The message from Switzerland today sums up as "no tolerance for intolerance", as the Swiss citizenry draws a line in the snow:

Switzerland 'approves minaret ban'
Over 57 percent of Swiss voters on Sunday approved a blanket ban on the construction of Muslim minarets (...) A final tally of 26 cantons indicates that 57.5 percent of the population have voted in favour of the ban on minarets (...) Only four cantons rejected the proposal brought by Switzerland's biggest party -- the Swiss People's Party (SVP), which claims that minarets symbolise a "political-religious claim to power."

As expected, a dumbfounded Swiss 'establishment' struggles to keep its collective head in its collective derriere while playing its old appeasement tricks...

[Justice Minister Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf] sought to reassure Swiss Muslims, saying the decision was "not a rejection of the Muslim community, religion or culture".

Look Fraulein, I hate to burst your bubble but this is a clear cut rejection of Muslim religion and culture. As for the community, well, the Swiss have the reputation of being a decent folk, very much attached to individual rights, liberties and independence, and I'm quite confident they wouldn't single out and discriminate against any community in their midst—granted, of course, that said community clearly, honestly and verifiably (that is to say "not as Qur'an 3:28 preaches") rejects all the utterly detestable and unacceptable customs and commandements that make its religion and culture. You know, stuff like 'honor' killing, beheading 'unbelievers', hurling airliners into buildings, and generally speaking following to the letter the example of a disgusting self-proclaimed prophet of a man who, in his late fifties, managed to 'marry' a 6 years old girl and screwed¹ her when she reached 9—among a whole lot of other offenses against his fellowmen.

I mean, it's Switzerland, for Heaven's sake. If Islam can't reform itself there, it's not really trying.

Swiss Muslims, unfortunately yet as predictably, play the victim card, blame it all on 'Islamophobia' and issue veiled (no pun) threats:

"The most painful thing for us is not the ban on minarets but the symbol sent by this vote. "Muslims do not feel accepted as a religious community."

That's rich, considering Islam's unmatched record in creating the most segregative states and societies along strict religious divide lines, all over the world's history, but you have to keep in mind that when it comes to Public Relations, Swiss Muslims as well as most of their western world brothers and sisters, are currently in Meccan Cuddly Fluffy Surah Mode (with unicorns and rainbows thrown in). If you know the differences between the Koran's Meccan and Medinan verses, and the historical and strategic rationale behind them, you get my meaning. If you don't, look it up because that's a bit beyond the scope of this humble post and I'm already far too easily dispersed as it is, okay?

Elham Manea, co-founder of the Forum for a Progressive Islam, added: "My fear is that the younger generation will feel unwelcome. (...)"

Or in other words: "You filty infidels fancy a bit of car-B-Q, French style? Wink-wink, nod-nod, say no more." That was a public announcement from the Forum for Progressive Islam.

... And finally, we have the usual Professional Human Rightists and staunch defenders of Democracy, except when the democratic outcome doesn't match the agenda:

Amnesty International said the vote violated freedom of religion and would probably be overturned by the Swiss supreme court or the European Court of Human Rights. 

Notice that you could argue that since one can be a Muslim in, say, the Vatican or Israel yet there can be no Jew or Christian in Mecca, Amnesty International can stuff its outrage over this alleged encroachment upon the sacro-sainct Islamic freedom of religion where the desert sun never shines. Deeply, and with feelings.

Notice as well, that nothing, nowhere in this referendum forbids Muslims from practicing their religion. I know you noticed, but you're not a shill for Islamic victimhood, right?

Notice, finally, that there must be a reason why minarets, those funky phallic towers with a muezzin sitting on top, moaning "Oooh Allah is so very ackbar, can you feel it?", in the otherwise quiet Swiss landscape were deemed such a problematic issue that it 1. prompted someone to think that maybe the People should give His opinion, and 2. that someone received the legal amount of signatures required by Swiss law to call for this referendum, and 3. the People, in vast numbers, said No, we won't have it, thank you for asking.

I mean nobody is seriously thinking about a ban on churches, synagogues or American Bills of Rights—okay, maybe some people do but quite frankly all they achieve is provinding the whole mass of us with brief and cheap entertainment, save for the occasionally lucky ones who get a free seat in the Oval Office without even having to produce a birth certificate—so there must be something about the Muhammadan flock in London, Paris, Bern or Berlin that ruffles our Western liberal democracies' feathers, isn't there?

Make no mistake indeed: if any people in Western—and increasingly, I suspect, Eastern— Europe were given the same opportunity as the Swiss and were asked the same question, you'd get the same answer. So here's a tip for the European Establishment at large: if so many of your 'subjects' think there is a problem with Islam in our societies, perhaps there is indeed a, you know, problem with Islam, or at the very least a legitimate concern. So, dismissing them with the fabricated concept of 'islamophobia' or the irrelevant one of 'racism' is not only stupid and insulting: it is also becoming very risky and untenable. We the masses who happen to live with the consequences of our elites' multicultural nation-building invariably come to the following estimation of your handy work: sure, the food choice is wider and nicer but that doesn't compensate for burning cars, no-go zones, rapes, assaults and the notion that after millennia of struggle against tribalism, feudalism, theocracy and tyranny and for the defence of individualism and civic rights, you are pushing us to submit to one of the most backward, violent and oppressive religion ever to set its curse upon mankind, rather than let us reap quietly the fruits of our hard-earned Enlightenment.

The truth is, I can't really blame Muslims for being a globally intolerant bunch, as a group—that's what their holy book and their Imams teach them, and one can only blame them for not exercising more critical thinking individually—but I do blame our Western "policy makers", elected and supposedly accountable, for indulging them.

In addition to that dismal record of policy-enforced melting-pot failures from Helsinki to Palermo—again, in large part because 'integration' doesn't exist in the Islamic lingo and they've been encouraged not to learn it by our in-house Social Democrats—any European with just a slight varnish of knowledge of European history knows that they have some unfinished business with Muhammad's seides that predates by far Osama bin Laden's canard of modern oppression of the Muslims by the US-led and Zionist-inspired Crusaders of the West. We are vaguely aware that George W. Bush wasn't President of the Franks in Poitiers, yet these good proto citizen-soldiers had to fight back, and temporarily stop, decades of Islamic aggression up to the very heart of what is now France. Neither was Dubya that Spanish King who had to reconquer Spain or something. And the American Navy definitely had no battle group under the name Holy League operating in the Mediterranean in 1571. The most educated among us even know the trouble with Islam doesn't begin with Whitey 'oppressing' a bunch of happy people in turbans by building empires in North Africa or forcing them to live next to, in the Islamic parlance, 'sons of pigs and apes' by re-establishing 5,000 years old Jewish settlements in the middle-east.

In fact, considering the legions of our kin slaughtered, raped, sold into slavery or converted by the sword over the centuries of Islamic conquest, let alone the properties and cultural assets looted or destroyed, we'd appreciate it if they could keep the tone of 'Islamic grievances' down. Oh, and while we wait for that mythical but awfully silent 'majority' of moderate Muslims to stand up, speak up and kick those Very Bad Men who, we are told, 'hijacked their religion', we can't help but noticing the increasing number of women trotting about Western streets donning variants of Islamic 'extremist' attire, or other manifestation of Islamic attachment to pluralism such as burning embassies over a few cartoons or spitting on British soldiers upon their return in their hometown.

Still. Freedom of Religion. Important concept, that. That's where the Libertarian is supposed to jump in, right on cue, and assert that this Swiss business is one instance where Democracy is but the Tyranny of the Majority and how wrong it is to use the Power of the State to encroach upon Freedom of Religion™ even if the People wills it—because it won't resolve anything, dude.

I know that, because I used to harbor somewhat similar opinions, some time ago. But I watched and learned a few more things since then.

I'd still agree with that point however, as long as we were talking about any religion other than Islam (as well as a few other cults not worth mentioning, on account of being far less influential and efficient in the Conquest and Subdue Department) for the simple reason that Islam, unlike any other religion, is not just a mystical and moral framework for the individual believer: it is a collectivist and totalitarian political and religious system that aims to encompass and submit society as a whole, doesn't hide these absolutist goals (unless temporary dissimulation serves them), is actively at war with the rest of the world, and has been so ever since its inception. The minaret, in that respect, is part of the arsenal and the Islamic law specifically describes it as such by establishing precisely the rules for its edification—notably in terms of height, that must not be inferior to that of the Christian churches' bell towers for instance. And don't get me started on the fact that when they're not routinely being used as ammo stores and pillboxes in Fallujah or Gaza, mosques and their minarets far too frequently serve as propaganda & indoctrination agencies and strategic command centers all over the world.

Tell me, when was the last time you saw your local church's vicar stacking mortar rounds behind the altar while calling for the beheading of infidels "wherever ye find them" again? Yeah, me neither.

What the Swiss citizens have just done is actually a very clever and—unsurprisingly, from such an excellent people—a very diplomatic thing. The referendum calls for the ban on minarets, on account, rightfully, of being and I quote "symbols of Islamic power". But it doesn't call for a ban on mosques, the Koran, or the practice of Islam.

Ergo, what the vast majority of Swiss are saying to the minority of Swiss Muslims is: "We're fine with the personal religion thing, but you've got to drop that nasty 'submit, convert or die' habit of yours."

The proverbial ball is once again in the Islamic camp.

And the rest of Europe's unwashed masses is, once again, watching.

Those Americans. They won't stop oppressing and jailing black people:

African Immigrant Found Guilty of Human Trafficking
A Togolese woman accused of forcing girls from Africa to work in New Jersey hair braiding salons for no pay has been convicted of human trafficking and visa fraud in a case her lawyer says highlighted African cultural norms that failed to translate in America.

(...) women [between the age of 10 and 19 — DF] were beaten, psychologically abused and, in some cases, sexually abused, while being kept from phoning home, contacting friends or family, or accessing their passports and other documents.

All that at the hand of what her lawyer, Bukie Adetula, describes as "a benevolent mother figure", and her husband.

Now you could say that we see this pattern of behavior within "certain" immigrant communities all over the Western world—and not just in the USA— but Mama's lawyer knows better than y'all bunch of pale-faced rednecks. According to him, it's the culture, stupid: what the mean nasty U.S government calls slave-like is "merely a West African custom of protecting young girls by making sure they were tightly supervised".

I suppose that by these standards, Roman Polanski makes the perfect father figure.

Anyway, the real issue here is that you should all know by now that enslaving is only Whitey what does it!

Especially so when Whitey's an evil Secessionist Southerner Slaveholder. Like, for example, William Ellison: third-largest slaveholder in South Carolina, "owning" more than 60 slaves by 1860 (putting him in the top 5% of slaveholders in SC—and owning more slaves than 99% of the South's slaveholders), and staunch supporter of the Confederate cause: one of the richest men in South Carolina, his family lost it all after the war between the States because they put their dough in Confederate bonds. His oldest grandson served in the 1st South Carolina Artillery and was wounded in action on July 12, 1863.

Okay, so they were black too.

Okay.

Wrong example. My mistake.

Giving the Nobel Peace prize to Arafat was a disgrace,

Giving the Nobel Peace prize to Al Gore was a sham,

But Giving it to Obama is a joke.

It is also quite risky. With the mess the Obamateur is making of international policies, his reckless empowerment and appeasement of pretty much every thug-politician and rogue state on the planet, there are by now some serious and growing risks that he may actually corner himself into engaging the U.S. in all sorts of devastating conflicts before his term is thankfully over.

The joke would then be on the Norwegian nutcases — But then again, these guys did give their prize to Arafat.

So they must have some kind of a sense of humor, I suppose.

On this day, eight years ago, 19 devout Muslims brutally and cowardly murdered 2,974 men and women in the name of Allah "the benevolent" — and since then, many more all over the world have perished, victim of the same totalitarian ideology that is Islam.

For many of us, including me, this was a day of horror, anger and more importantly awakening. It was a day of renewed acknowledgment of that centuries-old and relentless enemy that ever since its first appearance in Arabia has expanded through sword, fire and bloody murder all over the globe and all along the ages, from India to Europe and from Asia to Africa. While the best among us have been battling them from the fields of Poitiers to the streets of Fallujah — with outstanding resolve and results — I am now more concerned about the dangers on the home fronts, whether of open attacks such as those of September 11, 2001 or of the more insidious, stealthy and growing parasitic encroachment and subversion of our open societies' values under the guise of Islam's "peaceful settlers" by those whose only goal is to enslave or destroy us.

Thanks to our brain's natural defense mechanisms, the horror of that September day gradually faded, feeding, hopefully, a more acute sense of alertness. The anger, however, is still here; when it comes to the hideous, oppressive political-religious system the Muhammadans aim to impose on the rest of the world, that anger woke us up — and ensures we won't fall asleep again.

It bears repeating that the meaning of the word "Islam" is "submission".

It also bears repeating that we will have none of it.

The killer of Chappaquiddick just blessed this world by leaving it, and we are left with the irony of watching his pals having their 2004 self-serving tampering of the political process blowing up in their face. Karma's a bitch:

"(...) the hacks are putting their heads together to overturn the 2004 Kennedy-backed legislation that took away appointment power from Republican Gov. Mitt Romney in the event of a Kerry succession situation." (more at Jules Crittenden's)

2004 was indeed a great year for the Democrats-democracy relationships department, particularly as far as Teddy "Let's Have A Drink Mary Jo" Kennedy was concerned.

Indeed, that September 2^nd 2004 entry of mine serves as a reminder, particularly useful for the American voting part of my readers, that this Democrat Senator (for life) once expressed clearly and without ambiguity to his DNC friends how they should fear the will of the people and the legal outcome of the democratic process more than anything else—mass-murdering totalitarian Muslims who fly commercial planes into civilian buildings included, at least de facto.

Fortunately Edward "Splash" Kennedy won't be in position to utter such abject garbage anymore¹—and so the best I can say of him (watch out, here comes the eulogy) is that he was gracious enough to leave, at last.

Jules Crittenden gives Woodstock a good and well deserved trashing, in his usual shock and awe style. Here's an appetizer:

"Hedonism wrapped in misguided self-righteousness and hypocritical idealism. Living like there’s no tomorrow while pretending you’re making the future a better place."

Emphasis mine.

The more I look at those baby-boomed hippies—and the pathetic spiritual offspring they seem to have spawned nowadays (freeloading freetards and neo-Communists, climate-reversing witch doctors and various tenants of a doctrine-guided science Lysenkoism, multiculture cultists & other moral relativists—the more I find myself okay with being a Generation-Xer stuck in between.

Even though being young in 80s' France sucked way beyond proportions— remember that, unlike the US and the UK, that's when the French decided to go dead on Socialism and elected one of the worst of their own, François Mitterrand.

But hey, I suppose that's in part what gave me a certain edge when it comes to swallowing Collectivist horseshit and going with the herd. What doesn't kill you makes you straggler.

... Is a total war, and we are losing it on all fronts, despite a few limited victories in a few skirmishes here and there. I am talking about the culture war—perhaps the most crucial of all, as its outcome has a direct influence in shaping Western societies, and as a result the rest of the world.

And by "all fronts", I do mean "all fronts". Example? Example:

Goofs: Errors made by characters (possibly deliberate errors by the filmmakers): The Government minister in charge of closing down the pirate radio stations is depicted as a right-wing reactionary, with a grand home with servants. In fact the responsible minister was Tony Benn, then the Labour government Postmaster General at the time, who is known as one of the most left-wing and socialist senior politicians ever.

Excuse me but... Goof? That is no goof but part of a deliberate, resolute and permanent effort at rewriting history and flooding pop (and therefore mass) culture with radical Left-wing propaganda, by those peculiar "wreched of the Earth" and "oppressed masses" who appear, somehow, to flock in the entertainment and 'information' industry at large (movies, music, video games & IT, media, etc) rather than having it easy in jobs like coal mining. Or steelworks. You know, stuff for rednecks who lack the political sophistication and motivation of great Modern American Thinkers like Richard Gere, and would vote for Sarah Palin the minute ACORN stops looking and filling the ballot box with Mickey Mouse and Saddam Hussein votes.

The sooner we understand the constant, relentless nature of this vast and distributed fight for Collectivism, the sooner we can start devising ways to counter this constant shelling of distortions, lies and crass propaganda in the media, movies, and entertainment industry at large.

While spending our hard-earned right-wing reactionary monies on something else than "The Boat That Rocked" is admittedly a small step, it is how every good start begins— and it takes every one of us, and the choices we make as individuals every day, even in such mundane matters as personal entertainment, if we are to see any hope for the final liberation of Man from those reactionary tribal apes.

You can always count on Europe. As President Hanky Panky's approval rates are falling—and rightly so—his European admirers are growing by the day, with more joining the fan-club every time he manages to bring America further down:

President Obama makes US popular in Europe again, Pew poll says

Europeans have grown fonder of the US since Barack Obama became President, but Israeli affections have cooled and the Muslim world has barely noticed the new man in the White House.

These are the findings of a global opinion survey published by the Pew Research Centre yesterday. The poll found the biggest change in mood in Western Europe.

Well yeah, of course. Falling economy, rising unemployment, deceitful Left-wing politicians running the show—and record deficits—while seizing private businesses, intimidating their shareholders into silence and submission, and devising ever more audacious taxpayer money-grabbing schemes compared to which Bernie's Ponzi looks like amateur night: now, thank to Obama, my Eurofellow-citizens can truly identify with America.

Quite predictably, the French are the biggest Marxist-America groupies:

The French love America, with 75 per cent pronouncing themselves favourably disposed towards the US. Britain rings in second with nearly 70 per cent, up 16 points since last year.

I'm getting tired of writing I told you so, and you're probably tired of reading it, but still, when it comes to Obama and the French: I told you why he was the perfect candidate, when he was so unfortunately elected.

And no, it has nothing to do with a sudden, renewed Gallic love for the U.S. of A.—Make no mistake, the French are as anti-American as ever. Bush gave them a fierce, proud and powerful America, and they hate him for that. Obama is the agent of a declining one and even, perhaps, the artisan of her demise¹.

And they love him for that.

Call me Mr Not-Very-Nice but I can't help drawing connections between these two bits of news coming down the wire this morning. First the Times (of London), that has taken this preposterous habit of calling the terrorists "militants":

Osama bin Laden's son 'killed in US drone strike'

Osama bin Laden’s son Sa’ad was is (sic) thought to have been killed by a US strike in Pakistan, it emerged today.

Sa’ad bin Laden, a prominent figure in the murky relationship between Iran and al Qaeda, was believed to have gone to Pakistan after spending a number of years under house arrest in Iran, according to US intelligence officials.

It is understood that a missile fired from a drone aircraft killed him earlier this year this year, according to a report on US National Public Radio.

Ka-boom. Who's your Daddy now?

Next, Fox News. Emphasis mine for, you know, drawing connections:

Stone Age Murder:¹ Spear Wound Shows Human Killed Neanderthal

Newly analyzed remains suggest that a modern human killed a Neanderthal man in what is now Iraq between 50,000 and 75,000 years ago.

The finding is scant but tantalizing evidence for a theory that modern humans helped to kill off the Neanderthals.

The probable weapon of choice: A thrown spear.

Has it been so long since the 101st pulverized Saddam Hussein's rabid offspring? Man, time flies.

Still, as I was saying in introduction, I see connections and progress here. An alternate title for this entry could have been, perhaps:

The Modern Man

From Thrown Spears To Unmanned Aerial Vehicles: Whacking Neanderthals Since the Stone Age (and loving it).


(For other Neanderthal News, see this: Hundreds flee as military drill sparks bushfire in Marseille [France — Ed.])

I am pretty sure I'm not the only one enjoying the irony here:

"Swine flu may force Muslims to abandon Haj pilgrimage to Mecca"

No Holy Barbecue of Hajj this year.

Oh well. Allah can't always be akbar, can he?

And because regulars of this blog like it, and newcomers might miss the "Holy Barbecue of Hajj" reference, here's a repost:


(Click this picture for the large size wallpaper)

America, America, hast thou forgotten thine finest thinkers?

"Give no bounties, make equal laws, secure life and property, and you need not give alms. Open the doors of opportunity to talent and virtue and they do themselves justice, and property will not be in bad hands. In a free and just commonwealth, property rushes from the idle and imbecile to the industrious, brave and persevering." — Ralph Waldo Emerson, quoted in Paul Johnson's Intellectuals (p. 142).

Meanwhile, the White House Obamination is pulling all the strings to drag the USA down to the level of France, and further downward, if he gets a chance.

Thanks for wrecking the place before I have any chance to get there Barry.

Make no mistake though, and take it from this Frenchman: the real cost of socialized health-care is a spiraling free fall to misery — which, incidentally, includes lower health-care standards — for it is a decisive point of no return down the road to Socialist serfdom. Once they get this far-reaching wealth-killing device in place, the rest of society falls with few hope to recover, if any: businesses and jobs, freedom and ethics, everything goes down the drain.

Et merde! Have you learned anything from the failure that is Europe?

A Beast takes potshots at the Beauty:

Sen. John Kerry Wishes Sarah Palin Had Gone Missing

Sen. John Kerry added to his long list of lame joke attempts yesterday when he wished South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford's disappearance on Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.

Speaking to some business and civic leaders he had invited to Washington, Kerry quipped: "Too bad if a governor had to go missing it couldn’t have been the governor of Alaska. You know, Sarah Palin."

Well no surprise here: if Vicious-President Al Gore invented the Internet, we know by now that Senescent John Kerry redefined lameness. I mean, even putting partisanship aside, that joke is not funny.

Kerry, if memory serves, is the genuine/fake antiwar-activist/hero® who, in a major election, got his ass whipped clean by the allegedly ultra-stupid "W"— ultra-stupid that is, according to the very Kerry and his boyz on the Left. When you think of it even superficially, that should be enough to make any Kerry want to crawl under a rock and never, ever goes on public record again. I mean, if millions of voters will still pick the village idiot over you, you'd better off leaving any pretense to public office and, I don't know, go get yourself a Nobel Prize on account of alerting The World that snow and ice are melting down in Summer.

Now, and still thinking superficially, I can see two reasons why Kerry would wish Sarah Palin had gone missing:

First, he knows there's an awful lot of people who appreciate her and her politics—possibly as many as those who loathe him and his party of crooks and liars. They're usually the same folks, actually, and thank to the Obaminable Administration's relentless efforts to turn America into a nation of subjects and beggars, their numbers are growing by the day.

Oh and, they can vote.

The second reason is already obvious to every man in the audience, including me and you—if you happen to be a dude. So obvious that it's a bit embarrassing to mention.

However, since it is embarrassing for him, and not for you and me, here it goes: unlike Kerry, Sarah Palin is a real woman.

And a very attractive one with that. Not some insufferably precious, half-assed ageing wussie with a ridiculously outdated hairdo. She'll beat him any day, hands down, on the brains and the looks.¹

Socialized health care is just one step on the Road to Serfdom—though a dramatic one. And a deep dive down the Bureaucratic Twilight Zone of the Absurd. Take France for instance:

The much vaunted¹ French “free”², mandatory, state-run health care insurance may reimburse any patient’s second hearing aid if, and only if he is blind.

Get that? Socialistzed health care means that you will be allowed to hear only if you can’t see³. I mean, hey, you can’t have it all—there are other people waiting, you know. Selfish bastard.

And of course, the poor deaf and blind soul may get that if he first obtained the bureaucrats’ authorization to get said second hearing aid. We can’t have any sort of self-medication going on, can we?

Begin NedaNet, the Mullah Bypass:

[...] a network of hackers formed to support the democratic revolution in Iran. Our mission is to help the Iranian people by setting up networks of proxy severs, anonymizers, and any other appropriate technologies that can enable them to communicate and organize — a network beyond the censorship or control of the Iranian regime.

NedaNet doesn't have leaders or a manifesto or even much in the way of organization. We're not affiliated with any nation or religion. We're just computer hackers and computer users from all over the planet doing what we can to help the Iranian people in their struggle for freedom.

[...]

Think of me as a cut-out. I have very carefully not asked who our contacts in Iran are. I don't even know who most of the rest of the NedaNet people are, and don't intend to try to find out; they're basically just handles on an IRC channel from whom I get URLs and files. And for any jihadi interested in asking me questions face to face, I've got some bullets slathered in pork fat to make you feel extra special welcome.

Realize that, should you wish to join the effort, there are real risks involved. However 1. those Iranians marching against the mad Mullahs need all the help and support they can get, as the outcome of their struggle and its implications worldwide go beyond a simple quarrel over fraudulent national elections, and 2. I believe Obama far from "being shy" is using this as an opportunity to weaken America even more — by being the anti-Reagan, on purpose. Call that his Joker Syndrome if you will, as summarized by Michael Caine in Nolan's The Dark Knight:

"Some men aren’t looking for anything logical, like money. They can’t be bought, bullied, reasoned, or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn."

While having some ice cream, perhaps.

So if nothing else, initiatives such as NedaNet show that in the information age individuals all around the world can bypass both Iranian State terrorists and the most defective US President ever.

And that's definitely worth it.

Is there someone, somewhere out there, who can come up with a valid explanation as to how a putrid sack of filth quoted as writing "WESTERN SOCIALISM, represents the future of the West" could possibly be called by some "a creature of the Right"?

Apart from the fact that, amazingly enough, there still are some people unaware that Nazism ("classical" or neo) is a Leftist ideology by all accounts and measures, I'm at loss for an explanation.

And then, ignorance is no excuse anyway.