The Vast Majority of Non-Muslims Are Peaceful

By Claus Brinker

three little pigsAn incident described as “Islamophobic” and “hate motivated” has cropped up in the national news this week. The Washington Post reports that, on Monday night, a severed pig’s head was thrown at a mosque doorstep in Philadelphia. Police are investigating the incident as a possible hate crime. The specific crime is somewhat unclear, but Rue Landau, executive director of the Philadelphia Commission on Human Relations says the act may be in violation of the city’s ordinance on ethnic intimidation and institutional vandalism, considering that Muslims are notoriously adverse to pork. In any case, police will be monitoring the mosque more closely [mission accomplished?] because, as officer Pete Berndlmaier noted, the perpetrators might “up the ante.” 

This use of pork in a threatening manner comes at a perfect time for Muslims, who have been under scrutiny around the world for several recent atrocities committed in the name of Islam. As has been the case for some time, many people in non-Muslim countries feel somewhat uneasy about massive numbers of Muslims moving into their cities and towns. Many non-Muslims have heard about what life is like in Muslim countries and they don’t want their own countries to be like this. And with the recent acts of terror committed by Muslims on both the North American and European continents, the cry to reject Muslim immigration has been raised with greater furor than ever.

Luckily, for Muslims, this pig-headed vandalism has come along and can be used to berate anyone opposed to further immigration of Muslims as “hateful” and it provides much needed evidence that Islamophobia is on the rise. Unlike the terrorist attacks committed by Muslims, nobody died. But the theory seems be that somebody might die unless this nasty nationwide trend of anti-Islamic rhetoric is curbed. Since, the Washington Post and numerous other national media outlets are trying draw our attention away from threatening behavior that actually kills, to behavior that is mildly offensive, let us take the bait. Let us assume the pig head incident was not a hoax perpetrated by Muslims in order to elevate their victim status. Rather, let’s assume that there is a very real and rising Islamophobic threat.

In this time of terror and tension between groups with diametrically opposed value systems who are forced together by a globalist system that wants them to abandon their values and become better consumers of globalist products and services, it’s important for Muslims to remember that not all non-Muslims are violent. The vast majority of non-Muslims are, in fact, peaceful. Most non-Muslims just want to live their lives with a relative level of security for themselves and their family. Believe it or not, this includes white non-Muslims. Yes, even white people are, for the most part, a non-violent and peace-loving people.

And yet, it cannot be denied that some non-Muslims, including white non-Muslims, are not peaceful. Some are willing to take a severed pig’s head and throw it at a mosque in a drive-by pig’s-head-throwing. And, let’s face it. The terror may not stop there. Other acts of vandalism may follow as well. Or somebody may write on Facebook or Twitter that they want fewer Muslims in their country, which will probably be interpreted as a microaggression. These are, of course, troublesome portents to the average Muslim, but to understand why this is happening, we need to look at root causes. What actually motivates a non-Muslim to become radicalized to the point where they are willing to throw a pig’s head or commit a microagression on social media? Perhaps it’s the same kind of things that cause a Muslim to become radicalized and murder people in the name of Islam.

As we’ve been told by many liberal acquaintances, and liberal journalists, and liberal college professors, and liberal politicians, when non-Muslims oppose Islam then they are actually helping ISIS, the most well-funded Muslim terrorist organization in history, by making normal peace-loving Muslims feel alienated and unwanted in non-Muslim countries. This feeling of alienation then drives peace-loving Muslims to become radicalized and kill people. Now consider the perspective of the average non-Muslim. Unlike Muslims, who have countries that are explicitly Muslim, non-Muslim Americans and Europeans don’t have countries that are explicitly for them. These non-Muslim governments want to throw open the borders to foreigners of completely different cultures and any non-Muslim citizen in these countries who opposes mass immigration is labelled in the harshest, most ostracizing and career-ending manners possible. (“Racist!” “Fascist!” “Bigot!” “Nazi!” “Islamophobe!” “Uncompassionate!”) Talk about alienation! Sometimes, when people feel they have no peaceful way of expressing themselves or being heard, they turn to acts of terror, like throwing a pig’s head at a mosque.

So we should not be surprised if radical Islamophobia is on the rise. Non-Muslims are being deliberately silenced, informed that their opinions are not important, and that their governments will not defend them or their way of life. But Muslims should look on the bright side. In spite of the tiny fraction of the non-Islamic community that does harbor anti-Islamic sentiments and are willing to act upon them with harmless forms of vandalism and microagressions, the vast majority of non-Muslims harbor no ill-will, or at least not enough to take any meaningful action against Muslims. While a huge number of non-Muslims may in fact be unhappy by how their government is bringing huge numbers of Muslims into their country, the social costs are simply too great to bother with actually opposing what amounts to a tremendous victory and conquest for Islam over its non-Muslim enemies.

Further good news for Muslims can be found in the large numbers of young people, who, having completed their indoctrination in the public school system and academia are convinced that they have no culture, heritage, history, or lineage that is even worth defending. The one thing that many of these freshly brainwashed youths do feel is duty-bound to defend the rights of other people to come and destroy the culture, heritage, history, and lineage of our ancestors. As a result, they are opening their arms and welcoming those who may someday be our new masters (if the Muslims could have it their way…and who is stopping them, really?). Not only that, these young “tolerant” and “open-minded” liberals will fight on behalf of Muslims against anyone who opposes the total accommodation of Muslim peoples in non-Muslim countries.

To recap, Muslims really don’t have much to fear from radical Islamophobes. Yes, Islamophobia is on the rise, but most non-Muslims have not been radicalized and pose no threat to the burgeoning Muslim populations in both North America and Europe. Additionally, the governments, the media, and the educational systems of these two continents seem more interested in defending the interests of Muslim migrants than that of their own citizens. So Muslims have that going for them as well.

That said, however, we should not be surprised if anti-Muslim activities become more a regular occurrence, specifically among White Americans and Native Europeans. These populations are becoming completely shut out of the political discourse that concerns their own well-being, and as a result we will see some individuals take more drastic actions to ensure the survival of their people, not unlike a fearful creature backed into the corner of a cage. Such a scenario has unpredictable consequences. Will the beast attack? If so, how much damage will it do? Or, can it be contained until its spirit is broken? I, for one, hope the animal breaks out of its cage altogether.


The Week in Bullshit March 27, 2014

The Week in Bullshit March 27, 2014: Nickelodeon, Normandy and Empirical Evidence Edition

By The Digger

Nickelodeon Taken Seriously

Nick Cannon is a former Nickelodeon star. As far as I can decipher, this is his claim to fame (I don’t consider riding the Nickelodeon gig to a variety show host position a great leap forward). This former Nickelodeon star painted himself in white face and made some music. Many people are upset by this.

I have to say that I am disappointed that we live in a nation that is even emotionally moved by the hijinks of a former Nickelodeon star. I’m doubly disappointed that anyone would take a former Nickelodeon star seriously. The fact that both of those statements were necessary to make my point is a sad indictment of the bullshit that encapsulates many of the troubles in the United States today.

This Just In: Amphibious Warfare Obsolete

Talk about not burying the lead, this article sums up the entire piece in the first sentence. “The head of U.S. Pacific Command believes America does not possess the capacity to conduct amphibious assaults in the wake of a crisis, as it did during World War II.” This is either great or terrible news based on one’s perspective.

In the great column, it means that the United States has one less option to use in military adventurism. In the terrible column, it means that underpaid, abused and overworked members of the old-fashioned, non-mercenary military can no longer have decent tropical vacations pretending to invade Bora Bora, or whatever. Somewhere, a Republican Senator is issuing warnings about our lack of military preparedness. It says here, many strong arguments prove that nonsense wrong.

Another fact worth considering is that amphibious warfare is obsolete and expensive. Conventional warfare is no longer the preferred method of fighting worldwide. We don’t need a giant force of guys sitting on boats waiting for the chance to storm ashore in a hail of gunfire. To argue otherwise is bullshit.

And Now, EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE That Proves Some Science Groupies Are Idiots

This shit here is religion, not science.

This shit here is religion, not science.

I will respond to this stupidity in kind:


Don’t believe in unlimited warfare, bombing civilians and corruption?


We’re out of welfare, social security and food stamps.

That one to one comparison makes the sloganeering above look like complete bullshit to me (and before you begin your rant, you should consider that just like government, there are competing interests in science – outside of the creation/evolution tomfoolery). I’ll be writing a complete post in defense of my position soon, because the last thing I want to see is the rational thought for which I left religion reduced to bullshit slogans and moronic group-think.

The Week in Bullshit, March 20, 2014 Edition

By The Digger

The Week in Bullshit, March 20, 2014 Edition – Because there’s too much bullshit to analyze one issue at a time.

Welcome to the inaugural edition of what I hope becomes a weekly feature here at Paradox Polemics, The Week in Bullshit. Often I encounter bullshit that is either too trivial, or fringe, to seriously treat with a complete rebuttal. But this bullshit still captivates people, and shouldn’t be left steaming without a cool hosing from the spigot of reality.

Item 1 The internet has been hijacked by a global secret government, and we’ll all soon be publicly praising fascism, or lose our internet privileges (Bullshit courtesy of


Alex Jones courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.

Kurt Nimmo, a shill for Alex Jones’ Infowars website, has a new piece up on the doom of the internet. Before I have a little fun at the expense of a group whose medications are waiting at the state hospital, I should point out that everything on the Infowars website follows the Alex Jones Theorem. That theorem projects as follows: All information intrinsically points to horrifying conclusions. When I read that the U.S. Commerce Department was going to release its dominating grip around the throat of ICANN, my first thought was to head over to Infowars to see what the most irrational and overheated reaction would be, so that I could properly regulate my own concerns in context.

Disclosure: I’m not a fan of international governing bodies. On the other hand, I’m not a big fan of any U.S. governing body either, which means that governance is a problem for me when it comes to speech, not the people doing the governing. True to form, the boys over at Infowars have this painted as the end of free speech on the internet, and the Obama Administration’s collusion with the Illuminati. Here’s the summary for those who have had breakfast and want to keep it down:

The UN and EU have sketched out how the future internet will work. Now that ICANN has relinquished control of the medium, globalist institutions can move forward with plans to scrub the internet of all content unacceptable to the global elite and their apparatchiks at the United Nations and, as well, turn it into a revenue generating cash cow.

Yeah, that German fisting porn, pages of “cute cat pics,” TMZ and most corporate online news sources all serve as bastions of freedom for us lowly commoners. And it’s a damned good thing that none of those sites are in it for the money. The internet should be about freedom for all and an outlet for the truth about secret moon bases, which it is now.

So they’re just going to pretend that the Federal Bureau of Investigation hasn’t closed a site or two down. And they’re also now, after railing against the U.S. Government ad nauseum, going to argue that we can’t let this thing go, or we’ll all be goose stepping with the Euro-trash. Why aren’t the boys down in the secret bunker in Austin doing cartwheels of joy that the Evil Empire has relinquished the command and control of the internet, given a history of intimidation of free market exchanges, revelations of spying, and even killing Americans in “false flag” attacks on 9/11? Because you can give an ignorant redneck bully a bullhorn, but you can’t make him think. Hey Alex, wake up! That bullshit you’re preaching didn’t work for the John Birch Society and Jim Crow proponents, and it sure as hell won’t work for you.

Item 2You can’t say bossy because I said so, and you’ll like it. (Bullshit Courtesy of the Twats at

Gloria Steinem is a Twat, not a Cunt.

Image of a Twat courtesy of Wikimedia Commons

I have a serious issue to consider when I look over the website. Do I refer to these people as cunts, or twats? For me, cunt is a gender neutral word, best employed when I encounter a loud, close-minded and obnoxious parrot who hasn’t bothered to read anything from an opposing point of view, but is more than happy to beat me about the head and upper torso with a copy of the talking points they downloaded from a “trusted” source. A twat is feminine in my lexicon, and applies broadly to women who apply the “sexist” charge to anyone who isn’t “sensitive” enough to her beliefs and is not willing to throw some whipped cream on her bullshit and indulge with her.

We can dismiss the following statement from page one of the twats’ website as a prima facie example of bullshit based solely on the fact that it advocates for banning a disagreeable word:

When a little boy asserts himself, he’s called a “leader.” Yet when a little girl does the same, she risks being branded “bossy.” Words like bossy send a message: don’t raise your hand or speak up. By middle school, girls are less interested in leading than boys—a trend that continues into adulthood. Together we can encourage girls to lead.”

We can see in the example above that a strain of cuntiness flows through the false dichotomy presented. It paints all oppressive behavior as “assertiveness” and demands absolute acceptance, unless you’re a pig who never wants to see little girls grow up to be leaders. Is a little kid being assertive by demanding that everyone sit at a certain spot and do certain things at a fake tea party, or is the kid just an asshat control freak who wants to lord over her friends?

Here’s a tip: little boys don’t become leaders by being cunts to everyone else and telling them what to do all of the time. Those boys who try that tactic become universally despised as bullies, or end up getting a shit ton of wedgies, indian burns and wet willies as their friends outgrow them later on. Boys learn early on that to get cooperation, it is far more desirable to be perceived as cool and affable. A cunt would have no experience with affable behavior or social acceptance outside an extraordinarily narrow peer group, and would blindly walk around parroting bullshit that says people who disagree are sexist pigs.

Don’t be a bossy cunt if you want to succeed.

You don’t find any successful fathers running around telling their boys to push everybody around and be a complete cunt so he can get to the top. Check that, you do have to be a cunt from time to time to get to the top of some fields, but you can’t be a bossy cunt. It’s hard to stab someone in the back if you are in his face giving him orders he’ll ignore anyway. Cunts wouldn’t be savvy enough to comprehend the subtlety I just covered, but you get the idea.

I finally decided that the content quoted was the work of twats because it indicates a complete misunderstanding of leadership, adheres to a unisex view of human nature and melds those two failures into an illogical, yet cohesive, doctrinal position. I realized that I was looking at the work of misinformed twats, not malicious cunts. It’s still bullshit, but it is bullshit that is the result of ignorance, not malice. I hope this clears things up for the people who were on the fence.

Wait, you didn’t expect me to reply to the idea presented by the neo thought police in a serious way, did you?

Item 3Fucking with seven Russians is a serious imposition of sanctions that will prevent overt aggression. (Bullshit courtesy of President Barack H. Obama).

So we’re in the middle of a high stakes poker game with potential global conflict as the ante and World War III as a potential chip in the final stack. Each side has chosen their representative at the table. Only two countries could muster an entry fee. The United States has a community organizer named Barack Obama playing heads up against the Russian player and former KGB chief Vladimir Putin. Opening hand is dealt and Putin gets 2-7 off suit, while Obama gets pocket aces.

Obama bets half of his chips and Putin re-raises by half.  A trickle of sweat eases down Obama’s brow, and he flinches as he calls. The flop comes up Ace-King-King. Obama has a full house. Putin has nothing but a pair of kings with a 7 kicker. Obama checks the bet. Putin goes all in. Has Obama laid a clever trap to catch Putin coming over the top, or does he suspect that on the wildest odds of all time Putin has pocket kings? The world hangs in the balance. What can Americans expect from such an advantageous position?

The tells.

We’re proper fucked.

I don’t give a damn about Ukraine. It’s complete bullshit that we’re even involved. It’s more humiliating that we’re involved with the bearded capon running things now. Governor Bush was a warmonger, but at least there was no left wing endorsing his bullshit. There was a large swath of the population clamoring against him. Drone boy is a warmonger as well, but his midnight bombings of “terror groups” that include women and children seem to be less offensive to the former anti-war protesters.

While the subject of war isn’t trivial, the skill set of the president is. Now we have to deal with humiliation as well as the guilt of paying taxes to kill people we’ve never met and likely never would have with a constitutionally bound government. It’s not fun. It’s not good for the old self-esteem. And as I mentioned above, we’re proper fucked.

The White-Knight Wombocracy: A State of Special Pleading



Of all the court cases the press have pored over recently, none have fascinated me more than that of John Welden, who recently started a 14-year prison sentence for drugging his girlfriend into a miscarriage. If memory serves me well, I first heard about the case last spring, when Welden first entered the dock on a charge of no less than murder.

According to the Mail (emphasis mine):

[Remee Jo Lee] was six or seven weeks pregnant when she miscarried.

Welden pleaded guilty in September to tampering with a consumer product and conspiracy to commit mail fraud. He had faced a possible life sentence if convicted of his original charge, killing an unborn child.

Welden admitted in a plea agreement that he forged the signature of his father, who is esteemed Tampa-area fertility expert Dr. Stephen Weldon.

Welden’s father had no role in the heinous crime, but was in the courtroom in the weeks preceding sentencing as prosecutors sought to prove that the single dose of Cytotec had caused Lee’s miscarriage.

Prosecutors succeeded after expert witnesses for the state testified that any amount of the drug also known as misoprostol could cause miscarriage.

Now, with the announcement of a verdict, these gears in my head set themselves turning once more. While the thoughts generated don’t apply to all particulars in this trial, I think them worth at least a few paragraphs contemplation.

The first thing that hit me in the face about this case was the initial charge levelled against him: where the flying fuck did the whole murder thing spring from? After all, the alleged ‘victim’ amounted to little more than a cell clump, baking in the brine of Lee’s uterine oven prior to its expunction: a procedure she could legally opted for up to 21 weeks later. What gives?

Daily Caller reporter Caroline May gives more of an insight into things; according to her (emphasis again mine), “Welden accepted a plea deal last year to avoid a possible life sentence if convicted of murder under the federal Unborn Victims of Violence Act, instead pleading to product tampering and mail fraud”. Under this frankly puzzling piece of legislation, an involuntarily terminated embryo assumes a posthumous personhood for the purposes of prosecution, a personhood otherwise denied it by the inclusion of Roe vs Wade on the same law tablets.

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes a child in utero as a legal victim, if he or she is injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines “child in utero” as “a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb”


Because of principles of federalism embodied in the United States Constitution, Federal criminal law does not apply to crimes prosecuted by the individual states. However, 38 states also recognize the fetus or “unborn child” as a crime victim, at least for purposes of homicide or feticide.[2]

The legislation was both hailed and vilified by various legal observers who interpreted the measure as a step toward granting legal personhood to human fetuses, even though the bill explicitly contained a provision excepting abortion, stating that the bill would not “be construed to permit the prosecution” “of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf”, “of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child” or “of any woman with respect to her unborn child.”


This effective compromise between the “pro-life” and “pro-choice” positions results in a Frankenstein gestalt of legalistic white-knighting, under which the legally protected “personhood” of a certain demographic lies at the mercy of a woman’s whim. In other words, that fledgling womb growth has rights/no rights, dammit…unless m’lady says otherwise, of course! It reminds of those soldiers in the “pro-life” brigade who make an exception in their otherwise strident position for rape, placing female feelings above “the sanctity of life” and the decrees they profess to observe.


Not that those of a “pro-choice” persuasion uphold higher standards of consistency. Whilst cheerfully championing the “right to choose” of the womb-bearer, they sing a different song in regard to that of the sperm-donor, who is required to donate more than his genetic material should Little Miss Incubator choose to carry his tadpole to term. In fact, bringing up Mr Inseminator’s lack of choice over his financial contributions tends to elicit responses along the lines of “Shoulda kept it in his pants!” and “Boo-fucking-hoo!”, flavours of response that would be boo-hooed at by the “choicers” were they levelled against reluctant mums-to-be. Under the ostensible “best interests of the child” (Where have I heard that before?), the female’s legally-protected “right to choose” childbirth imposes a legally-enforced 18-year duty on the male to be a walking wallet, whether or not he consents to the arrangement; all this with special-pleading approval and scant contest from those who claim to champion choice.

body wallet choice

To her credit—and Welden’s disgrace—Lee had professed her lack of complicity in this state of affairs:

Federal prosecutors said Welden never wanted Lee to have his baby – even though she was determined to keep the pregnancy and raise the child on her own.

After she lost the fetus in the hospital, she went to police and agreed to have her conversations with Welden recorded.

‘I was hoping that this was some sort of horrible mistake,’ Lee said. ‘He told me what the medication was, and it was Cytotec.’

Authorities released a transcript of a conversation Lee had with Welden.

Welden told Lee that Tara Fillinger, his other girlfriend, had found out about their relationship and was ‘furious’.

Lee says: ‘If you wanted to go be with Tara, that’s fine. Go be with Tara.

‘I woulda had my kid and I woulda been fine with that… woulda told my parents it was someone else’s. I wouldn’t have bothered you for money. I wouldn’t have bothered you at all.’

‘I didn’t want to be that guy,’ Welden replies.

Nevertheless, under a legal system which rigs “reproductive rights” as a white-knighting, rent-seeking, zero-sum game, I can conceive contexts where a slip of Cytotec to the womb wouldn’t be such a contemptible act.

(Thanks to Becky for the womb/wallet pic.)