Category Archives: islam

A Traditionalist Stance On The islamic Threat

Tradition is not the worship of ashes but the preservation of fire.” -Gustav Mahler

Idealistic morality based off of the Enlightenment period is now normative. It has permeated almost every political party and movement – they seem to compete for which will hold the higher morality based off of this ever-rebelling premise. The mainstream left vs right is disguised as opposing sides, when really they are just two ends of the same Globalist spectrum. The Conservatives are fighting an uphill battle by trying to hold onto Modernism, while the Progressives are pushing through to full scale Postmodernism, yet no mainstream groups are rejecting the slippery slope of Enlightenment-based dogma as a whole.

The anti-islam movement is very much in the battle for morality between two ends of this same spectrum. The lack of democracy, inequality, wealth disparity, political freedom, oppression of women’s rights, inability to coexist in multiculturalism, etc., are all very common mainstream arguments against islam.

The Enlightenment’s legacy pushes for pathos based morality; it is no wonder that the present era has developed extreme emotional hypersensitivity to prevent the exploration of their stances’ illogical outcomes – the further left on this spectrum the more absurd it gets. Their false sense of morality is unquestionable since it revolves around feelings and offense instead of ethos. The inevitable moral paradoxes create the need for “oppressors” and “perpetual victim” groups: the higher in victim status a group is deemed to be, the more that group will trump other victim groups when it comes to a conundrum of conflicting stances. Likewise in asininity, the groups deemed to be privileged “oppressors” are overlooked for any type of merit, thus instead of emulating the strong, more perpetual victim groups are created. This oppressor-victim mentality is even more enticing to the Globalist mindset because it comes full circle into feeding their self-proclaimed moral superiority – the social justice warriors can create the bad guys to fight off while giving them a ranking system to put their paradoxical “victim-groups” into a pecking order.

The (Post)Modernist ranking system is why the Left leads the Western appeasement of the islamic immigration invasion, while the Right needs to constantly push counter narratives for other victim groups as justification to oppose islam – a perfect parallel to show the enlightenment legacy’s spectrum from Left to Right are the flip sides to the same coin.

The world not only glorifies those seen as victims, but all must wait to champion or become victims in order to fight evil. The public outcry of the world when any use more than “proportional force” when fighting islam, is a telling sign of this era of absurdity.

Leftists don’t oppose islam even though it is the antithesis of all the idealistic views they hold, because muslims are a higher ranked victim group – they are among the least functioning, laziest, and most self-pitying, so they can put on a good show to shame the “oppressors” with.

The only thing oppressing islam is it’s own primitive and regressive ideology.

Globalist mindsets stand for everything at once and thus nothing at all, because there is no logical method to their pathos. Modernity holds their destructive, fictitious victim-oppressor paradigm as the highest importance, so the only place the Conservatives can oppose their left of the spectrum from is in defense of other victims. The only use a Traditionalist has for arguing this point should be to show the inevitable, paradoxical outcome of all rebellions stemming from the Enlightenment, leaving their lands susceptible threats like islam.

What weakens Western Civilization most to islam, is the destruction of it’s own superior traditionalism. The Western world is becoming more and more r-type since the Enlightenment period, thus on some subconscious level the rabid, r-type traditionalism of invading muhammadans is left as the only politically correct option to fill that void. There is a strong link between Feminist appeasement of islam and conversion or self-destruction of Europeans. This is why many Modernists do not have such high zeal in opposing islam, they have lost their own k-type vital force – Western Traditionalism.

Islam is not the root of all problems in the world, it is a deadly symptom that has run amok because of a weakened host. Islam is a destructive force that needs to be purged from the earth; not watered down, excused, assimilated, or any other fantasy Modernist ideals for dealing with this viper. It is the duty of the strong to vanquish the plague of Islam once and for all – Western Civilization must lead again.

Cease arguing against Muslims from a victims narrative that needs to wait for more victimization to counter with proportionate losses. The world must stand united against islam, but the West has to rise up to its duty and oppose the immigration invasion from the hordes seeking to destroy their posterity – for once the West falls, the world will follow. It is vital to destroy islam from a stance of strength, not weakness.

To find the resolve for what is to come ,Western Civilization needs a return to traditionalism so that their people may regain their vital driving-force.

The Postmodernist looks upon the islmic threat for a safe place to apportion blame and excuse them, or ignores the threat all together. The Modernist looks upon the islamic threat and is scared, sad, and worried. The Traditionalist looks upon the islamic threat and wants to take up a spear and plunge it through every last islamist in sight until the enemy is smote or one must embrace a glorious death in pursuit thereof. A revival of Western Tradition is the fire needed to purify the earth of the islam and the Enlightenment’s sickness that has festered far too long.

The Real Two-State Solution: Add Copts to the Equation

The Israel-palestine conflict is seen from such a simplistic vantage point that it leads to a false dichotomy – One must understand the entirety of Middle-Eastern dynamics, not one localized aspect of them that has been divorced from all context.

Palestinians are simply arabs with a jihadist political agenda that draws them to the need for an ethnicity . They have no specific ethnic allegiance alone; the importance of their fight is to expand the islamic lands (“waqf) and implement sharia law. Before the decline of the Ottoman Empire, there was no distinction between arab ethnicities. Palestinians, like all muslim arabs, give their first allegiance to muslim ummah. They will never compromise, because a compromise requires both sides to make concessions; when dealt with as equals, muslims can only accept gains while giving nothing in return. This is also why Coptic Christians in the Middle-East are constantly persecuted by muslim arabs no matter if they share the same arbitrary ethnic identity – at best they live as de jure second-class citizens under the protection (or rather, at the mercy of) islamic law, where a blind eye is turned to their random – and not so random – victimization.


The argument against Israeli occupation ignores the fact that muhammaden arabs are occupying all land outside of the Arabian Peninsula. The importance of this is that there will never be a compromise in which some people are not displaced. Middle-Eastern Jews have been displaced and re-accepted by their own in Israel. Muslims choose not to accept their fellow muslim arabs because creating the “palestinian” as a political tool is far more important than the lives of their ‘brothers’.  Others should not bear the burden of the consequences that stem from of the selfish priorities of the wider arab and muslim world.

There is no possible compromise with mohammaden arabs. Their political identities are shallow adoptions that are easily cast off when it becomes politically expedient to do so. Asking Israel to accept one-sided peace would just allow arab muslims to keep playing a false victim role. According to the doctrines of shariah law, all ceasefires and truces with an enemy like Israel are only for the purposes of refreshing and rearming, and never are permitted with the intent of sincere settlement or peace. Muslims will only have peace according to their own unconditional terms – that the world submit to islam, and convert, pay the jizyah, or die.

Who are the faultless victims in the Middle-East?

The false dichotomy of “Jew and arab” ignores the plight of the nationless. Zoroastrians have almost been completely eradicated by muslims. Coptic Christians have no refuge from their torment and no homeland to defend them. Time and again they are butchered in Egypt, where they have no support or security. Apostates of islam are also left helpless and homeless in the Middle-East.

The real victims of Gaza are Copts, suffering in silence at the hands of their islamic, “palestinian,” “victimized” counterparts. This is paralleled across all islamic lands in which Christians reside as dhimmis under shariah law – they endure constant, unending persecution.

Looking at ethno-nationalism alone is the flaw of bleeding hearts on the right, who swallow palestinian propaganda, as the hypocritical anti-colonial claims of occupation seen with biased tunnel-vision works for the left. The Middle-East must be viewed in terms of theocratic tribal nationalism.

The real two-state solution will require both halves of the current paradigm to make concessions – a real compromise. The palestinian territories would be Israel’s contribution. Since arab muslims have not ever been willing to give anything up they must take a loss too. Jordan should be required to give up equal land as the west bank territory to be added to it in an actual compromise, likewise Egypt equal land for the Gaza strip. This two-state solution will give a homeland to Middle Eastern Christians as a safe refuge where they no longer have to live under another theocracy’s rule. Perhaps a Coptic government can choose to provide a safe refuge for other oppressed non-muslim populations, and islamic apostates as well.

The requirements of this compromise are quite reasonable when looking at the entirety of Middle-Eastern dynamics. It puts Israel’s objections over a two-state solution to rest because they won’t fear those lands will be used as a means of political jihad and continual attack.  Under current circumstances this is a valid safety concern as arab muslims under the palestinian pseudonym have made their intentions  – unceasing violence and escalation until Israel is destroyed – quite clear. The current wrong-headed debate will be shut down, as the security risk to Israel posed by jihad will be properly recognized when theocratic distinctions are added in to the discussion. Israel can give up responsibility for those territories – with equally added land from Egypt and Jordan to match them in compromise – because a Coptic christian country would pose no threat to them. If anything, this gives Israel an ally in the region and more importantly gives Middle-Eastern Christians a level of protection that they have not had, massacre after massacre.

This two-state solution is just, fair, and good; allowing arab islamists to play the victims for the aims of political jihad, while they slaughter the real silent victims, is a dishonorable travesty.

Three Steps to Neutralize the Islamic Issue

An overt conflict with muslims will only be necessary because the leftists in Western Civilization and Europe allow islam to pose a threat.  There is an easy way to remedy the clash of civilizations without direct large-scale conflicts between infidels and mullahs, yet ironically it is the leftists’ own idealism and political correctness that denies any possibility of preventing massive amounts of death for all. There is a simple way to deal with the islamic issue – coincidentally, it actually leaves the opportunity for muslims to start pulling their own weight in the world and survive, unlike the current path that will inevitably end with infidels worldwide needing to kill muslims or be killed.  That might not be easy to see yet because of heavy censorship and indoctrination, but will become much clearer in a few more decades if the current course of islamic appeasement policy and subsidized expansion does not change.

Three simple steps that would neutralize the islamic issue:

1. End immigration, amnesty, visas, citizenship, tourism, etc. for muslims outside of islamic countries.

2. End the oil trade, foreign aid, and any assistance of food, service, or military including all funds/manpower to the UN ((which are disproportionately allocated to muslim nations).

3. Wall off any borders shared with muslims to deny them access outside of their lands and do not intervene in their affairs/infighting.

The first step in this plan is pretty self explanatory.  The reason why there’s no distinction between islamic sects, or the level of their extremism/moderatism, is because it applies to any who identify with islam.  There are many reasons for this, one of which is subjectivity.  How are the terms extremist or moderate muslim even defined?  There is such a small percentage of muslims that are considered in the extreme category – yes, with their huge numbers that small percent works out to be millions of extremists – yet it is likely the word “extremist” is not applied to enough muslims.  This means that the tens of millions of muslims categorized as extremists is inaccurate; the number is probably closer to hundreds of millions if the term applied to those in favor of sharia law.

Regardless of estimates it is impossible to determine a distinct line between moderates and extremists muslims – it’s more like a spectrum than black-and-white.  Sharia law is an integral aspect of islam and all muslims who support it are going to deteriorate the culture and freedoms of Western Civilization.  Islam is simply incompatible with the West and Europe, using the freedoms of host countries against themselves in a slow shift.  Whenever there is a bendable object and an inflexible object pulled together by a force, the bending object will lose more and more ground.  Muslims cannot coincide with any people – even their own of different sects – because their purpose is to dominate, not assimilate.

The “moderate” category (however loosely defined) is as much of a problem as the “extremists” if not more so – the two go hand-in-hand.   The “extremists” are used to fear monger away freedoms with their overt attacks, and in the backlash “moderates” then play the perpetual victim group role which slowly erodes more freedoms and shames the host culture.  The way one can tell the “moderate muslims” are an enemy is after an “extremist” attack their concerns are about discrimination and protecting the reputation of islam.  The moderates do not assist in catching and fighting their “extremists”, they instead make excuses of victimhood or proclaim how those few are not a representation of islam, when in fact the “extremists” are following far more closely to true islam than the “moderates”.  An invader won’t grieve with the nation they are squatting in, which would be any true patriots first response – the moderate and extremist muslims are all invaders with a common end goal of domination.

The second step is essential and the only way that muslims have any hope of changing to actually be self sustaining, though that isn’t likely at least it is possible.  The only real economic strength of islam is their oil trade.  Even in that, their corruption is evident when some princes are driving cars made of real gold while their muslim brothers are starving by the hundreds of thousands.  Oil seems to only give free, easy money to the most greedy muslim fat-cats and fund terrorism; the starving populations are sustained by foreign aid.

Why are muslims starving in the first place?  The answer to that is their own primitive procreation practices and not valuing life or responsibility.  The foreign aid given to them doesn’t teach self reliance, but only continues the cycle of irresponsible procreation which compounds over generations putting too much strain of supporting this on the responsible populations these muslims are raised to hate.  This is unnatural and the bleeding hearts that push for dhimmi-style aid only exacerbate the dsygenic aspects of islamic primitive culture.  Leftists are under the delusion that islamic poverty stems from external oppression instead of their own unnatural subsidization of generations that should never have been born.

The need for aid will be even higher once all muslims are not enjoying domestic welfare and social programs in Western and European countries.   Eliminating oil trade will also cut off the income of their corrupt rulers and defund terror programs.  The same leftists who create this whole mess are also the ones that don’t want to drill domestically for oil to fix their own economies.  If these steps do not happen the rest of the West and Europe will continue to slide further down the immigration invasion spectrum to conditions of places like Sweden and England.  Muslims spread like cancer to other lands and these three steps are needed to remove the unnatural disease before it metastasizes.  Muslims must pull their weight in the world; reap the fruits of their own labor or lack thereof.  Step two puts their fate in their own hands, as it should naturally be.

There will be conflicts and infighting that follow, which is why the outside world can’t intervene, as is laid out in step three.  Even if there is a chance that muslims will make better societies for themselves, that will be a small sect and their herds need much culling.  The best possible result is them fighting for their own freedoms or way of sustainable life; the worst possible outcome is they will destroy themselves instead of the rest of humanity along with them.  This might all sound emotionally hard to accept, yet the reasoning is logically sound.  Europe and the West must start living in reality for their future generations, not idealistic fantasy.

Asian Dishonor vs muslim Shame: islam Has No Honor

Many articles explaining Shame Based societies vs Guilt Based societies are terribly misleading.  Grouping both Asian and Islamic cultures under the Shame Based title wrongfully conflates.  Misunderstanding the muslim mindset when looking at terminology leads to less overall clarity on both cultures, as opposed to bringing insight.

The misuse of words creates confusion as does the simplification of complex subjects – it is necessary to look at the concepts behind labels.  This is evident when comparing traditional Japanese culture to traditional/current (since it is pretty static) islamic culture.

The Japanese do not have a shame based mindset; they have an honor based mindset.  The muslims have a shame based mindset – islamic doctrine does not allow for conceptualizing honor.  The term “honor killing” in reference to islam is misleading because it is infact “shame killing”.  The muslims only have negative reinforcement for preventing against their version of shame, with nothing to reward honor.  Their understanding of honor lacks abstract thinking, to where it is synonymous with anti-shame; in reality islam has no honor code.

Islamic culture externalizes punishment for shame while Japanese culture internalizes responsibility for maintaining honor or regaining it when lost.  The Japanese promote honor based personal responsibility with positive reinforcement – the islamic system leads to egotistical abuse.  The islamic concept of “honor killing” should be renamed “shame murdering”, while traditional Japanese culture actually practiced honor killing.  The goal of the Japanese was to instill honor into their very being and have their life end in a glorious death.  The goal of islam has always been predatorial and abusive – they want their own to fail and have a shameful death.

The Japanese empowered the will of their people through inclusive conditioning; muslims want(ed) to impose expectations so they can feel powerful in punishing others.  The most power in the traditional Japanese mindset is be in oneself to be honorable, while muslims derive their power from punishing other’s shameful acts.

In the end, the categorization of Shame Based cultures needs to be broken into two divisions: Shame based and Dishonor based.


Feminist Apeasment of islam and Conversion: A Method to the Madness

What draws Westerners and Europeans to convert to Islam?

The surface level response: that women who convert to islam are desperate and/or naïve; that men who convert to islam just want to commit heinous acts and feel righteous about it.

To an extent these basic explanations apply, yet there is a deeper underlying sickness- conversion to islam is a reflection of the regression of Western and European civilization. After deeply contemplating this question, one can go a bit deeper into what the subconscious motives of converts might be and how they mirror the subversion of European traditional cultures.

Another related question that will be addressed is: Why does the feminist platform side with the left that appeases islam?

The lack of traditional values and natural order in Western and European societies creates a type of void, especially for women, and deeply frustrates men. Emotive reasoning is used to justify why feminism is needed and programs people to jump into trigger responses when this antagonistic dynamic between the sexes creates a chaotic environment. Post-modern society has targeted healthy forms of patriarchal influence to break up the family unit at the base, which compounds into the loss of communities and up into the loss of healthy societies. The two genders were meant to be complementary as opposed to competitive, and though many will not admit it (even to themselves for not losing face is valued higher than admitting and fixing fault, another ominous example of a crumbling society with no honor) people are hardwired to seek the harmony of natural order. In the West and Europe, males are constantly emasculated while women are pushed to lose touch with femininity as if it equates to weakness, this dynamic is solidified into being a norm by the media, public schools, politicians/legislation and social settings. The only form of patriarchy not attacked is rap/pop culture and that of perpetual victim groups like muslims, so the only forms of patriarchy left are the unhealthy versions, creating a cyclical cycle of apportioning blame in ways to compound the spiraling downward dynamic. A clear example of this is Sweden’s blaming its muslim rape epidemic on ‘patriarchy’ while censoring out the fact that the rapists are muslim, as to not be ‘racist’.

The fact that traditional cultures have been disintegrated now leaves the West and Europe with a shame based void filled by materialism and distorted multiculturalism instead of natural order. There are no healthy examples to follow, and most can not admit that this is the root of their frustration, if they are even able to see it. Those that are too brainwashed into saving face or too simple minded to understand the above concepts still attempt to find a way to quell this frustration, so they go from one end of the extreme to the other. Leftism is the flip side of the same regressed coin to those in the West and Europe that convert to islam, the destructive version of traditionalism.

It is a set up where the left is playing both sides.

The destruction of traditionalism and natural order pushes the youth into social settings that promote materialism, superficial interaction, and push meaningless promiscuity under the guise of brainwashing slutiness to mean freedom, while treating healthy traditional values and natural order as oppressive- promoting what is emotionally and spiritually destructive while blaming the void it creates on what is constructive. The single mothers and emotionally destroyed women created from this can feed into feminism, further blaming healthy patriarchy on the causes of its own push for “sexual freedom”. Those leftists who begin to resent the post-modern options or other shamed and disenfranchised youth with no healthy options will then look for the only traditional outlet they can find: islam.

There will be a direct correlation between areas deeply immersed in leftism and conversion to islam- European Union countries are starting to see this rise already, but this is just the beginning.

Many wonder why the feminist platform does not stand against islam. It is because their true intentions are to maintain an air of having the moral high ground, they are no different than any other perpetual victim group of the left. They are all about continually shifting blame instead of taking responsibility to create a better future- victimizing under the guise of moral superiority. It is no accident that leftists push emotive based humanistic reasoning to trigger the masses to only care about intentions, when they are clearly conflicting with bad outcomes- loss of societies healthy support structures leading to a least common denominator is the end game.

Leftists feel that as long as they are part of a perpetual victim labeled group then it somehow does not include them with the groups of their peers that they shame. It follows suit that leftists would see converting to islam as a good means to circumvent their frustrations of not having natural order, while constantly redirecting the moral obligations to face the problems created by the muslims they let into their countries, still redirecting blame. The further into islamic immigration invasion a country falls, the more leftists might convert out of fear of taking responsibility for what they caused and to continue blaming others by being part of the perpetual victim group, if they are not already part of another perpetual victim group or needing to fill a void of it. Leftists have no honor or ability to admit and fix faults, they lead European and Western civilization into a downward spiral.

The sole purpose of each perpetual victimization group is to grab power for the sake of domination alone, the left just ties them together for its own globalist end game of chaos in need of world authoritarianism. Feminism falls in perfectly with islam, it’s not senseless or contradictory like it seems. The fact that the left champions feminism and muslim “advocacy” at the same time proves that there is no logical method to the madness of their supporting masses other than the desire to blame. However, there is a clear agenda by those leading the masses since they mirror their masses by allowing intentions only to matter with no accountability. Places further regressed into leftism, that push feminism on the masses, sink deeper into the stages of the islamic immigration invasion and will have increasingly higher rates of conversion to islam: It is the design; a way for the masses to never face problems that they created with an inevitable end game of desired chaos in need of authoritarianism. The globalist trap is set up to be a cowards way out for their idealistic, spineless masses.


United Against islam

 People say that if they fight fire with fire then they’re no better than their muslim enemies; the logical flaws in that comparison is completely self destructive. If group A keeps putting out fires set to their homes by group B, then group A will continually be subjected to random victimization. If group A burns down the houses of group B with them inside of it, then group A will be safe. Does that make group A the same as group B? No. The reasoning is all the difference in the world. Group A is not trying to burn down the houses of group B at random. Group A is trying to prevent loss and death of their innocents, it is defensive, but there comes a time when the best defense is a good offense. Reactive measures can only be continued so many times until proactive measures are needed.

Infidels would be fine to live and let live, but living in constant fear of muslim aggressions and being called racist for any type of preventative measures is not acceptable or sustainable. No one can force muslims to coexist. To try to place the burden of their destructive ideology and culture on the host nations which they immigrate to is unjust.

The leftists keep trying to take the moral high-ground by twisting tolerance into appeasement so they can feel good about themselves while their own people are continually victimized. Allowing atrocities to continue because it isn’t ALL muslims committing them, is to say that infidels must sacrifice a percent of their people who are attacked continually in order to maintain a one sided peace.

The feelings of muslims are not worth infidel’s lives.

Muslims are part of a destructive ideology, and it is no one else’s responsibility to discern between moderates and radicals- certainly not at the cost of their innocent’s lives. This is not an ideal world, everyone must deal with harsh reality.

The Burmese are continuously trapped in conflicts with Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar, and since the Buddhists understand the above concept the world media oligopoly demonizes them for it. Buddhists would be fine to coexist, but they will not continually sacrifice their people to a delusional one sided peace. They care more for their culture’s continued existence and their own people regardless of the asinine, self destructive world opinion. The globalists point out how Muslims are the minority, as if that automatically makes them the victims or oppressed, which the muslims use to further push their propaganda.

Muslims use immigration as a covert invasion and they are not interested in coexisting with the Burmese. The Burmese will not sit by idly and let their culture be attacked or sacrifice even a small number of their people to the islamic invaders, but instead take a reactive stance to the overt islamic attacks on their monks, women and people in general. This is respectable; the Buddhists stances are not hateful by refusing to let their society become self destructive- they are loving for protecting their own people!

Self preservation of one’s culture, identity and future generations is what nationalism is all about, including the Burmese Buddhists and their 969 movement. Not only does the world demonize the Burmese for their fight back, it shames their healthy nationalistic movement of 969, the movement to keep the Burmese financially supporting their own people instead of their enemies. Muslims use financial means to make political campaign contributions in the new nation of Myanmar and also use wealth as a tool for love jihad in addition to other means of destroying the Burmese, so the Buddhists way of trying to prevent situations of violence is by economically pushing the muslims away from their communities.

Yet leftists still target 969 as something that is hateful; what they are saying is that self preservation of any kind is hateful.

Globalism calls loving one’s own enough to protect them a type of hate, when that is best for humanity as a whole! Look at the bigger picture, not individual disputes, and see that it is muslims who can’t coexist with others; they are a tool for the globalist agenda. The humanist mindset of some idealistic, yet impossible, world peace is also part of the political agenda of globalists. The leftists use of political correctness to place feelings of muslims above lives is strategic; multiculturalism is a tool for destroying host cultures. It is all feeding into the same end result of a chaotic world with no sense of identity, unity, community or bonds- a world that is in need of authoritarianism.

Islam is not a threat in and of itself but the globalist tools must be dropped, including the above mindsets, to prevent the immigration invasions of host countries. Preventative measures have not been allowed compounding over time in places like Sweden, which is in its last hour, reactive measures are inevitable. This situation must be looked at as a whole in that different groups can not all be in varying levels of reaction, singled out over details, but stand together to be proactive against islam. The details of each individual conflict can be bickered away at a million times over, but wherever muslims go, chaos and destruction follow.

All the individual conflicts with islam- from Greece to Israel to India to to Australia to the Burmese to Sweden to Russia to the United States to Nigeria to the Philippines to France- they are all the same conflict, a conflict which has been going on for over 1,400 years.

It is time to be proactive.