Lessons from Thomas Jefferson

on September  2012

Keith Davies

Thomas Jefferson is one the founding fathers most revered by the left because of the false revisionist narrative they paint of him on the issue of “separation of church and the state.” David Barton, the great historian of Wall Builders – in his excellent book ‘The Jefferson Lies’ – proves beyond a shadow of a doubt, the strong Christian faith of Thomas Jefferson and approbation of the false revisionist history touted by the left, to remove God from our country.
If the left can misuse Jefferson for their unholy agenda then I can certainly use his true life history to learn about how and what we need to do to beat back the threat of Islamic fundamentalism and to solve our suicidal economic tendencies. Ignoring both will prevent us from being able to restore the freedoms we are throwing away because of ignorance, apathy and a focus on consumerism versus the real value of life which is liberty.
In the latter part of the eighteenth century, after the USA had been formed, one of the first major issues the country had to deal with was the piracy by Muslims from North Africa who interfered with our shipping and took non-Muslim slaves with many Americans. Over a period of fifteen years we paid these Muslim pirates millions of dollars, which would be the equivalent of billions of dollars today.
Thomas Jefferson bought a Qur’an to study his enemy but the left exploited his ownership of it in order to falsely suggest that Jefferson considered Islam as a faith or had some favorable attitude towards Islam; Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) used Jefferson’s Qur’an as a propaganda stunt by using it in his swearing in ceremony after his election to Congress in 2006.
After fifteen years of extortion from the Islamic Pirates of the Barbary Coast, as well as some serious study of Islam by Thomas Jefferson, the third President of the United States lobbied his Congressional colleagues to stop paying tribute and raise an army (the United States Marine Corps. was used to protect our shipping as well as to rescue the hostages and slaves kept prisoner in Africa). Many in Congress objected to this and wished to continue the appeasement but Jefferson prevailed and the Pirates were defeated.
Today, the very same problem exists. We are being extorted for money because of oil, the Palestinian refugee issue, and the promise of money to the Egyptian government to bribe them to keep the peace with Israel, which has now backfired since the Muslim Brotherhood has taken power. Most, both on the left and the right – including people like Dick Cheney – wish to still hold Egypt and Saudi Arabia as our Allies, even though they are raping our economy and that of the free world’s dependence on their oil.
In order to solve the problem we just have to take the cue from Thomas Jefferson. We need to stop buying their oil and send in the Marines if they wish to mess with us anymore. You might ask how do we get our own oil? The answer is simple; Canada in the short term and our American ingenuity in the longer term. A country like ours, that won both World Wars, put the first men on the moon, and is the world’s leader in technology because of our great capitalist system, can easily rise to the challenge of gaining self-sufficiency in energy. We have an abundance of oil in the ground but we do not go after it. We are hampered by left wing environmental whackos, which include the Obama regime and our other corrupt politicians with some of them on the right who pander to Saudi Arabia. Our disastrous energy policy, which also endangers our national security because we trust some Bedouins in a desert who have a religion that is based on middle-aged savagery, where the only other things produced apart from oil are dates and terrorists.
The ease with which we could solve our unemployment problem with basic common sense is fathomable; it will also cut the price of oil by at least half in the world market. This, just by focusing on being energy independent in as short a time as possible. Today, we employ about 9.2 million people in the oil and gas business. Yet, we only produce about 30% of our required needs domestically. We all know that we have in our country enough oil and gas that can be exploited to be self-sufficient, which would triple our current production. This would easily double and possibly triple the number of high paying jobs, thereby wiping out our unemployment problem. This would also improve our deficit problem as we would be collecting more taxes and paying less unemployment benefits as the economy would grow rapidly. Mitt Romney states this like a bumper sticker but he needs to explain in greater detail like I have above on how this plan would strengthen us economically, using easy numbers to understand the potential.
Thomas Jefferson understood the motive of Islam by studying his enemy. He understood that strong military strength and intervention protects you from extortion and evil. Jefferson is heralded by the left to mischaracterize his positions for its own sordid agenda – removing God from public life. Yet, if one studies the true Jefferson, he made some profound statements, which would ridicule the agenda of today’s left and the masses who wish for free handouts. Here are several quotes from Jefferson that sum up where we have gone wrong and what we need to do to correct our path:

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circlue of our felicities.
All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.
I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.
It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world.
My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government.
I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.
Experience hath shown, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.
When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty.

The reason why the left is successful when it comes to distorting history is because the right doesn’t do a good enough job of defending it.

There's the media's narrative and then there's the truth

There's the media's narrative and then there's the truth

In a 2009 episode of the HBO series “Curb your Enthusiasm” the alleged comedian and Seinfeld script writer Larry David, appeared in a scene where he visits the toilet in the home of a Christian family and “accidentally” urinates on a painting of Christ. As a result Mr David's piddle then becomes the source of religious veneration when the “dumb Christians” take it to be a miracle and assume that the picture is weeping.

Despite the widespread offence this scene caused to many Christians, a spokesperson for the at any other time fanatically politically correct cable channel insisted that the portrayal of a Jewish man pissing on our saviour was merely“playful”.

Also, and readers can correct me if I am wrong, after all I may well have been bathing a dog, or painting my toenails at the time and missed it, I have no recollection of any presidents, prime ministers or Secretaries of state giving press conferences to call the episode “disgusting” and “reprehensible” or issuing statements condemning “all those” who offend believers of “ANY” faith.

Likewise, if the FBI did apprehend the writers of “Curb your Enthusiasm” or took them in for questioning, as they has done with the makers of this latest “anti-Islamic” movie, I must also have missed those reports, - perhaps a helpful reader can send me a link.

Once again, I may have been otherwise occupied at the time, but following the depiction of Christ in the Musical “Jerry Springer the Opera” as an effeminate, overweight baby in a diaper, I do not seem to recall any embassies being burnt down, or murdered ambassador's bodies being dragged through the streets by baying and blood thirsty gangs of Christians.

To be fair “Jerry Springer the Opera” did result in protests, but these primarily involved groups of Christians standing outside theatres singing hymns and handing out leaflets, rather than setting fire to buildings and calling for executions. Indeed, according to some accounts, more commotion was caused by audience members objecting to being handed a leaflet than by the Christian protesters themselves.

Of course according to the media, the Muslim world is merely reacting in the same way as followers of any other faith if offended by some cheep internet flick.

A snarling mob of Muslims may have murdered U.S. ambassador, Chris Stevens, his aide Sean Smith and two former Navy SEALs, Tyrone S. Woods and Glen A. Doherty because of an 18 minute YouTube video, but Christians would have done exactly the same faced with similar provocation.

That is the first lie, but only the first of many.

Of course, we have seen this all before, all it takes is an unfounded rumour of a quran being dropped in a toilet or a Danish artist, with an old fashioned belief in free expression, draws cartoon of some old guy with a bomb in his turban, and the devotees of love and peace turn into a howling homicidal mob, intent on telling others what values they should live by.

However, it is the behaviour of the politicians, the media and the “creative establishment” which is most contemptible.

Where, for instance, are all the talking heads who spring up instantly to defend the rights of anyone to make movies or creates images which are offensive to Christians or even to pontificate on the artistic merit of placing a crucifix in a jar of urine or painting the Virgin Mary with Elephant dung? They usually have so much to say, but when it comes to Islam they all fall silent.

Meanwhile the press continually imply that there is a moral equivalence between a video which has been online without causing any upset since July, and murderous, wide spread rioting and arson which spontaneously broke out two months later on the exact anniversary of the September 11^th attack on the World Trade centre in New York.

The politicians surpass themselves in hypocrisy, by tempering any criticism of the riots by then criticising the video and then lie by saying that they would condemn equally attempts to offend members of any faith, which we all know they would not, and have not done so in the past.

However, we know that's a lie but does any of it have much credibility?

Certainly anyone who believes that the riots are really a response to a video, which as anyone who has seen it will attest is a cross between a very bad “Naked Gun” with added sand, and some form of “Carry on Up the Jihad”, should not be allowed to drive or handle machinery until they have sobered up. In fact, the violence was planned well in advance and is a response to the commemoration of the slaughter of almost 3,000 people on September 11 2001. We all know that.

However, what about the establishment and the media? Do you really believe their responses? Indeed do they believe any of what they are saying?

Did they ever really believe in the Arab Spring at all?, were they really stupid enough to interpret the uprisings which started in December 2010 and have since completely changed the political make up of the region as demonstrating a craving for a peaceful secular democracy? Were they really that naive? 

Whatever the truth, what we see today, they, our leaders and our media, have helped to create. What we see is a dangerous, unstable strip of nations across North Africa and the Southern Mediterranean, all run by people who hate us, ruling over people screaming for our blood and all of them facing onto Europe.

Meanwhile, millions upon millions of them are already here. The official estimate is that there are 53 million Muslims now living in Europe, however, as with all official estimates of immigration figures it is almost certainly far below the true figure. A number of sources put the actual figure closer to 75 million, (not that much of a stretch given that based on food consumption alone the main four supermarkets estimated in 2008 that the UK population alone was actually between ten and twenty million more than the official figure) If that is true, the real number of Muslims in Europe is roughly equal to the population of Germany in 1939. If you add to that the 70 million Turks whom our leaders, such as Cameron, are desperate to grant access to Europe, you have numbers close to that of the Axis Powers at the beginning of World War II, and they already here amongst us and with a billion more behind them, all facing a West who's people are no longer inclined to fight for their survival.

Across the Atlantic is a long time ally who, under the current administration we can no longer trust to come to our aid especially if we were in conflict with Islam. “I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.” said Barack Obama or whoever wrote “The Audacity of Hope” for him, in reference to Muslims at a time of international conflict. If he wins in November, we may find how much he meant those words within the next four years.

And it could well be that soon, things have changed so rapidly and so decisively in such a short space of time.

Is this coincidence or was this intended? Was ir due to incompetence, ideological blindness or malevolent design?.

Do we yet realise how much danger we are in? Or are we like the sheep grazing peacefully and placidly in a field we though would never change, so contented and so comfortable that we did not notice the wolves slinking quietly towards us from the woods, until they had us surrounded on all sides and there was no escape.

How ordinary people ruined the West

Sept, 2012

by Brett Stevens.

The best ideas are unpopular because their unpopularity means that they are both contrary to the trends of the time, and there’s a threat that they’re correct.
The primary mythos of our time is that of external control, both in the idea that we can control other people (we cannot) and that any misfortunes or fortunes we encounter are the result of external forces acting upon us or through us.
Through theories such as “invisible hand” theories of economics, or belief in the rule of law, we pretend that nothing an individual does in his own sphere of influence has any impact on others. They are separated in our compartmentalized minds.
In contrast, a sensible exploration reveals what we are afraid to see: our fortunes are made by the choices of individuals, especially when enough gather around a popular choice to make it snowball into a mob situation.
Even more intense is the problem of plurality, in which whatever appeals to the broadest group possible drowns out everything else. The profit is simply easier with the broadest group, and as a result, there is no incentive to provide for the others.
Because human beings compete for individual status when there is no other plan or goal, and because then “keeping up with the Joneses” includes both imitating successes and hiding errors, society turns on itself by chasing trends.
Imagine two products, Refrigerator A and Refrigerator B. A is more reliable but old and boring; B is less reliable but looks snazzy and costs more. Which one wins out?
In theory, it would be A because it’s the better deal. However, as soon as one person buys B, a trend exists, and suddenly B is most of what is being sold. In order to capture the new stream of money, the maker of A may even switch to making B-like models.
The gnarly part is that once the consumers who bought B notice that it’s starting to break down, they don’t admit that something went wrong. Instead, they defend their position, and make excuses for B while demonizing A.
Within a few years, no consumer can get A at a reasonable price. They are all forced to use B if they want a refrigerator. Since 95% of the consumers cannot tell the difference, there’s no market for bringing A back.
It is true that in the world of hand-made leather-lined luxury refrigerators, someone makes a version of A that’s guaranteed for 75 years, but it costs more than a car. For all practical purposes, the society has rejected A — the better option — in favor of B.
There’s a saying that every society gets the government it deserves. This is also true of products and social climate. When the number of selfish, short-sighted and reality-denying people — these go together, usually a product of bad parenting — rises to a certain point, say more than a fifth of the people, the society begins its downward plunge.
At that point, the same forces that once made the society great are now working against it. People act in their own self-interest, at the expense of others. Large corporations are driven by the shareholders who possess their stock and want more profit; government is driven bankrupt by the demands of voters who want more services.
When all of this shakes out, the crowd of people will together get defensive. They will not admit their own wrongdoing, but will blame those to whom they delegated the wrongdoing, namely corporations and government. And then the people will retreat, telling themselves that all along a great conspiracy kept them from being “free.”
The mundanity of evil is a stark thing to behold. Where we expected complexity and intent, there is only a circular march toward unrealistic and nonexistent goals, leading to a disintegration of the marchers.

The guilty men behind the Arab Winter | Melanie Phillips

The guilty men behind the Arab Winter | Melanie Phillips

So now we can see the terrible results of western liberal hubris, the so-called Arab Spring so credulously and stupidly brought into being by Barack Obama, David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy. In Libya, the American ambassador and three colleagues have been murdered. In Egypt, the embassy has been sacked. In Yemen, the mob inflamed by Muslim Brotherhood incitement has today stormed the US embassy there.
How Obama et al preened and postured over their role in helping the Libyan ‘opposition’ get rid of Gaddafy! How they congratulated themselves at the fall of Mubarak in Egypt! It was the dawn of democracy, they gushed, a new era for Libyans and Egyptians who were all on Twitter and Facebook and so were clearly modern folk keen to enjoy human rights and the rule of law, and who could now have all of that thanks to the enlightened help of Obama, Cameron and Sarkozy.
In fact, the most likely result always was the empowerment of Islamic radicals who would enslave the people and make war against the west. Obstinately, these arrogant western fools nevertheless stuck to their fantasy of a democratic ‘spring’, even while the evidence mounted up that what they had actually done was create a vacuum which would unleash the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamic radicals and thus set Libya and Egypt on a path back towards the 7^th century.
In Egypt, they helped depose a ruler who was in the pocket of the west; the man they helped install instead, Mohamed Morsi, is not only a Muslim Brotherhood placeman but has been cosying up to Iran. An alliance between the Sunni mortal enemies of the west and the Shia mortal enemies of the west – that’s quite an achievement. Well done, Obama, Cameron and Sarkozy!
Now the American ambassador to Libya and three of his colleagues, along with up to ten Libyans, have been most foully murdered by the very mob that we were told represented the new Libya. They burned the American flag and ran up instead the black flag of jihad. The ostensible reason for the violence, an apparently amateurish and deliberately inflammatory film that insulted Islam, was just a pretext (the identity of the film’s maker remains a mystery, with the theory growing that it was a Coptic Christian rather than, as originally reported by the BBC, an Israeli film-maker). It now turns out that this was probably a long-planned Islamist attack, possibly by al Qaeda in revenge for the killing of its second-in-command Abu Yahya al-Libi, who was killed in a US drone strike in Pakistan in June.
The Arab Winter has not brought forth democracy but unleashed anarchy and religious fanaticism, with Islamic mobs hitherto kept under control by Gaddafy and Mubarak now empowered, strengthened and rampaging out of control throughout the region.
We know who are the real guilty men here. Even now, Obama is stroking the enemies of the west while kicking its allies in the crutch. ‘Too busy’ to see Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu when he comes to Washington later this month to beg for American help in preventing Iran from obtaining the nuclear weapons which it will use to achieve its declared aim of wiping Israel from the face of the earth, Obama will nevertheless meet Morsi, who has so far issued only qualified regret for the storming of the US embassy in Cairo, demanded that the US government take action against the maker of the anti-Islamic film -- and who last spring released from an Egyptian prison Mohammed Zawahiri, brother of al Qaeda’s current leader and who led the mob who stormed the Cairo embassy this week. As James Lewis observes in a fine piece at American Thinker:

‘The United States now stands with the forces of destruction...’

While America reels under assault from the very forces unleashed by its own President, the fanatics running the Iranian regime are holding their breath that Obama will be re-elected so that they can progress unhindered to the creation of their genocide bomb. Never have the American people been faced with such a momentous choice for the future of the world than the one they will make on November 6.

JFK THE SPEECH THAT MAY HAVE KILLED THE PRESIDENT

There have been many theories over the years has to how President Kennedy was assassinated, but the reason why must 1st be asked. they thought that a single man could have fired the shots on a moving vehicle from a high building with a antiquated rifle is ridiculous. The assassination was a possessional hit and the only suspect soon killed off after. 
i strongly suspect that JFK and his younger brother Bobby were strongly against the growing NWO military industrial complex that President Eishehower warned off in his farewell address below which you should watch 1st, then the speech that could have killed President JFK
. 

Sunday Sermon Service , The Looming Dam of Persecution

The Looming Dam of Persecution

As the new church begins in the midst of the old Temple, the disciples (and their expanding number of adherents) are barely aware of the Dam of opposition looming over their heads from the temple authorities; who had crucified and rejected the King, whom the disciples now boldly proclaimed. But the way of the Messiah is the way of blessing, for both state and church! Within forty years the believing church would be established and the rejecting Temple would be destroyed,

EDL in Walthamstow New English Review

EDL in Walthamstow. New English Review
 To Walthamstow with the EDL to protest against the islamisation of this London district, formerly part of Essex, which with Leyton and Chingford form the London Borough of Waltham Forest.   The many reasons to do so were covered here, last month.

The original request was for a march to leave Walthamstow Central Station, marching north up Hoe Street, past the top of the famous Walthamstow High Street Market, turning right at Bell Corner into Forest Road and thence to a site by the Town Hall and Assembly Rooms for a rally and speeches. The Town Square is in use as a large screen public viewing area for the Paralympics.

The authorities said no. Instead the EDL agreed to muster at Kings Cross in north London (as happened last year for the Tower Hamlets demo) then travel by tube to Blackhorse Road (one stop on the Victoria line from Walthamstow Central) then a  march the length of Forest Road, crossing the Bell corner junction on the way to the Town Hall.

I decided to start at Walthamstow Central to see what was happening at the rally by We Are Waltham Forest in support of multiculturalism. This was due to begin on the Arcade Site opposite the Town Square at 11am and they had been promising choirs, music and celebration etc. for weeks.. The Arcade site used to contain a rather good shopping arcade; this was pulled down and is now concreted over while the council wrangle about which redevelopment deal will pay them the best backhanders.

To my surprise (not) the Town Square was given over to a large political rally featuring the usual suspects – Socialist Worker, the Socialist party, various trades Unions, and Solidarity with Palestine. A sound stage and PA system drowned out the Paralympic commentary which many people still endeavoured to watch.

These photographs show a selection of the sorts of groups taking part.

I didn’t catch this woman’s name but I believe her to be a trade union official from a Public Service union – from her cherry pink tabard I suppose that she is a dinner  lady. Her speech criticised the EDL as football hooligans and thugs – racists. Do not be fooled, she said. They say they are not but they are made up of the core of the old British Nazi Party – the old National Front. And if you do not believe what they have in store for us look at Europe. Look at Marine le Pen in France. Look at Sweden where they have Nazis in Parliament again. And it is not just the EDL that we are against. We are against those politicians who are letting this happen. David Cameron HOW DARE YOU CRITICISE MULTICULTURALISM. She is proud to stand with her Muslim brothers and sisters.

Ladies and gentlemen, fresh from their triumphant politically correct re-writing of English history at the Olympic opening ceremony, we present, on drums, the Tolpuddle Martyrs.

This young man claims that he was born in Waltham Forest, not 15 minutes from this site. Which begs the question why doesn’t he have the local accent? Notice that Costa Coffee did a roaring trade.

An announcement that the rally was to line up ready to march was rescinded, come back we are not ready to go yet.

I decided to walk to Forest Road to see the EDL coming along. I passed the Arcade Site. There was a belling ringing demonstration in aid of the Parish church and the choir Waltham Forest Voices were singing very sweetly about Sunshine in your Life to an audience of 5 people. That was a shame, but bashing the fash obviously held more appeal.

I walked along Forest Road until I could see the march in the distance. The police were clearing the pavements and after being moved along several times I took an officer’s direction that behind the railings of the garden surrounding the William Morris gallery was an acceptable and safe place for me.

After the march passed, progress being rather slow, I decided to slip down some side streets and get ahead of them as I wanted to see them pass Bell Corner. I came up Hoe Street to find that the WAWF rally had been allowed the Hoe Street route to march and they were blocking the junction. I found out later that missiles, bottles and bricks had been thrown at the EDL and WAWR had sat down blocking the street. The EDL were taken along some back streets crossing Chingford Road behind the Bell and reaching the Town Hall by a side entrance.

The police had the way forward completely blocked so I tried to reach the Town Hall down more of the little back streets. Many individuals of the WAWF had the same idea.

The main body of their counter demonstration were then moved by the police to a space to the front of the Town Hall, which the EDL were at the side. I have heard that the stage had to be dismantled due to more flying missiles and there were no speeches. It was expected that speeches would be made by Tommy Robinson, Kev Carroll, Paul Weston, and a Walthamstow resident. Down the back streets the students and teacher looking types started to drift away, dumping their flyers and placards in hedges, on the floor, anywhere as they did so.

Their place was taken by car loads of young men many in Islamic dress. I managed to get in front of the Town Hall but again the police blocked both the road and the pavement and were letting no one through.

I went back the way I came but turned left earlier and found myself right opposite the Bell. This is how the area was left.

Hoe Street was blocked and WAWR were contained behind a row of police vans.

You can see the unholy alliance of Islam and Trade Unionists.

Weyman Bennet leader of the SWP tries to pick up another dinner lady.

Gradually more and more young men arrived. Some had taken the card off their placards and were brandishing the sticks. As fast as police were confiscating the sticks more young men and boys appeared. They shook their sticks at the police, jeering.

The EDL march could be seen in the far distance crossing Chingford Road on their way back to Blackhouse Road Station.

Allah Akbar – it’s time for prayer – and if the road is closed – use it.

I didn’t like the atmosphere and decided it was time to leave. Making my way up the hill more and more young men with sticks were coming down. By the time I got to my car the police helicopters were circling above and I could hear sirens.  I left at 6pm and got home at 7pm. At the time of writing this it is 9.30 and I read that the EDL have been held at Blackhorse Road all this time. Members of the Underground Train drivers union are believed to have refused to drive the trains to take them to the dispersal point.

At 10.30 I am told that many have been arrested under the new favourite police trick 'potential breach of the peace' taken in vans to outlying police stations at the very edges of the Metropolitan area, and de-arrested to make their way home with difficulty.

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!