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.

Fjordman on the Verdict in the Breivik Trial

Fjordman on the Verdict in the

 Breivik Trial

The Oslo court has declared that Anders Behring Breivik is sane and inspired by an evil, right-wing extremist Islamophobic ideology, which also happens to be exactly what the entire political establishment from the state broadcaster NRK and national newspaper VG to Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg wanted the judges to say. So far, none of the involved parties have indicated that they will appeal this decision to a higher court.

In the end, Breivik received three months in jail for each of the human beings he killed in cold blood, which believe it or not is the maximum punishment possible in Norway. This is being hailed as a great victory for Norway’s glorious and humane justice system.

I admit that I have mixed feelings about this sentence. First of all, if Breivik actually is sane enough to be held accountable for his actions, sentencing him to a mere three months in jail for each of his murder victims is a sick joke that makes a mockery of the entire Norwegian justice system. It’s the symptom of a society that values the right of brutal criminals over the rights and well-being of their victims.

I have never met Breivik, but to the best of my abilities I would say that he represents a difficult case somewhere between insanity — as his very twisted worldview sometimes indicates — and the calculated cynicism he displayed during his terror attacks. He might have been declared sane in the USA, for instance.

However, it is not and should not be up to random journalists to decide this legal matter, which it sadly looks like it partially was in the Breivik case. We have to question whether we live in a democracy, a society ruled by the people, or a pressocracy, a society ruled by the press and those who control it.

The simple truth is that the outcome of this trial has been largely dictated by the mass media, who conducted an extremely aggressive campaign to overturn the first report of the court-appointed psychiatrists stating that Breivik is criminally insane. We were eventually presented two different reports with diametrically opposite conclusions, and the judges chose to simply overlook the first one of these entirely.

The official statements of the female head judge Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen and her co-judges closely mirrored what many pro-Multicultural newspaper columnistshave written over the past year, parroting the line that Breivik was part of a dangerous and delusional Internet-based “right-wing extremist” subgroup and that his massacre on July 22, 2011 was basically the logical conclusion of reading Islamophobic blogs.

Today, I published at Frontpage Magazine an essay about increased surveillance of Islam-critics in Norway, which is now also seen in several other Western countries. Unfortunately, it is likely that this trend will get worse after the latest court ruling in Oslo. Siv Alsén, a senior advisor in the Norwegian Police Security Service (PST), openly admits that the security services are now closely monitoring anti-Islamic websites and groups, since they are seen as a security threat.

NBC Interviews Non-Gay Olympian Lamar Ferguson

Komissar Blogunov
For more satire visit Thepeoplescube.com

Lamar Ferguson, an openly non-gay athlete of Marietta, GA, who has won his second gold in the men’s 3/4 acre lawnmower event in London, was also forced to fight an uphill battle to overcome the intolerance and resentment from his fans and the sports media after going public about his life with a domestic partner of the opposite sex.

Veteran reporter Blogunov, who was in London making sure that all events receive equal coverage, interviewed Ferguson on his win, his future plans, and intimate details of his personal life.

Ferguson won his first gold four years ago in Beijing, having defeated the heavily favored Mexican champion, Pedro Rodriguez, whose heterosexual leanings had been overlooked due to his predominantly non-European ancestry.

~
Blogunov: Tell me, Lamar, how does it feel to win gold again four years later?

Ferguson: Well, of course it feels real good, ‘specially to see all that trainin’ and hard work pay off.

Blogunov: You had earlier talked about retiring after Beijing, and so many of your fans were excited to see you back in the race and winning gold for the second time.

Ferguson: Well, y’know, I thunk it over and I thought I had one more Olympic competition left in me, so I thought I’d go for it.

Blogunov: That seems true of some of the other winners in these games.

Ferguson: Oh, yeah. Misty and Kerri done real good gettin’ gold for the third time, Phelps got hisself even more medals, and that Bolt feller from Jamaicer was still runnin’ at warp speed, so there was somethin’ in the air favorin’ us vetrans.

Blogunov: Now that you’re in the international spotlight once again, perhaps now’s the time to discuss your sexual orientation. For the record, you are openly straight. Is that correct?

Ferguson: Sure is.

Blogunov: When did you feel heterosexual leanings for the first time?

Ferguson: Oh, I think it was in middle school ‘bout the time I almost graderated from 7th grade. Girls was startin’ to be less yucky and more interestin’ to me.

Blogunov: Of course, we’ve all heard that you have a domestic partner of the opposite sex. Tell us more about that.

Ferguson: What happened was I got to likin’ girls so much, I ended up marryin’ me one. I think we like that we’re different. Good thang we was in a state that allowed fer hetrosexual marriages.

Blogunov: We’ve also heard that you and your partner became involved with the highly controversial Chick-Fil-A appreciation day.

Ferguson: Well, yeah, almost, but we missed that one ‘cause they was a qualifyin’ heat that day an’ we was in London, so we couldn’t go. But then we heard they was gonna be a kiss in a little later on, so me and the missus looked at each other and thought that was a great way to celebrate our anniversary. Anyway, we done the next best thang and went to a pub and ordered us some chicken. Kissed, too.

Blogunov: Well, Lamar, I commend you on your openness in going public about your heterosexuality. You must be very brave.

Ferguson: Aw, it’s no big deal; just who I am. I mean, me and the missus - we like it that way.

Blogunov: And what of your future plans for the Olympics? Are you on for 2016?

Ferguson: Naw, I’m definitely done. Four games is enough for me. I may see about coachin’ the upcoming team for Rio.

Blogunov: Ironically, you seemed to win more easily this time. How did that happen?

Ferguson: Fer one, I didn’t git no injuries in the medal round like the last two times, and fer another, Pedro done retired, so the only competition I had come from the Latvian champ.

Blogunov: How do you rate the Latvian team in the lawn care events?

Ferguson: Seein’ they didn’t even qualify in Beijing and they come up out o’ nowhere to git silver, I think they’re the team to watch.

Blogunov: Your old coach, whom we discussed in our previous interview, seemed a little bitter about your win.

Ferguson: You remember I had to let ‘im go before the Beijing games, and I don’t think he ever got over that. I reckon that’s why he called a press conference and said I didn’t win that medal, somebody else done it for me.

Blogunov: Tell us about your friend and rival, Pedro Rodriguez who silvered in the Beijing games.

Ferguson: Well, now, he actually did retire after them games, but then Mexico hired him to coach their men’s synchronized landscaping team, and you seen how good they done.

Blogunov: They absolutely dominated. Do the two of you still keep in touch?

Ferguson: Well, we both been real busy, but I congratulated him after his team got gold. He speaks some English and I can ahblow espanle some myself, so we been keepin’ up with each other some since Beijing.

Blogunov: Lamar, it’s always a pleasure talking with you. Best of luck to you in your future endeavors.

Ferguson: Same to ya.

Welcome to the modern hell

Welcome to hell

Aug  2012

by Posted at Amerika.

Modern life is hell.
It is the best kind of hell because it is invisible. On the surface, it appears to be a land of plenty. Underneath, none of that plenty can help us resist its emptiness.
In Dante’s Inferno, each type of wrongdoer received a customized level of hell. In each case, the punishment was based on life serving back their excesses as tortures.
However, all levels of hell had a theme, which was frustration. To be able to indulge in all the powers and excesses of the material world, and yet be powerless against that which you really need to conquer.
People in the modern time do not know themselves much at all. At first it appears that this is because they are constantly distracted with garbage, and this is true.
However, they are distracted by choice, in order to avoid looking too deeply into the parts of themselves they feel they cannot control.
The ego, and the social functions of a human being — these are really mirrors of one another — they feel they can control these. But depth of emotion, insight into the nature of the world? That terrifies them.
As a result, being in hell is a mystery to them. They can’t recognize a difference. The result is neurosis: their body sends signals to run, escape and hide, but the “rational” part of their brain thinks in money, products, and freedoms.
If we look past the world of strictly what is tangible and start thinking of life as an experience, we can see how modern society has made itself hell:

• No values. There is no overall sense of quality or moral good, other than ideological objectives, which distill down to different forms of radical altruistic egalitarianism.
• Quantity over quality. So that all must participate, we reduce the rare and exceptional, and replace it with learning by rote, success by participation, value by conformity and other non-quality assessments.
• Ugly. We call our design utilitarian, but what makes more sense is to call it administrative. It is not there to make life better. It is there to minimize complaints by being so average that none can complain without appearing to be putting on airs.
• Individualistic. Each person by the nature of being equal now needs to prove themselves. They compete on needless tasks, become egomaniacs for no purpose, and attire and adorn themselves with “unique” combinations of hobbies, clothing and personal drama in order to make themselves seem important.
• Conformist. The price of individualism is conformity; if anyone in a crowd is not an individualist, all individualists are threatened, because that non-individualist might invoke some principle of reality larger than the individual. All chase the same trends, memes, crazes, manias, and images. What they see in movies, they buy.
• Anti-exceptionalism. Utilitarian society is designed to accommodate the broadest swath of average, not the exceptional. As a result, it takes from the exceptional and redistributes to the average as a means of hobbling the exceptional so that everyone else feels satisfied at their own level of performance. It’s a peanut gallery, lynch mob, hive-mind and circular reasoning apparatus that exists only to justify itself.
• Idiots rule. To support egalitarianism and also a hierarchy of popularity and income, societies generate tests to find the “best.” Since these are egalitarian, they are not based on actual ability. The result is lots of zampolit style people who master details and know the right political dogma, but cannot adapt to new stimulus and thus are terrible leaders.

There are many more. This article however exists as an introduction to the hell we have made of modern society, and its goal is to suggest alternate possibilities rather than debunk directly any one failing.
In other words, we have finite time. We are wasting it on the mediocre so that everyone can be included. Why not get rid of the excess and parasitic inclusiveness, and instead do something beautiful an good?

One way Modern Thought

 

One way

Aug  2012

by Brett Stevens at Amerika.

The infuriating thing about modern society is that it is based in one-way (and reversed) thought processes.
Reversed thought process is simple. Instead of studying reality and adapting to it, we project ourselves on it. We create a social group to affirm our reality and not outside reality, which is how individualism creates conformity.
One-way thought process is created by our need to fix reality to fit our expectations. It is uneven, not level, and as a result often shocking to us and unpredictable without intense study. Our lazy minds like the idea of leveling it, making it all equal, in a metaphysical process not unlike paving it all with concrete.
In a similar sense, we like the idea of creating equality through transfer of wealth, power or status. Imagine that you have two sticks of uneven lengths. One will be longer than the other, so you can either cut it down to the size of the other, or take off the extra wood and split the difference, so both sticks are the same length.
Notice that it is impossible to do the reverse, which is to cause one stick to grow longer to meet the other. All we can do is cut and redistribute. Those are the only mechanisms available to society, at least until genetic engineering gets more terrifying.
The fact of this inability — we can cut, but not grow — lies in the decentralized nature of society itself. Each person has their own abilities and only they can motivate themselves to rise to the top of their innate potential, and no one can push them past it.
What results from this inability is a one-way street. In our push for equality, we have only one method, which is to take from those with better outcomes and use that “excess” to stimulate the pre-outcome possessions of others. We cannot equalize outcome-to-outcome, but we can fake it, by removing and splitting the difference.
Much like all powerful tools however this ability shapes our minds. When you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail. When you’re in a redistribution mode everything looks like a Robin Hood scenario. Even more, it’s popular to do that, and so if you do, your own fortunes will rise faster than they can be redistributed.
This one way path gives us no stop point. If our policies are not working, the solution is more redistribution; we have not redistributed enough. The means becomes the goal. Since any direction other than more redistribution is off the charts, we keep on the path and try qualitative efforts: faster, more, harder, broader.
As modern society winds down — all of the industrialized nations, with the West leading the pack — it will present an opportunity to break this single direction. Let us try redistributing nothing, and instead exile those who get wealth in corrupt ways, and take care of those who are without it.
That slightly old-fashioned idea does not make us feel as powerful and altruistic, but it does help the problem without rotting our society from within through a one-way path to dissolution.

What the Black Enrichers really think of us whites

What the Black Enrichers really think of us whites

Written by Green Arrow
Individually, there are some decent black folk and occasionally some of them show signs of above average intelligence for their race but overall they are a jealous and vindictive people, who rather than admit their own inadequacies need to fix the blame on someone else for their own shortcomings - and that someone else is ALWAYS the white race.
Now check out the video, below that is of some lunatic enricher to Our Country, whose honesty about black peoples real views on the White British People, whose country they are unwanted guests in, is quite refreshing.
Now why this butt ugly creature with no understaning of geography would think white people would want to look like her is beyond my reasoning, if anything it is black people who are buying skin whitening products and straightening their hair and just why anyone would want to walk around with buttocks the size of a waddling hippopotamus is also beyond my reasoning.

Way to go girl. Let us hope some "white cunt" police officers go knocking on your door soon and let us hope that they bang you up the way they did Liam Stacey and Jacqueline Woodhouse who were jailed for simply speaking the truth.  They had a valid reason for their rants, the black animal in the video has no such excuse.  She is just a black being black and revealing what they really think of us.

Now dull, thick, moronic white liberals can say that we are all equal, well the thing in that video may be your equal but it is certainly not mine.  Are you missing him yet?  I am.

You may also like to read this article here.
Please do not forget to visit the Corsham Crusader's Youtube channel, mark the article up and leave a comment to show your support for the work he does in providing us with such a great, informative channel.

Share this post

Dr. David Starkey on Riots

Starkey on Riots

Posted by BNP Ideas on August, 2012 

Andrew Brons MEP discusses a historian’s take on current events

Dr. David Starkey is not a man to be frightened into silence. He made controversial statements one year ago when the riots had taken place and dared to repeat them when vilified for his contribution.

Now, one year later, when the Political Class has, by enormous effort of  will, convinced itself that they did not really take place, Dr. Starkey, in an article in The Daily Telegraph (7^th August), has reminded us that they did indeed take place.

He referred to the fact that ‘many’ of the rioters were black and quoted a white shopkeeper who had followed the rioters in disguise and who claimed in an interview with Sky News that he had been the only white person present.

Dr. Starkey understands the political landscape of modern Britain and must realise that he will pay a heavy price. He will no longer be free to make his own television programmes – even on safe topics like the Tudors. The Establishment cannot afford to tolerate uncontrolled historians. Whatever will he come up with next?

As if it were not enough for Dr. Starkey to show that his understanding of the riots was high, he demonstrated that his understanding of the psychology of the Political Class was much higher.

Starkey began his article by quoting, with approbation, T.S. Eliot, “Humankind cannot bear very much reality”. This might explain the fact that recollection of the riots have been consigned not so much to history as to Orwell’s memory hole – ‘memory’, in Orwellian, meaning ‘to be forgotten’.  Starkey recalls that the last time the riots were mentioned in official circles was in March when the official inquiry into them published its report.

Dr. Starkey refers to the denial of white members of the Political Class, from David Cameron to the left-wing think-tank, Demos, that race had anything to do with the riots. He contrasts this denial with the admission from our old friend Darcus Howe who was reported as saying, “It’s an insurrection of a generation of poor, primarily black people from the Caribbean and from Africa”.

His major error was to refer to the proportions from each ethnicity among those who appeared before the courts. These still showed a predominance of  black people and those of mixed race (50% of those prosecuted were in one or other of these categories, compared with 41% who were whites). However, he seemed not to be aware that few rioters were prosecuted, because, in his own words, “the police were overwhelmed and fleeing from the rioters”. The people who appeared in court were looters who were ordinary members of the criminal classes, who saw the riots as an opportunity to be exploited rather than a cause to be supported. Economic criminals are to be found among all ethnic groups. The preponderance of blacks among them simply reflected the nature of the areas in which the riots had taken place.

The riots were described accurately by Darcus Howe as an insurrection, a political act, and were initially sparked by the shooting by the police of a black drug dealer.
I do not want to suggest that only black people riot. Historically riots have taken place in all populations. They are essentially acts of desperation from people who feel that they have no other means of expressing their resentment and frustration. This might be because those means have artificially been withheld from them or it might mean that they find themselves in a society in which they cannot compete, however equal the opportunities might be. The causes might be very different but the response is the same.

Dr. Starkey, quite understandably, wants to distance himself from any kind of ‘racial’ conclusion. Indeed, he trots out the cliché that he regards race, “in the proper sense of a group with fixed hereditary characteristics, as eugenicist nonsense”. This seems to be a variant of , “race does not exist but is merely a social construct”.

Nobody, of course, has ever suggested that races comprise  people with uniform fixed hereditary characteristics. All races comprise people with wide physical as well as mental disparities. They were referred to as ‘contours’ by the anthropologist Isherwood. They could just as easily have been described as occupying different positions on a human continuum – like height or weight. However, nobody would suggest that  variation in either of these characteristics is simply illusory.

Dr. Starkey is even careful to avoid identifying a single ‘black culture’ or (for that matter) a ‘white culture’. Instead he identified a very particular black culture that he referred to as: “The violent, destructive, nihilistic, ‘gangsta’ culture of the street”. This very particular black culture regards academic achievement and even the speaking of standard English as somehow effeminate. He is, of course, quite right to make this distinction but with whom is he disagreeing?

Of course, what Dr. Starkey is really saying is: “I am a thoroughly civilised person and must not be confused with those people out there, whom I shall not mention, because they might not exist but if they don’t, they will have to be invented anyway!

Dr. Starkey’s solution is to find a black leader of the right calibre – he suggests Doreen Lawrence, mother of Steven Lawrence – who would tackle black street culture head on and replace it with………….. something else.

There are, of course, other black cultures that are more appreciative of improvement and less negative and violent. Undoubtedly, it is possible to teach such culture. The question is whether all of the intended audience are capable of learning it and changing their behaviour.

There is a view of culture that is pervasive among the liberal chattering classes. This is of a culture that is a transient outer garment that can be discarded and replaced by an alternative outer garment. Some superficial cultural exteriors, such as language, religion and philosophy, can indeed be discarded and alternatives chosen by some people. However, the alternative garment must fit the wearer or be adapted to his needs.

The gangsta  street culture has become prevalent among a section of the black population because its fits the needs of that section, present as it is among a wider society and economy, in which it cannot compete but in which, its members have been taught, they are entitled to respect. Those incapable of competing with the values of the elite or even the average population create their own benchmarks for evaluating human status and achievement.

In a society with ascribed social status in which the least able are not given falsely high expectations, the humble accept their humility and are content with it. In a society containing people with widely differing abilities, equality of opportunity might appear to be a life line available to all. In fact it is only a lifeline for the able. We must not confuse equality of opportunity with equality.

The introduction of a meritocratic system would have had losers as well as winners, even if Britain had not been treated to the wonderful opportunity to experience a multi-racial society, possibly for ever. However, the range would not have been so great and the perceived chasm between the most able and the least able not as unbridgeable.

The creation of the multi-racial society is sometimes seen as an act of human kindness. It was nothing of the kind. It was an act of cruelty inflicted through the deceit of false expectation. Holding out an opportunity of success to those incapable of realising it, is to impose ritual humiliation on those doomed to fail. Can we really blame the condemned failures for rejecting the competition in which they could only be losers.

Rioting, gangsta culture and gun and knife crime are emphatically not the answer but what is?

Maturity , In Conservative Politics

Maturity

by Brett Stevens.

Conservatives need to avoid getting roped into being the voice of maturity that is a counterpart to the liberal voice of childishness.

From a distance, the childish looks like more fun and maturation looks like fascism. To a casual observer, whether a bored office worker, existentially challenged housewife, or angry teenager, the childish side looks like more fun.

This plays into the tendency of modern people to be constantly depressed and self-hating because they have externalized their self-worth in the form of money, status, power and most of all, peer pressure. As a result they are constantly looking for the uplifting and find it in the childish.

As a result, conservatives like abused children of domineering parents found themselves thrust into the role of “being the bigger person.” If the other side does something criminal, we ignore it and move on. If they demand a ludicrous plan, we come in later and fix the ruins.

From this has come a neutered version of conservatism. It accepts the basic precepts of the left, namely that every person is entitled to their own equally valid “reality,” but adds to it a finger waggling high school disciplinarian.

We as a result get drawn into trying to save people from themselves. “Don’t do drugs,” instead of the more self-serving “don’t do drugs around my family.” We try to create a perfect, safe and gentle society with laws and public initiatives.

The paradox of humanity however is that the more we try to fix things, the worse the result is. This is because we try to fix symptoms, not underlying causes. Our good intentions are on the surface level of the visible part of bigger problems, like icebergs beneath the surface.

This surface thinking arises from the social nature of civilization itself. We see things as others might see them, instead of how they are independent from a human bias toward the human perspective. This creates a one-dimensional surface view based in social notions of what should be right.

Just like nature is full of optical illusions, and unexpected twists and turns that defy “common sense” and visual aspects, nature is full of logical traps like this. We do not notice our bias because we are the instrument of our own perception.

Thus we walk into an erroneous way of viewing the world and have no one who is not human to show us the world outside humanity and correct us. We would if we listened more to all the good, noble, brave and kind dogs of the world, but they are short on language tokens so we do not.

Conservatives are entirely anathema to this social view. We care about what is eternal: beauty, efficiency, history, ideals. We focus on consequences of actions, not the action as both cause and effect as it is visualized socially, and as a result have an intense desire to know our world and predict consequences.

This is a losing proposition in a popularity contest like democracy because most people, owing to a combination of limited congenital intelligence and limited time and energy to expend learning airy subjects, pick the short-term, social, exciting and individually rewarding over the eternal.

It is for this reason that every society known to ever exist has started dying as soon as people began viewing individuals as equal. If we’re all equal, we’re all entitled to our opinions, and there is no reality principle. This creates a society where social reality and equal validity are more important than discovering reality, using it to predict the consequences of our actions, and planning for the best possible long-term consequences so that we can alter our actions to reach that state.

As those who do not wish to see collapse, conservatives are always pushing back against the tide. But in doing so, conservatives get shifted into the role of nanny, guardian and policeman. We become the cleanup crew for whatever mess the left makes.

This allows them to get away with it. They can honestly look at the past and say, “We did all this crazy and destructive stuff, and it all turned out just fine!”

It also makes conservatives unpalatable. Who do you want to vote for, the young lawmaker or his decrepit virgin aunt who thinks he should always wear a sweater and wash his hands twice before meals?

There is an old saying that does not get enough airtime. It is: “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.” Conservatives have good intentions, alright, and it is why they win elections less frequently than they should.

A New World Order: The Greatest Conspiracy

A New World Order: The Greatest Conspiracy

by Spencer Pearson

Back in 1947, before U2 and SR-71 Blackbird spyplanes, before reconnaissance satellites, some genius in the US Military came up with a brilliant plan to spy on the USSR. The deal was simple enough, simply attach a big camera to a high altitude balloon let it drift with the prevailing winds over Russia clicking away every 30 seconds and collect it once it had emerged into “free” airspace once again. The wheeze was on, transparently codenamed Project Skyhook and within weeks Secret Service goons were happily running around the world with canisters of helium, state of the art cameras and full re-imbursement expense accounts. However on the 8th of July the fun came to a crashing halt when one of the balloons sprang a leak, staggered a couple of miles from its launch site and splattered itself, and its top secret cargo, all over a stretch of nowhere of which no one had ever heard.

In a deep funk the boffins scraped up the remnants of their balloon babbling about weather experiments and insisting the local hicks shut their filthy mouths. This was a mistake. If they had left it where it was, maybe sending a pick-up full of GIs to collect the scrap a couple of days later no-one, least of all the KGB, would have ever heard of Roswell, New Mexico. Instead the denizens of the scruffy fly blown town decided to assess the significance of the incident by the response to it of the US military, which was hysterical. Add a dash of H G Wells and a legend - an entire industry in fact- was born.

Birth of an industry - the Roswell spy balloon

We can only imagine that at some point during the inevitable subsequent ass-kicking inquest into the disaster it was noted that however much of a shambles the incident had been somehow the actual nature of Project Skyhook and its intention had escaped everyone. It would seem that the Russians themselves decided the incident was too ridiculous for serious consideration and only became aware of Uncle Sam’s ballooning escapades when, in a foretaste of the Gary Powers episode, they found a camera marked “Property of the US Department of Defence” in a Siberian forest some five years later.

The implications of the Roswell Incident for the US Military was clear, the best way to avoid interest in their nefarious activities was to allow, maybe even gently encourage, the public to disperse its interest in an effort guaranteed to excite contempt from every serious citizen. For the next half a century the reaction of any member of society, who valued their position in it, upon witnessing anything unusual in the sky, like for example a massive fireball hurtling over a major population centre, was to swear they had seen nothing. The study of undoubted cases of suspicious potentially military High Weirdness all over the Western World was contaminated by an infestation of “investigators” with an agenda upon which Zeta Reticuli was frequently prominent. Thus the military was left free to do whatever it liked, safe in the knowledge that if anything went wrong aliens would get the blame and not them.

Might the US, and maybe other, militaries have encouraged this happy state of affairs, might they have buzzed a few vulnerable people, released a few ambiguous documents, crank called some paranoid ufologists? Certainly it would have been a laugh. Equally certainly it would have been perhaps the most cost effective disinformation screen ever erected. Unlike the elaborate and expensive inflatable armies of World War Two, the UFO smoke screen practically generated itself. It was as if the USAF had recruited half a million volunteers to collaborate in a massive deception. Indeed these people absolutely insisted and had the US Military been seized by a sudden and uncharacteristic fit of conscience they couldn’t have dissuaded them anyway.

Political radicalism 'subverted'

The outrageous success of the UFO disinformation and misdirection campaign can not have gone unnoticed by other agencies, state and otherwise, with other agendas. The obvious field for the application of such techniques, and one in which there was a pressing need to apply something, was that of political radicalism.

The appeal of misdirecting and subverting radical movements to elites is obvious. State involvement is taken as a given by all observers of radicalism from all perspectives, indeed is acknowledged by several states. In the post-war West in particular the vast power of the critiques of establishment power and the naked parody of democracy demanded that, as a matter of survival, the elites attempt to disrupt radical political movements. 

The US state in particular faced a serious problem in that its own ludicrous anti-Soviet propaganda might as well have been designed to promote right wing radicalism. That it should take some sort of action to mitigate this is only common sense. As it is the increasingly crazed theocratic Republicans are probably largely the product of fifty years of anti-socialist state propaganda. Had steps not been taken to prevent even more severe radicalisation the Tea Party movement might now be considered as holding the same position on the American political spectrum as Tony Blair does on the British.

So we can therefore construct a persuasive hypothesis that we should be able to discern evidence of the effects of disinformation and misdirection campaigns on the radical right. This is very much like saying we should have been able to detect evidence of storm damage in New Orleans after the visitation of Hurricane Katrina. Everywhere on the right of the radical spectrum we find people and groups rendered completely ineffective and hopelessly confused as a result of imbibing stories which range from the extremely unlikely to the outright ludicrous. On the wilder fringe, such as the commonly held belief in the continued supremacy of Elizabeth the Second over the Western elites (a la Lyndon LaRouche), we can only conclude that such ideas were deliberately constructed in an attempt to plumb the depth of credibility in some narcotic orgy by an elite team of fiction writers.

Elizabeth II - "criminal mastermind" of pan European network - apparently!

So complete is this misdirection that individuals who maintain radical right positions from an analysis of sociology, philosophy, history or any other rational intellectual pursuit are almost none existent. Those that do exist have not only to contented with the consequences of the misdirection of the radical right but brave the opprobrium that misdirection has generated in the general public. Therefore right wing intellectuals must have sufficient qualities to both disregard the dismal intellectual condition of the radical right and brave the hatred aimed at it as a result. Needless to say few such individuals have been discovered.

So we have a motive, a method, and a scene of utter devastation to support our hypothesis that the radical right has been the target of a totally successful disinformation and misdirection campaign. But can we find a mechanism by which this could have been effected, a concrete evidence backed narrative of how this was done?

Koch-up or conspiracy?

Fred Koch, born in the USA in 1900, founder of the second largest industrial concern in the USA today, Koch Industries. In 1927 Fred, a brilliant Chemist, invented a new method of converting oil into petrol, and was promptly sued by the established oil companies who filed no less than 44 suits against him. Koch eventually won all but one, and it was later proved that the judge in that case had been bribed. Having been effectively excluded from the American market Koch sold his expertise overseas, in particular to the USSR where he built 15 plants between ‘29 and ‘32, receiving $5 million US dollars from the Soviets for his efforts. Koch spent a substantial period of time in the USSR where he was assigned a personal political instructor, Jerome Livshitz, who schooled him in communist ideology. So here we have a guy with a grudge against the capitalist system which royally screwed him and who was welcomed and enriched by the Soviets, as well as indoctrinated.

So you’d expect this guy to at least have some sympathies with the communists, right? You’d not really expect him to be a massive fan of capitalism, the West and its values, right? You wouldn’t necessarily expect him to, say, start a rabidly right wing anti-communist political organisation backed by hundreds of thousands of Soviet sourced dollars?

Well then you’d be wrong because that is exactly what he did.

From 1958 Koch founded and financed the John Birch Society, named after a US intelligence officer killed whilst hanging around in China in 1945. Koch claimed to have been appalled by what he had seen in Russia and most of the early work of the Society was simple McCarthy style anti-communist stuff. Within a couple of years, having established an audience on the Right, it changed tack and began to propagate the conspiracy theory which now dominates the radical right; the one world communist government objective of the UN referred to, even at this early stage, as the 'New World Order'.

Fred Koch - industrialist and founder of John Birch Society

Just as is still the case the John Birch Society maintained, in spite of all reason or observational evidence , that the US government itself, all of it, was in on the plot.

The John Birch Society officially rejected anti -Semitism and anti-zionism. (In the radical right sense as opposed to a Jewish conspiracy rather than in the usual understanding of the term, to be in favour of a Jewish homeland in the Levant). It did however make sure that its propaganda reached the anti-Semitic radical right since Dr William Luther Pierce (author of the notorious Turner Diaries and founder of various overtly Nazi organisations) was a founding member. Through this direct link the John Birch Society was able to export its“ideas” into the traditional anti-Semitic right where they were rapidly assimilated into the ancient narrative. The effect of having these ideas associated with despised and discredited anti-Jewish elements ensured that they would never reach a mainstream audience.

For the last fifty years the John Birch Society has poured a steady stream of disinformation and misdirection into the radical right. It “seeded”conspiracy theories into anti-establishment organisations and ideas where they found a ready audience who then developed these ideas into concepts even more fanciful and unpalatable than the original disinformation. This is an exact parallel of the UFO disinformation campaign's “seeding” that movement with ideas which were bound to put it outside the mainstream and render it ridiculous and ineffective.

Once initiated well-targeted disinformation and misdirection campaigns gather their own momentum and become self sustaining. In the case of the disinformation and misdirection campaign aimed at the radical right the process effectively destroyed the entire threat to the establishment from the “right wing” analysis and critique.

Whether Koch really was, as he maintained, opposing communism or whether he was a Soviet asset carrying out a mission to wreck the Western radical right tradition the effect was the same. What is beyond reasonable doubt is that the John Birch Society was a project tasked with spreading disinformation and misdirection into right wing radicalism.

Everything you have just read is based on fact, entirely drawn from a few wiki pages. The conspiracy theory which you have just studied may be true, but the point is that it is a conspiracy theory obeying all the rules and techniques used in their generation. No doubt most of the intended audience will simply reject it because of their prior investment in the traditional conspiracy theories of the radical right. However since there is no more or less evidence for this theory than those traditional ones if they do then they must accept that their belief system is not based on evidence based rational analysis, it’s based on faith.

If the radical right is to be redeemed then it must reject all conspiracy analysis. We know that even if there are elements of truth within those theories we can not hope, much less expect, to be able to disentangle those elements from the huge quantities of disinformation which surround them. The radical right’s objection to the establishment of the West is not that it carried out 9/11, but that its actions are immoral, unjust and likely to have, at the very least, a detrimental effect on the world. The radical right should not oppose a single global state because it is run by Jews, the Masons, Bilderbergers or the Skull and Bones Society but because it is contrary to our values and beliefs surrounding freedom and self determination. The British radical right should critique the Establishment’s political process not as some sort of Frankfurt School puppet show but as a subversion of the nation’s self determination and democracy.

Web of conspirators or harmless college club - Yale's Skull and Bones Society

Ultimately we know that the vast Brothers Grimm style book of Conspiracy Fairy Tales which makes up about 95% of the radical right’s arguments is unsalable and presents no threat to the political system it opposes. Meanwhile there are serious critiques and aspirations with huge potential power which are barely understood much less promoted. If the radical right is to be revived as a political and intellectual force it is these ideas which must supplant silly conspiracy theories as its main focus.

Post Script: During the late 90's the environmental group Greenpeace discovered a monumental disinformation campaign being financed to challenge the climate change consensus of mainstream science. The owner of one of America's largest industrial concerns was proved to have funnelled millions of dollars to groups which were united by only one common interest; "climate scepticism". Ever since Greenpeace and other environmental groups have fought a running battle to expose this misinformation campaign which they now claim has had over sixty one million dollars spent on it by one organisation alone. Disinformation is real.

Post Post Script: The name of that organisation? Koch Industries.