April 2, 2013, - 4:01 pm

Ebony Couple of the Year: Muslims Who Publish “Prisonworld” Mag to Convert Black Prisoners to Islam; From ’80s “Ready For the World” Band?

By Debbie Schlussel

It’s odd that Black America continues to embrace the religion that traded and sold them into slavery from Africa, the religion that still enslaves them in Muslim countries around the world, and the inherently racist religion that refers to Blacks as “abed” or “abeed” (the Arabic singular and plural word which literally means “slave” but is used as the Muslim version of the N-word). But Ebony Magazine–the most popular monthly publication in Black America–named Muslims, Rufus and Jenny Triplett, its couple of the year in 2012, and they continue to milk this throughout Black America for the purpose of proselytizing Islam.

rufusjennytriplett

prisonworld

Ebony Couple of the Year Converts Black Criminals & Ex-Cons to Islam

The Tripletts, through their Dawah International, LLC (dawah is Islamic proselytizing), pretend that they are offering “marriage advice” to Black America. But that’s the bait for the switch. They publish Prisonworld Magazine and own Prisonworld Records, which pretend to help ex-cons, but the purpose of which is really to convert Black prisoners and ex-cons to Islam. Because we need more of that, right? They also prey on “at-risk youth.”


Both of the Tripletts apparently served time in prison (they say their work is “fueled by their personal experiences in the prison system”) and Rufus Triplett claims to have been in the ’80s one-hit-wonder pop group, “Ready for the World” (which had the cheesy hit song, “Oh, Sheila“). But only Willie Triplett, a relative, is listed as having been in the group. (Hey, who said Muslims can’t lie to infidels. That’s taqiyya, baby.) Sadly, the Tripletts are using their newfound fame from Ebony to try to convert more Blacks across America to Islam. They’ve made appearances at mosques and churches, including in Detroit, with the veneer of offering marital advice. They appear as speakers at prisons to proselytize Islam, and they also have a weekly radio show to appeal to ex-cons, called, “Prisonworld Radio Hour.”

Recent appearances by the Tripletts at a Detroit-area church and mosque were gushingly publicized in a story on the second front page of the Detroit Free Press, but Muslim propagandist Detroit Free Press “reporter” Niraj Warikoo conveniently forgot to mention Dawah International or any of the Triplett’s Prisonworld projects. (Warikoo, never one to check facts when a fellow Muslim tells him something, falsely repeated as fact that Rufus Triplett was a member of “Ready For The World.”)

Hmmm . . . we wouldn’t want the world to know that this “happy, successful Islamic couple offering marriage advice” is actually converting more and more criminals to Islam and radicalism, right?

Oh, and by the way, the Tripletts got a letter of encouragement for their Prisonworld Islamic conversion efforts from Barack Obama. Shocker.

ebony

Related Posts with Thumbnails
Print Friendly



Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

76 Responses

“Prisonworld” magazine?!

Are you sure this wasn’t supposed to be posted yesterday on April Fool’s day? Unbelievable.

DS_ROCKS! on April 2, 2013 at 5:00 pm

I always hated that song “Oh, Sheila” but I wasn’t too keen on anything mainstream back them. If they sing it now I reckon they sing, “Oh, Sharia”.

Black Democrats confound me enough but since I have learned the truth about Islam HERE, Black Mooooooooslims even confound me more. I could never, ever respect them. They have not brains nor propriety. Can’t respect that.

I also learned HERE about the big business of pIslam in prisons but I have been seeing stories daily that illustrate it. It’s annoying and troubling.

Something else this dumb country should wake up to but won’t.

Even the preternaturally optimistic Conservatives are getting down because our bull-dozing has become so clear to see each day. I don’t like it at ALL!

Skunky on April 2, 2013 at 5:00 pm

The funny thing is Black Muslims are frowned up by other Muslims. They’re not “pure enough” for them.

NormanF on April 2, 2013 at 5:14 pm

Fundamentalist Muslims can’t lie to infidels because they don’t owe infidels the truth.

That’s why they’re not really even criminals when they break infidel laws either and it’s why they can lie about it with a straight face and such convincing indignation when they get caught.

Yes, let’s get our criminal class(especially the black disenfranchised youth segment) into radical Islam.
How bad can it be? We’ve tried everything else right?
Couldn’t be much worse than Christianity could it?
It’s not like there are any economic solutions on the horizon.
Hell, no.

For me this article is proof positive that Obama is the biggest Alfred E. Newman that has ever been elected to the office of President.
Who even needs cartoons with the politicians we have nowadays anyway?

I don’t even look forward to the end of his term when America will begin the hopeless task of trying to pick up the pieces after its little affirmative action fiasco which hasn’t made it anymore loved or respected around the world by the way. Just a little less respected.

At least America proved it was a genuine affirmative action appointment by finding a Black American that doesn’t even particularly like the United States very much and definitely detests everything it used to stand for.
So I guess nobody can accuse him of being a token non-white except people even more radical and looney left than the people he used to socialize with, of which there aren’t many.

Oh well, full marks for making the effort. Guess what the prize is.

Frankz on April 2, 2013 at 5:26 pm

Deb–

RE: “It’s odd that Black America continues to embrace the religion that traded and sold them into slavery from Africa, the religion that still enslaves them in Muslim countries around the world, and the inherently racist religion that refers to Blacks as “abed” or “abeed” (the Arabic singular and plural word which literally means “slave” but is used as the Muslim version of the N-word).”

It’s called the Stockholm Syndrome.

Red Ryder on April 2, 2013 at 5:31 pm

It’s mainly because old confederates like you look down on them, Ryder.

Frankz on April 2, 2013 at 6:05 pm

    @Frankz–

    As always, a perfect non sequitur.

    Red Ryder on April 2, 2013 at 6:30 pm

      Non-sequitur, Red Ryder? Hardly. You ARE an old confederate, and you ARE an enemy of black people.

      skzion on April 2, 2013 at 7:05 pm

        (And before RR comes back with some annoying correction, note that “non sequitur” should not be hyphenated.)

        skzion on April 2, 2013 at 7:13 pm

Frankz: lol.

Anyway, it can’t be Stockholm Syndrome because these blacks are not being held and tormented by the Muslims YET. Indeed, Stockholm Syndrome would have the blacks identify and appreciate the values of their captors, i.e., whitey.

I wonder if RR is any better with Gramsci.

skzion on April 2, 2013 at 6:10 pm

    @skzion-

    The idea was that the Muslims captured and traded them in the first place—as Debbie implied.

    Realize this is a bit too deep for you, though.

    Red Ryder on April 2, 2013 at 6:27 pm

      Yes, way too deep for me, Red Ryder. I lack your ability to Google for Wiki entries and then misapply the psychological research items you locate from the search.

      I also am not so deep as you in pseudo-intellectual phoniness, thinking that one should actually understand a concept before applying it.

      skzion on April 2, 2013 at 7:02 pm

        @skzion–

        Oh dear–you poor fool…

        I provided the link for those who may not have been familiar with the term.

        Please try to get over yourself.

        Red Ryder on April 2, 2013 at 7:58 pm

          Yes, Red Ryder. And now anyone who wants to verify that you misused the term can simply follow the link that you provided. But by all means, hurl empty insults at me. I’m sure they will divert attention from your ignorance.

          skzion on April 2, 2013 at 8:20 pm

I find it amazing that Ebony Magazine cites as their heroes to ex-convicts. Dr. Ben Carson and his wife couldn’t be their couple of the year?

Jonathan E. Grant on April 2, 2013 at 6:47 pm

@JEG–

Not so amazing. They’re playing to their core demographic. Of course, the *owners* of Ebony Magazine–personally–no doubt regard Carson as a hero.

Red Ryder on April 2, 2013 at 6:51 pm

Prison Experience – Good
Never in prison – Bad (not cool enough)

Demmican – Good
Republicrat – Bad

Allah – Good (Gives us a better gang to belong to)
White Man’s God – Bad

Get da pitcha?

Alfredo from Puerto Rico on April 2, 2013 at 8:39 pm

Thanks for this piece Debbie, and I for one as a black individual do NOT read or subcribe to Ebony Magazine, if my memory serves me correct, my mother still subscribes to them. I didn’t know nothing about this by Ebony magazine of placating to a muslim couple, who were ex-convicts and trying to convert black people like myself into islam (I don’t mean directly at me personally, but you folks understand what I’m referring to).

Um, didn’t the publishers and writers for this magazine noticed that arab-muslims were the very first slave-traders in history, by enslaving blacks in African countries south of the sahara desert and also selling black slaves to the Europeans before coming here to North America (and South America)? If the publishers of this magazine don’t know this and/or uneducated, I can forgive them on it, there not too old to learn anything, BUT, if they know all of these facts that I mentioned and don’t care, then I pity them.

“A nation is defined by its borders, language & culture!”

Sean R. on April 2, 2013 at 9:03 pm

Islam has no problem with slavery fundamentally because it is a religion of submission, not love.
You will not find a good Samaritan celebrated in Islam although many Muslims may indeed be such a person.

“We do not say love is halal or haram because it is a feeling. Maybe it is not under control. You can judge what is under control. But people who fall in love are in many episodes away from the cleansed and pure atmosphere.”

http://islamgreatreligion.wordpress.com/2011/05/25/falling-in-love-allowed-in-islam/

Not exactly a ringing endorsement… more of a big question mark.

Here’s what isn’t…

“Muhammad began to take slaves after he moved to Medina, and had power. Slaves were usually taken in raids on nearby Arab tribes, or war, either through offensive or defensive actions. Islam allows the taking of slaves as “booty”, or reward for fighting. This has led to numerous “jihads” by Muslim states and tribes to attack other non-Muslim groups and obtain slaves”

Frankz on April 2, 2013 at 10:00 pm

I think that power couple should be sent to the Middle East for a couple of years. This spot should be a regular village or small city, and not some urban gated community. Let this couple discover what Islam truly is and isn’t. I have a feeling that they would not last very long.

Worry01 on April 3, 2013 at 4:25 am

@skzion–

OK. I will try to be more polite here.

While the common use of “Stockholm Syndrome” refers to the direct relationship between the captor and his victims, I was extending the concept a bit more to include the historical relationship between African slaves and Arab/Muslim slave traders.

There is also an opposite “effect” some call the Lima Effect, whereby the captors identify with their victims. Taken, again, beyond the obvious direct relationship, this effect might explain our current overcompensating “Civil Rights” obsession.

Red Ryder on April 3, 2013 at 8:39 am

AKA The “Lima Syndrome”

Red Ryder on April 3, 2013 at 8:44 am

@skzion–

Would “hurling insults” include “You ARE an old confederate, and you ARE an enemy of black people”?

If you conclude this from my distaste for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and its consequences, please do enlighten me on how this act has helped the Black race.

Take any parameter you would like, and compare whites overall with blacks overall pre-1964 and present. With the exception of college graduation and government jobs, please find me a single one that has improved.

But, for sure—the percentage of Black Democrats has vastly increased. It was none other than LBJ himself who noted after the Act’s passage that “We’ll have those n****** voting Democrat for the next 200 years.”

Some improvement.

Red Ryder on April 3, 2013 at 8:54 am

    RR, your point on LBJ was very sobering. It bolsters your point and shows how this isn’t an easily digested debate. There is much thinking to go into it. I admit I haven’t cogitated on it as I should but it indeed shows that when I do, the issue will not be an easy one to reconcile.

    Skunky on April 3, 2013 at 11:45 am

    Oh Red Ryder, I’ll have more to say about you shortly, but you have managed to misquote me. I didn’t criticize you for “hurling insults,” as you suggest. I criticized you for hurling empty insults, e.g., like calling me a “poor fool” or a “troll.” Evidently, either you cannot or will not understand such a simple distinction.

    skzion on April 3, 2013 at 8:35 pm

@skzion–

I readily submit that if you study census data rigorously, you may well be able to locate “something,” but in every one of the significant parameters, comparing the races OVERALL, you will come up short.

I’m referring to things like unemployment, health, longevity, crime, legitimacy, and wage disparity.

Would it be inappropriate to describe the Blacks’ defection to the Democrats, their former slave masters, as the Stockholm Syndrome?

Red Ryder on April 3, 2013 at 9:24 am

The 1964 Civil Rights (sic) Act? Looks to me like another example of the Stockholm Syndrome. The Republicans would not dare come out against it publicly. They support it to the skies, even though it is used against them in elections to unfairly attack the Republican Party.

As I’m sure RR knows, it is used by the Democrats to micromanage and invalidate Southern elections, call Caucasian residents of the Southern states inherently racist, and facilitate voter fraud on the part of the Democratic Party. Do any of your critics know this? If so, do they approve of this oversight by that paragon of good behavior Eric H. Holder?

But hopefully, namecalling and invective will not intimidate you.

Little Al on April 3, 2013 at 10:19 am

@Little Al–

Thanks for the support.

Red Ryder on April 3, 2013 at 10:26 am

The reason Blacks have fallen for Islam? Pretty simple: Muslims hate Whites and Jews, and they know many Blacks( The less educated,the better,inner city or rural ) hate Whites and Jews,and the Muslims seek to recruit such ignoramuses.

CharlesMartel on April 3, 2013 at 11:09 am

As late as 2008, 83% of African Americans identified themselves as Christians and less than 2% identified themselves as Muslim. Not much of an “embrace”…

First it was NeNe Leakes on the cover of Ebony and now this. It just shows how a certain “element” has penetrated formerly working and middle class black institutions. For Ebony Magazine to highlight this couple as “Couple of the Year” shows how much the magazine has declined since founder John Johnson died. This NEVER would have happened under his watch…

Melyssa on April 3, 2013 at 11:23 am

Ebony Magazine’s decline came about when John H. Johnson retired and passed away and his daughters took control of the company. While Ebony always had its share of problems (they used to sell cream that was used to lighten your skin until very recently, though in later times its true purpose was hidden and it was remarketed as “spot removal cream”) it was a very good magazine (they were the ones who coined the phrase “black on black crime” for example) and they published some really good, almost academic level pieces from sociologists, historians, law professors etc. on real issues. But alas, that was then. First his daughters made the magazine more female-oriented (which was a horrible development as there were already several magazines aimed towards black women but none towards black men, and Ebony tried their best to treat both sexes equally) then they lowered its standards. They claimed that it was an effort to boost sales, but it was really just their remaking the magazine into one that they personally liked. The magazine also took a left turn too, going from being merely center-left to promoting feminism, gay rights, abortion etc. While some conservatives made a point of Ebony excluding Clarence Thomas from their annual list of “most influential blacks”, the truth is that Ebony did acknowledge in its prior era that black Republicans and conservatives existed and gave them some time and exposure for their ideas … they just personally disliked Thomas. But these days? Forget it.

Gerald on April 3, 2013 at 11:36 am

    Interesting bit of history, Gerald.

    skzion on April 4, 2013 at 9:17 pm

@Red Ryder:

You are indulging in the common tactic of purposefully blaming the negative effects of the Great Society programs on the Civil Rights Act. The truth is that they have nothing to do with each other. Plenty of blacks who have never received a dime from the Great Society programs benefited greatly from the end of Jim Crow. It is a common tactic for those who still advocate segregation to claim that ending segregation somehow harmed law-abiding hard working blacks. Blacks who are not law-abiding and hard working are no better or worse off before Jim Crow than they were before. But blacks who do work hard and contribute to civil society are most certainly better off at the dismantling of Jim Crow.

And you are yet another one who plays the “blacks and government jobs” canard. I posted this a few months ago and got flamed for it, but I will state it again: only 14% of blacks work for the government. Moreover, the percentage of blacks who work for the government is only slightly larger than the percentage of whites who have government jobs (10%). I suppose you liked it better during the Jim Crow era when whites had all the government jobs or something? Well that is the funny thing. During Jim Crow (and the de jure system in the north that was as bad or worse), whites were good Democrats who supported the New Deal, government jobs and programs etc. during the Jim Crow era – as well as during the Tammany Hall type urban machine era in places like New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, Boston etc. – when whites could keep all the government benefits to themselves. It wasn’t until the feds busted up that racket that becoming a small government conservative Republican in the south – and in the municipal union government job north – became a good idea. And even then, the “Reagan Republicans” still supported their Department of Agriculture subsidies, ethanol scams and plenty of other goodies. Had it not been for the Civil Rights Act, the whole lot of them would still be good New Deal yellow dog Democrats looking for handouts just like they were when they were still electing guys like Robert Byrd, George Wallace, Orval Faubus, Richard Daley and Frank Rizzo.

Gerald on April 3, 2013 at 11:53 am

    Superb comment, Gerald.

    skzion on April 4, 2013 at 9:24 pm

@Melyssa:

You are 100% correct. The fascination with Islam is something that only exists with the black elite, meaning the politicians and the academics and the celebrities (and John Johnson’s daughters). The black rank and file has rejected Islam time and time again going back to the Malcolm X era. Even the Million Man March and the Muslims using rap music as their propaganda vehicle during the 1990s didn’t result in a real increase in the number of black converts to that religion.

However, that is not the whole story. While blacks are not joining Islam, more and more blacks are becoming secular and/or non-observant. And as Ms. Schlussel has oft stated, today’s secularists/non-observants are tomorrow’s Muslim converts. Indeed, the blacks who convert to Islam in prison – the only “success story” for Islam propagandists – were nonobservant upon arriving in jail (which, er, explains why they turned to robbing, drug dealing, assault etc. in the first place). And even there, far, far more blacks convert to Christianity in jail than Islam. It is just that the media (both black and mainstream) get all excited and thrilled over blacks converting to Islam in prison while doing their best to ignore the blacks who convert to Christianity. The reason: for the most part, the Christians converting blacks in prison is not the civil rights activist type liberal Christianity, but evangelicals. The black prison inmate who converts to Christianity is far more likely to do so as the result of Tim Tebow’s preaching than Jesse Jackson’s, and that is why it generally gets ignored by everyone from the New York Times to John Johnson’s daughters.

I honestly do wish that more people would come out and tell the truth about how the Muslim religion and the Arab culture regards blacks and have treated blacks historically until this day. A ton, a very high percentage, of the blacks that were enslaved in America and the west were sold as slaves by Muslim slave traders. You will hear it acknowledged every now and then that slaves were sold to the Americans by other blacks and Africans, but you almost never hear it said how many of those blacks were Muslims and Arabs. It is a gigantic coverup that so many people participate in – the media and academia I mean – and I have no idea why.

Gerald on April 3, 2013 at 12:07 pm

I would like it better if the percentage of Government jobs for all races declined. State, local and federal bureaucracies are swollen, and rife with political skullduggery that creates many make-work jobs for all races. The General Accountability Office has documented this for the feds, and it is probably worse on local levels, with unions like the AFT and AFSCME bankrupting us to shower taxpayer dollars on many who are overpaid, and not worth their salaries.

And those who do useful work in principle, like the Border Patrol, and FBI are, in many cases, prevented from doing their jobs the way they are supposed to be done.

Little Al on April 3, 2013 at 12:12 pm

    “I would like it better if the percentage of Government jobs for all races declined.”

    So would I, Little Al. But I have to call you out on this:
    “As I’m sure RR knows, it is used by the Democrats to micromanage and invalidate Southern elections, call Caucasian residents of the Southern states inherently racist, and facilitate voter fraud on the part of the Democratic Party. Do any of your critics know this?”

    Err … that is the Voting Rights Act. So it was Red Ryder attributing the negative effects of the Great Society programs to the Civil Rights Act, and now you attributing the Voting Rights Act to the Civil Rights Act.

    Now there are legitimate reasons to oppose the Civil Rights Act of 1964, especially since subsequent laws and court rulings have been used to expand it far beyond its original scope and purpose and that was likely the plan of the left from the very beginning when they enacted it to begin with. But we have to recall that the Civil Rights Act was only originally intended as a way to practically enforce the 14th Amendment, especially in areas that never supported the 14th Amendment (or the 13th or 15th Amendment) in places that were purposefully resisting the 14th amendment wholesale.

    At the time the Civil Rights Act passed, there was substantial opposition to the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments in large portions of this country. Consider that those amendments were adopted only because large swaths of the country were under Reconstruction governments, and those Reconstruction governments voted for those amendments against the will of the people that they were supposed to be representing in their respective states. Folks in those areas never had any intention of enforcing the Reconstruction amendments, and had it not been for the passage of the Civil Rights Act, they never would have.

    I know it would be very useful to fight yesterday’s battles in light of today’s facts, especially when the issues are black illegitimacy, black crime rates, affirmative action programs and dysfunctional urban areas run by black politicians, and especially how the Civil Rights Act is now being used to advance homosexuality and feminism, but honestly the Civil Rights Act was only necessary because there was a determined, coordinated attempt to ignore the Constitution in a large section of the country.

    Gerald on April 3, 2013 at 1:22 pm

      Yes, the Voting Rights Act extended the Civil Rights Act, and unfortunately I did get them mixed up. But they are pretty much part of the same package, and unfortunately have been extended far beyond the original intent of most Americans who supported them, or the outcome that was predicted by its supporters at the time.

      You do hint at the fact that they have far exceeded their original intent. We have been plagued with Affirmative Action, and reflexive accusations of racism that have stifled free speech throughout society, and the abuses against the black population precipitating these Acts have been used, as you say, to initiate a never-ending parade of other rights, with no responsibilities.

      And we are certainly entitled to look at any piece of legislation 50 years later, and see what has become of the problems that the legislation was intended to solve. While the Civil Rights Movement, and the 1964 and 1965 legislation did address legitimate grievance, they also unleashed a dynamic that was counterproductive to society as a whole.

      Good intentions, and the fact that there was an actual discrimination problem do not forbid us from looking at a later date to see if the remedy was appropriate. A little progress, and messes like affirmative action, Chicago and Detroit.

      It reminds me a little bit of the French and Russian revolutions. There were problems, but in seeking to address them, many new problems were created that, arguably made things worse in many respects.

      Little Al on April 3, 2013 at 2:06 pm

      @Gerald–

      OK. Let me understand this…

      “Folks in those areas never had any intention of enforcing the Reconstruction amendments, and had it not been for the passage of the Civil Rights Act, they never would have.”

      Thus, because the Constitution—the supreme law of the land–is being violated, our remedy is to pass another (and by definition, inferior) law??

      Here’s a hypothetical: Let’s say that somewhere, freedom of speech (per the First Amendment to the Constitution) is being violated. Then, I guess, we must pass the “Free Speech Act,” because we really, really don’t want those rights to be violated. And somehow, the standing US attorney in that region would otherwise be powerless to enforce these rights?

      Red Ryder on April 3, 2013 at 5:04 pm

      Another superb comment. Gerald, you’re on a roll. As you know, I often disagree with you, especially on current events, but I have no quibbles here.

      skzion on April 4, 2013 at 9:26 pm

Well, there was Sammy Davis, Jr.

Pray Hard on April 3, 2013 at 1:04 pm

    Sammy Davis, Jr. converted to Judeism.

    Rochelle on April 3, 2013 at 2:32 pm

      While playing golf Sammy was asked his handicap. He replied “A one-eyed jewish black man?”

      Rochelle on April 3, 2013 at 2:41 pm

        The voice of Sammy Davis Jr. is just pure perfection. I love it so much and I feel HE was the best singer, by a country mile, out of all the Rat Pack. I mean no offense to Sinatra fans but I am just bored to tears by the voice of FS. Never did a thing for me. Sammy is the best and Dean Martin is my second favourite.

        (I know he has a strange affiliation with Anton LaVay, but let that go…)

        Skunky on April 3, 2013 at 6:07 pm

When did The Nation of Islam (Louis Farrakhan) stop recruiting blacks to Islam inside the prison system as they have done for many years. Are the Triplett’s replacing them?

Rochelle on April 3, 2013 at 2:29 pm

@ Gerald:

This is an interesting discussion – and I’m niether flaming you nor trying to be uncivil, however you stated:
“…but you almost never hear it said how many of those blacks were Muslims and Arabs.”

Can you please explain just how many of those black [slavers] were Arabs? To my thinking, the two are distinct. Given that the millineum of trade in black sex slaves by Arab populations did some to blur the distinction. It reminds me of those who attempt to argue that Obama has Arab roots. Barack senior, his presumptive father, was of the Luo tribe. Luo are the third largest ethnic group in Kenya and are hardly an Arab people. Now if Frank Marshall Davis was an Arab there might be a there there.

Richard on April 3, 2013 at 4:16 pm

@Red Rider,

Maybe you can settle a bet I should have made with skzion, Rider?

I think he’s being way too generous assuming you didn’t understand the concept behind “Stockholm syndrome” and now just don’t want to admit it.

Whereas I feel you’re actually such a nitwit that although you understood the concept you don’t realize how stupid you sound ignoring his point and pretending that slaves would have “Stockholm syndrome” for Arab traders they met only briefly instead of the Europeans who held them in bondage for hundreds of years.

I believe you believe that if you just squawk the words “Stockholm syndrome” often enough somebody will give you a cracker.

Who’s right Red Ryder?

Frankz on April 3, 2013 at 5:38 pm

@Frankz–

I refer you to the original quote:

“It’s odd that Black America continues to embrace the religion that traded and sold them into slavery from Africa, the religion that still enslaves them in Muslim countries around the world, and the inherently racist religion that refers to Blacks as “abed” or “abeed” (the Arabic singular and plural word which literally means “slave” but is used as the Muslim version of the N-word).”

If you have a better explanation, I’m all ears. However, you and your little friend cannot see beyond the superficial definition of the term “Stockholm Syndrome.”

Debbie was wondering how Blacks could embrace the religion most consistently damaging to their race.

Instead of these puerile attacks on me, try answering her question—and settle a bet I have with Little Al, that you guys are actually one and the same troll.

Red Ryder on April 3, 2013 at 6:43 pm

Some back story information on Red Ryder’s and Little Al’s latest.

Gentle readers, it all began with Little Al’s hilarious and inept attempt to take me down on the issue of gay marriage. Since Little Al got personal with me early on, I decided to take him on full force. You can read my latest installment by clicking on the link below and going near the end of the comments to my comment on April 1, 2013 at 7:32 pm.

http://www.debbieschlussel.com/60733/nbc-times-today-anchors-im-pregnant-im-a-lesbian-outing-to-influence-supremes-on-gay-marriage/

While you can judge the results for yourself, suffice to say that I am confident that I showed Little Al’s comments to be incoherent, subliterate, and dishonest. DS_ROCKS! agreed with me, which I appreciated as I think very well of the fellow. Red Ryder then decided to chip in (see the linked discussion).

Alas, Red Ryder couldn’t really defend the substance of Little Al’s rhetorical breakdown. Nevertheless, he congratulated Little Al on his assertion that I was a covert liberal opportunist. Red Ryder went further, though, and asserted that I was a secret “commie” (his word) pursuing a Gramsci-esque effort to undermine the country. I can’t comment on Gramsci specifically, as I have better things to do than to study a third-rate Marxoid (give me full-strength Marxism from the likes of Marx, Lenin, and Mao). However, I proceeded to take apart Red Ryder’s comment. I presume that Red Ryder’s spirited support explains why Little Al is suddenly BFF with Red Ryder.

But none of this quite explains why I consider Red Ryder a really vicious type. His shtick is a “Who me?” wide-eyed innocence. But I saw through that the moment he started pandering to Islam. So, on at least three occasions, including the one on the linked page (above), I asked him some variant of the following:

Finally, as RR proclaims himself a real conservative, shall we look under the hood a bit? I have asked him several times whether Jews living today should be discriminated against by Catholics for “deicide” (killing Jesus). I first asked this when he rejected Vatican II. RR has yet to answer this simple question. Of course, by now his answering of it is like Holder’s finally answering Rand Paul’s question about drones.

I concluded:

In sum: RR’s “conservatism” evidently includes nasty anti-Semitism. Some will recall what Buckley, also a Catholic, thought about that. I guess Buckley was a crypto-communist [like me] too.

I had taken it (relatively) easy on Red Ryder because Skunky (for some reason) seemed to like the guy. But finally, when his innocent persona cracked and he libeled me, I decided I’d had enough. So, when the fellow started his pseudo-scientific crappola about Stockholm Syndrome — he uses science to mask his agenda — I called him out on it. And when Frankz told the truth about him in a nicely acerbic comment, I chimed in with support.

On this blog, we have numerous appearances by crypto-Nazis (we call them “Muslims” or “Poles”). Red Ryder has as much right as these groups to spout his beliefs here. That said, he has no right to expect any of us to buy his “Who me?” innocent persona. He is not innocent. He is of the Buchanan/Gibson branch of Catholic belief. Don’t buy his protestations to the contrary.

skzion on April 3, 2013 at 9:39 pm

    Skzion, as an unwritten rule I try to be civil to the regulars here. I know RR has been here longer than I have. I know he and FrankZ have animosity towards each other and I know you are no fan now.

    I don’t want to doubt you because you and I get annoyed by the same things. You are also a very good sport when it comes to things that can would make others defensive. I appreciate that about you.

    You are kind enough to trust me when I feel someone is being fake here (and I appreciate that) so I want to give you the same respect. It is possible I am missing something (due to my ignorance of the topics at hand) that you are seeing. I will be able to judge as things unfold.

    You are correct about the Moooooooslim dodgy-ness (I recall saying I didn’t know what to say about his view twice). I don’t want to doubt you (not saying I do) I’m not privy enough to see what you are saying (and that falls on me, not you).

    I trust your acumen so I will see how all this fans out.

    Skunky on April 3, 2013 at 10:19 pm

      Thank you very much, Skunky, for your kind comment.

      skzion on April 4, 2013 at 9:28 pm

From what I’ve seen, the ones that convert do so to attempt to FEEL superior. Look at how Cassius Clay behaved. Especially IN Africa. He was suddenly blacker than Joe Frazier.
Just another phony way to deal with every day life.

samurai on April 4, 2013 at 12:23 am

@Ryder,
Not everyone that loses patience with your nonsense is the same person Ryder. Sorry to disappoint you.

Stop hiding behind what Debbie said – do you yourself have an answer?

Every time somebody points out a logical contradiction in something you posted, you change the subject.
That’s why every post is a non-sequitur with you.

What have you got to say about that?

Frankz on April 4, 2013 at 8:07 am

@skzion and Frankz–

Let me take skzion’s bold points first. BTW, you will note that when he does not get the exact answer he wants, he refers to this as “dodging” the question.

If one would care to go through my past postings, they will see quite clearly that this “deicide” business is a very minor part of Vatican II, and indeed, there are parts of the current versions of the gospels—especially John—which are not particularly kind to the Jews–meaning those in authority.

The main problem with Vat II–as I have stated several times–is that far too much emphasis was placed on an individual’s conscience, thus in effect permitting them to do all sorts of things (in their minds at least) that are actually proscribed.

For this, and several other reasons, I concluded, as have many, many Catholics, that in sum Vat II was not a good Council.

How this makes me anti-Semitic has never been explained by skzion.

Moreover, just because Buchanan is anti-Semitic, this has nothing at all to do with his being Catholic–which Gibson is not, having left the Church to form his own splinter group.

As to the Muslim matter, this is getting ridiculous. As I said several times, the Church launched its Crusades–and sadly they failed. There is no possible mechanism for a Crusade to occur at present, so the Curia must pay some attention to protecting Catholic lives in Muslim countries.

Again, how this makes me anti-Semitic or soft on Muslims has never been explained.

As to gay marriage, this seems to have catalyzed the entire long discourse, and your attacks on me and Little Al. Conveniently, you skirt the Gramsci matter even as his exact blueprint has been playing out in the US since at least the early 1960s.

You ignore Gramsci at your peril, as he was the one who figured out how to turn the world Commie without firing a shot, unlike the others you cite. Indeed, Muslim hegemony is an unexpected “benefit” that comes from his patented March through the Institutions.

Further, gay marriage would have been Gramsci’s wet dream since he realized that Communism could not take over completely as long as the Church stood.

SO–follow this. The Supremes will legalize gay marriage, and within a few weeks some prominent gay Catholic will insist on being married in St. Patrick’s Cathedral.

The Church will refuse, of course, and will eventually lose its tax exemption, and will be additionally marginalized by the secular society.

At the end of the day, and taking the eternal view, none of this actually will matter, since—as I have stated repeatedly—the mission of the Church is to save souls…not save the world.

Finally, your obsession with my spin on the Stockholm Syndrome, which BTW is not at all unique to me, is frankly beyond pathetic. Perhaps it is related to your strange and superficial dismissal of Gramsci.

@Skunky–

You seem to have taken their side because I am not advocating a new Crusade. But please answer me this:

If we all agree how bad Islam is, why is fighting it solely up to the Church? Its many converts–at least these days–have exercised their free will.

Any person—Catholic or not—can pray for sufficient actual grace to overcome temptation and do the right thing. Yet, many have not. Why even THIS is the fault of the Church has not been explained, either.

Red Ryder on April 4, 2013 at 9:24 am

    RR, I am just agreeing with Skzion where I know 100% he is correct in his doubting you. I even posted questions to you regarding that in the thread that covered that issue.

    My questions with you are not about The Crusades, just doubt from what I learned here on Islam. I take it seriously. Trying to get along with them is not an option. I vehemently disagree with you on that.

    The other stuff I don’t know. Remember, I thought you were Black (at one time) so I don’t think you’re racist. I’ve posted more than once that you ask questions that I have never thought about so more thinking on my part is due before I can agree with or condemn your beliefs.

    I’ll continue to be polite and Skzions and FredZs beliefs on you will either ring true or be mistaken. At this point the truth is I don’t know so I hold no opinion.

    Skunky on April 4, 2013 at 10:18 am

@Ryder,
OK, you didn’t answer how Debbie’s observation that many black Americans continue to embrace Islam has anything to do with Stockholm syndrome because it’s “beyond pathetic”.
Meaning you have no way out.
There are actually many ways you could answer but you’re an idiot so as usual you evade the issue because it makes you look silly.
I just wanted to confirm that in my own mind, maybe I’ll get into to some of those later or maybe not.

Yes, when people refer to the Jews they’re generally referring to “those in authority” aren’t they?
It’s always just the powerful few they have a problem with isn’t it?
If they could only get rid of those few nasty Jews with a little bit of power and influence then everything would be alright wouldn’t it?
Then they’d stop messing everything up in the world.

When John, a Jew by the way, criticized the Pharisees(also Jewish) he was really just thinking along the same lines as the Vatican II so that’s all fine too according to you. As usual the contradiction doesn’t even register on you. It never does.

Anyway, the argument doing the rounds that it was just a tiny minority of “powerful” Jews who were culpable only appeals to modern day bubble brain Catholics like yourself because when the crowd chose Barrabas they made themselves complicit in Christ’s crucifixion as a group didn’t they?

It’s really just a small part of Vatican II isn’t it? Sort of like the fine print.

Frankz on April 4, 2013 at 10:33 am

    @Frankz–

    At last!! The anti-Catholic bigotry appears.

    Red Ryder on April 4, 2013 at 10:40 am

    No, FK, there is also anti-semitism against Jews because of the perception that they are the ‘brains’ behind Communism, Socialism, etc., in addition to racial anti-semitism that has been around for more than 100 years, as well as prejudice against Jews for being ‘pushy’.

    Little Al on April 4, 2013 at 10:59 am

@Skunky–

With all due respect..

“Trying to get along with them is not an option.” OK, then how should we proceed? How many divisions has the Pope? (said Stalin)

Getting along does not for a moment mean that I should encourage them or agree with them. BUT–how would you protect the few remaining Catholics in the Middle East, for example?

This website is at risk of turning into a poor man’s Rush Limbaugh Show in that he will gain notoriety and fortune by continuing to point out all the threats, but—uh—what are we supposed to do?

I mean after Deb has pointed out Muslim hegemony example number 1,365,785—what’s the next step?

Kill all of them?

Don’t let your child marry one?

Burn down a mosque?

Become a Catholic?

I don’t know—and neither does anyone else.

Red Ryder on April 4, 2013 at 10:37 am

    Truth is RR, I don’t know either. Most of the country is happy to pander to them or be oblivious to their danger. I’m not, so I see the urgency at hand.

    I don’t know what to do. But I know enough to watch them closely and to never trust them. The media (who covers up so much about them) makes me not doubt this, DAILY.

    But like you I just don’t know.

    Skunky on April 4, 2013 at 11:10 am

@Ryder,
You’ve made it obvious you’re a Catholic and a bubble brain.
Putting the two together doesn’t make me anti-catholic.

If you want to make concessions to “protect the few remaining Catholics in the Middle East” that’s fine.
May I suggest that if you’re serious about that, the best way might be to criticize and undermine Jewish interests in the area.
That might buy their survival temporarily.
I only point it out because you may be too shortsighted to have considered the possibility.

Nobody here has suggested anything remotely close to the options you listed for dealing with radical Islam.
People here just don’t want to make concessions to it.
In fact you come the closest to condoning those types of measures by constantly bragging about the crusades – as if anybody cares.

If you want to go along to get along now, great.

Just don’t try convince the rest of us how reasonable you are.

Frankz on April 4, 2013 at 11:43 am

@Little Al, sorry missed your commen if it was meant for me Al.
All these reasons join up eventually.

My post might be seen as hyper critical of Vatican II, it’s not but from what I’ve seen it doesn’t get to the heart of the problem although well intentioned and possibly creates new ones.

Frankz on April 4, 2013 at 12:14 pm

@Red Ryder, one other thing that got lost in the sea of objectionable material that are your posts – just for the sake of completeness. Anybody that hasn’t made their mind up by now can’t be helped.

“I mean after Deb has pointed out Muslim hegemony example number 1,365,785—what’s the next step?”

The answer to your question is what you’re proposing.
Surrender to that hegemony, while pretending to transcend it.
Gramsci style.

You’re not stepping up to radical Islam by reading these posts you nitwit.

You’re just keeping yourself informed of things you otherwise wouldn’t be if panderers like you controlled the media outlets.
Oops they already do.

That’s why when idiots like you get a voice everyone else loses theirs.

You wouldn’t want to leave it up to their individual conscience would you Ryder?
Gramsci, wouldn’t make that mistake either.

Who needs people like Rush Limbaugh, right?

Don’t we hear garbage like that everyday from the lib media.

Frankz on April 4, 2013 at 1:14 pm

@Skunky–

OK. Here’s what I’ve concluded from your friends skzion and Frankz…

1. The most important thing in the Catholic Church is how it treats Jews. Thus, Vatican II is “great” because it removed the phrase “perfidious Jews,” even if all the Gospels–especially John–are not at all kind to the Jewish hierarchy. That this council did untold damage to the Church itself is, of course, of no concern. Next, they’ll be repeating the calumny that Pius XII did not do enough to help the Jews.

2. Applying a psychological concept (Stockholm Syndrome) in a way in which they are not familiar–even if many others have used it this manner–makes them very combative and uncomfortable.

3. It is vastly important to beat your chest and say that you will “Never give in to Islam” in a way never specified….while you promote gay marriage.

4. They have an insatiable demand for anti-Islam news items, and are content with this as an end in itself—simply because it runs counter to the mainstream media. While Debbie displays considerable valor in doing what she does, at some point, this barrage of information—with no action plan—becomes a sort of current events pornography, don’t you think?

I have concluded finally that the pornography analogy is apt indeed, and I really don’t need this addiction.

Red Ryder on April 4, 2013 at 2:58 pm

    RR, I like to hear what you, Skzion and FrankZ have to say. I am indeed impartial to Skzion because we have many things in common and he has had my back here. That goes a long way with me.

    I think your questions are compelling. I get what you are saying re “pornography” but I like to think I am making a small difference with what I learn here (which is A LOT!!!) and spreading the word. DS has for many, many years been physically active in what she promotes here. She just doesn’t talk it (I am not saying this because I don’t think you know it I just wanna state it outright because what she does is important).

    We can/should all do more. I get what you are saying BUT at the same time I am lately getting frustrated with all this news but USA seems to be oblivious to it all. You can see that in my posts.

    We just gotta start small. I see you are frustrated as I am (and I reckon others here) but you are sorta viewing it a bit more different than me. That’s how individuals work. I’m frustrated by the blindness even thou’ the truth is so out there and you’re frustrated by what we do next. Both are valid in the fight.

    We have to start small. DS does all the hard reporting and it’s up to us to spread the word and prepare others…whether they wanna listen or not.

    Hard to explain but I think you get my gist. I see yours and agree there must be more action.

    Skunky on April 4, 2013 at 5:23 pm

      Skunky, I’m happy to reply to Red Ryder’s comment posted at 2:58 pm.

      1. The most important thing in the Catholic Church is how it treats Jews….

      I have already addressed this straw man. But let me answer a variant of the question to show you it is not difficult to answer if one has decent morals.

      DO YOU, SKZION, BELIEVE THAT JEWS TODAY SHOULD DISCRIMINATE AGAINST CATHOLICS TODAY BASED ON THE HISTORY OF EXTREME ANTI-SEMITISM THAT CHARACTERIZED THE CATHOLIC MASSES AND THE CATHOLIC HIERARCHY OF THE PAST?

      My response: no, I do not. Jews today should treat Catholics today based on what such Catholics say and do. The Catholic hierarchy, as it represents a running average of different popes and cardinals, and a doctrine that changes over time, should be judged based on its statements and actions from around 30 years (+/-) back to the present.

      There. Not so tough.

      2. Applying a psychological concept (Stockholm Syndrome) in a way in which they are not familiar–even if many others have used it this manner–makes them very combative….

      Silly. Popular usage of scientific findings is typically way off, coming from journalists who don’t know what they’re doing. RR should stop making excuses. Science should not be warped to fit popular misconceptions. RR lacks Christian humility.

      3. It is vastly important to beat your chest and say that you will “Never give in to Islam” in a way never specified….while you promote gay marriage.

      Notice RR’s dishonesty and incoherence here. I am seen as doing politics–subverting society–if I “promote gay marriage,” but I am merely “beating my chest” if I attack Islam. If I am merely blabbing ineffectually here, why does Red Ryder go ballistic about what I say on gay marriage? The truth is that communities such as ours do have some effect. Not only do others who are not regulars tune in, but they notice the arguments and evidence provided. Furthermore, we, the regulars, are messengers for the ideas developed here. Why does RR think that we who know the truth about Islam somehow never act on the world outside this forum? In fact, he suspects that we do act. But he doesn’t care about Islam–he may even appreciate its inherent anti-Semitism. He is also terribly concerned that conservative gays such as myself who value the war against Islam over gay rights issues might join with others similarly motivated so that the others, who are not pro-gay, nevertheless decide that the war against Islam really is more important.

      (Interested readers should review The Semi-Sovereign People by E.E. Schattschneider for an intellectually rigorous analysis of the logic of suppressing certain conflicts in order to advance other, more important, ones. Forget the lightweight Gramsci. If Gramsci wasn’t important enough in my graduate education to warrant serious study, he’s not worth your limited time now.)

      4. They have an insatiable demand for anti-Islam news items, and are content with this as an end in itself—simply because it runs counter to the mainstream media… this barrage of information—with no action plan—becomes a sort of current events pornography, don’t you think?

      Oh my. I’ve already covered the essence of this under 3. But how exactly does His Clairvoyance know that we have no action plan? Surely he knows of “thinking globally, acting locally”? After all, he poses as someone familiar with the nuts and bolts of activism. Also, has he ever considered that some of us contribute financially to Debbie’s activities? We also defend her here and elsewhere. His reference to pornography is, however, telling: are we to conclude that he thinks that opposition to the daily encroachments of Islam is indecent? Does he think that those–like him–who write in evident support of Jim Crow laws, Jewish sin, and against gay marriage are NOT engaging in current affairs pornography?

      I’m out of time tonight, Skunky. In sum, though, I don’t think Red Ryder is very persuasive, though I grant that he can come up with catchy phrases. All I see from him is dishonesty, incoherence, and manipulative phrase-mongering.

      skzion on April 4, 2013 at 11:51 pm

        (I mentioned my comments “above,” but that’s really “below.” See my comment at 9:14 pm.)

        skzion on April 5, 2013 at 12:01 am

    Notice that Red Ryder has still not given a direct answer to my question about discrimination against Jews. It is utterly irrelevant that parts of the Gospels (John, certainly) were anti-Semitic (and not just to the “hierarchy”).

    I say, now for the FIFTH time:

    “I have asked him several times whether Jews living today should be discriminated against by Catholics for “deicide” (killing Jesus).”

    I have not said that the most important thing in the Catholic Church is how it treats Jews. This is a complete straw man–and utterly dishonest. Indeed, in the simple question I posed to Red Ryder, I only asked him for his opinion.

    How much more obvious can RR’s anti-Semitism get?

    As for Pius, I agree with Debbie: he did NOT do NEARLY enough for the Jews, or for Christians, for that matter, who were also murdered by Hitler. RR’s own silence regarding my simple question indicates that he would underperform Pius.

    skzion on April 4, 2013 at 9:14 pm

@Red Ryder, awesome is that goodbye?

Frankz on April 4, 2013 at 4:07 pm

Ryder this site is a source of information me.

I don’t need to justify why I watch CNN or any other news channel and I don’t need to justify why I visit this site to the likes of you.

It informs my opinion. If you see it only a source of sensationalism then stick to other outlets.
They’re there to cater to the needs of people like you.

I’m not on a crusade.

You can go on a crusade of Christian outreach to the Muslim world to make up for the last one you seem so proud of if that satisfies your sense of purpose and gives you a plan of action.

This site seems a strange place to do it though.

Good luck to you, fortune passes everywhere.

Frankz on April 4, 2013 at 5:54 pm

@skzion,
I think he did kind of answer in his way,

He thinks that there is biblical justification for this “deicide business” which is only an insignificant part of Vatican II anyway.

If my memory serves there is criticism of the Pharisees in John, these are the ones he means by the Jews in authority. However I don’t remember this criticism applying to Jews in general and would make no sense since John was himself Jewish. However he refers to them as the “Jews–meaning those in authority”. He could simply say that the Pharisees bear historical responsibility but instead gives a veiled reference to Jews in authority.

Ryder has trouble understanding what all the fuss is about anyway since he knows that the Church of Rome will endure from scripture and is only concerned with how many Christian souls can be saved until that day because that is all that ultimately matters.

Frankz on April 4, 2013 at 11:13 pm

    Ah, yes, Frankz, “in his way.” He just won’t put the matter into clear, honest prose. He does personally think it’s virtuous to discriminate against Jews living today–that, by the way, was the question I posed. I was not asking him for Church teaching. The relevant part of Vatican II was only a “minor” part for Catholics, but a major part for Jews. No Pharisees now exist. So, John’s complaints about Pharisees are irrelevant.

    Don’t let RR bamboozle you, my friend.

    skzion on April 4, 2013 at 11:57 pm

skzion, i think we got as clear an answer from him as we’ll ever get.
we’re on the same page.

Frankz on April 5, 2013 at 7:38 am

Wow…you sure are full of alot of falsehood. And to talk about things that you don’t even know to be fact…you are just as guilty.

But…thanks for adding to our fame. We were important enough to write about which in by all terms are the definition of..uh..um..celebrity..tee..hee..

Jenny Triplett on April 5, 2013 at 11:36 pm

    Jenny Triplett, you are indeed a great dupe for the Satanic death cult known as Islam. You embrace a disgusting cult that is illegitimate every step of the way, inherently racist to Blacks (and Jews) and you pretty much admit in your ignorant post that Islam is a con, just like you.

    If you knew anything about this site or the hostess you’d know she knows more about Islam than you will ever know. And is not using it to be a “celebrity” (tee-hee!!!) BUT to warn people of the scourge it is.

    YOU may not know it but we do because we read this site. Joke is on you (other than the $$$ you make in your blood-money scams).

    And you REALLY gave yourself away when you started your post with “Wow”. Now THAT’s funny! (Tee-hee-hee!)

    Skunky on April 6, 2013 at 12:18 pm

@Jenny Triplett,
You guys are so interesting and famous we forgot to talk about you a quarter of the way through the conversation by the way.

Also, we’re just as guilty as who? You?
Is that an unintentional admission of guilt on your own behalf or just your converts?

Frankz on April 6, 2013 at 1:55 pm

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field