News Ticker >
[ September 21, 2017 ]

Exposed: The relationship between al-Qaeda and Iran

[ September 21, 2017 ]

New Hampshire: Muslim “refugee” sexually attacks several little girls as young as 7

[ September 21, 2017 ]

Oklahoma trial of Muslim who BEHEADED co-worker: “Slave to Allah” said he did it because...

[ September 21, 2017 ]

VIDEO: Muslim “refugees” go on sex assault spree at church festival

[ September 21, 2017 ]

4 Muslim youth gang-raped Hindu teenage girl for 10 days, forced to convert

[ September 21, 2017 ]

Muslim cleric says fathers can marry off their newborn daughters

[ September 21, 2017 ]

Defense attorney: Muslim who plotted to behead Pamela Geller an “idiot,” not guilty

[ September 21, 2017 ]

Mayor of Lampedusa says his island is ‘collapsing’ because of Muslim migrant violence and crime

[ September 21, 2017 ]

Buy-Bye: Convicted Terrorist Rasmea Odeh Officially Off U.S. Soil

[ September 21, 2017 ]

90 Percent of Asylum Seekers in Austria End Up On Welfare

Modern Left Uses the Soviet Model for Islam Policy

25

Dateline, Moscow, 1917-1930: Did you ever wonder where this otherwise quite intellectually unoriginal and primitive Left ensconced inside every Western country has gotten its ideas about the social policies towards the people of Islam? Nazism sought to exploit Islam for military purposes, having no original intellectual approach to the Question of Islam. Lenin and his Bolsheviks, on the other hand, did have an original approach to Islam which has been adopted by the LEFT in the West. This Muslim journalist Bilal Ahmed (who is a Muslim with an atheist outlook) praises Lenin and Communism for its treatment of Muslims in Soviet Asia – quite ironically (because the LEFT today wishes to distance itself from the Soviet experience). Ahmed’s sympathy for Leninism and the bloody Bolshevik Revolution (which destroyed millions of people, who were not Muslim, of course) reveals to us why the World of Islam was mostly allied with or sympathetic to the Soviet Communism (during the Cold War). Had there been evils done to Muslims of the sort that happened to non-Muslims in Czarist Russia and its successor – the Soviet Union, little Muslims like Ahmed would not be singing the praises of Lenin, naturally. People like him and his Western liberal counterparts possess no intellectual gravitas with which to approach any subject with the objectivity required for a proper analysis, let alone a subject that confirms their inherent bias. Nonetheless, we can learn from Ahmed’s insightful article about the policies of Communism why the LEFT is firmly an ally of the Rise of Islam. Journalist Bilal Ahmed is a perfect example of a secularist Muslim who still lends a helping hand to Islam in spite of his seemingly more enlightened position. This example speaks poorly about the prospects of integration or assimilation of Muslims, even those willing to take a distant look at their own roots while using the crutch of atheist Western social prescriptions. Whether the outdated doctrine of Communism deliberately wished to resurrect global Islamic jihad or not is quite irrelevant – what matters is that this negative political movement that acts like cancer on the West has aided the ideology of Islam on the path of that militant tendency of its followers.

Here are the clear lines of aid and abatement of Muslims and their lifestyle-driven faith’s agenda that the murdering Soviet Communists have produced for them:

As far back as 1909, Lenin was opposed to the emphasis on an attack on religion as part of the initial Marxist programme of revolution (which he was quite wise to do because he recognized the unnecessary complication resulting from religious issues at a time when the LEFT needed all the help it can get to conquer office and steal the seat of power). He thought that it was political suicide to ask deeply religious people to abandon their faith as a condition for joining his revolutionary organization. This was a pragmatic but intellectually dishonest approach, the kind we find today on the LEFT. This later translated into a Soviet policy on all religions, including Islam. The Bolsheviks understood that Islam functioned as a national identity for all countryside Muslims without formal education and that this granted political freedom – which they would owe to the Soviet authorities of the LEFT – was necessary for their right to self-determination AND FOR THEIR LOYALTY TO THE REGIME OF THE LEFT — which means that Lenin supported JIHAD because jihad is the most basic expression of what can only be described as “Muslim right to self-determination” or “self-expression.” This reliance on the concept of “self-determination” also makes Lenin at one with America’s big contemporary Democrat — President Woodrow Wilson — who framed his disastrous post-war European policy prescription on the same catchphrase! Self-determination meant the fragmentation of the roots of the RIGHT and the parceling out of the Western cultural real estate that once spanned the world in a straight line from San Francisco to Vladivostok.

Meanwhile, in the early Soviet Union of Lenin and his immediate successors (1917-1927) as the Christian monuments and Slavic historical traditions were being trampled on the Muslim sacred monuments were being built or restored (by an enforced government policy) in areas where they once stood defeated at the hands of the Christian counter-attack that overthrew the great Moslem dictatorships of the steppes which used to routinely humiliate and enslave the Christian settlements. National autonomy for Muslim regions was declared, monuments to the Moslem religion and its mythic heroes were returned, and Friday was declared the legal day of observance or idleness throughout Central Asia (Friday is to Moslems what Sunday is to Christians and Saturday is to the Jews). And all this, of course, to the sound of murderous shots ringing all around signaling the mass killings of eminent European gentlemen who stood in the way of the victory of the LEFT in Russia. Are we going to witness in America some day a revolution of this sort? After all, we are living in a time of slow-motion regression into Communism. Perhaps, America will run out of gentlemen by the time the LEFT is through.

Lenin’s Bolsheviks even took measures to meet local demands (by Islamic imams of the patriarchal villages in the country) for a SHARIAH court system. As the Russian Civil War drew to a close in 1922, Islamic courts were opened and operated alongside Soviet legal institutions. The Soviet Legal Commissariat came to include a Shariah Commission to supervise the dual system, and a number of smaller commissions were also set up to figure out how to make Shariah work alongside the atheist Soviet codes. Extreme sentences of the hardline old Middle Eastern Semitic system of punishments (like the removal of limbs for theft) were suspended to conform with the progressivist agenda of Lenin’s henchmen – although the harsh Soviet punishments by hanging, by gulag exile and by firing squad were not subject to challenge – although alcohol consumption was for the Shariah courts to rule on. Soviet authorities encouraged the consumption of alcohol to keep the Christian leftovers drugged up and downright stupid. However, the Bolsheviks got the core idea right: Muslims would have the option of a more relevant and culturally acceptable religious legal system, so long as it adapted to the Communist state’s core principles. Islam did because it was pragmatic too. After all, the Bolsheviks were willing to share the hefty spoils of victory over Russian Christianity with Islam, its other deadly enemy. Similar policies of compromise with Islam were made in the public education area under the control of the Soviet LEFT. The core message of grievance against the “oppressive West” of White heterosexual male capitalists continued to be pounded into heads in the school classrooms to serve as a kind of message that Islam would have no problem with. In fact, Islam itself has remained loyal to this basic Soviet message and to this day relentlessly keeps pounding away this sort of message in all its public communique’s – from the most abstract small time Lebanese coffee corner discussions to the most official messages issued by the Taliban, ISIS and the Saudi Arabian legal authority: Muslims are victims (read: “the proletariat of the world” in terms of Lenin) and Christians are killers and enslavers (read: “capitalists” are oppressors of the world). Islam promises Allah’s abode of Paradise and the LEFT promises a stress-free world of corruption of morals for the sake of the masses and free money on the table as eternal payback for a perceived wrong from the past. Both Islam and the LEFT are mass movements, supporting mob tastes. Moreover, Islam, as well as the LEFT (Anglo-Soviet Communism) both rely on the enforcement of rules because they defy nature. “Diversity” and “inclusion” are political directives and not natural ideas. If they were natural they would not require a political enforcement. Everyone wants success but not everyone can be successful. Islam and the LEFT recognize no law greater than themselves. For that reason, they both must resort to murder to keep their fixation alive.

It is very significant to note that even a total state ideology of the Soviet LEFT that hated all faith in God (since no authority can ever be greater than that of the LEFT seeking total power in all domains! – which is another point of unity between Nazism and the Anglo-American LEFT as well as Leninism and Maoism) still sought to make an exception with Islam – which is a paradox that the RIGHT observers notice today in the West. After all, aren’t they rivals at some point? This modern paradox of an atheist doctrine lending an unfair hand to an extreme theist doctrine existed 100 years ago already in the Soviet Union. The reason? The enemy of my enemy has to be my friend. “Apres moi le deluge” – declared a French king. The LEFT today is of the same frame of mind. Hitler was of that opinion, too. They don’t care about what happens to the world outside their realm after they are gone. 

Lenin and the Muslims

Most leftists have no idea what to do with Muslims. Should we be empowered as a disenfranchised minority? Should we be forced to adopt “European values”? It’s complicated, but interestingly, the early Soviet Union was remarkably intelligent about this. Just after the Bolshevik revolution, the state used innovative policies to approach the Russian Empire’s brutally oppressed Muslim minorities. Dave Crouch’s The Bolsheviks and Islam  is an excellent primer for understanding Moscow’s “Muslim policy” before the rise of Stalin. For all of Lenin’s failings, he appears to have gotten this right.

Rather than acting like Islam needed to be crushed, the Bolsheviks recognized the social and economic realities affecting Muslims, and attempted to tailor socialist policy towards those realities. As far back as 1909, Lenin was opposed to separating any member of the working-class from their religion, calling leftists who called for such an abolition “infant school materialists.” He personally thought that it was political suicide to ask deeply religious people to abandon those beliefs before joining a revolutionary organization such as his own. This later translated into Soviet policy. The Bolsheviks understood that Islam functioned as a national identity for many Soviet Muslims, and that as a result, it was worthy of its right to self-determination.

National autonomy was declared, sacred monuments were returned, and Friday was declared the legal day of rest throughout Central Asia. Amazingly, the Bolsheviks even took measures to meet local demands for a Shariah court system. As the Russian Civil War drew to a close in 1922, Islamic courts were opened, and operated alongside Soviet legal institutions. The Soviet Legal Commissariat came to include a Shariah Commission to supervise the dual system, and a number of smaller commissions were also set up to figure out how to make Shariah work alongside the Soviet codes. The balance was uneasy, owing to historical context. Extreme sentences like the removal of limbs were cut out, and “vices” such as alcohol consumption were a bit of a grey area at times. However, the Bolsheviks got the core idea right: Muslims would have the option of a more relevant and culturally accessible legal system, so long as it adapted to the state’s core principles. Similar policies were implemented when it came to education.

These experiments basically ended with Stalin. Stalinists began vicious campaigns against Islam, targeting “crimes against custom,” and veiling in particular. Forced unveiling began at mass meetings starting in the late 1920s, and Islam was attacked as a barrier to progressive transformation. The Bolsheviks’ earlier policies became a memory. Crouch’s work on this should be read critically, since he clearly wishes to redeem Lenin when it comes to religious freedom. There was still much to be desired, and it is entirely possible that Lenin was simply biding his time until the state was strong enough to move against Islam outright.

The case study is still worth noting, though. Whatever the context, the early Soviet Union approached Islam as a state that was non-religious, not anti-religious. It sought to expand itself to accommodate Muslim citizens, rather than demanding that they swear fealty to European progressiveness and cosmopolitanism. The result was an attempted balance, which can be done today if countries like Britain undertake reforms such as allowing the option of Shariah courts when it comes to civil matters like marriage and small contracts. There is no reason that the liberal rule of law can’t be deepened to include Islamic justice, especially if the mixture is constantly being supervised and evaluated. Similar reforms are possible to allow for cultural studies programs, or even optional alternative schools for students of certain minority groups. Recalling Lenin here may not actually be that far-fetched. It would actually push a society that is more inclusive for everyone, Muslims included.


The prayer-transfixed Muslims ignoring everything for the sake of Allah, even as their patron Lenin looks on at his most faithful supporters.

http://souciant.com/2014/09/lenin-and-muslims/

  • AlgorithmicAnalyst

    Good historical information.

    • Sandy Shaw

      Yes, but it is more than that even. I hope that you took some hints and insights about the working relationship between the LEFT and Islam from this article, as did I. For one, Islam is seen as an ally because 1) it is as valid a mass movement as the mass movement orientation of the LEFT is too (its wet dream) and 2) Islam is inimical to the West (which is represented by the RIGHT) just as much, if not more, than the LEFT.

      Islam and the LEFT are united against the same enemy, and it is an alliance of convenience between kindred nihilistic movements.

    • Suresh

      If you look at it just as a historical information you are missing the point. They are using the same tactics to push their agenda successfully while the ignorant RIGHT is clueless .

      Left/liberal/Feminism gave “freedom” to women and abused men, so we have a broken societies with clueless women getting attracted to Islam for giving them a sense of “direction , peace “.

      so they welcome their future jihadi husbands http://bit.ly/2uHm0YC

      ….and they consider those who speak out against jihadi criminals as “nazi”. AND the patriots are clueless on how to effectively fightback .

  • Mahou Shoujo

    While on the subject of communists, remember that old joe stalin said “Ideas are more dangerous than guns, we do not allow our enemies to have guns, why would be allow them to have ideas”?

    • Kalambong Kalambong

      Hitlery, anyone?

    • santashandler

      And he meant it.

      • Mahou Shoujo

        Ideas are a dangerous thing, that is why the tools of despots, the face books and other social media are dangerous, along with the lame stream media, owned politicians and internet money and financial services. By taking control of commerce through their deciding who can buy and sell on the internet, they manipulate society to insure submission to their will and political agenda.

        • santashandler

          Yep, soon to increase it’s expansion on a computer near you…..

          • Bettydhubbard

            Pages182j

            Yahoo! is paying 97$ per hour! Work for few hours and have longer with friends & family!!!
            On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $8752 this last four weeks.. Its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve had.. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
            !ql242d:
            ➽➽
            ➽➽;➽➽ http://YahooFinancialJobsCash242ShopRed/GetPay$97/Hour ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★:::::!ql242t..,….

        • Mack Pooh

          Incredible Reply!!

          • Mahou Shoujo

            Thank you.

        • IzlamIsTyranny

          Amazon took steps to decide who can buy and sell on their venue when they banned the sale of Halloween costumes deemed “offensive” to muslums. I have no doubt Amazon’s management has already discussed banning books deemed “offensive” to muslums.

          • Mahou Shoujo

            Very likely, the left wing haters have taken control, the regrettable thing is that the rest of us let them do so.

    • AshleyMBaughman

      People112j

      Google is paying 97$ per hour! Work for few hours and have longer with friends & family!!!
      On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $8752 this last four weeks.. Its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve had.. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
      !ql142d:
      ➽➽
      ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleFinancialJobsCash142ShopVille/GetPay$97/Hour ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★:::::!ql142t..,..

    • volksnut

      This is exactly what i’ve been saying that muslims are being used – ” useful idiots ” as lenin would’ve called them

  • santashandler

    “Recalling Lenin” may prove to be releasing the genie out of that bottle may be more trouble than it’s worth and it’ll never go back in.

  • John D. Horton

    The balance for Muslims who want to practice Sharia in the West (North American, Europe, Australia etc.) is for the Muslims to move to a Sharia state in Africa or Asia and not try to implement Sharia in the West.

  • RalphB

    “Self-determination meant the fragmentation of the roots of the RIGHT and the parceling out of the Western cultural real estate that once spanned the world in a straight line from San Francisco to Vladivostok.”

    This reminds me of Persian policy in the fourth-century BC. They allied themselves with a declining Sparta and promoted a policy known as the “King’s Peace” according to which the Persian king — actually an emperor — with the ‘generous’ help of the Spartan military (and other Greek mercenary armies) would intervene wherever two or more Greek city-states would enter into a mutual defense alliance, on the grounds that such alliances limited the autonomy of the individual cities. Thus, the Spartans became the muscle that protected their Persian allies (read ‘masters’) from any chance that the mainland Greeks would unite and threaten Persian hegemony in culturally Greek coastal Asia Minor and points east.

    The modern totalitarian left pursues a policy similar to that of the Persians, but instead of the King’s Peace protecting a geographic hegemony, they have developed a fragmentation policy known as multiculturalism designed to keep the peoples of the West culturally and politically isolated — and preferably at each others throats, lest they unite under the banner of the Western Enlightenment which gave birth to the concept of individual rights. Their method has been obvious: don’t attack the concept of ‘rights’ — people will think you are depriving them of something — but instead, beat the drums to attach rights to ‘identity’ groups. These groups can be racial, ethnic, religious, psychosexual — it really doesn’t matter as long as you can persuade them that they are in danger from some other collective, specifically in this case, any set of persons who insist that rights attach to individuals as such, and not to collectives.

    The left has discovered the easiest way to do this: claim that anyone who supports individual rights rather than collective rights, does so in order to deny rights to collectives other than their own. Thus, on the collective theory, those favoring equal protection of the law for all must do so only because such an arrangement favors their own group at the expense of others. Therefore, Western Enlightenment values are racist. The fact that this is a completely irrational non-sequitur bothers the multicultural collectivists not in the least, since they are all postmodernists and neo-marxists who know that logic is a tool of cultural oppression.

    What does the parallel with fourth-century Greece tell us? That the totalitarian left, in the role of the heavenly-ordained Persian Empire, has been using the jihad as the ‘muscle’ — as Persia used Sparta — by which a dispirited culture in the wake of a Golden Age can be intimidated into compromise with forces inimical to it’s best interests, thereby softening its resistance to intimidation by any group claiming moral authority. (And remember, victim status equals moral authority.) Calls for ‘unity’ among the post-Enlightenment states of the West are as frightening to the left as calls for respecting individual rights. The best example of what horrifies them is President Trump’s July 6th speech in Warsaw. Another is the strengthening of NATO — particularly where that strengthening is devoted to crushing ‘Radical Islamic Terrorism’, i.e., the jihad.

    Another parallel would be that between the U.S.-backed anti-ISIS war in the Middle East and North Africa and the rise of Thebes in fourth-century Greece to challenge and subsequently defeat the supposedly invincible Spartan army. Only a political disaster, not a military one, could prevent the U.S. from reducing ISISfrom their current status as a global threat and inspiration to millions of devout but (to them inexplicably) powerless Muslims to another cheap and disgusting group of local hit and run terrorists

    The American left was counting on the immigration jihad to weave a sense of multicultural (read ‘collectivist’) inevitability into the fabric of America under eight years of President Hillary Clinton, but since that expectation was shattered, they grasped at the unbelievable and politically awkward Russian Hacking excuse, in an attempt to tie Trump to their erstwhile but unpopular friends in the former Soviet Union. With the failure of the immigration Jihad and the Russian Smear, the left realized that it was time to fall back on what they know best: smearing their enemies — Trump supporters above all — as racists, and building up the military wing of the Collectivist Party: Antifa.

    In a brilliantly orchestrated plan, with the eager participation of the news media, the left and their military wing, Antifa, turned a demonstration against removing a Confederate statue by a couple of piss-ant white-racist organizations, into ‘proof’ that President Trump was a white-supremacist monster. For a follow-up they honed their military tactics in Boston and San Francisco, secure in their belief that — even with the failure of the jihad initiative — their own terrorist forces would remain untouched under the protection of their loudly proclaimed victim status.

    The only possible flaw in their plans would be revealed should the modern versions of Epaminondas and Pelopidas of Thebes — the President and the Attorney General — decide that Antifa is a paramiltary hate group — which it is — and come against it with the power of the law like a phalanx of sarissa-bearing hoplites before the collectivists can accomplish their goal of turning America into a riot-torn mess of collective versus collective just in time for the next elections.

    So which will it be: enforcement of individual rights or the suicide of the West?

  • RBlan

    “Self-determination meant the fragmentation of the roots of the RIGHT
    and the parceling out of the Western cultural real estate that once
    spanned the world in a straight line from San Francisco to
    Vladivostok.”

    This reminds me of Persian policy in the
    fourth-century BC. They allied themselves with a declining Sparta and
    promoted a policy known as the “King’s Peace” according to which the
    Persian king — actually an emperor — with the ‘generous’ help of the
    Spartan military (and other Greek mercenary armies) would intervene
    wherever two or more Greek city-states would enter into a mutual
    defense alliance, on the grounds that such alliances limited the
    autonomy of the individual cities. Thus, the Spartans became the muscle
    that protected their Persian allies (read ‘masters’) from any chance
    that the mainland Greeks would unite and threaten Persian hegemony in
    culturally Greek coastal Asia Minor and points east.

    The
    modern totalitarian left pursues a policy similar to that of the
    Persians, but instead of the King’s Peace protecting a geographic
    hegemony, they have developed a fragmentation policy known as
    multiculturalism designed to keep the peoples of the West culturally and
    politically isolated — and preferably at each others throats, lest
    they unite under the banner of the Western Enlightenment which gave
    birth to the concept of individual rights. Their method has been
    obvious: don’t attack the concept of ‘rights’ — people will think you
    are depriving them of something — but instead, beat the drums to attach
    rights to ‘identity’ groups. These groups can be racial, ethnic,
    religious, psychosexual — it really doesn’t matter as long as you can
    persuade them that they are in danger from some other collective,
    specifically in this case, any set of persons who insist that rights
    attach to individuals as such, and not to collectives.

    The
    left has discovered the easiest way to do this: claim that anyone who
    supports individual rights rather than collective rights, does so in
    order to deny rights to collectives other than their own. Thus, on the
    collective theory, those favoring equal protection of the law for all
    must do so only because such an arrangement favors their own group at
    the expense of others. Therefore, Western Enlightenment values are
    racist. The fact that this is a completely irrational non-sequitur
    bothers the multicultural collectivists not in the least, since they are
    all postmodernists and neo-marxists who know that logic is a tool of
    cultural oppression.

    What does the parallel with fourth-century
    Greece tell us? That the totalitarian left, in the role of the
    heavenly-ordained Persian Empire, has been using the jihad as the
    ‘muscle’ — as Persia used Sparta — by which a dispirited culture in
    the wake of a Golden Age can be intimidated into compromise with forces
    inimical to it’s best interests, thereby softening its resistance to
    intimidation by any group claiming moral authority. (And remember,
    victim status equals moral authority.) Calls for ‘unity’ among the
    post-Enlightenment states of the West are as frightening to the left as
    calls for respecting individual rights. The best example of what
    horrifies them is President Trump’s July 6th speech in Warsaw. Another
    is the strengthening of NATO — particularly where that strengthening is
    devoted to crushing ‘Radical Islamic Terrorism’, i.e., the jihad.

    Another
    parallel would be that between the U.S.-backed anti-ISIS war in the
    Middle East and North Africa and the rise of Thebes in fourth-century
    Greece to challenge and subsequently defeat the supposedly invincible
    Spartan army. Only a political disaster, not a military one, could
    prevent the U.S. from reducing ISISfrom their current status as a global
    threat and inspiration to millions of devout but (to them inexplicably)
    powerless Muslims to another cheap and disgusting group of local hit
    and run terrorists

    The American left was counting on the
    immigration jihad to weave a sense of multicultural (read
    ‘collectivist’) inevitability into the fabric of America under eight
    years of President Hillary Clinton, but since that expectation was
    shattered, they grasped at the unbelievable and politically awkward
    Russian Hacking excuse, in an attempt to tie Trump to their erstwhile
    but unpopular friends in the former Soviet Union. With the failure of
    the immigration Jihad and the Russian Smear, the left realized that it
    was time to fall back on what they know best: smearing their enemies —
    Trump supporters above all — as racists, and building up the military
    wing of the Collectivist Party: Antifa.

    In a brilliantly
    orchestrated plan, with the eager participation of the news media, the
    left and their military wing, Antifa, turned a demonstration against
    removing a Confederate statue by a couple of piss-ant white-racist
    organizations, into ‘proof’ that President Trump was a white-supremacist
    monster. For a follow-up they honed their military tactics in Boston
    and San Francisco, secure in their belief that — even with the failure
    of the jihad initiative — their own terrorist forces would remain
    untouched under the protection of their loudly proclaimed victim status.

    The
    only possible flaw in their plans would be revealed should the modern
    versions of Epaminondas and Pelopidas of Thebes — the President and the
    Attorney General — decide that Antifa is a paramiltary hate group —
    which it is — and come against it with the power of the law like a
    phalanx of sarissa-bearing hoplites before the collectivists can
    accomplish their goal of turning America into a riot-torn mess of
    collective versus collective just in time for the next elections.

    So which will it be: enforcement of individual rights or the suicide of the West?

  • Mack Pooh

    The post-modern perception of islam was solidified after 9/11.

    Bush, Obama, and obviously Europe, have given islam its pat on the back, a much needed boost to prominence, and identifying them as moderate muslims and liberal muslims and conservative muslims. All identifiers of the same idiotic lunacy that islam is of a value. Islam is islam is islam and according to your local muslim, islam is the law of the planet, or will soon be.

    And so now, in this post 9/11 era of radical, tyrannical, and psychotic islam, it is Russia and China who have become more anti-islamic than many Americans including those who profess a hatred for islam in its entirety. Lenin, Bolchevik, Stalin, and Hitler, would have, at some point realized the garbage islam represents. Today, it is Russia who could claim a victory over ISIS, not America or her allies. It was Putin, not obama, as if, who would take on ISIS in Syria. Though ISIS remains potent, it is Russia who realized that ISIS is wanting to go into Russia.

    China continues to execute muslims. This not about a post Lenin or Bolchevik era as it is about today, but about Stalin who recognized the danger of allowing islam to exist.

    Islam is a global cancer. Islam must be eternally destroyed from birth to elder. Every muslim, no matter man, woman, or child must be eternally exterminated. History and christian “beliefs” declare the total destruction of a people or “religion” is not a christian value much less an effort god and jesus would support.

    Frankly, we do not have the time to wait and see nor do we have an obligation to allow bleeding hearts to pray.

    Stop being a sucker……

  • Simba

    Communism being the longest standing fraud on mother earth,it shares many common factors with Islam.The former has entered the academic institutions and media.Most pro left are rich.What commonalities do they have with the poor masses they claim to represent? It’s just to appear virtuous that they force their doctrine of equality on everybody while remaining more equal themselves.

  • Wasn’t the USSR also an enemy of most Muslim nations though?

    • IzlamIsTyranny

      No, the USSR supplied the Mid-East dictatorships/theocracies with all the arms and armaments their jihadi hearts desired — especially when they were used against Israel. Why do you think Kalashnikov AK-47’s and 12.7mm machineguns are commonplace across the muslum world?

Pin It on Pinterest