Category: Uncategorized

Various people have emailed me to state that Jesus would not use violence to crush the Arabs waging war on Israel, or against the Islamic terrorists who have declared war on the USA. In response, I think it’s important to consider three things:

1) God has crushed invaders of Israel in the past.

2) He has promised to do it again in the Book of Revelations.

3) Ariel Sharon and George Bush are not Jesus Christ, nor is Sharon to the best of my knowledge, even a Christian. Why would either the Israeli or the American governments, both of which are avowedly secular, take a Christian perspective into account even for a second? Not being individuals, they can’t. It’s a nonsensical point.

A broader point is that anyone, even a Christian, can join in a reasonable discussion of which military tactics and strategies are likely to work or not. War is inherently worldly – Jesus said as much. We can either ignore it – which regular readers of my column will note that I generally do – or when we speak about it, speak about it from a worldly perspective. My opinion on the optimal way to wage war on Iraq should no more be considered a Christian position than is my opinion on the likelihood of the Minnesota Vikings finishing 8-8 this season. No one confuses things in the latter case, and it mystifies me that some people do in the case of the former.

From a previous column:

I do not want to hear any more about Islam being a “religion of peace.” It is not, nor has it ever been. In addition to engaging in aggressive wars that conquered reasonable chunks of the Middle East, Africa, India and Europe, Islam has a long history of internal violence dating back almost to its inception.

The second Caliph to succeed Muhammad, Umar ibn al-Khattab, was assassinated, as was the third Caliph, Uthman ibn Affan, as was the fourth Caliph, Ali ibn Abi Talib.

This history of violence was not inconsequential. The fifth Caliph and founder of the Ummayad dynasty, Muawiyyah, managed to survive long enough to pass the holy mantle of leadership to his son Yazid, who, when faced with a challenge to his rule by Muhammed’s grandson, Husain, did not hesitate to massacre Husain and all his followers, including Husain’s infant son.

The murders of Ali and Husain were the first great grievances of the Shiah i-Ali, better known to us in the West as the Shiite Muslims. And many centuries of similar “pacifism” followed, hence the Abbasid, Fatimid, Seljuk, Safavid, Moghul and Ottoman Empires.

I think it’s also worth pointing out that the first two Abbasid Caliphs, Abul-‘Abbaas ‘Abdullah bin Muhammad al-Saffaah (750 AD) and Abu Ja’far ‘Abdullah bin Muhammad al-Mansoor (754) bore surnames “the bloodshedder” and “the victorious”. Strange titles for the leaders of such a famously peaceful religion.

Apparently some Muslims are still in a tizzy about my strategic solution to ending the latest flare-up in the Israeli-Palestinian war. Let’s put this into perspective here. In World War II, the United States inflicted an estimated 672,000 civilian fatalities on the Japanese as payback for 2,403 casualties at Pearl Harbor.

That’s a rate of 280 to 1, far higher than the 100 to 1 ratio for responding to civilian deaths that I feel would suffice to quickly dissuade the Palestinian leadership from continuing its terrorist campaign. Remember, at the time I wrote that controversial column, the PLO leadership was publicly proclaiming the success of its murderous strategy since it had lowered the Israeli-Palestinian kill ratio from 10-1 to 3-1. If that’s their measure of success, then it’s pretty obvious that any efforts to convince them of the failure of their strategy must be directed at their chosen metrics. As for the 1000 to 1 suggestion, well, there’s a deeper point there. LEAVE THE KIDS OUT OF IT!

No children, Jewish, Palestinian, Christian or Muslim, should be involved in this, or any war. If you believe that murdering children is necessary for your cause, whatever it might be, then I have no problem with the Mossad, the IDF or the US Marines taking you out. The sooner, the better.

I think one reason that the column was controversial, and one of the reasons that the United States has had a difficult time winning wars since the Korean “police action”, is that both the American people and its leadership are unwilling to face up to the reality of what war is.

“Our bravery is too negative. We talk too much of sacrifice, of the glory of dying that freedom may live. Of course we are willing to die but that is not enough. We must be eager to kill, to inflict on the enemy — the hated enemy — wounds, death and destruction. If we die killing, well and good, but if we fight hard enough, viciously enough, we will kill and live.” – George S. Patton

I submit that men like General Patton and the legendary Marines’ Marine, Chesty Puller, know a lot more about wars and how to win them than the politician-generals who have bungled every military action since Korea, including Iraq: Part I and the misnamed War on Terror. If we do not have the will to fight this war, so be it. In that case, we must bring the troops home and hope for the best. I am not entirely opposed to this option as I have my own doubts about the war, mostly due to its deleterious effect on human liberty. But if the people’s decision is to fight a war that has been repeatedly declared against us by our Islamic enemies, (and this is why a Congressionally-approved Declaration of War is an absolute necessity), then unleash the damned hounds and don’t look back.

A leading Saudi government cleric and author of the country’s religious curriculum believes Islam advocates slavery. “Slavery is a part of Islam,” says Sheik Saleh Al-Fawzan, according to the independent Saudi Information Agency, or SIA. In a lecture recorded on tape by SIA, the sheik said, “Slavery is part of jihad, and jihad will remain as long there is Islam.” His religious books are used to teach 5 million Saudi students, both within the country and abroad, including the United States.

I wonder what Louis Farrakhan and the black Muslim crowd will make of this? Not much, probably, since the black community is far more interested in whining about Confederate flags and a slavery that none of them, or their grandfathers, for that matter, have ever known, than about blacks being enslaved by Muslims in the Sudan today.

Of course, I’m sure George Bush will set the sheik straight, seeing as he’s such an expert on sharia. The president believes that Islam means peace. If that’s truly the case – and I’m sure it isn’t – then he’s every bit the idiot that his Democratic haters believe him to be.

No matter what your position on the Iraqi war is, this can’t possibly be interpreted as a good sign by anyone. I’m not accusing the soldier responsible of doing anything wrong – if you’re not there, you can’t possibly know – but the mere description is so ironic that it would make you laugh were it not for the fact that a man lost his life.

Tensions between U.S. forces and Iraqis in the Shiite Muslim enclave, Sadr City, rose Monday after the head of the U.S.-appointed municipal council, Muhanad al-Kaadi, was shot and killed by an American soldier guarding municipal headquarters.

CD writes: “If you would pause just long enough to pull your head out of Israel’s ass you’ll see that Israel, by way of it’s policy of grabbing land the belongs to the Palestinian people, is responsible for the state of the world today.”

So THAT’S why Rwanda is such a murderous mess. Not to mention the Sudan, North Korea, Indonesia, Tibet, Chechnya, Bosnia and Zimbabwe etc. It’s all because of a little sliver of land to which a thrice-conquered people have not given up claim. By this cretinous reckoning, German suicide bombers should be blowing themselves up in Danzig – that is to say, Gdansk.

Idiots. Of course, his first question was: are you Jewish? No, I’m not. You don’t have to be Jewish to see that there is far more evil in the world than one tiny ethnic minority can possibly be responsible for. And the fruits of judenhassen aren’t exactly in line with the fruits of the Spirit.

Abortion is not only widely deployed against children with Down Syndrome. It is expected, and praised. Jocelyn Elders, just prior to being named Bill Clinton’s surgeon general, famously proclaimed that abortion “has had an important and positive public-health effect” because it reduced “the number of children afflicted with severe defects.” She pointed out that “the number of Down Syndrome infants in Washington state in 1976 was 64 percent lower than it would have been without legal abortion.”

Dave Shiflett may not have a clue about the political spectrum – no one on the political right supports eugenics – but he can see the winds of so-called progress blowing towards increased state-sanctioned murder in this country too. Do you? Perhaps we should just kill the lame and the crippled people too, not to mention the fat and ugly – they’re such a blight on society.

Reader SJ writes: I have seen you use the “Nazi Party /Communism liked that policy so it must be bad.” argument before more than once. It is faulty logic. It does not follow from “a political movement is evil” that “every single idea recommended from that party is evil” There is no idea so flawless that some wrong minded organization hasn’t used it, to restate Cicero.

I agree with the broader point, but take total exception to the conclusion. It is of course absurd to argue that since Hitler loved dogs, everyone who loves dogs is a crypto-Nazi. But we’re not talking about minor idiosyncracies of correlation here, we’re talking about direct ideological kinship wherein both political strains hail from the same intellectual seed – Platonic elitism – and have many, many policies and goals in common. My question to those of SJ’s mindset is: “what percentage of policies and positions must be in perfect accordance before you will admit the ideological kinship between X and Y? Thirty percent? Fifty percent? Eighty percent? If you eliminate those policies which are no longer applicable due to the 70 years that have passed – is there a single political party anywhere in the world that has a position on the particulars of the treaty of Versailles? – the concordance between the current Democratic party and the historical Nazi party is so high that it should be extremely worrisome to any thinking, historically cognizant individual.

Would SJ or anyone else agree with the statement that: a political movement is evil, so any political movement which shares a large percentage of policies and goals in common with that evil movement is also evil? Because that’s what I’m saying. It’s not just a random notion cherry-picked here and there, it is the majority of specific ideas as well as the overall attitude towards society that are identical.

Take public education, just to cite one supposedly innocuous correlation. The Nazis viewed it as an integral tool in preparing future generations for a new world order. Is there any serious doubt that this is precisely what the public school system in America is being used for now? If you don’t believe so, I recommend reading the latest educrat literature from the NEA, which will soon set you straight on the purpose of the modern educational system.

The Sports Guy says that every year, two teams come out of nowhere and look like potential champions at the midseason point. One of them is the real deal, and one of them is a pretender who’s had the benefit of an easy schedule, some lucky breaks, or sometimes, an unusual coaching scheme that the other coordinators haven’t figured out yet. The team that is the real deal often ends up making it to the Super Bowl – even winning it, like the 1999 Ravens and the 2000 Rams – the other fades to 8-8 or thereabouts and is forgotten.

There were three surprise contenders as of last week. The 6-2 Carolina Panthers, the 6-2 Dallas Cowboys and the 6-2 Minnesota Vikings. And, as much as it pains me to say it, the Vikings are looking like the pretenders. Real playoff teams don’t get hammered by a lousy Chargers team, even if the permanently-underrated Doug Flutie is behind center, and the Falcons have made what looked like a suspect loss to the Giants even worse.

I wouldn’t be surprised if Carolina made it to the Super Bowl. Tough defense, a power running game and a workaday quarterback who keeps it simple and doesn’t make mistakes. Sounds a lot like the Trent Dilfer Ravens, doesn’t it? Or like a Bill Parcell’s Giants team. Speaking of the Big Tuna, he doesn’t have enough talent in Dallas to make it far in the playoffs, but he has clearly nailed down his place as an all-time great football coach with the Cowboys’ overperformance this year. Their 10-6 victory over the Bills was the most fascinating one-touchdown game I’ve seen in years.

In summary:

Carolina Panthers = the real deal

Minnesota Vikings = pretenders

Dallas Cowboys = anomaly with great coach

Some readers are wondering about my continual hammering on the kinship between the historical National Socialists and their modern descendants – in America, the current Democratic party, in Europe, the European Union. The truth is that Democrats and Eurocrats, while in general ideological agreement with the Nazis, are actually almost identical to the Italian Fascist party, which was the original Third Way.

It’s interesting to see that those who are obsessed with the non-existent threat posed by a few whacked-out losers waving swastikas should be so blind to the development of the EU’s Fourth Reich, which represents the most recent attempt to reunite the Frankish empire of Charlegmagne. Or, if you prefer, Karl der Grosse, which is how his German-speaking heirs refer to him. Lest anyone take seriously the eurofascists’ attitude towards democracy, note that the political whores who are attempting to usher in the New European Order are doing their best to ensure that the people of France and Britain will not be permitted to protest their subjugation to their new masters.

“France narrowly won the referendum on the Maastricht Treaty and there are suggestions that it could lose a plebiscite on the European constitution. Ministers are also concerned that pressure for a referendum in Britain would escalate sharply if such a close neighbour as France opted for one.”

What good is a constitution, after all, if the people are allowed a voice? And why should they be permitted to be heard anyhow, since as the world has been repeatedly assured for years, the EU isn’t a political entity, it’s just an organization to facilitate trade and economic development – oh, wait, they lied about that too, didn’t they.