Posted by Al Ross on Mon, 23 Jan 2006 00:41 | #

There is, I believe, more than a touch of sadism in the requirement that women in some very hot Middle East countries wear black chadors while men’s traditional attire is a cool (in the word’s uncorrupted sense) white. Perhaps this colour dichotomy is meant to discourage women from venturing oudoors. Too many Muslim males harbour a culturally innate aversion to women and this unnatural behaviour stems from the precepts of the Muslim religion.

Posted by Calvin on Mon, 23 Jan 2006 01:27 | #

It’s not a “mixed” message. The Koran is unequivocal about the status of women. The Koran teaches that women exist for the sexual pleasure of men. Men are regarded as so driven by sexual lust that women are required to don ugly garments in order not to incite their passions. This is based on an assesement, which is true in my opinion, that Islamic men are incapable of fully relating to women in a normal way and are incapable of self restraint when confronted by a confident attractive woman. That even their own wome have to go to such lengths to protect themselves from the animalistic lust and lack of self control of Muslim men is conclusive evidence that Muslims can never play a part in a civilized society. I don’t see this as solely a religious phenomenon, race is an obvious factor. The Latin races, who have had significantly more intercourse (NPI) with the Moors, have a well established reputation for sexual incontinence.

Posted by A Casual Observer on Mon, 23 Jan 2006 02:38 | #

Maybe if Western societies required their female Islamic citizens and non-citizens to wear thong bikinis to the beach the Muslim men would quit raping Western women.

I’m sure Wicked Weasel would be more than happy to make a donation of thongs to them!

Posted by Desmond Jones on Mon, 23 Jan 2006 03:31 | #

It’s not about mixed messages or raping white women per se. It’s about the battle to save their culture. Losing control of the morality of your women, means losing control of your way of life.

James R. Woodhill of The Woodhill Foundation…urged the use of America’s ultimate weapon against our Islamist foes ... our degenerate culture.

Larry, You are Just Not Getting It. This is the most important point of all, and one Bernard Lewis makes constantly. The Jihadists are right to hate the U.S. because they are right to fear the U.S.

They fear our decadent (I rather think “degenerate” has a better “ring” to it, actually) popular culture and lifestyle’s seductive power over their youth, for the same reason you and Bill Bennett fear the same thing. The Jihadists know that if The Great Satan is not destroyed, their culture and way of life will succumb to Western Secularism even faster than Christianity succumbed. Their most important property—their women—will be lost to them through Women’s Liberation. They probably don’t know (but should) that this will ultimately result in participating in the curious process that has already started in the West that I have termed “Auto-Genocide”—demographic “evaporation” due to a birth dearth (at least a birth dearth among the people who transmit the culture of the West to their children).

If America is not destroyed, their granddaughters (or their granddaughters’ granddaughters) will be wearing thong bikinis and scr—ing their high school boyfriends in hot tubs. Just like ours are.

Possibly the advent of Islam will be a good thing for the West. If victorious it will destroy liberalism, feminism and the prevalence of the Frankfurt School doctrine. It would reverse demographic evaporation and in the battle between tribes, as Darwin points out, fertility is critical for deciding who will survive. If not then the western ethos will prevail with all its suicidal tendencies.

Posted by Steve Edwards on Mon, 23 Jan 2006 05:35 | #

“Possibly the advent of Islam will be a good thing for the West. If victorious it will destroy liberalism, feminism and the prevalence of the Frankfurt School doctrine.”

No it won’t, because there will cease to be anything called the “West” if it became Islamic. Agreed, it won’t be good for liberalism, but the “West” and “liberalism” are not one and the same.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Mon, 23 Jan 2006 08:07 | #

What is the West today, Steve, except for the culmination of a full scale destruction of Christianity, capitalism, authority, the family, patriarchy, hierarchy, morality, tradition, sexual restraint, loyalty, patriotism, nationalism, heredity, ethnocentrism, convention, and conservatism. The West survives only as a stinking, rotting, decaying mess.

It’s quite the connundrum. If secularism triumphs the West dies. If Islam triumphs the West may regain some moral standing however it is no longer the West.

Posted by Mark Richardson on Mon, 23 Jan 2006 08:57 | #

Desmond, you might be interested in the following. I’m reading a biography of the American radical, John Reed. He was at Harvard in 1909, and he fell in love with a student, Amy Stone. The biographer adds,

“The romance with Amy was all in the mind and the heart. At early-century Harvard, love was one thing, sex distinctly another. Girls were not chaperoned, but there was little question of overt physical relations with the females from Radcliffe or Boston whom students dated. While upperclassmen were expected to drink and smoke - and Jack did both - sexual relations with women were a blot on any reputation. One acquaintance of Reed explained that “men who boasted of their immoral relations with women were not highly regarded at Harvard, and seldom reached prominence.”

Very different to the conditions I experienced at university, in which a loveless, casual sex was the norm, accompanied by bad blood between men and women.

Posted by john on Mon, 23 Jan 2006 10:58 | #

Lighten up guys, look on the positive side:
http://www.jimgoad.net/musgirls.html

Posted by Calvin on Mon, 23 Jan 2006 14:05 | #

Resorting to Islam to cure Western decadence is rather like amputating a leg to cure an ingrown toenail. Just because right minded Westerners want to stop the cultural decay that is turning our young women into sluts and young men into passive degenerates doesn’t mean we should celebrate the prospect of them being made into the slaves of Islam.

Posted by Steve Edwards on Mon, 23 Jan 2006 18:17 | #

Desmond’s position is indeed crazy. I understand that Islam is resurgent and stands against everything we are supposed to hate. But it does not follow that the enemy of our enemy is our friend. And Desmond himself said it would “possibly” be a “good thing” for the West to be taken over by Islam.

Perhaps it would be good for Muslims to avoid the ailments of Westerners, but I think we should look for our own cure, rather than trying to import one from a historically often hostile civilisation.

Posted by FaceRight on Mon, 23 Jan 2006 18:46 | #

Having seen pictures of my great grandmother at the beach in her Victorian “bathing suit”, this only proves that the Muslims are about 100 years behind us.

As for the rest of the discussion, it’s pretty obvious that there is an enemy within AND an enemy without - neither is preferable, but one could argue that the enemy without would not be a threat if the internal rot was not so advanced.

Posted by ben tillman on Mon, 23 Jan 2006 19:19 | #

The advent of Islam would spell an end to this civilization. Our descendants might remain technically speaking white, but they sure as hell won’t be white in any historical sense of the word.

Why do you assume that Islam would not be remade by its European adherents as occurred with Christianity?

Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 24 Jan 2006 01:41 | #

Christianity’s appeal in the Roman Empire was not derived from a majority semitic population. It was a mystery religion.

The “Edict of Milan” (AD 313) declared that the Roman Empire would be neutral with regard to religious worship… Enforcement of the Edict returned the meeting places and other properties which had been confiscated from the Christians and sold out of the government treasury: ” ... the same shall be restored to the Christians without payment or any claim of recompense and without any kind of fraud or deception ... “. It gave to Christianity (and any other religion) a status of legitimacy alongside of paganism, and in effect disestablished paganism as the official religion of the Roman Empire and its armies.

Posted by Steve Edwards on Tue, 24 Jan 2006 06:26 | #

You will have to overthrow the ethnic majority of each European country for Islam to triumph. It won’t happen by conversion, but by replacement.

Posted by Nick Tamiroff on Wed, 25 Jan 2006 06:26 | #

Why does almost everyone have to go into long-winded dissertations of attributes,history,cultures,etc.,when the bottom line is—MUSLIMS DO NOT THINK AS WE WHITE PEOPLE DO !Nor do Blacks for that matter.They have their own agendas and goals,which which should be anethma to Whites,but we allow them to espose their mantras IN OUR COUNTRIES-Honor-killings,burkas,genital mutilation,rap music,drive-bys,gansta groups,etc.,etc.We Whites built this world,every advance in the last 1200 years was of WHITE origin.Ignorant Muslims still Cohabitate with their goats [or goatherds],stop all endevours 5 times a day to pray to a big rock in Mecca,indiscriminately kill their own people[wanting those70 virgins].Blacks—they still live in mud/straw huts,have no written language of their own,have not technically progressed beyound the late stone age,and have an IQ somewhat above a chimpanze.AND WE KISS THEIR BUTTS EVERY DAY !! WTF?

Posted by Alex Zeka on Fri, 27 Jan 2006 18:07 | #

Desmond wonders why some of us have a desire to preserve Christianity and Western culture. Obviously, no reason at all for those of us who prefer Viking sagas and pagan rock worship. But most of us aren’t like that, me Nord-fetishist chum.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Fri, 27 Jan 2006 19:06 | #

Pagan rock worship, is that like Limpbizkit?

Posted by Andrew on Fri, 27 Jan 2006 19:56 | #

Wooo, Is that web link an example of James Bowreys Post on Lab experi –mental Liberalism? It is a bit Heavy and some what   an extreme revolutionary radical Psychological texture. I think they could expect a visit from the SAS.
I think Intelligence would win that battle anyway, we just have to gather it together once more-Or else.

Posted by victoria on Sun, 12 Feb 2006 05:02 | #

you whites are to blame for the downfall of your own civilizations - and you can thank the white leftists, homosexuals and feminists for spearheading your destruction. You let your own white women abort your children, your own leftwing sons and daughters force lesbianism and faggotry down the throats of children in the public schools and you let your own people mock western values and even Christianity and tear it down. Your morally loose women would rather fuck every man they can get their hands on instead of getting married and raising children. Don’t blame the muslim, the latino or the black man for your own failure to defend your culture.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 12 Feb 2006 09:55 | #

Vicky,

Aside from the ad hominem evident in your remarks, none of “us whites” would argue with your assessment of what has come to pass in the liberal West.  You reveal, however, a certain weakness in your understanding of the culture war that has been waged against the white male heterosexual, where it has come from and how and why it has been advanced.

“Us whites” didn’t just “let” this happen.  Our political, legal, adademic and media elites forced it upon us by morally and legally delegitimising protest and using every means and every image available to promote the egalitarian, anti-nation outcome the overwhelming majority of them desire.

Our anger, therefore, is against them, not against against other races - who are merely taking advantage of the opportunities available to them.  Of course, we are bound to oppose such opportunism, but that does not imply animus against those races per se.  Plain racial hate adds not a whit of understanding to us, and its proponents are not welcome here.

Posted by Steve Edwards on Sun, 12 Feb 2006 17:11 | #

“Further, there’s no doubt that had Europeans converted to Islam, our own genes and environment would’ve shaped it to suit our racial character.”

Islam is a lot of things, but one of those things is that it is clearly an ideological expression of Arabian imperialism (providing a constitution for an eternal form of government). Europe was not destined to become a cultural appendage of Arabia, no matter what rationalisations Friedrich will throw out.

Posted by Steve Edwards on Sun, 12 Feb 2006 17:38 | #

What a load of garbage. From defending Arabian colonialism of European peoples in Iberia, he then goes on to dismiss the entire Crusading movement as a “higher form of piracy”. That’s funny - I didn’t know pirates would normally give up their possessions to go fight a Turkish (and Arabian) menace, which had already expropriated well over half the Byzantine lands, only to largely (bar a prominent minority of Levant colonialists) eschew the fruits of battle and return home. That’s piracy?

I’ll await the next installment of apologias for the colonisation of Europeans by non-Europeans, not with trepidation, but amazement that Friedrich is actually endorsing this claptrap.

Really, Friedrich. Who are you working for?

Posted by Steve Edwards on Sun, 12 Feb 2006 19:20 | #

“...the Crusades were started at the behest of Popes who didn’t want to see Christian holy places in the Near East under the domination of infidels.”

Yet if you read the famous four accounts of the Council of Clermont, cited by Jonathon Riley-Smith, the plight of the Byzantine Empire was mentioned more frequently than Jerusalem (and in more accounts). The Crusaders themselves had to fund their own way across, or gain sponsorship from a household.

“In some ways the Crusades were as much a commercial enterprise as a religious undertaking. Furthermore, the Crusaders often acted worse then pirates, indeed. For e.g., the Sack of Constantinople can hardly find a parallel in world-history in terms of blood-lust and sheer terror; and let’s not forget that this outrage was mostly perpetrated on other Christians! The Greek Orthodox continue to hold the Church of Rome in contempt because of this event.”

You are referring to the Fourth Crusade of 1204, which bears no relevance to the motivations surrounding the First Crusade of 1096 - and strangely enough, the Greek Orthodox Church doesn’t mention the fact that those who Catholics who conquered Constantinople in that year had already been EXCOMMUNICATED.

And of course, as thoroughly documented by Riley-Smith, the vast majority of Crusaders immediately left the Holy Land following their victory in 1099.

I support the First Crusade as a largely privately funded endeavour against an expansionist Islamic Empire, conducted primarily for defensive motivations. Indeed, I think the First Crusade was more justifiable than the British Empire’s declaration of war against Hitler.

Posted by Salahuddin Al Ayyuby on Mon, 17 Apr 2006 15:54 | #

Christians are historically defeated in the crusaders war.After that,christians became communists,maxist,atheists,agnostic and so on.The only last solution for no longer exist christianity is to preach whites survival at the western world.Why?Cause majority of whites had no faith of any religions and the last thing in their minds is playing the whites race survival.