Destroying your civilization by dumbing it down

 

Destroy your civilization by dumbing it down

Aug 2012

by Brett Stevens.

Our modern social systems all begin with democracy, and democracy has a fundamental problem: it is based on popularity with humans, and not reality.
Where an individual leader can become deluded some of the time, a group can be deluded nearly all of the time, simply because as social creatures we want to believe what our friends want to be true is true.
With enough people together, as in a committee, a socially coercive force emerges called politics. Will my friends still like me if I vote this way, or that way? Will I stand out enough to attract friends, mates and business partners if I vote for the same stuff others do?
Even more, popularity rules us through what people purchase. If you want an A+ grade product, and 51% of the market is satisfied by a C+ grade product, the C+ grade is what will be the norm and the A+, if it exists, will be a luxury and cost proportionately more.
In addition to this basic conceit, there are at least two major problems with popularity-based systems:

1. Recognition. The voters/buyers only approve of what they recognize, and they only recognize what they already understand. Anything beyond the capacity of the majority might as well exist on another planet, because it’s moonman speak to them.
2. False assessment. In order to make a hierarchy of ability that is recognized by the crowd, such societies rely on tests and measurements that generally assess your ability to take the test, not to do the job itself.

The result is a massive dumbing-down where the realistic range of necessary possibilities is reduced to a simplistic, one-dimensional surrogate because that is palatable to voters/buyers.
Most governments now achieve this through public schooling. They reason that school should address the needs of a mythical “average” student, and create a lowest common denominator out of that and force everyone to conform to that low standard.
The result is walking zombies who throw around words like logical, science, rational, clearly, etc. and random scientific facts as if these were in themselves arguments.
On the surface, their goal is to educate and enlighten, but underneath the surface the method is much clearer: eliminate anything above the level that the voters/buyers are comfortable with.
Such a society can fool itself but no one else. While it reduces its own standards, and produces its new elites, these elites aren’t actually elites. They’re just socially elite.
As always in the barnyard, the herd takes a vote, declares itself to be reality, and uses that new “official” designation to do whatever it wanted to in the first place, creating a disaster that takes a long time to detonate.
They always blame someone else. In the beginning, they blame the most visible enemy; in the end, they blame paranoid conspiracies. It is by this method that great empires pass into irrelevance.

‘Islamist terrorism is the biggest threat in Europe’

FROM RUSSIA TODAY 

Islamist terrorism and the radicalization of young Muslims has taken center stage in Europe. With schools, universities and even sport clubs becoming hotbeds of Islamism, experts argue that some European countries have willingly allowed it.

Claude Monique, an expert on counterterrorism and extremism and the director of the European Strategic Intelligence and Security Center, told RT that while European intelligence was engaged in battling a bigger threat – communism and the former Soviet Union – it ignored what has become a defining threat of the modern age. 

RT: Terrorism in Europe: We’ve seen acts of terror from Breivik in Norway to Mohamed Merah in Toulouse, and we have also seen riots based on ideology. Based on what you’ve seen so far, where is the biggest threat coming from?

Claude Moniquet: I think that we have three different threats today in Europe. The biggest one clearly is still Islamist terrorism. Why it is the biggest? Because we have a large number, thousands of people involved – not in special interest actions but in extremist actions, and are able to become terrorists in the future. We don't have thousands of such people on the right wing, for instance. 

So we have thousands of people who have a very clear political and religious agenda. We have a radicalization process which is ongoing for years now, so I think clearly, Islamist terrorism is the biggest threat in Europe. 

After this, we have two different threats. The first one is right-wing terrorism like Breivik, but if we accept the Breivik case, we didn't have real large-scale act of terrorism from the right wing for 20 years. 

And the last threat would be the left-wing terrorism. Which for the moment doesn't exist in Europe, but it existed 20 years ago – we have clear signs that in Italy, in Greece, we have some anarcho-Marxist groups at work, but very small and on a very low scale 

RT: Different though their ideologies may be, these three groups are extremes. You mentioned the radicalization process, and how difficult it is to intercept. Where is the radicalization process actually happening? Are we talking about schools, universities, mosques, prisons? How do we identify it?

CM: Radicalization is going on through different channels. First of all, it is going on in areas, in the cities, in municipalities, in the sports facilities, in the gym clubs, in the football clubs, of course in schools. 

So that is the base. After this you have different ways or different places, like prison of course, and universities. 

Most of the radicalization is done at a young age and it's done in the streets, it's done in the municipalities, in some schools. When people come to university for instance, those who are radicalized are already radicalized, and the others will probably not be radicalized. It's a minority, we must understand that clearly, radicalization could be a concern of maybe ten to 15 percent of the young Muslims in Europe. 

RT: In terms of the demographic grouping, is there a specific group in a society that is more susceptible to such radicalization?

CM: It's difficult to say, because we would probably think that a poor young boy who feels excluded is more likely to be radicalized, because it's common sense. But we have also people who have university degrees. We have people who are fully integrated.

If you take for instance the perpetrators of the July 2005 terrorist attack in London, they were fully integrated. One of them was the son of a shop owner, he was working in education, he had a job, he was apparently fully integrated. And he was radicalized. 

And if you are in a personal crisis, this crisis being social, being cultural, being familial – a family crisis, a crisis with your girlfriend – you are weak, and you could be radicalized exactly as you could be radicalized in a Christian extremist sect. 

RT: Going back to the biggest threat you mentioned – the Islamic extremism here in Europe. The justice minister of Belgium said that she has been told by the state security that Saudi Arabia is funding around 10 schools in Belgium that are teaching radical Islam. How would you assess this threat?  

CM:  We must understand that in a part of Europe – in Belgium, in the Netherlands, in Germany – we have large Muslim communities today, but [those countries] didn’t have Muslim colonies in the past.

France had Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia. France has colonies, so most of the Muslims in France came from those ex-colonies 

Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany did not have those colonies, so the majority of Muslims came in the 60s and the 70s because most of Europe was in need of workforce to build new infrastructure.

Those people came but everybody at the time thought they would just stay for two years, three years, just for work; after, they will return to their countries. Of course, they didn't. 

The Belgians, as the Dutch, didn’t understand the problem very well, and they were looking desperately for someone who could help them

And the Saudis told the Belgian authorities: “No problem, we'll take care of it,” as they also said to the Netherlands. So they sent money, they sent people, and this was of course a hidden agenda. Their idea was of course to radicalize people. 

Islam seems to be a unique thing. It is not a unique thing. You have an Islam of Asia, you have Islam of North Africa, Islam of the Gulf, Sunni, Shiites and so on. And clearly the Wahhabi Islam from Saudi Arabia has nothing to do with the Islam of the Moroccans, of the Turkish. 

But this Islam was imposed on those people by the Saudi with the help of the Belgian and Dutch authorities, and this was imposed for 20 years, 25 years. And for 25 years, 30 years, the Saudis were funding, were sending people. For instance, in the Netherlands, in 2003 after the murder of Theo van Gogh, Dutch security monitored all Muslim clerics in the Netherlands and they found that 60 to 70 percent of them were unable to understand, read or speak Dutch. 

So very clearly they cannot be a factor of integration. They cannot. They cannot understand the society in which they live, in which their followers live. They cannot help them with good advice, because they don't know. And most of them were coming from outside, from Saudi Arabia or Gulf States, with no knowledge of the language, no knowledge of the society. 

RT: You were in the French intelligence service. Did you or those in the authorities not see that was coming, the signs coming from the Saudi Arabia at the time?

CM: At the time – this was true for the French intelligence, for the US, for all the Western intelligence – we were not very interested in those cases. The big enemy was the Soviet Union and communism. So, we had no real interest in monitoring Saudi Arabia. It was something going on, but invisible. 

RT: Well, you have, for example, the State Security in Belgium warning against the threat that Saudi Arabia poses in terms of imposing extreme ideology on people in Europe. But on the other hand, Saudi Arabia is painted as an ally of the West. How do you reconcile this? 

CM: The ambiguity of the situation is that the Saudi Arabia is clearly an ally of the West because it was against communism, it was against the former Soviet Union and so on, against Iran today for obvious reasons. So it is an ally, and at the same time, it could be considered an enemy because they have this hidden agenda. 

But even inside Saudi society at the highest level, you have two tendencies. In the royal family in Saudi Arabia, you have people who are genuine and honest advocates of working with the West and modernizing Saudi Arabia, and we have other princes saying ‘No!,’ we must keep, stand firmly in our beliefs, and we are still the Saudi and Wahhabi. 

RT: Looking at what some governments in Europe are doing, for example imposing a ban on the burqa, or minarets or other such laws, do you think they actually work? Or do they just create a backlash from the general Muslim community, who are not extremists?

CM: Both, I think both. First of all, I think we must help and support the average Muslim guy or woman who is just trying to live a normal life and who wants to have a better future for his or her children. And clearly those people are demanding that we take a firm position against the extremists. 

They are worried for their children. When you are a Muslim parent in Belgium or France, and you see Muhammed Merah and you see that a young boy of 21, 22 had bad connections, went to an extremist mosque, or wanted to go to Pakistan, I suppose you're afraid and you want the help of the state. And the help of the state is to set some limits.

At the same time, very clearly, it is a way of radicalization for some people. But these people would be radicalized anyway. It's just an occasion, it's just a pretext, but if it is not the burqa, it will be the obligation of Halal food in the school; if it is not this, it will be the mixing of boys and girls in school, or another subject. But a part of this community is moving to radicalization, the ten to 15 percent. The question is how to protect the rest, and of course how to contain the extremists.

The Feminist’s Guide To Debate Tactics

by Female Masculinist on October 24, 2009

Observing comments made by feminists on MRA blogs – or on any blog or forum post which is even slightly critical of any aspect of feminism – for the last few years has made something very clear: feminists have no idea how to debate.
This is probably due to the overwhelming feminist hegemony in educational institutions. Women dominate the teaching profession, particularly in grade school, and all of these women are feminists. Girls have a powerful innate need to please the authority figures in their lives, and all they have to do to please their teachers is parrot feminist propaganda on cue. This leaves them completely unprepared for the outside world, where reciting this bunk results in demands that they produce facts and logic, things they have never been asked for before. The poor feminists are startled that their dutiful recitations do not result in a pat on the head, but instead in challenges they do not know how to meet.
So as a public service, I am providing this handy guide for feminists on common debate mistakes. This way, the next time you encounter one of those nasty old misogynists, your attempts at argument will not simply confirm his existing low opinion of women!
Mistake #1: “You’re only saying that because you never get laid!”
There are two problems with this argument. One is that in many cases, it isn’t true. Most of us misogynists started out believing all the bullshit about female equality we heard in school and on TV. It took a great deal of experience with women, in the workplace as well as in dating, to make us realize that in fact, women are very different from men, and in most respects inferior. Most feminists are straight women, so you’ll just have to take my word for this: having sex with women does not in any way enhance respect for women. Quite the contrary.
The second problem is, even if the man you are addressing is celibate, this proves nothing. It has no bearing whatsoever on sex discrimination laws, child custody agreements, polemics about the “male gaze”, women in combat, or anything else you might be debating. A very smart man in ancient Greece called this the “ad hominem” argument. You have probably seen this phrase in internet fora, but it is usually used incorrectly, by people who apparently have no idea what it means but know that it is a bad thing. An “ad hominem” argument is an attack on the person making the argument in lieu of a reasoned rebuttal of the argument itself.
Mistake #2: “You must have a small dick!”
This is another ad hominem argument. Once again, men with small dicks are still capable of stating facts which are correct. Unless you have some scientific studies that show that men with small dicks are always wrong, it’s best not to use this one. Besides which, MRA’s have all heard it so many times that it makes them conclude, probably correctly, that you don’t have any actual information that might back up your contentions. “You must have a small dick!” is basically feminist code for “I have no clue what I’m talking about!”
Mistake #3: (used against female antifeminists) “If it weren’t for feminism, you wouldn’t have the right to keep a blog!”
 I have seen this charge levelled against women whose antifeminist opinions are far more moderate than mine. Feminists seem to believe that women used to be barred from the First Amendment until some heroic feminists got us in on it. The fact is, women and men have always had the same degree of freedom of speech. In the days when the Inquisition could burn people at the stake for heresy, men did not get away with any more heresy than women did. In Europe today, men and women, at least white ones, are equally subject to spurious hate speech laws. That women pre-Women’s Lib did not have freedom of speech would have come as a great surprise to Sojourner Truth, Carry Nation, Mary Wollstonecraft, Harriet Beecher Stowe, Abby Kelley Foster, Madame de Stael, Renee Vivien, Radclyffe Hall, Rebecca Protten, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Mary Baker Eddy, Mary Hunt, Elizabeth D. Golek, etc. etc.
If you want to use this argument, if you want it to be taken seriously you must offer the names of these mysterious feminists who gave women the right to blog. Dates and how they went about doing so, as well as some sort of evidence that women used to be kept silent, would also be useful.
Mistake #4: “Okay, so it’s true that women aren’t as good at science and stuff, but that’s because girls are raised differently from boys! If we were raised the same we’d be just as good at it!”
First, we don’t know that. The only reason to think that it is the case is that feminists want to believe it. There is no evidence. Your wishes are not a valid argument.
Second, there is considerable evidence that sex differences are innate. Feminists who try to teach their boys not to be violent are invariably dismayed when their toddling sons use the dolls they’re given as weapons. A boy who was raised as a girl after a botched circumcision knew even before he was eventually told the truth that he wasn’t actually a girl, and the attempt to turn him into one resulted in severe psychological problems; he ended by committing suicide at 38. For more on this, go to my blog and see the sidebar sections on “What Schools Are Doing to Boys” and “Biology Is Destiny”.
Mistake #5: “Women were too busy taking care of children and doing housework to invent things or discover things!”
And just what do you imagine men were doing while your ancestresses were cooking dinner or sewing clothes? The vast majority of them weren’t lounging happily in a library devising the principles of geometry or gazing through a telescope. They were mostly breaking their backs on farmland or in mines or smithies, enduring months of malnutrition and brutality aboard trading ships, getting shot at in armies, and other such fulfilling career paths. Yet somehow, men managed to build civilization in between.
For thousands of years, babies were delivered by midwives. Women had complete control of this profession. It never even occurred to the men who ruled the societies to interfere with midwifery. None of these women with the freedom and opportunity for hands-on experience invented the forceps. Instead, a man named Peter Chamberlen invented them around 1600, when the idea of male doctors delivering babies was still a controversial idea, and one chiefly engaged in by the decadent rich. In other words, men had scarcely arrived on the scene before they were inventing things that women had not imagined in thousands of years.
Commenter Paul came up with another excellent example: for the last few centuries, upper- and middle-class women were encouraged to learn to play musical instruments. A lot of these women had the leisure to spend a great deal of time on their music. Yet there have been very few female composers of any note, and black American men – not a privileged group by any means – invented both blues and jazz.
Finally, in the last few decades a great deal of effort has been expended on “encouraging” women and girls to achieve in traditionally male fields, and the lower and higher education systems are feminist-dominated. Where is the Renaissance of female creativity? Where are the female Leonardos, Isaac Newtons, and Mozarts? Women have made achievements – before and after feminism – but they are not equal to those of men.
Mistake #6: “Men have higher IQs, but that’s because the IQ test doesn’t measure female aptitudes!”
First, demanding that the rules be changed because you are losing impresses no one.
Second, the historical fact is that the IQ test is rigged in favor of women.

“The one exception to the general rule that different groups or populations usually differ in average IQ is that both sexes have approximately the same average IQ on most tests. This is not, however, a true empirical finding but a consequence of the manner in which the tests were first constructed…the two sexes were defined to have equal intelligence rather than discovered to have equal intelligence.” (Evans and Waites, 1981, 168).
(Evans, B.. & Waites, B. (1981). IQ and mental testing: An unnatural science and its social history. London, UK: Macmillan.)

More discussion of the slanting of the IQ test to minimize differences between men and women can be read here, here, here, and here. And despite the slanting in women’s favor, men still score consistently higher on them.
 Mistake #7: “I guess Thomas Jefferson’s slave mistress wasn’t oppressed then, huh!”
Hijacking the misfortunes of other groups – slavery, the Holocaust, indentured servitude, dhimmitude, the potato famine, etc. – is tacky and does not prove that women are equal to men.
 Mistake #8: “I cannot believe how ignorant you are!”
I think that feminists don’t know what the word “ignorant” means. It means that the person doesn’t know something. For example, I am ignorant of the Mandarin word for “insect”, because I have never studied Mandarin.
The only way this charge would make sense would be if you thought that the person you were talking to had never heard the glad tidings that women are equal to men. Unless you can come up with convincing evidence that someone on this planet hasn’t heard this nonsense, calling an MRA “ignorant” makes no sense whatever. We have all heard the feminist gospel. We aren’t ignorant of it. We simply don’t believe it. Indeed, given that feminists apparently believe that it was a heroic feminist campaign that won women the right to keep blogs and clearly don’t know that IQ tests are slanted against men, you are clearly the ignorant ones.
Of course, as a male blogger pointed out and I discussed, what women actually mean when they say this is that it’s stupid to believe unfashionable things because unconventional opinions make it harder to be socially accepted. For women, who are by nature dependent creatures, this is of paramount importance; the abstract value of truth has little appeal for most women.
 Mistake #9: “I think this site must be a joke! You’re a troll!”
The world is full of people who disagree with you. Facing this fact is part of growing up.
 Mistake #10: “You’re just too immature to handle a relationship with an independent woman!”
First, see #1. “Ad hominem”, remember that?
Roger Devlin handled this one quite ably:

 A highly successful women’s magazine editor has written a book of advice for young wives stating: “Giving, devoting, sacrificing … these are the actions of a good wife, no? No. These are the actions of a drudge, a sucker, a sap.” Instead, women are urged to emulate a wife who threw her husband’s clothes into the garden to teach him not to leave socks on the floor: “He understood I meant it.” Or another who wanted her husband to help with the laundry, and hollered at him: “Are you a f***ing retard that you don’t see me running up and down stairs? Listen to me and stop your bulls**t.” Or another who discovered this interpersonal skill: “Just stand there and start screaming. If you stand there and scream long enough, someone is going to realize that you’re standing in the middle of the room screaming [and ask] ‘Why are you screaming?’” (pp. 245-47)
What could be wrong with men these days that they refuse to commit?

Mistake #11: “I am so very upset by what you’ve said! I nearly fainted! I almost threw up! I am trembling in horror!”
Evolution has designed women to use their emotions to manipulate their mates into providing for them and tending to them. We know you can’t really help it, but in a debate, particularly one about the alleged equality of women, it isn’t appropriate.
We know that a lot of what you’re doing here is putting on a display for other feminists. “See how terribly upset I am by this heresy! I am one of you! I am, like, totally sincere!”
But when debating with us, all that such “arguments” do is convince us that we’re right, that women should, for the most part, be kept out of masculine realms such as industry and science, because they are too weak to endure hearing facts they don’t like.
When Nancy Hopkins responded to Larry Summers mentioning the possibility that men might be somewhat naturally better suited to science – he even added, “I hope it isn’t true” – by fleeing from the room in a nauseated swoon, all she actually accomplished was to demonstrate to the world that women are too delicate and fragile for serious business like science. Do male scientists flee from the room when they hear hypotheses they hope aren’t true? Even black men respond more constructively to discussion of the black-white IQ gap.
If this is how women react to disagreement, it is a matter of public safety to keep them legally unequal:

Somebody in the Massachusetts Department of Motor Vehicles needs to look into suspending Dr Hopkins driver’s license. She obviously doesn’t need to be driving.
Now, I’m not saying that women can’t drive, nor am I implying that Ms Hopkins’ remarks are evidence in that direction. Republican women mostly seem to do ok at it, anyway.
However, given her self-reported reactions to Summers remarks, what would happen if she were driving down the street and accidentally punched up Rush Limbaugh on the radio, for example? Rush makes one of his “feminazi” jokes, and she throws up and blacks out.
When she then plows into a busload of innocent children, the blood will be on Rush’s hands, obviously. Still, that doesn’t help The Children.

 Source: Should Nancy Hopkins be driving?
Also? Just because you don’t like something doesn’t mean it isn’t true.
 Mistake #12: “What are you smoking and where can I get some?”
This was funny the first 5,000 times we heard it, but it’s getting old. More importantly, it’s irrelevant. I don’t use illegal substances, but even if my bloodstream were a cocktail of half the things Americans can be arrested for using, I might still be right.
 Mistake #13: “Just because I’m wrong about the trivial details doesn’t mean that there were no Battles To Be Fought for women’s rights.”
Vague, sweeping assertions are not a viable argument. Those “trivial details” you can’t be bothered with are. If you don’t have any concrete facts, your rhetoric is just that.
 So what kind of arguments will MRAs listen to?
We like facts. Go looking for dates, names, legislation, documentation, and statistics. Find a scientific study, if you can, that indicates that women might in some field have the potential to be equal to men. Find statistics showing that society has become better in some way since women’s privilege, er I mean feminism, took root. Of course, you’re at a disadvantage here, since all of the facts show that women are innately inferior, that women of superior achievement will always be in the minority, and that women’s liberation leads to all sorts of social pathologies – rampant divorce, child abuse, inflation, eating disorders, and a general lowering of standards so that women can keep up. But if you hope to change our minds, you’ll have to try to find some facts that support your case instead of ours. Good luck!

A Olympic Triumph indeed, but not as they claim

A Triumph indeed, but not as they claim 

Sarah Maid of Albion

 Team GB - Medal winners

Apart from the opening and, almost as ghastly, closing ceremonies, which, unlike the contests themselves, were under the complete control of the media and a tiny left wing elite and were therefore more of the same mind numbing propaganda which now passes for entertainment in this country, it would be difficult to argue that the 2012 Olympic games was not a tremendous success for Britain. At least it was a success in terms of the performance of our athletes and the behaviour of the British public.

One can not compare the 1908 games when we last won as many medals, but only 28 nations participated, with the games which have just taken place, hence it is fair to state that Britain has just had it’s most successful Olympics of all times.

However, the success has not been in the form which the establishment would have us believe. According to the opening and closing raves, the media narrative and most politically correct politicians, the Olympics was a triumph for multiculturalism. However, a true analysis of what actually happened, and, of course, of the medals table itself, tells a very different story, and one which must have been quite infuriating for those attempting to promote the official line.

Of our tally of 29 gold medals four were shared between three black athletes and one further gold went to Jessica Ennis, girl of mixed race origins.  By far the vast majority of “Team GB” medal winners, at gold and all other levels, were, as a BBC executive would no doubt describe them “hideously white”

As was to be expected, despite making up less than 14% of the winners, black athletes received at least 40% of the TV coverage and were represented in a significantly higher percentage in the opening and closing graphics accompanying any sports show during the games.  However, irrespective of how the media tried to play it, the split between the elitist fairy tale and reality has seldom been so marked.

Indeed, the multicultural fantasy did not only fail in terms the medal count, the myth that “we are all the same” was exposed as the lie it is in the events which took place.

Black athletes featured strongly, albeit not exclusively in the boxing ring and on the track where they held preeminent positions in most activities involving running, but were completely non existent from virtually all other sports.  Where were the black swimmers, divers, cyclists, rowers, sailors, tennis players, riders and shooters?  In the British team there were none.

It one were to remove the runners, boxers and the little Tiquando chap who was selected instead of the world champion on account of his colour, out of the equation then the medal winners would resemble slightly younger versions of the overwhelmingly white space scientists who recently landed the explorer Curiosity on Mars, except that there were a few Orientals among the scientists.

We are different, we excel in different things, we fail in different things, we are not the same, and the Olympic games showed it.  It also became clear that we think differently and we want different things
It was not just amongst the athletes where the difference was on display, as was clear in the make up of the crowds at particular events and confirmed when spectators were interviewed white within the crowd were there to cheer on everyone, or so they said, whereas blacks made no bones of the fact they were there to cheer on black athletes. (few ‘British Asians’ seemed to have turned up, at least not to watch the British team)  Behind the microphones, white commentators spoke of diversity and inclusion, while black  commentators stressed the achievements of black athletes.  Channel Four sports reporter Keme Nzerum, even went so far as to suggest that Britain had done so well largely because other sportsmen and women had “been inspired by the success of Mohammed (Mo) Farah and Jessica Ennis”, despite the fact that a significant number of medals had been won before either of then entered the fray.

It would be churlish not to acknowledge the likable “Mo” Farah’s achievement in winning two gold medals, he did himself and his native Somalia, where I understand his progress was being avidly followed, proud.  However, it cannot be denied, that people of his ethnic back ground and place of origin are genetically advantaged in terms of running abilities.  For that very reason alone, to include him in the British team and view his success as a “British triumph” is in itself a form of cheating.  You might as well put a greyhound in a Labrador race, and call it a fast Labrador.  He’s not British, he’s  Somali and both his victory and medal should have been awarded to Somalia.

Not everyone fell for the attempts to sell “Mo” as national hero, it must have really galled the  assembled ranks of opinion formers to discover that considerably more people tuned in to watch the wonderful Tim Daley’s life reaffirming delight at winning a diving bronze than watched Mo Farah win either of his gold medals. 

It was Tom, the incredible triathlon winning Brownlee brothers, and, of course Bradley (Wiggo) Wiggins, despite his Australian, father who really made most of the nations heart swell with the patriotic pride, so disdained by the Chairman of the BBC.

Contrary to the spin which the establishment are, and will continue to put on the 2012 London Olympics, the truth is that it was not a triumph for the multicultural dream, but an event which exposed racial differences in very stark relief.
  

Christians, Republicans Conservatives cannot appeal to leftists with leftward drift

Christians, Republicans cannot appeal to leftists with leftward drift

Aug 26th, 2012

by Brett Stevens.

Beware prevailing wisdom because it’s rarely wisdom. The reason it is prevailing is that there’s an urgent need to make it official, because it won’t actually last.
What’s happening is that people are using it to draw attention to themselves, because it’s the trend of the moment, which makes them de facto temporary sociopaths who have put truth and the best interests of their subject secondary to their own enrichment. This is a common human failing.
The prevailing wisdom among the Republican party and the Christian faith is that “new converts” can be made by approaching the Other Side with a hybrid of its beliefs and your own.
Eternal wisdom says instead that doing so is suicide.
Think it through: the Other Side disagree with what makes you what you are. They already have what they are. If you mix the two, you offer them an additional burden (what you are) in addition to an adulterated form of what they want (what they are).
Churches incorporate rock music, drift leftward and endorse liberal issues, and try to essentially be secular and liberal instead of mystical and conservative.
But at that point, they’re dead in the water. I can get secular and liberal from McDonald’s or Obama, without the burden of having to think about morality and my soul. Pass the fries.
The more Christianity has drifted to the left in order to “stay relevant,” the more it has lost the people who are its bedrock: young middle-class families.
In the same way, the more the Republicans have drifted leftward in order to “reach the young,” the more it has lost the people who are its bedrock: 20-and-30-something families that are interested in building prosperous lives for themselves.
By appealing to the “new” audience, the Republicans and Christians signal to their faithful that they are being abandoned. In addition, the new audience will never buy it, because they already have what they want with fewer obligations.
Even more troubling is that by reversing your position, or appearing to while hiding it behind your back, is to signal that you are dishonest. It’s the equivalent of saying “just kidding” or performing a bait-and-switch sales job, and is recognizably dishonest from a distance.
A Republican party that offers gay marriage and welfare is in effect cloning the platform of the democratic party, thus makes itself irrelevant to people who vote Republican while offering nothing new to Democratic voters, who already have Democrats.
In the same way, turning a church service into a rock concert fails because it drives away those who are fleeing the madness and want something for the whole family to enjoy, while failing to attract those who’d rather just go to a rock concert — there’s no message of troubling transcendence of individualism there.
The mindset of Democracy — pandering, manipulation, deception and flattery — is anathema to any conservative. It’s easy to see through and seems ridiculous at its core. However, because they don’t understand it, Republicans and Christians bungle it.
What they need is to realize why people like them in the first place, and to unite all of those people on what they like and use that as a weapon against the masses. We don’t want to take over; we want a place for our people (think: Moses).
People like religion because it is the antithesis to valueless, material, I’m-OK-you’re-OK society. Religion says there is a reason to live a moral life and that it offers a reward of peace of soul.
People like Republicans because they offer solid functionality and a family-oriented values system. This includes facing hard truths like the fact that world peace will never exist, war and poverty will always be with us, and that the best thing to do is salvage the good and push away the bad.
These are not simplistic moral systems. For simplistic moral systems, try the “there is no truth, everything is OK, there are no consequences” of egalitarian progressivism.
However these are comprehensive worldviews. They cut through the chatter and chaos, and give people a reason to live as their instinct says they should. This is the audience to whom Republicans and Christians should appeal.
The data back up this statement, since everywhere the prevailing wisdom takes over, Republicans and Christians pander, and lose out because liberals already have everything they want in liberalism. Thus the numbers decline.
Conservatives need to accept that we are the underdogs in this fight, and to stick together on the basis of what we agree on, not what we wish we could believe in order to be popular with the deranged masses.

Total War the End Game

Total War - End Game

Written by Richard Newman

Total War since 1945
Adolf Hitler was the greatest enemy of Nationalism, because he poisoned the ideology in the mind of the population of the world to such an extent that any further advancement was impossible.
Despite the obvious advantages of the political approaches driven first in Italy and then in Germany, every aspect of the positive appeal of the movements behind the approaches has been made negative by history and the spin of a left wing media.
I am not a Fascist because the name belongs to a failed political ideology driven by the former Socialist newspaper editor Benito Mussolini, and is named for the bundle of reeds and axe emblem from the time of Rome.
As a vehicle of social change and a counter for Marxist extremism in 1920’s Italy it was necessary and despite the lies of the left had a positive impact on the Italy of the 1920’s and early 1930’s.
I am not a NAZI because the name belongs to a failed political ideology driven by a former German army veteran and police informer Adolf Hitler, and was named after the National Socialism which was at its root.
People tend to forget that many German socialists joined the NAZI party because of its social policies, and once again as a vehicle for social change and a counter to the Marxist extremism in the Germany of the 20’s and 30’s it had a positive impact on the well being of the German nation.
Because of the left wing bias of the media and education system we find that the world financial situation both before World War One and throughout the period towards the catastrophe of the Second World War is obscured, and no mention is given in Western schools of the part of world Marxism, and the role of Jewish intellectuals in the rise of Marxist ideology. Nor is there any mention of the role of Jewish financiers in the world financial situation of the time. The Dawes and Young plan is hardly mentioned.
Most nationalists are aware that world Jewry declared war on Germany in 1933, yet this financial war was a side that people continue to be unaware of when faced with the more obvious actions which occurred in the military sphere.
The end of the war saw the failure of Fascism and its partner Nazism, and the victories of the “democratic” nations of Europe and of course their financial backers.
No doubt that had Hitler won his plans in Europe would have meant that our view of history would be different, it is the victor who writes the history of the world, and it is the victor who ignores the crimes of the victorious allied powers.
Bilderberg and Albert Speer
In 1942 Albert Speer, Hitler’s chief architect submitted his plans for a Europe after Germany had won the war. The Pan Germanic Co-Prosperity Sphere was an expansion of a vision first planned by the German General Staff in World War One, and extended by Speer, as a concept of a European Union under German Domination.
It was this concept which was taken up by the victorious allies as a means of unifying a post war Europe.
The idealism of the liberals in Western Europe to avert another war was as strong as the financier’s plans to make money from a broken Europe through the Marshall Plan.
This mindset was given substance in 1954 with the foundation of the Bilderberg Group, and the combined plans of the financiers and liberal power elite.
The Bilderberg Group and Cultural Marxism
It was with the best liberal intentions that they met on that day in May to decide the future of Europe, and of course they had no idea of the Pandora’s Box they were about to open.
Albert Speer had given them the template, they had won, and the future was theirs. Prosperity would only be assured with continued peace and that was the basis of their argument. Like the Concert of Europe that came before, they reasoned that the only way to prevent war in Europe was the destruction of national identity, and its replacement by a European super state.
The Cultural Marxism of the Frankfurt and Birmingham schools shaped the social aspects of the destruction of the nation state from within. This was developed into Political Correctness and is arguably the same destructive force under a different name.
The Trilateral Commission
The Trilateral Commission founded by David Rockefeller was the logical expansion of the financial aspects of Cultural Marxism, designed on the maxim of “he who controls money controls the world”, is a means of ensuring peace in Europe by controlling the finances of Europe. Prosperity it is assumed brings peace.

An Unholy Alliance
It is through the mindset of the liberal elite that we must look at the actions of such groups who wish to control the destiny of the world with the best of liberal intentions.
The original ideal of Germany has been expanded by others to encompass the whole world, with liberal idealism and good intentions being replaced by greed and corruption.
On 11th September 1990 George Bush spoke in his speech entitled Towards a New World Order in which he outlined the objectives of a post Soviet world.
“A world where the United Nations, freed from cold war stalemate, is poised to fulfil the historic vision of its founders. A world in which freedom and respect for human rights find a home among all nations.”
It is this flawed vision of a New World Order founded on liberal principles, and financed by the usual suspects that is inadvertently leading to the destruction of the Western World.
The United Nations is dominated by the Bilderberg Group and Trilateral Commission.
But how to bring forward a New World Order
Total War by any Means
Since the rise of the organisations which make up the New World Order, and the infiltration of every aspect of nation states, by its acolytes and NLP recruits we find that its best intentions have been changed to compensate for world events.
The rise of Islam and the fall of the USSR could not have been foreseen in 1954, and although there are thousands of think tanks devoted to the subject of trends, it is difficult to bring forward a plan of world domination when you cannot plan for the unforeseen circumstance.
Since the 1960’s the grip of the power elite has steadily tightened on our individual freedom to ensure that the public have limited impact upon the plans of our betters. This war by any means includes the reduction of the knowledge and intelligence of our children by the dumbing down of education, and the lowering of standards is all part of this process.
The control of the media has controlled the flow of information to the ignorant masses, as has the move from earth bound to terrestrial communications. In the future only the liberal elite will be able to gain access to real knowledge. Just as the church in the middle ages jealously guarded its knowledge, so the New World Order will guard theirs.
Of course the means by which such power is maintained and controlled is by an education and training system that ensures the docile compliance of the military and police. NLP and diversity training, which is now compulsory, and rigorously enforced, has intruded on the enforcement agencies to such an extent that a failure to comply with this twisted dogma would ensure the destruction of a career.
As a result of the development of the world, so the liberal elite have developed into the Neo-Conservatives, which have been active since the 1960’s
It is clear that the doctrine advocated in draft form in 1992 by Paul Wolfowitz has been fully implemented as the next stage in the plan for world domination, and the adoption of the concepts advocated in 1954 is in play.
Having control of the organs of power, education, media, and communications led to the next logical step, which was the hundred year war.
The Hundred Year War
The Malthusian Theory of War has at its ideological basis the expanding of populations coupled with a scarcity of resources. It is the principle used to start the crusades, and Pope Urban II was aware that by providing the warring factions of Europe with an external enemy he was increasing the power of the church, and moving the problems of Europe to the Middle East.
It was clear by the end of the 20th Century that we were having problems in Europe, as the multicultural project failed, and the prosperity promised by the liberal/neo-con elite was destroyed. It left the members of the various organisations with a major problem.
How to maintain the drive towards one world government, despite the widespread resistance of the populations of the developed world.
We can surmise that they sought the advice of a think tank or two, so the very best people had a plan.
The Hundred Year War Plan, or the answer to all their problems. Even if they did not know about 9/11 they knew of the existence of groups capable of carrying out a 9/11 attack.
The Saudis backed the hijackers, and a CIA agent (Bin Laden) was in charge of the operation. The people in the various intelligence agencies had a vested interest in the start of a hundred years war, as it ensured funds for the foreseeable future.
As a fundraiser it was brilliant, and the war that followed has made millions for the government contractors and other agencies involved. It was also a good excuse to increase the assault on the individual freedoms of the citizens and ensure that ordinary people are focused on an external enemy and not any internal problems.
The people who know do not need to be convinced but the general public continue to be ignorant of the possible issues involved.
The Trilateral Commission are happy because the money keeps rolling in, and despite economic collapse in Europe they remain strong by their control of the emerging economies.
The Bilderberg/EU/UN/Liberal/Neo-Con’s are happy because they have the security to continue their drive to world domination. The same tried and tested method is used again and again.
Iran, North Korea and China will be used in the same way to continue the agenda of such people. But as we have seen in Iraq and Afghanistan the mission accomplished is sometimes premature, and in their arrogance the liberal elite sometimes bite off more than they can chew.
The Ideology of the Stupid Liberal
We assume that the liberal elite are intelligent, but there are different intellect types. We know that the total war waged on the people of Europe is the result of the actions designed to stop war, and we are sure that the liberal elite are corrupt, greedy and social. Liberals are happy as an elite, which is why the liberal is arrogant. He is happy sharing a neighbourhood with a rich Mr Ombogo, Singh or Patel while he screams contempt for the poor Mr Smith and Jones.
He cares not for the religion or race of his subject people. They can be black and Muslim for all he cares, as long as he and his rich friends are in charge.
Total War
He has waged total war on the populations of Europe since 1945, and has had a plan (much revised) since 1954. It is a total war waged on a grand scale, against the people of the world. Its goal is the establishment of a new world order.
Its plan is already well advanced and they control almost everything. They have killed and they will kill again to pursue their goals. John Smith, Saddam Hussein and David Kelly stood in their way.
In this country the media, police, Army and education system is controlled by them, and their placemen are in government.
The poor uneducated masses are being moved into communities so they can work for the new masters.
Democracy is dead.
Revolution may be the only answer.

Rise of Islam The Truth of Taqiyya

Rise of Islam The Truth of Taqiyya by Mary Gehl Share on facebookShare on twitterShare on emaMore Sharing Servic

---

In direct opposition to the concept of Biblical truth is the concept of Islamic taqiyya, which, in Islam, is generally known as “lying for the faith.”

On the eve of Jesus’ crucifixion, He and Pontius Pilate engaged in a conversation that begged the question still being asked today—What is truth? John 18:37-38 describes the scene:

Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice. Pilate saith unto him, What is truth?…

In direct opposition to the concept of Biblical truth is the concept of Islamic taqiyya.

A March 2012 public relations campaign to teach America about Shari’a law ignited a new round of dialogue regarding the truth of Islamic taqiyya. The Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), a New York-based group, is planning to spend $3 million on its “Defending Religious Freedom” campaign. The effort includes billboards, TV, and radio ads in 25 major cities—including New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago. Additionally, Muslim academics and activists are holding town hall meetings and seminars on university campuses in an effort to slow the two-year progress of state legislation banning Shari’a law in the U.S.

Taqiyya

Taqiyya, in Islam, is generally known as “lying for the faith.” There are two basic uses of taqiyya: 1) disavowing one’s religious identity during fear of persecution (Shi’a Muslims vs. Sunni Muslims), and 2) active deceit during jihad against the realm of unbelief (Dar al-Islam vs. Dar al-Harb). This form of deceit is grounded in Islamic doctrine and is often depicted as being equal to, or superior to, other military virtues such as courage, fortitude, or self-sacrifice.

Former Islamic studies professor at the American University of Beirut, Sami Mukaram, wrote in his book, At-Taqiyya fi’l-Islam (Dissimulation in Islam):

Taqiyya is of fundamental importance in Islam. Practically every Islamic sect agrees to it and practices it. We can go so far as to say that the practice of taqiyya is mainstream in Islam, and that those few sects not practicing it diverge from the mainstream. Taqiyya is very prevalent in Islamic politics, especially in the modern era.

His book clearly reveals the ubiquity and broad applicability of taqiyya within Islam. Within Shari’a—the body of legal rulings that defines the appropriate behavior of Muslims in all circumstances—deception is not only permitted in certain situations, it is often deemed obligatory. Muslims who were forced to choose between recanting Islam or suffering persecution were permitted to lie and feign apostasy. Other jurists have decreed that Muslims are obligated to lie in order to preserve themselves because of verses in the Qur’an that forbid Muslims from being instrumental in their own deaths.

The writings of Qur’anic scholars detail the history of the authorization and use of Taqiyya. Sura 3:28 is used most often as the verse that sanctions deception towards non-Muslims:

Let believers [Muslims] not take infidels [non-Muslims] for friends and allies instead of believers. Whoever does this shall have no relationship left with God—unless you but guard yourselves against them, taking precautions.

In his Qur’an commentary, Muhammad ibn jarir at-Tabari clarifies verse 3:28 as follows:

If you [Muslims] are under their [non-Muslims’] authority, fearing for yourselves, behave loyally to them with your tongue while harboring inner animosity for them… [know that] God has forbidden believers from being friendly or on intimate terms with the infidels rather than other believers—except when infidels are above them [in authority]. Should that be the case, let them act friendly towards them while preserving their religion.

Some Qur’anic scholars extended taqiyya to cover deeds. Abu ‘Abdullah al-Qurtubi (1214-73) and Muhyi ‘d-Din ibn al-Arabi (1165-1240) supported bowing down and worshiping idols and crosses, offering false testimony, and exposing the weaknesses of fellow Muslims to the infidel enemy. Anything short of actually killing a Muslim is deemed acceptable: “Taqiyya, even if committed without duress, does not lead to a state of infidelity, even if it leads to sin deserving of hellfire.”

Taqiyya and Islamic Public Relations

As this article is being written, two U.S. states have banned the practice of Shari’a law, twelve are in the process of drafting and approving legislation, and three have proposed legislation that failed to pass. For Islamic proponents of Shari’a in America, the battleground has been taken to a new level—the American billboard.

The slogan created by the Defending Religious Freedom campaign: Shariah: Got Questions? Get Answers hopes to catch the attention of the American voter with hopes of educating us to stop the bans. For many analysts, the issue is not one of creating a backlash of Islamophobia, but the reality of the use of taqiyya in the education process and the reality of Shari’a in America.

Shari’a literally means “the path to a watering hole.” Shari’a is the law of the Qur’an that is comprised of five main branches: adab (behavior, morals and manners), ibadah (ritual worship), I’tiqadat (beliefs),mu’amalat (transactions and contracts), and ‘uqubat (punishments).

According to its proponents, these branches of Shari’a combine to create a society based on “justice, pluralism and equity for every member of society.” They would like for us to believe that Shari’a forbids that it be imposed on any unwilling person. In fact, they propose that the Prophet Muhammad himself demonstrated that Shari’a may only be applied if people willingly apply it to themselves—never through forced government implementation.

Shari’a

One of the primary reasons for the backlash against the practice of Shari’a in America is the growing public awareness of honor killings. Human Rights Watch defines honor killings:

Honor killings are acts of vengeance, usually death, committed by male family members against female family members, who are held to have brought dishonor upon the family. A woman can be targeted by individuals within her family for a variety of reasons, including: refusing to enter into an arranged marriage, being the victim of a sexual assault, seeking a divorce—even from an abusive husband—or (allegedly) committing adultery. The mere perception that a woman has behaved in a way that “dishonors” her family is sufficient to trigger an attack on her life.

In her 2009 Middle East Quarterly article, Phyllis Chesler argues that the U.S. is far behind Europe in acknowledging that honor killings are a special form of domestic violence—a form of violence in which the perpetrators are protected by Shari’a law. While the 8th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states there shall be no “cruel and unusual punishments inflicted,” the Qur’an states:

• Sura 5:38 – Cut off the hands of thieves, whether they are male or female, as punishment for what they have done—a deterrent from Allah.
• Sura 24:2 – A raped woman is punished with the man: The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication, flog each of them with 100 stripes.

The complexities and the deceit of the Islamic Circle of North America’s Defending Religious Freedom campaign are meant to assuage fears of Islam and Shari’a. However, even the name of the campaign denies the truth. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that “Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion,” yet Mohammed said, “Whoever changes his Islamic religion, kill him.” (Hadith Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 9, Book 84, No. 57)

In his book, What Every American Needs to Know About the Qur’an: A History of Islam & the United States, William J. Federer presents an exhaustive study of the truth of taqiyya in U.S.-Islam relations. In contrast to the First Amendment Federer states, “Islamic law (Shari’a) relegates non-Muslims to ‘dhimmi’ status, where they are not to propagate their customs amongst Muslims and cannot display a Cross or Star of David.”

Truth

Sadly, in America, it does not matter if the “public relations campaign” is for the Islamic implementation of Shari’a law or the demoralizing implementation of humanism in every aspect of daily life, the result is the same—a life without the God-given freedoms and foundations established on our shores over two centuries ago.