From Marx to Mohammed

From Marx to Mohammed

by Baron Bodissey

The following essay was written for Trykkefrihedsselskabet (the Danish Free Press Society) last year, but its thesis is still timely. In his article, Geoffrey Cain echoes some of the themes that have frequently been discussed here by Fjordman, among others.

Many thanks to Anne-Kit of Perth, Australia, for translating this excellent piece:

From Marx to Mohammed

By Geoffrey Cain, 24 July 2009

Pietro Cini writes (15 June 2009) in Information [intellectual, left-leaning Danish daily newspaper] a poetic piece about how we Europeans should be aware of the “cultural and historical macro context that ties us to the Middle East”. Because that is where our roots are.

Havfrue in a burqa“Even Europe itself came from the Middle East,” Cini continues, and this happy relationship with the Middle East is beneficial to all parties (although mainly to us, if we read between the lines), and here Cini is quite in line with other Western intellectuals, who following the fall of the Wall dropped Marxism for a new saviour religion. All of them have passed seamlessly from Marx to Mohammed and now swear by the beard of the Prophet that Muslims will civilize us just like their ancestors did; the victorious Jihadis from Saudi Arabia who brought us medicine, Arabic numerals, navigational techniques, optics, chemistry and the soup bowl.

But before we disappear completely in oriental euphoria it is a good idea to recall the pragmatic words of the orientalist — and arabophile — Bernard Lewis, in his essay “The Arab/Muslim Non-Contribution”, where he writes “… furthermore even the notion of Islamic contributions to pre-modern science and philosophy — in the wake of heady Jihadi victories and land acquisitions — is nothing but myth”.

Those who doubt this can easily confirm it by self-study, but they should commence with a thought experiment: What if the Arab Muslims had defeated Charles Martel and made themselves masters of all of Europe?

Music as the Devil’s Work

Would Bach have composed his often Christian-inspired music as well under Islam? Would music have been permitted at all? Or — as the Ayatollah Khomeini demanded — would it be banned because it was the work of the Devil? Under the Islamic ban on pictures, would Rembrandt have painted anything but flowers? Would Einstein, a despised Jew, have thrown up groundbreaking theories that are in direct conflict with the laws of Allah?

– – – – – – – –

Many would answer in the affirmative; art and science is well able to thrive in Arabic/Muslim countries. Just look at Moorish Spain and the Muslim philosophers and scientists of the Middle Ages. People like Ibn Sina (Avicenna) and Ibn Rushd (Averroes). And this is quite true.

However, it is important to bear in mind that Ibn Sina and Ibn Rushd are not held in much esteem in the Muslim world, where they are almost viewed as heretics. They were two of the few “genuine” Muslims from the heyday of Islam who didn’t come from a Jewish, Christian or other background, and it was really the subjects of the Arabs — Christians, Assyrians, Hindus, Persians and Jews — who made it possible for the Arab/Islamic Empire to blossom, and with that for a rather short historical period. Only a few of the people who were behind this blossoming were Arabs, and most of them had conveniently converted from among the conquered peoples.

Christian and Jewish Translators

If you are even slightly doubtful of the real circumstances, you only have to look at Islam’s Arabic cradle, Saudi Arabia, today. Without oil it would look like the barren and backward Somalia, that is, technically in the Middle Ages, socially in the Stone Age. But that is not how the story is told. Modern, culturally radical historians tell us that all the good things we enjoy come from Arab Muslims. Nothing could be more wrong.

Let’s take the example of the translation of the Greek cultural inheritance which led to the European Renaissance. Were the translators Muslim Arabs, which many claim? No. The translations were mainly carried out by Christians and Jews and — interestingly enough — only really took off after the Arabic conquerors had been driven out of the translators’ city of Toledo.

Likewise the architectural pearls of Cordoba, Granada, and the Taj Mahal were created by people “picked up” by the Arabs on their way. What else? How could a desert people who had always lived in tents or mud huts suddenly become architects? How could cattle-herding nomads create irrigation systems which were completely unknown in the Arabs’ own lands, but were found fully developed in pre-Islamic North Africa, Mesopotamia, and India? The same goes for the Islamic miniature painters and ivory carvers. They were Persians and Hindus respectively. The mathematicians and astronomers were Coptic Egyptians. Many were people who fled from the fundamentalist Islamic regime in Baghdad and Damascus to the more liberal regime in Spain, and when fundamentalism came to Spain many of them had to flee again.

But that is another story.

A Muslim Kierkegaard?

In summary it is possible to claim that the balance of Muslim achievement is owed to the natives of the countries they conquered, and as these countries were gradually arabized and muslimized around the year 1000, the Arab/Islamic culture lost its life force and fell into decay. And what has it achieved since then? Not much. Denmark alone has achieved as much as, if not more than the entire Muslim world combined.

Where is the Muslim Kierkegaard? Where is their Saxo [historian]? The Arabian Nights was borrowed from India, just like their numeric system and the famous zero. Where is their Grundtvig [national hymn writer], their Hans Christian Andersen? Where is their Niels Bohr? How many Nobel Laureates have come from the 56 Muslim nations combined? Where is their Carl Nielsen, their Dirk Passer, their Storm P., their Olsen Banden [comedians]? Where is their humour, where is their ability to think for themselves, an ability which originated in Christian Europe without any help from Pietro Cini’s new role models? The latter are unlikely to have much to offer except a return ticket to the Stone Age.

Is that the way we want to go?

Lower Manhattan board mixed on planned mosque and Islamic center at Ground Zero WTC site


We want “mutual respect” and “mutual understanding.” The Muslim community must be sensitive to non-Muslim feelings.

Last week, the finance committee, composed of 12 people, voted unanimously in support of the mosque, after Imam Rauf and his wife, Daisy Khan, made a presentation. No one knew about it, no announcement was made. The matter will now go to the full committee (more than 40 people). The full committee will be meeting on May 25. WE NEED YOU ALL TO ATTEND TO VOICE YOUR OPPOSITION.

CB1 has no legal authority. Their “approval” or disapproval is in no way binding on the matter, but the media will be there, and we need to send a message to Rauf, Khan and Mayor Bloomberg: This is wrong.  This will do terrible harm to the 9/11 family community and non- Muslims around the world.

5/25    CB #1 Monthly Meeting – 6:00 PM

Location:      Three Legged Dog Art and Technology Center
80 Greenwich Street (at Rector Street)

Lower Manhattan board mixed on planned mosque and Islamic center at Ground Zero WTC site New York Daily News

Community Board 1 will meet Tuesday to vote on the Cordoba House – a planned 13-story Islamic community center and prayer space near Ground Zero.

While approval from the 50-member board is not needed to build the center, the vote may indicate how residents of lower Manhattan feel about the idea.

“The community board is a good barometer of the sentiment of the people in that neighborhood,” said Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer.

“Many of the people on the Community Board are people who stayed in the neighborhood after 9/11, who had to rebuild this area,” he said. “These are good people with good instincts.”

The board’s 12-member Financial District committee unanimously voted in favor of the project earlier this month. “From my perspective, there’s not a lot to dislike about the project,” said Ro Scheffe, 59, a member of the committee who runs a communications firm and lives three blocks from Wall St. Foes – including some members of the board – argue an Islamic community center so close to Ground Zero is insensitive to the families of people who died on 9/11.

Two board members who asked not to be identified told the Daily News that they’re against the project, but won’t come out against it publicly. Instead, they want to table the vote indefinitely.

“It’s not right to build it so close to Ground Zero, and it’s not right for this board to vote on a religious center,” one member said.


Need a ride? Hook up HERE.

Zuccotti Park, formerly named and generally known as Liberty Plaza Park, is a 33,000-square-foot (3,100 m2) park in Lower Manhattan in New York City, New York. It is located between Broadway and Church streets and Liberty and Cedar streets. Its northwest corner is across the street from the World Trade Center site.

Mosque rally updated

Muslims at the Salute to Israel Day Parade

Annihilationists. Notice how this is becoming more common. More mainstream. Jihad and Islamic anti-semitism and kuffarphobia should relegated to the very fringes of society, as the KKK was in the early twentieth century, instead of the tacit approval being given to these barbarians and savages with silence and apology. This is the road to hell. We must change the culture, and fast.

Here is a passing glimpse of a sign held by Muslims at the salute to Israel day parade this past Sunday.

Israel muslims

Videos here.

Dhimmi Hood

Dhimmi Hood

by Baron Bodissey

A new movie about Robin Hood and the Crusades was recently released. Elan-tima (who comments occasionally here at Gates of Vienna) has spared me the trouble of seeing it by sending this brief review with his permission to post it:

Robin Hood — Ridley ScottAs a regular reader of Gates of Vienna I thought I’d write to you about the new Ridley Scott shclockbuster Robin Hood, which stars Russell Crowe.

Please make your readers aware that not surprisingly Mr. Scott has for the second time showed his dhimmitude by attempting to distort history and also by steering the blame and brutality of the Crusades squarely onto the heads of those Euro-trash from days of old.

In the opening of the movie it is written that Richard the Lionheart’s action in what was called the Holy Land is referred to as “his” crusade. As if it were the whim of one glory-hungry, misguided monarch willing to bankrupt England for a wrong cause (a not-so-subtle poke at the current adventures in the Middle East).

– – – – – – – –

Then comes scene where Russell Crowe speaks of a massacre of thousands of Muslims by the Christian invaders, and describes how an old Muslim lady looked into the eyes of Robin Longstride “not with fear or anger, but with pity”. After hearing this, King Richard dismisses Robin’s statement as naïve, and then punishes Robin (Crowe) by putting him and others in the docks. The figurative finger of shame is overtly pointed again at the guilty Englishmen.

It’s obvious that Mr. Scott is a chronic apologizer for Europe’s “sins” against the noble Religion of Peace, and it sours the rest of the movie. I suggest that everyone at Gates of Vienna spread the word about this big screen propaganda exercise.

‘Absolutely, there will be more attacks in New York’

‘Absolutely, there will be more attacks in New York’

WorldNetDaily 4 May 2010

A Muslim extremist who earlier warned that TV’s “South Park” creators should be “afraid for their lives” for insulting Islam’s prophet Muhammad now says that yesterday’s car bomb attempt in Times Square will be just the beginning of a new wave of terrorist attacks.

Younus Abdullah Muhammad, author of, told WND senior reporter Aaron Klein on New York’s WABC Radio that America should “absolutely” expect more jihadi violence in New York City.

When asked if the Times Square attack was aimed at the offices of nearby Viacom, which owns the “South Park” series, Abdullah Muhammad deflected the question to condemn U.S. foreign policy instead.

“It was a retaliation for what your government is doing overseas,” Abdullah Muhammad said. “If you want to continue killing civilians, then you’re going to get many incidents that resemble what happened yesterday.”

Read more of Aaron Klein’s startling discoveries in his book, “Schmoozing with Terrorists: From Hollywood to the Holy Land Jihadists Reveal their Global Plans – to a Jew!”

As WND reported, last month warned there is a “very real possibility” that “South Park” creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone will end up murdered like Theo Van Gogh, the Dutch filmmaker killed by an Islamic extremist in 2004 after making a film critical of Islam.

The website then issued a statement pointing out the Islamic punishment for mocking Muhammad is death, prompting Klein to ask if such words constituted incitement.

“We do not condone nor condemn terrorism,” Abdullah Muhammad answered. “There is no relation between our organization and these attacks.”

Still, Abdullah Muhammad predicted, “There will be a lot more terror attacks in the Unites States. Probably you should bring your imperial overstretch home before you’re destroyed. … Stop trying to police the world. Nobody likes you people (…)

A nuke for a nuke

A nuke for a nuke

Attacking Iran is not only about stopping its nuclear program, but preventing the nuclearization of other rogue regimes who are now waiting to see the outcome of the international quarrel with Iran.

Destroy Iranian oil refineries, bomb pipelines, stop gasoline deliveries. Strain the Iranian economy to the extreme. Security build-up for Sistan, Baluchistan, and Kurdistan cost Iran a lot of money. Iran had to scrap long-term economic programs.

Why not hit Ahmadinejad’s plane on one of his trips to Belarus? General Doolittle similarly objected to bombing the emperor’s house during the war with Japan.

Iran is not the biggest nuclear threat. The biggest is Pakistan. It supports nuclear development programs in many Muslim countries. Muslim radicals heavily influence Pakistan’s policies and are strong in its military, especially due to the close security-military-religious cooperation with the Kashmir insurgency. Pakistan enjoys Saudi Arabian political and financial backing. Pakistan is basically a front for Saudi Arabian nuclear proliferation activities.

Other Muslim countries are also dangerous. Islamists purchased nuclear waste in Kazakhstan and Albania; some got caught, but probably many other shipments went through. It is unknown whether Libya ended its nuclear program or transferred it to a safer location. Algeria and Morocco have nuclear programs. Jordan intends to build a nuclear reactor under Israel’s nose, and with the fall of the Jordanian monarchy Palestinians will get a lot of radioactive material for dirty bombs. Egypt will be able to develop nuclear weapons in a matter of years, and Saudi Arabia most likely stocks some Pakistani nuclear bombs; the Saudis have also received state-of-the-art aircraft from the US, capable of delivering nuclear bombs into Israel.

Some naive souls harbored the dream of North Korea abandoning its nuclear program in return for $300 million in foreign aid. The unveiled North Korean nuclear cooperation with Syria dispelled such nonsense. Nuclear weapons are too profitable in strategic and financial terms to part with them. The North Korean ship which delivered nuclear cargo to Syria made two conspicuous stops in Egypt and Lebanon; North Korea cooperates with those countries, too. A ballistic missile strike against North Korean nuclear facilities is the only proper response to its nuclear proliferation efforts. Israel can safely launch the missiles when no hostile satellite watches the area.

Just about every Muslim country, from the dangerously large to the irrelevantly small, is pursuing some sort of nuclear program, ostensibly peaceful. There are no peaceful nukes. Any nuclear reactor can be used to harvest weapon-grade uranium, and most reactors produce plutonium. These reactors are traditionally thought of as peaceful because harvesting enriched fissile material requires stopping them for weeks or even months, leaving the electric power supply short. Muslim regimes, however, can live with power shortages. The Soviet Union built its peaceful reactors with an eye toward using them as a backup source of plutonium. Peaceful nuclear proliferation will give Muslim regimes easy access to radiological weapons.

Whatever Israel does to stop nuclear proliferation, the nukes will proliferate. Muslim regimes will be happy to nuke Israel. The only policy that can perhaps prevent that scenario is the threat of retaliation against all major Muslim targets: Mecca and Medina, Cairo, Damascus, Tehran, Islamabad, and so on. There are of course Christian countries, notably Russia, which would be equally happy to fry the Jews in a nuclear mushroom; they deserve a similar response. When Tel Aviv is annihilated, Israel should not seek to save Haifa but to avenge Tel Aviv.

Israel must deal a crushing blow to Islam. Just like the destruction of Jerusalem in CE 135 signaled a change of Judaism from a state-oriented religion into a purely spiritual one, so the nuclear destruction of Mecca and Medina, with the concomitant radiological contamination, will render the concept of jihad senseless. The idea of ripping out the heart of Islam is ambitious but doable and feasible.

a nuke for a nuke


Wary of Islam, China Tightens a Vise of Rules


New York Times

Published: October 18, 2008

KHOTAN, China — The grand mosque that draws thousands of Muslims each week in this oasis town has all the usual trappings of piety: dusty wool carpets on which to kneel in prayer, a row of turbans and skullcaps for men without headwear, a wall niche facing the holy city of Mecca in the Arabian desert.

Khotan’s mosque draws thousands of Muslims each week. In Kashgar, Uighurs prepared to break their daily fast during Ramadan last month.

But large signs posted by the front door list edicts that are more Communist Party decrees than Koranic doctrines.

The imam’s sermon at Friday Prayer must run no longer than a half-hour, the rules say. Prayer in public areas outside the mosque is forbidden. Residents of Khotan are not allowed to worship at mosques outside of town.

One rule on the wall says that government workers and nonreligious people may not be “forced” to attend services at the mosque — a generous wording of a law that prohibits government workers and Communist Party members from going at all.

“Of course this makes people angry,” said a teacher in the mosque courtyard, who would give only a partial name, Muhammad, for fear of government retribution. “Excitable people think the government is wrong in what it does. They say that government officials who are Muslims should also be allowed to pray.”

To be a practicing Muslim in the vast autonomous region of northwestern China called Xinjiang is to live under an intricate series of laws and regulations intended to control the spread and practice of Islam, the predominant religion among the Uighurs, a Turkic people uneasy with Chinese rule.

The edicts touch on every facet of a Muslim’s way of life. Official versions of the Koran are the only legal ones. Imams may not teach the Koran in private, and studying Arabic is allowed only at special government schools.

Two of Islam’s five pillars — the sacred fasting month of Ramadan and the pilgrimage to Mecca called the hajj — are also carefully controlled. Students and government workers are compelled to eat during Ramadan, and the passports of Uighurs have been confiscated across Xinjiang to force them to join government-run hajj tours rather than travel illegally to Mecca on their own.

Government workers are not permitted to practice Islam, which means the slightest sign of devotion, a head scarf on a woman, for example, could lead to a firing.

The Chinese government, which is officially atheist, recognizes five religions — Islam, Protestantism, Catholicism, Taoism and Buddhism — and tightly regulates their administration and practice. Its oversight in Xinjiang, though, is especially vigilant because it worries about separatist activity in the region.

Some officials contend that insurgent groups in Xinjiang pose one of the biggest security threats to China, and the government says the “three forces” of separatism, terrorism and religious extremism threaten to destabilize the region. But outside scholars of Xinjiang and terrorism experts argue that heavy-handed tactics like the restrictions on Islam will only radicalize more Uighurs.

Many of the rules have been on the books for years, but some local governments in Xinjiang have publicly highlighted them in the past seven weeks by posting the laws on Web sites or hanging banners in towns.

Those moves coincided with Ramadan, which ran from September to early October, and came on the heels of a series of attacks in August that left at least 22 security officers and one civilian dead, according to official reports. The deadliest attack was a murky ambush in Kashgar that witnesses said involved men in police uniforms fighting each other.

The attacks were the biggest wave of violence in Xinjiang since the 1990s. In recent months, Wang Lequan, the long-serving party secretary of Xinjiang, and Nuer Baikeli, the chairman of the region, have given hard-line speeches indicating that a crackdown will soon begin.

Mr. Wang said the government was engaged in a “life or death” struggle in Xinjiang. Mr. Baikeli signaled that government control of religious activities would tighten, asserting that “the religious issue has been the barometer of stability in Xinjiang.”

Anti-China forces in the West and separatist forces are trying to carry out “illegal religious activities and agitate religious fever,” he said, and “the field of religion has become an increasingly important battlefield against enemies.”

Uighurs are the largest ethnic group in Xinjiang, accounting for 46 percent of the population of 19 million. Many say Han Chinese, the country’s dominant ethnic group, discriminate against them based on the most obvious differences between the groups: language and religion.

The Uighurs began adopting Sunni Islam in the 10th century, although patterns of belief vary widely, and the religion has enjoyed a surge of popularity after the harshest decades of Communist rule. According to government statistics, there are 24,000 mosques and 29,000 religious leaders in Xinjiang. Muslim piety is especially strong in old Silk Road towns in the south like Kashgar, Yarkand and Khotan.

Many Han Chinese see Islam as the root of social problems in Xinjiang.

“The Uighurs are lazy,” said a man who runs a construction business in Kashgar and would give only his last name, Zhao, because of the political delicacy of the topic.

“It’s because of their religion,” he said. “They spend so much time praying. What are they praying for?”

The government restrictions are posted inside mosques and elsewhere across Xinjiang. In particular, officials take great pains to publicize the law prohibiting Muslims from arranging their own trips for the hajj. Signs painted on mud-brick walls in the winding alleyways of old Kashgar warn against making illegal pilgrimages. A red banner hanging on a large mosque in the Uighur area of Urumqi, the regional capital, says, “Implement the policy of organized and planned pilgrimage; individual pilgrimage is forbidden.”

As dozens of worshipers streamed into the mosque for prayer on a recent evening, one Uighur man pointed to the sign and shook his head. “We didn’t write that,” he said in broken Chinese. “They wrote that.”

He turned his finger to a white neon sign above the building that simply said “mosque” in Arabic script. “We wrote that,” he said.

Like other Uighurs interviewed for this article, he agreed to speak on the condition that his name not be used for fear of retribution by the authorities.

The government gives various reasons for controlling the hajj. Officials say that the Saudi Arabian government is concerned about crowded conditions in Mecca that have led to fatal tramplings, and that Muslims who leave China on their own sometimes spend too much money on the pilgrimage.

Critics say the government is trying to restrict the movements of Uighurs and prevent them from coming into contact with other Muslims, fearing that such exchanges could build a pan-Islamic identity in Xinjiang.

About two years ago, the government began confiscating the passports of Uighurs across the region, angering many people here. Now virtually no Uighurs have passports, though they can apply for them for short trips. The new restriction has made life especially difficult for businessmen who travel to neighboring countries.

To get a passport to go on an official hajj tour or a business trip, applicants must leave a deposit of nearly $6,000.

One man in Kashgar said the imam at his mosque, who like all official imams is paid by the government, had recently been urging congregants to go to Mecca only with legal tours.

That is not easy for many Uighurs. The cost of an official trip is the equivalent of $3,700, and hefty bribes usually raise the price. Once a person files an application, the authorities do a background check into the family. If the applicant has children, the children must be old enough to be financially self-sufficient, and the applicant is required to show that he or she has substantial savings in the bank. Officials say these conditions ensure that a hajj trip will not leave the family impoverished.

Rules posted last year on the Xinjiang government’s Web site say the applicant must be 50 to 70 years old, “love the country and obey the law.”

The number of applicants far outnumbers the slots available each year, and the wait is at least a year. But the government has been raising the cap. Xinhua, the state news agency, reported that from 2006 to 2007, more than 3,100 Muslims from Xinjiang went on the official hajj, up from 2,000 the previous year.

One young Uighur man in Kashgar said his parents were pushing their children to get married soon so they could prove the children were financially independent, thus allowing them to qualify to go on the hajj. “Their greatest wish is to go to Mecca once,” the man, who wished to be identified only as Abdullah, said over dinner.

But the family has to weigh another factor: the father, now retired, was once a government employee and a Communist Party member, so he might very well lose his pension if he went on the hajj, Abdullah said.

The rules on fasting during Ramadan are just as strict. Several local governments began posting the regulations on their Web sites last month. They vary by town and county but include requiring restaurants to stay open during daylight hours and mandating that women not wear veils and men shave their beards.

Enforcement can be haphazard. In Kashgar, many Uighur restaurants remained closed during the fasting hours. “The religion is too strong in Kashgar,” said one man. “There are rules, but people don’t follow them.”

One rule that officials in some towns seem especially intent on enforcing is the ban on students’ fasting. Supporters of this policy say students need to eat to study properly.

The local university in Kashgar adheres to the policy. Starting last year, it tried to force students to eat during the day by prohibiting them from leaving campus in the evening to join their families in breaking the daily fast. Residents of Kashgar say the university locked the gates and put glass shards along the top of a campus wall.

After a few weeks, the school built a higher wall.

Don’t be soft on Islam, says EU terror chief

Jason Burke in Brussels

The Observer,

Sunday September 28 2008

Europe‘s anti-terror chief has launched a stinging attack on the political correctness that he says is hampering the campaign against militant Islam.

Gilles de Kerchove, the EU counter-terrorism co-ordinator, said last week that concern about stigmatising Muslim populations was hampering policy-making and thus prevention. ‘One of the problems … is that some member states are extremely reluctant to be explicit about the link with religion,’ said de Kerchove. ‘Religion has been hijacked and distorted for political ends.’

De Kerchove’s statement comes against a background of infighting within the EU over counter-terrorism policy. The European Commission has been working for several years on a paper analysing militancy in Europe and outlining policy to combat radicalisation. The Council of Ministers is still waiting for the now long-overdue paper, on which future policy will be based.

EU officials claimed last week the delay was because Jacques Barrot, the French Commissioner for justice, freedom and security, had grave reservations about the definition of terrorism in the commission’s policy paper and had delayed signing the policy document as it ‘went too far in blaming Muslim communities’.

A spokesman for Barrot refused to comment. ‘There is a paper that is being prepared. Our services are working on it and there is no fixed timeframe at the moment,’ he said.

De Kerchove praised the Home Office’s emphasis on countering the extremists’ message through the media. ‘We have to provide an alternative narrative,’ he said. ‘A lot of research is showing that young people being radicalised are looking for thrills as much as anything ideological. We need to show the violence for what it is, bloody and indiscriminate, and the people who do it for what they are, ugly criminals not heroes.’

The Case for Nuking Mecca

In this post I make the case that nuking Mecca would be a rational deterrent to radical Islamists bent on using WMD against American civilians. However, even if there is no deterrent effect, attacking Mecca and wiping out the central locus of Islamic ritual worship may be in the long-term interests of the US and Occidental world.

Ace: What would we do if we get nuked? Continue to “hunt down the terrorists” who nuked us? At what point does the desire to survive outweigh the desire to be merciful and sparing in the use of force?

Bill Whittle: If a suitcase nuke detonates in Times Square, or Long Beach harbor, or outside the Capitol building, what do we do? Nuke Mecca? Incinerate Damascus? Because – so help me God, I tremble to say it – that is exactly the response our enemies would hope for. They care not a whit about their own people because they have no allegiance to anyone but themselves and their vision of a vengeful and bloodthirsty Allah.

In response to Bill Whittle’s and Ace’s considerable thought on how you deter terrorists, I thought I’d add a couple of thoughts that have been ruminating between my ears for awhile now.

Let me make a couple of points first. One: I do not advocate using nuclear weapons. Two: I do not advocate killing Muslims or any other follower of any religion. Three: I do not imagine in any way possible the US government actually doing this–or even thinking it. Four: These are rudimentary thoughts. This post is used as a sounding board only. Much of what I say may be wrong and all is subject to revision. The purpose of this post is to start a conversation.

First point: Bill’s major argument about deterring terrorists is well taken and mostly on the money. I think he’s right, for the most part: you cannot deter these guys, only defeat them. And if incinerating Damascus were the only threat we could use to deter terrorists then certainly a MAD scheme would not work in this new Cold War we find ourselves in.

However, Mecca is not Damascus. It plays a central role in Muslim worship. Five times a day Muslims pray toward it. All Muslims who have the means are expected to make the Hajj–a pilgrimage to Mecca which revolves around the Kaaba stone. The Kaaba stone is really the reason Mecca is considered holy. Muslims believe the site was used for worship as far back as Adam and that the shrine around the stone was first placed there by Abraham (Ibrahim). There is a 12 mile zone around the stone that infidels are restricted from entering. It’s that holy. No non-Muslims near it. In fact, without Mecca and the Kaaba stone, Islam would be very different.

Mecca, then, is quite unlike any other place in the world for Muslims. It is an entire city dedicated to Muslim worship. A place set apart. A holy place. It is an entire city that is thought to be the Temple of God.

Islamist terrorists also consider Mecca the holiest place in the world. It is central to their mode of worship. They face it when they pray. They too believe they must make the hajj. If we take them at their word, then the reason they commit terrorist acts is because they take their religious convictions so seriously. When they kill us, it is because they believe that this is what their God wants them to do.

So, ask yourself the question again: Can terrorists be deterred from using WMD against American targets?

Maybe they can. If Islamic extremists really love their religious institutions in the way that they claim they do, then pointing an ICBM at Mecca may not be the most irrational thing to do. They may not care if the rest of the world goes up in a nuclear mushroom cloud, as Bill points out, but Mecca is not the rest of the world. Would they really risk blowing up New York City if they believed the consequences of such an action would be a 30 kiloton nuclear explosion over the Kaaba stone? After all, the nuclear destruction of Mecca would end Islamic forms of worship as they presently exist.

If I might misquote Sting for a moment, “Is it such a crazy thing to do, if the Terrorists love their Mecca too?”

Second point: Why would destroying Mecca have potentially beneficial long-term affects to US and Occidental interests?

I have already made the case that Mecca is central to Islamic forms of worship. Mecca, I have argued, is a Temple City. Although many Muslim theologians will deny that any place is holy in Islam, there is at least a de facto holiness ascribed to the area surrounding the Kaaba stone. In many ways the city of Mecca is central to Islam in just the same way that the Temple of Solomon was central to ancient Judaism. It is this similarity which is so striking, and why the destruction of Mecca might do to Islam what the final destruction of Herod’s Temple in Jerusalem did to Judaism. While the bloody events surrounding Rome’s sacking of Jerusalem are indeed disgusting and tragic, that event forced Jews to rethink their relationship with God. More importantly, that event forced Jews to rethink their relationship with their fellowman.

Without wishing to reduce all of Jewish history or life to one paragraph, and thus leaving out the many facets of ancient Hebrew worship, let me go ahead an do that anyway (with many apologies up front–and welcoming any corrections or differing opinions). Ancient Judaism had a legal structure which was similar to Islamic sharia in that they both unify the religious codes thought to be handed down by God with secular authority. In fact, the Old Testament laws seem just as draconian as any I would find in sharia. There is just something about stoning adulteresses that I kind find of harsh, that’s all. I know such applications of Mosaic law were probably rare, but Muslims would argue the same thing about the strict application of sharia law in the ideal Islamic state.

Ancient Judaism also had another commonality with Islam: worship was centered on a holy place of ritualistic practice. After the destruction of the Temple, though, Jews had to ask new questions about the meaning of being holy. Stateless, they found that strict religious codes of conduct could not be enforced in the same way as before. While the Jewish Diaspora had already begun the process of transforming Judaism, the final destruction of Temple centered worship forced this transformation on a broader scale.

Jews found that God no longer had a place to reside in. Jews found that they could no longer perform the rituals required by God to be purified. Jews found that they could no longer enforce God’s law. Jews found that their specialness was different than they had previously supposed. Worship changed. Everything changed.

What I propose is simply this. Would destroying Mecca begin a similar process for Muslims? Perhaps only the threat of destroying Mecca would be enough.

Radical Muslims believe they are in a race to bring about the world wide Caliphate. They believe that Muslims are destined to rule the world. What I propose is simple: show them that they cannot rule the world. Show them that Allah is not on their side–at least, not in the way that they believe.

Osama bin Laden once famously said that people will choose the strong horse over the weak horse. What if Islam is shown to be the weak horse? What if one of the central tenants of Muslim worship, the hajj, was gone? Would this not force some serious rethinking in the Islamic world?

Today we are told by Muslims that the true meaning of jihad is internal struggle. Unfortunately, the actions of too many Muslims shows that they believe jihad means armed struggle against the infidels. Destroying Mecca may have the long-term affect of convincing radical Muslims that Allah really doesn’t want sharia law around the world. That all that stuff about killing the infidels in the Quran–that’s all metaphor.

After all, if Muslims can be convinced that the whole hajj thing is just metaphor, then what else might they consider as metaphorical? Perhaps jihad. Perhaps sharia. Perhaps the global Caliphate.

These are just some thoughts. No one should take them too seriously.

Posted by Dr. Rusty Shackleford

7 Good Reasons To Nuke Mecca & Iran- A Rogue Response To Yamin Zakaria

March 15, 2007

by The Rogue Jew

Recently here on MND, Yamin Zakaria posted a commentary stating his 7 reasons why Islamic Terrorists should NUKE the USA.  Instead of leaving my wisecracking comments on his blog, I decided to respond with a Photo Essay listing my own 7 very good reasons why the United States should turn Terror Sponsoring nations in the middle east such as Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and others into a nuclear fueled litter box.

Sept 11 Attack By Islamic Terrorists

Behead Jews & Christians

Islam Will Dominate the World

Suicide Bomber

In return, I would like to respond back to Yamin and other Islamonazis that would like to dominate me and force their cult down my slit throat:

Jihad This Biatch!

Allahu Fubar, Have A Nice Day!

Iran’s Final Solution Plan

by Daniel Pipes
New York Sun
November 1, 2005

“Iran’s stance has always been clear on this ugly phenomenon [i.e., Israel]. We have repeatedly said that this cancerous tumor of a state should be removed from the region.”

No, those are not the words of Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, speaking last week. Rather, that was Ali Khamenei, the Islamic Republic of Iran’s supreme leader, in December 2000.

In other words, Ahmadinejad’s call for the destruction of Israel was nothing new but conforms to a well-established pattern of regime rhetoric and ambition. “Death to Israel!” has been a rallying cry for the past quarter-century. Mr. Ahmadinejad quoted Ayatollah Khomeini, its founder, in his call on October 26 for genocidal war against Jews: “The regime occupying Jerusalem must be eliminated from the pages of history,” Khomeini said decades ago. Mr. Ahmadinejad lauded this hideous goal as “very wise.”

In December 2001, Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, a former Iranian president and still powerful political figure, laid the groundwork for an exchange of nuclear weapons with Israel: “If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in possession, the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate because application of an atomic bomb would not leave anything in Israel but the same thing would just produce minor damages in the Muslim world.”

In like spirit, a Shahab-3 ballistic missile (capable of reaching Israel) paraded in Tehran last month bore the slogan “Israel Should Be Wiped Off the Map.”

The threats by Messrs. Khamenei and Rafsanjani prompted yawns but Mr. Ahmadinejad’s statement roused an uproar.

The U.N. secretary-general, Kofi Annan, expressed “dismay,” the U.N. Security Council unanimously condemned it, and the European Union condemned it “in the strongest terms.” Prime Minister Martin of Canada deemed it “beyond the pale,” Prime Minister Blair of Britain expressed “revulsion,” and the French foreign minister, Philippe Douste-Blazy, announced that “for France, the right for Israel to exist should not be contested.” Le Monde called the speech a “cause for serious alarm,” Die Welt dubbed it “verbal terrorism,” and a London Sun headline proclaimed Ahmadinejad the “most evil man in the world.”

The governments of Turkey, Russia, and China, among others, expressly condemned the statement. Maryam Rajavi of the National Council of Resistance of Iran, a leading opposition group, demanded that the European Union rid the region of the “hydra of terrorism and fundamentalism” in Tehran. Even the Palestinian Authority’s Saeb Erekat spoke against Mr. Ahmadinejad: “Palestinians recognize the right of the state of Israel to exist, and I reject his comments.” The Cairene daily Al-Ahram dismissed his statement as “fanatical” and spelling disaster for Arabs.

Iranians were surprised and suspicious. Why, some asked, did the mere reiteration of long-standing policy prompt an avalanche of outraged foreign reactions?

In a constructive spirit, I offer them four reasons. First, Mr. Ahmadinejad’s virulent character gives the threats against Israel added credibility. Second, he in subsequent days defiantly repeated and elaborated on his threats. Third, he added an aggressive coda to the usual formulation, warning Muslims who recognize Israel that they “will burn in the fire of the Islamic umma [nation].”

This directly targets the Palestinians and several Arab states, but especially neighboring Pakistan. Just a month before Mr. Ahmadinejad spoke, the Pakistani president, Pervez Musharraf, stated that “Israel rightly desires security.” He envisioned the opening of embassies in Israel by Muslim countries like Pakistan as a “signal for peace.” Mr. Ahmadinejad perhaps indicated an intent to confront Pakistan over relations with Israel.

Finally, Israelis estimate that the Iranians could, within six months, have the means to build an atomic bomb. Mr. Ahmadinejad implicitly confirmed this rapid timetable when he warned that after just “a short period … the process of the elimination of the Zionist regime will be smooth and simple.” The imminence of a nuclear-armed Iran transforms “Death to Israel” from an empty slogan into the potential premise for a nuclear assault on the Jewish state, perhaps relying on Mr. Rafsanjani’s genocidal thinking.

Ironically, Mr. Ahmadinejad’s candor has had positive effects, reminding the world of his regime’s unremitting bellicosity, its rank anti-Semitism, and its dangerous arsenal. As Tony Blair noted, Mr. Ahmadinejad’s threats raise the question, “When are you going to do something about this?” And Mr. Blair later warned Tehran with some menace against its becoming a “threat to our world security.” His alarm needs to translate into action, and urgently so.

We are on notice. Will we act in time?

How to End Terrorism

by Daniel Pipes
New York Sun
December 5, 2006

An effective counterterrorism strategy must focus on the fact that terrorism by Muslims in the name of Islam presents the strategic threat today to civilized peoples, whether Muslim or non-Muslim.

On the low end, this threat involves lone individuals seized by the Sudden Jihad Syndrome who unpredictably set off on a murder spree. At the high end, it involves an outlaw organization like Hamas running the quasi-governmental Palestinian Authority, or even Al-Qaeda’s efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction. In all, were terrorism by Muslims halted, this would be a major advance toward winning what some call World War IV.

Can this be achieved?

Yes, and partially via effective conventional counterterrorism. Individuals must be hunted down, organizations closed, networks smashed, borders monitored, money denied, WMD restricted. These steps, however, address only the symptoms of the problem, not the problem itself. “The problem itself” consists of the motivating forces that lie behind the surge of violence by Muslims in the name of Islam. Only by isolating why terrorism has emerged as so prominent a feature of Muslim life can the violence be countered.

This aggression results not from some perverse impulse to inflict damage for its own sake; nor does it flow from the religion of Islam, which just a generation ago did not inspire such murderousness. Rather, it results from political ideas.

Ideas have no role in common criminality, which has purely selfish ends. But ideas, usually ones about radically changing the world, are central to terrorism. and especially to its suicidal variety. Unlike the rest of us, who generally accept life as it is, utopians insist on building a new and better order. To achieve this, they demand all powers for themselves, display a chilling contempt for human life, and harbor ambitions to spread their vision globally. Several utopian schemas exist, with fascism and communism historically the most consequential and each of them claiming tens of millions of casualties.

By 1945 and 1991, respectively, these two totalitarianisms had been vanquished through defeat in war, one violently (in World War II), the other subtly (in the cold war). Their near demise emboldened some optimists to imagine that the era of utopianism and totalitarianism had come to end and that a liberal order had permanently replaced them.

Alas, this view ignored a third totalitarianism, growing since the 1920s, that of Islamism, most briefly defined as the belief that whatever the question, from child-rearing to war-making, “ Islam is the solution.” As the result of several factors – an historic rivalry with Jews and Christians, a boisterous birth rate, the capture of the Iranian state in 1979, support from oil-rich states – Islamists have come to dominate the ideological discourse of Muslims interested in their Islamic identity or faith.

Islamic law, in retreat over the previous two centuries, came roaring back, and with it jihad, or sacred war. The caliphate, defunct in real terms for over a millennium, became a vibrant dream. Ideas proffered by such thinkers and organizers as Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, Shah Waliullah, Sayyid Abu’l-A’la al-Mawdudi, Hasan al-Banna, Sayyid Qutb, and Rouhollah Khomeini aggressed successfully against traditional, modernist, and centrist approaches to Islam. To advance the poisoned vision of these utopians, their followers adopted violent means, including terrorism.

The most effective form of counterterrorism fights not the terrorists but the ideas that motivate them. This strategy involves two main steps. First, defeat the Islamist movement just as the fascist and communist movements were defeated – on every level and in every way, making use of every institution, public and private. This task falls mainly on non-Muslims, Muslim communities being generally incapable or unwilling to purge their own.

In contrast, only Muslims can undertake the second step, the formulation and spread of an Islam that is modern, moderate, democratic, liberal, good-neighborly, humane, and respectful of women. Here, non-Muslims can help by distancing themselves from Islamists and supporting moderate Muslims.

Although theoretically possible, the weakness of its advocates at present makes moderate Islam appear impossibly remote. But however dim its current prospects, the success of moderate Islam ultimately represents the only effective form of counterterrorism. Terrorism, begun by bad ideas, can only be ended by good ones.

Threats on Islam sites could deter terrorists

By The Denver Post


U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., speaks with supporters during a campaign stop at Silver Eagle Harley-Davidson/Buell motorcycle dealership in Waterloo, Iowa, Saturday, May 12, 2007. Tancredo participated in a local annual motorcycle ride of ABATE of Iowa, a statewide motorcycle safety and awareness group. (AP | Scott Mussell, The Waterloo Courier)

Washington – Republican presidential hopeful Tom Tancredo says the best way he can think of to deter a nuclear terrorist attack on the U.S. is to threaten to retaliate by bombing Islamic holy sites.

The Colorado congressman on Tuesday told about 30 people at a town-hall meeting in Osceola, Iowa, that he believes such a terrorist attack could be imminent and that the U.S. needs to hurry up and think of a way to stop it.

“If it is up to me, we are going to explain that an attack on this homeland of that nature would be followed by an attack on the holy sites in Mecca and Medina,” Tancredo said at the Family Table restaurant. “Because that’s the only thing I can think of that might deter somebody from doing what they otherwise might do.”

Mecca and Medina, in Saudi Arabia, are Islam’s holiest cities.

A Washington-based Islamic civil rights and advocacy group responded Thursday, calling Tancredo’s statement “unworthy of anyone seeking public office in the United States.”

“Perhaps it’s evidence of a long-shot candidate grasping at straws and trying to create some kind of a controversy that might appeal to a niche audience of anti-Muslim bigots,” said Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

This isn’t the first time Tancredo has suggested such action.

In 2005, he drew international criticism after he told a radio talk-show host that “you could take out” Islamic holy sites if terrorists ever launched a nuclear attack against the United States.

Destroy islam and kill all muslims



The United States Government had some great news to share over the weekend that marked the dastardly Attack of 09/11/2001 –



While this thinking is encouraging there’s not much time to waste. Credible reports of an impending attack are numerous and since next months is Ramadan (the month Muslim men have their period) if they can mount an attack they will within 6-8 weeks – so what are we waiting for?


This persistent and irksome ISLAMIST conduct leaves the US no choice but to exterminate these troublesome roaches totally and fumigate the areas they have infected thoroughly. A pre-emptive nuclear strike judiciously aimed can accomplish thee noble aims with a minimum of cost and risk to US forces.

Now first let us examine a few figures:

* Cost of one Smart (Minute Man) Missile $ 10,000,000.00
* Cost of one Hydrogen Bomb $ 750,000.00

When we utilize the first option, we are gaining the benefits of:

* Great targeting precision (within one yard)
* Limited Destruction and loss of life
* Minimal collateral damage and resultant casualties

If we opt for the second option we are gaining the benefits of:

* Great targeting precision (within one yard)
* Great Destruction and loss of life (for those within the target area)
* Maximum Damage and total kill ratio (For those within the target area)

Thus, when we examine these options it is easy to verify that tactical nuclear weapons provide
Far More BANG FOR THE BUCK! Why must we spend BILLIONS for ‘precision’ strikes when we can SAVE BILLIONS and EXTERMINATE MILLIONS of the Evil Muslims at the same time?


We must remember that they are DEMONS ON EARTH – MUSLIMS:


View the works of these MURDEROUS MUSLIM BASTARDS at: The Muslim Murder Gallery then surf on over to The Savage Nation and watch a few BEHEADING VIDEOS! (The Exeuction of 13 Nepaleses hostages is particularly brutal – feating not just brutal beheadings, but close up vides of the BRAINS BEING BLOWN OUT of two of the innocent victims of MUSLIM TERROR)

* We don’t need any more talk
* We don’t need any more debate
* We don’t need any more time wasted




The USA has used nuclear weapons only once in warfare which led to the quick and welcome end to WWII in the Pacific. At that time, since we had just successfully concluded the Battle of Okinawa and we knew that the Japanese fanatics (who were also fond of suicide bombers and also never enjoyed the benefits of civilization and smelled bad too) would wage a desperate battle for the main island of Japan. Allied estimates of losses were at ONE MILLION US soldiers for the invasion and TEN MILLION for the Nips. When we realize that Truman’s brave and historic decision to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved 15,000,000 on both sides lives we must applaud him for his great wisdom and historic courage. 1




The easiest centers to target are Tehran and Damascus and BLAST THE BASTARDS TO HELL!


* The enemy has demonstrated via their actions that they are no longer fit to live within the confines of civilization opting instead for the rule of murder, force and barbarism and attempting to force it upon the rest of the civilized world.
* The enemy has a demonstrable paradigm of Pederasty, Concupiscence and Greed and has forfeited their claim to live amongst the nations of the world and must be totally destroyed.
* The enemy has thus chosen to live by a set of rules that are savage and thus contrary to the progress of the entire human race – they are primitive.
* The enemy has opted to devote all their effort to the works of Lucifer and thus have become DEMONS on earth – since they are no longer human we must feel no regret in exterminating them all and in fact realize it is our HOLY CHRISTIAN DUTY TO DESTROY THEM.
* The enemy constitutes a dangerous and malignant cancer that must be eliminated and surgically removed for the benefit and health of all World Citizens.



* Or would you like to END IT NOW for a FEW MILLION?



The USA must NOW FINISH THE JOB and casualties should be of no concern: since these monstrous liaisons of Lucifer must be stopped it may prove necessary to wipe out millions for the good of all and we must remember – Life means little in Asia since all of these medieval ‘nations’ are over-populated. Additionally, we must be realistic and understand that the Arabs multiply faster than roaches due to their multiple wives and rampant promiscuity, so the loss of a few million or more can be made up easily in a few years or decades, and they won’t really miss a beat. Muslims are too dumb and lazy to work so most just lay around all day, smoking dope, fornicating and PLANNING A NEW JIHAD.So why not just exterminate most of them now when we can do so with great ease?

There may be a few innocents that must perish, but the Holy Christian must not be concerned – Muslims are not really human anyway. The Crusaders were confronted with the same problem – the advice of the HOLY CATHOLIC FATHERS who went with them was to simply:

“Kill them ALL and Let God Sort them out!” (you can pray for them if it makes you feel better)

We’ve KILLED 500,000 of these EVIL MONSTERS in the last four years – so TENS OR EVEN HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS will be a LOT BETTER –


WE MUST GET SERIOUS ABOUT THIS WAR and KILL 10 or 20 MILLION NOW – they will get the idea in a big hurry. (although it may require multiple strikes as it did with the Japs in 1945)

St. Paul spoke of the vile Muslim carcinogen that has infested the world in his letter to the Romans Chapter 1:

18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against
all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the
truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about
God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.
20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible
qualities his eternal power and divine nature have been
clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so
that men are without excuse.

21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him
as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became
futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although
they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged
the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like
mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of
their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their
bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth of God
for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather
than the Creator who is forever praised. Amen.

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts.
Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural
ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural
relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one
another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and
received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. *

28 Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to
retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved
mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become
filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and
depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and
malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters,
insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing
evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they are senseless,
faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Although they know God’s
righteous decree that those who do such things deserve
death, they not only continue to do these very things but
also approve of those who practice them.

Muslims are certainly:

* filled with every kind of wickedness,
* evil,
* greed and
* depravity.

Muslims are full of (Expletive deleted)
* envy,
* murder,
* strife,
* deceit and malice.

Muslims are certainly

* gossips,
* slanderers,
* God-haters,
* insolent,
* arrogant and boastful

Muslims do little else but invent ways of doing evil


We must forget all the rhetoric, all the obfuscation and all the cowardly excuses and face reality:


Those who worship Satan become his angels and are devils themselves:



St. Michael, the Archangel, Defend us in battle. Be our defense against the wickedness and snares of the Devil. May God rebuke him, we humbly pray. And do Thou, O heavenly host, through the Power of God, THRUST INTO HELL SATAN, and all the EVIL SPIRITS THAT PROWL ABOUT THE WORLD SEEKING THE RUIN OF SOULS AMEN.


St. Paul gives us the courage we need to defeat the Islamic Evil:

“Finally, my brethren, Be Strong in the Lord and in the Power of His Might.

Put on the whole Armor of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.

For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

Stand therefore, having your loins gird about with Truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness.

And shod your feet with the preparation of the Gospel of Peace.

And above all, taking the shield of faith, wherein ye may be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.

And take the helmet of salvation, and the Sword of the Spirit which is the Word of God.”

Ephesians 6:10-18 (The “Armor of God”)

We must face harsh reality:

The Muslims are Coming!

The Muslims are Coming!!

The Muslims are Coming!!!



* Tehran
* Damascus
* Mecca
* Medina

Will result in total confusion and powerlessness amongst the ignorant Muslim Devils. Within a day, large scale use of napalm, cluster bombs and anti-personnel weapons can eliminate the diabolical pigs of Palestine.


In the Mighty Name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth it is time to –


Let us pray:

Fear not, for I am with you. I have called you by name, you are Mine. When you pass through the waters, I shall be with you. When you walk through the fire, you shall not be burned, nor shall the flames scorch you. For I am the Lord, your God, the Holy One of Israel, your Savior.” Isaiah 43:1b-3a

Remember MOHAMMED The obliterator.”! (nickname given by Tabari)

“I say to our enemies: We are coming. God may have mercy on you, but we won’t.”

Let us recall the worlds of a great American Patior:


There is no time to waste – THE LORD IS CALLING US TO HOLY BATTLE: –


Europe’s Future: Is this what “they” want?

Europe’s Future: Is this what “they” want?

The New Rome; or, the United States of the World (1853)

There is a presumed history of things that is taught to most, that even the less powerful from amongst the elites believe…and then there is another history of these events, that only a relative few and powerful know.  It is important for those wishing to see not only the preservation of their own people, but the other various peoples of the world as well that make up humanity, to have an excellent grasp of the past so as to see clearly as to what to do in the present.  Hence entries here such as this…


The Revolutions of 1848 are suppressed across Europe and many of the revolutionary leaders and those that took part flee their countries.  Thousands from Germany that took part in the 1848 revolution there are granted refuge in the United States, amongst them one by the name of Theodore Poesche (1824-1899), a student revolutionary from the University at Halle.  Poesche, in cooperation with a person of German ancestry in the US by the name of Charles Goepp, would write a book in 1852 and entitle it The New Rome; or, the United States of the World, which is free and on-line at the linked title, and it would be published in 1853 (seven years before the election of Abraham Lincoln
) by the major US book publisher G P Putnam with its offices located in New York City and London.  This book in its opening pages claims to be a ‘a horoscope’, ‘a map of the future of mankind’, and ‘what must be’.

The book emphasizes five primary points which are as follows and in this order…

1) The separation of the United States and the British Empire is intended to be but ‘temporary’ so as to allow the order of things being established in the New World time to experience its ‘realization’…ie the United States needs time to gain strength.  In the future the United States and the British empire will re-unite.  (bottom of pg.87 and top of page 88)

2) At the time that the US and UK re-unite, thus forming ‘the Anglo-Saxon Empire’, the center of power of the British Empire will move from England to the United States, ‘its real center’, and the US will ‘take the lead’.  (bottom of pg 87 and top of pg 88)

3) The US and UK (’the Anglo-Saxon empire’), ‘having received its legitimate organization’, will co-jointly conquer and gain control of Germany, and lay hold an ‘unyielding grasp upon the countries of the Germanic confederation’.  (bottom of pg 95 and bottom of pg105)

4) Immediately following the conquest of Germany by the US and UK, a struggle will ensue centered upon Europe (in time encompassing the entire globe) between specifically the United States and Russia.  The United States will prevail in this struggle with Russia.  (pgs 105, 107, & 109)

5) The United States will ultimately acquire ‘the empire of the world’ economically by way of Capitalism.  (the entire book)