► Show Top 10 Hot Links

Posts Tagged ‘liars’

Jihadi Troll Incites Blog War Among Counterjihadists

by 1389AD ( 133 Comments › )
Filed under Blogwars, Bosnia, Canada, Free Speech, Hate Speech, Islamic hypocrisy, Leftist-Islamic Alliance, LGF, Liberal Fascism, Open thread, Political Correctness at March 21st, 2011 - 8:30 am

Troller - click for original
Flame Warriors: Troller – click to see full-size original

Anti-jihadists vs. Anti-jihadists: Something Else at Work

By Julia Gorin – Reprinted with permission.

When the scholar and author Srdja Trifkovic was turned back at the Vancouver airport on Feb. 24 — after a Bosnian-Muslim organization called The Institute for Research of Genocide in Canada alerted authorities that a “genocide denier” was within their borders — Greater Islam and its useful idiots saw an opportunity, and pounced.

The name “Trifkovic” rang a bell in the head of a young writer named Aymenn Jawad al-Tamimi, who quickly recalled that anti-jihadist Robert Spencer had written supportively of him and his work in the past. Hearing that Trifkovic didn’t buy into the Srebrenica Genocide, al-Tamimi saw a path to killing two birds with one stone. And went digging for dirt.

Soon enough, he found something, or as close to something as one can find on Dr. Trifkovic. What he found was a symposium that Trifkovic, a paleoconservative, had participated in last year on a radical Right website called Alt Right, responding to the question: Is the traditionalist, paleoconservative Right anti-Semitic, as is popularly perceived? The moderator of the panel was a Jewish paleocon named Eugene Girin. Joining Trifkovic was Paul Gottfried, also a Jewish paleocon, and the third panelist was well-known anti-Semitic paleocon Taki Theodoracopulos.

Reading the following paragraphs in the Trifkovic essay, al-Tamimi thought he’d caught the man red-handed in the act of Jew-hating…

Read the rest here – very long article, but worth reading.

The ensuing brouhaha was very reminiscent of the infamous “Vlaams Belang” episode at the fever swamp. Julia Gorin, who is Jewish, does an excellent job of showing why none of Dr. Trifkovic’s comments can be construed as anti-Semitic.

Ironically, Emir Ramic, the Bosnian Muslim libelist who played the biggest role in stopping Dr. Trifkovic from speaking in Canada, is both a jihadi and an anti-Semite.

I am posting this because it appears that our enemies have found a way to drive wedges into the counterjihad movement and to set us against one another, so as to render us ineffective. It is high time we stop allowing ourselves to be jerked around in this way.

Yes, I know that many people on this blog are put off by the term “paleoconservative,” and not without cause. The “paleoconservative” designation was adopted some time ago by a mixed bag of conservatives who wished to distinguish themselves both from the “neocons” associated with PNAC (Project for a New American Century) and from libertarians. Unfortunately, the term “paleoconservative” became tainted because some (though certainly not all) of that group were anti-Semitic or anti-Israel. In the case of Dr. Trifkovic, who supports Israel and the Jews, the term “conservative traditionalist” would perhaps be more accurate.

I have met Dr. Srdja Trifkovic in person more than once. I have heard him speak. I have read two books and many articles that he has written. It is clear to me that Dr. Trifkovic is no anti-Semite, but rather, a gentleman, a respected scholar, and a hero of free speech, of the counterjihad, and of the Serbian people.

It is time for all of us who are part of the counterjihad to stop allowing our enemies to set us against one another. Instead, it is time for us to cooperate, to stand together, and, above all, to avoid repeating any unfounded accusations.

Two animated smileys shaking hands


Update: This is an open thread. Because of the breaking news having to do with Libya, the nuclear reactors in Japan, and other matters, feel free to discuss whatever you like.


Rolling Stone is a Seditious Rag

by 1389AD ( 188 Comments › )
Filed under Afghanistan, Barack Obama, Iraq, Islam, Leftist-Islamic Alliance, Media, Military, Sharia (Islamic Law), Tranzis at March 1st, 2011 - 2:00 pm

First of all…

It is long past time for us to decide exactly what we are fighting for in Afghanistan. And when it comes to that, the infamous lefty rag, Rolling Stone, does all it can to add to the confusion.

Awhile back, Rolling Stone caused a major brouhaha by exposing the internal dissention between Gen. McChrystal and the Obama Administration regarding the war in Afghanistan. Though the problems were real, the intent of Rolling Stone was to undermine our military and thereby help our enemies.

To give the devil his due, the US was, and is, on a self-defeating path. I would be the first to admit that I am no fan of the way in which the war in Afghanistan is being fought. The difference is that Rolling Stone wants the US, and Judaeo-Christian civilization, to lose the war against the jihad, while I want us to win.

I am fundamentally opposed to the Wilsonian pipe-dream of “nation-building.” No country can bestow give liberty and a functioning civil society to anyone else; they have to be earned, and they can never be earned by a predominantly Muslim population. That is because Islam is not a religion in the sense that we understand it, but rather, it is an expansionist, enemy, totalitarian political philosophy that requires perpetual warfare against unbelievers, and that seeks to rid the world of everything but itself. Any people espousing Islam cannot govern themselves without bringing in a totalitarian system of shari’a law. They regard it as sinful to do otherwise. Enacting this as part of a new constitution simply sets it in stone. The new constitutions enacted under US hegemony in both Afghanistan and Iraq are specifically Islamic and implement shari’a law. Why did we send our troops to fight for this?

The purpose of warfare is to defeat enemies so that they cannot and will not do us any further harm. It will always be beyond our power as a nation to turn foreign evildoers into decent human beings.

The current US “rules of engagement” (ROE) are nothing short of suicidal. It makes no sense to run what amounts to a day care center for our enemies who are stuck in a mindset that reflects the worst that the seventh century has to offer. Our enemies (including those who are supposedly “civilian”) do not play by any rules whatsoever, while our side is hogtied by rules that make it impossible to retaliate effectively or even to protect our own troops from enemy attack.

Rolling Stone beclowns itself again

Rolling Stone has made one more attempt to undermine and smear the US military in Afghanistan. But it turns out that they believed an ex-officer who is, to put it bluntly, an openly adulterous, self-promoting, and disloyal ignoramus. So now Rolling Stone has egg on its face.

Big Peace: Psyops on Senators in Afghanistan? Not Hardly

Posted by Jim Hanson Feb 28th 2011 at 4:34 am

…Rolling Stone is out hunting for Generals again and they have found a willing dupe in LTC Michael Holmes. Although calling him a dupe is unfair, he is a willing participant in this grotesque farce. Let’s tee this up in case you missed it. He claims that while on the staff of LTG Caldwell in Afghanistan he was tasked with coming up with ways to influence the opinions of visiting Senators. Seriously, that’s it. The massive outcry from the media was over something that anyone with an above room temperature IQ, including the Senators, knew happens all the time. The problem is that Holmes’ IQ is well below room temperature.

Before we explore the sad little world of LTC Holmes let’s remember that Michael Hastings, the Rolling Stone Jackwagon, also wrote the hit piece that took down Stan McChrystal…

Back now to Holmes. He pitched this story to a newspaper or two, but couldn’t get them to bite. But he threw it at Rolling Stone and it stuck to their wall and obviously fit their agenda. Sadly keeping their rag afloat with tabloid level journalism is their only real option. So we have this spy movie sounding scenario where our Generals are plotting a la Dr. Strangelove and using psychological operations against visiting Senators. The reason they can conjure up this fiendish plot is because of a lack of understanding about Psy Ops, which is one part of Information Operations (IO) and the separate field of Public Affairs (PA). The simplest explanation is IO works to affect the enemy and the theater of operations and PA tells our stories to Americans and the press. Holmes was part of the IO staff and so normally he would have been working on information aimed at the enemy. But the mission he was part of on LTG Caldwell’s staff was to train the Afghan Army, so there was no need for IO operations. Consequently LTC Holmes was given a new assignment, part of which involved helping influence the opinions of visiting Senators.

…Holmes was sent home from Afghanistan in disgrace for multiple violations of orders and military law. Even worse, he was planning on cashing in on his experience with a civilian strategic communications company he had formed with a female officer who worked directly for him. That cunning plan crashed and burned when he and this officer, MAJ Laural Levine, made such a public nuisance of their “inappropriate relationship” that it became common knowledge among the staff. In addition to that, they were regularly heading off base in civilian clothes and were either weaponless, had surrendered them to the restaurants they frequented, or worse had carried them concealed. The first two are offenses against the General Orders for Afghanistan, the last is a violation of the Laws of Land Warfare. If they had been captured while carrying concealed out on the town, they would have been unlawful combatants.

Now how did we find these things out? Well in addition to being as discrete as Lady Gaga, Holmes is also an ultra maroon (yes I just quoted Bugs Bunny). He posted photos of he and his “far-too-intimate-female-associate” on Facebook. Then they go ahead and flirt like Junior High Schoolers in the comments while discussing photos that show them violating their orders. That’s right, a guy and gal who think they are smart enough to advise the government and corporations on strategic communications, busted themselves out on Facebook…

Read it all.

The bottom line? Never trust Rolling Stone or anything you read in it.

What has been missing from public discourse so far are constructive suggestions about how we should address the very real Islamic threat from a political and military perspective. Counterjihad blogger Sultan Knish offers some excellent ideas:

Canada Free Press: A Fourth Approach to the Muslim World

By Daniel Greenfield – Thursday, July 22, 2010

…The Fourth Way is Accountability and it is simple enough. Stop arguing over who will rule in which Muslim country. That is a decision that only the inhabitants of that country can make. And they won’t make it through elections, so much as through dealmaking among their oligarchy, tribal leaders and occasional outbursts of armed force. It would take a massive project of decades to have any hope of changing that. But we don’t need to. What we need to do is make very clear the consequences of attacking us to whoever is in charge.

Rather than trying to shape their behavior by shaping their political leadership, we can use a much more blunt instrument to unselectively shape all their leaders. A blunt instrument does not mean reconstruction. It doesn’t mean Marines ferrying electrical generators. It doesn’t mean nation building. It means that we will inflict massive devastation on any country that aids terrorists who attack us. If they insist on using medieval beliefs to murder us, we will bomb government buildings, roads, factories and power plants to reduce them back to a medieval state. We will not impose sanctions on them, we will simply take control of their natural resources and remove the native population from the area, as compensation for the expenses of the war.

Accountability means no more aid to tyrants or terrorists, and no grand democracy projects either. It means that we stop trying to pick a side, and just make it clear what happens when our side gets hurt. We gain energy independence and never look back. And when we’ve done that, the Muslim world will no longer be able to play America against Russia, against Asia and Europe. Instead it will suddenly find itself stuck with a predatory Russia looking for an energy monopoly, a booming China expanding into their part of the world, and no Pax Americana to protect them from either one.

America has provided the stability that kept many Muslim countries from imploding. It has protected others directly and indirectly from being conquered more times than anyone realizes. All the treachery and terrorism that has been carried out, has been done under an American umbrella. Now is the time to furl up the umbrella, and let the rain fall where it may.

It will be a cold day indeed, when Russia and China realize that they can do what they like in the Muslim world, without the US to stop them. And a colder day still, when European countries realize that there is nothing standing the way of deporting their insurgent Muslim populations, because the US will not lift a finger to protect them, as it did in Yugoslavia. That is accountability. And in both its active and passive forms it will exact a high price from the enemy, and none from us. To employ it, we must be prepared to use massive force casually without considering any collateral damage. We must achieve energy independence at any cost. And we must be prepared to realize that everything else we have tried has failed. Only by disengaging from the Muslim world, can we ever be free of it.

Daniel Greenfield is a New York City based writer and freelance commentator. “Daniel comments on political affairs with a special focus on the War on Terror and the rising threat to Western Civilization. He maintains a blog at Sultanknish.blogspot.com.

Daniel can be reached at: sultanknish@yahoo.com

Read it all.


Originally published on 1389 Blog.


Leftist Scam Organization SPLC and its Cayman Island Bank Account

by 1389AD ( 166 Comments › )
Filed under Hate Speech, Media, Progressives at November 27th, 2010 - 8:30 pm

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is nothing but a leftist scam organization (I know, that’s redundant) whose purpose is to enrich its founders. It smears a great many legitimate conservative organizations by listing them as “hate groups.” It then uses innuendo and false accusations, along with guilt-tripping, to draw attention to itself for the purpose of garnering contributions. Until very recently, the mainstream media has treated the SPLC as a legitimate organization, and to some extent, it still does.

Southern ‘Poverty’ Law Center Cayman Islands Bank Account

(h/t: Iron Fist)

The SPLC’s new 2009 IRS 990 filing shows they have a bank account in the Cayman Islands. Now, stop for a good long minute and ask yourself what the hell is a supposed poverty-fighting Alabama-based tax exempt organization doing with such an account. Then ponder this: how much money is in it.

Unfortunately, the IRS does not require SPLC or any tax exempt charity with an account in a foreign country to disclose additional details, such as the amount, and the SPLC’s current 990 filing merely notes the existence of an account in a foreign country. The center’s site reveals neither the existence of the off-shore account nor the total it contains.

Assets for the organization are listed at $190 million, a nice chunk of change in these economic hard times. When was the last time this group, with almost $190 million in assets, did a damn worthwhile thing about, um, poverty?

The latest 990 additionally shows founder and chief trial counsel Morris Dees had his salary raised to $350,000, and his CEO, Richard Cohen, is close behind at $345,000.

The tax filing also shows Dees traveled by air charter, and that his spouse, artist and businesswoman Susan Starr, accompanies her husband on the business trips.

[…] Former Harper’s Magazine writer Ken Silverstein wrote a piece about the group in 2000, subtitled “How the Southern Poverty Law Center profits from intolerance,” that is still very pertinent and well-worth reading today:

[…] In the early 1960s, Morris Dees sat on the sidelines honing his direct-marketing skills and practicing law while the civil rights movement engulfed the South. “Morris and I … shared the overriding purpose of making a pile of money,” recalls Dees’s business partner, a lawyer named Millard Fuller (not to be confused with Millard Farmer). “We were not particular about how we did it; we just wanted to be independently rich.” […]

For Dees, the P in SPLC has nothing to do with personal poverty. That P better stands for profit or profiteering for him, and foolish donors keep sending him checks, thinking they’re helping poverty-stricken blacks or whites in Alabama move into better housing.

Since we’re on the subject of abodes in the Yellowhammer State, let’s have a gander at where Dees lives courtesy of the May 2010 Montgomery Advertiser 60-photo feature just on his mansion, the opulent furnishings and layout, not to mention a fabulous outfit shown off by his wife:

The swimming pool, as seen from the pool house.
The swimming pool, as seen from the pool house.

An area in the main house for relaxing conversations.
An area in the main house for relaxing conversations.

The studio building for Dees' wife Susan Starr.
The studio building for Dees’ wife Susan Starr.

A lounging jacket designed and modeled by Starr.
A lounging jacket designed and modeled by Starr.

More here.

Will this get any attention?

Says Iron Fist:

Wow, this should be big…Something to keep in mind when the SPLC designates a new “Hate Group” of the week: where does all that money come from? Soros, anyone? How much does it cost to get your political opponent designated a hater? The SPLC shouldn’t have any crediblilty left, but they do with the theoretical independent votes. Like I said, this should be big news. But it won’t be.

In case anybody hasn’t seen this yet, it thoroughly refutes the mindset and world view of Morris Dees and of liberals in general:

Why Modern Liberals Are 100% Wrong About Everything


Alinsky Learned From The Chicago Underworld

by 1389AD ( 92 Comments › )
Filed under Academia, Barack Obama, Communism, Crime, History, Progressives, Socialism, Terrorism at November 1st, 2010 - 6:30 pm

The New Criterion: ‘Organized’ Crime

(h/t: Bumr50)

By Andrew C. McCarthy

On the President’s favorite philosopher, Saul Alinsky.

It is a matter of no small amusement for the journalist and agitator Nicholas von Hoffman that his beloved mentor, Saul Alinsky, learned the craft of “organizing” at the feet of Chicago’s most notorious mobsters. This was nearly eighty years before the self-proclaimed radical became a household name, having posthumously inspired an up-and-coming organizer who went on to become the forty-fourth president of the United States. Alinsky’s entrée to the Al Capone gang (which, tellingly, he called a “public utility”) was neither his ruthlessness nor his penchant for rabble-rousing, though a surfeit of both qualities surely impressed his friend Frank (“the Enforcer”) Nitti. It was, instead, his academic credentials.

A freshly minted doctor of criminology from the University of Chicago, Alinsky sought out, bonded with, and closely studied anti-social types. His experience proved invaluable in his lifelong pursuit of “social justice,” the organizer’s panacea. Alinsky even found a Depression-era job at Joliet’s hard-knocks penitentiary, assessing the suitability of inmates for parole. Not every crook had the panache of the Enforcer, and the work soon bored Alinsky, whose promiscuous mind was easily given to boredom. Yet there was an oasis in this desert: the evaluation of an occasional con man. In an unintentionally hilarious vignette, von Hoffman relates that “one of the flim-flam men initiated Alinsky into the secrets of his trade.” We’re never told to which “his” the trade-secrets in question belonged—the flim-flammer or the organizer. It turns out not to matter. They’re both frauds.

Fraud is, in fact, the leitmotif of Radical, von Hoffman’s adoring portrait of Alinsky.[1] This oughtn’t be taken the wrong way: Radical is an enjoyable, sometimes even an endearing, read. Von Hoffman is an engaging writer, especially during the stretches when he manages to rein in his seething disdain for “teabaggers,” “the rich,” and other Americans who actually like America. There was a self-conscious coldness about Alinsky, who urged disciples to nurture what von Hoffman describes as the “cold anger that fosters calculated and measured action.” This “Alinsky aesthetic” held social workers and other idealistic progressives in nearly as low esteem as smug capitalists. It lauded the good sense of Saint Paul (a model organizer in the agnostic Alinsky’s eyes), for leaving “the poor to Jesus while he went after people with at least a little substance.” It’s a stripe of bloodless cynicism that will ring a bell for those who’ve closely watched the first two years of Barack Obama’s presidency. Yet von Hoffman’s admiration for his subject illuminates the fire that burned within this “picador in the political corrida,” whose “irreverence was his banderilla.”

No, fraud is not a reason to take a pass on Radical but a cause to read it and be astonished. Even here, in this most affectionate of depictions, there can be no camouflaging that an “organizer” is a fraud through and through—in his tactics, in his motives, and in his carefully crafted self-image.

Take the organizer’s underlying premise: he presents himself as a builder of “small-d democracy.” “Democracy” is a codeword. To the unwary, it is drained of meaning, vaguely connoting a benign call to freedom and self-government. But for the revolutionary—and that’s what Alinsky’s radical is about, revolution—a democrat is the heroic Jacobin pitted in a fight to the finish against the evil, moneyed, ruling aristocrat. Life in America is a Manichean war in which the democrat inhabits the side of the angels.

Angels matter, by the way. Alinsky began Rules for Radicals—which was originally to be called Rules for the Revolution—with an “over the shoulder acknowledgment” of Lucifer as the “very first radical . . . who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom.” Inconvenient, and thus glossed over by Alinsky and von Hoffman, is the minor detail that the kingdom “won” by the fallen angel was . . . hell—a trenchant observation from the former radical turned patriot, David Horowitz, who acidly adds, “Typical of radicals not to notice the ruin they have left behind.” [emphasis mine]

[…]

Once you understand the organizer’s game, everything else falls into place. He is in a duel to the death with unprecedented prosperity: a system in which the entrenched interests are formidable, in which the vast middle is more interested in being an entrenched interest than a revolutionary, and in which the riff-raff—with unemployment “insurance” now stretching 99 weeks and “poverty” measured by how few flat-screen TVs one can afford—have yet to realize how bad they have it. With the odds stacked against him, the organizer needs one thing and one thing alone: power. For organizing is not about improving the lives of the destitute. Saving them, von Hoffman observes, is a drain on the organizer’s sparse resources and energy. And for all the high-minded twaddle about democracy, it, too, turns out to be readily dispensable. “Democracy,” wrote Alinsky, “is not an end; it is the best political means available toward the achievement of [the organizer’s] values.” The organizer’s highest value is empowering the organizer.

Read the rest.

Obama Unhinged

Saul Alinsky

Lucifer, a/k/a Satan

Evil for the sake of evil

Following in the footsteps of Faust, Saul Alinsky learned from the Underworld in more than one sense of that word. Alinsky, in turn, became a primary mentor and role model to Barack Hussein Obama.

I acknowledge that it is rather unusual for evildoers to boast so openly about this particular source of “inspiration.” Maybe they expect to garner a certain cachet in radical chic circles. Be that as it may, no matter how entertaining that book supposedly is, I do not plan to read Radical. Neither von Hofmann nor any other evil pseudointellectual of the radical left deserves a single penny of my hard-earned wages.