Islam – submission | WarSclerotic | Page 5

Archive for the ‘Islam – submission’ category

80% of Swedish police consider quitting over Muslim migrant danger

September 27, 2016

80% of Swedish police consider quitting over Muslim migrant danger, Jihad Watch, Christine Williams, September 27, 2016

Sweden may be descending into a crisis as a new report suggests 80 per cent of police officers are considering switching careers due to the danger they face in the field.

Every single day, the “crises” of jihadist incursion on Western soil and continued atrocities in Islamic states keep tallying up in this full blown jihad war. The situation in Sweden has been rapidly deteriorating. Last year, Stockholm released a stunning policy document which dealt with “ISIS fighters returning to the city after having had their fill of rape and beheadings of civilians.” It indicated that:

The city of Stockholm will make it a priority to provide the returning ISIS fighters with housing, free health care (physical and mental) and full financial support, until they have received earmarked jobs. All this of course fast-tracked past the line of law-abiding immigrants and indigenous Swedes.

Why? So that the poor, downtrodden jihadists don’t feel alienated; they need the generous help of Swedish politically correct politicians to help integrate them back into society. Unbelievably, Swedish councilor Rasmus Persson told the news program Tvärsnytt:

We have discussed how we should work for these guys who have come back, and to prevent them from returning to the fighting, and that they should be helped to process the traumatic experiences they have been through.

Not an iota of consideration for the innocent law-abiding citizens of Sweden. It’s no surprise that 80 percent of Swedish police are currently considering quitting; the very profession which is designated to serve and protect is now being insidiously prevented from carrying out that sworn duty by a politically correct leftist-jihadist alliance which has the West under siege.

swedish-police

“80 Per Cent Of Swedish Police Consider Quitting Over Migrant Danger”, by Chris Tomlinson,Breitbart, September 20, 2016:

Sweden may be descending into a crisis as a new report suggests 80 per cent of police officers are considering switching careers due to the danger they face in the field.

The criminal situation in Sweden may be heading for an even worse turn as a new report has shown that the vast majority of the Swedish police force is so unhappy they are looking into other careers. Sweden has been rocked by increasing levels of criminality from sex attacks at music festivals, hand grenade attacks and violence toward the police in areas populated mostly by migrants.

The report states that up to three Swedish police quit every day as they feel the government isn’t giving them the tools to tackle the epidemic of criminality Norwegian broadcaster NRK reports.

Swedish police Sergeant Peter Larsson told the broadcaster the challenges Swedish authorities face with the ever decreasing number of officers saying, “We have a major crisis. Many colleagues have chosen to leave. We will not be able investigate crimes, we have no time to travel to the call-outs we are set to do. A worsened working environment means that many colleagues are now looking around for something else.”

Larsson singles out violence against emergency services employees saying, “The violence against us in the police and the paramedics and firefighters, has become much worse. We’re talking about stone throwing, violence, fires. It has become much worse in recent years.”

Tina Svensson, a resident of one of the outer suburbs of Gothenburg says that crime has reached a fever pitch and police rarely ever arrive. Ms. Svensson described a particular incident of violence to the Norwegian broadcaster as an example of her experiences saying, “there were two guys who were shot. With some kind of automatic weapons. Two magazines, perhaps. It may not be what you would expect when you are out walking the dog.”

Ms. Svensson said that many people would not travel to her suburb because of the violence and admitted most were scared to live there.

Much of the crime in Sweden is linked to specific suburbs in large cities like Stockholm and Gothenburg that generally also have a high population of migrants. Suburbs like Rinkeby in Stockholm have become particularly famous for residents attacking journalists on more than one occasion.

Swedish police have accounted for a total of 14 no-go areas in which they rarely venture outside of their heavily fortified police stations for fear of being attacked by locals.

Categories: Islam - submission, Islamic integration, Islamic invasion, Islamic supremacy, Islamic terror groups, Islamisation, Law enforcement, Sweden
Tags: Islam - submission, Islamic integration, Islamic invasion, Islamic supremacy, Islamic terror groups, Islamisation, Law enforcement, Sweden

Comments: Be the first to comment

Trump Sees the Jihadist Trojan Horse

September 25, 2016

Trump Sees the Jihadist Trojan Horse, American Thinker, Ted Belman, September 25, 2016

(This article relies substantially on materials posted by Dr. Bill Warner, much of which is presented in the following video:

The article also elaborates on the relevance of the presented material to America’s November 8th presidential elections. — DM)

Ever wonder why there are so many Muslims and Muslim countries in the world? Over the millennia many countries were conquered, but didn’t remain Persian or Greek or Roman as the case may be. You see, the countries conquered in the name of Islam, became and remained Islamic. For example Pakistan, part of India, and Malaysia both were Hindu; Turkey, Iraq, Syria, Egypt and N. Africa were Christian; Afghanistan was Buddhist. They are all Islamic now.

This transformation was not by chance but by design. All these countries were conquered by force then shorn of their wealth and many of their women. Then the Muslim conquerors introduced Sharia and continued fighting the local inhabitants. The inhabitants were either forced to convert or accorded Dhimmi status. As time went on all cultures submitted and eventually became Islamic.

The advance of Islam was finally reversed in Spain and stopped at the Gates of Vienna in 1642. Thereafter the power of Islam went into decline but other than Spain, it never lost its hold on the people it conquered. This decline was reversed in the Twentieth Century when Arabs became wealthy as a result of their vast oil reserves. This wealth was then deployed to conquer the west, not by Violent Jihad, but by Stealth Jihad.

This design was referred to as The Islamic Doctrine. It consists of Koran (14%) which stipulates that “there is no god but ALLAH and Mohammed is his messenger”, Sira, Mohammed’s biography (26%) and Hadiths, traditions, (60%). There are two different Korans combined into one, the Mecca Koran and the Medina Koran.

Dr. Moorthy Muthuswamy writes,

About sixty-one percent of the contents of the Koran are found to speak ill of the unbelievers or call for their violent conquest; at best only 2.6 percent of the verses of the Koran are noted to show goodwill toward humanity. About seventy-five percent of Muhammad’s biography (Sira) consists of jihad waged on unbelievers.

Mohammed started as a religious preacher in Mecca. It was during this period that the Koran 2:256 stipulated. “There is no compulsion in religion” and 109:1 stipulated “You have your religion I have mine.” Ultimately he was chased out of Mecca and migrated with his followers to Medina.

Then began the Jihad period. From then on people were forced to convert under pain of death or were forced to live as Dhimmis (second class citizens) and pay (Jizya) for the privilege of living there.

This Jihad continued until there was no more discord.

Koran 2:193. “Fight them (Kafirs) until there is no more discord and the religion of Allah reigns absolute but if they submit, then only fight those who do wrong.”

Thus it continues until everyone in the territory has submitted to Islam, accepts Dhimmi status and pays Jizya.

Quotes from the Qur’an and Hadith on war, violence, infidels, and unbelievers may be found here. For example:

Ayhat 8:12, “I shall cast terror into the hearts of those who are bent on denying the truth; strike, then, their necks, [O believers,] and strike off every one of their finger-tips!”

Sura 9:5,29,41. “Slay the idolators [non-Muslims] wherever ye find them, and take them captive, and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the last Day…. Go forth, light-armed and heavy-armed, and strive with your wealth and your lives in the way of Allah! “

This inconsistency in the Koran is resolved by the doctrine of abrogation, wherein the Medina principles abrogate the Mecca principles.

Migration intends to overtake the host country through this doctrine. It is driven by Islam’s proscription against assimilation, and its will to dominate.

51% of the Koran concerns itself with the Kafir. It is a political doctrine not a religious one. There is no golden rule. Kafirs are to be subjugated. Muslims are to dominate.

Dr Bill Warner summarizes this as follows:

Migration is part of the doctrine of jihad. Migration is so important that the Islamic calendar is based upon the Hijra, Mohammed’s migration from Mecca to Medina. Why? Because it was migration that lead to the creation of jihad in Medina. And it was jihad that made Islam triumphant.

In the past Muslims tended to stay in Islamic countries. Today, the new politics is to migrate to Kafir lands and immerse themselves in local politics. This is the jihad of money, writing and speech. Their politics is to bring the Sharia to Kafir culture. An example is using Islamic money is to build departments in universities that will support Sharia and never criticize Islam.

To understand how they do it, read 4 Stages of Islamic Conquest.

Unfortunately this migration is encouraged by globalist leaders such as Chancellor Merkel and President Obama. And of course, Hillary Clinton aspires to be one of them.

Professor Belhaj explains elites “encourage migration and accommodate Islam”, and described the harmony between Muslim migrants and neoliberalism as “structural, and not accidental”. “Migration is useful for the neo-liberal model of the borderless, minimal, global society…”

The Muslim Brotherhood met in 1991 and produced a document which set out its strategic goals for North America. The document was entered as evidence in the 2008 Holyland Terror Funding Trial. It contained among other things, the following paragraphs:

Enablement of Islam in North America, meaning: establishing an effective and a stable Islamic Movement led by the Muslim Brotherhood which adopts Muslims’ causes domestically and globally, and which works to expand the observant Muslim base, aims at unifying and directing Muslims’ efforts, presents Islam as a civilization alternative, and supports the global Islamic State wherever it is.

…the Movement must plan and struggle to obtain “the keys” and the tools of this process in carry out [sic] this grand mission as a ‘Civilization Jihadist’ responsibility.

The process of settlement is a ‘Civilization-Jihadist Process’ with all the word means. The Ikhwan [Muslim Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers…

[W]e must possess a mastery of the art of “coalitions,” the art of “absorption” and the principles of “cooperation.”

Pres Obama and Secretary Clinton, upon taking office, embraced the Muslim Brotherhood and worked with them to depose Mubarak and Assad. Luckily General al Sisi reversed their victory in Egypt and Assad, with the help of Iran and Russia, thwarted their plans in Syria.

In “Why is Obama in Bed with the Muslim Brotherhood?” I wrote “The alliance between the Obama administration and the Muslim Brotherhood is the cornerstone of Obama’s New Middle East policy.”

Capt. Joseph R. John, USN (Ret), the Chairman of Combat Veterans for Congress PAC, wrote in June 2016:

Members of the Muslim Brotherhood, CAIR, and MPAC have sinister goals that are not in support of the US Constitution or The Bill of Rights. They have become a very dangerous “Fifth Column” in the United States, appointed by Obama to very high and sensitive positions in the US Government agencies.

For nearly 8 years Obama has been filling the Washington bureaucracy including DHS, the CIA, DOD, the National Security Council, the White House, the State Department, every US Intelligence Agency, and the US Armed Forces with thousands of members of the CAIR, MPAC, the Muslim Brotherhood, and other Muslim Brotherhood front groups.

In June of this year Donald Trump recognized the danger of Muslim migration and said, “This could be the all-time great Trojan horse.” And so it is but the US elites refuse to recognize it.

On August 15/16 he gave a speech on immigration and terrorism in which he clarified;

A Trump Administration will establish a clear principle that will govern all decisions pertaining to immigration: we should only admit into this country those who share our values and respect our people.

In the Cold War, we had an ideological screening test. The time is overdue to develop a new screening test for the threats we face today.

In addition to screening out all members or sympathizers of terrorist groups, we must also screen out any who have hostile attitudes towards our country or its principles – or who believe that Sharia law should supplant American law.

Those who do not believe in our Constitution, or who support bigotry and hatred, will not be admitted for immigration into the country.

So you can see, rather that limiting his policy to weeding out terrorists, he advocates weeding out Jihadists who want to subjugate America to Islam. This is not racism. It is common sense.

Trump has been stressing that Hillary Clinton wants to let in 550% more refugees than the 10,000 Obama let in. In response I wrote “Don’t be duped about Muslim migration to the US” in which I pointed out that the problem is much bigger and that no distinction should be made between refugees and immigrants.

According to a report highlighted by Megyn Kelly,

According to the Report, Obama has issued over 832,000 green cards to Muslim majority countries in his first 6 years of his presidency. In addition, 482,000 Muslims overstayed their visas and are not being sent back. These Muslims support Sharia to an astonishing degree. In Afghanistan 99%, in Iraq 91% and in Pakistan 70%. When in the US 70% vote Democrat.

And now Obama is intending to allow in another 1 million Muslims.

Jewish Americans are very supportive of allowing such numbers into the US. They argue either we have a duty to do so or that Jews should be more welcoming given the history of America banning Jewish immigration in the thirties and forties. But this analogy doesn’t hold up at all. Jews were no threat to Americans personally and to their values, whereas the Muslims are both. Furthermore Muslims are very anti-Semitic and very anti-Israel. The Muslims have many other countries they could go to. The Jews had no other country willing to take them in. Jews are, in effect, welcoming their enemies into the country.

As for a duty to allow Muslim immigration or any immigration, there is none.

We need Donald Trump.

Categories: 2016 elections, Donald Trump and Islamists, Hillary Clinton and Islamists, Islam - submission, Islam and colonialism, Islamic immigration, Islamic refugees, Islamic supremacy, Islamisation, Islamist organizations, Islamist vetting, Islamists in America, Muslim Brotherhood, Obama and Islamists, Sharia law
Tags: Donald Trump and Islamists, Hillary Clinton and Islamists, Islam - submission, Islam and colonialism, Islamic immigration, Islamic refugees, Islamic supremacy, Islamisation, Islamist organizations, Islamist vetting, Islamists in America, Muslim Brotherhood, Obama and Islamists, Sharia law

Comments: Be the first to comment

France: Human Rights vs. The People

September 22, 2016

France: Human Rights vs. The People, Gatestone Institute, Yves Mamou, September 22, 2016

♦ French politicians seem to believe they are elected NOT to defend French people and the French nation, but to impose a “human rights ideology” on society.

♦ The rule of law is there to protect citizens from the arbitrary actions of the State. When a group of French Muslims attacks the entire way society is constructed, the rule of law now protects only the perpetrators.

♦ For Western leaders, “human rights” have become a kind of new religion. Like a disease, the human rights ideology has proliferated in all areas of life. The UN website shows a list of all the human rights that are now institutionalized: they range from “adequate housing” to “youth.” At least 42 categories of human rights fields are determined, each of which are split into two or three subcategories.

♦ With what result? More than 140 countries (out of 193 UN members) engage in torture. The number of authoritarian countries has increased. Women remain a subordinate class in nearly all countries.

♦ “Saudi Arabia ratified the treaty banning discrimination against women in 2007, and yet by law subordinates women to men in all areas of life. Child labour exists in countries that have ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Powerful western countries, including the US, do business with grave human rights abusers.” — Eric Posner, professor at the University of Chicago Law School.

♦ Human rights, originally conceived of as an anti-discrimination tool, became a Trojan horse, a tool manipulated by Islamists and others to dismantle secularism, freedom of speech and freedom of religion in European countries.

On August 13, the Administrative Court in Nice, France, validated the decision of the Mayor of Cannes to prohibit wearing religious clothing on the beaches of Cannes. By “religious clothing,” the judge clearly seemed to be pointing his finger at the burkini, a body-covering bathing suit worn by many Muslim women.

These “Muslim textile affairs” reveal two types of jihad attacking France: one hard, one soft. The hard jihad, internationally known, consists of assassinating journalists of Charlie Hebdo (January 2015), Jewish people at the Hypercacher supermarket (January 2015) and young people at the Bataclan Theater, restaurants and the Stade de France (November 2015). The hard jihad also included stabbing two policeman in Magnanville, a suburb of Paris, (June 2016); truck-ramming to death 84 people in Nice on Bastille Day (July 14), and murdering a priest in the church of Saint-Étienne-du-Rouvray, among other incidents. The goal of hard jihad, led by ISIS, al-Qaeda, and others, is to impose sharia by terror.

The soft jihad is different. It does not involve murdering people, but its final goal is the same: to impose Islam on France by covering the country in Islamic symbols — veils, burqas, burkinis and so on — at all levels of the society: in schools, universities, hospitals, corporations, streets, beaches, swimming pools and public transportation. By imposing the veil everywhere, soft Islamists seem to want to kill secularism, which, since escaping the grip of the Catholic Church, has become the French way of “living together.”

1347-1

Scenes from the “hard jihad” against France; the November 2015 shootings in Paris, in which 130 people were murdered by Islamists.

No one can understand secularism in France without a bit of history.

“Secularism is essential if we want the ‘people’ be defined on a political basis” wrote the French historian, Jacques Sapir.

“Religious allegiance, when it turns into fundamentalism, is in conflict with the notion of sovereignty of the people. … the Nation and State in France were built historically by fighting feudalism and the supranational ambition of the Pope and Christian religion. … Secularism is the tool to return to the private sphere all matters that cannot be challenged comfortably …. Freedom for diversity among individuals implies a consensus in the common public sphere. The distinction between the public sphere and the private sphere is fundamental for democracy to exist.”

And this distinction is secularism.

The Problem Now is Political

French politicians seem to believe they are elected NOT to defend French people and the French nation, but to impose a “human rights ideology” on society. They also seem unable to understand the challenges that common people in the streets are currently facing. They are also unable or unwilling to defend the country against either hard or soft jihad.

French Prime Minister Manuel Valls, for instance, said in a July 29 interview for Le Monde:

“We must focus on everything that is effective [to fight Islamism], but there is a line that may not be crossed: the rule of law. … My government will not be the one to create a Guantanamo, French-style.”

Only Yves Michaud, a French philosopher, dared to point out that the rule of law is there to protect citizens from the arbitrary actions of the State. When a group of French Muslims attacks the entire way society is constructed, the rule of law now protects only the perpetrators.

The same is true for French President François Hollande. After the murder by two Islamists of the Father Jacques Hamel in Saint-Étienne-du-Rouvray in July 2016, he said: “We must lead the war by all means in respect of the rule of law.”

Elisabeth Levy, publisher of the French magazine, Causeur, wrote in response:

“We need to know: by all means? … Or in respect of the rule of law? What is this rule of law that authorizes a judge to release an Islamist interested in waging jihad in Syria and, because he could not go to Syria, was free while wearing an electronic bracelet, to walk the streets to slit the throat of a priest?”

She concluded: “If we want to protect our liberties, it might be interesting to take some liberties with the rule of law.”

The ideology of human rights is common to all European countries. Because authorities in European countries act, speak and legislate on the basis of human rights, they put themselves in a position of weakness when they have to name, apprehend and fight an Islamist threat.

A 46-year-old Bosnian ISIS jihadi, considered extremely dangerous, was taken into custody by the Malmö police. The terrorist immediately applied for asylum, the Swedish Migration Agency stepped in, took over the case — and prevented him from being deported. Inspector Leif Fransson of the Border Police told the local daily newspaper, HD/Sydsvenskan: “As soon as these people throw out their trump card and say ‘Asylum’, the gates of heaven open. Sweden has gotten a reputation as a safe haven for terrorists.”

In Germany: Chancellor Angela Merkel said in a press conference, at the end of July 2016, that her mission was not to defend German people and German identity but “to fulfill humanitarian obligations [towards migrants].” She added it was “our historic task… a historic test in times of globalization.”

For Western Leaders, Human Rights Has Become a New Religion

The human rights movement was born in 1948 with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, launched by Eleanor Roosevelt. For 70 years, nine major “core” human rights treaties were written and ratified by the vast majority of countries.

Like a disease, the “human rights ideology” has proliferated in all areas of life. The United Nations website shows a list of all the human rights that are now institutionalized: they range from “adequate housing” to “youth” and include “Food”, “Freedom of Religion and Belief”, “HIV/AIDS”, “Mercenaries”, “Migration”, “Poverty”, “Privacy”, “Sexual orientation and gender identity”, “Situations”, ” Sustainable Development”, “Water and sanitation.” At least 42 categories of human rights fields are determined, each of which are split into two or three subcategories.

With what result? More than 140 countries (out of 193 countries that belong to the UN) engage in torture. The number of authoritarian countries has increased: “105 countries have seen a net decline in terms of freedom, and only 61 have experienced a net improvement” reported the NGO, Freedom House, in 2016. Women remain a subordinate class in nearly all countries. Children continue to work in mines and factories in many countries.

Professor Eric Posner of the University of Chicago Law School, writes:

“Saudi Arabia ratified the treaty banning discrimination against women in 2007, and yet by law subordinates women to men in all areas of life. Child labour exists in countries that have ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child: Uzbekistan, Tanzania and India, for example. Powerful western countries, including the US, do business with grave human rights abusers.”

What is disturbing is not that the “religion” of “anti-discrimination” has become a joke. What is disturbing is that human rights, originally conceived of as an anti-discrimination tool, became a Trojan horse, a tool manipulated by Islamists and others to dismantle secularism, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion in European countries. What is disturbing is that human rights and anti-discrimination policies are dismantling nations, and placing States in a position of incapacity — or perhaps just unwillingness — to name Islamism as a problem and take measures against it.

The Religion of Human Rights as a Tool of Europe’s Muslim Brotherhood

Jean-Louis Harouel, Professor of the History of Law at the Paris-Panthéon-Assas University, recently published a book entitled, Les Droits de l’homme contre le peuple (Humans Rights against the People). In an interview with Le Figaro, he said:

“Human rights, are what we call in France ‘fundamental rights’. They were introduced in the 70’s. The great beneficiaries of fundamental rights were foreigners. Islam took advantage of it to install in France, in the name of human rights and under its protection, Islamic civilization, mosques and minarets, the Islamic way of life, halal food prescriptions, clothing and cultural behavior — Islamic laws even in violation of French law: religious marriage without civil marriage, polygamy, unilateral divorce of wife by husband, etc.

“Through the assertion of identity, Islamists and mainly UOIF [Union of Islamic Organizations of France — the French branch of the Muslim Brotherhood] exploited human rights to install their progressive control on populations of Northern African descent, and coerce them to respect the Islamic order. In particular, they do all that they can to prevent young [Arab] people who are born in France from becoming French citizens.”

The human rights and anti-discrimination “religion” also gave Islam and Islamists a comfortable position from which to declare war on France and all other European countries. It seems whatever crime they are committing today and will commit in the future, Muslims and Islamists remain the victim. For example, just after the November 13 terrorist attacks in France, in which more than 130 people were murdered by Islamists at the Bataclan Theater, the Stade de France, cafés and restaurants, Tariq Ramadan, an Islamist professor at Oxford University, tweeted:

“I am not Charlie, nor Paris: I am a warrant search suspect”.

Ramadan meant that because of the emergency laws and because he was a Muslim, he was an automatic suspect, an automatic victim of racism and “Islamophobia.”

In another example, just after the terrorist attack in Nice on July 14, when an Islamist rammed a truck into a crowd celebrating Bastille Day, killing at least 84 people, Abdelkader Sadouni, an imam in Nice, told the Italian newspaper Il Giornale: “French secularism is the main and only thing responsible for terror attacks.”

Global Elites against the People

The question now is: have our leaders decided to cope with the real problems of the real people? In other words, are they motivated enough to throw the human rights ideology overboard, restore secularism in society and fight Islamists? The problem is that they do not even seem to understand the problem. What Peggy Noonan, of the Wall Street Journal, wrote about Angela Merkel can apply to all leaders of European countries:

“Ms. Merkel had put the entire burden of a huge cultural change not on herself and those like her but on regular people who live closer to the edge, who do not have the resources to meet the burden, who have no particular protection or money or connections. Ms. Merkel, her cabinet and government, the media and cultural apparatus that lauded her decision were not in the least affected by it and likely never would be.

Nothing in their lives will get worse. The challenge of integrating different cultures, negotiating daily tensions, dealing with crime and extremism and fearfulness on the street — that was put on those with comparatively little, whom I’ve called the unprotected. They were left to struggle, not gradually and over the years but suddenly and in an air of ongoing crisis that shows no signs of ending — because nobody cares about them enough to stop it.

The powerful show no particular sign of worrying about any of this. When the working and middle class pushed back in shocked indignation, the people on top called them “xenophobic,” “narrow-minded,” “racist.” The detached, who made the decisions and bore none of the costs, got to be called “humanist,” “compassionate,” and “hero of human rights.”

So the fight against Islamism might first consist of a fight against the caste that governs us.

Categories: France, Human rights, Islam - submission, Islam and Christianity, Islam and human rights, Islamic integration, Islamic invasion, Islamisation of France, Islamophobia
Tags: France, human rights, Islam - submission, Islam and Christianity, Islam and human rights, Islamic integration, Islamic invasion, Islamisation of France, Islamophobia

Comments: Be the first to comment

GWU’s “ex-jihadist” Jesse Morton wants to dismantle “entire counterterrorism component of military-industrial complex”

September 11, 2016

GWU’s “ex-jihadist” Jesse Morton wants to dismantle “entire counterterrorism component of military-industrial complex” Jihad Watch, Robert Spencer, September 11, 2016

He is “deradicalized,” he has renounced al-Qaeda, he’s comfortably “moderate” now. Now blames the U.S. for jihad terror, wants to dismantle the U.S.’s entire counterterrorism apparatus (such as it is), and wants to provide “holistic socio-pschological-political-economic alternatives based in the shariah” to fighting against jihad activity. And this man is teaching at George Washington University.

jesse-morton

EXPOSED: Writings of GWU’s ‘ex-jihadist’ reveal he’s not so reformed after all,” by Benjamin Weingarten, Conservative Review, September 11, 2016:

Among the inexplicable ways in which the United States has responded to Islamic supremacism in the 15 years since September 11 — beyond enabling the world’s leading state sponsor of jihad in Iran, supporting the Muslim Brotherhood and other “moderate jihadists” over relatively secular strongmen, and transitioning from a global war on terror (a tactic) to a program against “violent extremism” (a nebulous non-entity) — a recent story out of the American academy is quite telling.

George Washington University has given a research position within its Center for Cyber and Homeland Security to Jesse Morton (formerly known as Younus Abdullah Muhammad), an ex-jihadist sentenced to more than 11 years in prison for threatening the creators of “South Park” for depicting Muhammad in a bear suit.Having chosen to serve as an informant for the FBI because of his expertise ‘jihadizing’ fellow Americans through Revolution Muslim (the Al Qaeda-supporting “activist” group that he led on U.S. soil), law enforcement officials and GWU firmly believe Morton is not only no longer a threat, but also an asset.

They believe there is much that can be learned from his experience transforming from regular American to jihadist and back again.

In his defense, some like Nadia Oweidat of the New America think tank have said that Morton’s decision to come out publicly as someone working to counter “radicalism” puts Morton’s life at risk.

Morton himself claims to have been rehabilitated through hours spent in prison supposedly grappling with the great works of the Western canon, such as the writings of John Locke and Thomas Paine, and his interactions with certain friendly law enforcement officers.

He asserts that he is contrite and seeks to rectify his actions according to an interview with CNN, stating:

This is an opportunity for me to make amends, to some degree … I realize that I was completely wrong in my perspectives.

I suffer from a tremendous amount of guilt … I have seen things that people have done and to know that I once sympathized and supported that view — it sickens me.

Yet nowhere in Morton’s mea culpa is there an overt disavowal of Islamic supremacism, condemnation of Sharia law, or renunciation of his faith as in the case of other notable ex-Islamic supremacists like Hirsi Ali or ex-Communists like Whittaker Chambers.

Interestingly, Morton publicized his release from prison on an Islamic website, but that announcement as well as the website have since disappeared. As The Washington Post noted earlier this year:

Efforts to locate Morton, a father of two who has a master’s degree from Columbia University, were unsuccessful. The Bureau of Prisons website indicates that he was released in February 2015, and he appears to have announced it on the website islampolicy.com.

“While I am no doubt bewildered by the prospects of facing the currents of American society, labeled American Al-Qaeda, I do want to remain cognizant that this opportunity to be a freeman, a husband, a father, and citizen comes from Allah alone,” he wrote.

It turns out that Islampolicy.com was the successor website to Revolution Muslim. And this quotation captured by the Post, indicates that Morton remains a Muslim and harbors a victim-like mentality rather than acknowledging that he was the aggressor.

Thanks to the web archives, we can read further into Morton’s statement upon his release:

I remember being flown home in a private government jet after five months of incarceration in Morocco and finding out I was facing life imprisonment in the United States. At that moment, when one’s freedom seems to be lost forever, simply for speaking their mind, the soul has nothing left to do but turn to Allah, aza wa jaal. Today I can guarantee that a relief from hardship comes in ways that are mostly unexpected. The reflective one realizes that Allah relieves hardship in ways that oftentimes connect to pathways of deeper, spiritual healing the. Therefore, we must always pay attention to the experiences Allah puts us through, and try to remember that there are lessons to be learned from each and every passing wind. [Emphasis mine]

Clearly Morton viewed his arrest and release as being intrinsic to his Islamic experience and believed his arrest was unjustified. After all, he was just exercising his right to free speech.

Yet nowhere in Morton’s mea culpa is there an overt disavowal of Islamic supremacism, condemnation of Sharia law, or renunciation of his faith.

He continues:

I have been particularly intrigued by what has been classified as countering violent extremism (CVE). While this has led me to contemplate ways of preventing others from throwing their lives away, I remain staunchly opposed to the national security or counterterrorism state and its connection to the elite, neoliberal order, or what Dwight D. Eisenhower referred to as far back as 1961 as the ‘military-industrial complex.’ I believe that today’s counterterrorist, or national security state isn’t merely dangerous to Islam and Muslims, but to humanity and civilization generally.

I must also emphatically state that I absolutely reject the conception that terrorism is justified in any which way and by anybody. I ask Allah to accept repentance for my not having made that absolutely clear in the past. It seems to me definite that we are suffering from an era the prophet (saws) foretold; one marked by ignorant youth who recite the best of speech but do not embody it. If we are to truly stand for the ummah’s liberation, we will have to locate a balanced position between the day’s extremes. [Emphasis mine]

Morton’s views morphed from the jihadist notion that the Great Satan must be destroyed to the Left’s notion that efforts to root out and defeat jihadis represent an immoral, un-American, tyrannical enterprise.

Further, Morton puts forth the argument echoed by many Islamic supremacists that “terrorism,” is never justified. But as Daniel Greenfield has written, while some Islamic leaders have gone so far as to issue fatwas against terrorism, they fail to define the term:

Muslim religious leaders have occasionally issued fatwas against terrorism, but terrorism for Muslim clerics … is a matter of definition. The tactics of terrorism, including suicide bombing and the murder of civilians, have been approved by fatwas from many of the same Islamic religious leaders that our establishment deems moderate. And the objective of terrorism, the subjugation of non-Muslims, has been the most fundamental Islamic imperative for the expansionistic religion since the days of Mohammed.

How to square these sentiments? As Stephen Coughlin notes in his magnum opus, “Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad,” the Quran’s definition of terrorism is essentially the killing of a Muslim without right. Is this the definition Morton had in mind when he proscribed terror?

In a later post from August 19, 2015 (note: the Wayback Machine page takes a few moments to load), “Obama’s Support for Sisi’s Counterterrorism Legislation Highlights the Hypocrisy of War on Radicalization,” Morton asserts,

[T]he global war on terror, having been rebranded as a war on Islamic extremism under Obama, has become a war on radicalization that now threatens the very essence of free expression democratic societies depend on.

Morton believes that targeting of individuals on the basis of jihadist ideology is in fact detrimental and that the goal of U.S. policy is to end “Islamism” (which of course would appear to be the exact opposite of President Obama’s policy with respect to the growing global jihad):

Legislation that concentrates on ideology conflates radical belief with violence and will only guarantee perpetual conflict. This seems to be the intended effect of counterterrorism policy everywhere. It suggests that the counterterrorism community itself desires confrontation to the end, until the very existence of Islamism on earth is eradicated.

This sentiment has expanded by way of rising right-wing and anti-Islamic populism. It is aided and abided by an Islamophobia industry that serves to brandish all conservative Muslims as barbarian. Whether in London, Paris, Cairo, or Washington, governments everywhere are utilizing counterterrorism policy and practice to silence dissent and criminalize critique of government policy, particularly if one is an Islamist.

Islamists apparently are the real victims during this age of jihadist metastasization.

While recasting himself as an agent for good with a new home in the academy, he airbrushes his views to make them palatable to a progressive audience.

Morton contends, hyperbolically, that ideology is not the key driver of jihadist violence, but rather that Western (imperialist) actions are the sine qua non of jihad — that again, jihadists are merely reacting to Western aggression:

[I]t is argued that all Islamists, nonviolent and violent, must be silenced. That position, given credence by way of government allegiance with ‘moderate Muslims’, is girded in the belief that radical political preachers create the ‘mood music to which suicide bombers dance.’ That’s a fancy way of saying that radical beliefs precede and incite violent action. In fact, very few of those holding radical beliefs ever go on to commit acts of terrorism and there is no established empirical evidence for such a causal relationship.

The one common denominator in the overwhelming majority of empirical research into violent Islamic extremist incidents is actually an attempt to justify or frame violence as a reaction to western policies. Yet, this fact conveniently goes missing from most expert analysis. When pointed to as the actual cause, any citation of western policy is ruled out as conspiracy theory or paranoid delusion. It is important to note that in exposition after exposition, Osama bin Laden claimed that jihadists were engaging in terrorism not because they hate democracy but “because you (the United States) attach us and continue to attack us.”

In other words, we create jihadis with our policy.

Apparently, ISIS also never cared about the West, until we meddled:

[T]he western press hardly recognizes that ISIS mostly rejected the ‘far enemy’ doctrine and instead preferred regional or localized violence, at least until Obama announced his plan to “degrade and destroy” the movement.

Most dumbfounding of all is this quote:

Were the U.S. and its allies not in such blatant betrayal of the very “set of core principles” Obama claimed to defend at the time of the Egyptian coup, there might be a diminishing appeal of jihadism. Instead, it’s viewed as the only alternative. The only solution is a global grassroots movement dedicated to ending such blatant hypocrisy. This movement must focus on dismantling the entire counterterrorism component of the military-industrial complex. Only then might a paradigm unfold that could first rid that “one indispensable nation” of its own despots and dictatorship, and thereby encourage people across the globe to do the same. Until then, terrorism at the hand of the state and Orwellian legislation will only enhance radicalization, at home and abroad. [Emphasis mine]

Thus, this deradicalized ex-jihadist proclaims that the way to end jihadism is to dismantle the “entire counterterrorism component” of American policy. No wonder he has been so welcomed at an American institution of higher education….

One thing I realize about some of my previous work at Revolution Muslim was the way it allowed authoritiesto [sic] fulfill their own agenda. It was a lesson that all those seeking authentic Islam could benefit from. May Allah aza wa jaal liberate this ummah from its ignorance and give us insight to see through a massive propaganda war. We should be at the forefront of providing holistic socio-pschological-political-economic alternatives based in the shariah. [Emphasis mine]

Read the rest here.

Categories: Academia, Islam - submission, Islam and human rights, Islamic supremacy, Islamic terrorism, Islamists in America, Sharia law
Tags: Academia, Islam - submission, Islam and human rights, Islamic supremacy, Islamic terrorism, Islamists in America, Sharia law

Comments: Be the first to comment

Western Publishers Submit to Islam

September 11, 2016

Western Publishers Submit to Islam, Gatestone Institute, Giulio Meotti, September 11, 2016

♦ For criticizing Islam, Hamed Abdel-Samad lives under police protection in Germany and, as with Rushdie, a fatwa hangs over him. After the fatwa come the insults: being censored by a free publishing house. This is what the Soviets did to destroy writers: destroy their books.

♦ At a time when dozens of novelists, journalists and scholars are facing Islamists’ threats, it is unforgivable that Western publishers not only agree to bow down, but are often the first to capitulate.

♦ A Paris court convicted Renaud Camus for “Islamophobia” (a fine of 4,000 euros) for a speech he gave in 2010, in which he spoke of the replacement of the French people under the Trojan horse of multiculturalism. Another writer, Richard Millet, was fired last March by Gallimard publishing house for his ideas on multiculturalism.

♦ Not only did Rushdie’s publishers capitulate; other publishers also decided to break rank and return to do business with Tehran. Oxford University Press decided to take part in the Tehran Book Fair along with two American publishers, McGraw-Hill and John Wiley. Those publishers chose to respond to murderous censorship with surrender.

♦ It is as if at the time of the Nazis’ book-burnings, Western publishers had not only stood silent, but had also invited a German delegation to Paris and New York.

When Salman Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses came out in 1989, Viking Penguin, the British and American publisher of the novel, was subjected to daily Islamist harassment. As Daniel Pipes wrote, the London office resembled “an armed camp,” with police protection, metal detectors and escorts for visitors. In Viking’s New York offices, dogs sniffed packages and the place was designated a “sensitive location”. Many bookshops were attacked and many even refused to sell the book. Viking spent about $3 million on security measures in 1989, the fatal year for Western freedom of expression.

Nonetheless, Viking never flinched. It was a miracle that the novel finally came out. Other publishers, however, faltered. Since then, the situation has only gotten worse. Most Western publishers are now faltering. That is the meaning of the new Hamed Abdel-Samad affair.

The Muslim Brotherhood gave Abdel-Samad all that an Egyptian boy could wish for: spirituality, camaraderie, companionship, a purpose. In Giza, Hamed Samad became part of the Brotherhood. His father had taught him the Koran; the Brotherhood explained him how to translate these teachings into practice.

Abdel-Samad repudiated them after one day in the desert. The Brothers had given all the new militants an orange after they had walked under the sun for hours. They were ordered to peel it. Then the Brotherhood asked them to bury the fruit in the sand, and to eat the peel. The next day, Abdel-Samad left the organization. It was the humiliation needed to turn a human being into a terrorist.

Abdel-Samad today is 46 years old and lives in Munich, Germany, where he married a Danish girl and works for the Institute of Jewish History and Culture at the University of Munich. In his native Egyptian village, his first book caused an uproar. Some Muslims wanted to burn it.

Abdel-Samad’s recent book, Der Islamische Faschismus: Eine Analyse, has just been burned at the stake not in Cairo by Islamists, but in France by some of the self-righteous French.

The book is a bestseller in Germany, where it has been published by the well-known publisher, Droemer Knaur. An English translation has been published in the U.S. by Prometheus Books, under the title Islamic Fascism. Two years ago, the French publisher, Piranha, acquired the rights to translate Abdel-Samad’s book about “Islamic Fascism” into French. A publication date was even posted on Amazon: September 16. But at the last moment, the publisher stopped its release. Jean-Marc Loubet, head of the publishing house, announced to Abdel-Samad’s agent that the publication of his book is now unthinkable in France, not only for security reasons, but also because it would reinforce the “extreme right”.

For criticizing Islam, Abdel-Samad lives under police protection in Germany and, as with Rushdie, a fatwa hangs over him. After the fatwa come the insults: being censored by a free publishing house. This is what the Soviets did to destroy writers: destroy his books.

Mr. Abdel-Samad’s case is not new. At a time when dozens of novelists, journalists and scholars are facing Islamists’ threats, it is unforgivable that Western publishers not only agree to bow down, but are often the first to capitulate.

1856

For criticizing Islam, Hamed Abdel-Samad lives under police protection in Germany and, as with Rushdie, a fatwa hangs over him. After the fatwa come the insults: being censored by a free publishing house.

In France, for criticizing Islam in a column titled “We refuse to change civilization” for the daily newspaper, Le Monde, the famous writer, Renaud Camus, lost his publisher, Fayard.

Before he suddenly became “unpopular” in the Paris’s literary establishment, Renaud Camus had been friends with Louis Aragon, the famous Communist poet and founder of surrealism, and was close joining “the immortals” of the French Academy. Roland Barthes, the star of the Collège de France, had written the preface to Renaud Camus’ most famous novel, Tricks, the cult-classic book of gay culture.

Then a Paris court convicted Camus for “Islamophobia” (a fine of 4,000 euros), for a speech he gave on December 18, 2010, in which he spoke of “Grand Replacement“, the replacement of the French people under the Trojan horse of multiculturalism. It was then that Camus became persona non grata in France.

The Jewel of Medina, a novel by the American writer Sherry Jones about the life of the third wife of Muhammad, was first purchased and then scrapped by the powerful publisher Random House, which had already paid her an advance and launched an ambitious promotional campaign. Sherry Jones’s new publisher, Gibson Square, was then firebombed by Islamists in London.

Then there was Yale University Press, which published a book by Jytte Klausen, “The Cartoons That Shook the World“, on the history of the controversial “Mohammad cartoons” that were published by the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten in 2005, and crisis that followed. But Yale University Press published the book without the cartoons, and without any other images of the Muslim prophet Mohammad that were to be included.

“The capitulation of Yale University Press to threats that hadn’t even been made yet is the latest and perhaps the worst episode in the steady surrender to religious extremism — particularly Muslim religious extremism — that is spreading across our culture,” commented the late Christopher Hitchens. Yale was possibly hoping to get in line for the same $20 million donation from Saudi Arabia’s Prince Al-Wwaleed bin Talal that he had just bestowed upon George Washington University and Harvard.

In Germany, Gabriele Brinkmann, a popular novelist, was also suddenly left without a publisher. According to her publisher, Droste, the novel Wem Ehre Geburt (“To Whom Honor Gives Birth“) could be judged as “insulting to Muslims” and expose the publisher to intimidation. Brinkmann was asked to censor some passages; she refused and lost the publishing house.

This same cowardice and capitulation now pervades the entire publishing industry. Last year, Italy’s most prestigious book fair in Turin chose (then shelved) Saudi Arabia as its guest of honor, despite the many writers and bloggers who are imprisoned in the Islamic kingdom. Raif Badawi was sentenced to 1,000 lashes and a 10-year sentence, and a $260,000 fine.

Many Western publishers are now also “rejecting works by Israeli authors“, according Time.com, despite their political views.

It was after Salman Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses that many Western publishing houses first bowed to intimidation. Christian Bourgois, a French publishing house, refused to publish The Satanic Verses after having bought the rights, as did the German publisher, Kiepenheuer, who apparently said he regretted having acquired the rights to the book and chose to sell them to a consortium of fifty publishers from Germany, Austria and Switzerland, gathered under the name “UN-Charta Artikel 19.”

Not only did Rushdie’s publishers capitulate; other publishers also decided to break ranks and return to do business with Tehran. Oxford University Press decided to take part in the Tehran Book Fair, along with two American publishers, McGraw-Hill and John Wiley, despite the request of Rushdie’s publisher, Viking Penguin, to boycott the Iranian event. Those publishers chose to respond to murderous censorship with surrender, willing to sacrifice freedom of expression on the altar of business as usual: selling books was more important than solidarity with threatened colleagues.

It is as if at the time of the Nazis’ book-burnings, Western publishers had not only stood silent, but had also invited a German delegation to Paris and New York. Is it so unimaginable today?

Categories: Censorship, Islam - submission, Islamic supremacy, Islamisation, Islamist freedom, Publishers, Western civilization
Tags: Censorship, Islam - submission, Islamic supremacy, Islamisation, Islamist freedom, Publishers, Western civilization

Comments: Be the first to comment

Salman Rushdie Reveals the Power of Today’s Islamism

September 9, 2016

Salman Rushdie Reveals the Power of Today’s Islamism, Counter Jihad, Bruce Cornibe, September 8, 2016

Author Salman Rushdie, of the controversial novel The Satanic Verses, has spent a large stint underground being protected by the British government. This is because he allegedly blasphemed Islam’s prophet Muhammad. Rushdie, whose life has been greatly affected by Sharia inspired laws, is speaking out against the politically correct climate of our time, The Washington Times reports:

“Today, I would be accused of Islamophobia and racism. People would say I had attacked a cultural minority,” the writer [said]. He cited as an example of the change the handling of Charlie Hebdo, where an often scabrous satirical newspaper was threatened for years by Islamists and eventually numerous employees there were killed in a terrorist attack.

“Instead of responding to attacks against freedom of expression, voices were raised to decry blasphemy and to propose compromise with terrorism. There is no blasphemy in a democracy,” Mr. Rushdie said.

In the interview, the writer decried the reluctance of Western governments to use the words “Muslim” or “Islam,” preferring instead to attribute terrorist attacks to “unbalanced” people or to a generic thing like “radicalism” or “extremism,” even when the attackers themselves say Islam is their motive.

The ‘Islamophobia’ narrative that seeks to silence any kind of criticism of Islam is in fact a type of anti-blasphemy tactic used by Islamists. Quran 33:57 states, “Indeed, those who abuse Allah and His Messenger – Allah has cursed them in this world and the Hereafter and prepared for them a humiliating punishment.” The worst part is that prominent institutions and figures are pushing this narrative. The University of California, Berkeley’s Center for Race & Gender (CRG), has even released an “Islamophobia Reporting App” for one’s cell phone. The same CRG, whose definition of ‘Islamophobia’ includes, “a perceived or real Muslim threat[.]” Also, one can speculate that London’s new Islamic mayor, Sadiq Khan, is going to try and target critics of Islamic doctrine in his effort to police “online hate crimes[.]”

Rushdie also makes good points about the dangerous atmosphere caused by Islamists leading up to the Charlie Hebdo attack in January 2015, and the failure of many Western leaders to call out Islamic terrorism by name. The Obama Administration’s response, or lack thereof, after the attack is pretty telling of its hesitancy to confront Islamic terrorism – the U.S. President and top-ranking U.S. officials didn’t join the Hebdo rally in Paris. Whether President Obama approves of the provocative magazine or not, he needs to still stand in solidarity against terrorism and the shedding of innocent blood.

This hyper-sensitivity against offending Islam not only shows religious favoritism to a particular group in society but also enables the Islamists and jihadists to advance their Sharia agenda. If the Salman Rushdie case and others like Charlie Hebdo do not awaken the West to action, then we can continue to watch our Western civilization and its liberties slowly vanish.

Categories: Blasphemy, Charlie Hedbo, Islam - submission, Islamic slaughter, Islamophobia, Media and Islam, Obama and Islam, Salman Rushdie, Sharia law
Tags: Blasphemy, Charlie Hedbo, Islam - submission, Islamic slaughter, Islamophobia, Media and Islam, Obama and Islam, Salman Rushdie, Sharia law

Comments: Be the first to comment

Hugh Fitzgerald: Those Danish Right-Wing “Racists,” Their “Harsh” Demands and “Hate” Speech

September 8, 2016

Hugh Fitzgerald: Those Danish Right-Wing “Racists,” Their “Harsh” Demands and “Hate” Speech, Jihad Watch, Hugh Fitzgerald, September 8, 2016

denmark-migrant-and-native

The other day the New York Times published a story about how Danes are souring on Muslim immigrants, and how some feel guilty about it:

Johnny Christensen, a stout and silver-whiskered retired bank employee, always thought of himself as sympathetic to people fleeing war and welcoming to immigrants. But after more than 36,000 mostly Muslim asylum seekers poured into Denmark over the past two years, Mr. Christensen, 65, said, “I’ve become a racist.”

He believes these new migrants are draining Denmark’s cherished social-welfare system but failing to adapt to its customs. “Just kick them out,” he said, unleashing a mighty kick at an imaginary target on a suburban sidewalk. “These Muslims want to keep their own culture, but we have our own rules here and everyone must follow them.”

When Christensen says “I’ve become a racist,” he has internalized the false charge made by Muslims, and their willing collaborators, that those who are sensibly anxious about Islam are “racists.” Since that scare-word automatically consigns one to the outer darkness, when even perfectly intelligent people with perfectly reasonable grievances turn that word on themselves, it is clear that something is amiss. Mr. Christensen needs to be unapologetic for his views, and he should start by watching his language: Islam is not a race, antipathy to Muslims does not constitute “racism.” Leave that word alone.

If Mr. Christensen wishes to feel guilty, he ought to feel guilty only about what future generations of Danes will inherit: a country which, because of the numbers of Muslims allowed in during Mr. Christensen’s time, will be far more unpleasant, expensive, and physically dangerous for native Danes than it might otherwise have been.

As the Times story notes, “Denmark, a small and orderly nation with a progressive self-image, is built on a social covenant: In return for some of the world’s highest wages and benefits, people are expected to work hard and pay into the system. Newcomers must quickly learn Danish — and adapt to norms like keeping tidy gardens and riding bicycles.”

But just look at how the Times reporter then slants the story at every point: “The center-right government has backed harsh measures targeting migrants, hate speech has spiked, and the anti-immigrant Danish People’s Party is now the second largest in Parliament.”

“Harsh measures targeting migrants,” “hate speech has spiked,” “anti-immigrant party.” It all sounds so terrible, until you ask a few questions.

What “harsh measures” are these? Apparently the “harshest” measure, passed in January, empowers the Danish authorities to confiscate valuables from new arrivals, both Muslim and non-Muslim, to offset the cost of settling them. It has seldom been enforced, and does not apply to the first $1,500 a migrant possesses.

Why exactly is this considered “harsh”? Should migrants not be expected to contribute, when they are capable of doing so? After all, they arrived uninvited, are immediately the recipients of a cornucopia of expensive benefits, and these benefits now flowing to them were paid for by generations of Danish taxpayers, who thought they were providing for poorer members of their own, that is Danish, society.

Is it “harsh” to require immigrants to pass exams in Danish? At present, only 72%, or a little more than 2/3, manage to learn even elementary Danish. Is it “harsh” to make immigrants take a citizenship exam, requiring them have studied the laws and mores of the Danes, given that they have the great good fortune to have been admitted to this peaceful pleasant land? Is it wrong to require immigrants to study the history of Denmark, since they have decided they’ve come to Denmark to stay? If the goal is to integrate these foreigners, the free courses and tests required will only further that goal.

And why are these putatively “harsh” measures described as “targeting immigrants,” rather than, in less loaded words, described simply as “applying to immigrants”? Since these are measures to further the successful integration of immigrants, of course they apply only to — but do not “target,” which has a distinctly menacing ring — immigrants. As to the casual assertion that “hate speech has spiked,” where is the evidence for this? Since not a single example of such “hate speech” appears in the entire Times piece, the reader must simply take it on faith that Danes – again labelled as “right-wing” – have been guilty of “hate speech.”

Let’s try to figure out what the reporter had in mind as conceivable “hate speech.” Suppose a member of the Danish People’s Party points out that Muslim Somalis in Denmark commit ten times as many crimes per capita as native Danes. That is a statement of fact, not “hate speech.” Or suppose a member of the Danish People’s Party notes that Muslim immigrants receive a much larger benefits package, and for a longer period, given their high unemployment, as compared to what non-Muslim immigrants and native Danes receive. Would that be “hate speech,” or simply a statement of fact?

“There is new tension between Danes still opening their arms and a resurgent right wing that seeks to ban all Muslims and shut Denmark off from Europe.”

So the reporter sees a Morality Play with two kinds of Danes: the Good Danes, “still opening their arms,” and the Bad Danes, “a resurgent right wing that seeks to ban all Muslims.” But even the Good Danes did not invite the Muslims in, and never quite were “opening their arms.” And even if the Bad Danes want to end Muslim immigration, none have as yet called for removing all of the Muslims already in Denmark. Not quite a Morality Play.

The Times reporter continues:

There is tension, too, over whether the backlash is really about a strain on Denmark’s generous public benefits or a rising terrorist threat — or whether a longstanding but latent racial hostility is being unearthed.

First, what does it mean to write “there is tension” over whether the “backlash” is about “a strain on generous public benefits” OR “a rising terrorist threat”? “Tension” over trying to apportion blame for the anxiety Muslims have caused? Why can’t there be anxiety among Danes about both the cost to their welfare system of Muslim migrants, and about the threat of Islamic terrorism to their very lives? Why can’t there be more than one reason for growing antipathy to Muslim migrants in Denmark?

And then there is that other proffered reason, which Muslims and their apologists find much to their liking: Could anxiety about the effect of Muslim migrants on Danish society reveal “a longstanding but latent racial hostility”? Just think, this “racial hostility” has been so longstanding but so very latent that no one noticed it, and strange to say, now that the Danes have revealed themselves as “racists,” their “racism” apparently doesn’t apply to all black people, for black African Christians in Denmark have rarely had any troubles, while, strange to say, even white Muslims (as from Syria) have engendered antipathy. So this hostility must have to do not with race but with Islam. The Danes are not revealing “racial hostility,” but well-grounded fears about Islam and the behavior of Muslims. Those who talk about a “latent racial hostility” in this famously tolerant country are deliberately trying to make the Danes feel guilty about their well-justified fears, and to deflect attention away from Islam

The Times reporter does concede that “perhaps the leading — and most substantive — concern is that the migrants are an economic drain. In 2014, 48 percent of immigrants from non-Western countries ages 16 to 64 were employed, compared with 74 percent of native Danes.” There then follows the sensible comments of immigration officials about the need to avoid “parallel societies,” and the story of one Muslim immigrant family’s success (but no similar stories about the many cases of immigrant unemployment and crime), that of an Iraqi engineer who allows his children to eat pork at school, and who with his family attends church to learn about Christianity. How typical do you think this Muslim immigrant family is?

This report from Denmark, with its loaded words – “right-wing,” “hate speech,” “targeting immigrants,” “harsh measures” – does not leave much room for thoughtful analysis of what is clearly a grave problem everywhere in Western Europe. That problem, let me repeat, is that Muslim migrants, in large numbers (one million arrived in Germany alone in 2015), have been moving into Europe, bringing Islam with them in their mental luggage, putting great strain on the welfare systems of every country in which they end up, and on the criminal justice systems because of their sky-high crime rate, and, given Muslim terrorist attacks in nearly a dozen Western countries, on the security services too.

Yet it is amazing that even now, after all the murder and mayhem that has been committed by Muslims, and not only those of ISIS who dutifully cite Islamic texts to justify their every act, people in Denmark are embarrassed to admit to an anxiety about Islam, and instead accuse themselves (“I’ve become a racist”) rather than ask what it is about the ideology of Islam that makes it uniquely difficult, perhaps even impossible, for Muslim migrants – always with a few remarkable exceptions — to integrate.

That is the question to be asked again and again: what explains the success of so many non-Muslim immigrants in managing to integrate into many different European countries, and the failure of so many Muslim immigrants to do so in those same countries? And why do the peoples of Western Europe allow themselves to feel so apologetic about their anxiety about, and antipathy toward, Islam? And when will we, the world’s Infidels, dare to study the texts that explain Muslim acts and attitudes, or shall we forever deny ourselves the right to engage in such study, that is, from doing the one thing that makes the most sense?

Categories: Denmark, Hate speech, Islam - submission, Islam in Europe, Islamic culture, Islamic integration, Islamic invasion, Islamic supremacy, Islamisation, Language, Media and Islam, Welfare
Tags: Denmark, Hate speech, Islam - submission, Islam in Europe, Islamic culture, Islamic integration, Islamic invasion, Islamic supremacy, Islamisation, Language, Media and Islam, Welfare

Comments: Be the first to comment

France: On Its Way to Being a Jew-Free Nation?

September 8, 2016

France: On Its Way to Being a Jew-Free Nation? Gatestone Institute, Robbie Travers, September 8, 2016

♦ Incitement to murder Jews was described by the French press as “mild mannered”.

♦ In 2014, supposed anti-Israel protesters attacked a Paris synagogue and trapped the congregants inside. The attackers’ chants apparently included “Death to the Jews,” “Murderous Israel,” and “One Jew, Some Jews, All Jews are Terrorists.”

♦ The terrorist attacks on Jews in France are the culmination of years of Jew-hatred tolerated with little official criticism.

♦ With ISIS and Hamas banners and flags flying, groups in Paris pledged the genocide of the Jews with impunity. When chants of “Death to the Jews,” ring out publicly, is it surprising that people might actually begin to think that killing Jews is just fine?

During the past 15 years, it is estimated that tens of thousands of Jews have fled France.

Of these, approximately 40,000 have fled to Israel, according to Israeli figures. Many thousands of others have fled to Canada, the United Kingdom, and elsewhere. France is increasingly becoming a nation in which it is no longer safe to be openly Jewish.

To explain why so many Jews are leaving Europe, it helps to understand the increasingly toxic context developing in France for Jews.

Synagogues and Jewish schools across France are regularly guarded by police officers and soldiers. Jews in Europe see their holy sites and places of worship under threat.

In December 2015, 14 Jews were poisoned by a toxic substance which had been smeared on to the keypad to access a Paris synagogue. No one was killed by the poison, but “25 firemen rushed to the synagogue, where they treated congregants and traced their condition to the daubed lock.”

Another Paris synagogue was vandalized and a window smashed. Synagogues seem to be one of the targets in a new wave of anti-Semitism rising across France and Europe.

On the way to a synagogue, a 13-year-old boy was called a “dirty Jew” and then seriously assaulted. The attackers are said to have attacked the boy because of he wore a skullcap. Only 71 years after the end of one of the darkest periods of European history, after which we pledged “never again,” it seems to have become open season to hate and persecute Jews.

The terrorist attacks on Jews in France are the culmination of years of Jew-hatred tolerated with little official criticism. In 2014, supposed anti-Israel protesters attacked a Paris synagogue and trapped the congregants inside. The attackers’ chants apparently included “Death to the Jews,” “Murderous Israel,” and “One Jew, Some Jews, All Jews are Terrorists.”

It seems people who openly call for hatred against Jews, to the point of murder, can now claim to be just “anti-Israel,” rather than anti-Semitic. Incitement to murder Jews was described by the French press as “mild mannered”. When talk of racial murder is dismissed in such a way, is it any wonder that radical clerics continue to preach vicious dehumanising hatred that culminates in violence?

If the media were more accurate, it would describe these “anti-Israeli” protesters as “anti-Semitic” and “inciters of violence and genocide.”

When swastikas are painted in one Paris’ largest squares by those claiming to oppose Israel, and ISIS and Hamas banners and flags are flying, and groups pledge the genocide of the Jews with impunity, is it any wonder that individuals might support these groups? When chants of “Death to the Jews,” ring out publicly, is it surprising that people might actually begin to think that killing Jews is just fine?

Both far-right Islamists and neo-Nazis joined forces in Paris during a “Day of Rage.” More than 17,000 of them marched, chanting “Jew, France is not for you.” Is it surprising that Jews are flee the country in increasing numbers?

When Islamists chant outside a central Paris synagogue, “Hitler was right,” whilst some of his victims still walk this earth, is it surprising people in French society may start to emulate him, or at least aspire to?

Synagogues are not the only institutions facing serious threats. Jewish schools across France are under heavy guard by police and soldiers.

1578-2

French soldiers guard a Jewish school in Strasbourg, February 2015. (Image source: Claude Truong-Ngoc/Wikimedia Commons)

The tragedy is that we have allowed French and European societies to need these guards by tolerating those promoting injustice, prejudice and hatred.

Paul Fitoussi, principal of the Lucien de Hirsch Jewish school in Paris, summarises why France has become so toxic for Jews:

“People nowadays think it is dangerous to be Jewish in France because there was a series of events: The kidnapping and murder of Ilan Halimi ten years ago, the terror attack at the Jewish school in Toulouse four years ago, the stabbings in Marseille, last year’s attack at Hyper Cacher market – there is a problem. For the French, worrying about security issues is new to them. I talk to the police but they do not know what to do. They brought armed soldiers to the schools, but I know that in the long term this is not a solution.”

There seems to be a common thread running throughout the incidences above and attacks on Jews today. In the Ilan Halimi case, the victim was targeted on the basis of his race, and the perception that being a Jew made him wealthy. A similar attack was noted by a fifth-grader at the Lucien de Hirsh school. He said his attackers, foreign in origin, “asked if I was Jewish, I said yes, they said that the Jews are full of money, and if I did not give them my coat, they will kill me.” It seems that stereotypes of Jewish wealth perpetuated often by Islamists and others now seem commonplace in French society, and individuals are increasingly threatened with murder, robbery and extortion.

Not even public transportation is safe for Jews; in December, 2015, a man on a train in Paris verbally abused a group of Jews, stating that he wished to kill them. “If only I had a grenade here,” he said, “how do you call it, a fragmentation grenade, I would blow up this wagon with the fucking Jewish bastards.”

There has also been, since 2000, a troublingly large increase in the number of violent anti-Semitic attacks by Muslims in France. Multiple official figures have illustrated that in the last 20 years, the number of violent anti-Semitic acts has tripled. In France in 2014, there were 851 recorded anti-Semitic incidents, more than doubling the total from 2013.

Jews may represent less than 1% of France’s expanding and diverse population, but they are the victim of 40%–50% of France’s recorded racist attacks.

Jews are only the start of where Islamists begin to target people to whose existence they seem to object. Next, Islamists come for the LGBT, as seen in the Orlando shooting and with ISIS throwing gay people off buildings, and of course Christians, as we have seen in slaughtered in just one small example on a Libyan beach; and most frequently other Muslims, the majority victim of Isla mists. Evidently no one is safe, and that includes all of us.

Perhaps it is best to finish on a note inspired from the work of Martin Niemöller (1892-1984), a prominent Lutheran pastor and scathing critic of Adolf Hitler. Consequently, Niemöller spent the last seven years of Nazi rule in concentration camps, but had the fortune to survive.

His timeless poem does not need much transposing:

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out —
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out —
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out —
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me — and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Categories: France, Islam - submission, Islam and Jews, Islamic hatred of others, Islamic integration, Islamic invasion, Islamic supremacy, Islamisation of France
Tags: France, Islam - submission, Islam and Jews, Islamic hatred of others, Islamic integration, Islamic invasion, Islamic supremacy, Islamisation o France

Comments: Be the first to comment

Saudi women revolt: #StopEnslavingSaudiWomen

September 7, 2016

Saudi women revolt: #StopEnslavingSaudiWomen, Counter Jihad, Christine Williams, September 7, 2016

(Lot of luck with that. — DM)

Female oppression and subjugation are integral elements of Islamic supremacism, exhibited by Saudi Arabia (among other Islamic states), which exports and funds Wahhabism globally. Saudi Arabia is now experiencing a kind of social media revolt by its women against its guardianship laws. Hurray for social media in allowing these women some dissenting expression; they are otherwise buried and gagged under the niqab.

“The hashtag, #StopEnslavingSaudiWomen, has taken the Twitter social networking world by storm, calling for an end to these oppressive laws” of male guardianship.

Females in Saudi Arabia are permanently under male guardians from birth. They can’t be educated, travel, marry, “or even have surgery” without male guardian approval. In fact, if a woman so much as leaves the house against the wishes of her male guardian, he can “go to the police and file a complaint that you are a fugitive and the police will come after you and take you home.”These are elements of Islamic law, but nowhere else are they so strictly enforced as in Saudi Arabia.

Western leftist feminists who turn a blind eye to the tortures of the sisterhood by Islamic supremacists and jihadists, meanwhile, are perhaps too busy with the chorus of celebratory jeering over the death of conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly (who spoke out boldly against Muslim immigration in Europe and the erosion of democratic principles) to take note of this new development about women in Saudi Arabia.

stopenslavingsaudiwomen

“Calls to end Saudi male guardianship sweeping social media”, by Katie Beiter, The JPost , September 7, 2016:

Reem, a 37-year-old Saudi nurse, who asked that her last name be withheld, recalled when her family arranged her marriage. After graduating from nursing school, she worked for 10 years until her cousin approached her father asking for her hand in marriage.

“All of a sudden my father said to me, this is my nephew and you will marry him,” Reem said. “We were complete opposites in character and I didn’t like him, he wasn’t handsome. So, I refused, I cried, I did everything a Saudi girl can do, but sadly, they forced me.”

“It broke my soul,” she added. After a year of being engaged, Reem broke it off. Her parents then forced her to marry a man, who, according to Reem, was a drug addict; so she divorced him.

“Now, I am divorced with one son. I am a nurse, but I stay with my family. I have a good salary, but they refuse to let me live independently. I am 37 years old and I still live with my parents,” Reem said.

Stories like these are not uncommon in Saudi Arabia, a conservative, Muslim country, where male guardianship laws still reign. These laws require Saudi women, regardless of age, to have a male guardian, usually a husband or a father, who makes all legal decisions for them.

The hashtag, #StopEnslavingSaudiWomen, has taken the Twitter social networking world by storm, calling for an end to these oppressive laws.

“Basically, from when they are born to when they die, Saudi women require male guardians, who are given legal control over their lives,” Kristine Beckerle, a Human Rights Watch researcher recently reported. According to Beckerle, the New York-based human rights organization “has concluded that male guardianship is the most significant impediment to women’s rights in Saudi Arabia today.”

Saudi women are not allowed to travel, marry, study, or even have surgery without permission from their guardians. “If you go out against your guardian’s will, he can go to the police and file a complaint that you are a fugitive and the police will come after you and take you home,” Reem added.

There is a Twitter hashtag in Arabic (#سعوديات_نطالب_باسقاط_الولاية51), which updates the number of days the hashtag has been circulating. It has reached 51.

“It’s a unified effort by Saudi Women in attempt to voice their struggle in the only legal way that they can in Saudi Arabia,” Isaac Cohen, Director of the S.A.F.E. Movement, a non-profit organization dedicated to helping Saudi women fight male guardianship, told The Media Line.

Women have chosen the social media platform to raise awareness because protest rallies are illegal and can even carry prison sentences in Saudi Arabia. In the past, Saudi women have feared publicizing their beliefs; however, women have now become more willing to take a stand in the anti-guardianship campaign, according to Beckerle.

These women have gone so far as to record videos of themselves to post on social media, articulating the horrors of the repressive laws. Aside from the hashtags, there have been many other instances of solidarity amongst Saudi women.

Some of which include the distribution of “I am my own guardian” bracelets and stickers; a petition to the king, which gathered over 3,000 signatures in 24 hours; and a wall in Riyadh with the hashtag written in graffiti.

“I am flabbergasted. The media is not free and Saudi women themselves face many levels of difficulty. To see women take up the call and demand their rights has been incredible,” Beckerle said.

There have been movements in the past to change laws in Saudi Arabia. In October 2013, there was a campaign to allow women the right to drive; however, that was unsuccessful.

However, activists hope that this campaign may be different. Because the guardianship laws affect a number of different aspects of women’s lives, Beckerle believes that this gives the government room to initiate changes….

Categories: Islam - submission, Islam and females, Saudi Arabia - Human rights, social media
Tags: Islam - submission, Islam and females, Saudi Arabia and human rights, social media

Comments: Be the first to comment

London Builds Intelligence Unit to Target Cyber “Hate Speakers”

September 7, 2016

London Builds Intelligence Unit to Target Cyber “Hate Speakers” Counter Jihad, September 7, 2016

The office of the Mayor of London has issued a grant for an online “hub” designed to identify so-called ‘hate speakers’ for police. The grant promises to “improve the police response” as well as develop the “intelligence to facilitate counter measures that can reduce and prevent further criminal activity.” British and European law do not contain the robust protections for freedom of speech that America’s First Amendment provides.

Saying anything that falls under the poorly-defined rubric of ‘hate speech’ is already criminal in London: they just want to improve their capacity to send the police to your house. The penalty can be six months in prison per offense.

Well, actually, they want to do a little more than that. The grant also promises to “build community capacity to respond collectively to online hate.” So it isn’t just a rule-of-law response that they are looking for here. They want to organize online mobs to go after you for expressing disapproved thoughts.

Breitbart news points out that this is the brainchild of London’s first Muslim mayor.

The office of London’s first Muslim mayor has secured millions of pounds to fund a police “online hate crime hub” to work in “partnership with social media providers” to criminalise “trolls” who “target… individuals and communities.” … In May this year, the EU announced that Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Microsoft had “committed” to working more closely with them and national governments and “their law enforcement agencies” to help “criminalise” perceived “illegal hate speech” online.

Naturally, the law will also be used to criminalize political opposition to the establishment — one of the first uses was to target what the UK Standard refers to as “Brexit hate crime.” But it seems from the grant application that speech critical of Islam is the real target. The announcement of the grant states that a recent report “identified 45% of anti-Muslim hate crime took place online, and the organisation is seeing up to 80% of its resources used in monitoring online hate and supporting the victims.”

The claim is that seeing online ‘hate crime’ results in “higher levels of depression, stress and anger,” and can cause changes in “which streets they walk down, how they answer the phone, reactions to strangers, and suspicion of co-workers.” That last element sounds particularly ominous given Islamist workplace attacks such as the San Bernardino shooting. The London police appear to be suggesting that seeing criticism of Islam on-line leads to murders of this sort. Indeed, the criminalization of critical speech even seems to suggest that these psychological effects to some degree justifyIslamist violence against society.

Breitbart points out that convictions under the law banning speech of this kind have increased ten-fold in the last decade. They quote Frank Furedi, emeritus professor of sociology at the University of Kent. [T]he police [are] becoming more and more involved in controlling our morality,” he told the BBC. “[They are] almost playing the role of a moral police. And instead of dealing with real crime in the offline world, [the police] find its very convenient to ‘send the message’ in the online world because it’s a relatively easy thing to do.”

Doubtless it is a lot safer than targeting Islamist militants. The only cost is a little liberty. Well, maybe more than a little.

Categories: Britain, Freedom of speech, Hate speech, Islam - submission, Islam and human rights, London
Tags: Britain, freedom of speech, Hate speech, Islam - submission, Islam and human rights, London

Comments: Be the first to comment

Archives