Aisha's Age and the church of Christ

Aisha’s Age and the church of Christ

1.1 Aisha’s Age at “Consummation” was nine years of age. This would make Mohammed a child molester. But before judging, let us see what the Islamic scriptures say.

TarikhTabari Vol VII, p.6ff “In this year also the Messenger of God consummated his marriage with A’ishah...He married her in Mecca three years before the Hijrah, after the death of Khadijah. At that time she was six or, according to other accounts, seven years old.”

Tarikh Tabari continues, quoting A’isha as saying, “my marriage was consummated when I was 9.”

Tarikh Tabari Vol. IX, p.131: “The Messenger of God consummated his marriage with me in my house when I was nine years old.”

Sahih Bhukari 5.58.234 and 236: “He married Aisha when she was a girl of six years of age, and he consummated that marriage when she was nine years old.”

Sahih Bhukari 7.62.64: “Narrated 'Aisha: that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old.”

Sahih Bhukari 7.62.65: “Narrated 'Aisha: that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old.”

Sahih Muslim 8.3309: “I was admitted to his house at the age of nine.”

Sahih Muslim 8.3311: “Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) married her when she was seven years old, and he (sic) was taken to his house as a bride when she was nine, and her dolls were with her; and when he (the Holy Prophet) died she was eighteen years old.” Typically, we do not find teenage girls, much less adults, playing with dolls.

Sahih Muslim 31.5981: “A'isha reported that she used to play with dolls in the presence of Allah's Messenger...” Little dolls, little girls.

Sunan Abu Dawud 2.2116: “The Apostle of Allah married me when I was seven years old." (The narrator Sulaiman said: "Or six years."). "He had intercourse with me when I was 9 years old.”

Sunan Abu Dawud 41.4915: “The Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) married me when I was seven or six. When we came to Medina, some women came. according to Bishr's version: Umm Ruman (Aisha’s mother, JEB) came to me when I was swinging. They took me, made me prepared and decorated me. I was then brought to the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him), and he took up cohabitation with me when I was nine.” Oh, how young women love to play on swings.

1.2 I could go on and on, but I am beginning to feel like a Christian, back in the church of Christ. I know some people will keep arguing, no matter how many Islamic scriptures I quote. They will hem and haw, try to make the scriptures say other than they do, or quote experts whose arguments are abstruse and specious.

1.3 Incidentally (I expect to hear “Onward Christian Soldiers” any time now), if not one of these scriptures means what it says, how can you trust other scriptures? If we change Aisha’s age, why not change Mohammed’s age also? What if Mohammed actually said the Jews were really fine people? or perhaps, Mohammed really heard not from Allah, but from Jehovah? The possibilities are endless, for those who bend the ruler to the fish.

1.4 The Islamic scriptures make Aisha’s age at marriage and “consummation" abundantly clear, and when they were written no one was shy of saying that Mohammed, their “ideal man” had sex with Aisha when she was nine years old. Mohammed molested a little girl. QED

1.5 If people do not want to believe the facts, I can do nothing. When people hide behind walls of ideology (trying to justify Mohammed), evidence and reason go begging in the streets.

“By their fruits you shall know them.”

1.6 In some Islamic nations, it is still common to marry little girls. The law in some nations obfuscates the age at which a man can “consummate” with a girl:

• Saudi Arabia: No sex outside marriage; there is no minimum age for marriage.
• Iran: No sex outside marriage; there is no minimum age for marriage.
• Yemen: No sex outside marriage; there is no minimum age for marriage.

In other Eastern nations, both Islamic and non-Islamic, there is either no minimum age for marriage, and girls are often married at the age of 6 or younger.

1.7 In any civilized nation, “consummation" of marriage to a child of nine would be judged as child molestation. The reality of child marriage is an assault on girls, yet somehow the feminists are silent as the grave. Shame on feminists who allow women in Muslim nations to be oppressed by barbarian men.

1.8 If one of those men tried to “consummate” with even a 15 year old in the US, he would go to prison for a long time. But in the days of Mohammed, child molesting was not only accepted, it was practiced by the Prophet (pbuh).

Islamic scriptures are from WikiIslam.

Introduction: Principles of Reasoning, and a Few Definitions

Introduction: Principles of Reasoning, and a Few Definitions

1.1 "There is no god above truth," Gandhi said. At the root of our problems, we find irrationality, ideology, and especially denial of the truth. If everyone practiced reason and science, instead of ideology, we would have a true civilization. If everyone in the world worshiped Althea, the goddess of truth, she would lead us into a new world, blessed with unity, peace, and freedom.

1.2 Reason versus Ideology: reasoning and science start with evidence, and arrive at a conclusion. Any new evidence must be examined, and if necessary, the conclusion must be changed. On the other hand, ideology, such as religion and political partyism, starts with a conclusion and either denies the evidence, or tries to bend it to the conclusion.

1.3 For instance, if you tell me that based on the overall evidence, men are physically stronger than women, and I say "but training is more important", or I go find a rare example of an Amazon woman, you could say that I am ignoring the data in favor of my ideology (feminism). However, if I look at the same evidence and say, "yes, men are stronger; if a woman and man are equally trained, the man will still be stronger, faster, etc", I would would be reasoning from evidence, and accepting the truth.

1.4 Ninety-Nine Black Marbles: if I gave you 100 marbles, and 99 of them were black, but one of them was white, what would be a logical conclusion? The statistical conclusion would be that 99% of the sample was black, while 1% was white. However, in plain reasoning, you could say that marbles are black, with the single white marble being an error or exception. If you said, "color does not matter; marbles can be either black or white", that would be irrational.

1.5 The Law of Heinous and Ridiculous Conclusions (LOHARC): if any idea necessarily leads to a heinous (inhumane, extremely unethical) or ridiculous (absurd, foolish) conclusion, then the idea is wrong. If I said to you, "Jews are evil, and are responsible for most of our problems", that would lead to the heinous conclusion that Jews should be eliminated. If I said, "Islam will dominate the world", that would mean everyone must be coerced to believe in Islam, with the implication that those who refuse should be eliminated. LOHARC

1.6 If I said to you, "Once a person is saved (justified by God through Jesus Christ), they cannot ever be lost (condemned)", that would lead to several ridiculous conclusions. Christians can sin without concern, cannot sin so far as to be lost; and since actions have nothing to do with salvation, cannot really know if they are saved. If your sins cannot condemn you, and you fall into sin, how do you know you were ever saved? Also, it would mean that a person cannot apostasize, as I have done. According to "once saved, always saved", I am still justified by Christ and headed for heaven - despite being agnostic. Or else, despite my previous devotion to Jesus, I was never really saved. What a mess! LOHARC

1.7 The Box of Snakes: If I gave you a box containing 10 snakes, and they all looked very similar, but one (10%) was deadly venomous, what would you do? It is your job to accept snakes, but to reject venomous ones. Would you (a) accept them all, and wait for one to bite? Or would you (b) examine all of them carefully, to extract the one venomous serpent? If you answered (b), you would be correct. You would have protected people from the venomous snake. You would also be guilty of "snake profiling".

1.8 "Inciting Violence": First of all, the violent are responsible for their violence; no one is responsible for what another person does (with the exception of mentally undeveloped people). If I said that women who dress in sexy clothes, are responsible if they get raped, I would be wrong. If I said that men who wear expensive suits and watches, are "asking to be robbed", I would be equally wrong. There are certain things we can do to make ourselves less appetizing to predators; but that in no way excuses the predator.

1.9 Secondly, if we forbid speech that "might incite violence", then the authors of the Declaration of Independence were the original "inciters". If the Founders' writings did not incite a war, then nothing I say in this book is responsible for inciting anyone. If you think the Founders did incite the Revolution, then you despise the freedom of America, and you are free to leave the country.

2.0 "Hate Speech": This politically- and emotionally-charged expression really means nothing. For instance, if I said, "The Old Testament God was a genocidal murderer", I would be mostly ignored. For all the times I have heard such things or seen them written, never once have they been labeled "hate speech". But if I said, "The Prophet Mohammed was a child molester", I would be verbally and possibly physically threatened for the crime of "hate speech". Therefore, if you see the truth as "hate speech", you may as well burn this book (if it belongs to you).

Why I am a Racist

1.1 First of all, the races of Homo sapiens are not the same; that is why they are called "races". Yet I find that races of humans

do not have subspecific names as organisms usually do; we are all

Homo sapiens sapiens

. It is almost as though subspecies or races did not exist, or as if we could wish them away. Nonetheless, we admit that in lower animals, subspecific differences in both appearance and behavior do exist.

1.2 Consider the well-documented case of Biston betularia, the peppered moth. Originally, peppered moths in were adapted to trees covered with lichen, on which the moths were well camouflaged. During the English Industrial Revolution (ca. 1750-1850), due to air pollution from burning coal, the lichen on trees died and the trees became much darker. By the mid-nineteenth century, the peppered moths had adapted into two subspecies: B. betularia typica and B. betularia carbonaria, distinguished by their overall color and habitat.

1.3 The original peppered moths, typica, had mottled coloration and preferred to rest on lichen-covered trees, whereas the newer carbonaria, were virtually black and preferred coal-blackened trees. As trees became increasingly dark, birds and other predators could easily see the typica moths, and their population declined. The population of carbonaria simultaneously increased, as they were much better camouflaged.

1.4 Later, about 1950, when clean-air legislation was adopted, coal burning sharply decreased. Lichens again grew on the trees, the moths adapted to this change, and the typica subspecies increased again. Thus, both the color and behavior (choice of trees), distinguished the moth subspecies.

1.5 If subspecies of moths are different, what about differences among races of humans? A few scientists have attempted to study these differences. Jean-Philippe Rushton did this, and published Race, Evolution, and Behavior in 1995. Working from the University of Western Ontario, Rushton studied what he considered significant variations in the three major races: African, Caucasian, and Asian (Mongoloid).

1.6 Now I am not concerned with Rushton's methods or his conclusions, but with the reaction to his study. While a few scientists and others supported him, the majority of people condemned his study and loudly called him "racist"or "white supremacist". Students protested against him and howled at him in the classroom. He was even investigated by Canadian police for the crime of "hate speech".

1.7 Rushton did indeed associate himself with white supremacists like the Pioneer Fund and former Ku Klux Klan member, David Duke. He said some things with which I certainly disagree. Whatever I think, Rushton's study found that average IQ scores of African, Caucasian, and Mongoloid races were 85, 100, and 106 respectively. Their law-abidingness (tendency to keep the peace) values were Low, Medium, and High, respectively. If Rushton were a true white supremacist, why did he find Mongoloids more intelligent and less criminal than Caucasians?

1.8 Apart from this flaming controversy, let us consider differences within a human family. My brother, my cousins and I are not exactly alike. We have different talents and inclinations, even different sexual orientations. Therefore, if people closely related to each other behave so differently, why would it not be possible that people of different races might behave differently? Why could there not be significant differences between me and a native of Kenya or of Korea? Does simply asking such a question brand me as a racist? If so, should we blindly deny that any differences exist?

1.9 If we deny that races of any organism are different, we may as well deny evolution by natural selection itself, since it is based on differential survival of races. The subtitle of Charles Darwin's Origin of Species is the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life. Does Darwin's discovery, which is the basis of modern biology, make him a racist? If so, biologists are all a pack of racists, and those who defend evolution against creationism are raving racists.

2.0 If someone who believes the races are different is a racist, then those who deny the preservation of favoured races are denialists. Denying evolution by natural selection of races is the same as denying the moon landings, the Holocaust, or that the globe is indeed warming. But of course, no one denies these things.

2.1 Moreover, if suggesting that the races differ makes me a racist, what if I say that men have more physical strength (not "brute" strength) than women? This is a simple truth. Of course women can train themselves to be strong, but a man equally trained would still be stronger. This is why in sports, men compete against men, and women against women.

2.3 If uttering the truth that men are naturally stronger makes me sexist, would saying that women are physically more flexible, make me a sexist also? The plain truth is, women naturally have more flexibility, and men more strength.

2.4 In recognition of this, the US Army has two physical fitness standards, one for males and another for females. As of 2011, the push-up standard (minimum to maximum) for men aged 17-21 is 42 to 71; the comparable expectation for women in that age group is 19 to 42. The 2-mile run standard for 17-21 year old men is 15:54 to 13:00 minutes; for women it is 18:84 to 15:36. Note that the maximum expectations for men are the same as or similar to the minimum expectations for women*.

2.5 I myself remember that in parachute school, men were expected to practice full, hanging pull-ups. Women, on the other hand, lay supine on the ground and did inclined pull-ups from a bar overhead. This is literally "lowering the bar".

2.7 Evidently the Army believes that women do not have the strength or cardiovascular fitness of men. The Army (unfairly) expects less fitness from women, even when they are doing the same job as men. I am sure there are "G.I. Janes" who can compete with men, but the majority of women simply cannot. Does it bother anyone that I say this? If speaking the truth about physical fitness differences between men and women bothers anyone, why?

2.8 Why do feminists have no trouble saying that men are much more prone to violence? This is true, and no one decries feminists for saying so. Does speaking the truth about men make feminists also sexists?

2.9 Since men really are prone to violence, I am surprised and concerned that more women do not carry firearms. In 2010, when I received my Florida licence to carry, only 18% of the licenses were issued to women. Why would women not have more licenses? Perhaps they are less prone to defend themselves at all, or they expect someone else will defend them, or else they believe there is no crime.

3.0 The reticence of women to carry firearms is strange, especially because guns are great empowering tools for women. A woman with a gun can overcome any thug. Just point and click, and the bad guy goes away.

3.1 Incidentally, while men are responsible for the vast majority of violence in this world, they are also responsible for the majority of music, art, literature, philosophy, science, technology, and medicine. Men also defend women against natural and man-made catastrophes. In fact, without the males' testosterone drive, females' wombs would be empty. There would be no babies and the human race would soon go extinct. It seems that "demonic males" are useful for something, after all.

3.2 Finally, after racism and sexism, there is now the vilification of "Islamophobes": those who dare to criticize militant Islam. For instance, Robert Spencer of the weblog Jihad Watch, has been decried as an Islamophobe and racist (despite that Islam is not a race). Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugs has also been called a racist, despite that she is Jewish. It seems that Islamophobia has become the new antisemitism, and Jews are now targets of polemical protests.

3.3 Some Jews, indeed, have jumped on the cramped Islamophobia bandwagon. They see no problem with Islam as a whole, and decry anyone who criticizes Islam in any way. These people need to be reminded of the Islamist threat, "Khybar, Khybar, ya Yahud, jaish Muhammad sa'yud!". This translates, "(Remember) Khybar, O Jews; the army of Muhammad is returning!"

3.4 It refers to the year 629, when Muhammad and his followers attacked the oasis of Khybar, a Jewish city. The Jews eventually surrendered to Muhammad, and were allowed to live in the oasis as dhimmis (second-class citizens), with the agreement that they give one-half of their produce to the Muslim invaders. After several years, the Jews were forcibly expelled by the caliph Umar.

3.5 When modern Islamists shout "Khybar, Khybar..." they are at once reminding the Jews of their former loss, and promising another such attack (perhaps on Israel). It is difficult to understand why any Jew would give aid and comfort to their sworn enemies. It is even more difficult to understand why one Jew would call another "Islamophobe".

3.6 In fact, the term "Islamophobia" is false. A phobia is an irrational fear of someone or something, as claustrophobia, the fear of small spaces. Fear of militant Islam is nothing irrational, unless we are foolish to fear bombings, shootings, gang rape, and the whole repulsive repertoire of Islamist atrocities. No rational person has a problem with Muslims, as such; the concern is with Islamists, their jihad and their shari'a law.

3.7 Now, if I claimed that the medieval Church was violent and prone to horrible human rights abuses, would anyone complain? Consider the strappado, the Judas' chair, the oral (or anal, or vaginal) pear, the breaking wheel, and many other torture devices. I prefer not to describe their use; the interested, or the morbid, can research them.

3.8 The Holy Roman Inquisition displayed infernal inventiveness, as well as eagerness to "mortify the flesh" of those who offended the Church. The burning of heretics, homosexuals and others, most especially women accused of witchcraft, reached such a height, or rather depth, that between the 16th and 17th centuries 200,000 people went up in agonizing flames. The Spanish Inquisition called this practice relaxado en persona. This sounds pleasant, rather like a spa treatment.

3.9 I could go much further, describing the forced concubinage of women by priests, their use of young boys as catamites, as well as the merciless wars and massacres perpetrated by the Church (Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant). Crimes committed under the aegis of the Church rivaled anything the Islamists have done. Now, having recounted this heinous Christian history, should I be called a "Christianophobe"? If I do ask questions about racial differences, should I be called a racist?

4.0 I must reiterate that the exact differences between races or genders or religions of humans, or what importance the differences might have, is not my point. My problem is that asking such questions causes an insensate reaction by the mainstream media, academics, and other uninformed sources. They rush with righteous indignation to vilify those who say anything they find "offensive". It seems that just discussing questions of race or religion is an offense against humanity.

4.1 If studying or teaching in ways that offend others makes me a racist, I freely and openly accept the charge. If speaking the truth about Islamism and its goal of world dominance makes me an Islamophobe, I accept the charge. Since other people have "come out of the closet", I will come out also. I am a racist! Beacuse I speak the truth, I am also an extremist, a sexist, and probably other "ists" as well. If free speech is a "hate crime", I plead guilty.

4.2 As a racist, I believe in freedom of speech, as well as religion and other self-expression, for everyone**. I do hold freedom of expression very dear, and will both practice and defend it.

4.3 By the way, I strongly support Congressman Allen West for President. Go West!


*However, the Army sit-up standards are the same for both sexes.
**Unless the speech physically threatens someone, as in "Slay those who insult Mohammed!"

The Priceless Fourteenth

1.1 In studying the United States Constitution, I recently was jolted by a clause in the middle of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment. The entire text reads as follows:

• Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. (Emphasis mine, JEB)

1.2 "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States". This means the rights of citizens, as enumerated in other amendments, may not be taken away or infringed upon by any state.

1.3. Since the States have a certain degree of sovereignty, and are not micromanaged by the Federal government, the Fourteenth Amendment was needed to protect citizens against local infringements of their fundamental rights. This is particularly true of the First Amendment and Second Amendment (1A and 2A) rights.

1.4 Before the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868, some states actually had official religions. For instance, the official religion of Massachusetts was the Congregational Church (1629-1833); the state religion of Virginia was Anglican/ Church of England (1606-1830).

1.5 Whether these state religions were actually imposed on the citizens is another matter. State governments preferred one religion over another, clearly against the intent of the establishment clause of the First Amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment thus protects citizens of every state against "establishment of religion", or "prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

1.6 Another right protected by the Fourteenth Amendment is the Second, "the right to keep and bear arms*". Even though the language of the original Second Amendment necessarily implies the right of citizens to own and carry firearms, states have been making all sorts of laws infringing on this right.

1.7 First, let us establish that the Second Amendment is indeed legally protected by the Fourteenth. In the cases of District of Columbia vs. Heller (2008) and McDonald vs. Chicago (2010), for instance, the Second Amendment was found to be "incorporated" in the Fourteenth. Incorporation of the Second in the Fourteenth means that every state must view the keeping and bearing of firearms as a fundamental right.

1.8 However, many states do not comply with this judgement, nor with the fundamental right to self-defense. Massachusetts requires a lengthy process to receive a gun ownership permit, and even more difficult process for a license to carry (LTC); the state even then places many restrictions on the owner of the firearm. The state of New York also makes is very difficult to own and carry a firearm. Such laws act as a virtual prohibition of firearms. By the Fourteenth Amendment, state laws against firearms are unconstitutional.

1.9 On the other hand, the states of Alaska and Vermont allow their citizens to own and carry firearms, without any registration or permit involved. These states agree with the Constitution, as well as common sense. I am pleased to say that even states once prohibitive of handgun ownership, such as Wisconsin and Illinois, are coming closer to compliance with the Constitutional. Their compliance is based on the incorporation of the Second into the Fourteenth Amendment.

2.0 It should be obvious that guns do not cause crime, any more than hammers cause houses or needles cause clothing. It should also be obvious that free speech, when it does not directly threaten a person's safety, does not cause any violence. Criminals cause crime; terrorists cause terrorism.

2.1 Recently, a Norwegian man, Anders Breivik, took it on himself to attack and kill over 65 people on the island of Utoya. The victims were not engaged in violence; their only crime was their political party. It seems that Breivik read many online news blogs, including those of conservative or anti-Islamization writers, and cited them as reasons for his attack.

2.2 In the wake of the killings, people of the very same political leanings which Breivik hated, began to claim that the anti-Islamization writers were somehow responsible for his rampage. The mainstream news media were full of language decrying "extremism", "Islamophobia", and especially "hate speech".

2.3 Let us set aside the fact that the online sources cited by Breivik, such as Jihad Watch's Robert Spencer and Atlas Shrugs' Pamela Geller, nowhere promote violence against Muslims or any others. Even speech that insults another person or group, as long as it does not directly promote violence against them, is solidly protected by the First Amendment.

2.5 There is really no such thing as "hate speech". First of all, this is mere political language. It smacks of Orwellian doublespeak, like the gratuitous use of "racist", and like it is obviously intended to suppress freedom of speech. Secondly, since US citizens do have freedom of speech per the First Amendment, any "hate speech" law is unconstitutional. Finally, if anything on Jihad Watch or other anti-Islamization weblogs could be considered "hate speech", then the same would be even more true of Islamic terrorist rants such as "Nuke Israel" or "Slaughter those who insult Mohammed".

2.6 There are rumblings of "hate speech" laws, just as there are rumblings of gun control. These are like distant thunder, warnings of a coming storm. A whole assemblage of special-interest groups like the Brady Campaign Against Gun Violence, and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), do not give a snit for the Constitutional rights guaranteed to all citizens. They simply want special rights or protections for their interests, and frequently sue in court to establish their irrational ideas as law.

2.7 A message for these people: Americans who do respect the US Constitution will not be suppressed or silenced by your unjust ideologies nor by your loud and arrogant words. We know our rights, and will defend them with the pen, with the word, or if necessary, with the sword.

*See "The Vital Right of Self-Defense"

Because They Took My Movie

1.1 Ignorance is the root of all evil. Whether it is war, poverty, crime, environmental degradation, or personal emotional trauma, ultimately evil arises from the lack, or denial of, reality.

1.2 The cure for evil is knowledge, and particularly science: drawing logical conclusions from the facts of nature. There is nothing, no problem of human making, and few problems of nature's making, that cannot be solved or at least ameliorated by reasoning and the application of science.

1.3 Reasoning leads to knowledge of truth. What is truth? It is the most reasonable conclusion from the available evidence. For example, let us say we have found several strata of rock. The lowest strata contain simple fossils, such as insects and mollusks; the middle strata also contain more complex forms such as reptiles and mammals; and the highest strata contain all of these, and human fossils and tools as well.

1.4 A reasonable conclusion from this evidence is that life forms evolved from simpler to more complex forms, and that perhaps humans evolved from them also. This happens to be the truth. It would be unreasonable, and false, to impose mythology on the evidence and say that lower animals sank to the bottom first in some great flood, while the humans sank last, or whatever. Even though the evidence and reason point elsewhere, some people do like to say such things.

1.5 I would like to see the movie Creation. This is a major motion picture about a very major subject, evolution[1]; it stars, among others, the lovely Jennifer Connelly; it has received good reviews in the UK and Canada.

1.6 But I cannot find Creation in the USA, except for Boston, NY, and LA. Everywhere else, all across America, the movie is unavailable. As I currently live in Florida, this movie is far away in more ways than one.

1.7 I suggested to the owners of two local independent theaters, that they should show Creation, but they cringed from the idea, saying the movie was "not mainstream". Admittedly, being a period piece, it could not show Jennifer Connelly in a swimsuit. But I suspect the real reason lies elsewhere.

1.8 Apparently the religiously correct would not stand to hear this information, this confrontation between their cherished beliefs and scientific evidence. Also, it appears that since 40% of Americans deny evolution in favor of the creation myth, Americans are willfully ignorant. Films like Creation could go a long way toward encouraging knowledge.

1.9 So, after everything else they have done in the name of religion (and the list is long and ugly), they had to take my movie. Because of all their insults to human intelligence, I am writing this this essay. I am writing as an antidote to the intellectual poisons of irrationality and ignorance: an inoculation against parasites of the mind.

2.0 Consider this publication an oasis of light, a spring of reason, where your mind may drink the clearest and purest water. I claim no special ability, nor do I have any advanced education. What I do have is an inexhaustible hunger for the truth: to know what really is.

2.1 Now if there is a better way to know the truth than through reason, or through the application of scientific method, I wish someone would show me. There may be a superior way to acquire knowledge of reality, than through the rational mind. If there exists any such thing as psychic or supernatural understanding, I am ready and willing to hear it.

2.2 In fact, if any religious or psychic person can demonstrate that what they believe or practice is true, I will become their most ardent believer. If they can show in my presence, and document, any sort of paranormal knowledge or ability, then I will serve them for life.

2.3 Others have offered money for proof of the paranormal or miraculous; I offer my life. If they cannot produce a miracle or other proof, I request that the miracle workers and psychics stop pretending. Or at least let me have my movie.

[1] Really, the film should have been titled Origin or Charles and Emma, or anything other than Creation. That word could be part of the problem.

What Religion Does to Children

1.1 On January 1, 2008, Yaser Said shot his daughters, Amina and Sarah, to death. He then escaped into dar-al-Islam, the world of Islam.

1.2 Apparently the girls were becoming "too Westernized". In particular, they were showing interest in non-Muslim boys. So their righteous Muslim father, who had abused them sexually already, decided to murder them. In Islamic circles, this is called "honor killing".

1.3 This is what religion, whether Islamic or Christian or Judaic or whatever, does to children. It circumcises them; it spanks them (which as a Christian I also did [1]); it teaches them primitive myths as absolute truth, and warns of terrible punishment if the children do not believe; finally it teaches them to prefer faith over science and reason. It makes them gullible incompetents, unprepared to succeed in secular society. Sometimes, as with the Said sisters, it even kills them outright.

1.4 Concerning spanking, or striking with the "rod of correction": in what other situation do we in civilized society allow a larger person to hit a smaller and weaker person? It appears that spanking enjoys special protection.

1.5 Indeed, the list of religion's self-justified crimes against children is almost endless. What then is the positive value of religion for children? It can and sometimes does teach compassion and caring for the poor and sick, but these values can be taught more clearly without God in the way.

1.6 Anything religion can positively do for children, for example establishing a sense of kindness to others, can better be done by humanistic teaching. Humanism is centered on human rights, not the righteousness of a supposed God.

1.7 I repeat that there is nothing religion can do to help children, that cannot better be done by humanistic teaching. Given that religion exposes children to hideous abuses, even causing their deaths, it becomes apparent that religion is very often nothing more than sanctified child abuse.

[1] The Bible does teach the use of "the rod of correction" on children in the following verses:

• Pr 13:24 He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes.
• Pr 22:15 Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him.
• Pr 23:13 Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die.
• Pr 23:14 Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell.
• Pr 29:15 The rod and reproof give wisdom: but a child left to himself bringeth his mother to shame.

Can you deny that the Bible teaches spanking, or more accurately, striking with a rod? If you say that all these Proverbs are figurative, or only in the Old Testament, then read is this one:

• Heb 12:6-10 ⁶For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.

  ⁷If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?

  ⁸But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.

  ⁹Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?

  ¹⁰For they verily for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure; but he for our profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness.

If anyone still doubts that the Bible teaches "scourging" or spanking of children, they are simply immune to the evidence. As a Christian, I not only spanked my children, but if the Bible, the Word of God, had clearly said to kill them, I would have done so. Therefore when Islamists fly airplanes into buildings, I understand: they are obeying the Qur'an, the Word of their God.

White Pride

1.1 In the USA currently, we have Black Pride, Gay Pride, and various movements for other groups, all seeking to raise the self-esteem of their members, and to empower them. And this is good.

1.2 We should encourage people of all races, creeds, and orientations to associate freely, assemble peacefully, and speak their minds. All of this is guaranteed by the US Constitution, and we should applaud these Pride groups for their ambition, as well as their obedience to the Constitution. I wish them all the best.

1.3 One thing does seem to be glaringly absent, however: any movement for what I will call White Pride. While every other group is allowed to call attention to its values or accomplishments, white people are either not interested, or not permitted, to do so [1]. Therefore, in this essay, I mean to raise consciousness of the value and accomplishments of white (or Euro-American) people.

1.4 Do not misquote me. I am not promoting any silly or seditious groups of supremacists. I am not speaking of any anti-whomever movement. It is not necessary anyway to demean others, in order to praise the many achievements of Euro-American peoples.

1.5 Let us right now dispose of the most common criticisms of White Pride. First of all, the idea that White Pride must mean supremacism: there is no necessary association with the Neo-Nazis or anyone else. Just as Americans can be proud without demeaning other nations, so white people can be proud without denigrating other ethnic groups.

1.6 The more devious objection is that White Pride is not equivalent to, for instance, Black Pride, because white people are not oppressed as blacks have been. However, if this is true, then Asians and others must not form Pride groups, because they are not currently oppressed. Or do the ideologues who object this way, think that white people have never been oppressed? Criticism of White Pride, as such, is not valid reasoning; in fact, arguments which single out white people are themselves prejudicial.

1.7 Having put prejudice aside, we find that historically, Euro-American people have done uncountable good things. Of course, they have certainly done evil in many cases; but that can be said of other ethnic groups also.

1.8 Consider the benefits brought by white people to the whole world. They have invented, created, composed, discovered, realized, written, and built a tremendous part of the knowledge and culture, through which all people have been blessed. White people have built hospitals, provided food, inoculated against disease, and educated untold millions. Of these accomplishments they have a right to be very proud.

1.9 Specifically, Euro-Americans are responsible for the discovery of evolution, the invention of devices such as the printing press, the light bulb, the refrigerator, the railroad train, the cures for smallpox and many other diseases, modern hygiene, and of course the computer and Internet. The United States Constitution is the product of Euro-American thought. There is not enough space here to list the beneficent, labor-saving and sometimes life-saving inventions of white people. White Pride is an extremely valid concept.

2.0 Thus I find it strange that there is not yet an established movement, celebrating the accomplishments of the Euro-American peoples. Perhaps indeed they are afraid of that deadly, silencing slur, "racist". Perhaps they just do not care about their heritage. If so, it is a shame.

2.1 It even seems that the white peoples of the world do not care if they go extinct. Of the entire world population in 1914, 32% was white. That figure is now 18%; moreover, the global birthrate per white woman is approximately 1.4 , far below the replacement level of 2.1. This is less than the birthrate of any other group. For instance, Mexicans in the US have a birthrate of 2.9 children per woman. By 2042, white people will be a minority in America. All over the world, Euro-Americans are becoming an endangered ethnic group.

2.2 In fact, if white people were any other kind of animal, environmentalists would be alarmed and would fight for their protection. However, the real shame is that Euro-Americans themselves are more concerned with la dolce vita and multicultural delusions, than preserving their own race [2].

2.3 There is really no word for what Euro-American peoples are doing to themselves; perhaps it could be called geno-suicide. If the white race does become extinct, it will be their own fault. Their lack of fertility, and shame-faced ideology, will have been their destruction.

2.4 There is no reason to be ashamed of white skin! any more than one should be ashamed of black or brown skin, or homosexual orientation, or Jewish ethnicity. Incidentally, one more group that deserves praise, and rarely gets it, is the Jews.

2.5 I have had opportunity a local hospital, built and funded entirely by Jews. These are the most philanthropic people imaginable. Also, Jewish scientists, doctors, and others have earned a very large proportion of Nobel prizes, compared to their population. Jews are benefactors of the whole world.

2.6 In short, people of all ethnic groups have qualities of which they can be proud. On behalf of white, Euro-American people, I am proud of our culture and accomplishments. We have a right to stand up for our values and traditions. We have a right to White Pride.

[1] See Broken English, Broken Nation

[2] See Why I am a Racist

Harry Potter is Inerrant

1.1 In recent surveys, 40% of my fellow Americans believe that the Earth was created less than 10,000 years ago. Thus they believe that God created Earth at least 100,000 years after humans began using fire, but never mind scientific facts for the moment.

1.2 That American Christians cling to literal creationism is understandable, since the Bible does teach creation as if it were history. This view of the Scriptures requires an absolute trust in the text itself. It requires what is called "Biblical inerrancy". According to Biblical inerrancy, the Bible is internally consistent, as well as consonant with external reality: and this is necessary in order to accept it as God's Word. If it had discrepancies, which could not be explained away, the Bible could not be God's Word.

1.3 As a Christian, I hid the following discrepancy for many years. Somehow I managed to believe and act faithfully to the Bible as the Word of God, while knowing that the following (and other) contradictions existed within it. I realize now that I should have brought out these verses to my fellow Christians, in the interest of honesty. I really should have "repented" and told the truth. Yet I remained silent.

1.4 Now as an agnostic, I feel the need to expose this particular discrepancy to the public eye. My apologies to Bible believers for the following disclosure, but even as Jesus says, "the truth shall set you free". John 8.31.

1.5 Let me assume that the Bible must indeed be totally inerrant. For this study I will use the King James, since it is still is a very popular version. Other versions show the same.

1.6 Our question is, When did Jesus call his first disciples?

Matthew

4.12 John was cast into prison

4.18 Jesus...called Peter and Andrew, his brother

Mark

1.14 John was put in prison

1.16 he saw Simon and Andrew

Luke

3.20-21 John baptized Jesus, then was put in prison -summary by JB.

5.3 Jesus said to Simon, Fear not; from henceforth thou shalt catch men

John

1.35 John stood, and two of his disciples

1.37 the two disciples...followed Jesus

3.24 John was not yet cast into prison

1.6 So according to the three synoptic gospels, John the Baptist was put in prison, and later Jesus called Simon and Andrew. But according to John's gospel, John the Baptist was "not yet cast into prison" when Jesus called Simon et al. In fact, they were the Baptist's disciples; he was right there!

1.7 Did Jesus call his disciples before, or after John the Baptist was put in prison? A few people have attempted to resolve this contradiction, but their apologetics are far-fetched and specious.

Most Christians apparently have not noticed it, or perhaps they do not recognize it for what it is: an irremediable contradiction in God's Word.

1.8 Christians can do with this information what they wish. I am sure someone will produce an "explanation", to set the Bible back in order, to preserve belief in its inerrancy. When a Christian, I tried to do the same. Yet although I could not answer when Jesus called his disciples, somehow I continued believing, and concealing especially this contradiction.

2.0 Then there are Christians who wave their hands over the Bible, and say that the "spirit is more than the letter", or some such. If this is so, what parts of the Bible must be believable, just as they are read? If creation is not literal, and if there is no certainty when Jesus called his disciples, why believe in a literal Jesus at all?

2.1 Would it not be simpler, as well as more honest in the light of reason, to reject the Bible as the Word of God? But then one might begin to question Christianity itself.

2.2 Now I do not read the Bible much anymore, but I have read secular books such as Harry Potter. Strangely, when compared to the Bible, and the Book of Mormon, and probably the Qur'an as well, Harry Potter has no internal contradictions.

2.3 In the apparent absence of contradictions, and since it does not pretend to be history, but is content to be fictional, I find Harry Potter much more inerrant than any holy books. Too bad it does not tell me how to live, or I would become a great wizard.

The Evolution of Religion

1.1 Today we see, in the news weblogs, and occasionally in the mainstream media, accounts of Islamic people attacking one another, as well as Hindus and others. Islamists are especially aggressive against the Western nations, such as Sweden, Australia, and America.

1.2 It is no use pretending that these attacks arise from anger over poverty or Western presence in Islamic nations. Muslims of one sect viciously attack Muslims of other sects as well; it seems that Islam is inherently militant. I am not really concerned with what the Qur'an says here; I believe in "judging them by their fruits". In other words, rather than wrangle over texts, I look at the behavior of past and present Islamic movements.

1.3 I find that Islam (when not busy persecuting its own heretics) has always sought to expand, often by military force or sheer genocide, to conquer the Kafir, the infidels. I see in the daily news blogs, the same behavior all over the world to this very day: Islamic jihad groups named MILF and BIFF are fighting with each other over control of the Philippine Islands. In light of the endless stream of bloody attacks on each other and the world, I conclude that Islam is inherently violent.

1.4 In fact, Islam behaves similarly to the medieval Christian church. There are persecution, torture, burning, sexual molestation, holy wars, and abuses of all kinds, all in the name of religion. Again concerning Christianity, during the 16th century, Protestantism gained power and Protestants persecuted Catholics. It really does not matter what the Bible says; people bent the Scriptures to their needs.

1.5 Yet strangely, modern Christians do not persecute anyone, at least en masse. Christianity has changed since the Middle Ages. For instance, whereas once homosexuals were burned at the stake, now many churches are accepting homosexuals, even in leadership positions. While the church defended slavery as late as the 1850's, now Christians everywhere are against slavery and racism in general. While women were once considered silly and inferior to men, now many churches are led by women. These changes are evidence of a phenomenon I have come to call the evolution of religion.

1.6 According to this theory, a religion's historical and cultural development (I speak especially of Judaism, Christianity and Islam), shows a slow but continual adaptation to the factual evidence of science, and to the needs of human beings, over the commands of a god. Religions thus adapt to cultural changes. The religious sects which fail to adapt, become marginalized and gradually go extinct.

1.7 The general pattern of religious evolution is as follows:

1. Authoritarianism: there is one God, the Bible is the only truth, rule by Shari'a law, etc.
2. Sectarianism: the members of the religion begin to quarrel over doctrinal and other issues, and to divide into mutually-exclusive denominations.
3. Ecumenism: the sects begin to engage in friendly discourse with one another and even "inter-faith dialogue" with essentially different religions.
4. Humanism: the members of religion "reinterpret" their standards, such as the Bible or the Qur'an, to agree with science and social progress. They increasingly choose human needs over supposedly divine laws.

1.8 As an example, consider Judaism. In the Old Testament, the Israelites were commanded by their God to wage genocidal wars against the endemic peoples of Canaan. They often killed, not only men and women, but also children. In one text, they are allowed to "keep for yourselves the young maidens, who have not known a man".

1.9 Mosaic law also stated that if a woman, in order to defend her husband, grasped the genitals of his assailant, her hand must be cut off, "without mercy". In the Old Testament there are commands to execute people for any number of crimes and offenses against the law of God. Thankfully, the Jews of today do not obey these laws, and would repudiate anyone who did. Judaism has become almost entirely humanistic.

2.0 In the time of Jesus, it had its sects of Pharisees and Sadducees, and still has conservative Chasids and others. But by and large, Judaism has completed its evolution.

2.1 Jewish humanism has produced wonderful results. Jews build hospitals, engage in numerous humanitarian efforts, and have earned an impressive collection of Nobel prizes, especially in the fields of science and medicine. If similar results can be expected with other world religions, we should work for their humanization as well.

2.2 Christianity is beginning to show a similar adaptation toward a more humanistic ideology. As I mentioned in 1.5, even homosexuality is becoming more widely accepted. How Christians bend the Bible to accommodate such things is another story*; the amazing fact is that between 1970 and 2010, the main body of Christianity has gone from demonizing homosexuals to accepting and even ordaining them.

2.3 The Episcopal Church, after much struggle, has ordained at least one openly homosexual bishop. In fact, there is an evangelical pastor, Mark Tidd of the Highlands Church in Colorado, who welcomes homosexuals, saying "gay or straight here, there's no hate here". Of course many denominations do not yet accept homosexuals. I suppose some even have women wearing veils (as Paul says in 1 Cor 11.1-6). However, overall, the trend is clear: Christianity is becoming humanized.

2.4 There is still strong resistance to reason and science, especially here in the United States. Conservative Christian churches have been demanding that the biblical story of God's creation of life be taught as biological history in public schools. A fierce struggle has arisen between faith in an ancient myth, and the discoveries of science. To this day there are endless debates, books, sermons, and even motion pictures on the subject.

2.5 The most famous debate on the subject, to date, occurred during the Scopes "Monkey" Trial. In 1925, high school biology teacher John Thomas Scopes was accused of teaching evolution, contrary to Tennessee's Butler Act. Officially, the resulting case was called Tennessee versus Scopes. However, due to the evolutionary assertion that humans have arisen from apes (not monkeys), people soon started calling it the Scopes Monkey Trial.

2.6 Scopes was a more-than willing defendant. In fact, he was responding to a request from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) for someone to challenge the anti-evolution law. He was defended by attorneys including Clarence Darrow, an agnostic. The State of Tennessee was represented by several attorneys, most notably Williams Jennings Bryan, a devout Presbyterian. Both sides called in expert witnesses, from scientific and biblical fields. The case soon became a cause celebre, and people all over America listened and debated the merits of evolution versus creation.

2.7 The court in Dayton, Tennessee eventually found Scopes guilty, but later reversed its verdict on a technicality. The winning of the court case proved a Pyrrhic victory, however. During the trial, Darrow and the defense team demolished the prosecution's arguments. Bryan in particular was embarrassed by questions from Darrow concerning the Bible's reliability.

2.8 In the end, the case dealt a strong blow against the belief that biblical creationism could compare with rational science. The Scopes trial brought the scientific and religious communities of the US into direct conflict as never before. This conflict still rages, 86 years later. I was surprised to discover that still 40% of Americans believe in some form of literal creationism; this is far more than in any other developed nation. Despite Scopes, and innumerable debates and books on the subject, four out of ten of my fellow citizens prefer a Bronze Age myth to modern science.

2.9 However, there are now many denominations who have adapted their beliefs to include the science of evolution. They use strategies such as the "Day-Age" theory, which posits that the biblical six days of creation were really six ages of indeterminate length. Other Christians simply say, "my God caused evolution". Thus they manage to meld belief in the Bible with acceptance of scientific truth.

3.0 There are obvious problems with this thinking. If the days were ages, then God created the plants an age before he created the sun; and if he causes evolution, then God makes mostly mistakes. Despite that biblical characters such as Jesus and the apostle Paul speak of Adam and Eve as historical, not mythical people, many Christians are holding to the Bible while accepting evolution, by adapting their belief system. This is a very hopeful sign of progress.

3.1 Thus the evolution of Christianity follows this historical pattern:

• Authoritarianism: circa AD 100- 1500
• Sectarianism: 1500- circa 1900
• Ecumenism: 1900-circa 2000
• Humanism: circa 1950-date (2011)

3.2 The one religion most resistant to change, is Islam. The Prophet Mohammed began teaching his ideology circa AD 630, but Islam's essential values and practices have not changed since the Middle Ages. Islam seems to be stuck in the middle of an Authoritarian-Sectarian stage. There are thus Shi'ites and Sunnis and others, but they are all authoritarian. The Qur'an is not yet questioned or "reinterpreted" as in Christianity; it is still considered the inerrant and binding word of Allah.

3.3 Islamic resistance to change can perhaps be explained by the inherently belligerent, indeed militant, character of its central text, the Qur'an, and the literal hermeneutic with which large numbers of Muslims read the text. Also, the the Bible has its Old and New Testaments. Whereas the Old Testament is centered on holiness and law, the New Testament's message is focused on grace and forgiveness.

3.4 The Qur'an has no such teachings, at least not as it has been read by most Muslims. If it did, where are the hospitals built with Muslim money and open to all people? Where are any Muslim humanitarian efforts at all? Why is it that all we get from Islamic people is hatred and terrorism?

3.5 We cannot pretend that Islamic atrocities are common to other groups; I have yet to see a Hindu or a Jew blow up a building, or a Christian group engage in any form of terrorism. Honor killing is most definitely not "domestic violence"; it is systematic religious violence against women.

3.6 There are isolated instances of someone like Anders Breivik or Timothy McVeigh, but they are separated by years or decades, and tend to be the work of individuals or small groups. In fact, as some say, "all religions can be violent": granted, they can. Violence and oppression can be done in the name of practically any ideology, but they are a specialty of Islam.

3.7 Let us compare religions in terms of terrorism. On the one hand, count the religiously-motivated terrorist acts by all non-Islamic groups, over the past twelve months; and on the other hand, the Islamic terrorist attacks during that time period. It will quickly become apparent that comparing the terrorism of other ideologies to Islam is like comparing a poodle to a pack of hyenas.

3.8 However, even in Islam, there are some hopeful signs. There is an increasing number of reformers, who contend that Islam must adapt to the modern world. Granted that these brave men and women may be in the minority, compared to the Islamists; however, they are a beginning.

3.9 The Critical Thinkers for Islamic Reform, Muslims for Progressive Values (whose chairperson is an unveiled woman), and the Ahmadiyya are only a few of the voices of nonviolent, progressive Islam. Of course, the Islamists often reject these forward-thinking people as apostates. But that depends on how one reads the Qur'an. The progressive Muslims read it very differently from the Islamists.

4.0 As I have said of the Bible, religious texts can become very flexible. Indeed flexibility, or adaptability, is necessary if any religion is to survive the selective pressure of the social and scientific environment. Therefore, like other religions, Islam will ultimately "reinterpret" its texts and adapt to humanism: or else it will become extinct. Ultimately, all religions will reinterpret their beliefs to reflect the needs of humanity, and this should give us hope.

*See "Westboro Baptists-True Christians"

Where are the Men?

1.1 In AD 732, at the Battle of Poitiers, the Frankish king Charles Martel defeated the Saracens. He pushed the Islamist forces back to the Iberian Peninsula. It was not until 1492 that the Islamists were completely expelled from Europe, but for the next 700 years the pestilence of Islamism was contained in Spain and Portugal. Thus the heart of Europe was spared.

1.2 Charles Martel had a comrade-in-arms named Ogier le Danois. His name translated to Holger the Dane, or in the original language, Holger Danske. Although Holger Danske was an historical personage, little is known about him, and most of what has been written is partially legend.

1.3 According to the chronicles of his life, Holger had battled against the Franks when they invaded Danish territory. But in 732, the menace of the Moorish hordes made him put aside his differences with Charles Martel, and engage with him in fighting their common enemy.

1.4 As he neared the end of his days, Holger Danske retired to a secluded castle keep. There he fell into a twilight sleep, from which he would awaken in the hour of his country's need. The time has come for him to arise. Holger Danske Vagner.

1.5 But where is the spirit of Holger Danske now, in reality? If his spirit does not reside in the

men of Denmark, then where is Danish manhood?

1.6 In Oslo, the capitol of Norway, Islamists ("immigrants") commit 100% of rapes; over the entire country, 65% of rapes are committed by these thugs. Many of the assaults are gang rapes, sometimes of girls as young as 14. In Sweden, 85% of rapes are committed by immigrants or their offspring.

1.7 In Denmark, the home of Holger Danske, the same thugs commit over 60% of the rapes. This is even more disturbing when we consider that the percentage of immigrants and their offspring is about 3 to 5% in these nations. Clearly, Islamists are targeting European women with a vengeance. Where is our vengeance? Where are Scandinavian men? Are any of you angry yet?

1.8 The same infuriating story repeats itself in the Netherlands, in France, in the United Kingdom, and elsewhere in Europe. In France, gang rapes have become so common that they have a nickname: tournante, or "taking turns". In the UK, "Asian" gangs methodically seduce girls as young as 11, rape them, and then force them into prostitution.

1.9 As far away as Australia, Islamist gangs attack non-Muslim women. The attackers excuse themselves by saying that infidel women are whores, sexual toilet paper, to be used and discarded. It is time these thugs themselves were discarded. Once again, where are the male protectors?

2.0 In the United States, this ugly pattern of Islamist brutality is starting to repeat itself. Somali gangs in Minnesota have begun abducting young women and prostituting them, or even selling them as sex slaves. If Europe is any guide, the gang rapes will soon begin in the "land of the free".

2.1 In addition to attacks on Western women, Islamists oppress their own women in every possible way: through intimidation, beating, genital mutilation, rape, and the perpetual place of second-class citizens. In the Qur'an it is written, "your wife is your tilth..." Muslim women are pieces of property to be "tilled" by men. But even they are better in the eyes of Islamists than Western women. Infidel women do not show proper veiled submissiveness to men. Therefore they are the fairest of game.

2.2 Not only rapes, but robberies, assaults, and other crimes are committed by what the multiculturalists keep calling "immigrants". Anyone who speaks against this assault on Western civilization is branded a "racist". I do not care if anyone calls me a racist; if speaking the truth makes me a racist, then so I am [1]. I will continue to speak the truth until my last breath.

2.3 Now hiding underneath all this violence and disorder, is the monster of multiculturalism. The idea that all cultures are equivalent, that Euro-American culture is no better than any other, and that we should adjust to others' values, would be ridiculous if it were not so venomous.

2.4 Of course Western civilization is better; that is why immigrants come here (except those who want to impose their backward ways on us). We have, and must retain, freedom of speech and of religion, the right to say something "offensive" without fear. We have the right to say "Mohammed molested a 9 year-old girl", and not be persecuted for the truth.

2.5 Speaking the truth does not "incite violence"; thugs incite themselves to violence, and deserve what they get. But here again, the men of the West must wake up, rise up, and stand against the enemy. This is our place, our duty as men, and if we ignore it, we have only ourselves to blame for the assault on our liberties, our culture, and our women.

2.8 The moronic myth that all cultures are equally valid, has finally been rejected by the President of France Nicholas Sarkozy; German Chancellor Angela Merkel; Spain's ex-Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar; Australia's ex-Prime Minister John Howard; and most recently, by British Prime Minister David Cameron. These world leaders all agree: multiculturalism has failed.

2.9 With what shall we replace it? I suggest that we establish a society based on the right to free expression, including freedom of religion, of speech, of the press, and of peaceful assembly for demonstration or protest. There are certainly many other rights after this, but the most immediately necessary is the right to self-defense, which includes keeping and bearing arms. Without free expression and self-defense, there can be no freedom at all. But I digress.

3.0 These people, who refuse to assimilate but rather want us to be assimilated, are no more than thugs. It does not matter what religion they profess, or whether they feel oppressed, or what any of the multicultural elite say: they are nothing more than thugs. We as men must oppose them.

3.1 The original Thugs were an Indian secret society that murdered and robbed people in caravans. They were devotees of the goddess Kali, and believed (contrary to other Indians) that she required human sacrifice. They terrorized the desert roads until the British, in the early 1830's, discovered and eradicated the Thugee cult.

3.2 Today, we again have thugs infesting our society. Often, as in olden times, they practice their crimes in the name of religion. All too often, they insinuate themselves among us, seeming to be friends. They then commit atrocities, which even the original Thugs did not.

3.3 However the real problem is not Islamists or any other thugs. The problem is us: men who have forgotten, or even denied, that one of our basic purposes is to kill predators, especially those who attack our families. Today our family is the entire civilized world, and the predators are among us.

3.4 We men are designed to deal with predators. We have approximately ten times as much testosterone as women; we are much larger and stronger than they are. And as the feminists keep reminding us, we are much more inclined to violence. We have the flesh, but where is our spirit?

3.5 Where, indeed, is Western manhood? When Scandinavian women have to dye their hair, or even put on veils, to avoid assault by immigrants, where are we? When everyone is afraid to walk the streets after dark, where are we? When Muslim women in our nations are killed by their own fathers for the sake of "honor", where are we? When thugs of all persuasions and perversions, run the streets with no fear of the police and no respect for civilized people, how can we claim to be men at all?

3.6 In the US, there are almost 300,000,000 firearms in private hands. This is far more than the number of adults in the country. We have the steel, but do we have the will? A man with a gun is useless unless he is willing and able to use the weapon. Otherwise the firearm, and the man, both gather dust.

3.7 Guns are not the ultimate weapons, anyway; manly courage and determination have far more power. Yet in the Western nations, I see wimpy, panty-whipped men, afraid to stop the barbarian hordes, or even speak against them, because they are afraid of...what? the multicultural ideologues? ostracism by ignorant sycophants? what women will say? Such men have lost their manhood. Perhaps they should check if it is really there.

3.8 Perhaps, indeed, Western men need a drop of Eastern blood. Whatever we may say about the Islamists, they are not afraid or ashamed of their manhood. They are devoted to their culture, strong in their beliefs, tough in combat, and willing to run into the battle.

3.9 The West needs men willing to run into the battle, to be "offensive", willing to take whatever the enemies of freedom throw at us. The future of our families, of our nations, and of civilization depends on us. Holger Danske Vagner!

Notes:

[1] See Why I am a Racist