The most efficient weapon for dismantling the West is deadlier than the Islamic bullet. It is the naturalized ballot. We fixate on the violence, tracking crime rates and terror plots, but this focus blinds us to the real siege. The ultimate threat posed by mass migration from Islamic regions is not just the shattering of peace. It is the rewriting of the code. When the West imports millions from culturally inferior nations, it does not just absorb people. It absorbs a rival operating system. We hand these populations the right to vote, allowing them to inject their values directly into the legislative blood of the state. A bullet can only kill a man. A ballot, cast in sufficient numbers, kills the very idea of the West. As an Iranian who fled the suffocating grip of this ideology, I see the very nightmare I escaped being rebuilt by your own laws. It is not integration. It is total extinction. Knowing the truth in isolation changes nothing. The sheer weight of the opposing vote requires a counter-weight of equal magnitude. One voice is a statistic, but a united front is a blockade. We are aggregating our numbers here to create that force here. The specific tactics will follow, but first, we must assemble the army.

Been thinking about all the ways to argue against the "Jews are colonizers" propaganda and I've been thinking about how to refine a common counter argument. It goes like this: colonizers come from another land, have allegiance to that land, and send back resources, so the real colonizers are the Arabs, not the Jews." While true, there's a weakness in the argument that I'd like to hear y'all's opinion on how to shore up. The weakness I think comes from the distinction between being a "conqueror" and a "colonizer". In my reading of history, I don't think the Arabs actually sent resources back to Mecca/Medina. Caliphates were established in all the territories they conquered and the resources went to those local/regional caliphs. Perhaps this is what's meant as "settler colonialism." If so, the stronger argument of the Arab conquest is that they are settler colonists, not simply colonists. It also seems to me that "settler colonialism" is a from of conquering...or maybe it's simply two words for the same things; a distinction without a difference. What do you think?

Channel 14 in Israel just announced the irgc are arming They're balistic missiles with chemical and biological warheads. Are we approaching the mother if all wars or is it a bluff?

Some people believe in various religions, but I have observed that Muslims often seem the most unaware and uninformed. Their faith appears to be the least robust compared to others.