Thursday, October 30, 2008

Asatru-believers wants to go to war in Afghanistan

Something is running deep in the veins of the Danes from their great ancestors and even a thousand years of Christianity haven't succeeded in suppressing their true values.

Outside Scandinavia most people do not know what Asatru is or their values so a quick explanation is needed to know what an Asatru believer is - He is one who believes in the old Norse deities as did the Vikings, Asatru is not a religion in the sense as we know it from monotheistic religions but a way of life and spirit and a set of values of some can be found in the Havamal.
Here are some of the stanzas to get an idea of the Havamal wisdom:

Drunk I got, dead drunk,
When Fjalar the wise was with me:
Best is the banquet one looks back on after,
And remembers all that happened.

Silence becomes the Son of a prince,
To be silent but brave in battle:
It befits a man to be merry and glad
Until the day of his death.

The coward believes he will live forever
If he holds back in the battle,
But in old age he shall have no peace
Though spears have spared his limbs.

Grolheim lays out a contemporary interpretation of the Asatru values which is a quick and interesting read for those interested - Here is the essence though:
It is better to die standing than to live on one's knees!
Dignity was very important to our forefathers. It was better to die in battle than to become a thrall of somebody else.
Asatru has been growing in Denmark and I suppose in other Scandinavian countries too, in my personal opinion I think it is a result of this cultural war we are going through these days and people are sort of going back to their roots in search of a common identity and the Vikings as well as the Norse mythology still plays strongly on the Nordic psyche, it has always been something which fascinated kids as well as adults, there is nothing surprising in that Asatru believers are joining the army and it is delightful that they are growing in numbers, personally I have always been fascinated by the Norse mythology which of course is not unique being a Dane and I (being an atheits) surely would become an Asatru if ever I had to chose a 'religion' - That it stands for complete freedom of mind and soul as well as courage and honor makes it easy and after all without a doubt our culture and heritage is worth fighting for whoever we are and worthy to desire.

Then there is the desire to 'go get them' who burned our flags and embassies back in 2006, it was something which was beyond our imagination, the feeling I get is that the vast majority of ordinary people are proud of the army to some point, on top of that more than half the soldiers who have gone abroad are signing up for second duties and that is inspite of the Danes have got the highest casualty rates of all the coalition forces in Afghanistan.
This clip from the TV2 News shows the fighting spirit of the Danes in the Helmand province where a journalist is with them on patrol and they get under attack in a fire fight with the Talibans, their happiness is difficult for them to contain, the whole clip is uplifting and makes you feel good - Their strategy is to kill as many Talibans as possible.

4 days ago the Danes provoked the Taliban to attack them after they had raided the Taliban head quarters in a village by raising the Danish flag in the captured head quarters and just waited - Between 30 to 50 Taliban was sent to their heaven as a result - The rules of engagement in ISAF is not to attack so they have to be inventive and illustrated what the commander said "Our goal is to cleanse the area from the Taliban, that is why we are provoking them so they stick out from the civilians"

Its a beautiful story and I am confident no harm was done to the flag.

Unfortunately Denmark is a small country but with a rare spirit these days and there is no way they are not going to fight all the way and die standing.
Contrary to most other countries the Danes have not given one inch to any pressure and which is illustrated in the opening speech of parliament the Danish PM gave a few weeks ago - Denmark calls for fight for freedom - The Danes have been heading the other way, no dhimmitude to speak off apart from a frustrated left and their jihadist pets:

"Denmark is working for the EU to step up its fight for the right to basic freedoms, which are universal and inviolable," Rasmussen told the opening of the 2008-9 parliamentary session in Copenhagen.

Europe should stand together with "the other free democracies of the world in the global defence of these rights," he said, adding that "the freedom of expression is the most important of all freedoms. Freedom to speak, write and draw what one thinks is democracy's vital nerve."

That freedom is "under pressure. We saw that in the affair of the cartoons which still has serious repercussions," Rasmussen said.

The cartoons had been "exploited", he said, as a "grotesque reason to justify the bombing of the Danish embassy in (the Pakistani capital) Islamabad in June."

"We saw it last year when a series of Muslim countries had a resolution adopted at the United Nations seeking to restrain the freedom of expression in respect of religion," he said.

"It is an insult to human rights that the UN Human Rights Council (HRC) should be abused to put freedom of expression in chains."

The Durban II conference has been widely discussed in the medias and some have advocated proposing to make an alternative to the UN consisting of Democratic countries.
But now back to the Asatru believers and this amusingly refreshing story about going to Valhalla.
Don't mess with the Danes or you will one day meet your maker by the wrath of Thor's sons.

Translated from 180 Grader

Asatru-believers wants to go to war in Afghanistan

"They want to be soldiers and some of them have got a romantic dream about dying in battle. Then you are assured to go to Valhalla" Says the asatru society Forn Sidr's secondary chairman about his young male co-believers who are deployed in the Danish Army.

Western soldiers in muslim countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan are seen by many of the locals as modern day crusaders who wants to spread their infidelity to the whole world. Now it shows that the locals - Without the slightest exaggeration - can start making a new interpretation of the motives shared by a great deal of the soldiers from Denmark: They are Asatru believers and along the same lines of the muslim suicide bombers they believe that eternal honor in life after death awaits them if they fall in battle.

That Kristeligt Dagblad (The Christian Daily) reports after interviews with Army priests who have been with Danish soldiers in war and on international missions. And the tendency is acknowledged by the Asatru believers society Forn Sidr's secondary chairman Søren Fisker.

"They want to be soldiers and some maybe have got a romantic dream about dying in battle. Then you are assured to go to Valhalla. The Asatru-believe is right up the alley because it emphasizes on masculine values. You are persuaded to show courage and to protect the community, all are values which also belongs in being at war" he explains to Kristelight Dagblad.

According to Army priest Christian Madsen who have been on mission in Kosovo and Iraq the Asatru believers are so visible that the latest camp in Iraq, Camp Einherjer, was named after einherjerne, who in the Norse mythology were the Viking warriors who felt in battle with honor and found worthy to live in Valhalla.

Christian Madsen do not know how many Asatru believers there is in the army. But he underscores that they are very visible both in the military at home and on the international missions.

"There is a great deal of Asatru believing soldiers there have got a romantic dream of the community solidarity one experienced in the old North. The Norse mythology is heavily influenced by war and probably also one of the reasons they want to be soldiers. You notice them because they have got Thor's hammer as a necklace and tattoos of the Midgard serpent or other Viking tattoos on their arms" Says Christian Madsen to Kristeligt Dagblad.

Wednesday, October 29, 2008

Defeating Eurabia

Defeating Eurabia is the first book by Fjordman and is a well researched informative 'Must Read'.

The book is being released in 5 parts at Gates of Vienna and available for free distribution - Read HERE the author's conditions.

Part 1 and 2 from 'Defeating Eurabia' has been released.
Defeating Eurabia: Part 1
Defeating Eurabia: Part 2

Fjordman starts out with a quote from Cicero which is a chilling reminder of a conventional wisdom which once was and which could be said of today - Below another selection from 'Defeating Eurabia' - Read the rest of this important book at Gates of Vienna.

“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear. The traitor is the plague.” — Cicero, Roman statesman and lawyer


In an interview with Israeli newspaper Haaretz, Bat Ye’or explained how French President Charles de Gaulle, disappointed by the loss of the French colonies in Africa and the Middle East as well as with France’s waning influence in the international arena, decided in the 1960’s to create a strategic alliance with the Arab and Muslim world to compete with the dominance of the United States and the Soviet Union.

“This is a matter of a total transformation of Europe, which is the result of an intentional policy,” said Bat Ye’or. “We are now heading towards a total change in Europe, which will be more and more Islamicized and will become a political satellite of the Arab and Muslim world. The European leaders have decided on an alliance with the Arab world, through which they have committed to accept the Arab and Muslim approach toward the United States and Israel. This is not only with respect to foreign policy, but also on issues engaging European society from within, such as immigration, the integration of the immigrants and the idea that Islam is part of Europe.”

“Europe is under a constant threat of terror. Terror is a way of applying pressure on the European countries to surrender constantly to the Arab representatives’ demands. They demand, for example, that Europe always speak out for the Palestinians and against Israel.”

Thus, the Eurabian project became an enlarged vision of the anti-American Gaullist policy dependent upon the formation of a Euro-Arab entity hostile to American influence. It facilitated European ambitions to maintain important spheres of influence in the former European colonies, while opening huge markets for European products in the Arab world, especially in oil-producing countries, in order to secure supplies of petroleum and natural gas to Europe. In addition, it would make the Mediterranean a Euro-Arab inland sea by favoring Muslim immigration and promoting Multiculturalism with a strong Islamic presence in Europe.

The use of the term “Eurabia” was first introduced in the mid-1970s, as the title of a journal edited by the President of the Association for Franco-Arab Solidarity, Lucien Bitterlein, and published collaboratively by the Groupe d’Etudes sur le Moyen-Orient (Geneva), France-Pays Arabes (Paris), and the Middle East International (London). Their articles called for common Euro-Arab positions at every level. These concrete proposals were not the musings of isolated theorists; instead they put forth concrete policy decisions conceived in conjunction with, and actualized by, European state leaders and European Parliamentarians.

During a November 27, 1967 press conference, Charles de Gaulle stated openly that French cooperation with the Arab world had become “the fundamental basis of our foreign policy.” By January 1969, the Second International Conference in Support of the Arab Peoples, held in Cairo, in its resolution 15, decided “…to form special parliamentary groups, where they did not exist, and to use the parliamentary platform support of the Arab people and the Palestinian resistance.” Five years later in Paris, July 1974, the Parliamentary Association for Euro-Arab Cooperation was created, under the Euro-Arab Dialogue rubric.

Read the rest at Gates of Vienna

Monday, October 27, 2008

Fjordman reviews: Understanding Muhammad

Excellent book review by Fjordman.
Islamic terrorists are Muhammadans following the teachings of Muhammad, once you bother to learn what motivates them it is abundantly clear, and the only way to defeat the ideology is in the same way how it was necessary to defeat the Nazis and then some.

Fjordman reviews Ali Sina's book Understanding Muhammad - Buy it from Amazon.

If I make a shortlist of people who have significantly influenced my views on Islam, the Iranian ex-Muslim writing under the pseudonym Ali Sina has to be one of them. Now based in North America, he has founded the website Faith Freedom International (FFI),, to inform non-Muslims about the violent nature of Islam and help Muslims leave Islam. Sina has published the book Understanding Muhammad on the psychological nature of Islam's founder as he appears from Islamic sources. If I make a shortlist of people who have significantly influenced my views on Islam, the Iranian ex-Muslim writing under the pseudonym Ali Sina has to be one of them. Now based in North America, he has founded the website Faith Freedom International (FFI),, to inform non-Muslims about the violent nature of Islam and help Muslims leave Islam. Sina has published the book Understanding Muhammad on the psychological nature of Islam's founder as he appears from Islamic sources.

The book Leaving Islam: Apostates Speak Out from 2003, edited by Ibn Warraq, contains the personal stories of several former Muslims, among them Ali Sina. Ibn Warraq is the author of several books, among them the modern classic Why I Am Not a Muslim and his most recent Defending the West. I will start with a few quotes from Sina's testimony in Leaving Islam and continue with quotes from his own book. I will provide page references to make it easier for others to quote and use the material.

In Leaving Islam, Ali Sina describes how, growing up in Iran, he had illusions of a "real Islam" which was good and tolerant. He advocated the real Islam as he thought it should be and criticized the mullahs and their deviations from the "true" teachings of Islam. Page 138:

"I idealized an Islam conforming to my own humanistic values. Of course, my imaginary Islam was a beautiful religion. It was a religion of equality and of peace. It was a religion that encouraged its followers to go after knowledge and be inquisitive. It was a religion that was in harmony with science and reason. I thought science got its inspiration from this religion. The Islam that I believed in sowed the seeds of modern science, which eventually bore its fruits in the West and made modern discoveries and inventions possible. Islam, I used to believe, was the real cause of the modern civilization. The reason the Muslims were living in such miserable state of ignorance in comparison to the un-Islamic West was all the fault of the self-centered mullahs and the religious leaders who, for their own personal gain and dominance, had misinterpreted the real teachings of Islam. Muslims honestly believe that the great Western civilization has its roots in Islam. They recall great Middle Eastern scientific minds whose contributions to science have been crucial in the birth of Modern science."

He mentions some of these scholars, like the mathematician and astronomer Omar Khayyam, the physician and alchemist Rhazes (al-Razi) and the physician and philosopher Avicenna (Ibn Sina), all of them worthy of respect. I should mention that they were all Persians, not Arabs, and that Rhazes in particular didn't believe a word of Islamic teachings. He was a good scholar, but he wasn't a good Muslim.

Sina tells about his education abroad. His father didn't want him to go to an immoral Western country. Page 139:

"Pakistan, being an Islamic country, was safe. People were religious and therefore moral. This, of course, proved to be untrue. I found people there to be as immoral and corrupt as Iranians. Yes, they were very religious. Yes, they did not eat pork and I saw no one consuming alcohol in public, but I noticed they had dirty minds, they lied, they were hypocrites, and they were cruel to the women and, above all, filled with hated for the Indians. I did not find them better than Iranians in any way. They were religious, but not moral."

However, he was appalled by the general disdain Pakistanis had for non-Muslims:

"I learned about the reasons for the partition (of India) and for the first time about Muhammad Ali Jinnah. He was presented as a very intelligent man, the father of the nation, while Gandhi was spoken of in a derogatory way. Even then I could not but side with Gandhi and condemn Jinnah as an arrogant and ambitious man who was responsible for breaking up a mighty nation and causing millions of deaths. I did not see difference of religion enough reason to break up a country. The very word Pakistan seemed to be an insult to the Indians. They called themselves pak, or 'clean' to distinguish themselves from the Indians, who were najis ('unclean'). The irony is that I never saw a people dirtier than the Pakistanis, both physically and mentally. It was disappointing to see another Islamic nation in such intellectual and moral bankruptcy."

Personally, I have a slightly more critical view of Gandhi, whom I believe was extremely naïve. His non-violent methods might leave an impression on a civilized nation such as Britain but clearly wouldn't have had any impact on a Genghis Khan, nor did they have any value against Muslims. I have noticed that where Westerners have "Islamophobia," Indians have "communalism." That's what it's called when non-Muslims talk about one thousand years of Jihad, a war which continues to this day. Non-Muslim communities have been virtually decimated in Pakistan and are in serious decline in Bangladesh, yet the Muslim population in the Republic of India has actually grown since the partition, not just in actual numbers but as a percentage of the overall population. Whereas the few remaining non-Muslim communities in Pakistan face brutal discrimination, Muslims in India enjoy special rights, including limited use of sharia law. They have more political freedom and a higher average income than Muslims in neighboring countries, but they still attack non-Muslims.

Later, after his experiences in Iran and Pakistan, Ali Sina discovered that Western infidels were not as dirty and immoral as he had been told. Pages 139-140 of Leaving Islam:

"I decided to go to Italy for my university studies. I concluded that there was nothing I could learn in an atmosphere filled with bigotry and stupidity. In Italy people drank wine and ate pork. But I found they were more hospitable, more friendly, and less hypocritical. I noticed people were willing to help without expecting something in return. I met an elderly couple who were very hospitable to me. They called me on Sundays to have dinner with them and not stay home alone. They did not want anything from me, they just wanted to have someone to give their love. I was almost a son to them. Only those who have come to a new country, who do not know anyone and cannot speak even the language, can appreciate how much the help and the hospitality of a local is worth. Their house was sparkling clean and the floor was marble and always shiny. This was quite in contrast with my idea of Westerners. Although my family was very open toward other people, my religion had taught me that the non-Muslims are najis (IX.28) and one should not take them as friends."

In Understanding Muhammad, Sina tries to show how the religion of Islam has been shaped to this day by the psychological of its founder, and why Islam can appropriately by labeled "Mohammedanism." For Muslims, all actions of Muhammad constitute law. Page 166:

"He was entitled to marry or have sex out of marriage with as many women as he wished. He could raid civilians, kill unarmed men, loot their properties and take their women and children as slaves and even rape them. He could assassinate his critics and torture them to make them reveal where they hid their treasures. He could have sex with children. He could lie and deceive his opponents. He could massacre his prisoners of war coldbloodedly. None of that bothers his followers. At first they deny all of the above charges vehemently, accusing you of maligning their prophet, but once the evidence is presented, they suddenly change tactics and defend him, justifying the very evil deeds they had outrageously denied. For Muslims, Muhammad's actions are not measured by what we humans know as right and wrong. Rather he is the standard, the measure of right and wrong. As the result, if a crime was committed by Muhammad, that crime becomes a holy deed and is emulated by his followers unquestioningly. Muslims are capable of committing the most atrocious acts of indecency and savagery with a clear conscience, because it is sunnah (performed by Muhammad)."

Islam became a ruthless and violent creed because of the ruthlessness and violence of its founder and his followers. The concepts of what others would consider good and evil do not exist in Islam. Instead, we have the concepts halal and haraam, permitted and forbidden, categories which very often do not correspond to what non-Muslims would consider to be moral or immoral. For instance, drinking a glass of wine is bad, but killing somebody because they say something critical of Muhammad is good. Sina again, page 167:

"In Islam, the ends always justify the means. For example, killing is wrong, but if it is done to promote Islam, it is good. Suicide is prohibited, but suicide bombing that will cause the death of non-Muslims is a holy act. Stealing from fellow Muslims is prohibited and the thief's hand will be chopped off, but looting non-believers was practiced by Muhammad. So stealing from non-Muslims is considered acceptable by Muslims. Sexual intercourse out of marriage is taboo, but rape of unbelieving women is okay. The goal, which is the establishment of the reign of Allah on Earth, is regarded to be so lofty that everything else becomes secondary. In the history of Islam, we read that people murdered their own fathers or waged war against them. Such actions are praised as the sign of faith and devotion of the believer. Lying in Islam is prohibited, except when it is done to deceive non-Muslims and advance the interests of Islam."

Even Islamic sources reveal the brutality of Muhammad's behavior. The esteemed biographer Ibn Ishaq narrates in Sirat Rasul Allah p. 515 the conquest of Khaibar. Sina explains, page 38:

"He reports that Muhammad, without warning, attacked this fortress town, inhabited by Jews and killed many unarmed people as they were fleeing. Among those captured was Kinana. Ibn Ishaq states: 'Kinana al-Rabi, who had the custody of the treasure of Banu Nadir, was brought to the apostle who asked him about it. He denied that he knew where it was. A Jew came (Tabari says 'was brought') to the apostle and said that he had seen Kinana going to a certain ruin every morning early. When the apostle said to Kinana, 'Do you know that if we find you have it (the treasure) I shall kill you?' He said, 'Yes.' The apostle gave orders that the ruin was to be excavated and some of the treasure was found. When he asked him about the rest (of the treasure) he refused to produce it, so the apostle gave orders to al-Zubayr Al-Awwam, 'Torture him until you extract what he has.' So he kindled a fire with flint and steel on his chest until he was nearly dead. Then the apostle delivered him to Muhammad b. Maslama and he struck off his head, in revenge for his brother Mahmud.'"

As Ali Sina states: "On the same day that Muhammad tortured to death the youthful Kinana, he took his seventeen year old wife Safiya to a tent for sexual intercourse. Two years earlier, the Prophet had beheaded Safiya's father along with all the males (except those who had not yet begun pubescence) of the Jewish tribe Bani Quraiza."

This kind of behavior is unparalleled among the founders of any major religion on Earth. The Buddha or Jesus certainly never did anything comparable to this. Why were Muhammad and his followers so ruthless? Was it in response to persecution? No, says Sina. After thirteen years of preaching, Muhammad still had no more than seventy or eighty followers. Page 17-18:

"Muhammad's call in Mecca was received with indifference. The Meccans, like most non-Muslims of today, were tolerant of all religions. Religious persecution in those lands was unheard of. Polytheistic societies are generally tolerant by nature. They were offended when Muhammad insulted their gods. Despite that, they did not harm him. Muhammad encouraged his followers to leave Mecca. Naturally the Meccans did not like that idea. The Muslim families were upset, as were the masters of slaves who had converted to Islam. Some of the slaves were caught while trying to escape and were beaten. That was not, of course, religious persecution. The Meccans were simply trying to protect what they considered to be their property. For example, when Bilal was caught, his master, Umaiyah, beat him and put him in chains. Abu Bakr paid his price and he was set free. He was being punished for trying to escape, causing a financial loss to his owner and not for his beliefs."

Sina mentions a few other incidents claimed by Muslims to represent "persecution," but in his view, "These stories can hardly be classified as religious persecution. In the Middle East individualism is an alien concept. Women in particular cannot make their own decisions. Even today, Muslim women can be honor-killed if they decide to marry a man of their choice without the consent of their families."

The truth is that Muslims were unsuccessful in attracting many converts in Mecca, yet they were allowed to stay there and preach for more than a decade. They did not attract many followers until after the move to Medina when they started looting caravans, which tells us plenty about the real motivations of Muhammad's followers. Page 19:

"There is no evidence of any persecution against Muhammad and Muslims in Mecca. Nonetheless, Muslims make such claims because Muhammad has made that claim. Muslims will not doubt anything Muhammad has said. Astonishingly, even some non-Muslim historians who are not sympathetic to Islam have fallen into that trap and have echoed this untruth. Muhammad claimed victimhood, when in reality he was the victimizer. Muslims do the same. Everywhere it is Muslims who are killing, oppressing and persecuting, and yet they are the ones who cry loudest claiming to be victims and oppressed."

In the Medina period, Muslims became much more violent and arrogant and launched a series of assassinations to cast terror in the hearts of their opponents. As the Koran says (8,12): "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them." Several individuals who had done nothing wrong other than mocking Muhammad's teachings verbally were killed. Understanding Muhammad, page 43-44:

"He wanted to send the message that any opposition or criticism of him could mean death. That is exactly the same modus operandi Muslims employ today, where the threat often only need be implied. They follow the model and example set by their prophet, who they regard as their greatest strategist. They want to create a boundary of fear so they may establish their supremacy through terror. There is no doubt in the mind of the Muslim terrorists that this strategy works. To them, the Qur'anic injunction of 'casting terror in the heart of the unbelievers' seems a sure way to victory. It worked for Muhammad. He bragged, 'I have been made victorious with terror.' It worked in Spain when the terrorists killed two hundred people by blowing up commuter trains on March 11, 2004, and in response, the Spaniards voted a socialist for government who immediately adopted a policy of appeasement vis-à-vis the Muslims. Because of the successful precedents set by Muhammad and his ideological heirs, terrorists conclude that a terror strategy will work everywhere and every time. They will not stop unless the world falls or they are proven wrong by facing a much greater force."

As Sina points out, this strategy of harassing or murdering opponents and critics has been a feature of Islam from its inception. This line of thinking is very much alive today since it's encoded into the personal example of Muhammad, his sunna. Page 196-197:

"If you live in an Islamic country, you could be put to death for criticizing Islam, Muhammad or his companions. If you live in a non-Muslim country, you could be assassinated even if you are not a Muslim. Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh learned that lesson too late when he rolled in his own blood after he was shot and stabbed by a Muslim for assisting the Muslim dissident Ayaan Hirsi Ali in making a movie on women in Islam. In July 1991 Ettore Caprioli, the Italian translator of The Satanic Verses, was grievously injured, and Hitoshi Igarishi – professor of literature and an admirer of Islamic civilization, who had translated the book into Japanese – was assassinated in Tokyo. William Nygaard, the Norwegian translator, was later knifed. The idea is to instill so much terror that no one dares to speak against Islam."

I have to correct an error here. The principle of killing "blasphemers" who criticize Islam is indeed still valid. The Japanese translator Hitoshi Igarashi was killed in 1991, following the death sentence against author Salman Rushdie by the Iranian Islamic leader the Ayatollah Khomeini from 1989. The Italian translator Ettore Capriolo was attacked the same year, but survived. However, William Nygaard was the publisher of the Norwegian edition of The Satanic Verses, not the translator, and he wasn't knifed, he was shot several times outside his home in Oslo. Fortunately, he survived and recovered and has continued working in the publishing business after the incident. This is just a minor factual mistake, but it is an unnecessary one which takes only a couple of seconds to check and correct on the Internet.

What's most important to notice about these assassinations or attempted assassinations is that Muslims made up a very small percentage of the population in both Italy and Norway, not to mention in Japan, at the time, but even a tiny Muslim minority can be enough to kill freedom of speech, literally and metaphorically. Muslims cannot tolerate any criticism of their doctrines, a trait they have inherited from their Prophet. Ali Sina again, page 250:

"Megalomania, bullishness, the sense of entitlement and all other narcissistic traits of Muhammad are present in each and every Muslim, to the extent that they emulate their prophet. From king to pauper, from president to janitor, Muslims consider themselves to be superior to the rest of humanity. They are convinced that one day Islam will dominate, mankind will submit to them, and they will be the masters of the world. This feeling of self importance was expressed eloquently by Dr. Mahatir, the outgoing Prime Minister of Malaysia during an OIC (Organization of Islamic Conference) summit in 2003. He acknowledged that the early Muslims built their 'civilization' by studying the works of the Greeks and other scholars before Islam and then boastfully added that the 'Europeans had to kneel at the feet of Muslim scholars in order to access their own scholastic heritage.' In his speech he invited the Muslims to amass 'guns and rockets, bombs and warplanes, tanks and warships' to subdue that non-Muslim detractors and again rule over them."

Mr. Mahatir also called for a "final victory" over the Jews, who conspire to keep Muslims divided and humiliated.

If Islam is so bad, why has it survived for so long? One of the reasons is that it provides a religious excuse for conquest and looting. Another is that it can be a useful tool for authoritarian rulers who want to shore up their power. Page 66:

"Islam was an instrument of domination. After Muhammad, others used his cult for the very same purpose. Muslims become like putty in the hands of those leaders who invoke Islam. Mirza Malkam Khan (1831-1908), an Armenian who converted to Islam and together with Jamaleddin Afghani launched the idea of an 'Islamic Renaissance' (An-Nahda), had a slogan of unrivaled cynicism: 'Tell the Muslims something is in the Qur'an, and they will die for you.' On his deathbed, Muhammad urged his followers not to remain idle, and exhorted them to push on and continue their jihad to conquest. Genghis Khan gave a similar command to his sons on his deathbed. He told them he desired to conquer the world, but that since he could no longer do it, they should fulfill his dream. The Mongols, like Muslims, were terrorizors. For the narcissist, all that matters is to win. They have no conscience. For them, lives of other humans are cheap."

According to his architect Albert Speer, Adolf Hitler was fond of saying things such as: "You see, it's been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn't we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?"

Nazism was essentially a new religion of Jihadism, which had much more in common with Islam than with Christianity. The admiration was mutual. As late as in 2005, Hitler's autobiography Mein Kampf was among the top bestsellers in Turkey, as it is in a number of Arab and Muslim countries, behind a book about a Turkish national hero detonating a nuclear bomb in Washington D.C. At the same time, Turkish PM Tayyip Erdogan has stressed that Islamophobia must be treated as "a crime against humanity."

Another concept Islam and Nazism have in common is the Big Lie. Understanding Muhammad, page 179:

"Adolf Hitler, in his Mein Kampf, (1925) wrote: 'The broad mass of a nation will more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a small one.' If anyone should have known the power of the big lie and that the bigger the lie the more believable it sounds, it was Hitler. Another good statement is that of George Orwell, author of Politics and the English Language. He wrote: 'Political language … is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.' Why big lies are so convincing? It's because an ordinary person generally does not dare to tell a big lie. He fears that it would not be believed and that he would be derided. And, since everyone has heard or has said a few white lies, most people generally recognize them when they hear one. The big lies are so outlandish that they often startle the listener. Most people are not equipped to process them adequately."

Ali Sina believes that the big lie "offsets the scale of our common sense. This is not unlike loading a scale that is made to weigh kilos with tons. It stops showing the correct weight. The indicator may even stop at zero. Hence, Hitler was right. The big lie is often believed more than a small lie."

Perhaps the simplest explanation for why Islam is so big is that people believe in big lies, and Islam is the biggest lie ever told in human history. Never has a more appalling human being than Muhammad ibn Abdullah had a greater and more lasting influence on so many people.

Although Ali Sina is critical of Islam he is also critical of the West, especially its belief in Multiculturalism and the ideological censorship regime known as Political Correctness, which he has called the "white man's disease." To demonstrate what's wrong with the West, he uses the example of John Walker Lindh, the "American Taliban" who converted to Islam, trained with Jihadist groups and fought in Afghanistan against his own country. Page 220:

"John Walker Lindh is one victim of the sickness of Western society called political correctness. Wasn't it Ronald Reagan who called the Islamic terrorists in Afghanistan 'freedom fighters'? John went on to become a freedom fighter. What is wrong with that? Didn't President George W. Bush and Tony Blair repeatedly announce, 'Islam is a religion of peace?' Why jail a follower of the religion of peace who has simply followed the instructions of his religion of peace? The West is guilty – guilty of complicity, of appeasement and of self deception. As required summer reading for first-year students, Prof. Michael Sells of the University of North Carolina compiled a book called Approaching the Qur'an where only the 'nice' teachings of the Qur'an pertaining to the early Meccan verses were handpicked and the violent, bloody verses that call for killing, looting and raping unbelievers, those that churn the stomach of any sane person that were written later in Medina were deliberately left out. This is nothing but playing the game of deception. The same deception is found in the books of Karen Armstrong and John Esposito in their definition of Islam."

Sina believes that a false image of Islam is being portrayed for infidel consumption by Western academics, for various reasons of ideological and financial corruption. The problem is, when young Westerners believe the lies they are fed about Islam, we disapprove of their actions as they embrace Islamic teachings. Sina considers this to be a form of hypocrisy. Page 220 continued:

"These children are not guilty. They are the products of our sick ethos called political correctness. How many newspapers, television or radio stations have the guts to call a spade a spade when it comes to Islam? Which one of our politicians has the mettle to stand in front of a camera and tell the nation that Islam is not a religion of peace? Watch your kids. If anyone dares to tell the truth, he is immediately branded as a racist and a hate-monger, and his head will roll. Meanwhile, Islamic propagandists are given freedom to twist the truth and promote their lies, knowing they will never be challenged on anything they say. CAIR, Council of American-Islamic Relations, (or better said 'Conning Americans with Islamic Ruse') furnishes thousands of libraries across the country with Islamic books, hoping to find more John Walker Lindhs. Mosques are being built in every city and town throughout the country to instill the hatred of America amongst the American kids. The situation is worse in Europe, Australia, Canada and other non-Muslim countries."

Ali Sina certainly isn't politically correct. On page 248 he states that "Islam is not just a false belief but also a mental disorder. It is a disorder that reduces sane people into insane people."

On pages 256-257 he attacks the doctrines of Multiculturalism and the idea that all cultures are equally worth preserving:

"If any culture needs to be preserved, it is the Western, Helleno-Christian culture. It is this culture that is facing extinction. It is to this culture alone that we owe the Enlightenment, Renaissance, and democracy. These are the foundations of our modern world. It would be a terrible mistake not to preserve this culture. If we do nothing, we face a future where democracy and tolerance will fade and Islam's more primitive instincts will subjugate humanity. All cultures are not made equal. A doctrine that advocates subjugation of women and minorities is not equal to a culture that promotes equality of all people irrespective of their beliefs, gender and race. Islam is not a culture. It is the antithesis of culture. It is barbarity, savagery and incivility. Islamic civilization is an oxymoron, while Islamic terrorism is redundancy. We owe our freedom and modern civilization to Western culture. It is this culture that is now under attack and needs protection. I wrote this book with two goals in my mind: to help Muslims see the truth and leave Islam, and to unmask the real face of Islam and warn of its threat, so the world can stand up and protect itself."

This echoes the ideas of another former Muslim, Ibn Warraq, who believes that berating and blaming the West, which has been fashionable since the 1960s and 1970s, has had the result that many Westerners now seem unwilling or incapable of defending their own civilization against outside attacks. In his book Defending the West: A Critique of Edward Said's Orientalism, Warraq highlights the destructive impact of Said's influential book Orientalism from 1978. Said was influenced by Foucault, Marx and the French intellectual tradition and refused to acknowledge evidence contrary to his claims about "Western bigotry." Page 246:

"In cultures already immune to self-criticism, Said helped Muslims, and particularly Arabs, perfect their already well-developed sense of self-pity. There is a kind of comfort and absolution in being told that none of your problems are of your making, that you do not have to accept any responsibility for the ills besetting your society. It is all the fault of the West, of infidels….Orientalism came at the precise time when anti-Western rhetoric was at its most shrill and was already being taught at Western universities, and when third-worldism was at its most popular. Jean-Paul Sartre preached that all white men were complicit in the exploitation of the third world, and that violence against Westerners was a legitimate means for colonized men to re-acquire their manhood. Said went further: 'It is therefore correct that every European, in what he could say about the Orient, was consequently a racist, an imperialist, and almost totally ethnocentric.' Not only, for Said, is every European a racist, but he must necessarily be so. As I have argued, Western civilization has been more willing to criticize itself than any other major culture."

It is interesting to notice that individuals such as Ibn Warraq, Ali Sina, Wafa Sultan and others who were not born into Western civilization are at the forefront of defending Western freedoms, while many white Marxists willingly collaborate with Muslims and cry "Islamophobia!" whenever somebody points out the violence inherent in Islamic doctrines. We are thus faced with the highly unusual situation – perhaps unique in world history – where a major civilization is attacked by insiders and defended by people who were not born into it.

In Understanding Muhammad, Ali Sina takes the traditional Islamic sources at face value and uses them to reconstruct an image of the person Muhammad as he appears in these sources. There exists a revisionist school of thought which has even questioned whether Muhammad existed at all. Personally, I tend to believe that he was an historical person, some form of Arab national leader, although there is much about the early history of Islam which we do not know and I am willing to consider all possibilities. The advantage of relying on the traditional sources is that according to the texts Muslims themselves use, Muhammad comes off as a highly immoral person. In a way, this strengthens the case of those who believe that Islamic texts were at least inspired by an historical person: If Muhammad ibn Abdullah of Mecca is a later invention, wouldn't those who invented him have made him appear to be more noble? Ironically, it is possible to argue that the very appalling personality that is portrayed in the hadith and Sira literature is an argument in favor of viewing him as an historical person.

I agree 100% with Ali Sina's view that Islam cannot be reformed. Indeed, he partly taught me that. I find his book Understanding Muhammad to be very valuable. However, his idea of spending many pages on detailed discussions of what kind of mental or physical illnesses Muhammad did or did not suffer from was sometimes too technical for my taste. Sina's understanding of the nature of Islam is impeccable, and his writings should be considered required reading for those dealing with Islam in their everyday life. My advice would be: Do buy Sina's book, but read it in combination with one or several other books. A very accessible title on the subject would be The Truth About Muhammad: Founder of the World's Most Intolerant Religion by Robert Spencer, but there are also other titles available.

Friday, October 24, 2008

Fitzgerald: Who decided that we owed this to Somalis?

Good question, who decided that we owe them ANYTHING?
One does not have to look to far to figure out that the most likely culprits who decided to take in Somalis in particular are the leftist multiculti-fascists, they are the ones screaming 'racism' each time anything is said what needs to be said about such matters which are so wrong and strives against any logic whatsoever - In particular seen in the light of the Somali piracy, Somalia being a terrorism haven and important to Al Qaeda operations.

General Tommy Franks, commander in chief of the U.S. Central Command, which
is responsible for conducting the war against terrorism in the Middle East,
Southwest Asia, and the Horn of Africa, has warned that he has evidence that
al-Qaeda terrorist cells are present in Somalia--a "serious concern."

There has been considerable speculation that Somalia may become the next
front in the global war against international terrorism. If and when it were to
intervene in Somalia, the United States would discover that Somalia's anarchy,
which makes the country a fertile ground for Islamic extremists, also makes it
an extremely unpredictable arena for military operations.
Now they are letting the Somalis into our countries instead - Who decided that? Who are those traitors?
The only ones with such evil intentions is the leftist multiculti-fascists and the corrupted anti humanitarian UN infested with both leftists lunatics and the OIC, mere stupidity or ignorance is not an excuse

By Hugh Fitzgerald JihadWatch.

Eighty thousand Somalis, almost all of them Muslims, have been allowed into this country. What they have done can be seen in Lewiston, Maine, where their enormous burden on the benefits system left so little for the native poor, who had been paying into that system for decades, that the Mayor of Lewiston publicly expressed his alarm at the Somali influx. For his pains he was mechanically, and roundly, denounced as a "racist.”

Or it can be seen in the places where some Somalis do work, rather than live on benefits, such as those meat-packing plants in Nebraska and Colorado where the non-Somali workers, who bear the brunt of the behavior and attitudes of the Somalis in their midst, revolted when the meat-packing company was prepared to supinely give in to Muslim demands, demands that would have given preferential treatment to Muslim workers. One of the non-Muslim workers was widely quoted: "The Latino is very humble," said Garcia, 73, who has worked at the plant, owned by JBS U.S.A. Inc., since 1994. "But they are arrogant," he said of the Somali workers. "They act like the United States owes them."

In Minneapolis, Somali and other Muslim taxidrivers have refused to pick up people carrying liquor (at the airport where those arriving from abroad dutifully carry their Duty-Free) and also blind people with seeing-eye dogs. It is fascinating to consider that because in seventh-century Arabia some Arab, who may or may not have existed, is said to have said that he wouldn’t enter a house “with statues or dog,” in twenty-first century America a blind person waiting patiently for a taxi may not be picked up. And consider this, while we have stopped to look at that Hadith: for 1350 years Muslims have had to stifle whatever creative impulse they might have had to create statuary. And not only that, but wherever they have been able, they have destroyed the statues -- Greek or Roman, Byzantine or Buddhist -- all across the vast lands they have conquered. They haven’t stopped today. Look at what the Taliban did not only to the Bamiyan Buddhas (with engineering help from Pakistanis and money from Saudis), but also to the already pathetically teeny-tiny contents of the Kabul Museum, with its remains of so many civilizations that had overlapped or overlaid one another, in palimpsestic fashion, over that swath of territory now known as Afghanistan.

Those Somalis were allowed into this country as “refugees.” But why are Muslims who leave a Muslim country, where they are not persecuted for being non-Muslims but instead can do the persecuting, and who bring their supremacist Total Belief-System with them and show in a hundred ways that they believe their faith Superior and they Superior as well, owed a living in Lewiston, owed special favors in Nebraska and Colorado, owed exemption from the hack-license rules in Minneapolis? They clearly believe that it is we, the Infidels who gave them misplaced rescue and succor of every kind, who must change our ways, who must yield to them.

Who decided that we owed this to Somalis? Was it because the Americans went to Somalia to prevent the natural state of Hobbesian man into which Muslim lands descend without a Muslim bully-boy or despot to manage things the way Muslim rulers do, through their absolute control of the military and the mukhabarat and some version of the mutawwa -- the three M’s of Muslim rule that keep those Arab despots the longest-ruling rulers or dynasties or juntas in the last century? See Khaddafy in Libya, see the Hashemites in Jordan, the Sherifians in Morocco, the FLN military men in Algeria, the Bourguiba-Ben Ali reign in Tunisia. The military, embodied currently by Mubarak, have ruled over Egypt since the coup of Nasser and Naguib back in the early 1950s. See also the Al-Saud, the Al-Thani, the Al-Maktoum, the Al-thises and Al-thatses, up and down the Arab side of the Persian Gulf. See the vicissitudes of the same small group of zamindars and generals who rule, and own, Pakistan, see see see. Military, Mukhabarat, Mutawwa (the variant spelling in the Islamic Republic of Iran is “Mullahs”).

That’s the Three M’s of Modern Muslim Rule. Forget your Hobbes and Locke and Rousseau, your Mill and Bentham, your Bagehot, your Oakeshott, your Rawls or, in the alternative, your von Hayek. It’s a completely different world, the world of Islam. This is something our credulous, hopeful, sentimental, arrogant rulers, the ones who were going to “remake the Middle East,” did not understand, because they had lost, in the hectic vacancy of Washington, the habit of study, the ability to think.

Perhaps that lesson can be learned even by some of those raised in the Age of Ignorance, the Western Jahiliyya -- the Age, that is, before an Awareness and Grasp of Islam as a Total Belief-System with an amazing hold on the minds of men. But they, most men everywhere, are primitive, which is why it is best that their primitiveness be channeled by a faith less dangerous to all those who do not submit to the same faith, and one that just possibly is founded on principles that, if actually followed, could do a lot of good. Just because you rise to the top in Washington, you can’t stop learning, and you have to learn to undo the clichés of the past, about Islam as a “bulwark against Communism,” or about Islam as a “religion of peace” (which arises from the dreamy idea that All Religions Are The Same, and We All Want The Same Thing).

You have to learn about the texts and tenets of Islam, unlike James Baker, with his Saudi baker-and-botts wheeling-dealing, and unlike Bill Clinton and George Bush Sr. with the fabulous largesse the Saudis and other Muslims have presented to their Presidential libraries, and unlike the “respected” (by whom? For what?) Colin Powell, who has been supremely aware since his earliest military days of the need to be attuned to politics and pleasing the powerful. He hasn’t looked back, he “seen his opportunities and he took ‘em.” Powell was happy to pocket the keys of the Jaguar that Prince Bandar, his tennis-and-racquetball partner and pal, gave him. Powell learned from Bandar so much about the Al-Saud, about Saudi Arabia, about Islam, so much that he can pontificate indignantly about unfair worries or suspicions about Muslims in high office, and can get away with using as his point of departure (and his sole point, come to think of it), a single photograph of a Muslim mother grieving at the grave of her Muslim son. That son was one of a handful who must have enlisted in the American army.

Colin Powell was not asked to explain what makes him so sure that the doctrine of Islam is not worrisome, what makes him take as “representative” this particular soldier, and not the Muslim Marine who went AWOL, leaving his post and returning to Lebanon, not the Muslim soldier who rolled a grenade into a tent, killing two officers, not the Muslim sailor who apparently was offering to give secrets about his ship to other Muslims for their own deadly use, not all the other examples of Muslim mendacity. Instead, this single example, of a photograph, caused Colin Powell to become a great and reassuring authority on Islam on national television, without a single bit of information about Islam other than what he gleaned from Prince Bandar (he of the jangling keys to the Jaguar, pocked by Mrs. Powell just a few days after Colin Powell left office, and could now “accept the gift” that a few days before would have been illegal)

Some, many, of these people must be prevented from again being in positions of authority. And all those who have not yet shown signs of coming to understand, of even making the attempt to understand Islam –- through direct and personal study, and not through vicarious study, that is having an aide or two has read a book or two, and then “summarize” in power-point form what “Islam is all about” -- should be kept out of any position. For they represent, in their ignorance, and in their continuing influence, a supreme danger. Inertia plays a part, inertia and being overawed by those who, simply because they have served high up in this or that administration, are foolishly accorded a respect that their own display of mind does not suggest they have earned, or are capable of earning.

And not just in foreign policy, but in domestic policy. If you cannot recognize the Jihad, don’t want to find out what it is, what it means, and why Islam is not merely a “religion” in the commonly-accepted sense but also an Identity, a Loyalty, both to what is a Total Belief-System and to the other Believers, the other Members of the world-wide Umma, an identity and a loyalty that trump all other possible identities and loyalties (or at least, that is what Islam inculcates -- a few may ignore what is inculcated, but then they may well be “Muslims-for-identification-purposes-only” Muslims), then you may not be able to connect the contents of this article about the killing of the Somali Christian for daring to be a Christian (and daring to suggest that the attendees at a wedding, including the bride and groom, had a right to understand the ceremony) with the attitudes of Somali Muslims, “Muslim refugees from Islam” (???), who have been allowed to settle deep within our borders, within what Muslims themselves are taught to regard as enemy lines, the lines of Dar al-Harb.

Thursday, October 23, 2008

Terminology of Islam-Naming

Islamic terrorists are simply muhammadans following the teachings of muhammad.

Bill Warner from Political Islam eloquantly explains what a kafir needs to know.

Naming, nomenclature or terminology is a first step in knowledge. Words shape how we think and reflect our concepts. With new words we can think new thoughts. Equally important is that without the right words it is hard to have the right thoughts. One of the marks of any expert is their command of the "trade talk".

Islam is a complete civilization and as such has its own highly technical and precise language. From the multi-cultural point-of-view it is bigoted not to use Islam's language and substitute a non-Islamic language.

There is one, and only one, correct basis for the terms and names to be used in describing anything Islamic. That basis is the doctrine of Islam, which is only found in the Koran and the Sunna of Mohammed. The Sunna (what Mohammed did and said) is found in the Sira (Mohammed's biography) and the Hadith (Mohammed's traditions). All religious and political Islamic doctrine is found in the Koran, the Sira and the Hadith. The definitive Sira is by Ibn Ishaq. There are six collections of Hadith, but the most authoritative is Bukhari. Everything is found in Koran, Sira and Hadith-three books. Upon close examination that amounts to all of Islam is Mohammed (remember, he is the only one who ever heard the words of Allah).

Let us address the other source of information about Islam-experts. There are two kinds of experts-Muslim and kafir (non-Muslims). But in either case, if the expert agrees with Mohammed, the expert is right, but he is redundant. If the expert disagrees with Mohammed, the expert is wrong. So experts are either redundant or wrong. The only expert that can be trusted to be 100% correct in every case is Mohammed. So why bother with any other expert?

It is the doctrine of Islam that is the true source of names and terminology.

Let's take an example-the "moderate Muslim". Most kafirs use the term moderate to mean someone who seems reasonable and nice. But that definition is not Islamic. A moderate Muslim is someone who follows the doctrine of Islam. Anyone who follows the example of Mohammed is moderate in terms of the doctrine of Islam.

But, Islam has two doctrines-the early Islam of Mecca and the later Islam of Medina. As a result there are two forms of moderation-dualism. In Mecca Mohammed was generally religious and achieved little success. He only garnered 150 followers in 13 years. Then in Medina he became a warrior and political leader and achieved complete success in 10 years. The Koran, the Sira and the Hadith all document these two different Sunnas.

So, a Muslim who follows the Koran of Mecca is a moderate. But a Muslim who follows the Sunna of jihad is also a moderate. Osama bin Laden is a moderate Muslim. He follows the Sunna and Koran of Medina. Jihad is one form of moderation.

In the same light, an extremist Muslim is one who does not follow the Sunna. So an apostate, one who leaves Islam, is an extremist, whereas Mohammed Atta was a moderate Muslim.

The kafir failure of naming
Kafirs have always failed at the right names for Islam. When Islam exploded out of Arabia, kafirs called then Arabs. When Islam invaded Eastern Europe, they were referred to as Turks. When Islam invaded Spain, kafirs called the invaders, Moors.

The jihad of Umar burst out of Arabia and crushed the Christian world of Syria, Egypt, and the rest of the Middle East. The Christians recorded it as an Arabic war. When Islam invaded Europe, Europeans called it a Turkish invasion. The jihad against Christian Spain was an invasion by the Moors. The Muslims called these events jihad.

In the early nineteenth century America sent the Navy and Marines to war against the Barbary pirates on the Berber coast in North Africa. For centuries the Islamic Barbary pirates had raided Europe and taken nearly a million white slaves, and their shipping raids in the Mediterranean had taken a great toll. But the Muslims never called their naval raiders "Barbary pirates." They called them ghazis, sacred raiders. A raid led by Mohammed against the kafirs' caravans was called a ghazwah. The Muslims were clear that naval raids by the "Barbary pirates" were actually jihad by the army of Mohammed. Naming them "pirates" showed that the kafirs had no idea about the doctrine and history of Islam. Today we call the jihadists off the coast of Somalia who are attacking ships, pirates.

Look at the news today. The media report an intifada, uprising, by the Palestinians against the Israelis. But the terms intifada, Palestinian, and Israeli are misnomers. The real terms are jihad, Muslim and infidel, if we follow the Koran, and the doctrine of political Islam clearly states that jihad is to be waged by all Muslims against all Jews and other "kafirs." Today is no different from 1400 years ago in Islam.

9/11 is recorded in the West as a terrorist attack by terrorists. Mohammed Atta, the leader of the 9/11 attack, was a pious Muslim. He left a letter clearly stating his intentions: 9/11 was pure jihad. An attack is a single event, but jihad is a 1400-year continuous process. Therefore, a terrorist attack is not the same as jihad. Terrorism does not have the same meaning as jihad.

Kafirs called them the "Paris riots." Muslims called the burnings and theft the "Great Ramadan Offensive," which connects them to Mohammed's first jihad in the sacred month of Ramadan. The name "Paris riots" evokes different thoughts, insights, and points of view from the "Great Ramadan Offensive."

The naming of these events by kafirs does not convey the right meaning. Muslims' names for themselves and their actions connect events and people with Islamic history and doctrine and show a continuing process. Kafir names are temporary, do not connect events, and show no historic process.

The only correct terms are those of Islam. The naming by the kafirs is wrong because the naming is a projection of Western culture. Correct naming leads to correct thinking.

Why are we talking about naming?
One of the marks of a dhimmi (a kafir who is an apologist for Islam) under the fourth caliph, Umar, was that a dhimmi was forbidden to study the Koran. The chief mark of dhimmitude today is ignorance of the Koran, the Sira and the Hadith. The ignorance of kafir intellectuals about Islam is profound.

University Islamic studies never mention the political doctrine in the Trilogy (Koran, Sira and Hadith). The media discusses Islam in terms of political correctness, and multiculturalism. History courses don't teach about the civilizational annihilation due to jihad. Black history doesn't refer to the 100 million Africans destroyed over 1400 years of jihadic predation that fed the slave trade up to today. Religious leaders placate imams in public gatherings and have no knowledge what the imam actually thinks of them. Political thinkers do not even know Islam as a political force.

The problem with this ignorance is that our intellectuals are unable to help us. They do not understand that Islam is a civilization based upon the ideal of dualism, whereas our civilization is based upon the ideal of unitary ethics. Our intellectuals cannot explain what this difference has meant in the past or what it will mean for our future.

As a result, kafirs have no intellectual leadership who can speak in terms of Islamic doctrine.
There are four types of jihad (according to Mohammed)-sword, pen, mouth and money. When we listen to Muslim experts try to get kafirs to use "moderate" names, we are submitting to the jihad of the pen and the mouth.

There is only one source of correct terminology-the doctrine of Islam. Use it.

Bill Warner

Wednesday, October 22, 2008

Would the Last Honest Reporter Please Turn On the Lights?

People are really fed up with the medias absolute left leaning bias and anti-Americanism offering their audiences daily Obamagasm rides at at times bringing themselves to hallucinating hights - Do they really think that people are that stupid, even despite the brainwashing indoctrination the Marxoids already have infested the educational programmes with, the attacks on 'Joe the plumber' brought a disgust I couldn't imagine, an common day person living a life just like most of us but who happened to ask the wrong question to the new 'Supreme leader' in the making, Joe the plumber got his life turned upside down, inside out, Union thugs hunting him, belittlements, privacy invasions and ad nauseum, this is how Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini and similar progressives from carbon-copy states did before they got enough power and advanced to the Gulags, death camps, labor camps, re-education centers etc to keep the 'masses' in line with the 'current truth' if they said the wrong thing or stepped out of line, Joe the plumber was not a decsion maker, had no power, not a party member, Joe the plumber doesn't decide on taxes but felt what he earned from his sweat was his own and had an optimistic ambition of advancing, who of us doesn't have that at some point?

He was the ordinary guy who happened to ask the wrong question offending a 'Supreme leader' which meant he had to be destroyed - The irrational foul attacks on Sarah Palin is something different despite their nastiness, Palin being a public figure and political opponent, she is in a position to fight back, Joe the plumber is an ordinary guy and in no such position.
The medias really have come to this and so has the Democratic Party become a Socialist party which has shown plenty of its darker aspects of the evils of Socialism - Think of the 'Fairness doctrine' as being what it was in the old days of the Soviets with a party commissar breathing over each one's shoulder and making sure you didn't step out of line or not writing at all - There was no other alternative - Now the media is helping advancing such an agenda.
Today blogs can keep people sane as well as often doing what journalists really should be doing, looking into who is the guy they try to make a new messiah or Fuerhrer.

The medias has become a shameful lying bunch of Obamabots who happens to spell out 'the current truth' these days - They should either fire the whole lot or do us all a favor and change their names to CNN - Communist Network News, CBS - Communist Broadcasting Systems, MSNBC - Marxist Socialist News Broadcasting Coorporative, ABC - Allied Bolschevic Coorporative, PBS - Progressive Broadcasting Service and so forth so we know what they are standing for.

The Obunism pic with courtesy of The T-Shirt Blog
Go HERE to buy your Obamunism T-Shirt.

Orson Scott Card really nails the media with style for what they are:

By Orson Scott Card
Would the Last Honest Reporter Please Turn On the Lights?

From Free Republic - Editor's note: Orson Scott Card is a Democrat and a newspaper columnist, and in this opinion piece he takes on both while lamenting the current state of journalism.

An open letter to the local daily paper — almost every local daily paper in America:

I remember reading All the President's Men and thinking: That's journalism. You do what it takes to get the truth and you lay it before the public, because the public has a right to know.

This housing crisis didn't come out of nowhere. It was not a vague emanation of the evil Bush administration.

It was a direct result of the political decision, back in the late 1990s, to loosen the rules of lending so that home loans would be more accessible to poor people. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were authorized to approve risky loans.

What is a risky loan? It's a loan that the recipient is likely not to be able to repay.

The goal of this rule change was to help the poor — which especially would help members of minority groups. But how does it help these people to give them a loan that they can't repay? They get into a house, yes, but when they can't make the payments, they lose the house — along with their credit rating.

They end up worse off than before.

This was completely foreseeable and in fact many people did foresee it. One political party, in Congress and in the executive branch, tried repeatedly to tighten up the rules. The other party blocked every such attempt and tried to loosen them.

Furthermore, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were making political contributions to the very members of Congress who were allowing them to make irresponsible loans. (Though why quasi-federal agencies were allowed to do so baffles me. It's as if the Pentagon were allowed to contribute to the political campaigns of Congressmen who support increasing their budget.)

Isn't there a story here? Doesn't journalism require that you who produce our daily paper tell the truth about who brought us to a position where the only way to keep confidence in our economy was a $700 billion bailout? Aren't you supposed to follow the money and see which politicians were benefiting personally from the deregulation of mortgage lending?

I have no doubt that if these facts had pointed to the Republican Party or to John McCain as the guilty parties, you would be treating it as a vast scandal. "Housing-gate," no doubt. Or "Fannie-gate."

Instead, it was Senator Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, both Democrats, who denied that there were any problems, who refused Bush administration requests to set up a regulatory agency to watch over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and who were still pushing for these agencies to go even further in promoting sub-prime mortgage loans almost up to the minute they failed.

As Thomas Sowell points out in a essay entitled "Do Facts Matter?" ( Go here to read Thomas Sowell's essay): "Alan Greenspan warned them four years ago. So did the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to the President. So did Bush's Secretary of the Treasury."

These are facts. This financial crisis was completely preventable. The party that blocked any attempt to prevent it was ... the Democratic Party. The party that tried to prevent it was ... the Republican Party.

Yet when Nancy Pelosi accused the Bush administration and Republican deregulation of causing the crisis, you in the press did not hold her to account for her lie. Instead, you criticized Republicans who took offense at this lie and refused to vote for the bailout!

What? It's not the liar, but the victims of the lie who are to blame?

Now let's follow the money ... right to the presidential candidate who is the number-two recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae.

And after Freddie Raines, the CEO of Fannie Mae who made $90 million while running it into the ground, was fired for his incompetence, one presidential candidate's campaign actually consulted him for advice on housing.

If that presidential candidate had been John McCain, you would have called it a major scandal and we would be getting stories in your paper every day about how incompetent and corrupt he was.

But instead, that candidate was Barack Obama, and so you have buried this story, and when the McCain campaign dared to call Raines an "adviser" to the Obama campaign — because that campaign had sought his advice — you actually let Obama's people get away with accusing McCain of lying, merely because Raines wasn't listed as an official adviser to the Obama campaign.

You would never tolerate such weasely nit-picking from a Republican.

If you who produce our local daily paper actually had any principles, you would be pounding this story, because the prosperity of all Americans was put at risk by the foolish, short-sighted, politically selfish, and possibly corrupt actions of leading Democrats, including Obama.

If you who produce our local daily paper had any personal honor, you would find it unbearable to let the American people believe that somehow Republicans were to blame for this crisis.

There are precedents. Even though President Bush and his administration never said that Iraq sponsored or was linked to 9/11, you could not stand the fact that Americans had that misapprehension — so you pounded us with the fact that there was no such link. (Along the way, you created the false impression that Bush had lied to them and said that there was a connection.)

If you had any principles, then surely right now, when the American people are set to blame President Bush and John McCain for a crisis they tried to prevent, and are actually shifting to approve of Barack Obama because of a crisis he helped cause, you would be laboring at least as hard to correct that false impression.

Your job, as journalists, is to tell the truth. That's what you claim you do, when you accept people's money to buy or subscribe to your paper.

But right now, you are consenting to or actively promoting a big fat lie — that the housing crisis should somehow be blamed on Bush, McCain, and the Republicans. You have trained the American people to blame everything bad — even bad weather — on Bush, and they are responding as you have taught them to.

If you had any personal honor, each reporter and editor would be insisting on telling the truth — even if it hurts the election chances of your favorite candidate.

Because that's what honorable people do. Honest people tell the truth even when they don't like the probable consequences. That's what honesty means . That's how trust is earned.

Barack Obama is just another politician, and not a very wise one. He has revealed his ignorance and naivete time after time — and you have swept it under the rug, treated it as nothing.

Meanwhile, you have participated in the borking of Sarah Palin, reporting savage attacks on her for the pregnancy of her unmarried daughter — while you ignored the story of John Edwards's own adultery for many months.

So I ask you now: Do you have any standards at all? Do you even know what honesty means?

Is getting people to vote for Barack Obama so important that you will throw away everything that journalism is supposed to stand for?

You might want to remember the way the National Organization of Women threw away their integrity by supporting Bill Clinton despite his well-known pattern of sexual exploitation of powerless women. Who listens to NOW anymore? We know they stand for nothing; they have no principles.

That's where you are right now.

It's not too late. You know that if the situation were reversed, and the truth would damage McCain and help Obama, you would be moving heaven and earth to get the true story out there.

If you want to redeem your honor, you will swallow hard and make a list of all the stories you would print if it were McCain who had been getting money from Fannie Mae, McCain whose campaign had consulted with its discredited former CEO, McCain who had voted against tightening its lending practices.

Then you will print them, even though every one of those true stories will point the finger of blame at the reckless Democratic Party, which put our nation's prosperity at risk so they could feel good about helping the poor, and lay a fair share of the blame at Obama's door.

You will also tell the truth about John McCain: that he tried, as a Senator, to do what it took to prevent this crisis. You will tell the truth about President Bush: that his administration tried more than once to get Congress to regulate lending in a responsible way.

This was a Congress-caused crisis, beginning during the Clinton administration, with Democrats leading the way into the crisis and blocking every effort to get out of it in a timely fashion.

If you at our local daily newspaper continue to let Americans believe — and vote as if — President Bush and the Republicans caused the crisis, then you are joining in that lie.

If you do not tell the truth about the Democrats — including Barack Obama — and do so with the same energy you would use if the miscreants were Republicans — then you are not journalists by any standard.

You're just the public relations machine of the Democratic Party, and it's time you were all fired and real journalists brought in, so that we can actually have a news paper in our city.

Sunday, October 19, 2008

Understanding Obama: The Making of a Fuehrer

The 'Obamamania' as some refer to the messiah hype but it is a lot more than just that, it is the making of a tyrant, a madman, a new Fuehrer.
Debating with leftists one gets to meet countless of people suffering from BDS - Bush Derangement Syndrome - And often to the point that no matter what subject is up for discussing Bush is the root of all evil, the same BDS sufferers supports and defends Barack Hussein Obama to sometimes aggressive levels such as threats, even of violence, smears, insults, clicheed accusations and what not totally removed from reason and rational thinking.
A rally point of 'hatred' - However irrational.
Then add what brings chills down the spine children singing and praising 'the dear leader' Obama was he Stalin, Hitler, Il Song or similar ilk, and it is not just children or a single incident but with marches praising the dear leader.
Ali Sina has done an interesting research into the psyche and mentality of Barack Hussein Obama.

By Ali Sina from Faith Freedom International.

I must confess I was not impressed by Sen. Barack Obama from the first time I saw him. At first I was excited to see a black candidate. He looked youthful, spoke well, appeared to be confident – a wholesome presidential package. It is so instinctive for most people to want to see blacks succeed. It is as if all humanity is carrying a collective guilt for what the ancestors of blacks endured. However, despite my initial interest in him, I was put off soon, not just because of his shallowness but also because there was an air of haughtiness in his demeanor that was unsettling. His posture and his body language were louder than his empty words.

It is surreal to see the level of hysteria in his admirers. This phenomenon is unprecedented in American politics. Women scream and swoon during his speeches. They yell and shout to Obama, “I love you.” Never did George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt. Martin Luther King Jr. or Ronald Reagan arouse so much raw emotion. Despite their achievements, none of them was raised to the rank of Messiah. The Illinois senator has no history of service to the country. He has done nothing outstanding except giving promises of change and hyping his audience with hope. It’s only his words, not his achievements that is causing this much uproar.

When cheering for someone turns into adulation, something is wrong. Excessive adulation is indicative of a personality cult. The cult of personality is often created when the general population is discontent. A charismatic leader can seize the opportunity and project himself as an agent of change and a revolutionary leader. Often, people, tired of the status quo, do not have the patience to examine the nature of the proposed change. All they want is change. During 1979, when the Iranians were tired of the dictatorial regime of the late Shah, they embraced Khomeini, not because they wanted Islam, but because he promised them change. The word in the street was, “anything is better than the Shah.” They found their error when it was too late.

Khomeini promised there would be separation between religion and state. He lied and they did not care to look into his past to see whether he actually meant what he said. Had they done that they would have seen that he always believed in caliphate and the rule of Islam. People gobbled everything he told them uncritically. They wanted to believe and therefore closed their eyes so they did not see what they did not want to see. Eyes welled when he spoke. Masses poured into the streets by the millions, screamed and shouted to greet him. People kissed his pictures. Some saw his portrait reflected on the Moon.

Listening to Obama ... it harkens back to when I was younger and I used to watch Khomeini, how he would excite the crowd and they'd come to their feet and scream and yell.

I was amused to hear a listener calling Fox News Radio's Tom Sullivan Show, (Feb 11) and saying: "Listening to Obama ... it harkens back to when I was younger and I used to watch those deals with Hitler, how he would excite the crowd and they'd come to their feet and scream and yell." ( Videos of Hitler’s speeches are available on Youtube. They are worth a look.)

Equating anyone to Hitler by highlighting the similarities between the two is a logical fallacy. This fallacy, known as reductio ad Hitlerum is a variety of both questionable cause and association fallacy. I believe it is wrong to trivialize the holocaust and the horrors of Nazism by comparing our opponents to Hitler.

However, Hitler, prior to coming to power had not killed anyone. He was insane, but few could see that. Far from it, he was seen as a gifted man and hailed as the savior of Germany. He was admired throughout the world. He appealed to the masses of people – the working class and particularly to women, and did not just inspire them, he “elevated” them. Thousands rallied to listen to his passionate speeches. They shed tears when he spoke. Women fainted during his speeches. To Germans, he was not a politician, but a demigod, a messiah. They envisioned him as truly a magical figure of majestic wisdom and glory. They worshiped him. They surrendered their wills to him. He restored their national pride. He projected himself as their savior. He ran on the platform of change and hope. Change he delivered all right, but hopes he shattered.

I think it is fair to say that the Illinois senator puts the same passion in his speeches that Hitler used to put in his, and he evokes similar raw emotions in his audience. This much we can agree. Okay, we can also agree that both Hitler and Charlie Chaplin wore square moustaches. So what?

The Cult of Personality

There are other disturbing similarities. Like Hitler and Khomeini, Obama also likes to create a cult of personality around himself. As stated above, when a large number of a population is discontent, a charismatic leader can seize the opportunity and present himself as the agent of change. He can create a cult of Personality by associating himself with the idea of change. He convinces everyone that things are terrible and a drastic change is needed. He then casts himself as the only person who can deliver this revolutionary transformation that everyone is waiting for. He portrays himself as a benevolent guide; the only one who cares about people and their needs and can pull them out of their alleged misery. In reality, they have no clue about how to address the problem - have no experience, no track record. But they are convincing because they are self assured.

These revolutionary leaders need foes. They exaggerate the problems. They make everything look gloomy. They lie, cheat and slander their opponents while casting themselves as the saviors of the nation. Hitler chose the Jews to blame for everything that was wrong in Germany. Khomeini made the Shah and his westernization plans his scapegoats. Obama has chosen President George W. Bush to smear. He can rally people around himself, as long as he can instill in them the dislike of Bush and equate his rival, McCain to him. Sigmund Freud wrote, "It is always possible to bind together a considerable number of people in love, so long as there are other people left over to receive the manifestations of their aggressiveness" (Civilization and Its Discontents).

A cult of personality is excessive adulation, admiration and exaltation of a charismatic leader, often with unproven merits or achievements. It is similar to hero worship except that it is created specifically for political leaders.

obama arrogance

An unequivocal expression of delusional gradiosity

Let us read a few of the comments Obama’s fans have made about him. Their unbounded adulation of this totally unknown figure is proof of my claim.

Jon Robin Baitz is the creator of the ABC series "Brothers & Sisters." He writes:

Today we saw and heard a preview of our brightest possible American future in Senator Barack Obama's glorious speech. This, then, is what it means to be presidential. To be moral. To have a real center. To speak honestly, from the heart, for the benefit of all. If there was any doubt about what we have missed in the anti-intellectual, ruthlessly incurious Bush years, and even the slippery Clinton ones, those doubts were laid to rest by Barack Obama's magisterial speech today. A speech in which he distanced himself from a flawed father figure, Reverend Wright, and did so with almost Shakespearian dignity and honor.

For twenty years Obama was part of Jeremiah Wright’s racist church and listened to all the hate which that man spewed against the Jews and the “rich White America.” Obama did not object to any of those hateful comments and even donated $20,000 dollars to his Trinity United Church of Christ. Baitz is willing to overlook all that and, mesmerized by Obama’s speeches, he embraces a man who up until yesterday supported the racist views of his spiritual mentor. He calls Obama’s speech "glorious," and concludes he is honest and moral. How did he come to that hasty conclusion? There is no evidence of that except his "gut feeling." That observation is subjective. We have not seen any evidence of Obama's honesty yet. On the contrary, he has been caught with a litany of lies.

Clearly Sen. Obama has a charming effect on his audience, who after listening to him are so moved that they willingly give up their reason and follow their hearts. Let’s see how Baitz adulates Obama to the point of worship.

Barack Obama's speech, perhaps one of the most important in modern political history pushed us as a people to move beyond race and gender, beyond Democrat and Republican, beyond politics and into reviving the spirit of the nation itself. To talk, to talk at home, at work, at the dinner table. To really finally talk. What a great day, and where else in the world but in the United States? Today I am very proud to be an American.

Remembering the reaction of Iranians to Khomeini’s speeches, this is all deja vu for me.

There is an old adage that says, “Tell me who your friends are and I will tell who you are.” Don’t the quality of Obama’s friends and associates tell us about the man? Shouldn't we look at the history of this man to ascertain his truthfulness? One characteristic of cult of personality is that people become ready to close their eyes. They find excuses and rationalize the sins of their leader.

Another Obama worshipper is Ezra Klein. He is an associate editor at The American Prospect. Klein wrote:

Obama's finest speeches do not excite. They do not inform. They don't even really inspire. They elevate. They enmesh you in a grander moment, as if history has stopped flowing passively by, and, just for an instant, contracted around you, made you aware of its presence and your role in it. He is not the Word made flesh, but the triumph of word over flesh, over color, over despair. The other great leaders I've heard guide us towards a better politics, but Obama is, at his best, able to call us back to our highest selves, to the place where America exists as a glittering ideal, and where we, its honored inhabitants, seem capable of achieving it, and thus of sharing in its meaning and transcendence.

Obama is not seen by his admirers as a politician but as something holy. Klein says “He is not the Word made flesh, but the triumph of word over flesh.” The truth is that Obama is nothing but words! What is scary is that so many smart people are willing to fall for his empty words. Interestingly the same Ezra Klein had earlier said:

Obama is a cipher, an easy repository for the hopes and dreams of liberals everywhere...But if Obama avoided being battle-tested in 2004 by the grace of God, it's his own timidity that has kept his name clean since. Given his national profile and formidable political talents, he could have been a potent spokesman for Democratic causes in the Senate. Instead, he has refused to expend his political or personal capital on a single controversial issue, preferring to offer anodyne pieces of legislation and sign on to the popular efforts of others...Indeed, Obama is that oddest of all creatures: a leader who's never led. There are no courageous, lonely crusades to his name, or supremely unlikely electoral battles beneath his belt. He won election running basically unopposed, and then refused to open himself to attack by making a controversial but correct issue his own."

Quite a shift I would say. What did exactly Obama do, for Klein to change his views so drastically? Nothing! Obama has won this man’s heart only by the power of his mesmerizing words. he is making his conquests, through the sheer power of his oratory. That is how Hitler won the hearts of the Germans. As Obama’s life story shows, his words don’t have any bearing on reality. Words are powerful, but when they are not backed by any substance they are empty rhetoric.

Todd Gitlin, is professor of journalism and sociology at Columbia University. He is another worshipper of Obama. This is what he says about his leader.

This speech was a triumph on so many levels, does one dare hope it will turn the trick for hordes of parsing skeptics and listeners whose eyes did not water? First, Obama took the high road, which is also the long and demanding road. He refused to "move on" with a cursory acknowledgment that "mistakes were made." He did not acknowledge. He preached and he reasoned.”

Let us pause here and examine what this professor of journalism and sociology says. Obama was a close friend of Rev. Jeremiah Wright and listened to his racist sermons for twenty years. Wright is a man who has intense hatred for the Jews, for whites and for America. This clip shows some of his remarks made from the pulpit. Here is a gleaning from his sermons:

  • We [The White controlled America] have supported state terrorism against Palestinians and Black South Africans … Because of the stuff we have done overseas is now brought back to our own home front yards. America’s chickens are coming home to roost.
  • No, no, no! Not God bless America. God damn America. That is in the Bible, for killing innocent people. God damn America.
  • Government lied about Pearl Harbor. They knew that Japanese are going to attack.
  • They [Government] purposely infected African-American men with syphilis!
  • What is going on in White America, U.S. of KKK?
  • Black men turning on Black men? That is fighting the wrong enemy. You both are primary targets in an oppressive society that sees both of you as a dangerous threat.
  • What we [America] is doing is the same thing Al Qaida is doing, under a different flag.
  • Oh I am so glad, that I got a God who knows what it is to be a poor Black man living in a country and a culture that is controlled by and run by rich White people.
  • Yes, 911 happened to us, and so did slavery happen to us. Yes the World Trade Center happened to us, and so did White supremacy happen to us.
  • “Barack knows what it means to be a Black man living in a country and a culture that is controlled by rich White people.”

When all these came to light, at first the Illinois senator denied having heard them. That excuse was not believable. Wright was Obama's spiritual mentor and the most influential man in his life. And yet he expects us to believe he listened to his sermons for 20 years but did not pay attention to what he was saying? So he changed his position and admitted to having heard them, but he categorically condemned them. Obama went one step further. He did not just condemn the racist remarks of his Pastor, but he preached and he sermonized how bad are they are. Now, this requires some audacity that only a narcissist can muster. Instead of apologizing and recognizing his error, Obama turned the table and preached to others.

How can we understand this? The man himself is the sinner but instead of acknowledging his sins, he preaches to others about the vices of those sins. The answer can be found in the description of narcissistic personality disorder (NPD). Narcissists will never admit being wrong. They are always one step ahead of you.

Those who remember Rev. Jimmy Swaggart know that he was one of the most popular and successful televangelists of all times. During the 1980s, he had millions of fans all over the world. He mesmerized his audience. He was more than a rock star, he was a phenomenon. Swaggart was a preacher of "morality." He was so against promiscuity and unlawful sex that he went after two other televangelist magnates, Marvin Gorman and Jimmy Baker, exposed their adultery and brought their empires down.

However, what narcissists preach and what they do are two different things. Soon after exposing Gorman’s adultery, Swaggart himself was photographed with a prostitute in a motel room. He was banned from giving sermons for three months. But he could not stay away from the church that provided him with adulation and the people who fed his narcissistic need. He said, "If I do not return to the pulpit this weekend, millions of people will go to hell." So he returned to the pulpit and after shedding a few crocodile tears of repentance, he went right on preaching morality, chastising adultery and sermoning to others, how THEY should live a chaste life.

This requires audacity. How one who has been caught with a prostitute, literally with his pants down, could have the cheek to preach to others about the very thing he is guilty of? NPD provides the answer to both Swaggart and Obama’s responses, when caught red handed. The narcissist will not apologize for his own sins; he will go on preaching to you about the evilness of those sins. If Professor Gitlin had read a book or two on narcissism, he would have not been hoodwinked by Obama’s preaching about racial harmony after being caught with his proverbial pants down in his racist church. Giltin is not alone; millions of Americans have fallen for this narcissist’s mind games.

Prof. Gitlin continues:
“The Reverend Jeremiah Wright,” he [Obama]said, “had spoken in an ‘incendiary’ manner,” but Obama offered himself as the man who rises from flames and invites you to rise from your own. He took a grievous embarrassment and moved his lesson to the plane of prophecy. Talk about hope; talk about audacity. Tears came to my eyes. I don't think I'm especially hard-hearted, but I cannot think of another time when the speech of a presidential candidate watered me up.

It is amazing to see to what extent people are willing to go to eulogize another human being. It is this excess that constitutes the cult of personality. The difference between admiration and cult of personality is in the degree of adulation. Is it not fair to say that Obama has the same effect on his fans that Hitler, Khomeini or other famous demagogues such as Joseph Stalin or Mao Ze Dong had? I am not equating Obama to those mass murderers. Obama has not killed anyone (at least not yet). I am only comparing their effects on their audience, particularly prior to their rise to power.

Obama’s speeches are unlike any political speech we have heard in American history. Never a politician in this land had such a quasi “religious” impact on so many people. The fact that Obama is a total incognito with zero accomplishment, makes this inexplicable infatuation alarming.

Obama’s speeches are grandiose. They are other worldly. He may talk about the war in Iraq, taxes or social security. It does not matter how mundane is the subject, he makes them sound transcendental and his audience is moved to tears. His worshippers do not go to listen to his plans. He has yet to offer any that is workable and different. They go to bask in his glory, to get high. Obama presents himself as someone with a unique vision and grasp of the entire problems affecting, not just the nation but the world, a pretense that is incomensurate with his track record. When in a meeting with House Democrats waxing lyrical about his trip to Europe, he concluded, “this is the moment, as Nancy [Pelosi] noted, that the world is waiting for.” The world is waiting for Obama, according to Obama. In one of his rallies he reiterated this delusion of grandiosity and said, “We are the ones we’ve been waiting for." This sentence is logically absurd. What actually Obama wanted to say, which he masked with fake modesty is “I am the one the world has been waiting for.”

When you fall for someone to the extent that Obama’s followers have fallen for him, you surrender your reason and individuality to him willingly. When millions of people surrender their hearts and their minds to one person the result can be catastrophic. This is what happened in Germany with Hitler, in China with Mao, in the Soviet Union with Stalin, in Cuba with Castro, in Iran with Khomeini, and so on and so forth. Today, we think these men were monsters, but that was not what millions of their worshipers thought. Those people loved them. Dictators can’t dictate, unless peole are willing to be dictated.

Here is what Wikipedia says about Cult of Personality:
"A cult of personality or personality cult arises when a country's leader uses mass media to create a heroic public image through unquestioning flattery and praise. Cults of personality are often found in dictatorships but can be found in some democracies.

"A cult of personality is similar to general hero worship except that it is created specifically for political leaders. However, the term may be applied by analogy to refer to adulation of non-political leaders."

Who is Obama?

Obama is not an ordinary man. He is not a genius. In fact he is quite ignorant on most important subjects. Barack Obama is a narcissist. Dr. Sam Vaknin, the author of the Malignant Self Love, also believes, Barack Obama appears to be a narcissist.

Vaknin is a world authority on narcissism. He understands narcissism and describes the inner mind of a narcissist like no other person. When he talks about narcissism everyone listens. Vaknin says that Obama’s language, posture and demeanor, and the testimonies of his closest, dearest and nearest suggest that the Senator is either a narcissist or he may have narcissistic personality disorder (NPD).

Vaknin explains: “Narcissistic leaders are nefarious and their effects pernicious. They are subtle, refined, socially-adept, manipulative, possessed of thespian skills, and convincing. Both types [cerebral and somatic] equally lack empathy and are ruthless and relentless or driven.” These were the very traits that distinguished Hitler and Khomeini. Many of these traits can be seen in Obama. As for his ruthlessness, perhaps his support of legislation to let babies die if they survive abortion, gives a glimps into his soul, that he may lacks empathy, does not value life, and if in the position of power can be ruthless. Narcissists need power to show their ruthlessness. Considering the fact that Obama neglected his own half brother, George Hussein Obama, who lives on one dollar per month in Kenya, we can’t vouch for Obama’s empathy or say he is a caring person.

What is Narcissism?

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) describes narcissism as a personality disorder that “revolve around a pattern of grandiosity, need for admiration, and sense of entitlement. Often individuals feel overly important and will exaggerate achievements and will accept, and often demand, praise and admiration despite worthy achievements.”

The third and fourth editions of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) of 1980 and 1994 and the European ICD-10 describe NPD in similar language:

An all-pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration or adulation and lack of empathy, usually beginning by early adulthood and present in various contexts. Five (or more) of the following criteria must be met:

  • Feels grandiose and self-important (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents to the point of lying, demands to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)
  • Is obsessed with fantasies of unlimited success, fame, power or omnipotence, unequalled brilliance (the cerebral narcissist), bodily beauty or sexual performance (the somatic narcissist), or ideal, everlasting, all-conquering love or passion
  • Is firmly convinced that he is unique and, being special, can only be understood by, should only be treated by, or associate with, other special, unique, or high-status people (or institutions)
  • Requires excessive admiration, adulation, attention and affirmation, or failing that, wishes to be feared and notorious (narcissistic supply)
  • Feels entitled. Expects unreasonable or special and favorable priority treatment. Demands automatic and full compliance with his expectations
  • Is “interpersonally exploitative” i.e., uses others to achieve his or her own ends
  • Is devoid of empathy. Is unable or unwilling to identify with or acknowledge the feelings and needs of others
  • Is constantly envious of others or believes that they feel the same about him or her
  • Is arrogant, has haughty behaviors or attitudes coupled with rage when frustrated, contradicted, or confronted

Obama inebriated with the fantasy of unlimited success.

Pathological narcissism, is not akin to typical narcissism—someone with a hedonistic or self-centered sense of self —but rather someone with a very weak sense of self. Obama’s narcissism is pathological.

Narcissists seek power. That is the whole purpose of their existence. Power for them is the elixir of life. Those who know about NPD can’t help but notice it in Obama’s posture, the tone of his voice, his demeanor and particularly his grandiose claims and unscripted adlibs.

Narcissim has degrees. When it is extreme it shows in the posture and the way the narcissist walks and talks. Obama's posture, exudes haughtiness. He is all puffery. Compare his posture to those of Hitler, Stalin and Saddam.

According to Vaknin, Obama displays the following behaviors, which are among the hallmarks of pathological narcissism:

- Subtly misrepresents facts and expediently and opportunistically shifts positions, views, opinions, and "ideals" (e.g., about campaign finance, re-districting). These flip-flops do not cause him overt distress and are ego-syntonic (he feels justified in acting this way). Alternatively, refuses to commit to a standpoint and, in the process, evidences a lack of empathy.

- Ignores data that conflict with his fantasy world, or with his inflated and grandiose self-image. This has to do with magical thinking. Obama already sees himself as president because he is firmly convinced that his dreams, thoughts, and wishes affect reality. Additionally, he denies the gap between his fantasies and his modest or limited real-life achievements (for instance, in 12 years of academic career, he didn't publish a single scholarly paper or book).

- Feels that he is above the law.

- Talks about himself in the 3rd person singluar or uses the regal "we" and craves to be the exclusive center of attention, even adulation

- Has a messianic-cosmic vision of himself and his life and his "mission".

- Sets ever more complex rules in a convoluted world of grandiose fantasies with its own language (jargon)

- Displays false modesty and unctuous "folksiness" but is unable to sustain these behaviors (the persona, or mask) for long. It slips and the true Obama is revealed: haughty, aloof, distant, and disdainful of simple folk and their lives.

- Sublimates aggression and holds grudges.

- Behaves as an eternal adolescent (e.g., his choice of language, youthful image he projects, demands indulgence and feels entitled to special treatment, even though his objective accomplishments do not justify it).

Obama sublimates aggression. Can he be trusted as the leader of the free world?

Narcissists project a grandiose but false image of themselves. Jim Jones, the charismatic leader of People’s Temple, the man who led over 900 of his followers to cheerfully commit mass suicide and even murder their own children was also a narcissist. David Koresh, Charles Manson, Joseph Koni, Shoko Asahara, Stalin, Saddam, Mao, Kim Jong Ill and Adolph Hitler are a few examples of narcissists of our time. All these men had a tremendous influence over their fanciers. They created a personality cult around themselves and with their blazing speeches elevated their admirers’ souls, filled their hearts with enthusiasm and instilled in their minds a new zest for life. They gave them hope! They promised them the moon, but alas, invariably they brought them to their doom. When you are a victim of a cult of personality, you don't know it until it it too late.

One determining factor in the development of NPD is childhood abuse. “Obama's early life was decidedly chaotic and replete with traumatic and mentally bruising dislocations,” says Vaknin. “Mixed-race marriages were even less common then. His parents went through a divorce when he was an infant (two years old). Obama saw his father only once again, before he died in a car accident. Then, his mother re-married and Obama had to relocate to Indonesia: a foreign land with a radically foreign culture, to be raised by a step-father. At the age of ten, he was whisked off to live with his maternal (white) grandparents. He saw his mother only intermittently in the following few years and then she vanished from his life in 1979. She died of cancer in 1995.”

In Vaknin’s words, “Pathological narcissism is a reaction to prolonged abuse and trauma in early childhood or early adolescence. The source of the abuse or trauma is immaterial: the perpetrators could be dysfunctional or absent parents, teachers, other adults, or peers.”

The pathological narcissist has a very weak sense of self. He compensates his devalued and injured self with pomposity and by projecting a false image of majesty and authority. He retreats into a bubble universe of fantasy, in which he is loved, respected and omnipotent. All children create such a world. Narcissists simply don’t leave it. They carry this world of pretence into their adulthood. With the passage of time, this world becomes to them as real as the real world, to the point that they can’t tell the difference. When Obama acts presidential, he is simply acting out his childhood fantasy of omnipotence and grandeur. Emotionally, he is still a little hurt boy, neglected and unloved in the body and mind of a grown up man. Such people can be dangerous. Narcissists have the emotional maturity of a child, or even an animal, but the intellect of a man. They feel like a beast, but think like a human.

If we look into the childhood of all narcissists, we can see that invariably they were abused. Saddam was born to a widow who after losing her husband and her 12 year old son was so distressed that she attempted suicide. Before his birth, she would pull out clumps of her hair and pummel her pregnant abdomen with her fists. Saddam Hussein in his own official biography recounts his unhappy childhood. Hitler was the son of a very abusive man who would beat him regularly. From Saddam to Osama, to Hitler, to Stalin, to Khomeini, to Mao and to Kim Jong Ill, it is wounded childhood that causes NPD. Obama’s chaotic childhood and his continuous struggle to find his identity make him a prime candidate for NPD.

Hitler was confused about his identity. His father was an illegitimate son of a Jew. He chose to be in denial of that part of himself and his response was the genocide of the Jews. Obama’s search for his identity led him to a racist church that preached “Black Power.” He changed his given name Barry to Barack, in an atempt to rid himself of the only vestige he had with his white heritage.

Narcissists have only one issue. They want power and will do and say anything to get it. Their words mean nothing to them. They do not intend to keep them. They look into your eyes and swear on a stack of Bibles that they are not going to do something when that is exactly what they intend to do. They break their promises when it suits them and annul their treaties when they can get away with it. They lie, and lie, and lie, and lie, and lie, and lie, and lie, and lie, and lie, and lie, and lie, and lie, and lie, and lie.

Narcissists are pathological liars. They lie even to themselves. Ironically, they are the first to believe their own lies. When normal people lie, they show signs of distress. Narcissists don’t. They can pass any polygraph test with flying colors. It is this conviction that fools people around them making them believe in their truthfulness and sincerity. In a twisted way they are sincere because, although they are conscience that they are not truthful, they believe in their own lies. This is difficult to understand and even more difficult to explain, but for a narcissist fantasy and reality are intertwined. The narcissist’s delusional thoughts of grandiosity are real to him.


Obama absorbed in reveries of omnipotence

Narcissistic Society

Germans are not particularly an evil race. They are no better or worse than any other nation. And yet, despite their advanced culture and civility they committed the most hideous crime in modern history. They murdered up to ten million people, because those unfortunate souls did not meet their "Master Race standards of ethnic purity.” Hitler did not kill anyone; the Germans did.

So the question is: What made these smart and highly civilized people commit such horrendous acts of savagery?

According to Vaknin, “The narcissistic or psychopathic leader is the culmination and reification of his period, culture, and civilization. He is likely to rise to prominence in narcissistic societies.”

Is America a narcissistic society? Vaknin believes “Pathological narcissism is a ubiquitous phenomenon because every human being - regardless of the nature of his society and culture - develops healthy self esteem early in life [which he calls healthy narcissism]. Healthy narcissism is rendered pathological by abuse - and abuse, alas, is a universal human behavior. By 'abuse, we mean any refusal to acknowledge the emerging boundaries of the individual - smothering, doting, and excessive expectations - are as abusive as beating and incest.”

The emergence of so many cults in America is proof that America is not an exception to the norm. If demagogue narcissists, like Jim Jones, David Koresh or Jimmy Swaggart can find a fertile ground in America, why not one with a political message?

The Power of Manipulation

Narcissists are manipulative and extremely resourceful. They know how to the play their game, and how to get what they want, by using others. Obama is the least experienced senator among the Democrats. His political views are the most foolish of them all. He opposed the surge in Iraq saying it will make the situation worse and he was wrong. He thinks the solution to terrorism is to sit with terrorist states without precondition and negotiate with them. When Russia invaded Georgia, all this genius did was to urge both sides to "exert restraint". Everything this man has said so far reveals his ignorance in economical, political and military matters. Despite that, this junior senator has managed to rally the seasoned senators of the Democratic Party around himself and, not withstanding his ineptitude, he has emerged as the leader de facto of his party and their presidential candidate.

This is a remarkable feat. One must never underestimate the manipulative genius of pathological narcissists. They project such an imposing personality that it overwhelms those around them. Charmed by the charisma of the narcissist, people become like clay in his hands. They cheerfully do his bidding and delight to be at his service. The narcissist shapes the world around himself and reduces others in his own inverted image. He creates a cult of personality. His admirers become his co-dependents.

Anyone can be fooled by narcissists. Just as experienced and smart senators of the Democratic Party have surrendered to the charisma of Obama, a man who is inferior to them all in every sense; many members of the media also have fallen for his charm hook, line and sinker. The American media is soft on Obama, but extremely harsh and deceitfully unfair on Governor Palin. The “rich White Americans,” the very people he despised for twenty years are swooning for him. The Jews whom he opposed all his life are backing him. They are opening their wallets and supporting his campaign in an unprecedented way. He has managed to charm even the Kennedys. Ted Kennedy, the lion in Winter, passed the Kennedy mantle unto Obama. That was hugely symbolic. As for the great Clintons, he made them submissive, and for whatever reason, incomprehensible to me, they are playing his game. Think about it. Obama is a cipher. In reality, he is nobody. And yet, thanks to his overbearing display of authority, the very mask that he is wearing to hide his devalued and injured self, he has overwhelmed all the giants of the Democratic party. Cults are full of smart people who have been hoodwinked by ally sick needy people.

Could all this phenomenal support and unbounded adulation erupt into violence? All the abuses and killings in Nazi Germany were done by the Germans, ordinary people who loved Hitler and believed in the glorious tomorrow that he was promising them. Hitler was insane, but those who did his bidding were not. Despite being smart, they did not hesitate to fulfill their fuehrer’s wishes and commit the most heinous crimes. The same thing happened in Iran. Ordinary people, once under the spell of Khomeini, acted like beasts. This is what happens when sane people follow insane people.

Could the same happen in America? Why not? Look how millions of people literally worship Obama. With some people I cannot even talk about Obama. They cannot tolerate any criticism of him. They get angry and, not only they want to end the conversation but threaten to end the friendship. I am familiar with this kind of religious devotion to a person. The reaction that I get from Obama worshippers is similar to that of Muslims when their prophet is criticized. They are even prone to insult you. See how they overlook Obama's blatant lies and are willing to forgive his major sins such as racism. Note how the mainstream media bends the rules, twists the facts, exaggerates Obama’s little virtues, absolves his sins, and even lies to sell him to the public. Compare the royal treatment that the liberal press has given to Obama to how unfairly they treat Governor Palin; how they smear her character and belittle her experience and achievement. ABC’s Charlie Gibson’s interview with Governor Palin was a stain on journalistic integrity. Is it more important that Palin has not traveled the world and has not shaken hands with heads of states, or the fact that Obama has lied so many times? Under what pretext should an ordinary citizen visit heads of foreign states? The question itself is preposterous.

While not shaking hands with foreign heads of states does not disqualify one to run for any office, The Logan Act (est. 1799) makes it a crime for a citizen to confer with foreign governments against the interests of the United States. Specifically, it prohibits citizens from negotiating with other nations on behalf of the United States without authorization.

That is exactly what Obama did during his trip to Iraq, a charge that Obama's national security spokeswoman Wendy Morigi confirmed, while trying to deny it. She said, “In fact, Obama had told the Iraqis that they should not rush through a ‘Strategic Framework Agreement’ governing the future of US forces until after President George W. Bush leaves office.”

This is high treason. Ordinary citizens have no right to enter into negotiations with foreign countries and make deals against the interest of their Government. Obama tells the Iraqis not to let the American soldiers go, so he can call them in January, supposedly when he is the president and claim victory for himself. Will Mr. Gibson or anyone in the liberal media question Obama for this crime?

Gibson’s questions were tricky. He asked the Governor, “what do you think of Bush’s doctrine,” and then, instead of explaining himself, he insisted that his interviewee define what he meant. After letting the Governor look puzzled, Gibson explained what he understands of "Bush Doctrine," which according to him is preemptive strike.

Assuming this is a “Bush doctrine,” is it his only doctrine? Isn’t being pro life also a Bush doctrine? Isn’t Christianity or creationism a Bush doctrine? Bush believes in a multitude of things. How can one know what Gibson has in mind? Do you see the trickery? Bush has many doctrines, and they change as his thinking evolves over time.

Many members of the media have been hoodwinked by the charm of the rising fuehrer. They have become his extensions, act deceitfully and dishonestly to make their beloved leader’s rise to power a reality.

How can smart people let themselves be manipulated by a psychopath to such an extent that they become quasi zombies? Recall what the smart Germans did under the spell of Hitler. Bear in mind what the Soviets did under the influence of Stalin. Consider what the Japanese did during WWII when they believed in the divinity of their emperor. Evoke how the Chinese Red Guard massacred millions of their own countrymen when they were blinded by their love for Mao and his faux notion of equality. Look at the Islamic terrorists. Can’t we say the same about them? Isn’t Islamic savagery the result of Muslims’ uncritical devotion to a long deceased narcissist? If you don't know what I am talking about, I invite you to read my book, Understanding Muhammad. When sane people fall for the lies of an insane man, they act insanely.

No one is born a terrorist. Terrorists are ordinary people who do the bidding of a pathological narcissist whom they love and worship as their liberator. They are so enamored with him that they stop thinking and act like automatons. To prove their love and devotion they can commit murder and even suicide. They can kill their own children, as the followers of Jim Jones did in Guyana. The narcissist encourages all of this behavior because it validates his delusion of omnipotence. It reassures him that he is loved, respected, counted, taken seriously. Did you hear the song played during the Democratic convention? It said, “This is the church.” And who do you think is the head of that church? Americans are as fallible and as gullible as everyone else. It is foolhardy to say "it won't happen to us." Just as today, Obama’s supporters happily engage in intellectual dishonesty, deceitful reporting, and even hooliganism, I predict they will soon, merrily commit the same crimes other nations committed under the spell of their narcissistic leaders.

His majesty condescendingly looks down at his scullions

The Sick Symbiosis

Narcissists need their narcissistic supply to fuel their narcissism. They get it through adulation from people around them. These people are often also needy people. They are known as co-dependants. The narcissist and his co-dependent therefore, form a sick symbiosis in which both benefit. Let me give you one example to explain this mechanism.

David Sirota is a nationally syndicated newspaper columnist. In December 2006, in an article entitled “The Ridiculousness & Danger That Is Obama '08” Sirota lambasted the Democrats who wanted Obama, an incognito junior senator, to run for presidency.

Sometimes, you really just have to sit back and laugh at the ridiculousness of the celebrity-obsessed political culture we now live in.” wrote Sirota in his column. “Take this Chicago Sun-Times article by Lynn Sweet in which she predicts Illinois Sen. Barack Obama (D) will run for president. She goes through what he has to do to prepare for his run, and this is the one that just makes you chuckle: “Develop signature legislative initiatives: Once the Democrats control Congress come January, there's a chance to pass legislation. Watch for Obama to focus on alternative energy measures, health care and ethics reform legislation that stalled earlier this year."

Think about it. The national media is swooning over Obama, begging him to run for president. Yet, at the same time, they are implicitly acknowledging that he has actually not "developed significant legislative initiatives." In other words, we are to simply accept that the Obama for President wave has absolutely nothing to do with anything that the man HAS DONE and further, that whenever he does decide to use his enormous political capital to do something, it is all in pursuit of the White House - not any actual sense of DOING SOMETHING for the people who elected him to the Senate.

I don't blame Obama for not having accomplished much - he's been in the Senate for two years. As I wrote in the Nation, the main concern about him is that he doesn't actually seem to ASPIRE to anything outside of the Washington power structure (other than maybe running for another higher office), and doesn't seem to be interested in challenging the status quo in any fundamental way. Using his senate career as a guide, it suggests that any presidential run by him is about him, his speaking ability and his fawned over talent for "connecting" (whatever the hell that means).” (Read the rest of Sirota’s comment in his own blog.)

I could not say it better. Sirota understood the problem with Obama. He realized that not only this man has zero experience; he is actually a power hungry charlatan that aspires to nothing other than running for another higher office. He then expressed his outrage at the fellow Democrats who tried to make a leader out of this quack.

These Democrats laid all their hopes on Obama. They were captivated by his charm. They could not see that this man is wearing a mask of authority to cover his inner feeling of insecurity; that he is a fraud, a narcissist. When approached, Obama at first confessed to his inexperience, but the sycophants in the Democratic Party, were so desperate to find a charismatic leader that they could not let go of their prize. It does not take much to persuade a narcissist that he can do anything. He is already convinced that he is smarter and better that everyone else. So, despite his own confession of lack of experience, Obama could not resist the temptation.

To nurture his narcissism, the narcissist needs narcissistic supply. It is always people around the narcissist who provide that supply and encourage him in his psychosis. If it were not for Khadijah who reassured her husband that his hallucinations were not demonic, as he had thought, but divine revelations, Muhammad may never have started his prophetic career. It was she who encouraged him to launch a new religion, instead of calling an exorcist.

This is called co-dependency. The co-dependent, who also suffers from low self esteem, seeks his or her grandeur and narcissistic supply in the greatness of a narcissist of whom she seeks to become a part.

According to Wikipedia, “a ‘codependent’ is loosely defined as someone who exhibits too much, and often inappropriate, caring for persons who depend on him or her. A ‘codependent’ is one side of a relationship between mutually needy people. The dependent, or obviously needy party(s) may have al, physical, financial difficulties, or addictions they seemingly are unable to surmount. The "codependent" party exhibits behavior which controls, makes excuses for, pities, and takes other actions to perpetuate the obviously needy party's condition, because of their desire to be needed and fear of doing anything that would change the relationship.”

The Democrats were desperately in need of a charismatic leader. They saw their hope in a needy man, a narcissist who portrayed himself as self assured, eloquent and authoritative and had sex appeal. It was love at first sight and they set on to polish him as their candidate. In this relationship the Democratic Party became the co-dependant of the narcissist Obama. They needed someone to shine so they can bask in his splendor. And Obama needed them to fulfill his delusions of grandiosity. This is how codependency works. It is a sick symbiosis of two needy parties. Behind every successful narcissist, there is always a co-dependent.

When the co-dependent and the narcissist team-up the result can be catastrophic. Now we have folie à deux. The delusional belief of the narcissist about himself is transmitted and shared by another needy, but ostensibly smart person. The codependent validates and encourages the narcissist's delusion. As the result, the narcissist becomes bolder, more assertive, more authoritative and more confident. The partnership of the narcissist and the codependent dons their delusion with the mantle of credibility. The codependent will then do everything to persuade others as well. The narcissist's cause is himself. The codependent will champion that cause. By recruiting others, they find validation for their own belief about the narcissist. Soon the folie à deux becomes folie à trois, then folie à quatre, and when you are a presidential candidate and are followed by a hoard of journalists and cameramen, before you blink there will be folie à plusieurs (madness of many). Recent psychiatric classifications refer to the syndrome as shared psychotic disorder.

The masses of people have no first hand knowledge of the narcissist, but they jump on the bandwagon thanks to a very human trait, misnomered as “herd mentality.” They reason, how can so many people can be wro,ng and satisfied by this fallacy blindly join the cult of personality worship.

Like gasoline being poured on a fire, the sycophants around the narcissist provide him with an abundance of narcissistic fuel to feed upon. The unbounded adulations poured at his feet further reinforce and escalate the unique and divine self-image of the narcissist. The larger the narcissistic fuel supply becomes, the more inflated becomes his ego, and the more firmly set in his own mind becomes the conviction of his own invincibility and superiority over other men. The narcissist reaches a stage that he will claim to be a revolutionary leader, an agent of change, a renascence man, the hand of God, even a messenger or prophet of God. Just as a fire can grow infinitely large as long as it receives its fuel, there is no limit to the delusional belief of a narcissist. When millions of people yell and scream and shout “I love you,” an ordinary narcissist is prone to believe that he is God. If the narcissist happens to be a person with power and authority, in a position of high leadership commanding armies and weapons of mass destruction, the result too often leads to the horrific slaughter of millions of innocent souls in the gulag, gas chambers, or killing fields.

Unbounded adulation reconfirms the narcissist that he is right and that anyone who disagrees with him is evil and therefore it is just to punish him. Narcissists do not understand the concept of the Golden Rule. Right is what benefits them and wrong is what harms them. So they fight for their own interest and are convinced that this is justice. Human rights and human lives are important only to the extent that they meet their narcissistic needs. They are worthless, and can be disposed of, if they don’t.

Ayatollah Montazeri, the man who was originally chosen to succeed Khomeini, recalled when Khomeini ordered the execution of 3000 youths who were captured during a demonstration against him. Montazeri protested and Khomeini angrily told him, “I will respond for my actions in the Day of Judgment.” Khomeini was a man of God. However, as a narcissist, he was convinced that because he was a superior being and a chosen one, a delusional belief that was reconfirmed by millions of people when they cheered for him, anyone who opposed him was opposing God and therefore by killing them he was doing the maker of the universe a favor.

There is no cure for narcissism. However, deprived of adulation, the disorder will remain dormant. The narcissist, without the narcissistic supply, may become grumpy and complain that the world does not understand them or appreciate their importance. They will continue to cheat and lie when they can get away with it, but the damage that they can cause is not earth shattering. However, when a narcissist becomes the focus of unlimited narcissistic supply, where millions of people scream at his feet, he goes insane.

As narcissism maturates, the narcissist becomes more demanding for respect and compliance and more intolerant of criticism. He becomes paranoid, and divides the world into “us” vs. “them”. He casts himself and his minions as victims and instills in them the distrust of the “others”.

When criticized, Obama's soul can be seen in his eyes.

The narcissist’s anger and intolerance is projected on his servile followers who also become angry and intolerant of criticism of their leader. Remember the sick symbiosis between the narcissist and his codependents? The followers get their narcissistic supply by elevating the status of their leader. The greater he looks, the better they feel. They see their glory is his glory. Conversely, when the narcissist is criticized, his followers become offended. They take those criticisms personally and their instinct of self defense is triggered. They will become vigilantes and will silence their critics through intimidation, bullying, mocking, threats and violence (like calling those who disagree with Obama, racists).

This paragraph is a later addition. About a week after I wrote the above, Missouri sheriffs and top prosecutors formed Obama "Truth Squads" and threatened libel charges against Obama critics. I am no prophet, but see how my predictions are coming to pass. This is only the begining. Narcissists are intolerant of criticism and create a reign of terror to silence their critics. Please someone invite this Obama's "Truth Squad" to respond to his article and silence me.

Sirota was no fool. He saw what is wrong with Obama and was right on the money when he described him. But, as I have repeated many times, narcissists are gifted manipulators. Sirota is an influential man. Obama needed his support and called him.

It's not every day that God calls your cell phone,” wrote Sirota, sarcastically speaking of Obama, ‘This is Barack Obama.’ Thinking it was a good friend playing a joke, I said I didn't believe him. But no, the voice insisted with a laugh, it was Illinois Senator Barack Obama, otherwise known in cult-of-personality political circles as a deity, a rising Democratic star or, as George W. Bush recently called him, "the pope."

Narcissists are relentless and very convincing. They tell you exactly what you want to hear. They are full of promises. Their talent to manipulate is phenomenal. Well, not this time! Sirota apparently was not ready to sell his conscience (at least not yet) and endorse a man who according to him did not “aspire to anything outside of the Washington power structure (other than maybe running for another higher office.)” This is the kind of patriot America needs more of – citizens of integrity and conscience.

Where does David Sirota stand today? Errr!... Amm!… Why do you want to know? Emm!... How can I put it? Mr. Sirota…, Errr!…, Ah! Yes! Mr. Sirota has had an epiphany - a Pauline sort of experience. As he neared Damas... I mean Denver, on his journey to the Democratic Convention, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. He fell to the ground and heard a voice on his cell phone say to him, "David, David, why do you persecute me?" "Who are you, Lord?" David asked. "I am Barack, whom you are persecuting," he replied. "Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do." That is how David Sirota became a believer of Obama. He stopped blaspheming his Lord by calling him inept and opportunist. Guess what? He has even defended Jeremiah Wright. Hallelujah! Surely “God” (the emerging one) can transform the hearts of his enemies.

Narcissists have an almost surreal power to manipulate others. They can literally charm their adversaries and turn them into cheerful scullion, who will even thank them for giving them the privilege to slave for them.

You see! The narcissist and the codependent need each other. Many members of the Democratic Party may know what Sirota knows, but they need Obama. They have to keep up appearances (think Hillary, who once said "shame on you, Barack Obama" because of his flip flopping and lies and now supports him).

Narcissists are amoral. They consider themselves to be above the law. Once in power, they will try to strengthen their hold by surrounding themselves with equally amoral people. A good example of what we should expect in Obama’s administration is the infamous NAFTA gate scandal. This is what happened:

A senior member of the Obama campaign called the Canadian government to say that “when Sen. Obama talks about opting out of the free trade deal, the Canadian government shouldn’t be worried; that it is just campaign rhetoric and shouldn’t be taken seriously.”

Isn't it amazing? Obama tells the Ohio voters, who are unhappy with NAFTA that he is going to kill it, when actually he does not mean to do any such thing. For a narcissist, ends justify means. He feels warranted to lie and deceive in order to accomplish what he has to accomplish.

This story was denied by Obama, but confirmed twice by sources at the highest level of the Canadian government. This is how a narcissist operates. Obama will lie to Americans and he will surround himself with equally unethical people. With a Congress and Senate controlled by Democrats, and his ability as president to replace retiring Supreme Court judges, nothing will stop him from abusing his power.

The Cause of the Narcissist

The cause of the narcissist is himself. Everything else is a tool, a stepping stone for the narcissist to ascend to power. Narcissists don’t have any ideology. They champion the cause that has a better chance of making their ascent to power easier.

Vaknin writes: “Narcissists use anything they can lay their hands on in the pursuit of narcissistic supply. If God, creed, church, faith, and institutionalized religion can provide them with narcissistic supply, they will become devout. They will abandon religion if it can't.”

Therefore, the question whether Obama is a Muslim or a Christian, whether he is pro Palestine, as he has been all his life or whether he is pro Israel, whether he is a black supremacist or an agent of racial harmony, are moot. Obama is anything you want him to be and situation dictates. He takes the side that is more expedient to his cause. To communists he is a comrade, to Islamists he is their man, to Palestinian fighters he is their hope and to the Jews he is a staunch Zionist. The narcissist’s creed is himself. Everything else is negotiable.

Obama will do and say anything as long as it suits him. He will embrace any cause, will align himself with anyone, and will shift his position wherever the wind blows. Narcissists are chameleons.

Obama voted “present” in the Senate most of the time, (130 times to be precise) not because they were too difficult decisions, as Rudy Giuliani said at the GOP convention, but because those issues were not relevant to his cause.

Narcissists have no interest in things that do not help them to reach their personal objective. They are focused on one thing alone and that is power. All other issues are meaningless to them and they do not want to waste their precious time on trivialities. Anything that does not help them is beneath them and do not deserve their attention. If an issue raised in the Senate does not help Obama in one way or another, he has no interest in it. The “present” vote is a safe vote. No one can criticize him if things go wrong. Why should he implicate himself in issues that may become controversial when they don’t help him personally? Those issues are unworthy by their very nature because they are not about him.

Obama’s election as the first black president of the Harvard Law Review led to a contract and advance to write a book about race relations. The University of Chicago Law School provided him with a fellowship and an office to work on his book. The book took him a lot longer than expected and at the end it devolved into…, guess what? His own autobiography! Instead of writing a scholarly paper focusing on race relations, for which, he had been paid, Obama could not resist writing about his most sublime self. He entitled the book Dreams from My Father .

Not surprisingly, Adolph Hitler also wrote his own autobiography when he was still nobody. So did Stalin. For a narcissist no subject is as important as his own self. Why would he waste his precious time and genius writing about insignificant things when he can write about such an august being as himself?

Narcissists are magical thinkers. They live in a world of fantasy; fantasies of grandiosity and unlimited power. But they are convinced that those fantasies will become reality because they are special and destined for greatness. That is why Obama already sees himself as president and acts presidential. The very fact that he travelled abroad and visited with several heads of states is another sign of this man's delusions of grandiosity. He is not representing the government. Under what pretext he visited those heads of states and entered into negotiations with them?

Vaknin explains, “Bragging and false autobiography – The narcissist brags incessantly. His speech is peppered with ‘I’, ‘my’, ‘myself’, and ‘mine’. He describes himself as intelligent, or rich, or modest, or intuitive, or creative – but always excessively, implausibly, and extraordinarily so.”

Narcissists Are Dangerous.

Narcissists are often callous and even ruthless. As the norm, they lack conscience. This is evident from Obama’s lack of interest in his own brother who lives on only one dollar per month. A man who lives in luxury, who takes a private jet to vacation in Hawaii, and who has raised nearly half a billion dollars for his campaign (something unprecedented in history) has no interest in the plight of his own brother. Why? Because, his brother cannot be used for his ascent to power. A narcissist cares for no one but himself.

Compare this to what the McCains did. They brought a child from Bangladesh with facial deformities - a little girl with no chance for a normal life – and with plastic surgery restored her beauty and adopted her as their daughter. Millions of ordinary people, who are not even wealthy, have fostered children of total strangers in third world countries and give about a dollar a day for their education and upbringing.

Narcissists can be very generous, but never without an ulterior motive. They are generous when their display of generosity is noticed and elevates them in the eyes of others. Obama donated $20,000 to his racist and anti-Semitic church, but neglected his brother who could get some education and live a lot better if only he had one dollar per day.

Narcissism is all about image. Vaknin says, “The narcissist is shallow, a pond pretending to be an ocean. He likes to think of himself as a Renaissance man, a Jack of all trades. The narcissist never admits to ignorance in any field – yet, typically, he is ignorant of them all. It is surprisingly easy to penetrate the gloss and the veneer of the narcissist's self-proclaimed omniscience.”

Obama’s gaffes in history and world affairs are proof of that. This man does not even know the number of states in the USA, or that Canada does not have a president. That is why Vaknin says a narcissist is a shallow pond that pretends to be an ocean. Obama's ignorance about what should be common knowledge is mind boggling.

Narcissists have a profound sense of call, as they believe they have a “special purpose” or a “high calling.” In his autobiography Hitler wrote, “I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator.” Politics and religion offer irresistible lure for the narcissist.

And this is what Obama said about his “calling:"Kneeling beneath that cross on the South Side of Chicago, I felt I heard God's spirit beckoning me," he said of his walk down the aisle of the Trinity United Church of Christ. "I submitted myself to his will and dedicated myself to discovering his truth."

At least one mental health professional believes that about 6% of Americans are pathological narcissists. The percentage in countries where child abuse is more prevalent is a lot higher. Although all narcissists are cunning, and bereft of conscience, not all of them have the wits to rise to power. A narcissist with smarts can be dangerous.

Hitler was smart, and so is Obama. Hitler would not have become the monster he became had he not risen to power and had he not received so much narcissistic fodder to feed on. One man who saw Khomeini prior to rising to power recalled he would gently push flies out of his window, but would not kill them. The same man massacred tens of thousands of Iranians. It is power that brings madness out of the narcissist.

America is at a crucial moment in its history. I cannot think of any disaster greater than putting a pathological narcissist in control of the world’s most powerful military machine.

Narcissists are empty in substance but full on promises. Obama has not proposed a single concrete workable plan, but he has raised the hopes and expectations of millions of people with his promises. The glorious tomorrow that he offers is no more real than the Styrofoam Greek columns that adorned his image during his acceptance speech.

Vaknin says, “The narcissistic leader prefers the sparkle and glamour of well-orchestrated illusions to the tedium and method of real accomplishments, His reign is all smoke and mirrors, devoid of substances, consisting of mere appearances and mass delusions. In the aftermath of his regime - the narcissistic leader having died, been deposed, or voted out of office - it all unravels. The tireless and constant prestidigitation ceases and the entire edifice crumbles. What looked like an economic miracle turns out to have been a fraud-laced bubble. Loosely-held empires disintegrate. Laboriously assembled business conglomerates go to pieces. "earth shattering" and "revolutionary" scientific discoveries and theories are discredited. Social experiments end in mayhem.”

The narcissist who regards himself as the benefactor of the poor, a member of the common folk, the representative of the disenfranchised, the champion of the dispossessed against the corrupt elite - is highly unlikely to use violence at first.”

The pacific mask crumbles when the narcissist has become convinced that the very people he purported to speak for, his constituency, his grassroots fans, the prime sources of his narcissistic supply - have turned against him. At first, in a desperate effort to maintain the fiction underlying his chaotic personality, the narcissist strives to explain away the sudden reversal of sentiment. "The people are being duped by (the media, big industry, the military, the elite, etc.)", "they don't really know what they are doing", "following a rude awakening, they will revert to form", etc.

When these flimsy attempts to patch a tattered personal mythology fail - the narcissist is injured. Narcissistic injury inevitably leads to narcissistic rage and to a terrifying display of unbridled aggression. The pent-up frustration and hurt translate into devaluation. That which was previously idealized - is now discarded with contempt and hatred.

This election is like no other in the history of America. The issues are insignificant compared to what is at stake. What can be more dangerous than having a man bereft of conscience, a serial liar, and one who cannot distinguish his fantasies from reality as the leader of the free world?

I hate to sound alarmist, but one must be a fool if one is not alarmed. Many politicians are narcissists. They pose no threat to others. They are simply self serving and selfish. Obama evinces symptoms of pathological narcissism, which is different from the run-of-the-mill narcissism of a Richard Nixon or a Bill Clinton, for example. To him reality and fantasy are intertwined. This is a mental health issue, not just a character flaw. Pathological narcissists are dangerous because they look normal and even intelligent. It is this disguise that makes them trecherous.

Vaknin says, “When the narcissist reveals his true colors, it is usually far too late. His victims are unable to separate from him. They are frustrated by this acquired helplessness and angry at themselves for having failed to see through the narcissist earlier on.”

Today the Democrats have placed all their hopes in Obama. But this man could put an end to their party. The great majority of blacks have also decided to vote for Obama. Only a fool does not know that their support for him is racially driven. Brendan Farrington, reported, evidence indicates that some black Republicans are switching parties to vote for Obama. He wrote, “Florida has 81,512 more black Democrats compared to a loss of 784 black Republicans; Louisiana has 34,325 more black Democrats, while the number of black Republicans dropped by 907; North Carolina has 92,356 more black Democrats and 2,850 fewer black Republicans. The only three states that track voting registration by party and race show black Republican registration dropping slightly since the beginning of the year."

Let us call a spade a spade. This is racism, pure and simple. The truth is that while everyone carries a misconceived collective guilt towards the blacks for wrongs done centuries ago by a bygone people to a bygone people, the blacks carry a collective rancor, enmity or vendetta towards non-blacks and to this day want to "stand up" to the whiteman. They seem to be stuck in 19th century.

The downside of this is that if Obama turns out to be the disaster I predict, he will cause widespread resentment among the whites. The blacks are unlikely to give up their support of their man. Cultic mentality is pernicious and unrelenting. They will dig their heads deeper in the sand and blame Obama's detractors of racism. This will cause a backlash among the whites. The white supremacists will take advantage of the discontent and they will receive widespread support. I predict that in less than four years, racial tensions will increase to levels never seen since the turbulent 1960s. Obama will set the clock back decades.

America is the bastion of freedom. The peace of the world depends on the strength of America, and its weakness translates into the triumph of terrorism and victory of rogue nations. It is no wonder that Ahmadinejad, Hugo Chavez, the Castrists, the Hezbollah, the Hamas, the lawyers of the Guantanamo terrorists and virtually all sworn enemies of America are so thrilled by the prospect of their man in the White House. America is on the verge of destruction. There is no insanity greater than electing a pathological narcissist as predident.

Psychiatric Test

When a narcissist is running for the highest office in the world, the stakes cannot be higher. Did it matter what were Hitler’s views on abortion, economy, environment, education, old age pension, gay rights, social security, jobs or housing? With Hitler, the only thing that really mattered was his mental sanity.

I urge all Americans to make this a pivotal issue in this electoral campaign. Time is running out. Please spread the word. Talk about it with your coworkers, friends and relatives. Invite everyone in your address book to sign this petition. Publish it in your blog. Write about it. This is the most vital issue. If a presidential candidate is mentally unfit, nothing else matters. If you are an Obama fan, please sign too, so you can vote with confidence that the man you are putting in the White House is not going to be your nightmare.

I have started the petition, below linked to this article. I ask everyone to demand that all presidential and vice-presidential candidates in this election submit to mental health examinations prior to Election Day. Please sign the petition and ask others to do the same

Please Sign the Petition

Ali Sina is the author of Understanding Muhammad: A Psychobiography of Allah’s Prophet and the founder of Faith Freedom International, the movement of ex-Muslims created to eliminate hate through knowledge and foster amity among all mankind.

© Copyright: Permission is granted to reprint and distribute this article in its entirety or in part. However, since I keep adding new material to this article. Maybe it is better you invite your readers to read this article from this page - Go HERE.