Bush a Uniter, Not a Divider

[William Joyce]

Hate for U.S. unites rival Muslims

Shia, Sunni Iraqis, who until recently fought each other, donate food, blood in joint resistance

By ORLY HALPERN
Special to The Globe and Mail

Friday, Apr. 9, 2004

BAGHDAD -- Until recently, the people of Sadr City and Aadhamiyah dared not enter each other's neighbourhoods, even though their two districts are on the same side of Baghdad. But today, they are sharing their food, their feelings and their very blood.

Sadr City, a sprawling slum in the north of the capital, is peopled by poor Shiites who were oppressed by Saddam Hussein's Sunni-dominated Baathist regime, which the neighbourhood was only too happy to be rid of when U.S. forces overthrew the president last year.

Nearby is Aadhamiyah, a Sunni and Baathist stronghold that is home to many of Mr. Hussein's diehard supporters and has been the target of many U.S. raids. Its people used to consider themselves superior, calling their Shia neighbours "animals" and "beasts."

Until recently, these two groups felt little but disdain and fear for each other, but they suddenly have a common link: the U.S.-led occupation.

...

"All the people of Iraq -- Sunni, Shiite, Kurd -- are united now," said Daoud al-Akoubi, 44, a Shiite from Sadr City, as he sat outside his home staring glumly across the street yesterday. A few hundred metres away, hundreds of people had gathered, observing the damage to firebrand cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's local office, which U.S. forces attacked overnight.

...

"Every Iraqi family, Shiite and Sunni, is bringing half of what it possesses in its house," said Armiyeh Shaker, a veterinarian who volunteered to manage the collection and distribution. "People are coming from Sadr City and Kadhimiyah," he said, listing two Shia areas. "There is no difference. We are all Muslim."

Despite the occupation, "we want to thank [President George W.] Bush and America very much for one thing: This pressure has caused the people of Iraq to come together," he said.

 

[preemptingyou03]

So they are saying our fight in Fallujah and against Sadr is causing pro-American feelings?

 

[William Joyce]

Yes. The Iraqis love us. That's easy to see. Look at those rose petals piling up.

 

[insein]

I beleive your attempt was to be sarcastic but the way the article reads is that they are uniting as a country to attack the insurgents not the coalition. So what was your real motive and what is the article really portraying.

 

[William Joyce]

My real motive is to show that Jews are the ones behind the war, because they think war on Iraq will make the middle east safe for Israel. Consequences be damned. Idiots like Bush then create messes like the one we are in now. The Jewish neocons assured us all would go great in Iraq. One year later, it's rising up against us. What are we doing there, anyway? Why did we attack that country? It had NOTHING to do with 9/11. Zippo. But everything to do with being a strong power in the middle east. Bad for Israel.

 

[Annie]

William, I am praying for you. I wish I thought that if I could refute you successfully you would see the truth, but I know it would be in vain. Thus, I'll pray for your soul, like those in the KKK before you and the Confederacy before them, you need all the prayers you can get.

 

[Psychoblues]

So you are saying the KKK and the Confederacy deserve your prayers, Kathianne? I feel sorry for them, I understand their unAmerican ideology and am proud for their American participation, but I don't pray for them. It's interesting that you do. War sucks.

 

[William Joyce]

God Loves All His Racist Children

by Douglas Wright (aka D. W.)

It's interesting to note how drastically God has changed his opinion on race. Years ago, God believed that races were different. He even gave the nod to slavery, something I wouldn't have signed off on myself, but God is God, and who knows His mysterious ways?

Now, in 2004, he believes races are all the same. Not only that, but God wants all the races mixed together. I am told by those who correspond with Him that we racists are bound for the hot place. Yow! Watch out for that lick of flame!
What's curious is how both liberals and conservatives, confronted with the statistics on racial difference in intelligence or other irrefutables, duck for cover under that snuggliest of blankies: God Almighty and his boy, Jesus F. Christ. But listen closely enough as they beat their breasts, and you'll hear someone who isn't just channeling God, but who imagines himself to be God. Prepare yourself for this little bit of Marxist Bible bile, something I pulled off the Internet a few years back:

"Racism is a sin, not only because it separates us from God and from our fellow human beings; or because it is a blatant denial of the Christian Faith and thus incompatible with the Gospel; or because it is a flagrant violation of human rights. Its sinfulness is not only because it is contrary to Galatians 3.28, in that racism assumes human beings are created unequal before God, or even yet because racism is a denial of basic justice and human dignity. Racism is primarily a sin because it destroys the very source of humanity - the Image of God in humankind. Thus, it repudiates the Creator God; it repudiates the Creation and its goodness. We are truly human only when the divine flame of God's Image shines within us to dissipate evil, as individuals, churches and societies."

Holy damnation, Batman! If you weren't clicking off VNN and on your knees begging for repentance before the end of that passage, I don't know what will save your soul. Can't you just imagine that whatever self-satisfied sniveler wrote this is convinced he's going to heaven just for having birthed it? But, in the spirit of measured debate, I will entertain it.

First, the assertion that racism is a "sin" is circular and conclusory. We could just as easily proclaim race traitors sinners, or race-mixing a sin. But we typically don't. Maybe we should do this more.

Second, incompatible with the Gospel, I don't know about. I'm not a biblical scholar, nor do I have an interest in becoming one. But let's take this, and the later assertion that human beings are equal before God. How does this foreclose the racial differences that make social cohabitation an utter nightmare? Some like to throw out the "We're all God's children" line whenever the race issue comes up. My response: God's children need to play in separate rooms. They're obviously not get along, and I don't expect them to any time soon.

The idea that "we're all equal before God" may well be true, but I think there's some theological bet-hedging going on here that bears examining. It's comforting to think that all of humanity is somehow "the same," because that increases our own chances for salvation. Paradoxically, it's a base self-interest that motivates the proclamations of human equality. But are we all the same, even theologically? I don't know. If we're all the same before God, he sure has a funny way of showing it. Why'd he screw some and not others? For kicks?

Third. Racism a "flagrant violation of human rights"? A "denial of basic justice and human dignity"? This is left-wing crap, barely concealed. The writer of the passage could have kept some credibility if he'd left out the political stuff, but there it is. I guess these assholes have themselves so convinced that Jesus was a communist, they don't care what slips out. While the spirit had him, why didn't he throw in universal medical coverage and gay marriage?

The rest is overheated tent revivalism mixed with something you'd hear from Barney the Purple Dinosaur. Nothing there to analyze, really. If divine flames are shining through us all, who am I to disagree?

That's what's most annoying about debating race with religious liberals. They don't feel compelled to really think too hard about their position, because they can just swing up to the top bunk and smirk down on the rest of the room, pulsing with self-righteous fervor. It must be liberating not to have to look at facts, and Christians fairly glow with the freedom.

But the only thing worse than a religious liberal is, perhaps, a religious conservative. Here's one, from a political chat room:

"You see...I am a Christian Conservative and my political philosophy tells me that all men are created equal. It is the basis and foundation of our democracy. No one, in their heart of hearts, can truly believe that another human being is worth less than any other, unless they have yielded themselves to the influence of evil and have abandoned all reason."

How far have we fallen, that "all men are created equal" is, to a "conservative," the "basis and foundation of our democracy"? God, if you're up there, can you make this guy step on a rake and get whacked in the face by the handle? Never mind that under no reading of Jefferson, Madison, or any other founding father was "equality" the foundation of our "democracy" (in fact, they were hostile to "democracy," which is why we live in a republic). It's too exhausting to get into with the walking possessed. Forgive them, Lord. They know not what they do.
If you need some ammo, though, check out Jared Taylor's reply to David Horowitz on race and the founders. A taste:

"In 1787, in the second of The Federalist Papers, John Jay gave thanks that 'Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people, a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs . . . .' This is not a celebration of "diversity" or of the melting pot."

Indeed. Go tell it on the mountain, brother.

There is a school of thought, not to be dismissed, that we white nationalists are going nowhere if we attack Christianity. I agree with this, strategically. If I had a billion dollars and could go public tomorrow, I wouldn't lay a glove on Jesus. In fact, I'd say, sincerely, that Christianity is one of the white race's most cherished thingamajiggers, and we should be able to practice it without Jews shitting on it at every opportunity.

But, this being VNN and all, and if you can't speak freely and honestly here, I don't know where you can, I must say: There is really only one appropriate way to respond to a determinedly color-blind Christian, and that is to shoot him. I advocate an especially large caliber bullet for the ones who sign off a race debate with, "I'll be praying for you."

The sanctimoniousness is infuriating. I shot an angry e-mail to Richard Robinson, the Lutheran minister bent on importing Somalis to South Carolina, firmly requesting that he stop murdering whites. He responded that for his actions, the kingdom of heaven was his. And, if I recall, he offered to pray for my soul.
Eloquence escapes me here. Would a throaty "fuck you" suffice? With access to procedural power, I'd try the bastard for genocide. Of course, I suppose that if had that much power, I might just give him what he really wants: a Gibson-style crucifixion. Richard gets the martyr death he's always wanted, whites live in peace, and everyone's happy. Works for me.

I'll freely admit that part of my frustration with the deeply religious is in the realization that they're sleepwalking in the wrong direction. I wouldn't care if they were racists, but most, sadly, aren't. It's just so goddamn obvious that the issues they've chosen, abortion and homosexuality, could so easily include race were it not for Jewish mind-conditioning.

I'm not so naive as to think that any movement can be based purely on ration, reason or intelligence. Yet like a geeky college idealist, I still nurture the hope that such a movement could someday arise.

Of course, it won't happen. If we win this thing, it'll be by making very simple appeals to base motives, or just plain demagoguing 'til we drop. So, maybe we need to think of ways to put the old-time religion in racism.

If anyone's got ideas, chip in.

D.W.

Back to VNN Main Page

 

[Annie]

Psycoh what can I say. I may be on the way to Phd, yet I'm a teacher at heart. Can't help feeling pity for the handicapped, which includes those from the confederacy, KKK, Nazis, and those that think that race, religion, or gender confer either status or condemnation upon a person.

 

[William Joyce]

What doctorate do you seek? An advanced degree in white-hate studies? I understand those are fairly easy to obtain. 15 cents down at the ADL branch office. FULL federal government reimbursement for any moneys expended.

 

[preemptingyou03]

The war in Iraq was a justified, logical, and strategtic war. The point that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 is lame. Either did Mullah Omar. Should we have not attacked the Taliban? The truth of the matter is this: only a few people had anything to do with 9/11.

After the attacks in Madrid, I was sort of shocked how everyone was trying to figure out if it was al-Qaeda or a local terrorist group... as if it should matter? A terrorist is a terrorist is a terrorist. A terrorist group is a terrorist group is a terrorist group. Liberals claim Iraq wasn't part of the War on Terror, yet when you view Saddam's support for terrorism, one must wonder if Iraq wasn't part of the War on Terror, what would be part of the War on Terror? Iran? Syria? But not Iraq? Come on.

We should have taken Saddam out in 1991. We should have taken him out in 1998 when he was violating WAR TREATIES EVERY YEAR, and we should have taken him out after the USS Cole, because us being in Saudi Arabia/Yemen, (defending our allies from Saddam) gave al-Qaeda a pass to attack us.

Saddam Hussein slaughtered HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE. Maybe millions. Please... just think about that for a second. Please. Can you? Can you comprehend torture? People look at words such as "weapons of mass destruction" and "funding terrorism" and "tortured thousands" and they don't understand the concept of it until it hits home.

Had we not acted in Iraq, within a few years, we would have had a ruthless nuclear powered dictator, sitting on top of two-thirds of the oil's wealth supply. And had Saddam died of age, and Uday took over a nuclear Iraq... forget it.

Nobody has yet proven how having WMDs makes mass murdering tyrants rationale choice makers.