Nobody Expects

I read this article in the Community Digital News, which reports an attack by an angry mob against a group of Mohammedans.

The writer, Rahat Husain, predictably uses buzz-words and halftruths (‘crazed mob’ forsooth?) to slant the article so that it is not news, but agitprop.

Naturally, we do not know what information, such as what provoked the attack, was left out of the propaganda article.

I notice with considerable pleasure and surprise that all the comments — at least, all the comments at the time when I read this — were not only clearly and openly pro-Irish and pro-Christian and anti-Mohammedan, but vehemently and unflinchingly so.

It was almost like hearing the words of men: actual, real grown men.

It was interesting to me, nay, fascinating, that not one, not one of the comments I read repeated the mealy-mouthed lies and self-destructive nonsense of the Politically Correct, even though the article was nothing but. I was expecting all the comments to be cleanly censored of all ungood thoughcrimes, and only to repeat the pious nonthingnesses of the Political Correct catchphrases and cant.

The foremost lie, that Islam is a religion rather than an aggressive totalitarian political program which happens to have some religious elements, was on display in the article, to be sure. Mr Husain also made a weak, comically weak, attempt to call the affair ‘racist’, as if that long-ago exhausted wordnoise still retained any rhetorical power among the unthinking, and still could provoke the expected Pavlovian reaction of fear and condemnation. How naive of him. But the comments did not buy this hogwash.

Could the common man finally be throwing off the chains, spitting out the gag and doffing the blinders of the press?

As an ex-newsman myself, I hope to see the Pravda-peddlers who call themselves newspapermen hanged by the neck from lampposts as traitors, after a proper and lawful military tribunal hearing in the years to come, or, better yet, burned alive as heretics, by the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Roman and Universal Inquisition.

These events are far overdue. Deus lo Vult and Erin go Bragh

and let us pray to Saint James Matamoros, the Moorslayer:

saint james

O glorious Apostle, St. James, who by reason of thy fervent and generous heart wast chosen by Jesus to be a witness of His glory on Mount Tabor, and of His agony in Gethsemane; thou, whose very name is a symbol of warfare and victory: obtain for us strength and consolation in the unending warfare of this life, that, having constantly and generously followed Jesus, we may be victors in the strife and deserve to receive the victor’s crown in heaven. Amen.


  1. Comment by Sean Michael:

    Dear Mr. Wright:

    I absolutely agree! Mohammedanism is a vile death cult and totalitarian ideology with a few withered fig leaves for “religion.” And while I am sure many Muslims are, as individuals, decent enough persons, their “religion” is NOT. I don’t CARE if 80 percent of Mohammedans are “peaceful” if they can’t, won’t, or refuse to renounce or stop the jihad, sharia law pushing, and dhimmitude imposing practiced by the other 20 percent.

    Sincerely, Sean M. Brooks

  2. Comment by The OFloinn:

    There are two reasons. The muslims no more speak up than the Germans or Russians did when their own nations went mad. To do so would have been an act of courage most ordinary people cannot muster. They have families to protect; and so they “duck and cover”. It is worse in the Middle East because there was never a tradition of “we the people” as there was in Christian Europe: no parliaments, estates, diets, not even noblesse oblige. The idea of speaking truth to power has no traction there, so one is even hard-pressed to find cases of rebellion.

    The other is the Aunt Edna Syndrome. This is the tendency of members of a group to close ranks to outsiders rather than wash dirty laundry in public. Hence, Irish make excuses for the IRA or mutter defensive tu quoques. It’s not admirable. Everyone knows Aunt Edna is batty; but they aren’t about to say so to the people next door. A consequence of this is that when there is pushback within the group it tends to stay within the group and not get reported by outsider sources. Or not by many:

    • Comment by Sean Michael:

      Dear Mr. Flynn:

      I agree with your comments on two of the reasons why allegedly “decent” Muslims can’t, won’t, or refuse to speak out against the disgusting barbarities practiced in the name of their (obscenity deleted) pseudo “religion.” I would add a third to make plainer what I had in mind: there is TOO MUCH in the authoritative sources of Mohammedan “theology” (the Koran, Sharia, Hadiths, the major Mohammedan theological schools, etc.) commanding and enjoining on Muslims the ideas and beliefs used for justifying their savageries for so called “decent” Mohammedans to easily speak out against. It is very difficult for “decent” Mohammedans to speak out against jihad, dhimmitude, the persecution of women and non Muslims, etc., without easily being accused of heresy and apostasy.

      Btw, I obtained a copy of your book EIFELHEIM a few days ago and I look forward to reading it after I finish some other books.

      Sincerely, Sean M. Brooks

  3. Comment by wlinden:

    I guess I better pop up and shoot my cousin the dervish. Some PC agitproppers try to tell us that Sufis are not violent, but adult men know there is no difference between anyone in that evil death cult.

    • Comment by John C Wright:

      I suppose during World War Two, you would have also cracked jokes about how foolish it was to fear the Germans, and smirked about how silly it was to fear, let us say, Einstein. Perhaps you would have coined the term Teutonophobe. Then you could preen the feathers of your cheap moral vanity, and tell yourself you are better than your betters.

      Or have I read your character wrong, sir?

    • Comment by Zaklog the Great:

      Gee, wlinden, what if they were responding to news such as this? What if this was the cause? Does that change your take on the situation, or is it irrelevant?

    • Comment by ConceptJunkie:

      If your cousin is a Muslim and decent person, and I have no reason to believe he isn’t, then it is only by dint of rejecting the medieval barbarian excesses of Islamic teaching and abiding by its peaceful and honorable tenets, because that’s the only way it can happen.

      • Comment by Sean Michael:


        The problem is, the allegedly “peaceful and honorable tenets” of Mohammedanism is also INEXTRICABLY entwined with savage and barbaric teachings and precedents going straight back to the false prophet Mohammed himself. Given that, HOW can “decent” Muslims reject jihad, dhimmitude, Sharia, brutality to non Muslims and women, etc., without opening themselves to accusations of heresy and apostasy from more CONSISTENT Mohammedans?

        So, no, I reject with contempt the argle gargle about Islam being a “peaceful” religion. Because the violence and brutality it teaches or allows for will remain there for fanatical Mohammedans to seize on even if most Muslims at a particular time happens to be “peaceful” (it’s more accurate to call them LAX).

        Sincerely, Sean M. Brooks

    • Comment by Jim:

      The only good Muslim is a bad Muslim.

      If a Muslim is not murdering infidels and raping children, he is a bad Muslim.

      Progressives believe that every religion, rightly understood, is progressivism. They are having some success in persuading Muslims of this, and if they succeed, things will be much nicer – but it is pretty much the Ann Coulter program, only instead of “Kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity”, it is “Kill their leaders and convert them to progressivism.”

  4. Comment by johnmc:

    How is the stance of this article reconciled with the Vatican II document Nostra Aetate and paragraph 841 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church?


    • Comment by Sean Michael:

      Dear johnmc:

      I don’t understand what you are trying to say. The CCC mentions Mohammedanism in only one, brief paragraph. The full text is: “841 The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. “The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these PROFESS [my stress, SMB] to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.” ”

      To me, the use of PROFESS shows the editors of the CCC had doubts Mohammedans truly believe as we Catholics do about God. Moreover, note how few and mimimal are the alleged points of agreement: God is one, creator, merciful, and our Judge. The problem is, however, that when you attempt to probe deeper into what Muslims truly mean by these points, then huge areas of disagreement shows up.

      Again, I don’t understand your point. How is Number 841 of the CCC relevant to the savage Mohammedan beliefs and teachings as regards non Muslims and women, etc.? To me, it shows that Muslims would interpret these few and sparse points of “agreement” in very different ways from what Catholics mean.

      Sincerely, Sean M. Brooks

      • Comment by LorenzoCanuck:

        Mr. Brooks, I hope that, as an upstanding gentlemen, you will not take offense if I speak directly, and inquire: what the hell are you talking about?

        The word “profess” indicates an act of sincere belief, just as we Catholics “profess” to believe in the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. We already have words to describe doubts about the accuracy or veracity of belief, such as “allege” or “purport” or “claim”, so I am surprised, sir, that you would twist a perfectly good word like “profess” for the sake of an argument.

        Of course, none of this says anything about whether Muslim beliefs are /true/, but rather my point is to admonish and to remind that words do have clear meanings. In our fight against the Enemy we must not be tempted to use the tools of the Enemy.

        • Comment by Sean Michael:

          Dear LorenzoCanuck:

          Thanks for your comments despite my not agreeing with them.

          I stand by what I said about the word “profess.” What it looked like to me, given the way the CCC used it, was showing how that ideology looked like to people outside Mohammedanism. While I might have understood the use of the word wrongly, it STILL gave me the impression of Islam’s claims being regarded with doubt, even skepticism.

          And as Mr. Wright has commented, IS Islam truly a religion in the sense most non Muslims use that word? Its belief in merging mosque and state into a quasi totalitarian theocratic unity INEVITABLY means that non Muslims under its rule will be treated as inferior to Mohammedans. Any such “religion” which advocates or justifies war on and the conquest of all who refuse to become Muslim is more of an IDEOLOGY than a religion. And the Muslim rejection of all law except that of the Koran and Sharia is also ideological.

          Sincerely, Sean M. Brooks

      • Comment by The OFloinn:

        profess (v.) early 14c., “to take a vow” (in a religious order), a back-formation from profession or else from Old French profes, from Medieval Latin professus “avowed,” literally “having declared publicly,” past participle of Latin profiteri “declare openly, testify voluntarily, acknowledge, make public statement of,” from pro- “forth” (see pro-) + fateri (past participle fassus) “acknowledge, confess,” akin to fari “speak” (see fame (n.)). Meaning “declare openly” first recorded 1520s, “a direct borrowing of the sense from Latin” [Barnhart]. Related: Professed; professing.

    • Comment by John C Wright:

      I am not sure. Why don’t you pray to Saint James the Moorslayer and ask him? He is, after all, an apostle.

    • Comment by LorenzoCanuck:

      I really hate to say this, because I admire and respect Mr. Wright, not only because of his courage to speak the truth but also his superb writing ability: but it can’t be. Not even close.

      I am disappointed. To deny the status of religion to Islam because it happens to have features we don’t like is sophistry, just like the sophistry of abortion activists who claim that the embryo is just a “clump of cells”, or the sophistry of gay marriage advocates who claim that marriage is “all about love” and only just. Words have clear meanings, and if the word “religion” cannot apply to Islam despite clear evidence to the contrary (a systematic belief system with clear prescriptions for practice, the Five Pillars being the most notable), then what does it even mean?

      It is right to be angry at the actions of the Muslims and their enablers among the Left, but are we going to start throwing aside time-honoured definitions just to express that anger? I would have expected more from a place that advocates reason and logic over postmodernism.

      • Comment by John C Wright:

        Islam is a heresy. It is not a religion in the Western sense, where the Church, from the time of Constantine onward, was separate from the secular power. (It is a religion the general sense of being a system of devotion to God, but this sense, in this case, is misleading, what philosophers call a category error.)

        Your definition would have Islam, as a ‘religion’ be protected by the First Amendment even as it spreads it doctrine, recruits armymen to fight us, organizes assassinations and acts of terror, and seeks to over throw our laws, including the First Amendment, to replace them with Shariah. But if we are allowed, during World War Two, to prevent Nazis from openly recruiting fighters to fight against us on our soil in the name of race, why are we not allowed, in this war, from preventing the enemy from recruiter fighters against us in the name of Allah?

        Try this as a thought experiment: take the article you find so objectionable, take the word ‘Islam’ each place it appears, and substitute the word ‘Shariah Law’ and for ‘Islamist’ substitute ‘Partisan of Shariah Law’.

        If I then were to say ‘Shariah Law is not a religion but a political system, albeit with compulsory religious elements’ would you so recklessly accuse me of sophistry?

  5. Comment by The OFloinn:

    Some sense can be made out of this through a remark by my former son-in-law, a devout muslim from Jordan. He said that the week that the Soviet Union collapsed, all the members of the Communist party in al-Shams joined up with Islamist groups.

  6. Comment by Jim:

    Of course Islam is a religion.

    At most only one religion can be true. Chances are, most religions are evil.

    If a religion is primarily state transmitted, it is likely to benefit the state. If a religion is primarily parentally transmitted, it is likely to benefit the families of believers. It may, however, well be bad news for unbelievers.

  7. Comment by Jim:

    Your definition would have Islam, as a ‘religion’ be protected by the First Amendment even as it spreads it doctrine, recruits armymen to fight us, organizes assassinations and acts of terror, and seeks to over throw our laws, including the First Amendment, to replace them with Shariah.

    At the time the first amendment was issued, each state had, formally or informally, an official religion, each of them a variant of protestant Christianity. The point was to prevent the feds from imposing one official religion on the states. Thus the intention and effect of the first amendment was freedom for respectable brands of protestant christianity.

    In the events leading up to the civil war, the feds imposed a single state religion on all, that religion being the dominant religion of New England, which was rapidly ceasing to be Christian, and was becoming the precursor of today’s progressivism, via transcendentalism (Gaia worship) and unitarianism (Jesus as chief community organizer, working for welfare for the oppressed, rather than the redeemer reconciling man and God)

    So, rather than redefining religion, redefine the first amendment. Admit that the first amendment never said what it seemingly said, and now even less does it say that.

    • Comment by Zaklog the Great:

      Actually, the First Amendment originally meant exactly what it said, that Congress may pass no law infringing on freedom of religion. It said nothing whatsoever about the various states’ position on religion and no one imagined that it did. I don’t know at what point the common reading was changed, but today’s version, that government at no level can have any kind of religious preference, was not remotely how it was originally intended.

      • Comment by Jim:

        I don’t know at what point the common reading was changed, but today’s version, that government at no level can have any kind of religious preference, was not remotely how it was originally intended.

        But government does have a religious preference. Try refusing to “marry” gays, or having the bride promise to honor and obey.

        Starting shortly before the civil war, the federal government started forcefully imposing its religious preference on Christian churches, and the coercion has only become more severe.

  8. Comment by Jim:

    If the first amendment actually protected religion, the major religions would still preach Pauline marriage: Consent to sex is given once and forever, hence no such thing as marital rape. Women divorced for cause may not remarry. Husband is the head of the family and wives are to honor and obey. Marital rape became illegal in the 1980s, and everyone including the Churches fell into line.

    • Comment by The_Shadow:

      Where in St. Paul do you find this? Is this the same St. Paul who said, “Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the Church and gave Himself up for her”?

      And my church (I’m Catholic) does indeed teach that a valid marriage cannot be dissolved by any means, including civil divorce. The separated spouses are not free to remarry.

      • Comment by Jim:

        Where in St. Paul do you find this?

        Same place every Christian in the entire world found it before 1970 or so.

        And my church (I’m Catholic) does indeed teach that a valid marriage cannot be dissolved by any means

        Except that if the wife is not feeling it any more, the Church will find a reason why the marriage is invalid.

  9. Comment by Jim:

    One might as well say Nazism is a religion.

    I do say Nazism is a religion, or something very like a religion.

    • Comment by Mary:

      By what definition of religion?

      Bear in mind that any such definition will need to include what is normally included.

    • Comment by John C Wright:

      Good for you. Do you agree that no one in his right mind would allow Nazis openingly professing Nazism and seeking to teach Nazi doctrine to run around at large in the United States during World War Two? While liberals make much ado about the Japanese internment their beloved icon, FDR, commanded, no one seems to remember that Italians and Germans, guilty of nothing but coming from nations with whom we were at war, were also rounded up and and placed under curfew and other restrictions. (including cast members of the film CASABLANCA, the most famous antinazi film ever, who could not stay out at night because of curfew on Germans, including those who fled to American to escape the Nazis).

      Now, should anyone say this is not like World War Two, I will agree. The Nazis wore uniforms, declared war, and in all other ways obeyed (some) of the civilized usage of war. The Jihad does not. It is in the same legal category as Pirates found on the high sea: enemies of all mankind, subject to being fired upon at will, at any time.

      • Comment by Pastor:

        I agree that Islam, on its own terms, is more nearly a Christian heresy than a proper religion. What do you mean, though, by asserting a distinction between religion and the state? Under that definition, would Old Testament Judaism be a religion? Politically, they share many features with Islam. What about Medieval Christianity? Or would you call those religions with corrupt elements or something like that?

  10. Comment by Jim:

    Do you agree that no one in his right mind would allow Nazis openingly professing Nazism and seeking to teach Nazi doctrine to run around at large in the United States during World War Two?

    They did not respect the first amendment in World War II, and in truth they have never respected it ever since. Rand Weaver could tell you about freedom of speech, and the Branch Davidians about freedom of religion.

  11. Comment by watermelonyo:

    Wow, cheering on violence against innocent people. Congratulations, you have now crossed that line between everyday villainy and cartoonish supervillainy. How on earth can you possibly claim to be a follower of a man who said “love your enemies” when you cheer on an attack against people whose only crime is following a man who said “kindness is a mark of faith?” Seriously, what is wrong with you?

    • Comment by John C Wright:

      Wow, reading comprehension fail. What I was cheering on was not believing cheap lefty agitprop from cheap lefty newsmen.

      What is wrong with me is that I think, I used to be a newspaperman for years, and I can recognize propaganda, slant, spin, and lies, and cheap shots when I smell them. The story tells that a Christian sermon riled up a mob of Christian racists to attack the perfectly innocent Muslim members of the religion of peace living peacefully in the West. It is a story you believe.

      What is wrong with you is that you love lies, and you leap to the defense of lies by telling more lies.

      • Comment by watermelonyo:

        What is wrong with you is that you are profoundly delusional.

        • Comment by John C Wright:

          Profound, yes. Delusional, you can keep.

          Wait — aren’t you the same fellow who popped up to accuse me of hatred and every other crime under the sun because I mocked Marvel Comics for being Politically Correct and including a female Mohammedan as their latest token superheroine?

          I recall that I wanted to address you respectfully, and I asked you your last name, so that I could called you Mr. Yournamehere rather than calling you a watermelon.

          You told me your name, but expressed fear that my Dacoit minions would seek out your address and stalk and terrorize you, and fall upon you with cutlass and dirk, screaming my praises as their prophet.

          I am an overweight science fiction writer and you said you were afraid of me, my terrifying crimes of race hatred, my program of global extermination, and my eerie influence over the minds of men, as if I were a cross between Fu Manchu and Lamont Cranston.

          Are you that same man? And you accuse other men of delusion?

          I will not ask if you have a sense of shame and decency, for clearly you have none. Are you intoxicated? I used to tend bar, so I am used to arguing with drunks, including men drunk on their own ego.

          But to come to this is merely pathetic. How could a grown man have such a vast sense of self regard and no sense of self awareness, and, indeed, no sense in any sense of the word?

          All this time I had been hoping you were seeking out psychiatric or spiritual help, an analyst’s couch or a confessional booth.

  12. Comment by watermelonyo:

    Actually I didn’t tell you my name. I told you that the name attached to my e-mail address wasn’t my real name (but if you want to use it, that’s fine with me). And I’m not actually particularly scared of you, but I’d rather err on the side of safety when it comes to revealing my identity on the internet.

    Though I must say that posts like this one do ratchet up my wariness a bit. After all, if you’re praying to Saint James Matamoros, the Moorslayer, to help rid Ireland of those vile “Mohammedans,” it doesn’t seem like such a leap to imagine you praying to, say, Saint John of Capistrano, the Scourge of the Jews, to help rid other countries (like the one I live in) of other minority ethno-religious groups (like the one I belong to).

    You will say that’s ridiculous of course, but then “nobody expects” these things before they happen. And incidents like this are how they always get started. First they came for the Mohammedans…

    • Comment by John C Wright:

      So you are too afraid of me, the most harmless and absurd of men, too afraid to tell me your last name so that I can address you properly, because you are afraid of Catholic saints causing race riots or something. And you call other men delusional.

      Brother, you are sick, sick, sick. Go to confession. Go see a psychiatrist. There is no point in arguing about politics or the public issues of the day, because your opinions are based on a mental disorder, not on a political philosophy, not on anything a rational man can talk about. You pick fights with strangers on the internet because something is wrong with your brain.

      Well, I am not going to help feed your delirium. I am not going to pretend your comments are rational, or need to be answered, and I don’t want to encourage you to make them.

      Normally, I do not ban someone unless they break my rules. In your case, I do it as a favor to you. Letting you comment here merely encourages your neurotic fantasy-life.

    • Comment by Robert Mitchell Jr:

      Alas, you poor damned soul. While you were watching for “First they came for the Mohammedans”, they came for the 11 year old girls, and sending those who spoke up to “reeducation”. The person standing up for the NAZIs is you……

    • Comment by Sparky:

      There’s a reason the favorite words of progressives are “pretentious” and “delusional”, because they are not only the words they know best, but live most fully. They’ve trained you well.

      Christians are executed for being Christians by Islamists and you feel the need to stand up for Islamists by attacking Christians. Think about it. It is very simple to understand no matter how much you try to muddy it up with slogans, race-baiting, doublethink, and buzzwords, from your favorite late-night shows.

      You are not a white knight, you are a cancer ward patient.

    Leave a Reply