Strakon's column:
"Why they hate religion — or Christianity, at least"


To the editor ...

Mr. Strakon has answered Fred Reed's question but the omission of Islam as a target of cultural Bolshevism seems curious. Government, Hollywood, and the MSM relegate Muslims to an even more fetid sewer than the one they reserve for Catholics. Is there a certain relief in this? After 9/11 some African-Americans were delighted to describe Muslims as the "new niggers." Free at last. The crackers hate someone even more than us.

When it comes to the dark suits (our dictatorial class) who induced LBJ to open America's borders to non-white, non-European, non-Christian immigrants, it seems they had in mind something resembling Hannah Arendt's dictator at the center of onion. The dictator is surrounded by independently ignorant layers of subordinate bureaucracy which protect him from the threat of reality. In a multicultural society, the Podhoretzes don't stand out as much. And when men, women, whites, blacks, Muslims, Christians, gays, immigrants, rich, poor, and the rest are at each other's throat we're not likely to see a common threat.

Longi Ziper
February 14, 2012


Nicholas Strakon replies

Indeed. The state specializes in setting us at each other's throat. It works out nicely for the statists: state intrusions into society necessarily ignite social conflict, as I have pointed out a time or two; and the results help the statists retain and bolster their power.

I didn't want to burden my column with an overlong discussion of the Mohammedan question, but I thank Mr. Ziper for prompting me to expand on it a bit. I think it's fairly complicated. It's always perilous to try to divine what goes on in those leftist heads, but I suspect that — as we say nowadays — they're somewhat conflicted on the subject.

To begin with, all manner of leftists are stuck with that whole cultural-relativism thing, at least when it operates to the detriment of the white race, Western culture, and America and old American ways. That drives them to cuddle up to primitive non-Western peoples, the more dodgy and exotic the better; and, to the extent they can, import them into the United State.

In respect to the Mohammedans, the women's-rights issue has created some dissonance, as I mentioned. But the Guards have to be careful about what they say and do in any case. Most of the people whom I call Red Guards, at least those working outside the government, are employed directly or indirectly by the Dark Suits — the men representing the senior, established wing of the ruling class, keeping their headquarters in investment banking but maintaining strategic control over the commanding heights of the entire fascized economy. Those men are responsible for the empire, ultimately; they saw to its construction, for their own perceived benefit; and over the past ten years they have at least tolerated the neocon wars aimed at extending the empire and supporting Israel.

That places limits on those Guards who might otherwise take an antiwar position. (In these mindless times, as I can testify, taking an antiwar position means taking a pro-Mohammedan position to those who have trouble following simple arguments and understanding simple ideas.) The antiwar movement — run, as always, by leftists — wasn't very impressive even during the Bush II years, which isn't surprising given the absence of conscription; but it virtually evaporated when The One was ushered into the Palace amid the scattering of flowers and cavorting of unicorns. The insiders' manufacture and installation as emperor of a half-Negro war liberal of impeccable Red Guard background completely unmanned the Guards, assuming there was anything still there to snip. (Barack Hussein Obama — one has to think that someone among our supervisors has a devilish sense of humor.)

True antiwar and anti-Zionist leftists do exist, of course, and they haven't shut up. But they're not members of the power elite, and as such, they're not the sort of people I mean when I talk about Red Guards.

Both Suits and Guards shudder in horror at any discrimination against Mohammedans in this country, and insofar as they have the power and influence to do so, they punish those who attempt to exercise their freedom of association in avoiding Mohammedans; at the same time Suits and Guards alike shrug or even (in the case of the neocons and some Suits) actually applaud the bloody havoc the empire perpetrates against Mohammedans in their own countries. It is an eye-popping spectacle, and business as usual.

Mr. Ziper alludes to the reaction of some Negroes to 9/11, pleased that "the crackers" had found a new object of hate. (One senses that the Negroes themselves did not spend much time looking for a new object of hate.) I believe that the big political figures and mouthpieces among the Negroes are not true Red Guards — not most of them — even though very many of them are employed by the Suits, same as the real Guards. (Marxists such as MSNBC's Melissa Harris-Perry are probably the real thing.) Instead, those figures are just pro-Negro and anti-white; and their main interest is deriving power, privilege, and swag from the leviathan that is mostly financed by whites. Following Martin L. King, most Negroes are antiwar — but only because they fear war spending will mean a reduced flow of domestic-socialist goodies for themselves.

In 2007, inspired by the Michael Vick Affair and the shrugging of most Negroes in response to it, Andy Nowicki wrote a brilliant column for us exposing the hollowness of Negro "liberalism" compared with the white variety.

I take note of one last complication: Negroes who have converted to some flavor of Mohammedanism or been raised in it may sincerely identify with Mohammedans in foreign countries — certainly more than they do with any ofay here at home.

February 14, 2012

Nicholas Strakon is editor-in-chief of The Last Ditch.

Comment?                Back to Strakon's column.