Category Archives: religion

>The Clash of Civilizations — Part Two

>This is Part Two in the series about Samuel P. Huntington’s Clash of Civilizations theory.
Part One can be found here.

It was in an article in Foreign Affairs (1993) and a subsequent book (The Clash of Civilizations and The Remaking of World Order (1996)) that Samuel P. Huntington, Harvard Professor, caused a massive stir in the world of global politics.
Huntington predicted that global conflicts after the Cold War would no longer focus on ideologies, like communism and capitalism, but rather find energy in cultural differences like old battles rooted in old cultures (look at Kenya right now). He claimed that the West, and first and foremost America — at the time the world’s only super power, was in decline and that Islamic and East Asian civilizations were on the march (look at the Middle East, India and China today).

Is Huntington saying “I told you so!” to the world? We’ll see about that later. In this post I’d like to focus on the criticism that was and is directed towards his thesis, and in Part Three or Four I’ll look at what Huntington himself has to say looking back at his own work.

First, Huntington draws the global map with a very sharp pencil. It’s the West against the rest, where the West is all alone against seven civilizations: Islamic, African, Latin American, Hindu, Buddhist, Orthodox, Sinic and Japanese. By doing this he is defining cultures by power.

But the most important – and the most dangerous — “failure” in Huntington’s thesis is, as I see it, that he fails to see the difference between Islam and radical Islam, and thus fears the conflict between Islam and the West (Christianity) for the very wrong reasons, since radical Islam does not represent the Islamic civilization. Islam is not a coherent civilization. You don’t look at Christianity like that, do you? Of course not, because we know there’s about a million ways to praise the Lord within the Christian community. We should know that about Islam as well, but “the war on terror” and its false media won’t let us.

Radical Islamists are “nowhere men”, meaning they are children of the frontier between Islam and the West, belonging to neither. USA is fighting a war against disparate groups that are independent of nation states! They are not fighting Islam, even if that is what they (and the Western world?) seem to think. Also, they cannot cope with Islam as a state of power. Just look at their current relationship with Iran…

And hey, radical islamists are already here, either knocking at the gates of Europe or living amongst us all at this very moment. Things have changed drastically since Huntington began working on his thesis some fifteen years ago. Back then, Islam was beginning to rise. Now Islam has become a big part of the West, which many see as a negative thing pretty much thanks to “the war on terror” and false media not giving the whole story et cetera and so forth… Many seem to think that every muslim is a radical militant muslim. How sad and tragic of us to think so.

What Huntington should be afraid of though, and where I think he is right, is the fact that the West is rapidly losing its coherence and culture, its will and pride, feasting on materialistic ideologies and unsparing wars (dealing with the Arab world by using military force is one example), while Islam is growing stronger everyday – in spirit and soul.
I believe and hope that spirit and soul will prevail over materialistic interests.

Criticism will continue in Part Three.

>Holocaust religion


“Philosopher Yeshayahu Leibowitz, the German born Hebrew University professor, was probably the first to suggest that the Holocaust has become the new Jewish religion. ‘The Holocaust’ is far more than historical narrative, it indeed contains most of the essential religious elements: it has its priests (Simon Wiesenthal, Elie Wiesel, Deborah Lipstadt, etc.) and prophets (Shimon Peres, Benjamin Netanyahu and those who warn about the Iranian Judeocide to come). It has its commandments and dogmas (‘never again’, ‘six million’, etc.). It has its rituals (memorial days, Pilgrimage to Auschwitz etc.). It establishes an esoteric symbolic order (kapo, gas chambers, chimneys, dust, Musselmann, etc.). It has its shrines and temples (Yad Vashem, the Holocaust Museum and now the UN).
If this is not enough, the Holocaust religion is also maintained by a massive economic network and global financial infrastructures (Holocaust industry a la Norman Finkelstein). Most interestingly, the Holocaust religion is coherent enough to define the new ‘antichrists’ (the Deniers) and it is powerful enough to persecute them (Holocaust denial laws).“
Gilad Atzmon: From Esther to AIPAC

According to the above mentioned Holocaust denial laws, Wolfgang Fröhlich has been sentenced to six and a half years (!) in prison for thought crimes (!!). Unfortunately you won’t read about that in Amnesty Press (aren’t they supposed to write about political prisoners?) or anywhere else in the major media, so here is an article in German.

Another article on the subject of Holocaust religion:
Holocaust Religion and Holocaust Industry In The Service of Israel

from State of Nature, a quarterly online journal of the Left that “stands opposed to the capitalist economic order and the imperialist ambitions of the world’s great powers” and “remains committed to the development of protest movements and the construction of a radical alternative to the status quo”, and “aims to publish essays, interviews, commentaries, reviews, poetry and photography that inspire progressive thought, unite dissenting voices, and dispel the myths of the world order.”

And in case you missed the link above, check out Gilad Atzmon’s page! Not only is he a great writer and political philosopher, he’s an awesome jazz musician as well and you can listen to his music on the homepage.

>Islam and conflicting ideas

In my humble opinion, Americans seem to focus on an all out war with Islam when they rather should look into themselves. No wonder their aggressive monocultural thinking is looked upon with frowning eyes by those examining Western ideas. Do we want an American dominated McWorld based on capitalism and materialism, or should we aim for a tiny bit more spiritual touch in our lives?
I consider George W. Bush and his crew to be more of a danger to the world than Osama bin Laden. How about that?
As for Islam, the discussion is so very narrow-minded. There are thousands of different “Islams”, just as there are thousands of different paths in Christianity.

Compare Al-Qaeda and Christian liberation theology.
Do not confuse conflict with conquest.
War cannot create democracy.
Media tells us Islam equals war.
That’s just plain stupid.

Essential reading for greater understanding:
Mattias Gardell – bin Laden i våra hjärtan (Swedish)
Christoph Reuter – Med livet som vapen (Swedish) (in English here)
David Cook – Martyrdom in Islam
John K. Cooley – Unholy wars. Afghanistan, America and International Terrorism
David E. Stannard – American Holocaust
Edward W. Said – Orientalism (Swedish) (in English here)
Ibn Warraq — Defending The West: A Critique of Edward Said’s Orientalism (for fairness…)

In the Clash of Civilizations post I wrote:
“Some say there’s a clash going on within Islam, a clash for the soul of Islam…”
Read more about that in Joyce Davis’ article Just who’s fighting the real war against Islam?, where she states that “one of the most important conflicts in the world today is fought without garnering much notice in the West. It is the battle among Muslims over the future of their faith.”

Also, check the Radical Muslim blog from time to time.

I do not support Islam.
I do not support Samuel P. Huntington.
I do not support national socialism or revisionism or anti-Americanism or whatever the hell some of you claim in your emails and comments.
I support whatever suits me in whatever context I might find it in, be it national socialist ideas or muslim thoughts or American hamburgers or Jolly Jumper’s ass or yo mama.
Supporting something 100% for the sake of being right is religion, and I’m not a religious person.
In the words of Thayendanegea (1743–1807), aka Joseph Brant, Mohawk Indian chief, when facing King George III:
“I bow to no man for I am considered a prince among my own people. But I will gladly shake your hand”.

>The Clash of Civilizations — Part One


As tribes in Kenya settle old scores in what has become an ethnic cleansing that probably will tear the land apart, I think of Samuel P. Huntington’s The Clash of Civilizations and The Remaking of World Order (1996). Ethnic clashes in a McWorld gone mad.
The fault lines between civilizations will be battle lines of the future.

I’ve been working on an article presenting Huntington’s thesis for a while, but it’s not quite finished. However, now is a convenient time to draw attention to what I’m writing about, so here’s Part One of what hopefully will be some sort of series if I can put it all together.

The conflicts of the post-Cold War era will arise not from ideological or economic differences but from cultural divisions.
Huntington said that in 1993. Many look upon his thesis as if it foresaw the ongoing confrontation with radical Islam (as seen from a Westerners point of view). Others claim Huntington is very vague in his ideas and over-simplifies things. Some say there’s a clash going on within Islam, a clash for the soul of Islam, whilst there’s another clash going on in the West. What is clear though is that there’s a war between secularism and the sacred, between universal rights and traditions. And so much more, of course.

Huntington predicted that fundamental differencies between the world’s seven or eight major civilizations will pave the way for global turmoil in the years to come, and that’s where we are right now. It’s not a matter of national interests, but of divergent values, ideas, cultures, identities, religions. Civilizations.

On April 18, 1994 two thousand people rallied in Sarajevo waving the flags of Saudi Arabia and Turkey. By flying those banners, instead of U.N., NATO or American flags, these Sarajevans identified themselves with their fellow Muslims and told the world who were their real and not-so-real friends.

We know who we are only when we know who we are not and often only when we know whom we are against.

He wrote an article about this and it was published in Foreign Affairs 1993. Three years later he expanded his thoughts in a book.

Huntington clearly states that Islamic and Western civilizations are likely to clash, because Islam is the only civilization that aspires universalist values and poses a significant challenge to the West. The West cannot claim any universalist values, since The West is unique (in the mind of Huntington), not universal. He also speaks about how Islam and Confusianism will rise against the West. He means that the West should be very cautious about this development and thus control immigration and assimilate immigrants to avoid a “cleft country”. Huntington means that the West should “increase the civilizational coherence” and not “intervene in the affairs of other civilizations”. In case of a World War III, the United States should get Japan, Latin American states and Russia on their side against potential Islamic-Confucian cooperation.
That is what he said.
I say that universalism might as well equal imperialism in non-Western eyes.

After the Cold War era the world was forced to look upon global politics in a broader sense. Back then there were two superpowers, the Soviet Union and the USA. Now there’s only one, and with September 11th it was clear that the world’s only superpower was pretty far from untouchable. It was very fragile and people really seemed to wake up from their ancient slumber this time – and they stirred up a whole lot of fear.

And here’s where Part One of this series ends.

>Nietzsche — Morality as anti-nature

All passions have a phase when they are merely disastrous, when they drag down their victim with the weight of stupidity — and a later, very much later phase when they wed the spirit, when they “spiritualize” themselves. Formerly, in view of the element of stupidity in passion, war was declared on passion itself, its destruction was plotted; all the old moral monsters are agreed on this: il faut tuer les passions (“One must kill the passions”). The most famous formula for this is to be found in the New Testament, in that Sermon on the Mount, where, incidentally, things are by no means looked at from a height. There it is said, for example, with particular reference to sexuality: “If thy eye offend thee, pluck it out.” Fortunately, no Christian acts in accordance with this precept. Destroying the passions and cravings, merely as a preventive measure against their stupidity and the unpleasant consequences of this stupidity — today this itself strikes us as merely another acute form of stupidity. We no longer admire dentists who “pluck out” teeth so that they will not hurt any more.
To be fair, it should be admitted, however, that on the ground out of which Christianity grew, the concept of the “spiritualization of passion” could never have been formed. After all, the first church, as is well known, fought against the “intelligent” in favor of the “poor in spirit.” How could one expect from it an intelligent war against passion? The church fights passion with excision in every sense: its practice, its “cure,” is castratism. It never asks: “How can one spiritualize, beautify, deify a craving?” It has at all times laid the stress of discipline on extirpation (of sensuality, of pride, of the lust to rule, of avarice, of vengefulness). But an attack on the roots of passion means an attack on the roots of life: the practice of the church is hostile to life.

From Twilight of The Idols (1889).

>Ahmadinejad and honesty

What will Ahmadinejad’s outspokenness ultimately lead to? I must say I’m very fascinated with what he has to say. I whole heartily agree with his deep critique against Zionism, and his personal letter to Bush was just… wow! What at least seems to be honesty is something rarely shown in politics today. Perhaps I’m just misguided… Time shall tell.

Until then, feel free to read this interview and his letter to Bush, and by all means, please watch this interview (please bear with the embarrassing translator idiot and his fake ass broken English, that’s of course just them false Americans deliberately trying to make Ahmadinejad look stupid):

Ahmadinejad on the political culture surrounding the Holocaust:
(please notice that they don’t make fun of his language in this clip)

…and again:
(and notice, he clearly emphasizes: “I am not saying that it didn’t happen at all”)

The Western governments that carry the standard of secularism, anti-religion, and lack of respect for the rights of the peoples, and for the followers of all Abrahamic religions consider themselves the defense of the Zionist regime to be the most sacred value in the world. Zionism and the existence of the Zionist regime are so important to them that they do not even allow the raising of questions about the preparations and pretexts that led to the establishment of this regime.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Channel 1, Iranian TV, on October 6, 2007

>Nietzsche — Revaluation of all values!

>Originally posted May 12, 2007.

With this I am at the end and I pronounce my judgment. I condemn Christianity. I raise against the Christian church the most terrible of all accusations that any accuser ever uttered. It is to me the highest of all conceivable corruptions. It has had the will to the last corruption that is even possible. The Christian church has left nothing untouched by its corruption; it has turned every value into an un-value, every truth into a lie, every integrity into a vileness of the soul. Let anyone dare to speak to me of its “humanitarian” blessings! To abolish any distress ran counter to its deepest advantages: it lived on distress, it created distress to eternalize itself.

The worm of sin, for example: with this distress the church first enriched mankind. The “equality of souls before God,” this falsehood, this pretext for the rancor of all the base-minded, this explosive of a concept which eventually became revolution, modern idea, and the principle of decline of the whole order of society—is Christian dynamite. “Humanitarian” blessings of Christianity! To breed out of humanitas a self-contradiction, an art of self-violation, a will to lie at any price, a repugnance, a contempt for all good and honest instincts. Those are some of the blessings of Christianity!

Parasitism as the only practice of the church, with its ideal of anemia, of “holiness,” draining all blood, all love, all hope for life; the beyond as the will to negate every reality; the cross as the mark of recognition for the most subterranean conspiracy that ever existed — against health, beauty, whatever has turned out well, courage, spirit, graciousness of the soul, against life itself.

This eternal indictment of Christianity I will write on all walls, wherever there are walls —
I have letters to make even the blind see.

I call Christianity the one great curse, the one great innermost corruption, the one great instinct of revenge, for which no means is poisonous, stealthy, subterranean, small enough — I call it the one immortal blemish of mankind.

And time is reckoned from the dies nefastus with which this calamity began—after the first day of Christianity!
Why not rather after its last day? After today?

Revaluation of all values!

From The Antichrist, Section 62, first published in 1895.

>False media — we don’t need it, do we?

>Originally posted December 17, 2006.

False media — we don’t need it, do we?
Public Enemy sure as hell got a point there.
And Noam Chomsky put it this way:
If we don’t believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don’t believe in it at all.

I got mad and furious the other day when I read the newspaper.

Teacher gave speech at anti-Semitic conference”.

I guess you’ve heard of it.
The teacher, Jan Bernhoff, now branded as a “Holocaust teacher” (he’s not even teaching history, he’s teaching computers…), is now temporarily suspended from work, and the city of Stockholm, his employer, wants him gone for good. However, that will be hard since he gave this speech on his spare time.
(UPDATE nov 2007: He lost his job.)

Let’s just say he was teaching history then. Is it unappropriate of him doing that considering his personal viewpoints? Let’s say he doesn’t agree 100% with the established history of the holocaust that occurred in Rwanda instead… Or let’s say he’s a christian teaching religion. Is he unsuitable as a teacher?
You digest that for a second.

People get upset by him visiting this conference, and that’s merely because they don’t know what they’re talking about, and they certainly don’t know what he is talking about.
So, let’s see what’s wrong with all this crap.

The conference in Teheran is NOT anti-semitic. That’s just the easy way out, told by uneducated people scared to face the horrible facts.
Sure, there are most certainly those visiting this conference who share a common hatred against the Jews, who have racist opinions and who would prefer that Israel was nuked to oblivion and so forth, but again – the conference is not anti-semitic.

The newspapers are very eager to mention that David Duke, ex-KKK leader, took part in this conference, and they also manage to mention Robert Faurisson because of his skepticism regarding the established version of the Holocaust (not mentioning his constant fight for your right to express yourself in whatever context possible without being put to jail for it…), but no one mentions the Rabbis, the orthodox Jews, in the audience. One can see that for himself by looking at the photos, but people rarely do any thinking by themselves nowadays…

“We came here to put the Orthodox Jewish viewpoint,” said British Rabbi Ahron Cohen. “We certainly say there was a Holocaust… But in no way can it be used as a justification for perpetrating unjust acts against the Palestinians.”

When the papers write “the revisionists are denying the Holocaust, they are Holocaust deniers” it comes across like revisionists and skeptics claim it didn’t happen, when in fact they are merely questioning the facts that we’re given today — and for that they are being sent to jail. It is obviously a crime to ask questions. That is the horrible truth.

The conference makes it possible to have a serious open debate about the Holocaust. That has not been the case earlier on because skepticism regarding the Holocaust has been a crime for over 60 years — and still is in a lot of “democratic” countries.
Don’t believe me?
Are you willing to learn some hard facts?

First, there are no easy answers. You’ll have to do some reading, some research and some thinking for yourself instead of relying on speculations, rumours, hearsay and what you think you know about the Holocaust.
Ask yourself: What did I learn in school regarding the Holocaust and what have I learned since then? Not much, right?

First, you should learn the difference between anti-semitism and anti-zionism.

, check out the site

, learn the basic facts about Holocaust revisionism and always keep them in mind. Do it here.

, read about the relationship between Israel and USA, and its connection with the Holocaust. Try this page.

, get a hold of the book The Holocaust Industry by Norman Finkelstein and read it.

, look up what has happened to David Irving, Germar Rudolf and other people who’ve dared to question the official version of the oh-so-holy Holocaust. (Hint: Expressing a different opinion regarding the Holocaust than what’s written in the history books equals jail.)

, ask yourself: How many Jews died in the Holocaust? Six million, right? Then ask yourself: How many german civilians died? How many gypsies? How many homosexuals? You don’t know? You don’t have a clue? Hmm… Why is that?
You should really learn how zionist forces use lobbyism to gain monopoly using the term Holocaust. Mind you, in their eyes there’s only one Holocaust. Forget about the Turks eliminating millions of Armenians, forget about Pol Pot in Cambodia, forget about Stalin and Rwanda
Damn, I could continue with this list for weeks.

So let’s have a look at some hard facts instead.

Remember, history is revised all the time, every day, and history always has to be re-written as we go along exploring new facts, getting more information and learning new things. Pretty obvious, isn’t it? How come you can’t even ask questions about it without being sent to jail then?

The Holocaust history is drastically different if you look back some 50 years and compare with what we know today, but there’s still some obviously wrong “facts” being presented in history books and newspapers, even though they have officially been dismissed as facts a long time ago — even by established historians.


1. On May 12th, 1945, a few months after the liberation of Auschwitz, a Soviet State Commission reported that not less than four million people were murdered there. This number was displayed at the Auschwitz State Museum until 1991, when it was lowered to 1.1 million. So, from four million to one million overnight… What had been established facts for over 40 years, and thus being claimed as truth and norm, was all of a sudden totally wrong. And we’re talking millions of people here, not some small details.
Of course, this doesn’t lessen the gravity of the crime (remember the basic revisionist claims?) – even one murdered is one too many – but it makes one hell of a difference when talking politics.
Still, the six million figure is what most people refer to when being asked about the number of deaths.

When writing about the concentration camps, newspapers very often use the term extinction camps. Not too long ago one of the largest newspapers in Sweden referred to Dachau as an extinction camp where people were gassed to death.

Here’s two links to well known (non-revisionist) sites admitting that there were no gassings in the Dachau camp. It’s an established fact. And people have been sentenced to death for this, because witnesses have lied about massgassings in Dachau.

Also note that the death statistics for Dachau today are estimated to 32,000. Compare that to the sign outside the camp asking visitors to remember the 238,000 people who died in the camp… It was there for many years. It was completely wrong.

The photos…

Read the revisionist basic claims again. Revisionists do NOT claim that there weren’t any deaths in the war. People died horrible deaths. They were slain, executed, died of illness, starvation… No doubt about that. No one has ever denied that either, and if they do they’re just plain stupid. Again, get your facts straight.

Why is it forbidden by law to examine the earth where people claim there are massgraves? Why don’t they allow people to investigate all the archives that have been closed for sixty years? Wouldn’t that be a good way to get rid of all this controversy? In short, why can’t we let historians do their research like they always do?
Well, it’s certainly not happening…

If you accuse a whole nation of the most horrific crime in the history of mankind, then we must of course commence the most thorough investigation of the crime scene ever. How strange it hasn’t happened yet.

What’s the point with all this Holocaust revisionist stuff?

The swedish online magazine Kulturen wrote something interesting the other day.

“Som den israeliska journalisten Tom Segev visat har den specifika berättelsen som Israel byggt upp kring andra världskrigets judeförföljelse, där omkring 6 miljoner judar mördades, medfört att dagens israeler anser sig vara offer för utrotningslägren i betydligt större utsträckning än den generation som faktiskt utsattes för dem. Förintelsen har, enligt dessa synpunkter, således kommit att inkorporeras som en del av staten Israels berättelse om sig själv.”

In short: The Israel citizens (of Jewish origin) of today seem to claim to be even more affected by the Holocaust than the generation of people who were there and took part in the actual Holocaust.
There you have one point out of many. Reading The Holocaust Industry you’ll come up with a lot more if your mind is not all crooked and corrupt.
(Note: Förintelseindustrin is available in Swedish, published by Ordfront)


Do you think all of the above are the opinions of nutcases, maybe a part of some mindless conspiracy theory? Please, think again.

“Eisenhower’s Crusade in Europe is a book of 559 pages; the six volumes of Churchill’s Second World War total 4,448 pages; and de Gaulle’s three-volume Mémoires de guerre is 2,054 pages. In this mass of writing, which altogether totals 7,061 pages (not including the introductory parts), published from 1948 to 1959, one will find no mention either of Nazi “gas chambers,” a “genocide” of the Jews, or of “six million” Jewish victims of the war.”
Richard Lynn
Professor Emeritus,
University of Ulster


The biggest problem here lies in the fact that when questioning the Holocaust you might be accused of doing the dirty work of the nazis. On the other hand, if you support the official version of the Holocaust — not questioning the obvious myths and lies — you support zionist hatred and violence.
Or you simply don’t care at all about these things. It’s your choice.
However, I despise both nazis and zionists equally. I’m all in it for the truth.

“Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored” as Aldous Huxley once so truthfully said.


One last note:

In the early days you got punished or executed if you denied God.
Galileo Galilei — the father of science, modern astronomy and modern physics — was forced to abjure, on his knees in front of the mighty Inquisition, his heretical views that the Earth moves around the Sun.
We haven’t evolved much since then, have we?

PS. Jan Bernhoff’s speech is available here for download. You go ahead and find the alleged anti-semitism in there… Good luck.

PPS. Headline quote taken from the Public Enemy song Don’t believe the hype.