-blonde. You couldn’t look more German. I was also sun-blond, with long hair and a braid that was up to 1 meter long. We lived in a village with three liquor factories because the water there was particularly good. My father was employed by the Raiffeisenbank in Stralsund.
From 1933 on, our life gradually changed. My father lost his job at the bank because he did not want to part with his half-Jewish wife. He was allowed to work in one of the liquor factories that belonged to a relative. Many children were suddenly no longer allowed to play with me. If I played with our pastors’ daughters and the children of one of the schnapps manufacturers came there too, then I had to go home because the parents of these children refused to have contact with non-Aryan children.
At school, my older sister and I got worse grades because we were non-Aryan. We weren’t allowed to join the BdM, the Association of German Girls, so we weren’t given a uniform or a scarf with a knot. Later, when we went to the Girls’ Lyzeum in Stralsund, we were no longer allowed to sit with Aryan children on the train to Stralsund. We needed our own 2nd class compartment, which of course had to be paid for by my parents.
We were not allowed to take part in many excursions. One story is particularly schizophrenic. Grand Admiral Dönitz, chief of the German Navy, visited the Stralsund naval base. In an open car, like Adolf Hitler, he drove through the city, the streets lined with cheering spectators and a large contingent of the Hitler Youth in their uniforms. On the main street I, the non-Aryan girl, was allowed to give him an eel. Because I wasn’t afraid to say anything and I looked so Germanic with my blonde hair and long braid like no other girl at school. In addition, I was given the appropriate BdM clothing (white blouse, black skirt, brown jacket with insignia, black scarf with knot).
After handing over the eel, I had to turn in the BdM insignia, scarf, knot and jacket. In the evening a reception was given in the theater in honor of Dönitz. There I was needed again as a particularly Germanic-looking girl. I received the complete BdM clothing again, stepped on the stage, said: “Heil Hitler” and announced with “German greetings”: “The Stralsund young girls choir is now singing …”. There were a total of three songs that I announced. After the event, all of my [BdM] clothes were removed from me because they were reserved for the Aryan girls.
The Gestapo carried out raids on our home several times. But my father received a discreet tip in advance so that the family was never home during the raids. I even went to Görlitz twice at the age of 13/14 with my 7-year-old brother from Stralsund because our paternal grandmother lived there. The other grandmother died of cancer at the age of 32.
I particularly remember Christmas 1944. My mother tearfully asked my father to shoot her so that all the terror could finally come to an end. That was when I saw my father cry for the first time. The next day he was picked up by the Gestapo. It was a really “heartbreaking” moment. Later my father also had to go to a concentration camp because he did not want to get a divorce. So we lived with great worries and were relieved when the war ended and the Russians moved in.
The two articles below about the BBC were published successively in 2013 by Michael Copeland.
BBC Fog-Making: Soldier Murder in Afghanistan
by Michael Copeland
This article was originally published at Liberty GB, 4 April 2013.
Colonel Lapan, spokesman for the US Joint Chiefs of Staff commented, “we don’t know what’s causing them [insider killings], and we’re looking at everything.” (FrontPage Mag)
In Afghanistan earlier this year (2013) there was yet another dreadful soldier murder and multiple wounding by an Afghan trainee. The BBC, in a shameful piece, “What lies behind Afghanistan’s insider attacks?”, blames a “rogue soldier”. Yet a soldier obeying instructions in his manual is no “rogue”.
Read the Koran, BBC, instead of having an unnamed author refer to unidentified “many analysts” and tipping a barrow load of red herrings such as this:
“But perhaps worryingly for Nato the motivation for many of the assaults cannot be pinned down so precisely. Many analysts believe they are rooted in underlying, even subconscious, resentments that are prone to flare up and with deadly consequences.”
This is fog-making, reprehensible and damaging. Completely contrary to what the author claims, the motivations can be pinned down precisely: they are in the manual revered by every dutiful Soldier of Allah, namely the Koran, the book of fighting the unbeliever. Everywhere that is not Dar al Islam, ‘The House of Islam’, is Dar al Harb, ‘The House of War’ (What the West Needs to Know). Non-Muslims are “the worst of creatures” (Koran 98:6), “the vilest of beasts” (8:22, 8:55). “Allah is the enemy of the unbelievers” (2:98), so therefore must all Muslims be also: “The disbelievers are ever to you a clear enemy” (4:101). NATO, treated as an ‘occupier’, is doubly an enemy.
When a Soldier of Allah murders an infidel ‘occupier’ he is obeying the instructions in his war manual. Some 64% of the Koran concerns non-Muslims, the kafirs, and how to fight them. Islam is political: it concerns land, and involves fighting. It aims for “Mastership of the World”, as the Muslim Brotherhood leader Muhammad Badi proclaimed in 2011.
“The mosques are our barracks,” recited Recep Tayyip Erdogan, before he was Prime Minister of Turkey, “the domes our helmets, the minarets our spears, and the faithful our soldiers.” It was to the BBC that Anjem Choudary explained: “Nothing else is mentioned more than the topic of fighting in the Koran.”
Don’t the BBC listen? Can’t they read? Do they think they know better? Or are they negligently and recklessly allowing the anonymous author to supply them with fog? Thus do they directly imperil our soldiers’ lives. Shame on you, BBC. Will you name your author? Who are the “many analysts”? Cite them. Show us where we can read their analyses.
The Koran cannot be brushed aside: it forms part of Islamic Law. To deny any verse in it calls for the death penalty (Manual of Islamic Law o8.7 (7)). Its content is billed as “true from eternity to eternity” (Sam Solomon, former professor of Shariah Law). Here are just a few of the many, many fighting instructions:
- Kill the polytheists wherever you find them. 9:5
- Fight those who do not believe in Allah. 9:29
- Slay them wherever you find them. 4:89
- Fight the idolaters utterly. 9:36
- And that Allah may … exterminate the infidel. 3:141
Remember that when a soldier of Allah has killed infidels it was not he that did the killing: “You killed them not, but Allah killed them.” (8:17) There are instructions about relationships with non-Muslims, the kuffar (a word cognate with ‘dirt’), who are “unclean” (9:28), “the most despicable” (98:6):
- Do not take the Jews and Christians as allies. 5:51
- Muslims are merciful to one another, but ruthless to the unbeliever. 48:29
Osama bin Laden wrote: “Battle, animosity and hatred — directed from the Muslim to the infidel — is the foundation of our religion.”
The doctrine of “Permissible Lying” (Manual, r8.2) authorises the Muslim to maintain piously a false appearance of friendship. The revered collector of traditions, Sahih Al-Bukhari, recorded that Mohammed’s companion Abu Ad-Darda’ said, “We smile in the face of some people although our hearts curse them.” Mohammed himself said, “War is deceit” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, 269). So, too, with agreements: Mohammed is quoted in the Hadith, the traditions, saying, “If I take an oath and later find something else better, I do what is better and break my oath” (see Sahih Bukhari 7.67.427). Agreements with infidels are not binding. An Afghan who appears friendly but who turns his gun on NATO personnel is no “rogue”: he is doing EXACTLY what it says in his book. This is why there should not be any joint patrols, or armed Afghans within NATO bases.
Killing infidels in a situation where the killer himself may well be killed may seem puzzling to a Western mind, but this is a main component of the motivation:
“Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain” (Koran 9:111).
This is the justification for the ‘martyrdom’ (suicide) bombing. The ordinary Muslim can never be sure whether his good deeds will sufficiently outweigh his bad deeds so that he will not be consigned to Hell in the afterlife. In contrast, those who “slay and are slain” are guaranteed immediate entry to Paradise with seventy-two beautiful dark-eyed girls each, perpetually virginal, and boys like pearls, where there will be wine and sumptuous fruits. In Islam’s teachings the martyr achieves his wedding in heaven. The Muslim loves death as the Westerners love life, Osama bin Laden explained.
These matters of Islamic doctrine are what are taught in the mosques. They are not surprise news to Muslims. They can be found without difficulty on the internet. These are what the BBC’s anonymous author refers to as “the complex web of factors that lead Afghan soldiers to turn their guns on their allies.”
Evidently they are not too complex for an Afghan tribesman. Shame on you, BBC.
by Michael Copeland
This article was originally published at Liberty GB, 28 October, 2013
In the following video an Italian woman gains entrance to a historic building by showing a vintage Ahnenpass in lieu of a “green pass”. According to Wikipedia:
The Ahnenpaß (literally, “ancestor pass”) documented the Aryan lineage of people “of German blood” in Nazi Germany.
What’s remarkable is the ease with which the functionary charged with checking people’s papers is convinced to accept the Ahnenpass as an authentic German alternative to the green pass.
Quiz III: Fourteen Clues
Compiled by Michael Copeland
We have actually allowed a Trojan horse to settle everywhere in our neighbourhoods, which wants to undermine our way of life.
— Nadine Romano, French MEP.
[Its] pattern is this: intimidate, humiliate and expropriate until you can annihilate.
— mortimer, comment
a savage subhuman criminal warlord death cult of oppression, murder and mayhem.
— Dan S., comment
a corruptor of good morals, a superstitious paradigm that promotes violence and bigotry as divine truth
— Agostino Armo Pellegrini, comment Dec 15, 2019 at 9:38 am
….inherently hostile—a costly lesson that countless innocents have been paying for nearly 1,400 years.
— Raymond Ibrahim
a primitive death cult used to control large populations, illegally accumulate wealth, excuse bad behavior and justify perversions.
— Cheechakos, comment
achieved nothing in 1,400 years, except murdering and enslavement
— Spartacus, comment
Martin Wagener is a German political scientist. In the following interview Dr. Wagener discusses the deconstruction of the German people, as implemented by the current leadership of the country.
Many thanks to Hellequin GB for translating this article from Junge Freiheit:
“Not all are the German people”
Professor Wagener, we are in a “culture war for the people”, according to the thesis of your book. In what way?
Martin Wagener: At the time of reunification it was still clear what was meant by “people”: The term referred to the members of the German cultural nation. Today, however, politics and the media are trying to redefine its content.
Wagener: For example, by Chancellor Angela Merkel, who said during the 2017 election campaign: “The people are everyone who lives in this country.” Of course, that is nonsense, as foreigners cannot categorically belong to that group. In the Kulturkampf (Culture War) there is a struggle for the sovereignty to interpret what constitutes a people. The dominant forces in politics and the media agree: a specific German people no longer exists beyond citizenship. I challenge that: there is a German people in the cultural sense as a subset of the people of the German state.
Officially, there is always talk of “modernization” or a “more diverse society”. But is there actually much more to these terms?
Wagener: The government and the leading media want to rhetorically anticipate the desired model of society, in the hope that at some point there will be no more inquiries. Incidentally, if the Federal Republic of Germany becomes more and more culturally heterogeneous, that is a step backwards. Inner peace in Germany has been created over centuries through processes of balance between religions, social, economic and political groups. It took a very long time for those norms that the Basic Law reflects to gain majority support. This consensus is being called into question by immigration from Islamic and other non-cultural areas. The more “colorful” [bunte] we become, the more inter-ethnic and inter-religious conflicts there will be in the long term.
“The term ‘German people’ is associated with ‘right’”
Who are the actors in this dispute?
Wagener: There is fundamental dissent in society about who we are and what this means for Germany in the long term. The Union (CDU/CSU), FDP, SPD, Greens, the Left and the leading media advocate the multicultural nation of will in different ways. Only the AfD contradicts this in the Bundestag. In addition, there are some dissidents from other parties who used to campaign for the dominant German culture.
What strategy is used to conduct the Kulturkampf?
Wagener:The political forces on the Left have achieved a great feat over the decades. Frames were established through continuous repetition, through which terms such as “German people”, “German nation” or “Vaterland” are automatically associated with “right” by many. At the same time, in politics and the media, “right”, which actually expresses “conservative”, is almost consistently used as a synonym for “right-wing extremist”, i.e. anti-constitutional. This is how a mighty sword came into being. Anyone who, against the background of their own identity, believes that not everyone in the Federal Republic belongs to the culturally understood German people will be branded as a potential right-wing extremist. This strategy is successful: in 1996, 16 percent of those questioned said in a survey that fatherland and patriotism were sensitive topics of conversation.
Below is a meditation by Seneca III on the degraded state of our cultural and political affairs as we approach the dénouement of the current Culture Wars.
The Emptiness of Silence
by Seneca III
There are people who have well-founded beliefs based on observation, analysis and rational thinking but which somehow differ from some or all aspects of the received wisdom delivered by those who control political and public thought and information and who drive forward the current destructive dialectic. These free thinkers are now being compelled to remain silent and denied any expression of their opinions.
Self-censorship has become their order of the day, and frustration rules their quiet hours whilst the apostles of Cancel Culture obscenely revel in their forthcoming victory.
For reasons of social survival or, even worse, for fear of tyrannical administrative and/or criminal punishment, concerned people speak not, whilst within them a quiet anger festers. They understand that what cannot be said is not heard, and hence their lonely mental existence generates a rising animosity.
Some do speak out bravely, sometimes at great personal cost, but they are far too few to have any effect on the downward slide. Unfortunately many of them also appear to have personal agendas resembling those of the current ruling classes.
The potential gorillas in the room (and potential guerillas, for that matter) are those who have nothing more left to lose or who see that reality on their near horizon. They are the ones who will struggle to feed themselves and their families or keep warm in the coming winters of hardship whilst defending themselves from the financial and physical depredations of imported predators and their feral offspring.
They are the ones who know they will never be able to afford an electric car nor the electricity to charge it; they are the ones who know that in the schools their children are not being taught to think but are being indoctrinated instead and fed a diet of disinformation, porn and deviant biological drivel.
They just might be able to save the day if there are enough of them who understand that they are but the discarded indigenous people now scrabbling for a precarious existence on the sidelines as a glorious ‘diverse’ utopia is forced upon us.
The inimical doctrine of Political Correctness, the principal tool of the silencers, brings with it Thought Police, Hate Crime and, yes, even Covid Marshalls, masks and lockdowns. The laws and rules appended thereto apply of course only to us peasants, not to our Lords and Masters. There can be little doubt that a return to feudalism looms ever closer, and this time it will be unassailably enforced by technology instead of by random swords.
The moral and intellectual destitutes occupying the top ranks of politics, the civil service, the corporate and the academic institutions across the Western Ecumene are the new revolutionaries. They are aiding and abetting this descent into a purgatory that they think will not be their lot — but it will; all revolutions end up devouring their own children.