What ISIS Really Wants

Graeme Wood, The Atlantic, March 2015

What is the Islamic State?

Where did it come from, and what are its intentions? The simplicity of these questions can be deceiving, and few Western leaders seem to know the answers. In December, The New York Times published confidential comments by Major General Michael K. Nagata, the Special Operations commander for the United States in the Middle East, admitting that he had hardly begun figuring out the Islamic State’s appeal. “We have not defeated the idea,” he said. “We do not even understand the idea.” In the past year, President Obama has referred to the Islamic State, variously, as “not Islamic” and as al-Qaeda’s “jayvee team,” statements that reflected confusion about the group, and may have contributed to significant strategic errors.

The group seized Mosul, Iraq, last June, and already rules an area larger than the United Kingdom. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi has been its leader since May 2010, but until last summer, his most recent known appearance on film was a grainy mug shot from a stay in U.S. captivity at Camp Bucca during the occupation of Iraq. Then, on July 5 of last year, he stepped into the pulpit of the Great Mosque of al-Nuri in Mosul, to deliver a Ramadan sermon as the first caliph in generations–upgrading his resolution from grainy to high-definition, and his position from hunted guerrilla to commander of all Muslims. The inflow of jihadists that followed, from around the world, was unprecedented in its pace and volume, and is continuing.

Our ignorance of the Islamic State is in some ways understandable: It is a hermit kingdom; few have gone there and returned. Baghdadi has spoken on camera only once. But his address, and the Islamic State’s countless other propaganda videos and encyclicals, are online, and the caliphate’s supporters have toiled mightily to make their project knowable. We can gather that their state rejects peace as a matter of principle; that it hungers for genocide; that its religious views make it constitutionally incapable of certain types of change, even if that change might ensure its survival; and that it considers itself a harbinger of–and headline player in–the imminent end of the world.

The Islamic State, also known as the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS), follows a distinctive variety of Islam whose beliefs about the path to the Day of Judgment matter to its strategy, and can help the West know its enemy and predict its behavior. Its rise to power is less like the triumph of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt (a group whose leaders the Islamic State considers apostates) than like the realization of a dystopian alternate reality in which David Koresh or Jim Jones survived to wield absolute power over not just a few hundred people, but some 8 million.

We have misunderstood the nature of the Islamic State in at least two ways. First, we tend to see jihadism as monolithic, and to apply the logic of al‑Qaeda to an organization that has decisively eclipsed it. The Islamic State supporters I spoke with still refer to Osama bin Laden as “Sheikh Osama,” a title of honor. But jihadism has evolved since al-Qaeda’s heyday, from about 1998 to 2003, and many jihadists disdain the group’s priorities and current leadership.

Bin Laden viewed his terrorism as a prologue to a caliphate he did not expect to see in his lifetime. His organization was flexible, operating as a geographically diffuse network of autonomous cells. The Islamic State, by contrast, requires territory to remain legitimate, and a top-down structure to rule it. (Its bureaucracy is divided into civil and military arms, and its territory into provinces.)

We are misled in a second way, by a well-intentioned but dishonest campaign to deny the Islamic State’s medieval religious nature. Peter Bergen, who produced the first interview with bin Laden in 1997, titled his first book Holy War, Inc. in part to acknowledge bin Laden as a creature of the modern secular world. Bin Laden corporatized terror and franchised it out. He requested specific political concessions, such as the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Saudi Arabia. His foot soldiers navigated the modern world confidently. On Mohammad Atta’s last full day of life, he shopped at Walmart and ate dinner at Pizza Hut.

There is a temptation to rehearse this observation–that jihadists are modern secular people, with modern political concerns, wearing medieval religious disguise–and make it fit the Islamic State. In fact, much of what the group does looks nonsensical except in light of a sincere, carefully considered commitment to returning civilization to a seventh-century legal environment, and ultimately to bringing about the apocalypse.

The most-articulate spokesmen for that position are the Islamic State’s officials and supporters themselves. They refer derisively to “moderns.” In conversation, they insist that they will not–cannot–waver from governing precepts that were embedded in Islam by the Prophet Muhammad and his earliest followers. They often speak in codes and allusions that sound odd or old-fashioned to non-Muslims, but refer to specific traditions and texts of early Islam.

To take one example: In September, Sheikh Abu Muhammad al-Adnani, the Islamic State’s chief spokesman, called on Muslims in Western countries such as France and Canada to find an infidel and “smash his head with a rock,” poison him, run him over with a car, or “destroy his crops.” To Western ears, the biblical-sounding punishments–the stoning and crop destruction–juxtaposed strangely with his more modern-sounding call to vehicular homicide. (As if to show that he could terrorize by imagery alone, Adnani also referred to Secretary of State John Kerry as an “uncircumcised geezer.”)

But Adnani was not merely talking trash. His speech was laced with theological and legal discussion, and his exhortation to attack crops directly echoed orders from Muhammad to leave well water and crops alone–unless the armies of Islam were in a defensive position, in which case Muslims in the lands of kuffar, or infidels, should be unmerciful, and poison away.

The reality is that the Islamic State is Islamic. Very Islamic. Yes, it has attracted psychopaths and adventure seekers, drawn largely from the disaffected populations of the Middle East and Europe. But the religion preached by its most ardent followers derives from coherent and even learned interpretations of Islam.

Virtually every major decision and law promulgated by the Islamic State adheres to what it calls, in its press and pronouncements, and on its billboards, license plates, stationery, and coins, “the Prophetic methodology,” which means following the prophecy and example of Muhammad, in punctilious detail. Muslims can reject the Islamic State; nearly all do. But pretending that it isn’t actually a religious, millenarian group, with theology that must be understood to be combatted, has already led the United States to underestimate it and back foolish schemes to counter it. We’ll need to get acquainted with the Islamic State’s intellectual genealogy if we are to react in a way that will not strengthen it, but instead help it self-immolate in its own excessive zeal.


{snip} In Islam, the practice of takfir, or excommunication, is theologically perilous. “If a man says to his brother, ‘You are an infidel,’ ” the Prophet said, “then one of them is right.” If the accuser is wrong, he himself has committed apostasy by making a false accusation. The punishment for apostasy is death. {snip}


{snip} Being a Shiite, as most Iraqi Arabs are, meets the standard as well, because the Islamic State regards Shiism as innovation, and to innovate on the Koran is to deny its initial perfection. (The Islamic State claims that common Shiite practices, such as worship at the graves of imams and public self-flagellation, have no basis in the Koran or in the example of the Prophet.) That means roughly 200 million Shia are marked for death. So too are the heads of state of every Muslim country, who have elevated man-made law above Sharia by running for office or enforcing laws not made by God.

Following takfiri doctrine, the Islamic State is committed to purifying the world by killing vast numbers of people. The lack of objective reporting from its territory makes the true extent of the slaughter unknowable, but social-media posts from the region suggest that individual executions happen more or less continually, and mass executions every few weeks. Muslim “apostates” are the most common victims. Exempted from automatic execution, it appears, are Christians who do not resist their new government. Baghdadi permits them to live, as long as they pay a special tax, known as the jizya, and acknowledge their subjugation. The Koranic authority for this practice is not in dispute.


Many mainstream Muslim organizations have gone so far as to say the Islamic State is, in fact, un-Islamic. It is, of course, reassuring to know that the vast majority of Muslims have zero interest in replacing Hollywood movies with public executions as evening entertainment. But Muslims who call the Islamic State un-Islamic are typically, as the Princeton scholar Bernard Haykel, the leading expert on the group’s theology, told me, “embarrassed and politically correct, with a cotton-candy view of their own religion” that neglects “what their religion has historically and legally required.” Many denials of the Islamic State’s religious nature, he said, are rooted in an “interfaith-Christian-nonsense tradition.”


According to Haykel, the ranks of the Islamic State are deeply infused with religious vigor. Koranic quotations are ubiquitous. “Even the foot soldiers spout this stuff constantly,” Haykel said. “They mug for their cameras and repeat their basic doctrines in formulaic fashion, and they do it all the time.” He regards the claim that the Islamic State has distorted the texts of Islam as preposterous, sustainable only through willful ignorance. “People want to absolve Islam,” he said. “It’s this ‘Islam is a religion of peace’ mantra. As if there is such a thing as ‘Islam’! It’s what Muslims do, and how they interpret their texts.” Those texts are shared by all Sunni Muslims, not just the Islamic State. “And these guys have just as much legitimacy as anyone else.”

All Muslims acknowledge that Muhammad’s earliest conquests were not tidy affairs, and that the laws of war passed down in the Koran and in the narrations of the Prophet’s rule were calibrated to fit a turbulent and violent time. In Haykel’s estimation, the fighters of the Islamic State are authentic throwbacks to early Islam and are faithfully reproducing its norms of war. This behavior includes a number of practices that modern Muslims tend to prefer not to acknowledge as integral to their sacred texts. “Slavery, crucifixion, and beheadings are not something that freakish [jihadists] are cherry-picking from the medieval tradition,” Haykel said. Islamic State fighters “are smack in the middle of the medieval tradition and are bringing it wholesale into the present day.”

The Koran specifies crucifixion as one of the only punishments permitted for enemies of Islam. The tax on Christians finds clear endorsement in the Surah Al-Tawba, the Koran’s ninth chapter, which instructs Muslims to fight Christians and Jews “until they pay the jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” The Prophet, whom all Muslims consider exemplary, imposed these rules and owned slaves.


If al-Qaeda wanted to revive slavery, it never said so. And why would it? Silence on slavery probably reflected strategic thinking, with public sympathies in mind: when the Islamic State began enslaving people, even some of its supporters balked. Nonetheless, the caliphate has continued to embrace slavery and crucifixion without apology. “We will conquer your Rome, break your crosses, and enslave your women,” Adnani, the spokesman, promised in one of his periodic valentines to the West. “If we do not reach that time, then our children and grandchildren will reach it, and they will sell your sons as slaves at the slave market.”


Tens of thousands of foreign Muslims are thought to have immigrated to the Islamic State. Recruits hail from France, the United Kingdom, Belgium, Germany, Holland, Australia, Indonesia, the United States, and many other places. Many have come to fight, and many intend to die.

Peter R. Neumann, a professor at King’s College London, told me that online voices have been essential to spreading propaganda and ensuring that newcomers know what to believe. Online recruitment has also widened the demographics of the jihadist community, by allowing conservative Muslim women–physically isolated in their homes–to reach out to recruiters, radicalize, and arrange passage to Syria. Through its appeals to both genders, the Islamic State hopes to build a complete society.


In London, a week before my meal with Cerantonio, I met with three ex-members of a banned Islamist group called Al Muhajiroun (The Emigrants): Anjem Choudary, Abu Baraa, and Abdul Muhid. They all expressed desire to emigrate to the Islamic State, as many of their colleagues already had, but the authorities had confiscated their passports. Like Cerantonio, they regarded the caliphate as the only righteous government on Earth, though none would confess having pledged allegiance. Their principal goal in meeting me was to explain what the Islamic State stands for, and how its policies reflect God’s law.

Choudary, 48, is the group’s former leader. He frequently appears on cable news, as one of the few people producers can book who will defend the Islamic State vociferously, until his mike is cut. He has a reputation in the United Kingdom as a loathsome blowhard, but he and his disciples sincerely believe in the Islamic State and, on matters of doctrine, speak in its voice. Choudary and the others feature prominently in the Twitter feeds of Islamic State residents, and Abu Baraa maintains a YouTube channel to answer questions about Sharia.


Before the caliphate, “maybe 85 percent of the Sharia was absent from our lives,” Choudary told me. “These laws are in abeyance until we have khilafa”–a caliphate–“and now we have one.” Without a caliphate, for example, individual vigilantes are not obliged to amputate the hands of thieves they catch in the act. But create a caliphate, and this law, along with a huge body of other jurisprudence, suddenly awakens. In theory, all Muslims are obliged to immigrate to the territory where the caliph is applying these laws. One of Choudary’s prize students, a convert from Hinduism named Abu Rumaysah, evaded police to bring his family of five from London to Syria in November. On the day I met Choudary, Abu Rumaysah tweeted out a picture of himself with a Kalashnikov in one arm and his newborn son in the other. Hashtag: #GenerationKhilafah.

The caliph is required to implement Sharia. Any deviation will compel those who have pledged allegiance to inform the caliph in private of his error and, in extreme cases, to excommunicate and replace him if he persists. (“I have been plagued with this great matter, plagued with this responsibility, and it is a heavy responsibility,” Baghdadi said in his sermon.) In return, the caliph commands obedience–and those who persist in supporting non-Muslim governments, after being duly warned and educated about their sin, are considered apostates.

Choudary said Sharia has been misunderstood because of its incomplete application by regimes such as Saudi Arabia, which does behead murderers and cut off thieves’ hands. “The problem,” he explained, “is that when places like Saudi Arabia just implement the penal code, and don’t provide the social and economic justice of the Sharia–the whole package–they simply engender hatred toward the Sharia.” That whole package, he said, would include free housing, food, and clothing for all, though of course anyone who wished to enrich himself with work could do so.


All Muslims acknowledge that God is the only one who knows the future. But they also agree that he has offered us a peek at it, in the Koran and in narrations of the Prophet. The Islamic State differs from nearly every other current jihadist movement in believing that it is written into God’s script as a central character. It is in this casting that the Islamic State is most boldly distinctive from its predecessors, and clearest in the religious nature of its mission.

In broad strokes, al-Qaeda acts like an underground political movement, with worldly goals in sight at all times–the expulsion of non-Muslims from the Arabian peninsula, the abolishment of the state of Israel, the end of support for dictatorships in Muslim lands. The Islamic State has its share of worldly concerns (including, in the places it controls, collecting garbage and keeping the water running), but the End of Days is a leitmotif of its propaganda. Bin Laden rarely mentioned the apocalypse, and when he did, he seemed to presume that he would be long dead when the glorious moment of divine comeuppance finally arrived. “Bin Laden and Zawahiri are from elite Sunni families who look down on this kind of speculation and think it’s something the masses engage in,” says Will McCants of the Brookings Institution, who is writing a book about the Islamic State’s apocalyptic thought.

During the last years of the U.S. occupation of Iraq, the Islamic State’s immediate founding fathers, by contrast, saw signs of the end times everywhere. They were anticipating, within a year, the arrival of the Mahdi–a messianic figure destined to lead the Muslims to victory before the end of the world. McCants says a prominent Islamist in Iraq approached bin Laden in 2008 to warn him that the group was being led by millenarians who were “talking all the time about the Mahdi and making strategic decisions” based on when they thought the Mahdi was going to arrive. “Al-Qaeda had to write to [these leaders] to say ‘Cut it out.’ ”

For certain true believers–the kind who long for epic good-versus-evil battles–visions of apocalyptic bloodbaths fulfill a deep psychological need. Of the Islamic State supporters I met, Musa Cerantonio, the Australian, expressed the deepest interest in the apocalypse and how the remaining days of the Islamic State–and the world–might look. Parts of that prediction are original to him, and do not yet have the status of doctrine. But other parts are based on mainstream Sunni sources and appear all over the Islamic State’s propaganda. These include the belief that there will be only 12 legitimate caliphs, and Baghdadi is the eighth; that the armies of Rome will mass to meet the armies of Islam in northern Syria; and that Islam’s final showdown with an anti-Messiah will occur in Jerusalem after a period of renewed Islamic conquest.

The Islamic State has attached great importance to the Syrian city of Dabiq, near Aleppo. It named its propaganda magazine after the town, and celebrated madly when (at great cost) it conquered Dabiq’s strategically unimportant plains. It is here, the Prophet reportedly said, that the armies of Rome will set up their camp. The armies of Islam will meet them, and Dabiq will be Rome’s Waterloo or its Antietam.

“Dabiq is basically all farmland,” one Islamic State supporter recently tweeted. “You could imagine large battles taking place there.” The Islamic State’s propagandists drool with anticipation of this event, and constantly imply that it will come soon. The state’s magazine quotes Zarqawi as saying, “The spark has been lit here in Iraq, and its heat will continue to intensify . . . until it burns the crusader armies in Dabiq.” A recent propaganda video shows clips from Hollywood war movies set in medieval times–perhaps because many of the prophecies specify that the armies will be on horseback or carrying ancient weapons.

Now that it has taken Dabiq, the Islamic State awaits the arrival of an enemy army there, whose defeat will initiate the countdown to the apocalypse. Western media frequently miss references to Dabiq in the Islamic State’s videos, and focus instead on lurid scenes of beheading. “Here we are, burying the first American crusader in Dabiq, eagerly waiting for the remainder of your armies to arrive,” said a masked executioner in a November video, showing the severed head of Peter (Abdul Rahman) Kassig, the aid worker who’d been held captive for more than a year. During fighting in Iraq in December, after mujahideen (perhaps inaccurately) reported having seen American soldiers in battle, Islamic State Twitter accounts erupted in spasms of pleasure, like overenthusiastic hosts or hostesses upon the arrival of the first guests at a party.


After its battle in Dabiq, Cerantonio said, the caliphate will expand and sack Istanbul. Some believe it will then cover the entire Earth, but Cerantonio suggested its tide may never reach beyond the Bosporus. An anti-Messiah, known in Muslim apocalyptic literature as Dajjal, will come from the Khorasan region of eastern Iran and kill a vast number of the caliphate’s fighters, until just 5,000 remain, cornered in Jerusalem. Just as Dajjal prepares to finish them off, Jesus–the second-most-revered prophet in Islam–will return to Earth, spear Dajjal, and lead the Muslims to victory.


In London, Choudary and his students provided detailed descriptions of how the Islamic State must conduct its foreign policy, now that it is a caliphate. It has already taken up what Islamic law refers to as “offensive jihad,” the forcible expansion into countries that are ruled by non-Muslims. “Hitherto, we were just defending ourselves,” Choudary said; without a caliphate, offensive jihad is an inapplicable concept. But the waging of war to expand the caliphate is an essential duty of the caliph.

Choudary took pains to present the laws of war under which the Islamic State operates as policies of mercy rather than of brutality. He told me the state has an obligation to terrorize its enemies–a holy order to scare the shit out of them with beheadings and crucifixions and enslavement of women and children, because doing so hastens victory and avoids prolonged conflict.

Choudary’s colleague Abu Baraa explained that Islamic law permits only temporary peace treaties, lasting no longer than a decade. Similarly, accepting any border is anathema, as stated by the Prophet and echoed in the Islamic State’s propaganda videos. If the caliph consents to a longer-term peace or permanent border, he will be in error. Temporary peace treaties are renewable, but may not be applied to all enemies at once: the caliph must wage jihad at least once a year. He may not rest, or he will fall into a state of sin.


It’s hard to overstate how hamstrung the Islamic State will be by its radicalism. The modern international system, born of the 1648 Peace of Westphalia, relies on each state’s willingness to recognize borders, however grudgingly. For the Islamic State, that recognition is ideological suicide. Other Islamist groups, such as the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas, have succumbed to the blandishments of democracy and the potential for an invitation to the community of nations, complete with a UN seat. Negotiation and accommodation have worked, at times, for the Taliban as well. (Under Taliban rule, Afghanistan exchanged ambassadors with Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and the United Arab Emirates, an act that invalidated the Taliban’s authority in the Islamic State’s eyes.) To the Islamic State these are not options, but acts of apostasy.


One way to un-cast the Islamic State’s spell over its adherents would be to overpower it militarily and occupy the parts of Syria and Iraq now under caliphate rule. Al‑Qaeda is ineradicable because it can survive, cockroach-like, by going underground. The Islamic State cannot. If it loses its grip on its territory in Syria and Iraq, it will cease to be a caliphate. Caliphates cannot exist as underground movements, because territorial authority is a requirement: take away its command of territory, and all those oaths of allegiance are no longer binding. Former pledges could of course continue to attack the West and behead their enemies, as freelancers. But the propaganda value of the caliphate would disappear, and with it the supposed religious duty to immigrate and serve it. If the United States were to invade, the Islamic State’s obsession with battle at Dabiq suggests that it might send vast resources there, as if in a conventional battle. If the state musters at Dabiq in full force, only to be routed, it might never recover.

And yet the risks of escalation are enormous. The biggest proponent of an American invasion is the Islamic State itself. The provocative videos, in which a black-hooded executioner addresses President Obama by name, are clearly made to draw America into the fight. An invasion would be a huge propaganda victory for jihadists worldwide: irrespective of whether they have given baya’a to the caliph, they all believe that the United States wants to embark on a modern-day Crusade and kill Muslims. Yet another invasion and occupation would confirm that suspicion, and bolster recruitment. Add the incompetence of our previous efforts as occupiers, and we have reason for reluctance. The rise of ISIS, after all, happened only because our previous occupation created space for Zarqawi and his followers. Who knows the consequences of another botched job?

Given everything we know about the Islamic State, continuing to slowly bleed it, through air strikes and proxy warfare, appears the best of bad military options. Neither the Kurds nor the Shia will ever subdue and control the whole Sunni heartland of Syria and Iraq–they are hated there, and have no appetite for such an adventure anyway. But they can keep the Islamic State from fulfilling its duty to expand. And with every month that it fails to expand, it resembles less the conquering state of the Prophet Muhammad than yet another Middle Eastern government failing to bring prosperity to its people.


A few “lone wolf” supporters of the Islamic State have attacked Western targets, and more attacks will come. But most of the attackers have been frustrated amateurs, unable to immigrate to the caliphate because of confiscated passports or other problems. Even if the Islamic State cheers these attacks–and it does in its propaganda–it hasn’t yet planned and financed one. (The Charlie Hebdo attack in Paris in January was principally an al‑Qaeda operation.) {snip}

Properly contained, the Islamic State is likely to be its own undoing. No country is its ally, and its ideology ensures that this will remain the case. The land it controls, while expansive, is mostly uninhabited and poor. As it stagnates or slowly shrinks, its claim that it is the engine of God’s will and the agent of apocalypse will weaken, and fewer believers will arrive. And as more reports of misery within it leak out, radical Islamist movements elsewhere will be discredited: No one has tried harder to implement strict Sharia by violence. This is what it looks like.

Even so, the death of the Islamic State is unlikely to be quick, and things could still go badly wrong: if the Islamic State obtained the allegiance of al‑Qaeda–increasing, in one swoop, the unity of its base–it could wax into a worse foe than we’ve yet seen. The rift between the Islamic State and al-Qaeda has, if anything, grown in the past few months; the December issue of Dabiq featured a long account of an al‑Qaeda defector who described his old group as corrupt and ineffectual, and Zawahiri as a distant and unfit leader. But we should watch carefully for a rapprochement.


It would be facile, even exculpatory, to call the problem of the Islamic State “a problem with Islam.” The religion allows many interpretations, and Islamic State supporters are morally on the hook for the one they choose. And yet simply denouncing the Islamic State as un-Islamic can be counterproductive, especially if those who hear the message have read the holy texts and seen the endorsement of many of the caliphate’s practices written plainly within them.

Muslims can say that slavery is not legitimate now, and that crucifixion is wrong at this historical juncture. Many say precisely this. But they cannot condemn slavery or crucifixion outright without contradicting the Koran and the example of the Prophet. “The only principled ground that the Islamic State’s opponents could take is to say that certain core texts and traditional teachings of Islam are no longer valid,” Bernard Haykel says. That really would be an act of apostasy.

The Islamic State’s ideology exerts powerful sway over a certain subset of the population. Life’s hypocrisies and inconsistencies vanish in its face. Musa Cerantonio and the Salafis I met in London are unstumpable: no question I posed left them stuttering. They lectured me garrulously and, if one accepts their premises, convincingly. To call them un-Islamic appears, to me, to invite them into an argument that they would win. If they had been froth-spewing maniacs, I might be able to predict that their movement would burn out as the psychopaths detonated themselves or became drone-splats, one by one. But these men spoke with an academic precision that put me in mind of a good graduate seminar. I even enjoyed their company, and that frightened me as much as anything else.


Within the narrow bounds of its theology, the Islamic State hums with energy, even creativity. Outside those bounds, it could hardly be more arid and silent: a vision of life as obedience, order, and destiny. Musa Cerantonio and Anjem Choudary could mentally shift from contemplating mass death and eternal torture to discussing the virtues of Vietnamese coffee or treacly pastry, with apparent delight in each, yet to me it seemed that to embrace their views would be to see all the flavors of this world grow insipid compared with the vivid grotesqueries of the hereafter.

I could enjoy their company, as a guilty intellectual exercise, up to a point. In reviewing Mein Kampf in March 1940, George Orwell confessed that he had “never been able to dislike Hitler”; something about the man projected an underdog quality, even when his goals were cowardly or loathsome. “If he were killing a mouse he would know how to make it seem like a dragon.” The Islamic State’s partisans have much the same allure. They believe that they are personally involved in struggles beyond their own lives, and that merely to be swept up in the drama, on the side of righteousness, is a privilege and a pleasure–especially when it is also a burden.

Fascism, Orwell continued, is

psychologically far sounder than any hedonistic conception of life . . . Whereas Socialism, and even capitalism in a more grudging way, have said to people “I offer you a good time,” Hitler has said to them, “I offer you struggle, danger, and death,” and as a result a whole nation flings itself at his feet . . . We ought not to underrate its emotional appeal.

Nor, in the case of the Islamic State, its religious or intellectual appeal. That the Islamic State holds the imminent fulfillment of prophecy as a matter of dogma at least tells us the mettle of our opponent. It is ready to cheer its own near-obliteration, and to remain confident, even when surrounded, that it will receive divine succor if it stays true to the Prophetic model. Ideological tools may convince some potential converts that the group’s message is false, and military tools can limit its horrors. But for an organization as impervious to persuasion as the Islamic State, few measures short of these will matter, and the war may be a long one, even if it doesn’t last until the end of time.

Topics: ,

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • JohnEngelman

    The Islamic State derives its appeal from the fact that Arab countries have high birth rates and stagnant economies. Young men enter job markets with little use for them. Without the ability to distinguish themselves economically, the try to distinguish themselves violently on the battlefield.

    • JSS

      Muslims in Europe have their families supported for them by the native Whites. They often end up being more radical then their counter parts in the middle east with in a generation or two. So as usual your analyses is incorrect. I know you are a wannabe chosenite but not everything that happens revolves around shekels.

      • JohnEngelman

        I doubt there are many Muslims, or any kinds of people, who would rather be on welfare, than achieve prosperity by their efforts and talents. The problem is that in an increasingly competitive economy, prosperity is impossible without talent.

        • pcmustgo

          WRONG, they’ve shown over and over again a lot of the more famous terrorists were from wealthy backgrounds and had phds/medical degrees, were doctors , etc. Terrorism is about Islam- not poverty.

          • Hey you, quit telling the truth. Especially since power wants to create is own truth, in this case, creating dozens of social programs for ISIS, which of course will employ tens of thousands of otherwise unemployable white libs with SJW/studies degrees.

          • Alucard_the_last

            Correct. Even in the US, blacks whine and cry that they are criminals because of racism and poverty. Well what about rich whites who are criminals? Whenever someone blames ‘poverty’ for murderous and immoral behavior what they are really talking about is eliminating capitalism with communism. It’s ‘working’ out really well in Venezuela.

          • Ronne99

            Hit the nail on the head. Well said.

          • KyraNelson

            And the muzzies LOVE welfare. They think we owe it to them because ” they are the best of peoples.” As if. Theyre all a bunch of inbred mental cases.

          • jps73

            Where exactly is this ISIS (Israeli Secret Intelligence Service?) based? Where do they sleep? Where do they do their banking? How did they pay for their fleet of pick-up trucks and sophisticated weaponry? How are they feeding and re-equipping their fighters? Where do their injured fighters get medical treatment?A bunch of ‘good-ole-boys’ could not have assembled and trained such an advanced force while going unnoticed

            What Internet Provider Service is allowing them to post videos and issue ‘recruitment’ tweets? How did the all-intrusive NSA miss the creation of this group? Why can’t the CIA. MI6 and Mossad infiltrate them and smash them from within? Why can’t we pinpoint them via satellite and smash them in their tents or barracks? How did such a formidable force like ISIS just seem to materialize out of nowhere and overnight? Why don’t they attack or even threaten to attack Israel?

            Does the following quote from the Slimes piece make any sense to you?

            “But Western intelligence services are also worried about their extraordinary command of seemingly less lethal weapons: state-of-the-art videos, ground images shot from drones and multilingual Twitter messages.”

            If ISIS is indeed “using every contemporary mode of messaging to recruit fighters”, as the article says, then why not answer their want ads and infest their ranks with undercover Arab agents? Then simply follow them to their lair, and destroy them. What is so difficult here?

            How exactly does ISIS’s ‘social media recruitment’ campaign work anyway? Are they placing ads on Craigslist? CareerBuilder?

        • UncleSham

          Muslims (correctly) view welfare as a means of plundering the infidel. Their prophet viewed plunder as the preferable method of achieving riches, and considered mercantilism to be unmanly. This is the example they follow. Muslims do not resort to violence because they can’t find jobs; they resort to jobs when they can’t survive off of violence.

        • rightrightright

          The stats show that 50% of male Moslems in the UK live by sponging off the taxpayer. 75% of their females do the same. Any work they do is off the books and tax free (pimping out underage English girls, taxi driving, kebab shops etc).

          Among Moslems who do work within the system, there is over-representation within the State sector thanks to positive discrimination in their favour. The State sector includes the Police, the BBC and the army. The BBC appointed a Moslem as Head of Religious Programming.

          Moslems are petted and indulged by the State. Talent not necessary.

          • JohnEngelman

            If you have those statistics, you should post them.

          • Miss Mellie

            Like blacks in Mississippi

        • Miss Mellie

          You “doubt that there are people who would rather be on welfare than work????” Come to Alabama and see the strapping young men and women DOING NOTHING in the middle of the day. It is way of life. They call it “drawing.” And that don’t mean working as an artist.

      • pcmustgo

        half jewish here!

    • pcmustgo

      The wives/women are all sucked up too by rich polygamous older men- so the younger men are literally sexually starved… many terrorists were virgins when they killed.

      • LexiconD1

        I bet a whorehouse would do a killing in the Middle East, no pun intended.

    • FozzieT

      I wish I could agree with you, but it is way more than economics. Apparently some 9,000 French Muslims have joined the battle already. These are not all poor, illiterate peasants. The “wanna-be” soldiers interviewed in this article were educated and well-spoken.

      • “French” Muslims? Define please.

        • FozzieT

          Muslims who either live in France or who have French citizenship.

          • Cid Campeador

            They are there only to suck off the teat of “La Vache Francaise”

        • AndrewInterrupted

          Algerians on the French dole.

          • Thank you for clearing that up.

        • jayvbellis

          Ethnic Arabs, Afro Arabs born and raised in nasty Muslim slums in France. The grand children of mostly Algerian Arab Muslim,immigrants in the 1950s.

    • Anna Tree

      It’s the religion.

      Criticizing radicals, advertising moderates, killing terrorists, wishful thinking about the arab spring, replacing ahmadjenidad etc won’t help, this is like killing the heads of the Lernaean Hydra from the Greek Mythology, they will pop back, because the enemy is the hydra itself, islam.

      A muslim doesn’t have to marry his teen daughter to a 54 year old or behead an infidel. Just being a muslim, moreover an imam, means to agree and to follow the koran, the ahadith, the sirah and the shariah and means to accept “prophet” mohamed as THE model to follow; expressing the acceptation and promotion of such marriage or of jihad.

      • Bossman

        The “Prophet” did marry 2 little girls when he was in his fifties so these immans are just following traditions. That only proves how stupid and backwards they are.

        • Anna Tree

          One little girl, his third wife Aisha.

          The other little girl, a baby, he only dreamed about her and so she was promised to him but he died before the crime was done.

          Mohamed wasn’t the only adult marrying little girls. This existed, including in Europe and still sadly exist in many part of the world (polygamy begets pedophilia.) The problem is that as per islam mohamed is THE best man ever and THE model to follow for all mankind, all time and all places. And so he institutionalized child bride for muslims and muslim countries, through the koran, the sunnah and so the shariah.

          • Cid Campeador

            Central America as well.

        • Interesting … so do your brown kin engaging in rampant child prostitution as a general rule prove how stupid and backwards they are? Or as usual, do different sets of rules apply to your mestizo filth than those you apply to other pathetically unevolved peoples such as blacks and arabs?

    • Bossman

      Islamic cultures seem to encourage violence and sexual frustration. For a brief little while during the Dark Ages they could go on conquering neighboring nations and encouraging reading, writing and mathematics but those days are long gone. Their cultures are now irrelevant in a modern world.

      • Anna Tree

        The “Dark Ages” are the results of hundreds of years of jihadi attacks against Europe and Asia, spreading its claws on all those Christian lands like Assyria, Egypt or the Zoroastrian Persians, blocking notably the exchange of ideas between the East and the West etc

        If it weren’t for the muslims, the works of Plato, Aristotle etc wouldn’t have been lost and Indian or Chinese works wouldn’t have been needed to be translated in Arabic for us to discover, we would have get them from the source! It is the muslims who burned libraries and forbade anything that contradicted the koran, if it wasn’t for the muslims forcing islam on all the middle east, all those books were going to Europe before islam without any problems.

        The crusades were the reaction to centuries of jihad (killing, raping, pillaging, enslaving) against christians. The 1st Crusade was launched
        in 1096. Prior to that, Muslims conquered and killed Non-muslims in
        Syria 635, Palestine 638, Persia 642, Eqypt 642, North Africa 642-698,
        Kabul 711, the Indus region/Samarkand/Spain 712, Toulouse 721,
        Kyrgyzstan 751, Armenia 1071. Muslim expansion into Europe was only
        stopped at Tours in 732 and the gates of Vienna 1683.

        • Bossman

          Sadly, most of that is true.

        • Good history lesson. Maybe one of our politicians should bring it up next time Muslims bring up “crusaders” and talk about “Western imperialism.”

    • Michael Robert Ryan

      There is also the element of polygamy: for every man with two wives, there is a man with no wife and little hope of ever getting one. The rapid expansion of early Islam was, in fact, mostly driven by the need for wives. If wives can’t be found inside the ummah, the only other option is to conquer territory adjacent to the ummah, kill the men there and take their women. And sexually disenfranchised Mohammedan men did that with a vengeance.

    • MekongDelta69

      “The Islamic State derives its appeal from the fact that Arab countries have high birth rates and stagnant economies Koran.”

    • And who exactly is responsible for those stagnant economies and the general lack of any industrial base? Their leaders are some of the most corrupt people on the planet. Saddam Hussein took power in 1979 and the only thing he could think of doing with Iraq’s oil revenue was to start an 8-year bloodbath with Iran a year later.

    • Raymond Kidwell

      That is a good observation. Generally poverty leads to war.

    • Cobbett

      Yeah that’s right. It’s all about sexual failure. Although Pakis in England seem to have no problem with English girls

  • Six words:


    • Anna Tree

      It’s more than literally (unless you meant “actually” and not only “in the strict sense”) and not only the koran but the sahih ahadith (sayings of “prophet” mohamed) and the sirat rasulallah (his sunnah: his example/life).

      As per islam “prophet” mohamed is the uswa hasana (the model of conduct of excellence), the al insan al kamil (the perfect human), that is THE best man ever, THE guide to follow for all mankind, all time and all places (koran 68:4, 33:21, 60:4, 60:6), therefore whatever he did is islamic and halal, he had slaves, he raped women taken as booty of jihad, he killed Non-muslims who didn’t accept the superiority of islam.It is why good muslims who follow islam will never say those things are forbiden. Unless they are deceiving, lying to protect islam, doing
      takiyah… because to say those things archaic or unislamic would mean to say mohamed was unislamic and the koran not eternal.

      Everything “prophet” mohamed did is halal (allowed), therefor islamic, and cannot
      be criticized or outlaw. It is why the sharia allows child brides, jihad and slavery. It is why the muslim countries didn’t sign the Declaration of Human Rights. it is why there are so many “terrorists”/”extremists” in islam: they are just good muslims; and it is why it is not only forbidden but not possible to moderate/modernize/reform islam because islamic “morals” are frozen in the “moral compass” provided by the behavior of a 7th century Bedouin warlord. To denounce or moderate, modernize, reform this moral compass is to destroy islam, that no
      muslims will do and they will kill those who do that (and they do kill, even in our non-muslim free countries). Reform judaism or Christianity remain Judaism and Christianity but reforming islam means to contradict mohamed and allah.

      • Zimriel

        Excellent comment, but with the small nitpick that taqiya is not about lying to further the religion. It’s a temporary dispensation to save one’s own Muslim skin from an enemy. The root is the same as taqwa and muttaqoon, to fear *God*. The Shi’a, yes, have expanded the scope of taqiya to encompass hiding from (Sunni and ‘Abbasid) authorities; but again, not in an aggressive capacity.

        There are other rules about deception and ruses in the course of a ghazwa (a raid). I don’t know the official shari’a term for that.

        • Anna Tree

          Thank you.
          I do know that the shiites say kitman and not takiyah.

          I still think that takiyah can be used to further the religion: this is how they attract converts, the decent whites ones not the ones in jails: they will whitewash the koran to please their western sensibilities and morals, like omitting or excusing the pedophily, slavery allowances etc
          Another example is that alms can be given only to Muslims but to again attract a convert or makes islam looks better, they will offer food and such to non-muslims.
          I see those two examples as takiyah. I have read apostates of islam (notably Arab ones) saying the same. But I will say that you may be correct.

          • AndrewInterrupted

            It’s nice hearing people discussing the nuts & bolts of this Islam issue for a change, rather than the appeasing platitudes from Obummer. But, I think this particular aspect: ISIS origins, is getting too much analysis. I see it simply: They are vulnerable Sunnis filling the void left by Saddam. They are surrounded by their Shiite enemies. It is only natural for ISIS to have formed. We need to leave the middle east to their own devices–the whole world for that matter.

  • TruthBeTold

    “We have not defeated the idea,” he said. “We do not even understand the idea.”

    The name Islam means Submission.

    That’s their ideology. That’s their goal.

    It’s only difficult to understand because some people don’t want to believe it. They want to believe it’s just any other garden variety religion.

    It isn’t.

    It’s based on conquest and submission.

  • Reynardine

    I know this opinion to be highly unpopular, but why stop ISIS? What exactly are we saving?

    • Ignore that milieu now. Then one day we’ll turn our heads and they’ll be at the gates of Vienna and/or in the middle of France. Even as bad as it is now with all the Muslim immigrants and their subsequent generations in European cities, don’t blow off a budding caliphate.

    • pcmustgo

      CUT OFF IMMIGRATION!!!!!!!!!!!

    • Anna Tree

      Some cancers don’t metastatic, some cancers do.

      Allah in the Koran and “prophet” Mohamed orders to spread Islam. It is easier to fight it in Muslim lands than at our gates.

      • Anna Tree

        BUT in no cases should we give any muslims, moderate or not, any money, weapons, intelligence, education etc because it has always come to hunt us: 1400 years of jihad, 58 muslim countries and all what is happening today are proves.

        • NoMosqueHere

          Islam encourages sloth. Muslims impose the Jizya tax on non muslims; in other words, they believe it is their right to live off the work of others.

          Look at Saudi Arabia…if you can. Saudis are laziest humanoids on the planet. Their only asset, oil, was discovered by westerners, and is refined, marketed, and purchased by westerners. They sit on their fat duffs reading the demented ramblings of the Koran while their brains rot.

          • Almost all the serious technical work in Saudi Arabia is done by Westerners. Most of the grunt work there is done by subcontinentals, Malays, Filipinos and non-Saudi Arabs. In 2013, foreign workers were estimated to be 21% of the population. Saudi Arabia abolished slavery only in 1962.

        • Reynardine

          I think that’s really my point. The only way to fight it would be political suicide right now: we colonize Iraq and Syria or we glass them with nukes.

          All other solutions only exacerbate the problem.

          • Anna Tree

            I Agree, my posts were meant to concur with your point. I apologize that this wasn’t clear.

      • mehmood mayet

        The Jews opened the gates for non Whites to enter Europe and other White lands. Jews helped the Moors to conquer Spain in the eighth century.

        • Anna Tree

          I am trying to learn more about this and about the actions of some of them in pre-war world 2 in Germany.
          I do agree that today too many rich and powerful Jews are also pro-diversity, meaning anti-white.

          But at the same time, I don’t blame only them. I see those Jews as part of the problem, not the problem. They are just as fool as the intellectuals, liberals, feminists. They are all digging our graves, and their own, all suicidal/homicidal victims of pathological altruism, wishful thinking, greed, naivety, narrowmindness, kumbayaness, self hatred, projection, leftism etc

          1) I don’t think Whites, precisely the elites, are spineless and brainless and so easily controlled by some Jews as if puppets. It seems to me they really believe in their liberal/leftist religion and its dogmas.
          2) I don’t think the Muslims were/are weak and with no objective. No need of Jews and actually, much brain, at least not all the time: they do jihad with their koran and swords: the koran to stay united, and the sword to grow in numbers and spread in space.
          I think you shouldn’t oversight their strength by blaming Jews for their victories and achievements for them too.

          As long as we don’t take responsability for our mistakes, that, with
          or without the Jews, muslims are dangerous and liberal leftists are pro-diversity feminists and suicidal/homicidal self haters (i.e. they hate white men), how can we learn not to do those mistakes again?

          So we will have to agree to disagree, while each of us has the
          right to state his arguments. I know this issue is divisive in the
          white racialist movement. We are not enough to be divided though. Infighting has always been a primary obstacle to the success of patriotic movements. So I hope we can stay united.
          I am always open to change my mind with the right argument! Nothing is taboo.

          I think that race is above religion and so if a white Jew, or any white of other faith, puts his religion before his race, i.e. prefers people of other races but of his faith more than people of his race but of other faith, then there will be a problem, sooner than later. Additionally, I think that small groups indeed tend to prefer their own over the majority, and that’s Jews or any smaller denominations like Jehovah Witnesses but also any minority branch of Christianity in a country where another branch is dominant. And that also could be a problem for the unity of a white country and bring frictions. To have a white religion can solve the problem, although eventually there will be eventual chism, it’s in the nature of religion. So this issue also will have to be considered by the Great White Men who will be the future leaders of the future white countries. I think the more homogeneous the country, the best it is and indeed ethnicity and religion are basic criteria.

    • Sarah Palin was right:

      “Until we have someone who knows what they’re doing, I say let Allah sort it out.”

      0bama’s war effort will be limp and get Americans killed.
      ALSO: Can we trust that the other Arab “partners” won’t turn against us?

      • jayvbellis

        I will listen to Sarah Palin’s and others on what to do about ISIS in the Middle East, but first THEY must say that we will end Muslim immigration to the the USA, the West.

        That is obvious and will be wildly popular.

        Why doesn’t any mainstream Conservatives outside of Australia do the obvious?

    • We would save cultural icons, like 0prah & Bruce Kardashian.

  • Luca

    The Islamic State will eventually be destroyed via their numerous futile senseless battles. Three things they have going for them is their access to vast stores of military equipment, much of it paid for by US taxpayers and captured from Iraq and Libya; its access to funding via spoils of war; (especially the oil fields) and the inability or ambivalence of Europe or the US to do anything meaningful to cut their legs out from under them.

    What they have going against them is their inability to efficiently use the money or equipment they have confiscated and a 7th century ideology that is incompatible in the modern world.

    • One thing that will probably very badly hurt them is the fact that Assad is still viable, still getting support from Russia, and now add into the mix King Abdullah of Jordan, deploying the Jordanian Air Force (i.e. the real Air Jordans) against them.

      If only Iraq was run by someone like Assad or Abdullah. Oh wait, it was…

      • Zimriel

        It was run by someone like Abdullah first – his cousin King Faisal – and *then* it was run by someone like Assad.

        Going back to a benignly neglectful but patriotic royal would be ideal IMO. But enough about the United States…

  • Easyrhino

    With Islam there is no separation of church and state as the church IS the state. It’s obvious the followers of this ideology are completely incompatible with Western culture and they should not be allowed to emigrate to countries founded by Europeans.

  • Chip Carver

    These “nice” muslims don’t have a cotton-candy view. They just don’t want to admit their true opinion(s) in public. Yet.

    • They showed their true colors with the massive child sex-grooming in England. Evidently raping young white girls is some sort of “human right” there.

      • Albert

        Their Koran condones all manner of cruelty and depravity so long as the victim not islamic.

  • MekongDelta69

    I’ve heard this article from the leftist Atlantic mentioned many times on TV lately.

    What ISIS (and every muslim like them) wants is to rule the world under their Caliphate, with everyone who is not a muslim (or muslims who don’t think exactly as they do), to convert or die.


  • FozzieT

    This article helps put the Crusades in perspective. Unfortunately, today Europe lacks the Christian faith that her forefathers relied upon to stand up to these fanatics. Plus there is an entire enemy army living within her borders.

  • Raymond Kidwell

    It’s all so convenient though. It’s like the book 1984 we seem to have constant war even though there is no real war. Odd that prior to the 1990s we didn’t have a big middle eastern terrorist threat and now we seem to always have a new organization popping up with millions of followers and lots of cash. Also odd, they can never be defeated. As well weird that the bin ladens are close friends with George W. Bush and others in power, or that the CIA put Saddam Husein into power.

    Generally people don’t wake up and decide to kill themselves unless their lives really suck or they have a really well oiled propaganda campaign recruiting them. Maybe there are a lot of poor people in the middle east or a lot anger and resentment about Israel. Or perhaps some government or rich entity is funding all this. Surely there is an underlying cause that can be dealt with and neutralized in some way (not necessarily in a military way).

    But also we have documentation of Bin Laden being surrounded and let go and really odd facts surrounding the U.S.’s inability to catch him. We have all these other groups that strangely can’t be beat and we must live in constant fear of and who seem to have endless pits of money to continue operations.

    I think if the United States and Israel wanted to end terrorism they could do it. They have really smart people working for them, such as data analysis, and psychologists, and social experts. It just seems like the terrorist helps justify a lot of political moves and also a police state, military build up etc.

    Take the united States as a prime example. This country’s economy is based on war. We are the biggest producer of guns besides perhaps Russia. A good chunk of our economy is based on military production, a lot of which we sell or give away to other countries. The only other country like this is Russia. Between Russia and U.S. 90% of guns, military planes etc. around the world are produced, although China is starting to produce a bit on their own and miniscule production is done by some European nations like Germany.

    But the U.S. has needed to operate in a near constant state of war just for “business as usual” to operate. There was Vietnam, the Cold War, WWII etc. It just seems to me like certain people “need” an enemy and if wasn’t for that fact we probably wouldn’t have the terrorsit problem we see today (other than in Israel where I think they are legitimately attacked over real conflicts there, but in regards to this world wide terrorism thing, I’m skeptical).

    • Anna Tree

      We didn’t have a big middle eastern terrorist threat because they weren’t taught their religion in schools since they were colonized. As soon as the money poured in and the colonial or pro-European regimes were dismantled (and with them secular European education etc), the threat was back because islam was back.

      Please read the islamic scriptures and you will understand better. Read if from a muslim site so you can trust the source, if you fear that islamocritics or apostates may not tell you the truth.

      Yeah Israel: the problem is that there have been problems with islam long before the birth of Israel or the US, or any Western foreign policies regarding the Middle East or any muslim countries. Check the Barbary Wars or check 1400 years of jihad, included against European Christians and Eastern Christians.

      The US or Israel could end the problem but the left complains for even defensive actions, the hell will broke if those countries ever go offensive.

      So yes there is an underlying cause: islam.

      • Anna Tree

        Here is the support to my last sentence:

        Yes there are extremists in every religion and non-religion but for
        example Christians who happened to be killers, enslavers or pedophils are NOT following the teachings or behavior of Jesus. Because Jesus never killed, mass-killed, raped, enslaved or rape a child etc Those criminals are bad Christians. Christians can and are denouncing the pedophil priests, the inquisition or slavery. Muslims can’t because their model to follow just did those crimes and more.

        Indeed there is also violence in the Old Testament but there are 2 big differences with the koran:

        1) a) The violence in the bible is about a certain time (thousands years
        ago), a certain place (holy land) and a certain people (the Canaans who
        don’t exist anymore), while the sword verses of the koran have no limit in
        geography or time. See verse 9:5 “Kill the Non-believers WHEREVER they are found AND UNTIL there is no religion but for allah.” and there are still many Non-believers of islam, hopefully for a long long time, so
        allah is talking about the few billions of people today as well.
        b) Judaism and Christianity were able to modernize, moderate and reform, the first through the writings of rabbis, the second through Jesus. Today, Jews and Christians don’t sell their daughters or enslave or go in the street and kill each others or an atheist or Hindu while singing to
        Jesus or Yaveh. muslims do.

        2) a) Moise and other jewish characters of the OT have done some crimes, true, BUT they are not models to follow as per judaism. The OT is more like a story for the Jews to learn what their god wants from them.
        b) As I wrote before, Jesus never killed, masskilled, enslaved, raped, tortured, terrorized, stole or had sex with a child. He was (or is portrayed) as a good man.
        c) mohamed on the contrary did all of this and more: he killed and mass-killed (read about the Banu Qurayza, Asma Bint Marwan, Abu Afiq etc), raped women taken as booty of jihad (Zuwayriah, Raihannah, Mariah the Copt, Safiya etc), was a pedophil (he had sess with his 3rd wife, 9 year old Aisha), enslaved and stole (Banu Mustalip, Banu Nadir, Khaibar etc…

        Therefore Jews/Christians CAN denounce their past, slavery, pedophil priests or the inquisition (and moderate/modernize/reform the OT) while Muslims cannot because mohamed himself killed, masskilled, raped, had sex with a child, enslaved, stole etc AND as per allah, he is the uswa hasana, THE best man ever, THE guide to follow for all mankind, all time and all places. Everything he did is halal (allowed), therefor islamic and cannot be criticized or outlaw. It is why the sharia allows child brides, jihad and slavery. It is why the muslim countries didn’t sign the Declaration of Human Rights and made one of their own. it is why there are so many terrorists/extremists in islam: they are just good muslims; and it is why it is not only forbidden but not possible to moderate/modernize/reform islam because islamic “morals” are frozen in the “moral compass” provided by the behavior of a 7th century Bedouin warlord.

        I am an atheist but I think most people need religion in their lives and I have no problem with that. Actually maybe most people should have religion in their lives and I think that Jesus was a quite a good guy and obviously a better model than the models we are giving to our kids nowadays.

        I am not naive to think all religions are equals, some are better than others, and obviously a religion that skin and dismember living young boys like the aztec religion or a religion that orders genocide, slavery or rape of those who don’t believe in their god like islam are evil.

        • AndrewInterrupted

          You are very well read in this area, Anna.

          • Anna Tree

            Thank you Andrew. It’s because I studied islam for some 8 years. I was then Anna Doe and frequented notably faithfreedom org when it was in its golden years.

            It’s when I found out the truth about islam that I came to realize how much we are brainwashed by the elites, family, media, friends, school and of course by even ourselves in so many issues. And so gradually I went through all my opinions, checking arguments from the different sides and I notably became a race realist, finding Amren through Vdare.

          • AndrewInterrupted

            You should contribute an article here.

          • Anna Tree

            Well thank you! My English and writing are not good enough. Also sometimes I paraphrase others, so it is all mine to claim in an article.

          • Tarczan

            I’ll second Andrews’ comments. Well done, Anna. The perfect Christian- Christ; the perfect Muslim- Mohammed.

          • jayvbellis

            Anna, are you going to Amren conference April in Tennessee?

            I hope to meet you there.

          • Anna Tree

            Oh how much I would love to come! To meet you as well as other Amreners, including of course Mr. Taylor. I don’t know if it is possible but would like to propose some brainstorming meetings about a few subjects, like if Mr. Taylor would consider debating with opponents or to propose a reward to incite people to want to debunk Mr. Taylor’s claims, or a white dating website or how art can help our cause etc
            My husband will need to agree to stay with the kids, cook etc It is not that easy… so maybe not this year…

          • jayvbellis

            Very good. Let me know if you want to discuss any of these. Understand that people like us have been thinking, worried about these things for a long time.

            On the dating site idea. I strongly recommend “finessing” the racial thing, White nationalist dating sites have not worked.

            I note that a Farmers Only dot com gets to do mainstream advertising.

        • Raymond Kidwell

          Most of the world are deranged psychopaths, but we didn’t have a “terrorist” threat in the 1930s. Right after the Soviet Union falls we suddenly have a new enemy. Admittedly there were terrorist groups in the 70s and such but we never had a need for all these anti-terrorism efforts in the government.

          There are so many fishy things about the whole war on terror, whether it be letting Osama go, or having massive intel on 9/11 and ignoring it (or all the people calling off work on 9/11), or the fact that some backwards arab from the ghetto seems to get ahold of billions of dollars in funding again and again and have modern military weapons that happen to be American made.

          It’s just lie Vietnam. Full U.S. military might would have ended that conflict pretty quickly, but they were making so much money producing and selling drugs, looting the country side, getting big government military contracts and in the process got to thin the herd a little bit in regards to us common folk.

          I remember before the Iraq war Saddam surrendered saying “I would give you my weapons of mass destruction if I had any, but I don’t have any. I’ll fully cooperate”. We invaded anyway. That was even in the news if you go back and check it. That was when vice president Dick Chaney got multi billion dollar contracts with his private company to produce weapons for the war. And they also sent soldiers into war without armor apparently to get casualties up, then lied about the casualties by under reporting them (which they also did in Vietnam).

          • Raymond Kidwell

            Like someone else on here was saying before when they were in Vietnam they gave them defective guns. Now they did the same stuff in Iraq not giving people body armor even though it would have been easy to do so. It all seems like a game involving politics, money, and maybe even thinning out poor people. If you ever talk to people in Vietnam they had massive drug production going on in the country at the time and a lot of soldiers got hooked, but also it was being sold all over the place. As well the U.S. was looting the country side. Just like Iraq when they took Saddam’s palaces full of money and stuff. I wonder where all that money and gold ended up?

          • Anna Tree

            It’s seem you deleted your post or shorten it. I hope you don’t mind me responding to it (I received it to my email.)

            1) About your “Right after the Soviet Union falls we suddenly have a new enemy.”:
            If you didn’t read it yet, may I interest you about Michael Crichton’s book “The State of Fear”. There is two pages in that book (that gave the book its title) about this exact issue you are talking about.
            That the elites are popping new threats every other year or so, to keep our minds busy, away from what they are doing to us… I have the two pages typed if you want.
            I agree with you guys, but the fact that this is a very possible possibility, doesn’t make the threat of islam not real. It’s almost like the elites keep shouting “Wolf” but then really a wolf is in the village, with or without them knowing.

            2) Please bring support to your claim that “all the people calling off work on 9/11”. I believe that this has been debunked but I am ready to change my mind with new information.

            3) About “some backwards arab from the ghetto seems to get ahold of billions of dollars in funding again and again and have modern military weapons that happen to be American made”
            Well the Bush (and others) were and are still friends with the Saudis. Those are very rich and have a lot of American weapons.

            4) I do find plausible your theories about thinning out poor and/or white people.

            5) I agree that indeed elites get a lot of money from those, all, wars.

            6) I agree that Sadam wasn’t a threat and that they should have known (or… they knew) that Muslim extremists would take over.
            The same exact scenarios is happening in Syria with Assad.
            Again the elites are getting a lot of money in arm sales.

            7) Our elites, GOP and Dems and those behind them, Jewish, Christian or secular/atheist, are enriching themselves on the back of the people. And they are killing some in those wars with no impunity. But mass immigration, their other toy and ploy, can be lethal.
            Lincoln did say that America can be destroyed only from within.

          • Raymond Kidwell

            I think I read state of fear but don’t really remember it. I have read most of Chrichtons books. They are always going to stir up one group against the next and create real threats. If it’s not the arabs it will be someone else. I try to avoid falling into their trap and avoid expending unnecessary energy on such conflicts.

          • Anna Tree

            (But here again, you made a claim and didn’t bring any support for it when I asked for some.)

          • Raymond Kidwell

            It’s not important to me. I just state my opinions/knowledge. If you want to believe two plus two is three I don’t care. It becomes too time consuming trying to dig up sources online every time someone doesn’t believe me. As well I don’t know what the truth is, but the circumstances behind many things invites even more skepticism on my part. A quick google search brought up some websites with long lists of people (mostly famous) who coincidentally missed their 9/11 flights and such things.

          • Anna Tree

            I don’t believe two plus two is three. You do. You claim things and when I ask for support, you don’t have it.

            Support is not important to you, well it is to me! After realizing my previous brainwashing in different issues, my last wish is to fall for more brainwashing. And so I make an opinion only on claims with support. Those with no support I don’t make an opinion. That’s all. It is okay to not have an opinion on issues that have no support.

            I am asking you to give support because I looked for that support and didn’t find any rational one. A good reason to think the claim is not true.

            Again, I am ready to change my mind but you have to bring the support.

            The problem is that you have brought to my attention dozens of claims with no support.
            Don’t believe everything you read, including on the internet, with no support. Those sites with those coincidental missed flights have no support and so better to not believe them until there is support.
            The fact that coincidently there are a few sites claiming to have the San Francisco bridge for sale, doesn’t make the sale real.

          • Raymond Kidwell

            I don’t really have the time or find it important enough to exaust myself trying to verify every 9/11 claim. However, I’ll share one experience I clearly remember. I remember turning on the TV and hearing the news that the world trade center was attacked. Within 10 minutes or so they had all these interviews with crying family members that they played over and over again non-stop. I can’t understand how they could have put that together so quickly.

            I mean you would have to believe that the news agency gets the news about the plane flying into a building, and immediately is able to find out who is in the building, then call up the relatives, talk to the relatives on the phone, get them to agree to an interview, drive out to where they were, film it, edit it, get it approved, then put it on TV within 10-15 minutes. It would take you longer than that just to drive to where these people are.

            Maybe I’m wrong about this, but just in my mind it seemed like they were ready for this ahead of time. As well it seemed odd how they kept playing clips of crying family members over and over again. It seemed more like propaganda than anything else (emotional manipulation).

            “This is a breaking story happening before our eyes. I’m just as shocked as you are that this is happening. By the way we have a relative of one of the person’s on board right here crying her eyes out. Here’s what she has to say”. I guess it’s possible, but it does seem strange. There are so many strange coincidences around the whole thing. At any rate it helped with Bush’s agenda that he had already planned on prior to 9/11 (he planned on invading Iraq).

          • Anna Tree

            I watch the tv that day the whole day, from the start and I don’t remember any interview with relatives of people in the buildings:

            1) Relatives of people in the planes IS quite different though: relatives of people in the building went to look for their family/friends because it is human nature to hope that they have make it alive. While if your family/friend was in the plane, it is sadly clear they didn’t make it. The list of passengers would have been discovered quite easily by the journalists. This is your mistake, to not think that journalists today, are sensations diggers.

            2) I don’t know if Bush planned to invade Iraq but I wouldn’t be surprised: he wanted to finish the job of his father on the back of the American soldiers and on American’s taxes. Maybe for his friends the Saudis and of course for oil. Indeed there was not one reason to war in Iraq, Sadam was doing a good job to protect Christians and stump on the true muslims. Same with the war in Syria and Assad.

            But then again, the fact that some plots and coincidences are real, doesn’t make every plots and coincidences told on the web as real. I judge each one by itself and only those with support I trust until new information/rebuttal.
            I wish you would post only things you know for sure, because you have search and found rational proves for them. It is necessary for our white race realist cause to base what we say on facts. But I am nobody to tell you, I hope you just read my post as the expression of my thoughts (I am a vocal person lol and again this is because of what I explained in my earlier post about being told lies). Bye for now.

          • The defective rifle in Vietnam was the M-16. It wasn’t an inherently bad design, but was subjected to heavy powder fouling inside the receiver because the ammunition manufacturer changed the propellant powder without bothering to tell anyone. The same direct gas action was quite successful with the MAS-49 and 49/56. The Egyptian “Hakim” and “Rashid” rifles, both based on the Swedish AG-42 also worked quite well with the same operating system.

            The best criticism of the M-16 was that Defense Secretary Robert S. MacNamera forced the rifle into service before it was completely ready. This actually happens quite often. The British L85 rifle originally had major problems. The screws that attached the buttplate pulled out easily. The stock was initially made out of a plastic that dissolved when exposed to insect repellent, and so-on. With the AK-47, the original receivers were stamped sheet steel of an inadequate grade; the pins holding the internal parts would work their way backward through the metal under the stress of firing. The Soviets thus went over to a (more expensive) machined steel receiver, before finally getting a stamped version right with the AKM, in 1959.

    • Capn Dad

      Of course you are correct. Like the drug war…if we wanted to win it we would. Perpetual war is good for people in power to hold that power over weaker minded minions. The rub is that smart informed and obvious patriots like you are a threat to that power. Duck.

      • Raymond Kidwell

        I forgot about the war on drugs. One of the biggest drug dealers in the U.S. is the CIA. unless something has changed that I don’t know about.

        • The only CIA agent I knew was my old gun show partner. His main interest was collecting rare cameras, though he did pretty much write the book on the FN-49 rifle. Richard certainly wasn’t running dope.

    • AndrewInterrupted

      Those oil profits sure do wreck havoc.

  • DaveMed

    It’s not a “cotton-candy view.” It’s willful deception of gullible Westerners. Call it kitman or taqiyya or whatever you like.

  • dd121

    I’m not going to over-think what these Islamists are. All I know is, kill it with fire.

    • FransSusan

      Much better to leave them alone & get out of their countries!

  • Puggg

    What Isis really wants?

    Shovel ready jobs?

    • MekongDelta69

      You work for the State Dep’t. – right?!?

      • Puggg

        I took a photo of myself. One of those selfys. Here it is:

        • MekongDelta69

          Every time I see that dumb blonde bimbo and hear her voice, I think of some brainwashed, indoctrinated, “I Want To Save The World” High School cheerleader.

          And when she talks, it reminds me of some Valley Girl going, “I so lyke totally wanna jes’ give all oh-prest moslemz jobz ‘n’ stuff. Ooh, ooh Heather – lookit at that dress in tha window. I wonder if that’s lyke my size ‘n’ stuff. ‘N’ Josh iz sooooo dreeeemeeee. Oooh – Sparkly thingz.”

          • IstvanIN

            The founding fathers were right to have minimum age requirements for elected office. They should have put them in for appointed office as well.

          • HE2

            I like totally agree, MD. Totally…..like to the max.
            Wow, like I did not know you were fluent in Valley Girl-eze.

          • MekongDelta69

            I’m fluent in many tongues HE2!

  • Larry Klein

    “Nearly all” Muslims reject the Islamic State. Nearly all = 75%, leaving only 300 million plus sympathizers. Just a fringe group I tell you.

  • superlloyd

    The true face of Islam. That Obola calls it not Islamic just showcases his dullwittedness and that libtard dupes refer to Islam as the religion of peace just shows their uncritical, useful idiocy.

    • Tarczan

      No, Obama knows what Islam is. His middle name means “son of Mohammed”. He is providing cover for Islam. He is one.

      • HE2

        I think BHO is a Marxist atheist, but true, an Islam-ist.
        After all, that was his early imprint. Old childhood brainwashing may fade, but it does not die.
        I am a living example of that. Though now a non-deist, remain defensive when my childhood Christian faith is impugned.

        • jayvbellis

          Nah, it’s standard Black American Liberal Leftism, hates all things White.

          Black liberation theology – hate Whitey, dressed in some Christian disguise.

  • I read this article; it was very interesting. Not quite typical for American Renaissance, but we don’t need to limit ourselves. What I take away is that it is not good to be ignorant of your enemies. We must know how to exploit their weaknesses just as they are good at exploiting ours.

    • HE2

      it is not good to be ignorant of your enemies
      Which is why reading the “Gates of Vienna” blog is useful.

  • TomIron361

    I’m no fan of Islam or ISIS. I believe in Christian morality. But we should understand that all religions have dark sides. The Christian reformation was no walk in the park. They really got down and dirty in that nasty little go-round. Whole areas of Germany were depopulated
    (Everyone knows how those Germans get when it comes to killing). Belgium, Holland and France were no slouches either. Oliver Cromwell and the boys had a good time killing as many Catholics as they could find too. So don’t get all high and mighty about this bit of recent killing.

    • AndrewInterrupted

      I find it hard to find a “light side” in the Koran.
      Can you give me some examples?
      Is there a Koran-lite, or something?

      • TomIron361

        I find it hard to find a “light side” in the Koran.
        I’m not a big reader of the Bible, but I don’t see any jokes (light side) in it either the old or new testament. I could have missed it though. Tell me where to find the jokes.

        • AndrewInterrupted

          I interpreted the flip of your “dark side” as positive wisdom. I don’t have any skin in the religion game either. But, two heavily paraphrased bits of wisdom stemming from the Bible I can quote off the top of my head are practical wisdom:

          ‘No man is blinder than he who chooses not to see…’


          ‘A leopard can’t change his spots’

          Conversely, the Koran can be paraphrased with quotes like this:

          ‘Lying to your enemy is not only acceptable, it is required’.

    • Anna Tree

      But those Christians fighting and killing each others are not following the example nor the teachings of Jesus.

      On the contrary, “prophet” mohamed himself ordered the burning of the alternate mosques (with the Muslims praying in them). This is why Muslims kill other Muslims. “If hypothetically all the people of the world convert to Islam then the real genocide begins in which the followers of these hundreds of sects will shed each other’s blood to prove which one interprets the hallucinations of Muhammad better.”

      Yes there are dark sides in every religions but those that cannot modernize/moderate/reform (*) those dark sides have no place in today’s world, or at least in our white countries, especially when the dark sides is to kill us!

      (*) Please read this other comment I posted to see why islam cannot.

    • UncleSham

      I’m having some trouble finding the passage in the New Testament where Jesus commands his followers to slay the nonbelievers.

      • libertarian1234

        I’m agnostic, but I agree with the point you’ve made. The New Testament is a book of peace, unlike the Koran, the Sira and the Hadith all three of which encourage killing and clearly depict Muhammad as a sex crazy killer.

        And it these books that the “peaceful Muslims” read to guide them in their religion.

        Dr. Bill Warner analyzed the three works and concluded that about 60% of their content involved what to do with non-believers and/or was concerned with non-believers (kafirs).

        While the majority of Muslims don’t engage in jihad, I have a hard time believing that most of them don’t silently support it. Just look at what their printed cards have to say during protests in European countries: “Sharia will be the law of the land.” (And in Britain) “British soldiers are terrorists.” And their signs posted in their neighborhoods which warn, “This is a Sharia zone.”

        It’s as Franklin Graham said: “A storm is coming.”

        • UncleSham

          “The majority of Muslims don’t engage in jihad”
          Waiting for the majority of a population to commit violence before we could declare them an enemy is a nearly impossible standard.

    • libertarian1234

      “So don’t get all high and mighty about this bit of recent killing.”

      What do you mean, Tom, about getting “all high and mighty about this recent bit of killing?”

      Can you give us an example of what you mean by “high and mighty?” Personally I don’t think anybody who speaks out against torture, rape, ethnic cleansing, mass genocide, and killing children is acting high and mighty no matter what you might want to dredge up about what you think people similar to today’s Christians were doing years ago.

      Are you suggesting that because there were killings committed by Christians centuries ago we should accept what is happening now, and because of that you think that we should keep our mouths shut, even though the people today had nothing to do with any of it and certainly wouldn’t condone it if they had had a voice in the matter?

      I’m sorry, but that doesn’t make sense.

      Isn’t that what Obama was trying to do, because he wasn’t knowledgeable enough to know that the Crusades were a response to absolutely hundreds of attacks by Islam into Europe for centuries? And that those attacks were responsible for far more atrocities and deaths than what Christian on Christian or Christian on Muslim fighting amounted to, along with the added degradation by Muslims of kidnapping roughly a million Europeans that were sold as slaves?

      And how does tying today’s Christians to events that occurred centuries ago in a world that was comprised of almost total warfare have anything to do with the standards now in place?

      The followers of Islam are committing unspeakable atrocities right now. No other advocates of any religion today are doing that, especially on the scale these butchers are engaging in.

      To say that we shouldn’t criticize them is a bit naïve, isn’t it?

    • Irish

      Speaking as a Irish-Catholic who’s people were invariably brutalized by Oliver’s army. Those wars were largely not religious (despite some of the rhetoric) but political & territorial. Oh, and in case you hadn’t noticed it’s the 21st century…

  • H. Leonskoi

    We need to also remember our roots and
    how we deal with our enemies. Those scum need to be out of our
    western countries and they need to be treated with utter ruthlessness
    when they hurt our people. If they want the 7th Century,
    give them the 7th Century. Act more like 7th
    Century Europeans. Muslims are an existential threat. Santiago!
    Santiago Matamoros!

  • WR_the_realist

    To all of you who say you’d like to have a more authoritarian government, now you know where to go.

  • WR_the_realist

    I’m certain that somewhere in that new caliphate there is a group of hot headed Muslims that John McCain will label “freedom fighters” and want to send arms to.

    • FransSusan

      The US is already sending arms, money, aircraft to the militants in Muslim countries….has been for years.

  • rightrightright

    There is a youth bulge of 100 million across the ME. All surplus to requirements in societies without work, adequate food or water. Arabs jumped straight from being goat herders to profitable, slave owning military masters, missing out all the bits in between (such as farming). They still think like that.

  • WR_the_realist

    That whole package, he said, would include free housing, food, and
    clothing for all, though of course anyone who wished to enrich himself
    with work could do so.

    So ISIS members are natural members of the Green Party, New Party, Socialist Party, and Democratic Party.

  • Brady

    Whether ISIS is “un-Islamic” doesn’t really matter. There is no reason for a non-Muslim to be concerned with which viewpoint within Islam is the most authentically Islamic. ISIS admittedly breaks from historical precedent; it practices a brutality that is extreme even by Islamic standards. However, historical Islam is no thing of beauty either.

  • The Dude

    “That whole package, he said, would include free housing, food, and
    clothing for all, though of course anyone who wished to enrich himself
    with work could do so.”

    The fact that it was never fully implemented throughout centuries of successive caliphates shows that this out-and-out socialistic ideology is easier said than done.

  • meanqueen

    Can anyone source this quote? I have tried and can’t, but I remember the first time I read it, there was a name attached. Anyway, it sums up the situation. “We are taking over Britain, you can’t stop us! We will make Britain an Islamic state, , this will all happen under your eyes! Your churches are becoming mosques, your women are having our babies, your food is turning halal, your laws will become sharia! What are you going to do? NOTHING!”

    • FransSusan

      The British government should NOT have allowed those militants into their country in the first place. Militant Muslims couldn’t be in other countries if western leaders didn’t want them there. The US even pays for mosques to be built in the US!

  • Irish

    The writer’s detailed description of ISIS’ ideology and reasoning is both clarifying and terrifying.. And while I’ve little interest in any more Middle Eastern adventurism, nor in putting the life of one more American in harms way , I disagree with his prescription..This purist version of Islam is Fascist in its the truest sense. It must be defeated, and defeated outright, I.E…Kill everyone if it’s adherents ..And yep, that means troops..We can argue all day long about how we got here, and who’s to blame. But the fact is expansionist Sharia State in the Middle East can not be obliged, far to distablizing. ..If we had a actual leader in this country, and not a globalist/anti-Western one with tacit sympathy for ISIS’s grievances, a world wide coalition could be easily put together. (You know you are out on the fringes when the Moslem Brotherhood calls you out) You have to kill them, as long as the caliphate is left standing in any form it will continue to draw recruits from around the world, and inspire disaffected Mohammedist in our mist to murder throughout the West.

    • FransSusan

      No, you don’t have to kill them; you have to leave them alone and get the hell out of their countries. The US has killed millions of innocent people in senseless, destructive wars that the US did not have to get involved with in the first place.

      • Irish

        As far as I can discern the two ethnic Algerian Brothers , who were born & raised in France walked into the Charlie Hebdo office with automatic weapons for the express purpose of avenging the prophet..Like wise the savage who butchered Theo Van Gogh..These facist are members of a death cult, we need to make their dream come true..Expelling all of them from Western nations should obviously be real goal.

  • Ringo Lennon

    Don’t money keep rolling in to these people? “Show me the money” as they said in that movie

  • archer

    I didn’t read the whole article, I don’t have to, the fix is getting out of the middle east and not letting them come to the west. We destroyed Iraq, Libya and Egypt and are trying to get rid of Assad in Syria with the final target being Iran. Isis morphed from Al Qaeda which we supported in one way or another along with Israel, Saudi Arabia, Britain and we are now pretending that we care about the people being slaughtered. We caused this mayhem and are shedding crocodile tears for these victims of ISIS.

    • jayvbellis

      It’s all our fault!

      We made Muslims act violent….

      We made Black Africans sexually immoral and spread AIDS!

      Oh we’re so bad and evil.

      We even do….

      Climate Change!

      Oh, bad, evil racist White Americans, we are the ones secretly causing all the turmoil in the world.

      The Muslim world and Black Africa would all be safe, prosperous places, embracing multi cultural ism, women’s rights, gay rights if not for those evil White racists Conservatives.

      Bad, bad evil White racists!

      (Please [email protected]& you’re starting to sound exactly like Tim Wise, Michael Moore or Ron Paul)

      • WR_the_realist

        ISIS is very largely an inadvertent result of American foreign policy. If Sadaam Hussein and Qaddafi were still in power and Assad had not been weakened by the neocons ISIS would never have gotten off the ground. That doesn’t mean that any of those guys are good guys, it just means that we did manage to replace bad with worse.

        People who think we can bomb the world into being a better place are far more naive than Ron Paul.

        • jayvbellis

          I was with Pat Buchanan in the early 1990s opposing Bush Sr.’s great patriotic War #1 against secular Iraq Batthist regime of Saddam Hussein. I took out full page adverts against the war in Nashville Tennessean, Chattanooga Times. I quoted George Washington’s Farewell address, use Lindbergh’s cry “America First”. I predicted the outcome… Social chaos, Islamic extremism stepping in.

          It still doesn’t change the fact that the White West has had virtually non stop war, conflict with the nonWhite Islamic World for:

          1,500 years.

          Except when British troops surrendered Singapore to the Japanese and became slave POWs, the Muslims are the only ones to make White Europeans their slaves.

          The Muslims all know that they overran white Greek civilizations in Asia Minor, now Turkey. The Muslims know they ruled Spain for 700 years. Muslims know when they get some White area, White women and White girls are their sex slaves. They know this. Greeks and Balkan Whites know this.

          White Americans however, never can seem to get their mind focused on this brutal fact.

          Whites lose to Muslims, we either get killed in the worst ways, or… We become their slaves.

          Our White American side from knee jerk liberals, to race denying Libertarian loons like Ron Paul and Rand Paul always have some rationalization that it’s all a misunderstanding and once they get to know us and we know them, everything will be OK.

          It won’t.

          We need lots and lots more Muslim atrocities against important groups of Whites, have Muslims make insulting demands that Texans give up eating BBQ pork and drinking beer. Also, Americans can’t watch football on Muslim days, which are pretty much every day.

          • WR_the_realist

            If we just stayed out of the Middle East and stopped Islamic immigration into Europe and North America we’d be much better off than we are now.

            War mongers like Lindsey Graham and John McCain want the worst possible policies — forever wars in the Middle East combined with unbounded immigration from everyplace in the world, including the very Muslim countries we’re bombing.

          • FransSusan

            You can bet that Graham and McCain are making millions of $$ from the never-ending wars, too.

      • FransSusan

        The corrupt US government created & supports ISIS. US has supplied them with aircraft, weapons, & money. The government is ‘bad and evil.’ And you almost have this right: “Oh, bad, evil racist US government; they are the ones secretly causing all the turmoil in the world.” Only it’s no secret.

        • jayvbellis

          Take a hike! These paranoid, blame the secret US Gubermint types are getting to be as bad as the Amy Biehl Antifa blame White racist types.

          The facts are clear that the lowest castes of Afro Arab Criminal Muslims are simple brutal savages that live to rape White girls, terrorize, murder any and all White Westerners. If there aren’t any White Westerners around (soon to be the case in large areas of France and England) these Muslim savages will turn their hatreds and slaughters to others like Coptic Christians, Kurds.

          Can you please our sane, principled Amren community and instead go over yourself as a human sacrificial victims to the Muslim extremists? If these 8th century , backward Muslim savages have to slaughter someone it might as we’ll be so e paranoid, anti American conspiracy theory loon like you!

          • FransSusan

            That’s exactly what the government wants you to believe. It’s obvious you’ve drunk the Kool-Aid and believe the propaganda.

      • FransSusan

        Ron Paul is the only intelligent, sensible politician who supports the people. He’s nothing like Michael Moore. You’re obviously not well-informed. You’re just what the government wants—uninformed, obtuse citizens who’ll buy the lies & drink the Kool-Aid. Wars aren’t noble and intelligent people know that. Our biggest threat is the US government that has killed millions of innocent people for nothing but BIG BUCKS and imperialism.

        • jayvbellis

          Yeah, I knew it – race denying, Libertarian loon Ron Paul cult member!

          Don’t feed these Ron Paul Libertaian loons, don’t let them in your home or they ….

          Will never leave!

          He and now his Son Rand Paul (Amren’s 2012 White traitor of the year) have been running for President every single year since 1988, without ever winning a single state primary. Not even won win!

          What kind of a person embraces, worships losers?

          Would our side put all our hopes and dreams, all our time and money in to a boxer that never won a single boxing match in 26 years?!

          Ron and Rand Paul pedal economic Conservatism, anything goes capitalism that has been soundly reject by poor and working class voters for over 100 years!

          These loons insist on telling everyone what they don’t want to hear, like the time Libertarian loon told the New York audience ( 2013 GOP Debate) that we deserved the 9-11-01 terrorist attack for insulting Saudi Arabia and for US anti Palestinian policies . This was on the 10th anniversary of the 9-11 attack!

          The audience screamed “traitor”!

          The moderator Rudy Guiliani practically lept out of his chair to beat down Ron Paul, which practically the entire White American population wanted him to do.

          Can’t we send Ron and Rand Paul and their loon cult supporters to the New South Africa or ISIS controlled parts of Libya and offer them up as human sacrifices?

          Otherwise we will never be rid of this cult, these loons will always be talk, talk, talking their nonsense.


  • Jefferson Goodberry

    Dammit! The one and only true ISIS is the International Secret Intelligence Service, employer of super-spy, functional alcoholic and whoremonger, Sterling M. Archer (aka “Duchess”)!

  • Transpower

    I favor using tactical neutron weapons to eliminate Islamo-Nazis wherever they are. They do not belong on our planet.

  • Whiteplight

    Today (February 20) CNN has a story about so-called Sovereign Citizens groups and says that they are more of a terrorist threat than ISIS or any other Muslim or such group in the U.S. They cited a traffic stop in Louisiana where two such “members” were in shoot out with police. They say that these groups do not consider themselves subject to federal or state laws. They label them terrorists, yet no aggressive actions or actual terrorism is listed, just that they react when law enforcement picks them out for traffic stops or comes to their homes for some reason. This sounds like a twist on the meaning of “terrorist,” and ought to be a concern for all free thinking Americans. A label is being created so that opinion will support aggressive actions to identify such people and then….?

  • Anna Tree

    “Islamic culture respects education”
    Did you mean it or you meant “does not respect”?
    You will have to bring support if you meant the former.
    (I will respond to your other post but it may take me a day or so.)

  • Anna Tree

    Oh you must have misread me or perhaps I didn’t explain myself well, notably as English is not my mother tongue, and so I apologize, because I totally agree with you and I thought I meant exactly all what you wrote when I wrote “mostly if not only kings or such and for political reason”.

    Yes indeed adult-child marriages, as an institution, is alien to Europe. And indeed only done by kings/aristocracy and for political reasons (I often add words like mostly to acknowledge that I didn’t research the ages of every one marriages ever made in Europe.)

    I again completely agree that if young were married, additionally marriage wasn’t consummated until after puberty, and as importantly, both “spouses” were young.
    So it was definitively not the kind of adult-child marriages institutionalized by mohamed.

    His relation to Aisha is the first and biggest reason for my islamocriticism. And why, despite sparking soon after my atheism (like many French, I was only non-religious/secular before that), I do since then support Christianity and Jesus, and now hope for a white religion.
    That realization that we are brainwashed in so many
    issues by the elites, family, media, friends, school and of course by ourselves, later also triggered my race realism and my opinions on homosexuality and feminism

    I went through all my opinions, check arguments from the different sides
    and I indeed changed my mind in most of them. From now, I check
    everything before making an opinion, and I am always ready to change it
    with the proper contra argument:

  • Hy Alldredge

    It’s an especially idiotic notion in the case of Minnesota because their social welfare programs for refugees are incredibly generous.

  • FransSusan

    If the corrupt, US government would leave the Muslims alone, get out of their countries, and stop bringing them to the US and supporting them with taxpayer $$, we wouldn’t need to concern ourselves with Muslims.

  • 李冠毅

    I think “half-Jewish” usually means half Ashkenazi Jew. Ashkenazi Jew is a race.

  • TCA

    Of course Islam must be destroyed, but what I find refreshing about Muslims in general and about ISIS in particular is their refusal to compromise, mealy-mouth, apologize, or pander. None of the dithering, bolviating, or effeminate hand-wringing so common in the ‘West.’ They say what they mean, they mean what they say, and they have no qualms about killing their enemies.
    I have to respect that.

  • libertarian1234

    I saw a few of Dr. Warner’s lectures and thought I knew history pretty well, mostly the high points, but I learned a lot from what he said.

    Revealing the whole factual story makes what Obama said about the Crusades seem even more ridiculous, especially as he thought he was giving parity to what he ALLEGES might have occurred during the Crusades to the outrageous atrocities by ISIS, as if the White Christians today have anything to do with what allegedly occurred centuries ago, simply because they’re white.

    That’s how he views the black/white situation today. He’s looking for paybacks for “his people.”

    Incidentally, every one is scratching their heads….or pretending to…..to try to understand WHY Obama supports Islam so greatly.

    Isn’t it obvious it’s because he IS a Muslim?

  • warforbankers

    Shall we ignore that IS rose out of Washingtons war in Iraq and the destabilization of the Middle East planned by PNAC and other think tanks ? Or that Baghdadi was a US prisoner for FIVE years ? What does Washington want, and how is IS connected to those wishes ?

    “”All the implications so far in the public record are that ISIS [IS] is a covert US intelligence operation,” Boyle told RIA Novosti Tuesday. “Head of ISIS Abu Bakr Baghdadi spent five years in an American detention facility, and also three of the four military commanders were also in detention by the US forces. So, my guess is that ISIS is indeed a covert US military intervention to set precedent for US escalation in Iraq.”

    • FransSusan

      It’s so obvious that this is true. Anyone who doesn’t believe that the US government is complicit has his/her head in the sand.

  • Transpower

    It’s nice that a Leftist magazine now “sees the light.”

  • jayvbellis

    Race is too strong.

    They are an “ethnic group”, similar to the Irish.

    Was Ted Kennedy in the later years and Irish Catholic? No. But mass Irish still voted for one of their tribe.