Innocence of Muslims

Not rated yet!
Nakoula Basseley Nakoula
0 h 14 min
Release Date
1 January 2012
Drama, Documentary
Staff ReviewsAround the Web ReviewsAudience Reviews

Check back soon when the reviews are out!

Or why not join our mailing list to stay up to date?



Box office recaps sent twice a month (maximum).

( ̄^ ̄)ゞ (☞゚ヮ゚)☞ No spam! ☜(゚ヮ゚☜)

✍🏻 > 🗡️ Want to join our team? Email us!
Counter Currents Staff3
Counter Currents Publishing

(Reviewers' Site/Bio)



  • Innocence of Muslims:Another Zionist Provocation

    Zionist front-man Nakoula Basseley Nakoula

    2,019 words

    What motivated an Egyptian-born Coptic Christian, “Sam Bacile” (real name [1]) to make a film that was guaranteed to inflame Muslims across the world? Until now, Nakoula’s only notoriety is as a criminal, a bankrupt, and an ex-convict rather than as a committed activist for any cause other than his own financial well-being.[2]

    What sparked the riots and violence across the Muslim world was not the movie, per se, which is called Desert Warrior, “which was a bust, a wash,” according to “consultant, ” Steve Klein,[3] but the more widely seen YouTube trailer called Innocence of Muslims.

    Nakuola is hardly known for his selflessness. He had been declared bankrupt in 2000 and had been involved in criminal schemes before and since. Thus to become the frontman and hence the fall-guy for an action that was obviously also going to place him in extreme danger, he must surely have been offered a sizable financial incentive. A Los Angeles Times report states of Nakoula:

    . . . Some of those activities were criminal. He was convicted on state drug charges in 1997. In 2010, he was convicted in an identity theft scheme. According to the court file, Nakoula, who ran gas stations in Hawaiian Gardens, operated under a dizzying array of aliases, including Kritbag Difrat. He was sentenced to 21 months in federal prison and was released last summer.[4]


    Zionist Steve Klein

    The individual that soon emerged as the “significant other” behind Nakoula is Steve Klein, a leading neocon Zionist associated with Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller, and Daniel Pipes in what one Jewish investigative journalist, Max Blumenthal, calls the “Axis of Islamophobia.”[5] Klein is credited as the script consultant.[6]

    Klein, a Vietnam veteran, has made a name for himself for finding “al Qaeda cells” in California and leading “anti-Islam protests outside of mosques and schools.” Klein claimed to journalist Jeffrey Goldberg that he did not know Bacile’s real name but that Bacile had sought him out due to his prominence in agitating against Islam. For someone who claims that ferreting out Muslim terrorist cells in the USA is “a piece of cake,”[7] Klein’s claim of ignorance about Bacile seems unlikely. The more likely scenario is that Nakoula was selected by Zionist handlers as someone who could be paid to do their bidding.

    Klein told Goldberg: “After 9/11 I went out to look for terror cells in California and found them, piece of cake. Sam found out about me. The Middle East Christian and Jewish communities trust me.” Klein sounds like more than the usual two-bit neocon Islamophobic agitator, and we are entitled to ask, “who looked for whom?”

    Klein assured Goldberg that “Israel is not involved” and stated that Nakoula’s original claim to having been an “Israeli Jew” “is a disinformation campaign.” So does this mean that Klein, the pro-Zionist, Islamophobe, is claiming that he was willingly (or unwillingly?) part of a Muslim-serving “disinformation campaign?” Was the man who is so canny that he finds uncovering al Qaeda cells in California “a piece of cake,” duped by a low-class criminal? Or is it more plausible that Klein recruited Nakoula?


    Christopher Stevens, US Ambassador to Libya, one of the first to be slain in violence over “Innocence of Muslims”

    It seems clear that the film was intended to be a provocation that would incite anti-Israel sentiments just as much as anti-American, with the aim of generating a mass backlash of resentment against Muslims. Nakoula was claiming “that he raised the $5 million to make the film from ‘more than 100 Jewish donors’.”[8]

    Why was Nakoula deliberately inciting Muslims to anti-Israel sentiment, along with anti-US sentiment, if not to provide a pretext for an American-Israeli military reaction? In particular, why were the two main Copts behind the film creating a situation that could only place their fellow Copts in Egypt and elsewhere in extreme danger from Muslims?

    Somehow Nakoula had sufficient contacts, we are supposed to believe, to bring together a multinational task force of some Copts but mostly “Evangelicals” from Syria, Turkey, Pakistan, and Egypt.[9] However, it is Klein who states that he is “trusted” by “Middle East Christians,” which presumably means Copts, and hence it would not be difficult for Klein to track down a dubious character with financial troubles, who could be induced to take the rap for enough cash. If nothing else, he could have simply consulted his Coptic colleague Nassralla, whose company Media for Christ, made the movie.

    Klein’s Islamophobic Actions

    Max Blumenthal reports that Steve Klein writes on Pamela Geller’s anti-Muslim, Zionist website Atlas Shrugs,[10] Geller apparently being a bit of a name in the neocon movement.[11] Klein is also supported by Robert Spencer’s “Jihad Watch,” which promoted a “9/11 Rally at Ground Zero” involving Klein, as “founder of the Concerned Citizens for the First Amendment” and, of particular interest, “The courageous Coptic Christian activist Joseph Nasralla,” founder of The Way TGV satellite network.[12] Klein is also “founder of Courageous Christians United.”[13]


    Joseph Nasralla and Pamela Geller

    Klein, despite the suggestive character of his name, is not Jewish, as far as can be ascertained. He would appear, rather, to be yet another Evangelical Shabbos Goy.

    However, despite the amateur nature of the film which is in fact a 14 minute “trailer,” Nakoula/Bacile was backed by a well-established Evangelical media production company, Media for Christ run by Joseph Nassralla Abdelmasih, although Abdelmasih is in hiding and denying involvement while simultaneously stating he was “logistics manager.” The company claims to be upset and repudiates the film, “But Duarte’s deputy city manager said she had been told by sheriff’s officials that the permits to shoot the movie had been issued to Media for Christ.”[14]

    As stated above, Robert Spencer’s “Jiahd Watch” has referred Joseph Nasralla of the Way TV, which the LA Times reports is the satellite network for Media for Christ. The LA Times reports of Steve Klein that his “views have been tracked by Muslim groups and others for years. One of his platforms was a weekly show on Media for Christ’s satellite network, The Way TV.”[15] Hence there is a close association between Klein and the pro-Israeli Copt Nassralla of Media for Christ, both of whom were involved in a “9/11 Remembrance Rally.” The LA Times further states:

    While Media for Christ public filings describe it as an evangelical organization working to spread the Gospel, Nassralla has devoted himself in recent years to criticizing Islam in speeches and interviews. With Klein, Nassralla joined in accusations that Sheriff Lee Baca was embracing the Muslim Brotherhood by allying with a prominent Muslim American civil rights group.

    “I fled to America with my family because of the violence directed against me for my Christian faith,” Nassralla was quoted as saying last year on an anti-Islamic website. “Sheriff Baca must be fired, and the County must apologize to all of us who have suffered at the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood.”

    In a 2010 speech in New York, Nassralla criticized violence against Christians in Egypt and deplored plans to build a mosque near the former World Trade Center site in New York. “Wake up, America. . . . Stop Islamicization of America,” he said. [16]

    Just how “Christian” the motivation behind the film is can be surmised from its director, Alan Roberts, a veteran of the “soft porn” genre.[17]

    As for Klein, despite at first seeming to downplay his involvement, he is unrepentant. The film is doing its job in manipulating Muslims into another Zionist-contrived PR disaster: “Do I have blood on my hands? No. Did I kill this guy? No. . . . Do I feel guilty that these people were incited? Guess what? I didn’t incite them. They’re pre-incited, they’re pre-programmed to do this.”[18]

    The Modus Operandi of Provocation and Conflict

    The scenario and outcome are close to a similar contrivance several years ago, the publishing of caricatures of Mohammed, by the same types of people.

    The Mohammed cartoon saga was symptomatic of the “clash of civilizations” that Israel and its Shabbos Goyim want to foist on “The West.” The cartoons published in Denmark were a contrived provocation against Muslims with the same purpose as the Innocence of Muslims film.

    They were first published in the Danish newspaper Jyllands‑Posten at the instigation of its “cultural editor,” Flemming Rose, a follower of anti-Muslim neocon guru Daniel Pipes, editor of Middle East Forum. After Rose visited Pipes in 2004 he wrote a puff piece on Pipes. When rioting occurred as the result of Rose’s publication of the cartoons, Pipes, like Klein regarding the present riots, blamed the situation on “Islamic extremists,” while then US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice condemned the Syrian and Iranian governments because of protests in those states. Pipes then issued a clarion call to fight the “Muslim extremists” by appealing to The West’s secular-liberal values:

    Will the West stand up for its customs and mores, including freedom of speech, or will Muslims impose their way of life on the West? Ultimately, there is no compromise. Westerners will either retain their civilization, including the right to insult and blaspheme, or not.[19]

    Pipes cited one of his fellow Islamophobes: “Robert Spencer rightly called on the free world to stand ‘resolutely with Denmark.’ The informative Brussels Journal asserts, ‘We are all Danes now.’”

    Like the Danish cartoon violence, the same Islamophobic coteries, while distancing themselves from such a crass film and trailer, are quick enough to jump on the bandwagon against Islam, Pipes stating: “The anger is there. But it’s more than anger. It is a deliberate effort since 1989 to tell us in the west that we have to play by the rules of Sharia.” Pamela Geller writes:

    [The film] It was not the cause of these riots and murders. The film was on YouTube for months before the Muslim rage over it began, and that rage was clearly carefully planned and orchestrated. The film is just a pretext to justify the violence and intimidate the West into adopting Sharia restrictions on the freedom of speech, so that jihad can advance unimpeded and unopposed in the West. And you, by focusing on the film and demonizing the filmmakers, are abetting that.[20]

    Robert Spencer, casting Nakoula in martyr mode, however, writes that if Nakoula is sent back to jail it will be “not for the meth or the fraud or for the technicality of the probation violation, but for insulting Muhammad. His imprisonment will be a symbol of America’s capitulation to the Sharia. If Nakoula Basseley Nakoula is imprisoned, he will be nothing more than the fall guy who became the first offender against the new federal crime of blasphemy against Islam.”[21]


    [1] A. Nagourney and S. F. Kovaleki, “Man of many names is tied to a video,” New York Times, September 13, 2012, [5]

    [2] Ibid.

    [3] M. Basu, “New details emerge of anti-Islam film’s mystery producer,” CNN, September 14, 2012, [6]

    [4] H. Ryan and J. Garrison, “Christian charity, ex-con linked to film on Islam,” Los Angeles Times, September 13, 2012,,0,6397127.story [7]

    [5] M. Blumenthal, Monodoweiss, AP reported anti-Islam film that sparked protests was made to help Israel, but questions surround producer of the film, [8]

    [6] H. Ryan and J. Garrison, “Christian charity, ex-con linked to film on Islam,” Los Angeles Times, September 13, 2012,,0,6397127.story [7]

    [7] J. Goldberg, ibid.

    [8] “Original Post,” Mondoweiss, ibid.

    [9] Ibid.

    [11] Pamela Geller, Biography, [10]

    [13] “Anti-Islam film made by Media for Christ, directed by pornographer,” Times Live, September 15, 2012, [12]

    [14] H. Ryan and J. Garrison, “Christian charity, ex-con linked to film on Islam,” Los Angeles Times, September 13, 2012,,0,6397127.story [7]

    [15] Ibid.

    [16] Ibid.

    [17] “Anti-Islam film made by Media for Christ, directed by pornographer,” Times Live, September 15, 2012, [12]

    [18] M. Collier, “Promoters of ‘ Innocence of Muslim’ defend film shift focus on Islam, Christian Post, September 14, 2012, [13]

    [19] [14] C. Bollyn, “Understanding the Roots of the Anti-Muslim Cartoon Scandal,” American Free Press, vol. 6, no. 8, February 20, 2006. See: “War Without End,” [15]

    [20] Sheila Musaji, “The ‘Innocence’ of the Islamophobes and the Film No One Wants to Be Connected With,” The American Muslim, September 18, 2012, [16]

    [21] Ibid.


    (Review Source)
  • Innocence of Muslims, Guilt of Jews, Interests of Whites

    [1]3,407 words

    French translation here [2]

    Beginning on September 11, 2012, US embassies and other facilities in the Muslim world have been targeted by angry mobs protesting American policy and influence. Protests have also cropped up in countries with large Muslim minorities, including India and such white nations as Australia, the UK, Germany, Denmark, Belgium, and France.

    As of this writing [3], 79 people have lost their lives (including the US Ambassador to Libya, J. Christopher Stevens), more than 600 have been injured, and the costs of property damage and policing are running into untold millions of dollars. The violence continues, and the world is still debating the causes.

    The emerging liberal consensus is basically this:

    1. The film Innocence of Muslims was a vile provocation but protected by freedom of speech.

    2. The Muslim world could stand to use some more freedom, democracy, and tolerance. To Muslim ears, this kind of talk should sound like an air raid siren.

    3. But the protests and violence were not spontaneous expressions of fanaticism and intolerance by mainstream adherents of the “Religion of Peace” (lest we fear the Muslims who are flooding into white countries and breeding like rodents).

    4. Instead, the protests and violence were orchestrated by small groups of extremists, including Al-Qaeda.

    Among White Nationalists and others in the Rightist milieu, the debate is whether to blame the Muslims for being intolerant fanatics or the counter-jihadist Jewish neoconservatives who apparently created Innocence of Muslims and used it to provoke the mobs.

    If we take a step back from these arguments, it seems clear to me that whatever side one chooses in debating the question “Do we blame the Muslims or the Jews?,” whites really can’t lose, because in the end, we want to free ourselves of both groups.

    And that’s my purpose here: to look at this question from the point of view of white interests. I want to argue that, in terms of white interests, the current violence and polarization between Muslims and the West is not a bad thing. It is in the interest of our race that:

    1. Muslim immigration into white lands be stopped and reversed

    2. Turkey and other Muslim nations be kept out of the European Union

    3. All other attempts at economic and political union between European and Muslim nations around the globe be thwarted.

    And mobs of angry, violent, alien-looking Muslims attacking American and European embassies, consulates, and other installations can only work in the long term interests of whites. Yes, I deplore the loss of white lives and property at the hands of Muslim mobs. But we need to balance this against the greater good of our race, namely to prevent white homelands from being swamped and destroyed by Muslim immigration and the religious and cultural imperialism that comes with it.

    Thus, besides dethroning Ed Wood as the supreme schlock-auteur, the creators of Innocence of Muslims might just contribute to the salvation of the white race. Frankly, I hope that 100 more pranks like it are in the works. With additional judiciously applied provocations, the Muslim street could awaken Europeans to the danger of Muslim colonization and bring globalization to an end.

    If I had discovered that a White Nationalist had been behind Innocence of Muslims, I would, frankly, be pleased. So why go on the attack [4] when it appears that the Jewish-led counter-jihad movement is behind the film?

    The answer is simple: Jews are our enemies too. Thus I am not going to pass up an opportunity to comment on Jewish perfidy. Beyond that, I am sick of Jews being at the wheel and whites merely being along for the ride, even when, from time to time, our interests coincide. Whites need to wrest control of our nations from Jewish interlopers and begin pursuing our own interests and destiny, leaving Jews and Muslims to their own devices.

    Whites have had our destinies controlled by non-whites for so long that we find it difficult to even think in terms of our own interests anymore. So in this debate, some of us end up being more pro-Muslim and anti-Jewish than pro-white. Others tend to be more anti-Muslim and pro-Jewish (or at least anti-anti-Jewish) than pro-white.

    But we don’t have to pick either Jews or Muslims. It is not an either/or. We don’t have to take sides in their fights. We need to take our own side and recognize that white interests differ from those of both groups.

    Pro-Muslim/Anti-Jewish but not Pro-White

    1. In an ideal world, we would not have any quarrels with Muslims. They would have their part of the world, and we would have ours. That is certainly the kind of world I want to live in, for the New Right promotes the idea of ethnostates for everyone as the path to global peace and good will.

    In such a world, the Jews behind Innocence of Muslims would be simply and unambiguously evil, because they are stirring up trouble where no trouble need exist in order to use white-Muslim enmity to advance the interests of Israel.

    In the real world, however, there are 60 million Muslims in white countries, reproducing at more than four times the rate of whites. So there is a real clash of civilizations already underway, regardless of the machinations of the counter-jihadists.

    Of course Jews wish promote tensions between Muslims and whites to exploit them for their own interests, using Muslims to dilute and destroy white nations while using whites to destroy hostile Muslim regimes.

    But whites can also promote and exploit the same tensions for our own interests. There is no reason to think that Jews will always be able turn such tensions to their advantage — unless whites simply refuse to even try to promote our interests.

    2. Tender-hearted whites cannot help but sympathize with Muslims who are oppressed and vilified by Jews. I sympathize with Palestinians, because I too live under Zionist occupation. Many whites work against Zionism and for Palestinian rights but ignore the fact that our own homelands are increasingly under occupation by Palestinians and other Muslims, who are hostile to our culture and threaten to swamp us demographically.

    There is something absurd about whites, who are losing their own homelands to Muslims, working earnestly to ensure a homeland for the Palestinians. Of course this does not mean that the Palestinian cause is any less just. Indeed, if the Palestinian cause is just, then the cause of European nationalists is just as well. And since it is our own cause, shouldn’t whites give it priority over the Palestinian cause?

    3. Whites with a strongly anti-Semitic cast of mind are drawn to the Palestinian cause because it is a politically correct disguise for their anti-Semitism. Many whites get so caught up in this mentality that they actually would applaud the destruction of the state of Israel, regardless of the fact that presumably most Israeli Jews would end up in white countries. From a pro-white viewpoint, however, that would be a disaster. Thus one could fairly accuse such anti-Zionist whites as hating Jews more than they love their own people.

    From a White Nationalist point of view [5], if Israel did not exist, it would have to be invented so that we could send our Jews there, for whites will never regain control over our own destinies without breaking the power of the Jewish diaspora and sending them slouching toward Bethlehem, to borrow a phrase.

    I am convinced that some of the Right-wing rage over Innocence is simply the inability to abide the sight of Jews winning at anything, even when it might accidentally serve white interests as well. But, again, this is an instance of hating Jews more than one loves one’s own people.

    4. Whites with a reactionary, anti-liberal, anti-modern cast of mind naturally admire Muslims. They admire their patriarchal families and high birthrates, their intense religious piety (and concomitant intolerance for blasphemy, relativism, subjectivism, and liberal mush), and their willingness to kill and die over ideals. By comparison, the liberal West is devitalized, decadent, and degenerate.

    This admiration is particularly strong among Traditionalists, many of whom followed the example of René Guénon in converting to Islam. Guénon, however, converted to Islam because he ended up living in Cairo; when in France, he was a Catholic; if he had ended up in India, as he had intended, he would have been a practicing Hindu. But he remained a Traditionalist regardless of the external faith to which he adhered. Guénon’s decision to follow the dominant religion of whatever land he inhabited was, in short, a deeply socially conservative gesture, whereas the decisions of his European followers to convert to Islam within European societies has turned Traditionalism into a vector of subversion.

    As gallant as it is to admire one’s enemies, however, we cannot lose sight of the fact that Muslims are our enemies. In the abstract we may admire their willingness to kill and die for their religion. But we should not forget the concrete fact that they are willing to kill us to impose their religion. Furthermore, their religion can only be implemented through the destruction of our civilization. Finally, given the racial panmixia of the Muslim world, Islam would be even more destructive of the integrity of our race than Christianity and liberalism. Muslim societies may resemble healthy white societies of the past and future, but our race will never be able to regenerate itself unless we first preserve it, and Islam is one of the major opponents of white self-preservation.

    5. Politically realistic whites with a low tolerance for liberal cant are appalled by the idea of a private cabal loyal to a foreign regime scheming to force the hand of American foreign policy while hiding behind the First Amendment. Religious dissent is protected, but treason is not. A serious country would simply arrest and try the people behind Innocence of Muslims for treason. That would go a long way to dispelling the anger in the Muslim world and would do far more to repair relations than pious rot about tolerance. (Of course when you start arresting Jews for treason, it is hard to know where to stop.)

    But let’s face it: America hasn’t been a serious country for a very long time. We are led by a rotating elite of selfish plutocrats (Republicans) and pathological altruists (Democrats), none of whom are concerned with the common good of the nation. With leaders like that, it was child’s play for their senior partners, the organized Jewish community, to subordinate our nation to theirs.

    In such a context, the piecemeal application of the conservative instinct to preserve “the system” merely perpetuates the power of our enemies. Political realism, in this context, is the purest form of idealism, since it is detached from the principal truth about the system: it is no longer our system.

    It is time to stop promoting policies as if this were still our country. It is not. It is their country now, and we need to divest ourselves of it emotionally and in every other way. We need to stand aside and let them run it into the ground, not propose sensible policies as if this were still our country and we still had a stake in its long-term survival.

    If this were still our country, kicking the Muslim hornet’s nest would be a bad thing. If this were still our country, war with Afghanistan and Iraq would be a bad thing. If this were still our country, overthrowing Gaddafi and Mubarak and Assad would be a bad thing. If this were still our country, going to war with Iran would be a bad thing. If this were still our country, America’s confrontational stance toward Russia would be insanity.

    But this is not our country. We are just along for the ride. And whites are more likely to gain control over our destiny in North America, Europe, and the rest of the world if America’s present rulers run it into the ground. Yes, they will create untold suffering for millions of people. Yes, it could all be avoided if they would just listen to reason. (As if that were realistic!)

    If you pride yourself on your realism, then let’s be realistic. Once America’s economy collapses due to imperial overreach, immigration, globalization, and the financial racket, Europe will have a fighting chance. Once America’s corpse grows cold, the lice will abandon it for fresh blood, and whites in North America will have a chance to build something better. Sadly, since people only seem to learn by suffering [6], that is the best option for our people.

    In general, all these pro-Muslim/anti-Jewish lines of thought have a tendency to excessive idealism: they advance positions and policies formulated for a better world than the one we actually live in. My own thinking systematically inclines toward this error, so I constantly have to ask myself whether my reactions are based on the world as it actually is or the world as I would like it to be.

    As we shall see, the anti-Muslim/pro-Jewish side tends toward the opposite extreme of an excessive pragmatism, fixating on the most immediate and easily grasped threat, namely Muslims, and failing to grasp the more fundamental Jewish threat to the point of actually countenancing alliances with Jews.

    Anti-Muslim/Pro-Jewish but not Pro-White

    If I think that counter-jihadist provocations like Innocence of Muslims can serve white interests, does that mean that I would consider alliances with Jews, as such European Nationalists as Nick Griffin, Guillaume Faye, Geert Wilders, and others have done? Absolutely not, for the following reasons.

    1. Jews are our enemies too. Moreover, Jews may be a less visible enemy than Muslims, but they are a more fundamental enemy. The Jewish role in opening white countries to non-white immigration is substantial, although of course it varies from country to country. What does not vary, however, is the fact that the organized Jewish community is the primary opponent of any form of European nationalism, including attempts to halt and reverse non-white immigration. There is no way out but through the Jews. Thus it is superficial to focus on Muslims and ignore Jews. It focuses on the symptoms, not the cause. It focuses on the symptoms, but ignores the primary impediments to actually curing the disease.

    2. The very idea of a good faith alliance between White Nationalists and Jews is absurd on the face of it. First of all, nobody makes an alliance with the powerless, and White Nationalists have no political power. Second, Jews are the most powerful nation in the world. If they really wanted to change the immigration policies of European countries, it would happen virtually overnight. They would not need the assistance of marginal White Nationalist groups to do it, either. Instead, immigration reform would immediately become a mainstream issue endorsed by all parties.

    If White Nationalists are pretty much politically powerless, then why do some Jews make overtures to White Nationalists? What is in it for them? I think that they have two aims here.

    First, although White Nationalists have no political power, we do have one asset that the mainstream political parties lack: the truth about race and the Jewish question. Nationalists who form alliances with Jews, however, are compelled to cease speaking the truth about the Jewish question and instead work to obscure or excuse the Jewish role in white dispossession. This silence or collusion advances the Jewish agenda and impedes white liberation.

    Second, the Jews have attained hegemony over white societies by infiltrating, subverting, and transforming the whole political spectrum into defenders of Jewish interests. Thus, in terms of vital Jewish interests, it really does not matter which party attains power. It is sheer folly to think that Jews will not seek to do the same thing to all forms of European and White Nationalism. Since there is no sure way to tell a sincere Jewish sympathizer or ally from a mere agent of subversion, we simply must exclude all Jews and go it alone.

    Thus it simply does not matter if a Jewish counter-jihadist or would-be White Nationalist protests that he is genuinely concerned to promote white interests, because that’s what any infiltrator would say. And we need not fear hurting the feelings of any sincere Jewish well-wishers. They will understand our mistrust and refusal to work with them, since they know their people better than any of us could.

    What line should White Nationalists take regarding Jews and Muslims?

    1. Neither group has any place in our societies. Thus our aim is the most complete separation possible from Jews and Muslims.

    2. However, we need to deal forthrightly with the sticky question of how these groups are defined. Islam is a religion, thus anybody who thinks of himself as a Muslim is a Muslim, including white converts. White Muslims, however, have to be seen as vectors of Islamization and thus excluded. By the same token, though, we should have no problem with genetically white Muslim apostates.

    3. With Muslims, the essential issue here strikes me as one of consciousness, rather than ancestry. There are groups that we recognize as European that have some Near Eastern admixture. We should have no more problem, then, with non-Muslims with some Near Eastern Muslim ancestry as we have with any other whites with some Near Eastern ancestry.

    4. The issue is different with Jews, because they are not a religion but a nation. This nation has an ethnic genetic core as well as a national consciousness that takes both religious and non-religious forms. This national consciousness has extended beyond the Jewish ethnic-genetic core to assimilate other groups into the Jewish collective. Thus genetic non-Jews can become functional Jews, e.g., by converting to Judaism or  becoming Christian Zionists, Marxists, neocons, Straussians, Libertarians, Objectivists, etc.

    5. But if non-Jews can become Jews, can Jews become non-Jews? Since Jewish identity is not merely a matter of religion, Jewish apostasy cannot be simply a matter of changing religions. Lawrence Auster, for instance, is a convert to Christianity, but his primary loyalty is still to the Jewish nation. One can, however, renounce one’s nationality. Pamela Geller, for instance, could get splashed with some holy water and then solemnly swear that she has renounced her “citizenship” in the Jewish nation. But we’d be fools to believe her. So whites should never accept such Jewish apostates as “us,” even if they might be genetically no more Near Eastern than your average Greek.

    6. There is, however, a form of Jewish apostasy that whites should recognize: In the past, Jews have married out of the Jewish religion and national community and into the white race. Thus there are whites today who have some Jewish ancestry but no Jewish ethnic or religious consciousness. Genetically, they may be no more Near Eastern than many Greeks or Italians. A white ethnostate might wish to know who these people are and keep an eye on them, but unless they choose to identify as otherwise, it seems reasonable to consider them whites, not Jews.

    7. Recognizing that some whites might have some non-European ancestry is not, of course, an argument against rigorously preventing any more such hybridization. As a general rule, I think we should be less focused on the race that we have been and more focused on the race we wish to become. If it really bothers us, someday we will be in the position to edit out alien genetic code. But we will never reach that day unless we halt miscegenation in the here and now, the sooner the better.

    8. It is possible that white nations might have amicable relations with Jewish and Muslim communities. It is possible for whites to feel sympathy for the suffering of Muslims and Jews (indeed, all too much). It is possible that Jewish and Muslim interests might overlap with white interests from time to time, in delimited ways. Such commonalities of interests can be the basis of limited, mutually beneficial political alliances.

    9. But not today. Not in this world. There should be no talk of amicable relations, sympathy, or political alliances with Jews or Muslims as long as they are occupying our nations, oppressing our people, and threatening our long-term biological and cultural survival.

    10. First, we must attain separation. Only then we can talk about good relations. If, however, out of excessive idealism or pragmatism we entangle ourselves with our enemies, we will never be able to separate ourselves. Thus White Nationalists should do everything in our power to encourage polarization between whites on the one hand and Muslims and Jews on the other.


    (Review Source)
  • Innocence des musulmans, culpabilité des juifs, intérêts des Blancs

    [1]3,738 words

    English original here [2]

    A partir du 11 septembre 2012, les ambassades et d’autres installations US dans le monde musulman ont été ciblées par des foules en colère protestant contre la politique et l’influence américaines. Des protestations ont eu lieu aussi dans des pays avec de fortes minorités musulmanes, incluant l’Inde et des nations blanches comme l’Australie, le Royaume-Uni, l’Allemagne, le Danemark, la Belgique, et la France.

    Au moment où j’écris [3], 79 personnes ont perdu la vie (incluant l’ambassadeur US en Libye, J. Christopher Stevens), plus de 600 ont été blessées, et le coût des dégâts et des assurances se monte à des millions et des millions de dollars. La violence continue, et le monde est encore en train d’en discuter les causes.

    Le consensus libéral émergeant est essentiellement celui-ci :

    1. Le film Innocence of Muslims [Innocence des musulmans] était une infâme provocation mais était protégé par la liberté d’expression.
    2. Le monde musulman pourrait supporter d’utiliser un peu plus de liberté, de démocratie, et de tolérance. Pour des oreilles musulmanes, ce genre de discours doit sonner comme une sirène de raid aérien.
    3. Mais les protestations et la violence n’étaient pas des expressions spontanées de fanatisme et d’intolérance de la part de la majorité des adhérents de la « Religion de Paix » (de peur que nous ne rejetions les musulmans qui inondent les pays blancs et qui se multiplient comme des rongeurs).
    4. Au contraire, les protestations et la violence furent orchestrées par de petits groupes d’extrémistes, incluant Al-Qaïda.

    Parmi les Nationalistes Blancs et les autres du milieu d’extrême-droite, le débat est de savoir s’il faut blâmer les musulmans pour leur intolérance et leur fanatisme ou bien les néoconservateurs juifs du contre-djihad qui ont apparemment créé Innocence of Muslims et l’ont utilisé pour provoquer les foules.

    Si nous prenons un peu de recul par rapport à ces arguments, il me semble clair que quel que soit le camp que l’on choisisse en débattant de la question « Devons-nous blâmer les musulmans ou les juifs ? », les Blancs ne peuvent vraiment pas perdre, parce qu’en fin de compte nous voulons nous libérer des deux groupes.

    Et c’est mon but ici : examiner cette question du point de vue des intérêts blancs. Je veux dire qu’en termes des intérêts blancs, la violence et la polarisation actuelles entre les musulmans et l’Occident ne sont pas une mauvaise chose. Il est dans l’intérêt de notre race que :

    1. L’immigration musulmane dans les pays blancs soit stoppée et inversée.
    2. La Turquie et d’autres nations musulmanes soient laissées en-dehors de l’Union Européenne.
    3. Toutes les autres tentatives d’union économique et politique entre des nations européennes et musulmanes autour du monde soient empêchées.

    Et les foules de musulmans en colère, violents et à l’apparence étrangère attaquant des ambassades, des consulats et d’autres installations américaines et européennes ne peuvent que travailler pour les intérêts à long terme des Blancs. Oui, je déplore la perte de vies blanches et de biens blancs des mains des foules musulmanes. Mais nous devons mettre cela en balance avec le bien supérieur de notre race, c’est-à-dire empêcher les patries blanches d’être inondées et détruites par l’immigration musulmane et l’impérialisme religieux et culturel qui l’accompagne.

    Donc, en plus d’avoir détrôné Ed Wood comme suprême auteur de camelote, les créateurs d’Innocence of Muslims contribuent peut-être simplement au sauvetage de la race blanche. Franchement, j’espère que 100 farces de plus comme celle-ci sont en préparation. Avec quelques provocations supplémentaires judicieusement appliquées, la rue musulmane pourrait éveiller les Européens au danger de la colonisation musulmane et mettre fin à la mondialisation.

    Si j’avais découvert qu’un Nationaliste Blanc avait été derrière Innocence of Muslims, cela m’aurait franchement fait plaisir. Donc pourquoi partir à l’attaque [4] lorsqu’il s’avère que c’est le mouvement du Contre-Djihad, dirigé par les Juifs, qui est derrière le film ?

    La réponse est simple : les Juifs sont nos ennemis aussi. Donc je ne vais pas rater l’occasion  de parler de la perfidie juive. En plus de cela, j’en ai assez de voir les Juifs à la manœuvre et les Blancs se laisser mener en bateau, même quand, de temps en temps, nos intérêts coïncident. Les Blancs doivent arracher le contrôle de nos nations aux intrus juifs et commencer à poursuivre leurs propres intérêts et destin, laissant les Juifs et les Musulmans à leurs propres ressources.

    Les destinées des Blancs sont contrôlées par des non-Blancs depuis si longtemps que nous trouvons difficile de simplement penser selon nos propres intérêts. Donc, dans ce débat, certains d’entre nous finissent par être plus pro-musulmans et antijuifs que pro-Blancs. D’autres tendent à être plus antimusulmans et pro-juifs (ou du moins anti-antijuifs) que pro-Blancs.

    Mais nous n’avons pas à choisir entre les Juifs ou les musulmans. Il n’y a pas à choisir. Nous n’avons pas à prendre parti dans leurs combats. Nous devons prendre parti pour notre propre camp, et reconnaître que les intérêts blancs diffèrent de ceux de ces deux groupes.

    Pro-musulman/antijuif, mais pas pro-Blanc

    1. Dans un monde idéal, nous n’aurions aucune querelle avec les musulmans. Ils auraient leur partie du monde, et nous aurions la nôtre. C’est certainement le genre de monde où je veux vivre, car la Nouvelle Droite promeut l’idée d’Etats ethniques pour chacun comme étant la voie vers la paix mondiale et la bonne volonté.

    Dans un tel monde, les Juifs derrière Innocence of Muslims seraient simplement et sans ambigüité mauvais, parce qu’ils provoquent des troubles là où aucun trouble n’existe, afin d’utiliser l’inimitié entre Blancs et musulmans pour faire avancer les intérêts d’Israël.

    Dans le monde réel, cependant, il y a 60 millions de musulmans dans les pays blancs, se reproduisant plus de quatre fois plus vite que les Blancs. Donc il y a déjà un véritable choc de civilisations en cours, quelles que soient les machinations des contre-djihadistes.

    Bien sûr les Juifs souhaitent favoriser les tensions entre musulmans et Blancs afin de les exploiter pour leurs propres intérêts, utilisant les musulmans pour diluer et détruire les nations blanches tout en utilisant les Blancs pour détruire les régimes musulmans hostiles.

    Mais les Blancs peuvent aussi favoriser et exploiter les mêmes tensions pour leurs propres intérêts. Il n’y a pas de raison de penser que les Juifs pourront toujours tourner de telles tensions à leur avantage – sauf si les Blancs refusent simplement d’essayer de promouvoir leurs propres intérêts.

    2. Les Blancs au cœur tendre ne peuvent pas s’empêcher de sympathiser avec les musulmans qui sont opprimés et diffamés par les Juifs. Je sympathise avec les Palestiniens, parce que moi aussi je vis sous occupation sioniste. Beaucoup de Blancs travaillent contre le sionisme et pour les droits palestiniens mais ignorent le fait que nos propres patries sont de plus en plus sous occupation des Palestiniens et des autres musulmans, qui sont hostiles à notre culture et qui menacent de nous submerger démographiquement.

    Il y a quelque chose d’absurde dans le fait que des Blancs, qui sont en train de perdre leurs propres patries au profit des musulmans, travaillent avec zèle à assurer une patrie pour les Palestiniens. Bien sûr cela ne signifie pas que la cause palestinienne soit moins juste. En fait, si la cause palestinienne est juste, alors la cause des nationalistes européens est juste aussi. Et puisque c’est notre propre cause, les Blancs ne devraient-ils pas lui donner la priorité sur la cause palestinienne ?

    3. Les Blancs qui ont une tournure d’esprit fortement antisémite sont attirés par la cause palestinienne parce que c’est un déguisement politiquement correct pour leur antisémitisme. Beaucoup de Blancs sont tellement piégés par cette mentalité qu’ils applaudiraient en fait à la destruction de l’Etat d’Israël, sans prendre en compte le fait que probablement la plupart des Juifs israéliens se réfugieraient dans les pays blancs. D’un point de vue pro-Blanc, cependant, ce serait un désastre. On pourrait donc accuser à juste titre ces Blancs antisionistes de haïr les Juifs plus qu’ils n’aiment leur propre peuple.

    D’un point de vue Nationaliste Blanc [5], si Israël n’existait pas, il devrait être inventé pour que nous puissions y envoyer nos Juifs, car les Blancs ne reprendront jamais le contrôle de leurs destinées sans briser le pouvoir de la diaspora juive et les renvoyer à Bethléem, pour emprunter une phrase.

    Je suis convaincu qu’une partie de la colère de droite devant le film Innocence est simplement l’incapacité à supporter la vue des Juifs gagnant partout, même quand cela peut accidentellement servir les intérêts blancs aussi. Mais, encore une fois, c’est un exemple de ce qui se passe lorsqu’on hait les Juifs plus qu’on n’aime son propre peuple.

    4. Les Blancs qui ont une tournure d’esprit réactionnaire, antilibérale et antimoderne admirent naturellement les musulmans. Ils admirent leurs familles patriarcales et leurs taux de natalité élevés, leur intense piété religieuse (et leur intolérance concomitante envers le blasphème, le relativisme, le subjectivisme, et la bouillie libérale), et leur capacité à tuer et à mourir pour des idéaux. En comparaison, l’Occident libéral est dévitalisé, décadent, et dégénéré.

    Cette admiration est particulièrement forte parmi les Traditionalistes, dont beaucoup ont suivi l’exemple de René Guénon en se convertissant à l’islam. Guénon, cependant, se convertit à l’islam parce qu’il vécut finalement au Caire ; lorsqu’il était en France, il était catholique ; s’il avait vécu en Inde, ainsi qu’il l’avait envisagé, il aurait été un hindou pratiquant. Mais il demeura un Traditionaliste, quelle que fût la foi externe à laquelle il adhérait. La décision de Guénon de suivre la religion dominante du pays où il habitait était, en fait, un geste socialement profondément conservateur, alors que la décision de ses adeptes européens de se convertir à l’islam dans des sociétés européennes a transformé le Traditionalisme en un vecteur de subversion.

    Aussi galant que ce soit d’admirer ses ennemis, cependant, nous ne pouvons pas perdre de vue le fait que les musulmans sont nos ennemis. Dans l’abstrait nous pouvons admirer leur capacité à tuer et à mourir pour leur religion. Mais nous ne devrions pas oublier le fait concret qu’ils sont prêts à nous tuer pour imposer leur religion. De plus, leur religion ne peut être imposée que par la destruction de notre civilisation. Finalement, étant donné la panmixie raciale du monde musulman, l’islam serait encore plus destructeur pour l’intégrité de notre race que ne le sont le christianisme et le libéralisme. Les sociétés musulmanes peuvent ressembler aux sociétés blanches saines du passé et du futur, mais notre race ne pourra jamais se régénérer si nous ne la préservons pas d’abord, et l’islam est l’un des adversaires majeurs de l’auto-préservation blanche.

    5. Les Blancs politiquement réalistes qui ont une faible tolérance pour le jargon libéral sont horrifiés par l’idée d’une cabale privée loyale à un régime étranger complotant pour forcer la main de la politique étrangère américaine tout en se cachant derrière le Premier Amendement. La dissidence religieuse est protégée, mais la trahison ne l’est pas. Un pays sérieux arrêterait et jugerait simplement pour trahison les gens qui se trouvent derrière Innocence of Muslims. Cela ferait beaucoup pour calmer la colère du monde musulman et ferait encore plus pour réparer les relations – plus que de pieuses inepties sur la tolérance (bien sûr quand vous commencez à arrêter les Juifs pour trahison, il est difficile de savoir où s’arrêter).

    Mais regardons la vérité en face : l’Amérique n’est plus un pays sérieux depuis très longtemps. Nous sommes dirigés par une élite tournante de ploutocrates égoïstes (républicains) et d’altruistes pathologiques (démocrates), dont aucun n’est préoccupé par le bien commun de la nation. Avec des dirigeants comme ça, ce fut un jeu d’enfant pour leurs principaux partenaires, la communauté juive organisée, de subordonner notre nation à la leur.

    Dans un tel contexte, l’application méthodique de l’instinct conservateur pour préserver « le système » perpétue simplement le pouvoir de nos ennemis. Le réalisme politique, dans ce contexte, est la plus pure forme d’idéalisme, puisqu’il est détaché de la principale vérité sur le système : ce n’est plus notre système.

    Il est temps de cesser de promouvoir des politiques comme si c’était encore notre pays. Ce ne l’est pas. C’est leur pays maintenant, et nous devons nous en séparer émotionnellement et de toutes les autres manières. Nous devons nous mettre de coté et les laisser le conduire dans le mur, pas proposer des politiques intelligentes comme si c’était encore notre pays et comme si nous avions encore intérêt à sa survie à long terme.

    Si c’était encore notre pays, donner un coup de pied dans le nid de guêpes musulman serait une mauvaise chose. Si c’était encore notre pays, la guerre en Afghanistan et en Irak serait une mauvaise chose. Si c’était encore notre pays, renverser Kadhafi et Moubarak et Assad serait une mauvaise chose. Si c’était encore notre pays, entrer en guerre avec l’Iran serait une mauvaise chose. Si c’était encore notre pays, la position hostile de l’Amérique envers la Russie serait de la démence.

    Mais ce n’est pas notre pays. Nous sommes simplement menés en bateau. Et les Blancs ont plus de chances de reprendre le contrôle de leur destin en Amérique du Nord, en Europe et dans le reste du monde si les actuels gouvernants de l’Amérique la conduisent dans le mur. Oui, cela causera d’indicibles souffrances à des millions de gens. Oui, tout cela pourrait être évité s’ils voulaient simplement écouter la voix de la raison (comme si c’était réaliste !).

    Si vous êtes fier de votre réalisme, alors soyez réaliste. Dès que l’économie de l’Amérique s’effondrera du fait de la surextension impériale, de l’immigration, de la mondialisation et du racket financier, l’Europe aura une chance de combattre. Dès que le cadavre de l’Amérique refroidira, les poux l’abandonneront pour chercher du sang frais, et les Blancs d’Amérique du Nord auront une chance de bâtir quelque chose de meilleur. C’est bien triste, mais puisque les gens semblent apprendre seulement par la souffrance [6], c’est la meilleure option pour notre peuple.

    En général, toutes ces lignes de pensée pro-musulmanes/antijuives ont une tendance à un idéalisme excessif : elles proposent des positions et des politiques formulées pour un monde meilleur que celui où nous vivons réellement. Ma propre pensée tend systématiquement vers cette erreur, donc je dois constamment me demander si mes réactions sont basées sur le monde tel qu’il est réellement ou sur le monde tel que je voudrais qu’il soit.

    Comme nous le verrons, le camp antimusulman/pro-juif tend vers l’extrême opposé à un pragmatisme excessif, se fixant sur la menace la plus immédiate et la plus facilement saisie, c’est-à-dire les musulmans, et échouant à saisir la menace juive plus fondamentale au point d’approuver sérieusement des alliances avec les Juifs.

    Antimusulman/pro-juif, mais pas pro-Blanc

    Si je pense que des provocations contre-djihadistes comme Innocence of Muslims peuvent server les intérêts blancs, cela signifie-t-il que j’envisagerais des alliances avec les Juifs, comme l’ont fait des Nationalistes Européens comme Nick Griffin, Guillaume Faye, Geert Wilders, et d’autres ? Absolument pas, pour les raisons suivantes.

    1. Les Juifs sont nos ennemis aussi. De plus, les Juifs peuvent être un ennemi moins visible que les musulmans, mais ils sont un ennemi plus fondamental. Le rôle juif dans l’ouverture des pays blancs à l’immigration non-blanche est substantiel, bien qu’il varie bien sûr de pays en pays. Ce qui ne varie pas, cependant, est le fait que la communauté juive organisée est le principal adversaire de toute forme de nationalisme européen, incluant les tentatives pour stopper et inverser l’immigration non-blanche. Il n’y a pas d’issue à part passer sur les Juifs. Donc il est superficiel de se focaliser sur les musulmans et d’ignorer les Juifs. C’est se focaliser sur les symptômes, pas sur la cause. C’est se focaliser sur les symptômes, mais ignorer les principaux obstacles pour vraiment traiter la maladie.
    2. L’idée même d’une alliance de bonne foi entre Nationalistes Blancs et Juifs est absurde en face de cela. Avant tout, personne ne fait d’alliance avec ceux qui sont impuissants, et les Nationalistes Blancs n’ont pas de pouvoir politique. Ensuite, les Juifs sont la nation la plus puissante dans le monde. S’ils voulaient vraiment changer les politiques d’immigration des pays européens, cela arriverait quasiment en un jour. Ils n’auraient pas non plus besoin de l’assistance de groupes nationalistes blancs marginaux pour le faire. Au contraire, la réforme de l’immigration deviendrait immédiatement une question majeure approuvée par tous les partis.

    Si les Nationalistes Blancs sont complètement impuissants politiquement, alors pourquoi certains Juifs font-ils des ouvertures aux Nationalistes Blancs ? Quel est l’intérêt pour eux ? Je pense qu’ils ont deux buts ici.

    Premièrement, bien que les Nationalistes Blancs n’aient pas de pouvoir politique, nous avons un atout que les partis politiques majoritaires ne possèdent pas : la vérité sur la race et sur la question juive. Les nationalistes qui font alliance avec les Juifs, cependant, sont obligés de cesser de dire la vérité sur la question juive et au contraire de travailler à obscurcir ou à excuser le rôle juif dans la dépossession blanche. Ce silence ou cette collusion font avancer le programme juif et empêchent la libération blanche.

    Deuxièmement, les Juifs ont obtenu l’hégémonie dans les sociétés blanches en infiltrant, en subvertissant et en transformant tout le spectre politique en défenseurs des intérêts juifs. Donc, en termes d’intérêts juifs vitaux, savoir quel parti arrive au pouvoir n’a pas d’importance. C’est une pure folie de penser que les Juifs ne chercheront pas à faire la même chose avec toutes les formes de Nationalisme Européen et Blanc. Puisqu’il n’y a pas de moyen sûr de distinguer un sympathisant ou un allié juif sincère d’un simple agent de subversion, nous devons simplement exclure tous les Juifs et faire les choses nous-mêmes.

    Donc en fait il n’est pas important de savoir si un contre-djihadiste juif ou un prétendu  Nationaliste Blanc proteste en disant qu’il se préoccupe véritablement de promouvoir les intérêts blancs, parce que c’est ce que tout infiltré dirait. Et nous ne devons pas craindre de heurter les sentiments des sympathisants juifs sincères. Ils comprendront notre méfiance et notre refus de travailler avec eux, puisque qu’ils connaissent leur peuple mieux que nous ne le pourrons jamais.

    Quelle ligne les Nationalistes Blancs devraient-ils adopter concernant les Juifs et les  musulmans ?

    1. Aucun des deux groupes n’a sa place dans nos sociétés. Donc notre but est la séparation la plus complète possible vis-à-vis des Juifs et des musulmans.
    2. Cependant, nous devons traiter franchement la difficile question de la manière dont ces groupes sont définis. L’islam est une religion, donc quiconque se pense comme un musulman est un musulman, incluant les convertis blancs. Les musulmans blancs, cependant, doivent être vus comme des vecteurs d’islamisation et doivent donc être exclus. Par le même raisonnement, cependant, nous ne devrions avoir aucun problème avec les apostats musulmans génétiquement blancs.
    3. Avec les musulmans, il me semble qu’ici la question essentielle est une question de conscience plutôt que d’ascendance. Il y a des groupes que nous reconnaissons comme européens et qui ont un certain apport génétique moyen-oriental. Nous ne devrions donc pas avoir plus de problème avec les non-musulmans ayant une certaine ascendance musulmane proche-orientale que nous n’en avons avec les autres Blancs ayant une certaine ascendance proche-orientale.
    4. La question est différente avec les Juifs, parce qu’ils ne sont pas une religion mais une nation. Cette nation a un noyau génétique ethnique ainsi qu’une conscience nationale qui prend des formes à la fois religieuses et non-religieuses. Cette conscience nationale s’est étendue au-delà du noyau ethnique-génétique juif et a assimilé d’autres groupes dans le collectif juif. Donc des non-Juifs génétiques peuvent devenir des Juifs fonctionnels, par exemple en se convertissant au judaïsme ou en devenant des sionistes chrétiens, des marxistes, des néoconservateurs, des straussiens, des libertaires, des objectivistes, etc.
    5. Mais si des non-Juifs peuvent devenir des Juifs, les Juifs peuvent-ils devenir des non-Juifs ? Puisque l’identité juive n’est pas simplement une question de religion, l’apostasie juive ne peut pas être une simple question de changement de religion. Lawrence Auster, par exemple, est un converti au christianisme, mais sa loyauté principale va encore à la nation juive. On peut cependant renoncer à sa nationalité. Pamela Geller, par exemple, pourrait s’asperger d’un peu d’eau bénite et ensuite jurer solennellement qu’elle a renoncé à sa « citoyenneté » dans la nation juive. Mais nous serions fous de la croire. Donc les Blancs ne devraient jamais accepter de tels apostats juifs comme étant des « nôtres », même si génétiquement ils peuvent ne pas être plus moyen-orientaux que le Grec moyen.
    6. Il y a néanmoins une forme d’apostasie juive que les Blancs devraient reconnaître : dans le passé, des Juifs se sont mariés en-dehors de la religion juive et de la communauté nationale et dans la race blanche. Donc il y a des Blancs aujourd’hui qui ont une certaine ascendance juive mais pas de conscience ethnique ou religieuse juive. Génétiquement, ils peuvent ne pas être plus moyen-orientaux que beaucoup de Grecs ou d’Italiens. Un Etat ethnique blanc pourrait souhaiter savoir qui sont ces gens et garder un œil sur eux, mais tant qu’ils ne choisissent pas se s’identifier différemment, il semble raisonnable de les considérer comme des Blancs, pas comme des Juifs.
    7. Reconnaître que certains Blancs peuvent avoir une certaine ascendance non-européenne n’est évidemment pas un argument pour ne pas empêcher rigoureusement toute aggravation de cette hybridation. En règle générale, je pense que nous devrions être moins focalisés sur la race que nous avons été et plus focalisés sur la race que nous voulons devenir. Si cela nous dérange vraiment, un jour nous serons en position d’éliminer le code génétique étranger. Mais nous n’atteindrons jamais ce jour si nous ne stoppons pas le métissage ici et maintenant, et le plus tôt sera le mieux.
    8. Il est possible pour les nations blanches d’avoir des relations amicales avec les communautés juive et musulmane. Il est possible pour les Blancs de ressentir de la sympathie pour les souffrances des musulmans et des Juifs (en fait, beaucoup trop). Il est possible que les intérêts juifs et musulmans puissent coïncider avec les intérêts blancs de temps en temps, de manières limitées. De telles communautés d’intérêts peuvent être la base d’alliances politiques limitées, mutuellement bénéfiques.
    9. Mais pas aujourd’hui. Pas dans ce monde. Il ne devrait pas y avoir de relations amicales, de sympathie, ou d’alliances politiques avec les Juifs ou les musulmans tant qu’ils occupent nos nations, oppriment notre peuple, et menacent notre survie biologique et culturelle à long terme.
    10. D’abord, nous devons atteindre la séparation. Ensuite seulement nous pourrons parler de bonnes relations. Mais si, par idéalisme ou par pragmatisme excessifs nous nous enchevêtrons avec nos ennemis, nous ne pourrons jamais nous en séparer. Donc les Nationalistes Blancs devraient faire tout ce qui est en notre pouvoir pour encourager la polarisation entre les Blancs d’une part et les musulmans et les Juifs d’autre part.


    (Review Source)

PJ Media Staff13
PJ Media

(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

  • NYT Confirms Arrest of 'Innocence of Muslims' Filmmaker was Photo-Op to Appease Rioting Muslims
    PJ Media In a long story about the ongoing violence directed at the United States across the Middle East, the New York Times embeds a sly admission regarding the arrest of alleged filmmaker Nakoula Bassely Nakoula:The film was produced in the United States, though its origins are still shrouded. American federal authorities identified the man behind the film as Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, 55. Though the film does not appear to violate any American laws, the authorities took Mr. Nakoula in for questioning on Saturday over possible federal parole violations connected to an unrelated criminal conviction. That action has done little to tamp down the unrest.Emphasis added.Authorities arrested Nakoula at his home in the dead of night last weekend and paraded him before media cameras. The media had been alerted to his arrest beforehand, guaranteeing that images of his arrest would soon hit the Internet and spread across the world. Authorities claimed he was being arrested regarding parole violations, but the arrest came after the Obama administration had publicly blamed his film for the violence.The New York Times just admitted that that entire scene was a political arrest designed to appease the rioting Muslims.An administration that is capable of taking such an action is also capable of acquiescing to the demand that the Islamists in Egypt made and publicized prior to the 9-11 embassy attack there: The release of sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, mastermind of the first attempt to destroy the World Trade Center in 1993.Rahman is currently serving a life sentence in US prison for his role in that bombing, which killed six people and injured more than 1,000.The US State Department is reportedly actively considering negotiations with the new Egyptian government to send Rahman to that country's custody, citing humanitarian and medical reasons. State denies, and the Department of Justice says no such deal is possible.But the Department of Justice publicly outed Nakoula, and engineered his public arrest.h/t Rand Simberg class="pages"> ]]>
    (Review Source)
  • The Future Really Won't Belong to Those Who Slander the Prophet of Islam. Because Obama Will Jail Them.
    (”Innocence of Muslims” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    PJ Media Barack Obama, sword of Islamic justice.The producer of the controversial anti-Islam film “Innocence of Muslims” has been arrested for violating terms of his probation and is set for an appearance this afternoon in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles.Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, 55, is scheduled for an initial appearance before Judge Christina Snyder, who sentenced him in June 2010 following a bank fraud conviction.Investigators have not yet provided details about how Nakoula allegedly violated probation, but it seems clear that his involvement in the “Innocence of Muslim” production is central to the government's new charge.Nakoula (seen above) was sentenced to 21 months in prison to be followed by six months in a halfway house. Upon completion of the custodial term, he was placed on probation for five years. Included in his probation terms were prohibitions on his use of the Internet, unless he secured prior approval from his probation officer. Additionally, he was not to “use, for any purpose or in any manner, any name other than his/her true legal name or names without the prior written approval of the Probation Officer.”Wanna bet if this guy was, say, tweeting articles from Talking Points Memo, the feds would not have descended on him -- twice?Muslims keep trying to get this idiotic movie, which had nothing to do with the terrorists attacks on our embassies, taken off YouTube. The Obama administration leaned on Google to help out, but Google said the film doesn't violate any of its standards. So much to the administration's shagrin, the movie stayed up on the net.But who's to say the feds can't arrest Nakoula and get him to take the movie down? Then they'll let him go. That's where this is going.Obama sings himself to sleep with "My Sharia-more."Go ahead, America. Re-elect him.  class="pages"> ]]>
    (Review Source)
  • Contempt for Your Intelligence: The Administration's Benghazi Response
    (”Innocence of Muslims” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    PJ Media I remember Jimmy Carter’s abortive effort to rescue the hostages -- the one that ended up with a lot of brave men dead in the desert. I was living in Portugal; by that time Europe’s opinion of Carter was that if he tried to organize a bonk in a brothel he’d miraculously end up with whores who wouldn’t put out. The raid turned into jokes on the Portuguese street within days.Inexplicably -- and it really is inexplicable -- I felt connected to the U.S., so I was grieving and furious and all of this with no justification and no ability to express it to anyone, because ... well, what did I have to do with it all? I ended up writing a condolence letter to the American Embassy, which sent me back what was as close to a pat on the head and a "there, there, dear" as a typed letter can get.I never thought I’d feel that way again.The last week has been a very unpleasant time. While no one is making jokes, our administration might as well have been doing so. Describing the response goes beyond ineffective and counterproductive to "What on Earth are you thinking?" and "Do you think we’re stupid?" It makes me want to punch things, and there is nothing I can punch. So I wake up tangled in bed sheets, locked in mortal combat with the pillows, and I go through the day holding down the rage that threatens to explode.The problem is not that the administration is lying. Administrations do lie; this is how it works -- sometimes for good reasons, sometimes not. If it were possible to design American foreign policy by a show of hands across the country, we wouldn’t need a government.Yet right now, they’re both treating us as idiots and acting like idiots in the process. They clearly think we’ll believe whatever they spin, and frankly the quality of the lies reflects how vacuous they are and how simplistic their vision of the world is. Also, it reflects how they completely managed to ignore all of the history of the Middle East and all of our past reactions to the Middle East. That a group of people who have -- supposedly -- excellent educations think this is the way to manage foreign relations both terrifies and infuriates me.Take the way they’re telling us these were impromptu demonstrations. Riiight. With sophisticated weaponry, on 9/11, these were impromptu demonstrations. Impromptu demonstrations which, by the way, the British press reports our government was warned about days in advance.Please. You might be that dumb. The American people are not.Then take their mad spinning, that this is all about the film Innocence of Muslims, which showed to a handful of people once and which has a trailer on YouTube. This "inflamed" the Arab street.Please. If they’re that inflamed, there’s a cream for that.Then, they drag the filmmaker from his bed in the middle of the night. Parole violation? Did you give a damn about that violation before the riots? Please. In the glare of camera lights, the administration just made itself responsible for anything anyone will ever post online for the rest of eternity. class="pages"> previous Page 1 of 3 next   ]]>
    (Review Source)
  • White House Asked YouTube to 'Review' Hackish Film Blamed for MidEast Attacks
    (”Innocence of Muslims” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    PJ Media According to a report on National Public Radio today, the White House asked YouTube to pull the "Innocence of Muslims" movie that is being blamed for the Middle East attacks. White House spokesman Jay Carney was asked about it during his press briefing today, and essentially punted.On Twitter, NBC's Chuck Todd attempted to clarify the situation:@chucktodd: To clarify, the WH ...asked YouTube to review the video to see if it violated their policiesAs anyone who has dealt with YouTube knows, though, asking the video site to review a video for possible violations is how one starts the process of getting a video pulled from the site.  Todd's clarification amounts to a confirmation.Added to Thursday's news that the Department of Justice investigated and publicly identified the man believed to be behind the film, and the fact that Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Martin Dempsey called Rev. Terry Jones to ask him to rescind his support for the film, and the picture of a White House going out of its way to squelch free speech is clear.Update: More from the LA Times.Obama administration officials also flagged the trailer to YouTube and asked the company to review whether it violated the website's terms of service. class="pages"> ]]>
    (Review Source)
  • A Free Speech Test for the President
    (”Innocence of Muslims” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    PJ Media Just in time to piggyback some PR on the notoriety of the anti-Islam film Innocence of Muslims, the Edward Tyler Nahem Gallery in New York is featuring a retrospective of artist Andres Serrano's work, including the controversial photograph dubbed "Piss Christ."New York Post:On Palm Sunday last year, 1,000 protesters marched outside a French gallery showing “Piss Christ,” and the piece was attacked by hammer-toting vandals while gallery workers received death threats. The piece — there are 10 prints — has also been vandalized at the National Gallery of Victoria in Australia and in Sweden.But Serrano told us he’s not expecting trouble in his hometown of New York. “It’s not going to receive the same attention,” he said, adding that the French attack “destroyed” the piece, but, “It transformed ‘Piss Christ’ into something else. It’s mounted on plexiglass, and it looked like they’d attacked Christ. The marks were all around the face.”A rep for the Midtown gallery confirmed it was beefing up security in anticipation of protests, but wouldn’t elaborate further.Serrano is working on a book of 400 photographs recently shot in Cuba. His mother, who was born in Florida, is of Cuban heritage. “It’s about time we talked about Cuba,” he said, calling the US embargo “horrendous.”He adds, the situation around NEA funding that “Piss Christ” ignited “never got better . . . the budget of the NEA was slashed in half. There seems to be a sort of dislike for the arts, and for the government supporting the arts. It’s not right.”Will President Obama speak out against this outrageous depiction of the Christian savior, the son of God? I hope not. The pressure is already intense for him to do so. And Barack Obama did not made it any easier on himself when he publicly condemned the film Innocence of Muslims. Legitimate questions will be raised by Christians who are mightily offended by Serrano's hateful depiction of Jesus: If you can condemn a blasphemous film depicting Mohammed, why not a blasphemous photo depicting Christ?He should neither condemn nor support either. His job is to protect free speech, no matter how offensive it might be to Americans or foreigners. If the best way to defend that right is to keep his mouth shut, he should do so.But President Obama has already failed the free speech test by agreeing with the perpetually outraged Islamists that they had cause to riot. Just yesterday, he reaffirmed that Muslim outrage at the film was justified.Daily Caller:President Barack Obama said he thinks Muslim protests against Western criticism of Islam are “natural.”“The natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests,” Obama said during an hour-long town-hall interview on the Spanish-language Univision channel.Obama did not use the interview to champion the right of Americans to speak freely amid criticism and threats from Islamic advocates.He did briefly mention free-speech, saying that democracy also includes “looking out for minority rights… respecting freedom of speech… [and] treating women fairly.” class="pages"> previous Page 1 of 2 next   ]]>
    (Review Source)
  • Pakistan's 'Day of Love' Ends with 17 Killed in Protests Against Film
    (”Innocence of Muslims” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    PJ Media It was a "Day of Love" for the prophet in Pakistan on Friday and tens of thousands of people responded to the government-approved demonstrations against the film Innocence of Muslims by torching banks and movie houses, battling police, and ransacking shops. There were a reported 17 dead as a result of the riots.Associated Press:Analysts accused the Pakistani government of pandering to these extremists by declaring Friday to be an official holiday — calling it a "Day of Love for the Prophet." Officials urged peaceful protests, but critics said the move helped unleash the worst violence yet caused by the film, titled "Innocence of Muslims."In addition to those killed, nearly 200 others were injured as mobs threw stones and set fire to cars and movie theaters, and battled with police who responded with tear gas and gunfire."The people were just waiting for a trigger," said Imtiaz Gul, director of the Islamabad-based Center for Research and Security Studies.In an attempt to tamp down the anger, the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad purchased spots on Pakistani TV on Thursday that featured denunciations of the video by President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. But their comments, which were subtitled in Urdu, the main Pakistani language, apparently did little to moderate the outrage that filled the country's streets.Police fired tear gas and live ammunition to push back the tens of thousands of protesters they faced in Pakistan's capital, Islamabad, and the major cities of Lahore, Karachi and Peshawar. They were successful in preventing the protesters from reaching U.S. diplomatic offices in the cities, even though the demonstrators streamed over shipping containers set up on major roads to block their path.The demonstrators, who were led by hard-line Islamist groups, hurled rocks at the police and set fire to their vehicles. They also ransacked and burned banks, shops, cinemas and Western fast-food restaurants such as KFC and Pizza Hut.AP is also reporting that a Pakistani cabinet minister is offering $100,000 out of his own pocket for the death of the filmmaker:Railways Minister Ghulam Ahmad Balor told The Associated Press that he would pay the reward out of his own pocket. He urged the Taliban and al-Qaida to perform the "sacred duty" of helping locate and kill the filmmaker. One protestor told Reuters:Mohammed Tariq Khan, a protester in Islamabad, said: "Our demand is that whoever has blasphemed against our holy Prophet should be handed over to us so we can cut him up into tiny pieces in front of the entire nation."What are we missing here? Is something being lost in the translation? Perhaps we just don't understand Pakistani culture and the way they show love is by cutting their fellow man into "tiny pieces." Or maybe the Pakistani minister who has placed a personal bounty on the head of a very bad filmmaker is showing his love of the arts by eliminating an excruciatingly awful director.Sorry, but this whole "Day of Love" business seems to have fizzled a bit. I'm just glad they didn't call for a "Day of Rage." class="pages"> ]]>
    (Review Source)
  • Is this a first?
    (”Innocence of Muslims” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    Roger's Rules When the motor of history gets revved up (as it surely is now), it becomes more than commonly difficult to discriminate between the mere static of events rubbing against one another and that appoggiatura that announces the main theme of the moment.  You’d have to be pretty thick not to sense that something big is happening in the world. Just yesterday, the Evening Standard published a column of mine in which I reprised James Carville’s famous taunt, “It’s the economy, stupid.”Carville was right, except when he wasn’t, e.g., at about 10:00 a.m. on September 11, 2001, or, as we see all about us, in the aftermath of September 11, 2012, when some representatives of the “Arab Spring” stormed the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, and murdered U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other diplomats.What was the most extraordinary statement to come out of that outrage, or the successive and still unfolding attacks on U.S. and other Western interests by Islamists across the world?First prize for naïveté must surely go to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who had this to say about the murder of those four Americans:Today, many Americans are asking – indeed, I asked myself – how could this happen? How could this happen in a country we helped liberate, in a city we helped save from destruction? This question reflects just how complicated and, at times, how confounding the world can be.I have to say, those were not among the questions I asked myself. Leave aside the laughable trope that what we did in Libya was liberate  the country.  What we really did was exchange one malign dictator for the dictatorship of a malign, freedom-denying ideology, radical Islam. What I chiefly wanted to know was, Why was security so lax at our consulate, especially on the anniversary of the terrorists attacks of 9/11?First prize for cringe-making appeasement also goes to the State Department, even if it wasn’t issued by HRC herself. Six hours before an Islamist mob stormed our embassy in Cairo, the embassy condemned “the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims.”It’s perfectly OK to “hurt the religious feelings” of anyone else — just ask Terrence McNally, whose play Corpus Christie depicts Jesus having sex with Judas Iscariot. Perhaps you do not like Corpus Christie. I think it a loathsome work, but I do not propose to burn down an embassy or murder anyone because of it. But Muslims apparently deserve a special dispensation. The First Amendment protects Mr. McNally. But does it protect the author of The Innocence of Muslims, the silly 13-minute anti-Muslim film by Nakoula Basseley Nakoula (not, as was first reported, “Sam Bacile”)? We’ll see. Mr. Nakoula has been detained for questioning by federal probation agents. What do you bet he is found to have violated probation?Choice though HRC’s and the Cairo Embassy’s statements were, however, the most astonishing emanation from officialdom these last few days was the news that Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, put in a call to the fruity pastor Terry Jones — the chap who some months ago made headlines by publicly burning a Koran — asking him to withdraw his support for The Innocence of Muslims.Query: Why was the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff calling a private citizen and leaning on him to make a public recantation? Has such a thing ever happened in the United States?  I cannot think of a precedent.  As Michael Walsh notes elsewhere on PJM, “A clearer breaching of the civilian-military relationship can hardly be imagined, and Gen. Dempsey ought to resign in disgrace for his appalling lapse in judgment.” But, as Walsh also notes, Dempsey certainly will not resign nor will the president fire him.Which means what? class="pages"> previous Page 1 of 3 next   ]]>
    (Review Source)
  • Psaki: Kim Jong-un Comedy Totally Different from Mohammed Film Slammed by State Dept.
    (”Innocence of Muslims” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    PJ Media Sony Pictures officially decided not to release The Interview on Dec. 25 as planned, citing the major theater chains that refused to show the movie after hackers made 9/11-style threats against screenings."We respect and understand our partners' decision and, of course, completely share their paramount interest in the safety of employees and theater-goers," the Sony statement said."Sony Pictures has been the victim of an unprecedented criminal assault against our employees, our customers, and our business. Those who attacked us stole our intellectual property, private emails, and sensitive and proprietary material, and sought to destroy our spirit and our morale -- all apparently to thwart the release of a movie they did not like. We are deeply saddened at this brazen effort to suppress the distribution of a movie, and in the process do damage to our company, our employees, and the American public. We stand by our filmmakers and their right to free expression and are extremely disappointed by this outcome."The Associated Press reported moments ago that federal investigators have connected the hacking to North Korea.At the State Department earlier today, Jen Psaki said department officials did meet with studio executives during production, as revealed in leaked emails, but disputed reports that they OK'd the picture. "We're not in the business of signing off on content of movies or things along those lines," she said."I can confirm for you that [Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs Daniel] Russel did have a conversation with Sony executives, as he does routinely with a wide range of private groups and individuals, to discuss foreign policy in Asia," Psaki said. "[Special Envoy for North Korean Human Rights Issues] Bob King, contrary to reports, did not view the movie and did not have any contact directly with Sony.""As we have -- as we've noted before, entertainers are free to make movies of their choosing, and we are not involved in that," she added.Psaki said she wouldn't compare the comedy about the assassination of Kim Jong-un to the Mohammed film initially blamed for the Benghazi attack, a movie heavily criticized by the State Department."I would not put them in the same category, which I'm sure does not surprise you," Psaki said. "We don't have -- it's a fiction movie. It's not a documentary about our relationship with the United -- with North Korea. It's not something we backed, supported or necessarily have an opinion on from here."After violent reactions to Innocence of Muslims in 2012, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said "the United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.""We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of other," the U.S. Embassy in Cairo said back then.While being asked questions about unilateral changes in Cuba policy today, White House press secretary Josh Earnest if they would relax sanctions on North Korea under the same theory."That if you open it up, that you put more pressure on them, maybe they'll change their behavior?" a reporter asked."No. OK," Earnest bluntly responded, drawing laughter.Saw @Sethrogen at JFK. Both of us have never seen or heard of anything like this. Hollywood has done Neville Chamberlain proud today.— Rob Lowe (@RobLowe) December 17, 2014 .@RobLowe it wasn't the hackers who won, it was the terrorists and almost certainly the North Korean dictatorship, this was an act of war— Newt Gingrich (@newtgingrich) December 17, 2014 City of Atlanta demands all remaining prints of gone with the wind be destroyed— Albert Brooks (@AlbertBrooks) December 17, 2014. @JuddApatow I agree wholeheartedly. An un-American act of cowardice that validates terrorist actions and sets a terrifying precedent.— Jimmy Kimmel (@jimmykimmel) December 17, 2014 If they had cyber threats in 1940, I guess nobody would have ever seen "The Great Dictator."— Richard Roeper (@richardroeper) December 17, 2014 .@SonyPictures don’t cave, fight: release @TheInterview free online globally. Ask viewers for voluntary $5 contribution to fight #Ebola.— Mitt Romney (@MittRomney) December 18, 2014  class="pages"> ]]>
    (Review Source)
  • When You Appease Tyrants, They Just Hate You Even More
    (”Innocence of Muslims” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    Say No To Socialism The State Department contends that the assassination of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and the three American officials who defended him was an unplanned, spur-of-the-moment reaction to a low-budget film called Innocence of Muslims. That is nothing more than a fairytale lullaby designed to put American outrage to sleep. The only reaction to this fantasy seems to have been among the Muslim terrorist leaders, who understand it as a go-ahead to attack our embassies all around the world with impunity. Our embassy in Pakistan is now under siege. Thousands of other "angry" Muslims are now screaming “Death to America” and burning American flags in front of our embassies in Egypt, Indonesia, Sudan, Kuwait, Afghanistan, Tunisia, Yemen, Germany, and Great Britain, to mention just a few.During the years I spent at the top of the Soviet bloc intelligence community I unfortunately came to know many tyrants quite well, and I learned for a fact that they despise appeasers. In April 1978, President Jimmy Carter hailed Romania’s communist tyrant Nicolae Ceausescu as a “great national and international leader.” I was standing next to the two of them at the White House, and I could hardly believe my ears. A few hours later, I was in the car with Ceausescu, driving away from the White House. He took a bottle of alcohol and splashed it all over his face, in reaction to having been affectionately kissed by the U.S. president in the Oval Office. “Peanut-head,” Ceausescu muttered in disgust.Three months later, President Carter signed my request for political asylum, and I told him who Ceausescu really was, and how he had reacted to that kiss at the White House. On the memorable day of July 19, 1979, however, I watched the TV news with disbelief, as President Carter did it again. He affectionately kissed Leonid Brezhnev on both cheeks during their first encounter in Vienna.Brezhnev also despised appeasers, as I also knew for a fact. Five months after the infamous Carter-Brezhnev kiss, a KGB terrorist squad assassinated Hafizullah Amin, the American-educated prime minister of Afghanistan, and replaced him with a Soviet puppet. Then the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, and President Carter feebly protested by boycotting the Olympic Games in Moscow. This new sign of American weakness gave rise to the Taliban regime and Osama bin Laden’s terrorism.In the 1990s, the U.S. government virtually ignored bin Laden’s first assault on the World Trade Center, the U.S. embassy bombings in Africa, and the attack on the USS Cole. During that same period, we entrusted our national security and foreign policy tasks into the hands of the United Nations — which responded on May 3, 2001, by ejecting the United States from its Human Rights Commission.We had barely set foot in the 21st century, when bin Laden’s terrorists unleashed a relentless war against our country, with the disastrous terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Soon after that, North Korea withdrew from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), expelled the inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (AEIA), and let loose a venomous anti-American campaign. “Let’s exterminate our sworn enemy U.S. imperialists!” reads a slogan inside North Korean jet cockpits, sailors’ cabins, and army guard posts.When Ronald Reagan became president, the U.S. was being treated with contempt by most petty tyrants around the world. The Soviet Union was on the march in Angola, Vietnam, Cuba, Ethiopia, Syria, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Peru, and, of course, Afghanistan. President Reagan reversed all these trends by calling the tyrants and their tyrannies by their real names, and treating them as such. Remember his "Evil Empire"? The Soviet press agency TASS said those words demonstrated that Reagan was a "bellicose, lunatic anti-Communist." But it was precisely that "lunatic anti-Communist" who won the 44-year Cold War and returned America to greatness.Unfortunately, in 1993 we got another wishy-washy president, who reinstated Carter's policy of appeasing Communist tyrants. On April 22, 2000, during a Holy Week, between Good Friday and Easter Sunday, President Bill Clinton's marshals forcibly seized and returned to Communist Cuba a six-year-old boy who had miraculously escaped alive from a boat that had sunk with his mother, who had been trying to free her only child from Castro’s tyranny. class="pages"> previous Page 1 of 3 next   ]]>
    (Review Source)
  • Protests Likely Will Continue: Panetta
    (”Innocence of Muslims” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    PJ Media The American government believes that protests against the film Innocence of Muslims "are likely to continue over the next few days, if not longer."Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta says that the Pentagon has “deployed our forces to a number of areas in the region to be prepared to respond to any requests that we receive to be able to protect our personnel and our American property."Politico:He declined to provide more details on reports that the military may be moving additional military forces so they can respond to unrest in any of a number of regions of concern.“I think our approach right now is to not do anything until we’ve been requested to do it by the State Department,” Panetta told reporters traveling with him aboard a U.S. military aircraft to Asia. But he noted that, “I think that we have to continue to be very vigilant because I suspect that … these demonstrations are likely to continue over the next few days, if not longer.”Protests by furious Muslims erupted in countries around the world in recent days, with some spawning violence and even deaths over an anti-Islam video shot in California that denigrates the Prophet Muhammad. In places like Libya, Sudan and Tunisia, protesters stormed U.S. embassies, and an American fast food restaurant was burned in Lebanon.In response, the Pentagon dispatched elite Marine rapid response teams to Libya and Yemen, but a team deployed to Khartoum on Friday was turned back when the Sudanese government objected.Asked about Sudan’s decision, Panetta said host countries have the right to reject such military deployments.“My understanding is that they felt that they could provide sufficient security to be able to protect our embassy and our personnel there,” said Panetta. “And you know, in many ways, as all of you know the primary responsibility for protecting embassies rests with the host country.”Our response to Sudan's rejection of an augmented security force was to close the embassy and order out family members and non-essential staff.Clearly, the Obama administration has learned the lessons of Tehran, 1979. And they are probably willing to shed blood to prevent another hostage situation.The question is: Will the security upgrade deter the fanatics from repeating what happened in Libya, or our other embassies where the US was humiliated by the replacement of our flag with al-Qaeda's banner?Making martyrs of them is exactly what they want. But so is chasing us out of the Middle East. It's always better to let the local police and army handle the situation, but what happens when they stand aside as they did in Khartoum and Tunis?Assurances from a government that is running a failed state or near failed state, as is the case in Sudan and Tunisia (as well as Yemen and Libya), ring hollow indeed. Let's hope that the Marine's rifles have bullets to shoot and that their aim is true -- if it has to be. class="pages"> ]]>
    (Review Source)
  • Ambassador Rice: Libya Consulate Attack Not Premeditated
    (”Innocence of Muslims” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    PJ Media And Obama's favorite ambassador also said the US isn't "impotent" and that the film Innocence of Muslims was the "direct" cause of the riots and was "widely disseminated."“Our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous – not a premeditated – response to what had transpired in Cairo,” Rice told me this morning on “This Week.”"We’re not impotent,were not even less popular to challenge that assessment” said Rice. ” What happened this week in Cairo, in Benghazi and many other parts of the region was a result, a direct result, of a heinous and offensive video that was widely disseminated, that the U.S. government had nothing to do with, which we have made clear is reprehensible and disgusting.”Word has it that when Rice retires from government, she will go to work as a storyteller at her local library.First, let us disabuse the clueless ambassador of the notion that the attack on our embassy was just the spontaneous outpouring of emotion of the poor, put upon jihadists who weep whenever the prophet is looked at cross-eyed.CNN:According to one of the Libyan security guards who was stationed at one of the gates armed with only a radio, the assault began simultaneously from three directions.Heavy machine guns and rocket -propelled grenades were used, according to the guard. He said masked men threatened to kill him at gunpoint for 'protecting the infidels. He declined to appear on camera for fear of repercussions.The February 17th Brigade -- a militia connected to the government but not part of Libya's armed forces -- was closely involved in the rescue of the American staff trapped after the attack Tuesday night.After the consulate was attacked and set on fire, a number of Americans escaped to a safe-house in another part of the city. But that came under attack too.Mabrouk said he received a call from an official in Tripoli, who said he had been called by a "terrified" American in Benghazi.The official was at the safe-house. Mabrouk says the Brigade asked the Americans if they needed help -- but were told that while the situation was dangerous, it was under control.A few hours later, Mabrouk said he received another call from Tripoli about the arrival of a U.S. team at Benghazi airport that needed transport into the city.He met the seven Americans, who were heavily armed but not in military uniform, on the runway and provided them with an armed escort, he said.As soon as the two vehicles carrying the seven Americans arrived at the safe house, they came under intense attack -- including a volley of grenades and machine-gun fire. The assailants then fled.It must have been mental telepathy or some kind of psychic connection that allowed the jihadists to attack the embassy "simultaneously from three directions." Nope. No "premeditation" there.And its a good thing the fanatics remembered to bring their heavy weapons just in case they spontaneously decided to attack.Also, how the jihadists were able to get the location of our top secret safe house and attack it without "premeditation" is a library storytime session I wouldn't want to miss.The "no premeditation" narrative is vital to the Obama campaign because if there were a plot afoot -- and it seems obvious there was -- then the Obama administration could be blamed for not listening to the warnings prior to the attack. A "spontaneous" attack leaves them blameless.So in furtherance of a campaign narrative, the administration will sell the lie that we couldn't possibly have done anything else to prevent or prepare for the attack. Conveniently, the State Department will not answer any more questions about the Benghazi attack as long as the incident is under criminal investigation.It wouldn't matter anyway. If Ambassador Rice can't bring herself to utter the truth why should we believe the State Department would be any more honest? class="pages"> ]]>
    (Review Source)
  • I Demand to be Arrested!
    (”Innocence of Muslims” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    Roger L. Simon Hillary Clinton, I insist that you have me arrested. I am thinking of making a movie about Mohammed.I don’t want to brag, but as a film professional with an Academy Award nomination in screenwriting, I may do a better job than Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, alleged creator of the Innocence of Muslims.But I have to admit one thing. Hopeless and inept as Nakoula may be as a filmmaker, I agree with the intentions of his movie. I too have a serious problem with Islam because I happen to abhor misogyny and homophobia, both mainstays of that faith. And, like most Americans, I prefer freedom of religion to jihad, Sharia law, and a global caliphate.Don’t let me criticize any of that.I also happen to agree with Nakoula that making a movie about a faith whose prophet married a six year old and deflowered her at nine is of thematic and dramatic relevance. As a father, I am seriously concerned about child abuse, as is most of our film-going public, I would imagine.Indeed, the beginnings of Islam are the very stuff of great theatre and cinema, reprehensible as the actions of the protagonist may be. In fact, it may be great because of those actions. After all, Richard III is not a classic for nothing.So I am very tempted by the subject of Mohammed.Arrest me, Hillary Clinton, before I start. Call Eric Holder!And while you are at it, tell him to round up Salman Rushdie. His novel about Mohammed is obviously blasphemous. He was lucky to escape that fatwa. We should have one of our own.And arrest those Danish cartoonists too – ink-stained wretches!Arrest everyone who dares to criticize a religion that wants to take the world back to the seventh century. After all, you’re a “progressive.” You’re on the side of human rights.And make us apologize for our work, too. We didn’t mean a word we said. I’m sure the thoughtful folks in the Arab Street will accept our apologies and return to their peaceful, meditative lives.But most of all, arrest me because I might even make things worse. class="pages"> previous Page 1 of 2 next   ]]>
    (Review Source)
  • Shocking Video: WH Spox Jay Carney Says Attacks are Reaction to Film, Not US Policy, and Were Not Pre-Planned
    (”Innocence of Muslims” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    PJ Media The White House's official spokesman, Jay Carney, continues to believe that the attacks in Cairo and Benghazi were reactions to "The Innocence of Muslims." var dataLayer = window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; dataLayer.push({ 'videoName': 'Carney: Protest Not Against U.S. Policy', 'videoType': 'Curated' }); Carney is only speaking for his boss, President Obama. What he says should reflect what the president believes. That is what makes his exchange with Jake Tapper today all the more disturbing.JAKE TAPPER: [unintelligible] that the anniversary of 9-11 would be a time when you would want to have extra security around diplomats and military posts?JAY CARNEY: Well, as you know, there, we, are very vigilant around anniversaries like 9-11. The president is always briefed and brought up to speed on the precautions being taken. [crosstalk] But let's be clear. This, these protests, were in reaction to a video that had spread to the region. [crosstalk] We don't know otherwise. You know, we have no information to suggest that it was a pre-planned...attack.That's a lot of false information to pack into one short soundbite. The foreign office in Benghazi was not secured, so the administration was not vigilant. The president tends to skip his daily briefings. He even skipped the briefing on the day after the attacks. The attack was pre-planned; we posted the warning here on Monday regarding the embassy in Cairo. It was not in reaction to a film, but an attack staged by terrorists on the 9-11 anniversary.Let's watch Carney spread some more malarkey. var dataLayer = window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; dataLayer.push({ 'videoName': 'Carney: No Advance Warning', 'videoType': 'Curated' }); In that clip, Carney says that there was no actionable intelligence that an attack was imminent in Benghazi. class="pages"> ]]>
    (Review Source)

Want even more consensus?

Skip Rotten Tomatoes, they’re biased SJWs too afraid to criticize things like the Ghost Busters reboot. Avoid giving them ad revenue by using the minimalist alternative, Cinesift, for a quick aggregate:

🗣️ Know of another conservative review that we’re missing?
Leave a link in the comments below or email us!

What’d you think? Let us know with a video:

Record a webcam review!

Or anonymous text review:

Submit your review

Create your own review

Average rating:  
 0 reviews
Overall Hollywood Bs Average rating:  
Anti-patriotism Average rating:  
Misandry Average rating:  
Affirmative action Average rating:  
LGBTQ rstuvwxyz Average rating:  
Anti-God Average rating:  

Buy on Amazon:
⚠️ Comment freely, but please respect our young users.
👍🏻 Non PC comments/memes/vids/links
👎🏻 Curse words / NSFW media / JQ stuff
👌🏻 Visit our 18+ free speech forum to avoid censorship.
⚠️ Keep your kids’ websurfing safe! Read this.

Share this page: