A Dirty, Little Moslem Secret: Boys Turned into Sex Slaves

MOSLEM MORALITY IS FALSE MORALITY. Moslems like to blather about how their bogus religion makes them superior to the despised Christian world. However, all it takes is a slightly closer look at what goes on in Moslem societies for it to become clear that Moslem assertions of moral superiority are nothing but rank hypocrisy—even when contrasted to the degenerate values that have taken hold of the West in recent decades.

Bacha bazi dancing in early 20th century Samarkand

Among the many practices that belie the self-serving depiction of Moslems as paradigms of rectitude is the revolting practice of bacha bazi (literally, “playing with boys”). This consists of obtaining prepubescent and adolescent boys, sometimes as war booty, but more often simply by buying them from their parents or guardians, and reducing them to the condition of transvestite slaves, who are forced to pleasure their “masters” by dancing in a lewd and effeminate way, but most crucially by submitting to the basest desires of the “master” and his guests.

At present, bacha bazi is most often found in that primitive, mean land called Afghanistan, but it was once much more widespread. One Anthony Shay, the author of a book whose title is “The Male Dancer in the Middle East and Central Asia”, described the reasons for the decline of this loathsome practice as “Victorian era prudery and severe disapproval of colonial powers such as the Russians, British, and French, and the post colonial elites who had absorbed those Western colonial values.” This writer is presumably either a pederast himself or a particularly abject dhimmi, but he does reveal an important truth: if bacha bazi is no longer ubiquitous all over the Mohammedan world, if it has at least been confined to Afghanistan, a country barbaric even by Moslem standards, it is only because of the influence of the supposedly iniquitous foreign kuffar.

Likewise, the feeble efforts being made to eradicate bacha bazi occur only through the efforts of Westerners present in Afghanistan, and of a precious few Western-influenced Afghans. The PBS series Frontline presented a documentary film on the topic in 2010 that served to raise awareness of the issue, and the topic has also appeared in several online media.

In reality, the persistence of bacha bazi is hardly surprising. Man-boy copulation is an time-honored practice within Islam. In his inimitable guide book, “The World’s Most Dangerous Places”, Robert Young Pelton relates that during the 1990s, mujahedeen were wont to set up road blocks on Afghan roads. In addition to robbing anyone who came along, if a boy was unfortunate enough to fall into their hands, he would be made to dress in a bridal gown and then take part in a mock wedding ceremony drenched in alcohol and opium. The happy occasion would culminate with the young lad being sodomized en masse. This often happened in the presence of his father and other relatives.

In the celebrated Persian love poetry of the High Middle Ages, as a rule the beloved is not a woman, but a boy. Moreover, Islam is the only major religion with a mainstream current, namely Sufism (the same one as at the Ground Zero mosque), that presents pederasty as a way to commune with God. Laughably, Sufism has a reputation among politically correct Westerners as a more tolerant kind of Islam. It is nothing of the kind, but simply a form of mystical Islam, every bit as dogmatic and damnable as the more familiar versions. Spengler of Asia Times Online put it well when he said, “by their fruits shall ye know them.” 

Sufism, with its predilection for sex with prepubescent males still holds considerable sway over the Islamic world, despite the enmity of the Sunni and Shi’ite branches, both more concerned with waging jihad. Sadly, it appears that a great many Moslems have decided to split the difference and obsess equally over buggering young boys and slaying “infidels”.

Furthermore, I opine that Mecca and Medina must be destroyed.

References:

Wikipedia article on bacha bazi
Asia Times Online: Sufism, Sodomy and Satan
Asia Times Online: Sodomy and Sufism in Afgaynistan

The First Stirrings of World War III?

I AGREE WITH ROLAND SHIRK AT JIHAD WATCH that what is now happening in Egypt is likely to lead to something much larger and more widespread. However, I am actually glad it is happening, not because I love war and strife, but because I for one see a confrontation with the Moslem world as inevitable if the West is not going to simply surrender and accept dhimmitude.

Moreover, time is on their side. Their population is growing faster than ours, they are taking over Europe and increasingly America through immigration, the ever higher price of fossil fuels transfers our wealth to them, which will only help them become stronger militarily through the acquisition of the newest and best weapons, including nuclear.

Winston Churchill felt relief at the outset of the Second World War because he knew that when faced with a truly evil enemy, delaying the inevitable could only strengthen that enemy. Likewise, we ought to be in equal measure glad and determined that the time for the decisive confrontation with Mohammed's thugs is fast approaching.

May God help us and preserve us in the upcoming struggle.

No, Moslems Can't Have Democracy

CONTRARY TO THE OPINION OF THE NAIVE, DEMOCRACY IS NOT A PANACEA that can fix the ills of every society. In Islamic societies in particular, it cannot work in the long run—or even quite frequently in the short run. The Moslem definitions of freedom, justice and good government are all at profound variance with what we in the West think those terms signify. Marisol Seibold at Jihad Watch expounds this very well:

Projecting a Western understanding of concepts like liberty, justice, and good government onto such terms as they are employed by those in favor of Sharia law (not to mention the Muslim Brotherhood) only sets up the naïve for profound disappointments and awful surprises.

As Einstein said, the definition of insanity is "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." And joyfully welcoming another regime that pledges fidelity (and therefore ties its legitimacy) to Islamic law certainly fits that definition. 

Here are what, in practice, some common concepts mean to Moslems:

Freedom means that a Moslem has the ability to live—anywhere in the world—in total accordance with Islamic teachings, notwithstanding any adverse impact on others or the Moslem in question being vastly outnumbered. One example that comes to mind among countless others is the habit Moslems in Paris have acquired of closing off public streets on their own initiative in order to facilitate a larger gathering at a mosque, where, incidentally, the imam more likely than not be preaches against the very country and people hosting the Moslems in question. The fact that local residents are inconvenienced or that businesses lose custom is of no consideration whatsoever. In the same spirit are Moslem campaigns to ban pork, alcohol, etc. wherever they live, even if, again, they are just a small percentage of the population.

The concept of justice in the Islamic mind is just as intimately tied to their fabricated religion. To Moslems, justice means reward for those who follow Islam and punishment for those who do not. Thus, it is eminently just for Moslems to take what belongs to “infidels”, but it is horrifically unfair when the reverse occurs, even when what is being taken from the Moslems is just being returned to its rightful owners, if those rightful owners happen to “infidels”. That is why Moslems consider the Holy Crusades so heinous. Surely, the Holy Land had been Christian for centuries before the Mohameddan invasion, but when Christians tired of the outrages constantly perpetrated on pilgrims and fought to liberate Jerusalem, that counted for the Moslems as history’s darkest chapter. Similarly, the Moslem conquest of Spain in 711 is seen as a natural and righteous development, while the Reconquista that threw them out was an evil aggression. In the same vein, it is fitting and proper for a church to be transformed into a mosque, but it must never be restored to being a church.

And what do Moslems consider to be good government? Simply rule of the Moslems, by the Moslems, for the Moslems, and which promotes the Moslem definition of freedom and enforces the Moslem definition of justice.

In view of these realities, it is obvious why true democracy cannot take hold in a Moslem society. Only authoritarian rule—provided with strong incentives by the civilized world—can keep the Islamist wolf at bay, and that only for a while. In all other instances, the more political freedom is gained by the Moslem populace the more quickly and vehemently they will turn to radicalism. The examples are simply too numerous and consistent to argue otherwise: Iran, Algeria, Pakistan, Lebanon, Iraq, Turkey, and soon, Egypt. It is time for the West to abandon appeasement and wishful thinking to face this stark reality: we must once and for all destroy Islam or it shall destroy us. 

Furthermore, I opine that Mecca and Medina must be destroyed.

History's Lesson: A Hostile Egypt May Be the Doom of Israel

THE FIRST CRUSADE RECONQUERED THE HOLY LAND FROM ITS MOSLEM OCCUPIERS IN 1099, giving birth to the Kingdom of Jerusalem. For 70 years afterwards, the new Christian state existed in relative security in the middle of the Moslem world because though none of its neighbors were friendly, Egypt was perhaps even more hostile to the Syrian Moslems than they were to the Crusaders. The reason was that Egypt adhered to Shi'ite branch of Islam, and its Fatimid rulers were that sect's foremost defenders, while the Syrians were staunch Sunnis.

That changed decidedly in 1171 when, by a combination of violence and the habitual Moslem chicanery, the infamous Saladin, succeeded in overthrowing the Fatimids and establishing himself as sultan of Egypt. He quickly proceeded to convert the country to Sunnism by the sword. By 1175, Saladin had snatched Syria as well, from As-Salih, the 12-year-old son of his old mentor, Nur ad-Din, as it were.

As a consequence, the gallant Kingdom of Jerusalem saw its much larger enemy unified politically and religiously for the first time, a situation much like the one Israel is about to face, especially if the Muslim Brotherhood gets its claws on Jordan as well as Egypt. The noble Christian knights, who had pledged their sacred honor in defense of the Kingdom, fought on courageously, a great many laying down their lives in battle against their fanatical, bloodthirsty foe, but final defeat came in 1187 when a besieged Jerusalem was forced to surrender to Saladin.

The dream of a liberated Holy Land, cleansed of shrines to a false god, and free from the hideous call of the muezzin, was over.

Furthermore, I opine that Mecca and Medina must be destroyed.

Professor Juxtaposes the Egyptian Crisis with the 1979 Iranian Revolution

 How the US Will Lose Egypt

THIS IS AN INTERESTING NARRATIVE OF THE EVENTS OF THE IRANIAN REVOLUTION AND OF THE AMERICAN REACTION. THE PROBLEM IS that the author ignores one essential truth: coexistence with any form of Moslem government is ultimately impossible, and any effort to mold or guide the direction of a country under Moslem rule is bound to be futile. It hardly need be discussed why that is true when dealing with radical Islamists. But even as far as religious moderates, such as the Shah and Hosni Mubarak, the problem is that they inevitably become despised by the great majority of the population because to be a moderate Moslem is, by definition, to be a bad Moslem. Even the ridiculously retrograde rulers of Saudi Arabia—despite their generous financing of radicalism—are seen as not being radical enough merely because they accept coexistence with the West on some level. Why, that’s really pretty much what is behind Osama bin Laden’s beef with the world!

So, say what you will, but the only way to have peace on this planet will ultimately be to destroy Islam or surrender to Islam. Those who find the latter choice unacceptable, must realize that in order to kill this cancer of a religion, every presently Islamic country should be ruled by Christians, native Christians where they are present, or foreign military officers where not. The population should be strongly encouraged to convert. To that end, mosques and other Islamic buildings should be ruthlessly destroyed, regardless of esthetic or historical considerations, and clerics and die-hards should be dealt with harshly.

If this proves too much for us to stomach, then we must accept that our children and all future generations will be fighting Moslems or, even more likely, be swallowed up by Moslem fanaticism and sky-high birthrates.

Mubarak Is Out in September, If Not Sooner

HOSNI MUBARAK HAS JUST ANNOUNCED HE WILL NOT SEEK ANOTHER TERM AS PRESIDENT OF EGYPT in the September elections. For those who have more faith in democracy than common sense, including the Obama administration, which reportedly told Mubarak to go, this may be good news, but it’s great news for the Muslim Brotherhood and their even more radical buddies. Their philosophy regarding the democratic process is nothing but practical: “one man, one vote, one time.” And no majority is needed; a plurality or even a close second will do. Intimidation and outright violence will take care of the rest, and once they have power in their hands, they will never yield to anyone who is less fanatical than they are, because it would be quite un-Islamic to turn over the rule of a country to “infidels” and “apostates”.

Egypt Before Islam

WE OUGHT TO REMEMBER THAT EGYPT WAS FOR SEVERAL CENTURIES A CHRISTIAN LAND, albeit one that also was also home to a thriving Jewish minority. In fact, Christian monasticism had its origin in Egypt, largely by merit of St. Anthony of the Desert. In the early Middle Ages, all indications were that Egypt would continue to play the role it had since the dawn of civilization: that of one of the world’s richest and most culturally vibrant countries. That prospect changed drastically in the year 639, when hordes of barbaric horsemen swept in from the sandy wastes of Arabia. This was the Moslem conquest, from which Egypt has yet to emerge. The Mohameddans’ newly invented religion filled them with fanatical zeal, and their material and cultural poverty made them deeply covetous of the fruits of a rich civilization, such as Egypt.

Right away, the invaders set about destroying Egyptian culture. By the imposition of heavy taxation, the jizya, on “infidel” holdouts, when not by the sword, the Mohameddans gradually caused the conversion of most of Egypt’s population. By the proclamation of their rough Arabic as the sole language of government and education, they destroyed the ancient Coptic tongue, the direct descendant of the language spoken by the pharaohs. By the enforcement of irrational Islamic strictures against art, they sterilized the creative impulses of the Egyptian people.

These acts, however, were only par for the course in the unfortunate lands that fell under the Moslem yoke. Egypt witnessed a truly monstrous act of cultural vandalism, the deliberate burning of what was then the world’s richest depository of knowledge, the Great Library of Alexandria. When the Moslem conqueror of Egypt, Amr Ibn al Aas wrote Omar, the Caliph (leader) of all Moslems, what to do regarding the contents of the Library the latter replied with what is arguably the most ignorant statement ever made: “Burn them, for if those books are in agreement with the Koran, we have no need of them; and if they are opposed to the Koran, we must destroy them.”

It is rather hard for someone living in the Information Age, in which knowledge is transmitted and multiplied at the speed of light, to quantify what an irreparable loss this was to the world. In an era when books had to be reproduced by hand, the Great Library of Alexandria had contained the only surviving copies of countless ancient books. It is impossible to determine how much this wanton destruction delayed the scientific progress of mankind, although it may well have been a number of centuries!

It must be pointed out, though, that recently it has become taboo, at least in fashionable academic circles to relate this bit of history. There is a number of baseless alternative theories as to how the Great Library was destroyed, involving sundry villains and all manner of freak accidents. Unfortunately for the Mohameddans and their politically correct acolytes, there are multiple Moslem sources, perhaps not all of them proud, confirming just what transpired: Amr Ibn al Aas gleefully torched the ancient world’s greatest collection of knowledge on the instructions of Omar, the Caliph, Commander of the Faithful.

If this were not enough, the case of the naysayers is further weakened by the well-known Arab historian Ibn Khaldun, who wrote about a similar act directed against Persian books. It is the irony of ironies that in the politically correct version of history, Moslems are credited with saving the knowledge of the ancients, but the bar is set so low for them that though having destroyed all they could, whatever smidgen escaped their attention is held out as irrefutable proof of their intellectual accomplishments.