Heretics Crusade Reviews ZEALOT: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth by Reza Aslan

hearnoevilislamist10

Anyone not familiar with my writing, religion or my politics should read these articles first to avoid getting the wrong idea ab out how the author feels about Iran, Imams and the Iranian-on-the-street that is the REAL “Iran”.

This is a review of the excerpted introduction from ZEALOT: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth by Reza Aslan

 I can’t wait to see the second volume, the one about ‘historical Muhammad’, to be followed no doubt by similar volumes on Krishna, Buddha, Lao Tse, the Rev. Moon and Bob Dobbs!

From the introduction I get the feeling that it should have been called the Charge of the Taqiyya Brigade! But, who is Reza practicing it against? Non-Muslims to confuse and convert, or Traditional Muslims to stay alive long enough to make a real difference; I can’t tell.

The only thing that is obvious is that B.S. plays a big part in this book; the introduction shows clearly both ignorance and dishonesty, while claiming pretensions of being objective analysis!

“… Palestine, the [Roman designation for the vast tract of land encompassing modern day Israel/Palestine as well as large parts of Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon].”

Not really. The name was of Egyptian/Judaic extraction [peleshet] and meant ‘rolling’, ‘migratory’ or something close to that; it referred to the, mostly Greek-derived culture that had invaded and conquered the coastal region of what is now Israel and Gaza all the way back in the 12th century BCE! The name was only made official by Rome (explicitly done to attempt to reduce the Jewish peoples’ identification the ‘Nation of Israel’) in 132 CE; also, the name had referred at overlapping times to a number of distinctly separate  places in the Middle East of 2,000 years ago.

The area was known, and had been known for centuries as Judea, Samaria and Galilee! It wasn’t until 3 full human lifetimes had passed after Jesus vanished from the world’s stage when a final Jewish rebellion brought turned Roman patience with Jewish Nationalism into Roman vengeance; the designation “Palestine” was chosen by the Romans in much the same spirit that neighboring Native Americans chose to call a particular North American tribe “the Sioux” – It meant “snakes” in the local dialects, and did not refer to wisdom dispensing kind in Greek lore; they picked the biggest boogiemen from Jewish history; the new dirige Provinciae Romanae was to be called after the Philistine invaders who conquered much of the Jewish lands for a time in centuries past.

Of course the pesky locals, probably already a bit peeved at having some invading peoples’ name imposed on them by leather skirt wearing “sore winners” carrying swords and eagles, and not even having an ‘F’ sound in their language just called it Filistin.

Common-sense tells us that anyone, of any religion or race who is descended from people, of any race or religion other than ‘Roman Citizen’ who is/was ‘from’ “Palestine” is no more, or less a “Palestinian” than any of the others who fit that description!

The earliest labeling of the area as “Palaistinē” (Greek – Παλαιστίνη) in the 5th Century BC by Herodotus hardly fails to conflict with the fact that the same century saw the steady return of the Jews from Persia to Jerusalem and the rebuilding of The Temple!!! Can this be any less “indigenously legitimate” a name than when a Spanish-Catholic invader (somewhat resembling in his cultural mindset the Jihadists under the First Caliph)namedmy birthplace and home after a mythical ‘Utopia’ from a contemporary book written within a culture thousands of miles away.*

Only after WW I was “Palestine” made in any way official; by the British who inherited responsibility for making sure the local infrastructure did not collapse when the Turks followed the defeated Germans West leaving their former subjects and brother Muslims in the mandate regions to sink or swim, Insha’Allah.

The newly named ‘Palestinian Mandate’ included Israel and the entire area that was given by the British as a (useless) gift/bribe to the Arabs for their own; we call it Jordan.

Despite some non-Muslim xenophobes trying to make a mountain out of that mole-hill it is irrelevant if the local Arab-culture Muslims cannot even pronounce the Roman-applied name; after all the Muslims are invaders too!

It certainly does make a difference though that that the word Palestine or Filastin appears 0 times in the Koran but, no fewer than 250 times does the Hebrew/Egyptian peleshet appear in the Jewish Tanakh.

Will the rest of your book be so generous to prides and prejudices of the religion you follow in other matters?

* Personally, I think it is cool be born and grow up where ‘our’ name was never a real place with a history, good or evil, until Californians made it real; we show cultural signs of our good fortune as American Californians in escaping much of the burden of guilt from slavery era, the Civil War or for displacing the natives simply because by the mid 1800’s the Spanish had already managed to more-or-less commit “benevolent” genocide by “saving the Natives’ Souls.” [i.e. forcing the natives into from their villages into “Missions” to be prayed over, worked to death and decimated repeatedly by various plagues as the over-crowding, bad sanitation and malnutrition weakened them and the “good Fathers” eliminated ancient cultures from Argentina to Oregon.]

Only after all that was over and done did you find Americans in large numbers braving the immense and dangerous crossing of the deserts and mountains west of the Mississippi into this magical land.

Americans soon outnumbered the Spanish, elbowing aside the Spanish; who were napping while the Indians and peasants worked only a little faster than they starved.

The Spanish, called “Missionaries”, and “Dons” were well dressed and drowsily stylish yet completely merciless against non-Catholics and peasants. These slave-holder/feudal Lords from Spain might just have been exhausted; it is not easy overseeing more than a hundred years of stagnation, native depopulation while regularly putting down revolts by sullen, despised-by-the-Spanish and always-about-to-rebel locals of mixed-blood called campesinos.

An embarrassing loss here, a cannon-shot there and California, now part of the United State of America could finally ‘get out of 2nd gear’! Of course, we STILL can’t won’t ‘Drive 55’!

 “the first-century Jewish revolutionary party known as the Zealots, who helped launched a bloody war against Rome”

What prompted the name of your book? WHY do you tar the Christian messiah with the filthy brush of a group he rejected in no uncertain terms when offered the chance by Simon to lead 50,000 fanatical warriors in taking Judea back from Rome? I will NOT put my earnings in your pocket to read the rest but, so far it seems no more than the usual taqiyya and dawa-based “narrative”!

You do know that the ministry of Jesus followed to its extreme the interpretations and philosophy of the Pharisee religious faction (expounded on at length in Jesus’ own lifetime by the beloved rabbi Hillel); the most devout stood aside during the defense of Jerusalem because they believed that a divine punishment had been ordained to the Jewish nation that must be accepted for a renewal of their ancient “covenant” with God? And you call Jesus a follower of the philosophy of Zealotes?

“He was a man of profound contradictions, one day preaching a message of racial exclusion (“I was sent solely to the lost sheep of Israel”; Matthew 15:24), the next, of benevolent universalism (“Go and make disciples of all nations”; Matthew 28:19); sometimes calling for unconditional peace (“Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called the sons of God”; Matthew 5:9), sometimes promoting violence and conflict (“If you do not have a sword, go sell your cloak and buy one”; Luke 22:36)”

Good Lord Man! I left Christianity because of its internal contradictions and such but, your interpretations of these passages are out of context, reinterpreted in your favor, seemingly with overt hostility. The only consistent message I ever found through the fog of two thousand years of political expedience by various sects bear no resemblance to your “interpretation”! This “profound contradiction” is hardly realistic; it is not any kind of objective scholarship I recognize!

Let me break it down for you…

1 what mystery regarding the difference between ‘I’ (me, myself, one person, one lifetime, one ministry, one goal) compared to ‘you’ (his followers, disciples, and later generations, broader goals) carrying his mission from a “saved” Judaism to other peoples is confusing you here? Isn’t’ that EXACTLY the way Mohammed is supposed to have done it; didn’t he only spread Islam to Most of Arabia and leave his followers to carry it to other nations? In English this is usually called hypocrisy.

I would say that you are misrepresenting even the “good” half of your pseudo-paradox regarding Jesus and pacifism!

sometimes calling for unconditional peace (“Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called the sons of God”; Matthew 5:9)”

In what language does call for unconditional anything, except Love for God? Jesus never advocated, he even refuted, the idea of unconditional non-violence; what mattered was if God was being followed or defied; the invocation and limits of violence were always tightly defined to avoid trespassing against “God’s Will” if their faith “called” them to do violence when required. He whipped the corrupting and religiously illegal money-changers from the forecourts of The Temple but, he most certainly did not storm in with a gang and start lopping off heads! That behavior is reserved for Friday evenings in certain Middle Eastern and South Asian countries!

As one raised in the faith by believers I saw NONE of what you are talking about even though eventually I left the religion for other reasons; in fact, as far as I saw it, read it, was taught it and saw it practiced, most of Jesus’ advice, his ministry and his teachings were aimed at an individual’s relationship with God; he wanted a city of saved souls, not to save the soul of a city, culture, nation or anything of that sort! In fact, he is recorded as advising those inclined to “get involved and save the world” to spend more time ignoring Earthly distractions and favored people, individuals all, living a Godly Life™. He certainly never promoted or promulgated any new societies, governments or states, nor did he promote the making of new laws to “make people be godly”! Do you even remember his treatment of the woman at the well, of the Roman Centurion wanting a sick servant who was absent healed by faith alone, the old non-Jewish woman he favored in ways he never favored any Jew? BZZZT, try again!

You also get it wrong on the “sword verse”, that is defensive based advise because of supposed fore-knowledge, a prediction of an overwhelming and swiftly approaching conflict, not an incitement to start cutting off people’s heads!!! He was even right in is prediction; within a hundred years Jerusalem had been destroyed by war!

The problem with pinning down the historical Jesus is that, outside of the New Testament, there is almost no trace of the man who would so permanently alter the course of human history. The earliest and most reliable nonbiblical reference to Jesus comes from the first-century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus (d. 100 C.E.). In a brief throwaway passage in the Antiquities, Josephus writes of a fiendish Jewish high priest named Ananus who, after the death of the Roman governor Festus, unlawfully condemned a certain “James, the brother of Jesus, the one they call messiah,” to stoning for transgression of the law. The passage moves on to relate what happened to Ananus after the new governor, Albinus, finally arrived in Jerusalem.

Fleeting and dismissive as this allusion may be (the phrase “the one they call messiah” is clearly meant to express derision), it nevertheless contains enormous significance for those searching for any sign of the historical Jesus.”

So? Mohammed has even less! His name was also a title back, it is certainly possible that Mohammed also might have been mentioned a total of zero times in the Qur’an!! Do I think there was one man that we know as Jesus? I don’t know. Given that I am not Christian it has little importance to me. I am also not Muslim so, being able to put his existence in doubt is no more important! His teachings are the parts that mattered, not what fools made them into decades, centuries, millennia later!

I think it seems more likely than otherwise there was a radical Rabbi named Yeshua but, I am not so blind that I failed to have noticed that all four gospels contradict each other; it seems so far that your book is more an of an undercover defense of Islam than any kind of realistic critique regarding the existence or ministry of a man moderns call Jesus of Nazareth!

Oh, you did know, scholar that you are, that many Jews thought, and think that “the Messiah” already came and freed them… from the Persians… long before Jesus was born. Or that there are from three to five different versions of “The Messiah” and may, or may not, manifest combined in one, or more people? You can call yourself a Christian scholar if you must, I would disagree but, you certainly lack much understanding about Judaism of the time or about Judaic theology before the 1st Century.

Paul may be an excellent source for those interested in the early formation of Christianity, but he is a poor guide for uncovering the historical Jesus.”

Well what do you know! We agree on something!!!! Though I regard Paul more as the heretical Greek hijacker of Christianity than as one of its founders! Of course that doesn’t protect you from the fact that Islam is on even shakier ground; it was a  member of a family hostile to Islam from the beginning, a gentle soul… a family that had constantly sought to do to Islam just what Paul did to Christianity; this is the tree that fruited a Caliph. Then he just happened decide to oversee the destruction of all versions of the Qur’an in conflict with his tribe’s version.

And there is worse! If ‘Muhammad’ is being used in the Qur’an as a title, instead of a name, well  then Mohammed the man was ignored by the main source book of the religion he is supposed to have founded.

I guess you can write about any religion you like but, it would be nice if you refrained from bearing false witness when doing such a thing!

Simply put, the gospels tell us about Jesus the Christ, not Jesus the man.”

How can you write that and claim honest scholarship, even noting that there were a lot more than the “Four Gospels ™” which do show Jesus the man; even the Final Four give us glimpses… Just one example here; the Biblical story about the wedding with the water and wine was likely talking about HIS wedding to the third Mary (Did you forget Mary the Hairdresser?) the Magdalene. In the time of the reign of Tiberius it simply was not possible to be a Jewish Rabbi of any sort without being a married man; marriage was considered a religious duty to anyone with pretense to being devout. It would be similar to an openly gay drag queen trying to start up a preaching circuit at Southern Baptist churches in 1972 Alabama; ‘Minister’ is not one of the names they would call him! Nor could Yeshua have been able to be treated as a Rabbi, even a radical one, if unmarried. Only a segment of the Essenes preached celibacy and even they “married”!

“a zealous revolutionary swept up, as all Jews of the era were, in the religious and political turmoil of first-century Palestine”

That statement is about as bigoted and misleading as if I wrote a book claiming  “many Indian leaders were caught up in the turmoil that swept over New Amsterdam in 1374”, but never mention that there was a long established nation of Native Americans called the Iroquois there until about 200 years after that date!

“The plaque the Romans placed above Jesus’ head as he writhed in pain—“King of the Jews”—was called a titulus and, despite common perception, was not meant to be sarcastic. Every criminal who hung on a cross received a plaque declaring the specific crime for which he was being executed.”

Half right! The Romans were not caught up in the Messiah game; I believe the word gravitas would help define the distinction. In the book King Jesus Graves puts forth a very convincing argument that Jesus possibly WAS the actual “King of the Jews” by right of inheritance at the time of his arrest… one telling point is that the Romans would have called him a pretender or usurper of the title, not just declared him King of the Jews as his “crime”; it would be like a court convicting a forger while calling them a “’mint owner’ instead of making the crime as charged “making false coinage’!

“That image alone should cast doubt upon the gospels’ portrayal of Jesus as a man of unconditional peace almost wholly insulated from the political upheavals of his time. “

Where do you GET these interpretations? He is portrayed as being HOUNDED by zealots on all sides who wanted political power even his own disciples constantly earn his rebuke on this matter!!

“The notion that the leader of a popular messianic movement calling for the imposition of the “Kingdom of God”—a term that would have been understood by Jew and gentile alike as implying revolt against Rome—could have remained uninvolved in the revolutionary fervor that had gripped nearly every Jew in Judea is simply ridiculous.”

This is getting boring! What is ridiculous is that you seem to have missed the fact that his popular support drained away, and the mob turned against him when he FAILED to do what you just claimed he DID, namely attempt to “impose” a political kingdom that would free the Jews from Rome! Rather he told them the struggle was useless, Jerusalem was self-doomed and that HIS kingdom would not be “of this world”… or you can go on mixing up the characteristics of five different Messiahs until you have the mixture that fits your prejudices. You already admitted that only ONE gospel was written by anyone that was even alive, let alone a companion of Jesus, son of Mary, when all of this was supposed to have occurred.

Thus began the long process of transforming Jesus from a revolutionary Jewish nationalist into a peaceful spiritual leader with no interest in any earthly matter. That was a Jesus the Romans could accept, and in fact did accept three centuries later when the Roman emperor Flavius Theodosius (d. 395) made the itinerant Jewish preacher’s movement the official religion of the state, and what we now recognize as orthodox Christianity was born.”

Do you just make it up as you go? Rome was being torn apart by the conflict between a growing Christianity and the established pagan priesthoods; he saw the Christians’ zeal and growth. And he coldly chose the faction he thought would win anyway; the idea was for ROME to win back some stability in a conflict that looked about to tear the Empire to shreds.

It happens. I have dealt as many if not more ‘Evangelistas’ as I call them than you probably have. As for me, I would say that even more often it is the pseudo-devout who do what you seem to be doing; see people not of your own faith (which has an even more fogged origin and a founder virtually invisible for over a hundred years after he  is supposed to have lived. Islam is on at least as shakily grounded as Christianity when even Muslims cannot agree on who is and who is not a ‘real’ Muslim even within the Sunni and Shiite sects; all conflicting faith is “the enemy”, is competition.

You can read a million books and collect a hundred degrees I do not seeing you getting over the bar labeled “scholar and historian” until you can see the humble fallibility that ALL humans are subject to; unfortunately you seem to  have too little honor to refrain from bearing false witness against those who are not “of the body” if there is some thread of hope you might be “winning” converts by damaging your self-declared enemies’ common bonds with deceit, stratagems and bald-faced lies instead of debating in favor of a theology built from honesty and love. No, I am not saying that Christianity is that theology… True theology is mostly about what happens between ONE person and God; ALL organized religions are, at best, social clubs crossed with support groups; at worst they are the Taliban, the Inquisition, “peaceful Buddhist sects” warring against each other unto extinction… Are those the kind of “godly” compatriots, the brand of co-religionist you seek?

“If we expose the claims of the gospels to the heat of historical analysis, we can purge the scriptures of their literary and theological flourishes and forge a far more accurate picture of the Jesus of history. Indeed, if we commit to placing Jesus firmly within the social, religious, and political context of the era in which he lived—an era marked by the slow burn of a revolt against Rome that would forever transform the faith and practice of Judaism—then, in some ways, his biography writes itself.

The Jesus that is uncovered in the process may not be the Jesus we expect; he certainly will not be the Jesus that most modern Christians would recognize. But in the end, he is the only Jesus that we can access by historical means.
Everything else is a matter of faith.”

 And that was only the introduction?

Guy DeWhitney on Government by Heretics Crusaders

My ideal of government:
Un-self-consciously, individual humans that are raised to feel a profound duty to protect all aspects of seldom/individuality that neither “picks someone’s pocket nor breaks someone’s leg” and a profound respect for the notion that we are all one and what goes around not only comes around, it DIRECTLY affects us; i.e. “successful” assholery damages a psyche’s ability to make ‘good’ choices in the future.Guy DeWhitneys Heretics Crusade

Theocratic Reformation from Judaism to Islam – Christians 4: Jews 5: Muslims: 0

jesusgunnedOk, we can all agree that Pat Robertson was a dork of stellar magnitude, and the Phelps Family are supernovae in that particular area called theocracy.

 That said, before we submerge a crucifix in urine let’s give the Abrahamic tree a second look, and examine the fruit it has borne.

The Jews never had a drive to spread over the Earth. Their scriptures taught them that certain lands were given them by God; so they took them, enough said, this was 6,000 years ago after all. But after that they lost any territorial ambitions. But, the Persians and Romans proceeded to push them this way and that; being rather fanatical, they pushed back. After the destruction of the 2nd Temple and the Judean Diaspora the centuries have seen Judaism become a religion withdrawn into itself. Having lost the arrogance of the Temple but retained the Love of God and intellectual tradition they became a creative yeast in their host cultures.

gotjewsb

The Jews never expected to take over the world; at most they expected, and some maybe still expect that the world will join them. Not by the sword, but by the Love of God. One of the best aspects of the Jewish religion is its focus on the Love of God and a Love for God in each moment of a person’s life.

But along came Jayzus!

Things started out ok, Yesuah merely echoed and extended the teachings and philosophy of Hillel. It expanded organically and gently; converting mostly people otherwise considered “unworthy” of membership in one of the more respectable religions, then into the idle upper-class (often by way of religiously adventurous wives discontent with being the ornament on a rich man’s arm.

 But then Paul and Constantine came to deal the Judaic Chrestians, and then, later, the mild original “Greek”, a double death-blow of politicization.

St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre

St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre

After several centuries of defending themselves from the fanatically imperialistic Islam Christianity began to model all sorts of the worst of the Islamic “innovations” in religion and took on an expansionist, aggressive attitude of its own.

But, it is inherent in a religion mostly based on the teachings of Jesus that every now and then people would remember what their religion was supposed to be about. Christianity may have done much more good during those periods than it did evil during its more cognitively-dissonant times.

Since the Enlightenment the swings of the pendulum between arrogant fanaticism on one hand, and humble servitude to God on the other seem to have gotten gentler. Christianity also seem centered more and more toward the liberal side of the equation; i.e. Fred Phelps, not Qaradawi.

Christianity may one day even manage to have more people who follow it for the right reasons than fools-in-lambs-clothing who use religion in unhealthy ways, or merely for social reasons.

Christianity has a core in its teachings and scripture that is there for all to see; one of Love. It today can be, and always has been, a potentially dangerous religion (I.e. Fred Phelps, Torquemada) but is not inherently so by the structure and teachings of its chief scriptures.

I do think that, despite the quantum jump that The Enlightenment enabled in society’s evolution, Christianity has shown a definite tendency to speed humanity’s growth due to the focus of many of the faithful being on Jesus’ ministry rather than the “died for your sins” part.

buddy_jesus

Now, about Islam.

tolerantislamIslam teaches much about peace and love. There are verses equal to any in the other Abrahamic writings. I will not comment here about those who feel it was the work of someone passingly familiar with both religions. But Pat Robertson did get one thing right; Islamic theology IS inherently aggressive.

The Islamic scriptures consist of three parts:

The Qur’an, the Sunnah –basically a biography of Mohammed’s life, and the ahadith – stories about Mohammed from people who knew him. If you read it all it is clear that there can only be peace when everyone has submitted to Allah.

Even the most fanatical religion tends to mellow over the years; people are basically families, people who want to live and work and laugh and have the space to find God before they die. Even individuals attracted to a “religious” life for evil reasons can be shocked to learn that Love of God and Love BY God can blossom in their hearts; that is the core of any religion.signe

Islam unfortunately is working uphill in the all so human battle against hubris while trying to find truth. But, by having such an aggressive set scriptures; by having so much to draw from that feeds the darker hungers of man, Islam will, I believe spend more time orbiting around radical aggression before submitting finally to that peace and love that is God, is Allah.

Islam is inherently dedicated by its self-declared scriptural doctrine to naturally one day  rule the world by TAKING control of it and forcing Dar al-Harb(‘House of War’) (Non-Muslim controlled regions) into Dar al-Islam(‘House of Islam); then all people will be free, in the Islamic view, to “choose” the “right” religion.

Sadly, it is not hard to justify all sorts of atrocities on infidels (non-Muslims) with the Qur’an; by contrast there are very few Samaritans or Philistines around for Jews or Christians to use their scripture as an excuse to start a pogrom against.

In Islam it does not matter that reformist Imams do not support something. In fact it is literally forbidden in Islam to use your ‘conscience’ as a guide in a religious dilemma; the only proper way to get an answer is to ask the proper authority, and then submit to the “truth.”

In Christianity, the violent books and verses are all somewhat shielded by being in the OT and considered to be superseded by the Love of Jesus when any conflict occurs. Islam does not have a NT to mellow its hard edges, though it does recognize the concept of abrogation (what a prophet says later is ‘rock’ to the ‘scissors’ of any earlier pronouncements or doctrines).

lil-kim-burqa

This makes “insulting” Islam dangerous at times in the modern world of high tech, and horrific weapons that you can make in your garage.

Solutions

butcherinnameofislamI mostly find it sad that the bulk of Muslims are not more vocal about denouncing their radical Brethren in both the private and the public arena. It is every person in the world’s duty to restrain the fundies of all aggressive religions until they grow up. Until a religion’s devout – highest clergy to clueless souls just born in it – recognize to their core’s that it is ok to DIE because of your religion but, that it is NEVER anything but evil to use religion as an excuse to KILL, that religion should be watched, and kept on a leash in polite company.

Islam has yet to show that it can stay grown up. They are younger though, lets give them time…but, keep the rolled up newspaper ready to smack their noses if they sh*t on the rug. We have too many permanent stains from Christianity and its messes; AND the Islam’s’ earlier messes. Of course Christianity STILL pees on the floor now and then. We just have to be patient and rub their noses PROMPTLY in their messes; but, we don’t have to worry about them eating the neighbor’s cat anymore.

I am not too PC to call a club a club (well, I can’t say spade anymore can I?); religion can be very wonderful but, people need to get over their BS and realize that the basic code of ethics that most religions have can also be formulated by simple common sense and an understanding of psychology and social dynamics. Go read a little about Neuro-Linguistic Programming and such. Real secular morality is what the world needs, not the Fascist pretend kind, only then can religion truly flourish; when we get over all this bickering on who is actually the only ones in touch with the “ONLY source of Morality™”; which they cannot even prove exists.

Faith is the problem; submission to something you do not feel yourself is the problem. Beliefs have reasons, sometimes bad ones but, reasons that can be ‘reasoned with’; faith has no reason therefore the most reasonable argument does no good, your head still rolls on the floor.

Have faith in Jesus of Mohammed; I will Believe in Bugs Bunny!bugslastsupper1

How to Politically Motivate the Moderate Majority

The following graphics are slides from a presentation on how to focus efforts to motivate and harness the majority of moderate Americans who are currently divided between the increasingly partisan Democratic and Republican parties. The presentation may be used royalty free for non-commercial uses as long as the entire presentation is unedited and unabridged. PowerPoint, PDF, OpenDocument

Politically Motivating The Moderate Majority:

The Art of The Possible

Motivating The Moderate Majority in partisan republican democrat politics

Are you a Democrat or a Republican or a member of a powerless Independent Party?

Is it possible to have an effective political voice not bound by group-think?

In this era of partisan domination of virtually all media how can moderate voices be heard above the din of the self-serving, power hungry wolves-in-sheep‘s-clothing on all “sides” of every debate?

heretics crusade guy dewhitney shows how to get moderate majority motivated over partisan left and right

Partisans, Left and Right, seem far more concerned with securing and maintaining power than with serving any public duty.

Their interests are not in problems solved, or compromises reached; a polarized and hostile populace is their goal; indeed, a full-blown “Culture War” is their promised land.

heretics crusade guy dewhitney shows how to get moderate majority motivated over partisan left and right

The partisans of the Left and Right profit from a black and white worldview; they prefer the public, especially moderates, to see the political world like this:

 

heretics crusade guy dewhitney shows how to get moderate majority motivated over partisan left and right

This polarized viewpoint causes a distortion in the efforts of the various moderate pundits and politicians; mis-aiming their marketing efforts thusly:

Moderate Marketing Slide  (5)

Reality however does not conform to partisan convenience; this graphic more accurately reflects the spectrum nature of the body politic.

Moderate Marketing Slide  (6)

The problem with moderate marketing is that most of the effort is spent on a politically mushy middle; too uncommitted, too uncaring or just too eager to see all sides to ever take any side.

Moderate Marketing Slide  (7)

This graphic displays a more effective allocation for moderates; Citizens of BOTH parties who are on the independent side of the mainstreams are more likely to vote and seek a more potent political voice; most not being satisfied with the “party-Line”.

Moderate Marketing Slide  (8)

Sometimes a simple paradigm shift can make the difference between a slow defeat and a driving victory.

The question is, will moderates squander their efforts on an ineffectual “middle” or spend their bucks where the bang is, at the middle edge of BOTH parties.

Moderate Marketing Slide  (9)

Moderate Marketing Slide  (10)

 

A Guy DeWhitney/Heretics Crusade Production

Copyright 2011

Blogger Labels: Americans,Democratic,Republican,Moderate,Democrat,Independent,domination,sheep,Left,Culture,spectrum,Citizens,paradigm,DeWhitney,Heretics,Crusade,pundits

Huffington Post’s Reverend Kimball Bears False Witness Against Christianity and Judaism

 Who would Jesus behead?

This, Virginia, is why I do not put any great weight on my own ordination; any fool can be ordained and seeking God has nothing to do with it; witness the blatant bearing of false witness to further a political agenda exercised by this so-called minister. Here a so called minister of God is even bearing false witness against his own religion, if you can believe it!

Here we have an analysis of the ranting’s of one Charles Kimball, the director of Religious Studies at the University of Oklahoma and a Baptist minister regarding the culpability of Christians and Christianity for the Oslo massacre and bombing by mass murderer (alleged, I think we are supposed to say Virginia) Anders Breivik.

The horrific events in Norway this past weekend provide yet another powerful teachable moment in the ongoing and increasingly dangerous saga of religion becoming lethal.

I can’t imagine how. Unless the good reverend’s point is somehow that the actions of non-Christian religious folk caused Breivik to snap I don’t see the point.  Breivik very pointedly explained that he was not, would not be, and did not recommend being a religious Christian; to him “Christian” seems to be no more than a catch-all term for non-Muslim of European culture! He also never used Christian theology in his writings to base his actions upon.

Indeed it would be hard to find any Christian “church” today, anywhere, that would be able to propound a theology based in the teachings of Jesus that would support the killing of anyone merely to make a point, let alone try to justify the slaughter of children to make said point. Even Fred Phelps and his sad band of haters do not promote violence, other than making decent people wish for an excuse to righteously kick their asses. Sadly, Phelps and Co. have been too clever so far to give the rest of us an excuse to use our laws to put them away… This is the price you pay for freedom.

Reality aside, facts aside, respect for his own religion and co-religionists aside, the good Rev. wants to use this as a teaching moment. Such aggressive compassion surely must be a good thing, right, Virginia? Right?

The murderous rampage by Anders Behring Breivik brings several important lessons more clearly into view.

Indeed, it does, but not in the way you seem to feel, Sir!

First, religion is an extraordinarily powerful and pervasive force in human society. Throughout history, people within various religions have been motivated to their highest and noblest best actions. At the same time, some of the worst things human beings have done to one another have been done in the name of or justified by religion. Religion is a powerful force inspiring constructive and destructive behavior among believers.

Right, but what does this have to do with a man, Breivik, who justified his evil with secular arguments, and did not use any religion’s message or theology to base his horror upon?

Second, we live in a world with many weapons of mass destruction. Quite apart from the horrors associated with chemical, nuclear or biological weapons, we now know that a devious plan can utilize automatic weapons, fertilizer, box knives and commercial airplanes as weapons of mass destruction. Attacking a summer camp for youth vividly reminds us that there are many ways people bent on doing great harm can accomplish their goal.

As far as I can tell that last paragraph was no more than background music for an ongoing apologia for the “free speech is good, but it can go too far” crowd who equate free speech with inoffensive (to them) speech.

Third, we now know with certainty that it doesn’t take many people to wreak havoc on a wide scale. Breivik may have acted alone or within a small circle of cohorts, as did Timothy McVeigh. Nineteen men carried out the attacks of Sept. 11. Small numbers of zealots who are convinced they know what God wants for them and for everyone else are capable of almost anything.

Notice how the oh, so honest Revd. throws in McVeigh, another secular terrorist who explicitly rejected any theological grounds for his crimes against humanity to balance the unarguably theocratic 9/11 terrorists, among others too numerous to count. What this compulsion he shares with other Leftists, to beat his breast and declare “We are just as bad!” instead of solving the problems, is all about is simply beyond me.

I can’t think of any modern religious terror committed by other than lone madmen at all except for the Islamic kind… Even the Irish terrorists who divided on religious lines never used Christianity to justify what they did, nor did the clergy in any way justify or support them, in fact for the most part they were Marxists whom the local Catholic clergy would not trust any more than they would Protestants!! The same can be said about abortion clinic bombers, they are lone wolves and, are not backed up by mainstream theology or communities in any way.

Not surprisingly, many preachers and pundits who have spewed hateful rhetoric and fanned the flames of Islamophobia are now scrambling to disassociate themselves, their published statements about Islam and Muslims, and what some call “true” Christianity from the actions of Breivik.

No my dear wolf in minister’s clothing, you are the one who is scrambling to tar innocent people with the taint of Breivik’s evil in order to further your own agenda  That is the very epitome of bearing false witness against your neighbor! I highly doubt even one of the people you seek to demonize ever called for violence against Muslims in any way; certainly none of the “influential” ones have; they certainly did not promote violence against the enablers of Islamism, which seems to be what Breivik thought he was doing in the dark buzzing cloud pretending to be his soul. At the same time, others quoted by Breivik have promoted violent and totalitarian schemes… but they are never mentioned by the oh, so righteous Reverend.

But words matter. Examine the path taken by violent extremists claiming inspiration from Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism or Buddhism and you can trace connections with the fiery rhetoric of influential, sometimes self-appointed leaders in madrasas, in books, at religious rallies, on websites and the like. There are consequences when cocksure Christians or Muslim militants proclaim God’s truth while stoking fear of the “other” in the minds of their would-be followers.

Here “Rev.” Kimball is bending over backwards until his spine snaps to attempt to “level the playing field” between Islam and other religions when it comes to directly inspiring violence. He fails to make his case.  Show me the violent Christian, Jewish or Buddhist movement, in the lifetime of this nation, that was encouraged by “fiery rhetoric” from “influential” books, churches, synagogues and leaders? Can you think of any in the last two hundred years? I can’t, just a handful of nutjobs who are universally excoriated by their own co-religionists.  No-one complained about what kind of burial Jim Jones got, no Christian thought it important how a lunatic mass murderer should be buried!

Meanwhile, the good reverend goes back to his “free speech is bad in the wrong hands” theme. The wrong hands here of course being hands that are possessed by someone who disagrees with the enlightened view of Revd. Kimball.

While there are no easy answers or simple solutions, there are constructive ways to move forward in our increasingly interconnected and interdependent world community. It begins with education.

Study programs in schools and colleges, churches, mosques and synagogues are essential. Interfaith dialogue and engagement with people of different religious and cultural backgrounds are invaluable ways to dispel generic fears and help humanize the “other.” All across the U.S., Christians, Muslims and Jews are working together to build Habitat for Humanity houses and work on common problems such as crime and drug abuse within their communities. These kinds of intentional efforts at education and cooperation are vital at the local, national and international level. We need more and more such endeavors in the U.S., not only for the well-being of our communities, but also as a way to model the kind of healthy religious pluralism our future requires.

The truly sad part about Kimball’s misguided view is that the above actions are not being done, and never will be done by the kinds of religious extremists he worries about; not the handful of Christian ones and, not the thousands upon thousands of Muslim ones. At most they will use such activities as a smokescreen while they pursue their theocratic agenda’s unmolested.  I can only assume that either Mr. Kimball’s seminary did not offer a real course in history or, that he flunked it.

He also seems to be guilty of the sin of Liberal Racism. To that mindset the “underclasses” of past racist philosophies have not vanished, they are poor, helpless children that must take under protection, for their own good.

Because they are “of the oppressed”, a state of permanent victimhood, their actions do not make a difference compared to the actions of the evil, dominant White Man from Europe and America that is Kimball’s real devil, and God.

He will never compare the fruit of Muslim and Christian fairly, because then he would be forced to speak of Islam (from the perspective of any devout Christian clergyman) as a religion that might stem from God but, that has been mired for most of its existence in a theo/political system of worldly evil.

The path to a more hopeful and healthy future also requires people of faith and goodwill to speak out clearly and directly against extremists of all stripes.

I can’t argue with that. That is what the Heretics Crusade is.

Although most of us were taught by our parents not to talk about religion or politics in public, the stakes today are far too high for deferential silence or casual indifference. Ignorance is not bliss; silence is proving deadly.

Once again, I agree, I don’t think anyone reasonable would try. But, that is not the pitch, that is just the windup with a lean to the left to imply a slider, this next bit is the pitch; a spitball, knuckleball covered in tar.

Just as many people continue to call on Muslims to speak out forcefully and unambiguously against violence and extremism, so too must Christians and Jews openly challenge those who advocate extremism and foster hatred in the name of religion. This means, for example, naming names and identifying the theological and political positions of Jewish fundamentalists and Muslim extremists who block potential paths to peace in Israel/Palestine.

The problem with this little gem is that the Jewish and Christian communities in this country as a whole have always stood against anyone who used violence and extremism to advance or defend their faiths! It has been held a virtual truth that to do so is to abrogate that faith entirely!

Just what more is it that they are supposed to do when the mainstream Islamic community complains about how Osama Bin Laden was buried after assuring us for years that he was not a “real Muslim”?

For me, as a follower of Jesus and a Christian minister, it means strongly disagreeing with TV preachers with political clout such as John Hagee and Rod Parsley. They have every right to espouse their religious and political worldviews. But their ill-informed and hateful rhetoric about Islam and Muslims, as well as their certainty that Jesus will be arriving in the next couple of weeks, has very real consequences.

That is nice Chuck, when are you going to do it? This whole piece reads like it is aimed against free speech and, to me, seems to be intended to gently brush Oslo/Breivik tar on anti-Jihadist bloggers and writers who have never propounded, or invoked, an ideology of violence; yet gives a pass to Breivik “inspiring” figures and writers (in his own words) who happen to be on your side of the war in your mind. You haven’t even given us a clear idea of just what they say that you oppose! If that last paragraph was really the point of your post then, I have to say I think your point fell flat.

The mind-boggling terrorism manifest in Norway will continue to provide hard but important lessons about the dangers all around us and the need to find more constructive ways to move forward in the 21st century. It is a stark reminder that we share a fragile planet where ignorance, hate and fear can link easily with religious worldviews and produce horrific consequences.

Yes Virginia, the world is a dangerous place, especially if you equate the evil acts of lone scumbags with the evil acts of organized and ideologically driven scumbags who are numerous and active instead of isolated and sporadic.

Kuwaiti Professor Abdallah Al-Nafisi “Thanks for Saving My Country; Please Die in Screaming Pain Now! Inshallah”

Here we have a Professor Abdallah Al-Nafisi at a KUWAITI university speaking his mind about the horrors he dreams about being inflicted upon the nation that saved his from destruction. Yes I said Kuwait, the country whose men were french kissing our troops just a few years ago when we saved them from Iraq.

This video is a comprehensive education for the ignorant moderate and the reactionarily Leftist. Watch this man’s face; see the “innocent” glee that warms his features at some of the things he says. Remember that to Reform Islam is not to destroy Islam. Reforming Islam is all that can save it; I am not the only soul in the West who will not lie down to what this man prays for Allah to make our fate.

What I find interesting is how people like trhis “professor” seem know that they cannot ever compete face to face with the Western nations. They wish for the success of evil, dirty tricks, or even for some infidel to do their job for them; Allah willing. It is this poor self image and lack of confidence masking as certainty that will help us to prevail. Why else are so many Muslims eager to live secular lives with Western sensibilities except when given positive correction from traditional  Muslim leaders.

Greece was conquered by Rome, Rome fell to the barbarian hordes but who did the Islamic empires fall to? Answer: themselves, greed and corruption and infighting did the deed with no outside interferance.
Patience, education and their own inherant self-destruction are all we need to win!

Dear Mr. Rivers and all Islamist Apologists: “…and the horse you rode in on!”

.

Welcome to a unique opportunity. A chance to peer into the arrogant murk of the mind of a Leftist Propagandist. Today Heretics Crusade analyzes:

Cause and Effect:
An American Reflects on 9/11
________________________________________
Dennis Rivers — September 11, 2004
article in the Santa Barbara Independent newspaper

“A few months after 9/11, a group of Tibetan Buddhist monks visited La Casa de Maria Retreat Center, near Santa Barbara, and I went to meet them. At the time, still reeling from the emotional impact of the 9/11 attacks, I found myself feeling somewhat at odds with these maroon-robed visitors. The monks seemed to me to be living in their little cocoon of Buddhist spirituality. I wanted them to respond more visibly to the tragic history that was unfolding on the stage of the world.”

From the start MR. Rivers complete self-absorption is evident in his words. He cares little for the religion or perspective of the people who hold it if they do not share his moment-to-moment concerns.

“I asked one monk (who happened to be from England) what he thought of the events of 9/11. He very quickly and assuredly said “There are no accidents in life. Every effect has its cause.” And that was it. Case closed. This, I thought, was the most wooden answer any human being could have given to my question. Had he no heart, this fellow so sure of himself, so sure of his doctrine? He seemed to be implying that the 9/11 victims has somehow caused their own suffering. In a very un-Buddhist mood, I wanted to shake him, to tell him to wake up and respond to the suffering of people in the real world.”

Of course Mr. Rivers never considered that the “cause” the monk reffer4ed to might have been the Jihadist mentality coupled with Western complacence in their overwhelming power. He starts with a completely selfish perspective and comes to a completely self-centered conclusion: the monk doesn’t care the “Right way”.

“Several years have gone by, and I have had plenty of time to sort out my angry reaction to this monk.”

Translation: “the Leftist powers that be have patiently explained the errors of our ways to those of us who mistakenly thought that the bad guys ultimately to blame for 9/11 were Muslims instead of Americans.”

“…in relation to 9/11, we are now slowly realizing that this tragedy was not a random event, not a bizarre aberration.”

No, it was not, there were clear warnings going back to the 1800’s about the intent of extremists Muslims to attack the West as soon as they had the resources to do so.

“For the past half-century the United States has been following policies in the Muslim world that seem to me to almost guarantee an explosion sooner or later.”

At least according to the analysis of Mr. Rivers “progressive” handlers. To the Leftist leadership anything that anyone does that does not follow their agenda is “reason” for the offender to be assaulted.

“While very few, if any, of the individuals in the World Trade Center on 9/11 had anything to do with the formulation of those policies, they were like molecules of water in the pot put on the stove, as are we all. This leads to one of the most painful paradoxes of our time. No one deserves to die such a fiery death as the 9/11 victims; and on the other hand, none of us can completely insulate ourselves from the consequences of the actions taken in our name.”

It is a constancy of the Leftist arrogance that all evils must be laid at the feet of the West, white Christians especially. The Leftist condemns others for not “respecting indigenous cultures”, but to them no non-western culture has any Real ability to determine their OWN goals or actions in the first place!


All of them supposedly react ONLY to the actions of the Leftists own culture. (which embarrasses the Leftist with it’s successes and therefore must be humbled before the, also embarrassingly, NON civilized peoples of the world). Thus all failings of any non-Western peoples to act in “civilized” fashion have nothing to do with that people’s own customs or attitudes. These poor, helpless semi-humans merely react like prodded beasts to our sophisticated and evilly intelligent agendas. As far as I can tell this is the true attitude behind the Leftist agenda, it just doesn’t make sense else why they would do so much evil to those they claim to love.


It is this mentality that gives us bi-lingual education when the overwhelming evidence is that students from foreign language cultures do BEST when immersed immediately in the new language. Why do they promote it then? It is “nicer” to give the poor sons and daughters of the Leftist’s maid’s instruction in their own tongue! After all, we can’t expect them to just jump in and become one of us can we?


Or is that the point? Keep the kids speaking Spanish or Hindi or whatever, and keep them maids and gardeners instead of being competition for the Leftist’s own children? Here is a new Leftist term, compassionate racism.

“It is now widely recognized that the United States has grievously antagonized and agitated the Muslim world, especially in the following six ways:”

I could respond to this directly, instead I will let “Patrick Henry”, a songwriter from the ‘net, now sadly M.I.A. do it for me:

“1. In the 1950s we overthrew the elected government of Iran and supported the return of the Shah, whom the Iranians did not want back. The Shah ruled with an iron hand, and the Iranians have not forgotten who gave him to them.”

In his haste to whip America for its sins Mr. Rivers conveniently forgets that the 9/11 attacks were committed by Sunni Muslims, who hate and detest the Shi’ites of Iran.

“2. For the sake of commercial gain, political advantage, and cheap oil, we have accepted and supported military dictatorships in countries throughout the Muslim world, from Nigeria to Indonesia, all the while preaching democracy and respect for human rights. When Saddam Hussein (who stayed in power with U.S. help) gassed his own people in the 1980s, we did not protest, because at that moment it was politically inconvenient for us to do so.”

Another convenient lapse of memory here: there are nothing BUT dictatorships in the Middle East. It also could be said that those “evil dictatorships” that the U.S. supported were, on balance, less violent toward their own people than the ones that we did NOT influence. The complaint seems to be more about the interference in things Mr. Rivers does not approve of been interfered with, as opposed to the actual acts committed. Case in point: the Muslims nations had nothing to say on their own part about Saddam gassing a bunch of Kurds.


I can’t think that this was ever a real source of animosity toward the U.S. by Muslims. The theme seems to be that we are blamed for acting when we do, and for not acting when we don’t. I have heard this one before: Heads you lose, tails I win.

“3. In the 1980s we poured billions of dollars in arms and support into Muslim hate groups in Pakistan, to support an armed campaign against the Soviets in Afghanistan (we called them “freedom fighters,” at the time).”

Of all the smarmy, self satisfied attempts at confusing truth this one takes the cake! “Soviets in Afghanistan”? What a terse way to say “Invasion and brutally inhuman occupation of a mostly tribal society by a fully mechanized and heartless army bent on stealing a path to oil and a warm water port”. And we dared to call those who fought them “freedom Fighters” without first firmly establishing each groups religious and political reliability? Wow, how heinous a crime we have committed against Muslims everywhere!!!

“Afghanistan was ground to pieces between the armed might of the Soviet Union, and the armed might of our CIA-backed legions. One scholar has noted that there had never been a global Muslim jihad movement until the CIA funded one.”

Really? It wasn’t more like after the Soviets withdrew the Leftists in the U.S. Gov forced a rapid withdrawal of U.S. aid and put a stop to any attempts to seriously influence the new Afghan regime for the stability of the region until the Taliban types had taken all the power? It wasn’t that THEN the Taliban turned on the people? I guess I must have been hallucinating when I lived through the chronology of events the first time around.

“4. While various U.S. administrations have tried to play a mediating role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, we do not seem to have any real principles that we will stick to.”

Finally, a statement I can agree with! However, I imagine that my opinion of what was “principal” and what was “not sticking to it” is diametrically opposed to Mr. Rivers’ idea on the subject.

“We also continue to give and lend billions of dollars in military aid to Israel, encouraging the military-might-is-the-only-answer wing of Israeli politics, alienating Muslims around the world and cutting the ground out from under our role as mediators.”

Why do I feel that Mr. Rivers’ idea of “our Role” is to abandon Israel and let the “alienated” Muslims swamp them in the name of “mediation”?

“5. For most of the past century the United States has been the largest arms exporter in the world. We invent and sell various instruments of death to everyone who will buy and look the other way as they kill one another. Although the United States is the most influential country in the world, we exert no moderating influence on the arms trade. Thus, governments around the world, including those of Muslim countries, spend money on arms instead of on the real needs of their peoples, breeding poverty, corruption and resentment.”

This is simply a lie, the U.S. has one of the strictest systems limiting sale of arms to non-national groups and marginal nation states. It is countries like France and Russia and Libya and such that have a bill of conscience regarding sale of “anything to anyone”, not us.

“6. We also export an endless stream of violent movies and TV shows, showing people just how to use those guns, bombs, missiles, bazookas, and God knows what else, to solve every problem. Our strong tradition of moment-to-moment freedom of expression makes it almost impossible for us to think about the long term consequences when free expression glorifies people killing each other. At the risk of offending just about everybody, I must confess how deeply convinced I am that the “Terminator” movies, and their blood-drenched ilk, are the theory, and 9/11 is the practice. Do we really want to teach people around the world that killing is fun? How many more Columbines and 9/11’s will it take to get us to look at the shadow side of our own freedom?”

Finally, the Fascism of the Left exposes itself! In the name of not offending people who are far more offensive than we, we must censor our very words and songs and movies lest they travel beyond our borders and spark a righteous Jihad against our horrific rudeness!


So, people who feel stoning is the appropriate way to treat the trauma of rape might not be hurt in their sensitive feelings James Cameron and Quantin Tarentino must submit all their works for prior review. Sounds reasonable to me. I am feeling a touch nauseous though Virginia. Please, pass me the Dramamine.

“To sum up, the United States, for all its many virtues of dynamism and creativity, also happens to be a massive producer and exporter of both the culture and the instruments of violence.”

And we all KNOW that whenever we find non-Westerners who have no exposure to our media or weapons we find only peaceful, harmonious societies, respectful of women, children and the rights of all minority races and faiths? Right? Don’t we? Oh, Tell me that this isn’t a lie too, Virginia!!!

“It now seems to me that the Buddhist monk was right. Every effect does have its cause. It was only a matter of time, in a world made small by airplanes, before the violence we have exported would return to us.”

A small-souled, scared man seeks an answer to why he is terrified. Not being able to influence the ones who make him afraid, he attacks those that protect him. Sad little man.

“Like alcoholics in a 12-step meeting, the time has come for our “bomb-oholic” culture to face the basic truths of our life:”

Do I even need to point out how obscene it is to call the West “bomb-oholic” in a discussion involving the West and Muslim radicals? Dennis is truly off in a land of his own imagination.

“1. The sorrow of 9/11 is, at the deepest level, of our own making.”

If you mean that we failed to see warning signs of the groups intent then you are right. If you mean that we “deserved it” then you, my friend, are no better than those that flew the planes in MY eyes.

“2. We can live differently, in relation to the world, and set different forces in motion.”

Translation: ” I am SCARED, someone make it STOP!!! Maybe, if we drop the guns, and do what they want, the bad guys will all go away. DON’T YOU UNDERSTAND I AM SCARED, AND WE MUST DO SOMETHING.”

“To imagine now that we will be able to shoot and bomb our way out of the consequences of all our previous promotion of shooting and bombing, is like proposing to a gambler that he will be able to gamble his way out of the consequences of all his previous gambling. Not a very carefully thought-through plan, I must say.”

I bet Mr. Rivers thinks that “Violence never settled anything” is a profound statement. In his Leftist arrogance Mr. Rivers never gives the radical Muslims the respect of believing that THEY believe in their own ideology. The only role he can see for them is as a reactionary sock puppet to his dominant West’s actions.

“The alternative is clear, and is worth saying again: We can live differently, and set different forces in motion.”

Yes, it is Mr. Rivers, We CAN live like Men and act like those to whom civilization is a previous achievement instead of living like a slave to the barbarisms of those who hate us not matter what we do.


Mr. Rivers, in the 1940’s the founder of the Muslim brotherhood was disgusted and assailed the horrific decadence and immorality that he had seen in America. What did he see? Hollywood? A party in New York? No, he saw a Midwestern church social dinner…with men and women dancing together. So show some respect Dennis, to those who want to kill us for their OWN reasons, not yours.

Ft. Hood Massacre: No Fault Treason PC Style

There is a sickness in American which needs to be cured. The body infected is Western Media across the political spectrum, and the bug in this case is the idea of “Political Correctness”, picked up by the American Left after being in bed with Stalin without protection. This contagious form of insanity requires a person to apply a layer of double-think to any event that even might have political ramifications and, since politics and morality are made one by the PC germ, that covers a lot of ground.
On Nov 5th 2009 at Fort Hood in Texas the virus of Political Correctness displayed its ravages for all to see. The blind refusal of the media to see what was before its eyes was a Leftist’s dream come true. The Orwellian brain-bug of the New Left called Political Correctness came into its own that day.
Those who succumb to Political Correctness simultaneously assume a posture of complete lack of discrimination while applying a finely tuned prejudice to virtually every subset of humanity they encounter.
First, the infected mind is compelled to politically define every person or event and apply an automatic interpretation based on that prejudged identity. There are rules for virtually every racial, ethnic, religious and political grouping that exists. The one theme that seems to run through them all is that everything is always the fault of Americans and Western Europeans, heterosexual males especially.
The Left has been using Political Correctness to program the media to ask only the wrong questions since they picked up the term in the 60’s. After the Tet Offensive the media asked how a winning side could let such an attack happen, but did not care who won the battle. After Columbine reporters asked how the children had been made into monsters, not what mental problems they might have had that made them kill. And after 9/11 PC adherents asked why we deserved it, instead of asking how the terrorists could believe it was an act of glory.

Today, the last people who witnessed WWII as adults are dying off, and the Leftists, remembering the significant contribution of the Jews to Western Civilization, have re-added anti-Semitism to their list of PC-condoned bigotries. In affirmation of this change Muslims have also been added to the PC lexicon of artificial responses; as a protected species.
On the morning of 9/11 when the Leftist leaders of the PC movement realized that Islam had a grudge against the West as large as their own they welcomed the Islamists as allies to their cause. From that day it has been a PC crime for anyone to objectively analyze any action by a Muslim, especially if that action is heinous or incomprehensible to Western minds.

Examples of Muslims, moderate or conservative, acting in ways inimical to Western civilization on Western soil are too numerous to list but the PC media is not able to analyze the data it has received. Their answers are all pre-loaded with the Politically Correct Viral Operating System. All the PC bug lets them do is the simple sorting of facts into their pre-assigned slots.
This latest atrocity at Ft. Hood should highlight just how dangerous the media’s ignorance of what motivated Maj. Hasan has become. How could anyone not blinded by a need to conform to some predefined “truth” fail to ask how the military allowed someone with such blatantly obvious motives to be a commissioned officer? Why do so few reporters question how Hasan was able to become a major in the U.S. Army with the associations and attitudes he had shown? Imagine the results if he had waited until he had deployed and had easier access to even deadlier weaponry. The answer is simple; PC thought demands that such considerations be completely beyond consideration for Muslims. The diseased truth is that those so blinded consider the question itself unthinkable in regards to non-Christians.

Does it take a genius to see that the PC mindset is toxic and from which the media must be inoculated? When someone as solidly Left of Center as Bill Maher is on record as being against the ban on profiling terrorists isn’t it past time to take the Muslims off the PC list and put them back on the one labeled “human: handle with caution”? Since the 5th of Nov I think the soldiers of Fort Hood, Texas would agree.

Italy pulls out of UN racism conference

Italy has pulled out of a UN conference on racism seen by many Western governments as being hijacked by Muslim attempts to attack Israel and shield Islam from criticism.

World Foreign Minister Franco Frattini said Thursday that Italy had withdrawn its delegation from the negotiations ahead of the so-called Durban II conference due to “aggressive and anti-Semitic statements” in the draft of the event’s final document.

Frattini made the comments in Brussels, where he attended a NATO meeting. Ministry Spokesman Maurizio Massari said Rome would not participate in the conference unless the document is changed.

A similar condition has been impose by the United States, while Israel and Canada have already announced a boycott.

Frattini also said that he planned to cancel his controversial upcoming visit to Iran, a move which had created tension between Israel and Italy.

He told Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni of the decision during a meeting between the two in Brussels.

Italy is the first EU country to officially withdraw from the conference, though other nations have threatened not to attend.

Islamic countries, still angry over cartoons and films attacking Muslims, have been campaigning for wording that would equate criticism of a religious faith with a violation of human rights.

The April 20-25 meeting in Geneva is designed to review progress in fighting racism since the previous summit in South Africa. That meeting was marred by attacks on Israel and anti-Israel demonstrations at a parallel conference of non-governmental organizations.

The US and Israel walked out midway through the conference over a draft resolution that singled Israel out for criticism and likened Zionism to racism.

Last week, the Obama administration said the United States will stay away from this year’s meeting unless its final document is changed to drop all references to Israel and the defamation of religion.

European nations have expressed hope the summit can go ahead with a final text that is acceptable to all sides.

But they, too, have red lines they say cannot be crossed.

Dutch Foreign Minister Maxime Verhagen said in December that his country would walk out unless anti-Israel statements were scrapped. French diplomat Daniel Vosgien said then that his country opposed the idea of banning criticism of religion.