Our Islamo-Christian heritage

Hey, it worked for the Jews, right? Why shouldn’t it work for the Muslims too? Or, for that matter, the Hindus and ancestor-worshipping pagans?

CNN rewrites history to claim that Islam was part of America’s founding

For CNN, the argument that Islam has “always” been present in the U.S. rests largely on the claim that a significant minority of black slaves were Muslim. On Saturday, CNN correspondent Dean Obeidallah claimed that “Islam has been here since the time of slavery, because ten to fifteen percent of the African slaves brought were Muslim. So Islam was here before the creation of the United States. It was actually part of the creation of the United States of America.” Bell’s interviewee raises the estimate, claiming that “during the slave trade, up to about 25 to 30% of the slaves came from areas where there were predominantly Muslim populations.”

Ironically, the Muslims have got a much stronger claim to America than the Jews do, as there were considerably more of them present at the time of the American Revolution. The Jewish population of America is estimated at about 1,500 in 1790, which is considerably less than the conservative estimate of 95,000 Muslims. Furthermore, given that 9,000 blacks were among the 200,000 soldiers who fought for the Revolution, it is statistically probable that more Muslims (90 to 2,700) fought for American independence than Jews (90 to 100).

From time to time, people have asked me why I consistently criticize the ahistorical mythology of Judeo-Christian America; the primary reason is because it is almost entirely false. That being said, this Islamo-Christian heritage nonsense is exactly the sort of consequence I expected if the previous historical revisionism wasn’t seen by the public for the false historical propaganda that it is.

To paraphrase the linked article, while both Jews and Muslims were present at America’s founding, neither Judaism and Islam — as coherent, self-conscious religious and political civilizations — were. America is a Christian nation. Its heritage is Christian and its values are Christian. Those are the historical facts, and be very wary of the objectives of anyone who attempts to revise them. If they are doing so, rest assured they have a purpose that is at best self-serving, and quite possibly nefarious.

UPDATE: It has been suggested that the black Muslim population was considerably lower than the estimated 10 to 30 percent. In which case, I propose that we revise history once more and henceforth refer to America’s Pagan-Christian heritage and values.


Resist or be conquered

Peter Grant considers Mark Steyn’s words in the aftermath of Manchester:

Poland and Hungary and Slovakia do not have Islamic terrorism because they have very little Islam. France and Germany and Belgium admit more and more Islam, and thus more and more terrorism. Yet the subject of immigration has been all but entirely absent from the current UK election campaign. Thirty years ago, in the interests of stopping IRA terrorism, the British state was not above preventing the internal movement within its borders of unconvicted, uncharged, unarrested Republican sympathizers seeking to take a ferry from Belfast to Liverpool. Today it declares it can do nothing to prevent the movement of large numbers of the Muslim world from thousands of miles away to the heart of the United Kingdom. It’s just a fact of life – like being blown up when you go to a pop concert.


All of us have gotten things wrong since 9/11. But few of us have gotten things as disastrously wrong as May and Merkel and Hollande and an entire generation of European political leaders who insist that remorseless incremental Islamization is both unstoppable and manageable. It is neither – and, for the sake of the dead of last night’s carnage and for those of the next one, it is necessary to face that honestly. Theresa May’s statement in Downing Street is said by my old friends at The Spectator to be “defiant”, but what she is defying is not terrorism but reality.

There’s much more at the link.  Recommended reading.

I want to disagree with Mr. Steyn, but I can’t.  I disagree profoundly that Islam as a whole is the source of our terrorism problem;  but the fact that the terrorists are overwhelmingly fundamentalist Muslims undermines my argument, because it’s almost impossible to tell them apart from Muslims who are not terrorists or terrorist sympathizers.  If you can’t distinguish the dangerous from the harmless, you’re left with only one alternative to ensure your safety.  You have to regard all of them as dangerous until proven otherwise.

This is a tragedy of monumental proportions – and it’s one that until recently simply was not a factor.  I was discussing this with Lawdog last night.  He and I can recall many encounters with Muslims in Africa back in the 1970’s and 1980’s, he in the west of that continent, I in the south and east.  Almost universally, the Muslims we knew then were not radicalized, were perfectly happy to coexist in peace with their neighbors, and were not interested in terrorism as a tool to promote their beliefs.

If there was a single, seminal event that changed everything, it was the war against Soviet invasion in Afghanistan.  So-called ‘mujahideen’ flocked there from every corner of the world to resist the invaders – and the survivors took back home with them the newly radicalized Islam they had learned there.  Now, in the aftermath of Afghanistan, things are radically different in Africa, to the point where Lawdog and I can no longer recognize the socio-political-cultural landscape we once knew.  From Boko Haram in West Africa to Al-Shabaab in East Africa, from Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) in North Africa to Qibla and PAGAD in South Africa, radicals attempted (with varying degrees of success) to subvert and take over more moderate Muslim organizations and activities.  Their efforts have been beaten back, but continue to this day.  The same is true all over the world.

I don’t see why so many people are having so much trouble grasping the fact that groups go through quiescent and expansionist stages. 200 years ago, the English were imperialist. 60 years ago the Germans were imperialist. Now the Islamic world is imperialist. It is meaningless to observe that a group was once what it now is not, or that it once was not what it now is. We have to deal with the situation that presents itself today, not 500 years ago or even five years ago.

Either the natives resist the imperialist invaders are they will be ruled by them. This isn’t rocket science. It is just history in action.



The only way

There’s only one way Britain should respond to attacks such as Manchester. That is by carrying on exactly as before.
– The Independent

Doing nothing is not a solution. Carrying on exactly as before is submission and surrender. But it is true, there is only one way Britain should respond to attacks such as Manchester, and that is Reconquista 2.0.

Reconquista is the relatively peaceful, civilized, and historically-proven-effective way. But if the multiculturalists, globalists, quislings, and cuckservatives absolutely insist on standing in the way, there is an obvious alternative. However, they’ll probably like that even less, considering that it involves them too.

Nationalism intensifies. And history’s great tide is going to wash over the world whether we will or no. The coming season became absolutely inevitable, and totally unavoidable, once these waves of immigration into the West were permitted to take place. I warned you. Many others warned you. Even before I was born, Enoch Powell warned the British people of “rivers of blood” that would flow throughout Great Britain.

Here is a decent, ordinary fellow-Englishman, who in broad daylight in my own town says to me, his Member of Parliament, that the country will not be worth living in for his children. I simply do not have the right to shrug my shoulders and think about something else. What he is saying, thousands and hundreds of thousands are saying and thinking – not throughout Great Britain, perhaps, but in the areas that are already undergoing the total transformation to which there is no parallel in a thousand years of English history.


We must be mad, literally mad, as a nation to be permitting the annual inflow of some 50,000 dependants, who are for the most part the material of the future growth of the immigrant descended population. It is like watching a nation busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre. So insane are we that we actually permit unmarried persons to immigrate for the purpose of founding a family with spouses and fiancées whom they have never seen.

Perhaps the fathers and brothers of all the murdered children of Manchester will content themselves with candlelight vigils and platitudes, as so many others have for the last 16 years. But sooner or later, one of them will not, and that man will make Anders Breivik look like a moderate.

There is going to be a lot of talk about thoughts and prayers, as always. But, as it is written, do not neglect to leave room for God’s wrath.


The triumph of oligarchy

Michael Lind has an intriguing and deeply historical article on what he calls the New Class War in the American Affairs Journal.

If I am correct, the post–Cold War period has come to a close, and the industrial democracies of North America and Europe have entered a new and turbulent era. The managerial class has destroyed the social settlements that constrained it temporarily in the second half of the twentieth century and created a new kind of politics, largely insulated from popular participation and electoral democracy, based on large donors and shifting coalitions within a highly homogeneous coalition of allied Western elites. Following two decades of increasing consolidation of the power of the managerial class, the populist and nationalist wave on both sides of the Atlantic is a predictable rebellion by working-class outsiders against managerial-class insiders and their domestic allies, who are often recruited from native minorities or immigrant diasporas.

Will the result of the contemporary class war among managers and workers on both sides of the Atlantic be a revival of fascism? In some countries in Europe, populist nationalist parties have emerged from tiny fringe fascist parties, or have attracted their supporters. But talk about Weimar America or Weimar Europe is based on a misunderstanding of history, which blames fascism on populism. In reality, despite their populist trappings, most interwar fascist movements were favored by military and economic elites as a way to block social democracy and communism.

It is not the Weimar republic but the banana republic that provides the most likely negative model. In many Latin American countries, politics has traditionally pitted oligarchs versus populists. A similar pattern existed in many Southern states in the United States between the Civil War and the civil rights revolution.

When populist outsiders challenge oligarchic insiders, the oligarchs almost always win. How could they lose? They may not have numbers, but they control most of the wealth, expertise, and political influence and dominate the media, universities, and nonprofit sectors. Most populist waves break and disperse on the concrete seawalls of elite privilege.

In the American South, most populist politicians gave up or sold out. In some cases, like that of Texas governor and senator W. Lee “Pappy” O’Daniel, a country music singer, they were simply folksy fronts for corporate and upper-class interests all along. The few populists who maintained some independence were those who could finance themselves, usually by corrupt means. Louisiana governor Huey Long could battle the ruling families and the powerful corporations because he skimmed money from state employee checks and kept it in a locked “deduct box.” In Texas, anti-Klan populist governor James “Pa” Ferguson, along with his wife Miriam “Ma” Ferguson, who was elected governor after her husband was impeached on the slogan “Two Governors for the price of one,” sold pardons to the relatives of convicted criminals. As billionaires who could finance their own campaigns, Ross Perot and Donald Trump could claim, with some justification, to be free to run against the national establishment.

Those who believe in liberal democracy can look on this kind of political order only with dismay. Most of the time, coteries within a nepotistic elite run things for the benefit of their class. Now and then, a charismatic populist arises, only to fail, sell out to the establishment, or establish a personal or dynastic political-economic racket. Formal democracy may survive, but its spirit has fled. No matter who wins, the insiders or outsiders, the majority will lose.

This is broadly in line with my own expectations, but it tends to contradict anacyclosis and the Ciceronian political cycle, which sees tyranny following democracy rather than aristocracy. Of course, an elite that has learned the importance of keeping its head down may have had the wherewithal to simply skip that aspect of the cycle in favor of the amorphous vampire squid ink of the corpocracy and rule by artificial  judicial persons, each of whom can support thousands of oligarchic insiders like a legal form of Lovecraft’s Nyarlatothep.

The section on Hobson’s predictions is almost alarming in its prophetic accuracy. It’s long, but definitely read the whole thing. I’ve seen what I personally call “the pirate class” in operation myself, descending upon every promising young corporation and seeking to either drain it dry or personally profit by offering it up as a sacrifice to a larger entity.


America’s Indian heritage

A commenter at Steve Sailer’s explains why Americans tend to feel differently about Indians than Central and South Americans, or Canadians, do:

In America, the Indians fought back with everything they had not for years, not for decades, not for generations, but for centuries.

And the resistance began at the beginning, so to speak, as they were whipping the Spanish at least as early as 1513, when the Timucua drove Ponce de Leon off near present-day St. Augustine, Fla., and later that year the Calusa drove him out of San Carlos Bay, Fla. Four years later Hernando de Cordoba’s fleet, returning from a campaign against the Maya, dropped anchor in San Carlos bay to replenish water and supplies, but their landing party was driven off by the Calusa, who were described as “very big men with very long bows and good arrows.”

Ponce de Leon and Cordoba returned to San Carlos Bay in 1521 with 200 soldiers, settlers and supplies to establish a colony. The Calusa again defeated and drove them off, killing both de Leon and Cordoba.

Then there was the disastrous Navaraez expedition into northern Florida in 1527 with 600 soldiers, where the Spanish crossbows were no match for the Indians 7-foot long bows, as thick as a man’s arm, that could penetrate six inches of wood at 200 yards. Only four Spaniards survived the catastrophe.

In 1539, Hernando de Soto, who had been Francisco Pizarro’s chief military adviser and among the 168 who conquered the Inca empire, and a veteran of 15 years of warring against south-of-the Rio Grande Indians, landed in Tampa Bay with 330 infantry and 270 cavalry, most veterans of the Spanish conquests in the south. They had given up European armor and adopted Aztec quilted cotton armor covered with leather as more effective protection.

They marched north reaching the Choctaw town of Mabila on the present site of Selma, Ala., which they assaulted and took after prolonged fighting, estimated having killed 2,500 inhabitants. But no Indian surrender ensued. Instead, they forced the Spaniards to retreat and harried them, the Chickasaw attacking and burning de Soto’s winter camp, inflicting severe losses. Ultimately, only about half of de Soto’s force survived the expedition — not including him.

And so it went for hundreds of years, into the 20th century, if we count the 1911 Shoshone uprising, which was not called a “war” but a “riot,” as nomenclature was changed after Wounded Knee.

It is remarkable that some 350 years after the Calusa crushed Ponce de Leon and Cordoba, the Sioux defeated Crook and annihilated Custer.

So the American Indian earned respect and a place in our history that he does not have in Latin America or Canada. That’s even reflected in our language. Only the American armed forces to this day speak of going into Indian Country, and mean it ominously. Only American paratroopers legendarily shout “Geronimo!” as they leap from airplanes. Only a famous American general was named after an Indian. We speak of being off the reservation, and on the warpath. We Indian wrestle and walk Indian file. Indians are a part of, in today’s parlance, who we are in a way they are not in Canada or Latin America.

I find it fascinating that Indian ancestry is so respected that some whites will even attempt to deny that those they don’t like could possible have any. In any event, the Indian experience is one more factor that tends to separate the American colonist/settler from the later US immigrants.


A fascinating historical revision

The idea that the “Arab Conquests” might have actually been Persian may explain, in part, why Iran believes it should be the center of the Islamic world:

The two greatest powers in the Middle East at the beginning of the seventh century were Byzantium and Sassanian Persia. In 602 the Persian king Chosroes (Khosrau) II went to war against the Byzantine usurper Phocas, who had earlier murdered Chosroes’ friend and father-in-law the Emperor Maurice. The war did not end with the death of Phocas (610), but continued into the reign of Heraclius, and was to prove ruinous to the Byzantines. Jerusalem was taken by the Persians in 614, a disaster which was quickly followed by the loss of most of Asia Minor between 616 and 618 and Egypt in 619/20. Chosroes II now equalled the achievements of his Persian predecessors in the sixth century BC, with his forces marching across North Africa to annex the Libyan province of Cyrenaea in 621. The story told by the Byzantines of how Heraclius, in the face of this overwhelming calamity, rallied his armies and reconquered all the lost territories – only to lose the same territories again to the Arabs from 632 onwards – has a ring of fantasy about it, and historians have long viewed it with scepticism. Certainly there is no doubting the power and influence of the Persians in this epoch.

The earliest Islam, as revealed by archaeology, is in fact profoundly Persian; and indeed the first trace of Islam recovered in excavation are coins of Sassanian Persian design bearing the image either of Chosroes II (d. 628) or of his grandson Yazdegerd III (d. 651). On one side we find the portrait of the king, on the reverse the picture of a Zoroastrian Fire Temple. The only thing that marks these out as Islamic is the legend besm Allah (in the name of God), written in the Syriac script, beside the Fire Temple. (The Arabic script did not then exist). According to the Encyclopdaedia Iranica:

“These coins usually have a portrait of a Sasanian emperor with an honorific inscription and various ornaments. To the right of the portrait is a ruler’s or governor’s name written in Pahlavi script. On the reverse there is a Zoroastrian fire altar with attendants on either side. At the far left is the year of issue expressed in words, and at the right is the place of minting. In all these features, the Arab-Sasanian coinages are similar to Sasanian silver drahms. The major difference between the two series is the presence of some additional Arabic inscription on most coins issued under Muslim authority, but some coins with no Arabic can still be attributed to the Islamic period. The Arab-Sasanian coinages are not imitations, since they were surely designed and manufactured by the same people as the late Sasanian issues, illustrating the continuity of administration and economic life in the early years of Muslim rule in Iran.” (“Arab-Sasanian Coins,” Encyclopdaedia Iranica, at www.iranica.com/articles/arab-sasanian-coins)

Note the remark: “The Arab-Sasanian coinages are not imitations,” but were “designed and manufactured by the same people as the late Sasanian issues.” We note also that the date provided on these artefacts is written in Persian script, and it would appear that those who minted the coins, native Persians, did not understand Arabic.

It would also explain the seeming, and relatively sudden, vanishing of what had been for more than 1500 years one of the great world powers, if it was not a vanishing, but a mere transformation.


Netanyahu denies the Holocaust

Apparently it is now only FOUR million, according to the Prime Minister of Israel:

“If the powers in 1942 had acted against the death camps — and all that was needed was repeated bombing of the camps — had they acted then, they could have saved four million Jews and millions of other people,” he said at the official state Yom HaShoah ceremony at the Yad Vashem Holocaust memorial in Jerusalem. “When terrible crimes were being committed against the Jews, when our brothers and sisters were being sent to the furnaces,” he said, “the powers knew and did not act.”

Since, as we all know, casting any doubt on the sacred SIX MILLION number that has been popping up in the New York Times alone since 1869, is considered DENYING THE HOLOCAUST and merits criminal charges, I can only conclude it is necessary to denounce Mr. Netanyahu as a Holocaust-denier and demand his resignation as Prime Minister of Israel.

Also, as someone who has paid a considerable amount of attention to the effects of the bombing campaign on German industrial production – the number of German aircraft produced rose 70 percent from 1943 to 1944 despite all the bombing – I can testify that Netanyahu has absolutely no idea what he’s talking about. First, the Allies could not easily reach Eastern Europe from their bases in England. Second, since all the bombing of the German industry didn’t even slow down their industrial production, which grew until it finally collapsed due to the loss of materials and manpower in 1945, it’s absurd to think that even a single individual in any of the concentration camps could have been saved by Allied bombing.

And third, if the labor in the labor camps had been somehow disrupted by a bombing campaign, the Germans might have simply executed all of those being held there and the death toll might have been even greater than four million. I mean, of course, SIX MILLION.

From across the sea six million men and women call to us for help, and eight hundred thousand little children cry for bread.


These children, these men and women are our fellow-members of the human family, with the same claim on life as we, the same susceptibility to the winter’s cold, the same propensity to death before the fangs of hunger. Within them reside the illimitable possibilities for the advancement of the human race as naturally would reside in six million human beings. We may not be their keepers but we ought to be their helpers.


In the face of death, in the throes of starvation there is no place for mental distinctions of creed, no place for physical differentiations of race. In this catastrophe, when six million human beings are being whirled toward the grave by a cruel and relentless fate, only the most idealistic promptings of human nature should sway the heart and move the hand.


Six million men and women are dying from lack of the necessaries of life; eight hundred thousand children cry for bread. And this fate is upon them through no fault of their own, through no transgression of the laws of God or man; but through the awful tyranny of war and a bigoted lust for Jewish blood.


In this threatened holocaust of human life, forgotten are the niceties of philosophical distinction, forgotten are the differences of historical interpretation; and the determination to help the helpless, to shelter the homeless, to clothe the naked and to feed the hungry becomes a religion at whose altar men of every race can worship and women of every creed can kneel. 
– “The Crucifixion of the Jews Must Stop”, Martin Glynn, 31 October 1919


Audaciously correcting fake history

The Audacious Epigone provides more details on the lies of the civic nationalists:

The phrase “nation of immigrants” first appeared in The New York Times in 1923 and for the first time in book form in 1935. Truman, in 1952, was the first president to make use of it while in office.

Peak immigration occurred in 1890 when those born outside the US made up 14.7% of the country’s population. At its historical height, then, 1-in-7 people living in the US were immigrants in a nation now putatively said to be comprised of them.

At the time of the nation-wrecking Hart-Celler act in 1965, only 1-in-20 residents were immigrants.

Anyone who claims America is a nation of immigrants is appallingly ignorant, lying through his teeth, or both–and there’s a good chance he has to go back.

Providing more evidence in support of my statement that revisionist philo-immigrant history is a 20th century lie in support of the false claim of 19th century immigrants to be legitimate Americans. The USA is not, and never was, “a Judeo-Christian nation of immigrants”.

I can’t stress this enough. I’ve noticed that we’re already seeing less and less philo-immigrant falsehoods. And if a civic nationalist or third-generation immigrant tries to pass it off as genuine history, don’t hesitate to expose their lies and hammer them hard for it in public.

If you’re a Republican of conservative or libertarian inclination, remember that you can’t expect to win over the fleeing white Democrats if you’re just going to replace liberal lies with conservative or libertarian lies. If the historical evidence belies your dogma, you simply must give it up and replace it with the truth.


The loyalty of Fake Americans

As is so often the case, the inexplicable unjustices of history turn out to be entirely explicable once more of the details behind it are known:

On December 7, 1941, Airman First Class Shigenori Nishikaichi (c. 1919/20 – c. 10:00 am, December 13, 1941) (age 21/22), who had just taken part in the second wave of the Pearl Harbor attack, crash-landed his bullet-damaged plane, an A6M2 Zero “B11-120” from the carrier Hiryu, in a Niʻihau field near where Hawila Kaleohano (1912-1986), a native Hawaiian resident, was standing.[2] Kaleohano was unaware of the attack at Pearl Harbor, but knew from newspapers that the relationship between the U.S. and Japan was poor due to Japanese expansionism and the U.S. oil embargo on Japan. Recognizing Nishikaichi and his plane as Japanese, Kaleohano thought it prudent to relieve the pilot of his pistol and papers before the dazed airman could react. He and the other Hawaiians who gathered about treated the pilot with courtesy and the traditional Hawaiian hospitality, even throwing a party for him later that Sunday afternoon. However, the Hawaiians could not understand Nishikaichi, who spoke only Japanese with a limited amount of English. They sent for Japanese-born Ishimatsu Shintani (an issei), who was married to a native Hawaiian, to translate.

Having been briefed on the situation beforehand and approaching the task with evident distaste, Shintani exchanged just a few words with the pilot. He paled; the pilot froze. Shintani left. The puzzled Hawaiians then sent for Yoshio Harada. Harada, born in Hawaiʻi of Japanese ancestry, and his wife Irene (both nisei), constituted the remainder of the Niʻihau population of Japanese ancestry.

Nishikaichi informed Harada of the attack on Pearl Harbor, a revelation Harada thought prudent not to share with the non-Japanese natives. Nishikaichi desperately wanted his papers returned, which he had been told should by no means fall into American hands, but Kaleohano refused to return them. For unknown reasons, the Haradas decided to assist Nishikaichi to retrieve his papers and escape.

In other words, those second-generation United States citizens proved to be considerably more loyal to their people than to their paperwork citizenship. They weren’t “every bit as American” as the descendants of the Mayflower and the Founding Fathers, they were Fake Americans and precursors to the post-1965 crowd.

Yes, nisei ultimately proved loyal and others didn’t. But the salient point is that no one could possibly know. Then, as now, the genuine loyalties of citizens of foreign descent and dual citizens simply cannot be assumed.

That doesn’t mean that the internment of all the Japanese citizens on the mainland was necessary; it was not because there was never any risk of an invasion of the West Coast. But the Niihau Incident does make it considerably easier to understand why internment was considered, and why few Americans had any problem with it at the time.