Germany’s “Rapefugee” Crisis

ll (1)

Frontpage, by Stephen Brown, Jan. 29, 2016:

“Why should we children have to grow up in such fear?”

That is the very reasonable question 16-year-old German teenager Bibi Wilhailm asks, in her 20-minute YouTube video, garnering her some much-needed recognition in cyberspace. Her video had first appeared on Facebook, but was taken down for reasons that still remain unclear.

But Wilhailm doesn’t seem to care too much for fame. In her first ever YouTube appearance, she says she only wants her old life back. It is a life that she describes as “toll” (fantastic), before Chancellor Angela Merkel allowed one million, mostly male and Muslim, refugees into Germany last fall. Since then, Wilhailm says, “life has become very unsafe on the streets for young women like me and my friends.”

“This is the truth. We are no longer allowed to walk outside,” said Wilhailm. “We are no longer allowed to wear our clothes. We are no longer allowed to live the German life. This is the sad truth.”

Wilhaim’s fears are neither unfounded nor exaggerated. A security official as prominent as the police chief of Vienna, Gerhard Purstl, confirmed Wilhailm’s claim when he warned women not to venture out at night alone and to “avoid suspicious-looking areas.” Purstl’s warning came after several sex attacks in Austria by migrants.

If anyone possessed any doubts about Muslim migrant attitudes toward the ‘infidel’ women of their host countries, these doubts should have been painfully and publicly dispelled last New Year’s Eve at Cologne’s central train station. A thousand of the new arrivals, mostly young Arab men, gathered there that evening and, like packs of hyenas, molested hundreds of women, raping several.

“We are so scared,” said Wilhailm, expressing the fear young women are now forced to face. “We don’t want to be scared to go to the grocery store alone after sunset.”

Since the Muslim migrants’ appearance in Germany, Wilhailm says, “life has been hell. These men often commit verbal and physical acts of sexual violence against women out alone.” She says she herself has had a couple of bad experiences.

“But one day, a terrible thing happened at the supermarket,” Wilhailm said. “I ran all the way home. I was so frightened for my life. There’s no other way to describe it.”

Another time, men she called “Muslims” told her and her friend they were “sluts” for wearing t-shirts. Addressing Muslim men of this ilk in her video, Wilhailm responded:

“You have no right to attack us because we are wearing t-shirts. You also have no right to rape.”

Unfortunately, for Germany’s young women, there are too many new migrants who believe that they do.

Earlier this month, police in Dortmund reported that a migrant approached a girl on the street, offering her money for sex. He explained his behavior to her as German girls are “just there for sex.”

An article by Soeren Kern, published in the Gatestone Institute last September, before Merkel’s great refugee wave, bears this out. Kern provides a list of rapes committed by migrants in Germany. It makes for disturbing and heartbreaking reading. “Growing numbers of German women in towns and cities across the country are being raped by asylum seekers from Africa, Asia and the Middle East,” writes Kern. “Many of the crimes are being downplayed by German authorities and the national media, apparently to avoid fueling anti-immigration sentiments.”

There are also additional reasons why police, media and politicians cover up or obfuscate migrant rapes and crimes. One is that they do not want to give those originally opposed to this migrant invasion the opportunity to say: “I told you so.”

Another, and perhaps the most alarming one, is that European elites believe they are justified in censuring migrant sex attacks, since revealing their shocking details only increases support for hated populist and conservative parties. Regarded as ideological enemies and racist, these parties are gaining strength with every act of migrant sexual violence against women and children.

In other words, the mental and physical health and safety of Germany’s young women, just like those in Sweden these past years, are being heartlessly sacrificed on the altar of politically correct expediency. At the same time, those supporting multiculturalism are portraying, with some success, the people who opposed this mass migration as lacking compassion. Angela Merkel, for example, said such people have“coldness, even hatred” in their hearts.

Stockholm’s police chief, Peter Agren, is an example of those in positions of power willing to sacrifice young women for political correctness. He recently conceded he had covered up the sexual molestation of dozens of young women by a Muslim gang at a music festival last summer so as not to strengthen the position of his country’s populist conservative party.

“This is a sore point. Sometimes we dare not tell how it is because we think it plays into the hands of the Sweden Democrats,” said Agren.

After reading about cover-ups like this, one is left wondering who the barbarians are: the Muslim rapists or Europe’s ruling class? Also, with Agren’s politically correct outlook, it is no wonder Sweden has one of the highest rape rates in the world. Only a couple of African countries rank higher.

Cover-ups of migrant sex crimes began, literally, as soon as the first “refugees” arrived. At a ‘welcoming party’ for one batch of arrivals, in Bonn last November 7, almost two months before the horrific events at Cologne’s train station, female guests were sexually molested by the “100 to 150 asylum-seeking men there.”

“I’d only been there a few minutes, and I got the first hand on my breast,” one woman later said.

A police spokesman added: “The music had to be constantly stopped so that the message could be given out in Arabic to stop men harassing female guests.”

Police were also angry that they were not notified about the crimes committed at the ‘welcoming party.’ Some believe this knowledge may have helped them prevent the New Years’ Eve sexual assaults.

According to one report, an integration official admitted she knew about the sex assaults at the party and didn’t contact police. She also said she ‘cannot remember’ whether she advised women who were attacked to do so. This official said the event’s student organizers also knew about the sexual molestation “but did not want to make a fuss” and had “learned from the situation.”

But these students, obviously, didn’t learn lessons in moral and civic responsibility towards others in society, especially towards women. By not reporting the sex attacks to police and allowing these men to go unpunished, they were setting up other women for victimization. It is very possible that some of these men were among the New Year’s Eve molesters.

But building the multicultural ‘Utopia’ is so important to such people that, if women’s and children’s well-being has to be sacrificed on the altar leftist ideals to achieve it, then so be it. What the students put on their website about the sex attacks after the incident says it all:  “…instead of just adversely pointing fingers at those who misbehave, we believe it’s as important for everyone in our civil society to tackle these differences in the daily integration.”

One wonders whether the integration official and students would have acted so complacently if anti-immigration PEGIDA members had perpetrated the sexual assaulting. As it was, police only discovered what had occurred at the welcoming event only when a victim approached them after the New Year’s Eve sex attacks.

The current rape crisis in Germany was, of course, completely predictable. Strong and frightening indicators of what was to follow the sudden influx of hundreds of thousands of young Muslim men into Germany were already present on Cairo’s Tahrir Square during political protests in 2011 and 2013 — and witnessed by the whole world. At that time, dozens of women and a few female journalists were surrounded, sexually molested and even raped, including CNN’s Lara Logan and a Dutch journalist. The unfortunate Dutch woman was so severely injured she had to undergo an operation. Since this is how these Muslim men behave in their own countries, why would they not be expected to do the same elsewhere, especially in a country full of infidel women?

Closer to home, Sweden has for years already served as an example of migrant sexual violence.

In her video, Wilhailm accuses Merkel of having “killed Germany.”

“I do not think you know what you have done,” said Wilhailm. “You do not see how our lives have changed. Open your eyes! Is this normal? Should I, a 16-year-old who is almost 17 be scared to walk outside my house? No, it is not normal.”

Insightful for one so young, Wilhailm also realizes that the state no longer can, nor perhaps has the will, to protect its young women and children. As a result, she makes a desperate plea for Germany’s men to protect them, asking them to go out and patrol the streets:

“Men, please help your women. Please help your children. I am so scared. My friends have the same fears. We are shocked that this has happened. I hope this video has convinced you, and that these terrible events can stop.”

For Wilhaim’s sake, and for millions more like her, one can only hope Germany’s men will firmly respond.

Also see:

Dominance and Submission in Cologne and the Persian Gulf

Mideast-Iran-US-sailors-660x350-1453185532

Crisis Magazine, by William Kilpatrick, Jan.

Under the Islamic dhimmi system, when Christians paid the jizya tax, they were often required to kneel before the local Muslim dignitary as a sign of submission. Sometimes the tax collector would deliver a slap to the face as an added humiliation. This was in accordance with the Koranic injunction that non-Muslims must not only pay the tax, but also “feel themselves subdued” in the process (9:29).

What is the meaning of the word “Islam” again? “Peace?” Er, no. That was what the vast majority of Americans thought it meant circa 2001. But since then, most of us, with the exception of a couple of presidents and Secretaries of State, have discovered that it actually means “submission.”

Islam is a very tolerant religion. It doesn’t require that you convert to it as long as you submit to it. All they are asking for is a little groveling. Thus, if you are a Christian living in the Ottoman Empire you kneel while you pay the eighty-percent tax, and if you’re a sailor in the U.S. Navy whose boat mysteriously falls into Iranian hands you kneel and then offer apologies for your behavior while thanking your captors for their “fantastic” hospitality. Oh, and if you’re a female sailor, all you have to do is don a hijab as a sign of respect for, and submission to, the codes of Islam.

In the meantime, be assured that your Secretary of State will back you up by offering his own profound appreciation for “the quick and appropriate response of the Iranian authorities.” At the same time, your president can be relied on not to mention the incident at all, he having made some sort of gentleman’s agreement with the Iranians which requires him to pretend that everything they do is both fantastic and appropriate.

About two weeks prior to the naval incident, the German nation was subject to another form of humiliation. On New Year’s Eve, a group of 1,000 North African and Arab men sexually assaulted women outside the main train station in Cologne. The total number of victims who were either robbed or sexually assaulted was about six hundred. Many of the women were forced to run through a gauntlet of their tormentors. Similar occurrences took place in about 17 other major European cities that night.

In a sense, this was the logical conclusion to Europe’s inability to resist other Islamic advances. European leaders had opened their borders, their welfare coffers, and their public housing to well over a million Muslim immigrants (seventy percent of whom were male) in less than a year. Coming from cultures where yielding is a proof of weakness, the Muslim invaders concluded that they could take what they wanted—both the welfare and the women.

A large part of the West’s difficulty in dealing with Islamic aggression can be traced to a massive identity crisis. Having traded its traditional identity markers for multicultural ones, the West no longer knows how to act when it is threatened. Being multicultural means being tolerant of every diversity. But if you’re tolerant of everything, the end result is that you stand for nothing.

More and more, it seems that Westerners will stand for just about any humiliation. While Muslims in madrassas are learning that they have the superior culture and the superior religion, Western students learn that no Western value is worth defending—including the traditional notion that women should be protected from rampaging males. At one time, both men and women acknowledged that there are differences between the sexes, that one of those differences is physical strength, and that, as a consequence, there are circumstances where male protection is desirable. Having dispensed with that “quaint” notion, Western societies seem to have fallen back on the notion that, given the right multicultural conditions, people will naturally behave in harmonious ways. When you put that assumption into practice, what you get, of course, is smaller, more multiculturally sensitive police forces.

According to one report, police in Cologne were unable to control events because they were “overwhelmed.” In other words, they lacked the manpower to be of much help that winter’s night. “Manpower.” It’s a curious word. Even today it would seem odd to say that a police force lacked “womanpower,” although men-only police forces are a thing of the past. Women do have various kinds of power, but it’s still understood that “manpower” and “womanpower” are not quite the same thing.

In any event, the Cologne police lacked manpower in both senses of the word. They were lacking in numbers that particular night, but even when in full force they seem to lack the instinctive masculine response that was once expected of civilized males. As I have written elsewhere, “the multiculturalist code is essentially an emasculating code. It has the effect of paralyzing the normal masculine response of coming to the protection of those in danger.”

In the case of the Cologne police and other state authorities, this lack of response would include not having the foresight to anticipate that German women would be at heightened risk once a million-man army newly arrived from misogynist cultures made its appearance. The problem is that European authorities are more committed to protecting multicultural pieties than to protecting ordinary citizens from Islamists gone wild. Thus, the initial police report of the evening’s events read: “A mood of exuberance—largely peaceful celebrations.” That’s “largely peaceful” if you don’t count the thousand marauding Muslims outside the train station and the cathedral. Anyone who follows the goings-on in Europe knows that the authorities’ top priority is to protect the sensitivities of the newcomers from the outrage of “Islamophobia.” As for the common folk, they are expected to do their best to understand the other culture and adjust to it. If they protest, the penalties can be severe. In the UK, when Tommy Robinson, the leader of the counterjihad movement in England, was jailed, it was for the horrific crime of having exaggerated his income on a mortgage application. When he arrived in prison, he was thrown into a cell containing several Muslims who brutally beat him—as the prison warders knew they would.

No doubt there are some tough fellows in the Cologne police force, but their toughness has been enlisted in the service of political correctness. When, a week after the New Year’s Eve assaults, the anti-immigration group, PEGIDA, rallied to protest the attacks, a massive force of Cologne police wearing riot gear broke up the demonstration using water cannons and pepper spray. The PEGIDA people have become used to that sort of treatment. They have been repeatedly attacked by German politicians and the German press as “extremists,” “xenophobes,” “racists,” and “Nazis.” And German police have on several occasions left them to the mercy of the brutal and usually much larger leftist or “anti-fascist” gangs.

The police and the politicians can be quite tough in enforcing multicultural codes, but their toughness is in the cause of cultural soft-headedness. That’s because multiculturalism is basically the process by which a culturally confused society surrenders itself to a more confident and aggressive culture. You can call the current conflict between Islam and the West a “clash of civilizations,” but that’s rather like describing the encounter between a sadist and a masochist as a clash. As I wrote a few years ago:

It’s difficult to conceive of a more disastrous combination of events than the simultaneous emergence on the world stage of a fiercely passionate ideology dedicated to conquering the West, and of another, dangerously naïve ideology, eager to dismantle it from within.

What the West sees as signs of tolerance and sensitivity are seen by Muslims as signs of submission and also as a validation of their belief that theirs is indeed the superior culture. Western appeasement will not garner more respect from the Muslim world, but it will bolster the jihadi recruitment campaign. After the navy crew surrendered in the Persian Gulf, an Iranian commander remarked:

I saw the weakness, cowardice, and fear of American soldiers myself… American forces receive the best training and have the most advanced weapons in the world, but they did not have the power to confront the Guard due to weakness of faith and belief.

Gestures of compliance do not convince Islamists that we are an admirable people, it only convinces them that they have the winning hand. Unless Western leaders get a better grip on the realities of Islamic culture, they will continue to set up their own citizens for one humiliation after another. The only consolation is that after a while, they may learn to adjust to their dhimmi status. When they kneel to pay the jizya, it may well be with expressions of gratitude for the “fantastic” and “appropriate” behavior of their masters.

Also see:

Jihad: “All the Fault of the West!”

Gatestone Institute, by Lars Hedegaard, December 26, 2015:

  • As long as we in the West are not prepared to take Muslims at their word when they claim to be waging bloody jihad because it is their religious obligation, we have no chance of repelling the current onslaught on the West.
  • First to go will be the welfare states. Shrinking native populations cannot generate enough taxes to accommodate masses of immigrants with so few skills as to be effectively unemployable, or who do not want to contribute to “infidel” societies. Well before mid-century, the number of Muslims in Denmark will be large enough irreversibly to have changed the composition and character of the country.
  • In the United States, a House of Representatives bill, H. Res. 569, has been sponsored that would censor one of the few countries left with freedom of speech. The bill, in accordance with the 10-year plan of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), would criminalize all criticism of Islam, worldwide.
  • Will Muslim non-integration spell the end of the secular state as we have known it? Probably. Religion – or more accurately, Islamic ideology, which knows no distinction between religion and politics – is on the ascendant.

It was not supposed to have happened this way. In 1995 a number of EU member states signed the Schengen Agreement, integrated into European Union law in 1999. The signatory powers promised to abandon their internal border protection in exchange for a promise by the EU authorities that they would police Europe’s external borders. Then the EU authorities, while demanding that the Schengen states keep their borders open, spectacularly failed to honor their part of the agreement. There can be little doubt that the EU packed up, walked out and left its populations to their own devices.

Sadly, their policies have achieved the exact opposite of what they claimed to strive for. Instead of tolerance, we have witnessed division and irreconcilable enmity between cultures and ethnicities that often have nothing in common except a desire to squeeze as much out of the public coffers as they can. Instead of “inclusion,” Europeans have seen exclusion, low-intensity warfare, terror, no-go zones, rape epidemics, murder and mayhem.

Governments, parliamentary majorities and the stars of academia, the media and the commanding heights of culture cannot have failed to notice that their grand multicultural, Islamophile game did not produce the results they had promised their unsuspecting publics. Yet to this day, most of them persist in claiming that unfettered immigration from the Muslim world and Africa is an indisputable boon to Europe.

Recently, in the wake of the so-called “refugee crisis,” some of these notables have thrown out the script and are expressing concern that immigration is out of control. European governments are still allowing millions of so-called refugees to cross all borders and settle anyplace. According to the EU agency Frontex, charged with protecting Europe’s external borders, more than a million and a half illegals crossed Europe’s frontiers between January and November 2015.

Thousands of migrants cross illegally into Slovenia on foot, in this screenshot from YouTube video filmed in October 2015.

Right now there is an ever-widening gap between the people and their rulers. In a conference recently organized by the Danish Free Press Society to commemorate the tenth anniversary of the famous Muhammed cartoons, the British political analyst, Douglas Murray, noted that the European populations are reacting to decades of lies and deception by voting for political parties which, just a few years ago, were vilified as “racist” and “fascist.” Marine Le Pen, of the National Front party, has emerged as a strong candidate in France’s 2017 presidential election.

Perhaps the most momentous political earthquake in Europe was the recent 180-degree about-face by the Danish Social Democratic Party. Only a few years ago, it was a staunch proponent of Muslim immigration, and hammered away at anyone daring to deny the “cultural enrichment” brought about by the spread of Islam.

The leader of Denmark’s Social Democratic parliamentary group, Henrik Sass Larsen MP, on December 18 wrote:

“The massive migration and stream of refugees now coming to Europe and Denmark are of a magnitude that challenges the fundamental premises of our society in the near future… According to our analysis, the stark economic consequences of the current number of refugees and immigrants will consume all room for maneuver in public finance within a few years. Non-Western immigrants have historically been difficult to integrate into the labor market; the same applies to the Syrians that are now arriving. The more, the harder, the more expensive… Finally, it is our analysis that given our previous experience with integrating non-Western people into our society, we are facing a social catastrophe when it comes to handling many tens of thousands that are soon to be channeled into society. Every bit of progress in terms of integration will be put back to zero. … Therefore our conclusion is clear: We will do all we can to limit the number of non-Western refugees and immigrants coming to the country. That is why we have gone far — and much farther than we had dreamed of going… We are doing this because we will not sacrifice our welfare society in the name of humanitarianism. For the welfare society … is the political project of the Social Democratic Party. It is a society built on the principles of liberty, equality and solidarity. Mass immigration — as we have seen in, for example, Sweden — will undermine … our welfare society.”

Clearly, the Danish Social Democratic Party — the architect of Denmark as we have known it — has understood that there is political capital to be defended. It seems finally to have realized that it cannot persist in whittling away its accomplishments if it wants to keep its dwindling share of the votes.

One may speculate that if the Social Democratic Party means what it says, it might have an impact among Social Democratic and Socialist parties in other European countries.

However, as Douglas Murray also pointed out, Westerners suffer from the notion that regardless of how many jihadis, murderers and terrorists claim that their actions are motivated by their love of Allah, they cannot possibly mean it. There must be some other underlying “root cause” that the men of violence are not aware of, but which well-meaning Westerners are keen to tell them about: old Western imperialism, centuries of humiliation, racism, Israel, the Crusades, poverty, exclusion, the Muhammad cartoons, etc. And, of course, that it is all the fault of the West!

As long as we in the West are not prepared to take Muslims at their word when they claim to be waging bloody jihad because it is their religious obligation, we have no chance of repelling the current onslaught on the West. The latest sighting of this shift was just this week, in the form of a U.S. House of Representatives bill, H. Res. 569, to censor one of the few countries left with free speech. The bill, in accordance with the 10-year plan of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) to implement UN Human Rights Council Resolution 16/18, would criminalize, worldwide, all criticism of Islam. [1]

As long as the authorities are unwilling to protect their own populations from being overrun by foreigners, many of whom seem prepared to do them harm, we are likely to see the natives take protection into their own hands. On December 16, for instance, there was a violent protest in the small Dutch city of Geldermalsen, as the local authorities were trying to set up an asylum center behind the backs of the local population. No doubt the authorities were taken aback by the activism.

Western societies are based on an implied contract between the sovereign and the people: The sovereign — the king, the president, the government — promises to uphold law and order, protect his people from violence and foreign encroachment and apprehend and punish criminals. In exchange, the citizens promise not to take the law into their own hands. It follows that if the state fails to uphold its part of this social bargain, then the right — indeed the obligation — to protect oneself, one’s family, neighbors and the community, returns to the citizens.

There was also the recent spate of asylum-house burnings in Sweden. According to the Danish-Swedish website, Snaphanen, there have been 40 occasions during the past six months in which buildings intended to house asylum seekers have mysteriously burned to the ground — without anyone being hurt or killed. None of the perpetrators has been caught; no one has claimed responsibility. It all appears organized quite well.

Will citizen activism save Europe? Probably not. Vast areas are too far gone to be saved. Sweden is a broken country, as pointed out by Ingrid Carlqvist in several articles at Gatestone. By 2020, Germany may have 20 million Muslim residents.

We are probably beyond the point where effective change can be obtained by politics in the old sense, for the simple reason that central authorities are not strong enough to make their writ run throughout their national territories. This will spell the end of Europe as we know it, and people who cannot leave, or who choose to stand and fight, will be left to their own devices — and quite possibly entirely new modes of social organization.

First to go will be the welfare states. Shrinking native populations cannot generate enough taxes to accommodate masses of immigrants with so few skills as to be effectively unemployable, or who do not want to contribute to “infidel” societies.

What might post-European Europe look like? Think of Northern Ireland in the time of the Troubles or of ex-Yugoslavia during the civil wars of the 1990s.

When states break down, people’s first concern will be security. Who can and will protect my family and me?

For a long time in Europe there has been talk of “parallel societies” — in which the state ceases to function as a unitary polity — due to the cultural, religious and politico-judicial separation of non-Muslims and Muslims into incompatible and antagonistic enclaves.

There appears to be a growing realization among Danish demographers that third-world immigrants and their descendants, with or without citizenship, will constitute the majority of the Danish population before the end of the century.[2] A sizable segment of this third-world population will be Muslim, and well before the middle of the century, the number of Muslims will be large enough irreversibly to have changed the composition and character of the country.

Will Muslim non-integration spell the end of the secular state as we have known it? Probably. Religion — or more accurately, Islamic ideology — which knows no distinction between religion and politics, is on the ascendant as the constitutive principle among Danish Muslims. As Muslim institutions grow stronger, the Islamic court is bound to become even more powerful as the organizing principle of the Muslim parallel societies.

How will the old Danish, and nominally Christian, population react to this metamorphosis? To a large extent, that will depend on what organizing principle will determine the character of the Danish parallel society. Two possibilities stand out: “Danishness” and “Christianity.” “Danishness” would probably entail a society founded on a nationalistic or ethnic myth, whereas “Christianity” might be more ethnically inclusive and stress society’s Judeo-Christian and humanistic roots.

In either event, it is difficult to see how the secular state could survive, because the parallel societies will not be free to define themselves or determine their political systems or modes of governance. They will constantly be forced to maneuver in response to “the other’s” long-term objectives and immediate actions — as has been seen, for example, in Bosnia, Kosovo, Lebanon, Northern Ireland and the Basque provinces.

Under these conditions, the modern system of sovereign territorial states is likely to break down. We can only guess at what will replace it.

Lars Hedegaard, a Danish historian, journalist and author, established the Danish Free Speech Society in 2004.

.


[1] In accordance with the 10-year plan of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) to implement U.N. Resolution 16/18 and criminalize all criticism of Islam worldwide, a group in the U.S. House of Representatives has sponsored H. Res. 569, in condemnation of violence, bigotry and “hateful rhetoric” toward Muslims in the U.S. This bill comes on the heels of Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s post-San Bernardino attack statement to the Muslim American community that she will prosecute anyone guilty of anti-Muslim speech. Passage of this legislation will be the death knell for the First Amendment and the end of any and all discourse and education about the threat posed by the global jihad.

[2] See, for example, the calculations of the Copenhagen University demographer Hans Oluf Hansen, Berlingske Tidende, August 21, 2005.

The ISIS Threat Represents a Clash of Civilizations, and Hillary Won’t Admit It

Clinton at cfrNational Review, by Fred Fleitz — November 30, 2015:

Has Hillary Clinton separated herself from President Obama by taking a tougher and more realistic position on the threat from ISIS? That’s what many in the news media are saying based on some of her recent foreign-policy statements, such as her remarks in a November 19 speech to the Council on Foreign Relations:

ISIS operates across three mutually reinforcing dimensions: a physical enclave in Iraq and Syria; an international terrorist network that includes affiliates across the region and beyond; and an ideological movement of radical jihadism. We have to target and defeat all three, and time is of the essence.

This portrayal of the ISIS threat sounds like an improvement over the awkward rhetoric used by President Obama to discuss what he insists on calling ISIL or Daesh, and his refusal to use words such as “jihad” and “jihadism.” But Hillary’s rhetorical improvements were offset by caveats indicating that she actually has not moved very far from the president and has a worldview that is just as incoherent.

For example, Clinton criticized “the obsession in some quarters [meaning Republicans] with a clash of civilizations.” Clinton also echoed Obama’s frequent claims that the United States is not at war with Islam when she said, “I don’t think we’re at war with all Muslims. I think we’re at war with jihadists.”

RELATED: Why Does the Left Continue to Insist that Islamic Terrorism Has Nothing to Do with Islam?

Clinton’s dismissal that the threat from jihadist groups represents a clash of civilizations is troubling because it indicates that while she says ISIS is motivated by a radical ideology, she does not understand what this ideology is. Its adherents — including many authorities of Islam — believe in sharia, which amounts to a global operating system for jihad, a holy war with infidel societies explicitly seeking to impose, by violent or stealthy means, an Islamic caliphate worldwide.

Clinton also apparently does not realize that the clash-of-civilizations concept is not a Republican talking point but a well-known theory developed by two giants in the history of the Middle East and political science, Drs. Bernard Lewis and Samuel Huntington.

RELATED: After Paris, Obama Refuses to Lead

This term, first used by Lewis in a 1990 Atlantic Monthly article and then by Huntington in a famous 1993 Foreign Affairs article, exactly describes sharia ideology. Believing that this ideology is a war being waged against the West by Islamic fundamentalists in retaliation for purported efforts to undermine Islam and the Muslim world through secularism and modernity, Lewis concluded that:

We are facing a mood and a movement far transcending the level of issues and policies of governments that pursue them. This is no less than a clash of civilizations — the perhaps irrational but surely historic reaction of an ancient rival against our Judeo-Christian heritage, our secular present, and the worldwide expansion of both.

Huntington discussed several coming clashes of civilizations in his Foreign Affairs article but highlighted a potential clash between the West and the Muslim world as the most serious. According to Huntington:

The centuries-old military interaction between the West and Islam is unlikely to decline. It could become more virulent.

President Obama’s approach to the threat posed by ISIS, al-Qaeda, and other jihadist groups — including the Muslim Brotherhood — is doomed to fail to protect this country and its interests insofar as it refuses to recognize that they are all based on a global ideology at war with Western civilization.

Clinton’s dismissal of the clash-of-civilizations concept indicates she is also adhering to Obama’s erroneous view and that her reference to an “ideological movement of radical jihadism” is as meaningless as “violent extremism,” the euphemism the president uses to lump together perceived threats from veterans, Constitutionalists, Tea Party members, anti-abortion activists, conservatives, and foreign or domestic Islamist terrorists.

Clinton’s statement, “I don’t think we’re at war with all Muslims. I think we’re at war with jihadists,” is similar to President Obama’s claims that global jihadist groups and their ideologies have very little support in the Muslim world. Last week, the president said 99.9 percent of Muslims reject terrorism.

Obviously the U.S. is not at war with all Muslims. But by making this false argument, Obama and Clinton are ignoring the reality that the global jihad movement is such a difficult threat to counter because it has the support of more than a small minority of the world’s Muslims.

Josh Gelernter addressed this in an excellent November 21, 2015, National Review article in which he debunked President Obama’s “99.9 percent” claim. Citing Pew Research polling figures, Gelernter wrote:

In surveys of the Muslim populations of nine majority-Muslim countries, plus Lebanon, Gaza, and the West Bank, an average of 57 percent have an unfavorable view of al-Qaeda, not 99.9 percent. Thirteen percent have a favorable view of al-Qaeda, not 0.1 percent.

There also are disturbingly high levels of support for the global jihadist ideology among Muslims in the United States. According to a June 2015 online survey conducted by The Polling Company and sponsored by my organization, the Center for Security Policy, a majority (51 percent) agreed that “Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to shariah” and nearly a quarter believe “it is legitimate to use violence to punish those who give offense to Islam by, for example, portraying the prophet Mohammed.” The survey also found that 25 percent agreed fully or in part that “violence against Americans here in the United States can be justified as part of the global jihad.”

RELATED: Obama’s Increasingly Surreal War on ISIS

By claiming the United States is at war only with jihadists, Clinton is making the same mistake as President Obama by ignoring the sizeable number of the world’s Muslims who sympathize with them and their ideology. They are ignoring how this reality is a clash of civilizations and that the real war is an ideological one.

To win the war against the global jihad movement, the United States needs to combine military, diplomatic, and intelligence measures with aggressive efforts to challenge and discredit the jihadist ideology worldwide. This must include embracing and empowering Muslim moderates who want to reform Islam, such as Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, and Egyptian president Abdel Fattah al-Sissi as well as Muslims and former Muslims who have been persecuted by jihadists such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

It is outrageous that President Obama has never invited President Sissi, Dr. Jasser, or Ms. Hirsi Ali to the White House to discuss the threat from ISIS and the global jihad movement. Instead, he relies on counsel from American Muslim Brotherhood front groups such as the Islamic Society of North America and the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), an organization with connections to Hamas that has, according to Daniel Pipes, a “malign, terroristic quality.”

At the last Democratic presidential debate and in recent foreign-policy speeches, Clinton defended her decision not to use the term “radical Islam” because she does not want to offend Muslim societies or make it appear the United States is at war with Islam. This was the wrong answer, since defeating ISIS and the jihadist ideology requires risking offending some in the Muslim world by pressing for reform of Islam and promoting Muslim reformers.

Moreover, given that this is a problem within Islam, it’s absurd to avoid using terms that label it as such, a point Senator Marco Rubio made in this brilliant retort to Clinton:

That would be like saying we weren’t at war with the Nazis, because we were afraid to offend some Germans who may have been members of the Nazi party but weren’t violent themselves.

Repairing the damage done to international security and America’s global security interests by President Obama’s feckless “leading from behind” foreign policy will take a new president with leadership, vision, and an understanding of global threats. Defeating ISIS will require a new president who will acknowledge that ISIS is simply one manifestation of the larger problem we face from Islamic supremacism, a sharia-driven movement that is very much at war with Western civilization, and who will fight it on that basis.

Hillary Clinton’s recent statements about the ISIS threat fall far short of these requirements and suggest that, although Clinton wants to sound tough on how she would deal with ISIS, her approach would be just as dangerously ineffective as President Obama’s.

 — Fred Fleitz is senior vice president for policy and programs for the Center for Security Policy. He followed the Iranian nuclear issue for the CIA, the State Department, and the House Intelligence Committee during his 25-year government career. Follow him on Twitter @fredfleitz.

Cracks In The Caliphate: Western ISIS Members Complain About Life In The Islamic State

MEMRI, by A. Agron, Nov. 12, 2015:

Introduction

It is hard to gauge the full reality of life in the Islamic State. The dominant narrative, presented by ISIS, is carefully honed; the group meticulously controls what their official media outlets distribute online. ISIS champions its state as the only place in which Muslims can fully adhere to their faith and enjoy shari’a-compliant Islamic life. ISIS fighters often take to social media to boast about the benefits provided by the state, among them no taxes, free housing, and stipends for families. ISIS promotes the notion that it is helping to restore order and to bring normalcy to the Syrians, who have long been oppressed under the regime of Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad. It is, it claims, positively impacting the lives of local Muslims by bringing them back to Islam.

Some activist groups based in the Islamic State are vocal online, and they try to dispel the glossy images that ISIS is projecting, by chronicling the horrors under ISIS hegemony.  In general, members adhere to the group’s media policy and do not stray from its messaging points, and do not publicly express doubts or disagreements. However, sometimes ISIS members have been overly candid in their postings; when this happens, others often quickly step in and ask that the dissenting post be removed. Such grumblings provide glimpses into Western ISIS members’ discontent with life in the Islamic State.

This report will examine some examples of ISIS members’ complaints about aspects of life in ISIS-controlled territories in Syria, Iraq, and Libya. A few examples from fighters from other groups are also included, to show how these fighters’ attitudes differ from those of ISIS fighters. They indicate that other groups can be more open to locals and their customs than ISIS, and perhaps that the feeling is mutual – the locals like them better than they do ISIS.

Read more

***

Screen-Shot-2015-09-16-at-11.52.48-640x480

‘INEVITABLE CLASHES IN CULTURES’: BRITISH ISIS TERRORIST COMPLAINS ABOUT ‘ANGRY, RUDE, LAZY’ ARABS (breitbart.com)

In a blog post entitled, “Culture Clash: Understanding The Syrian Race,” a British ISIS recruit has written that Arabs are “rude,” “angry,” “lazy,” messy, poor leaders who do not know how to queue, stare too much, and violate his personal space and property.

Omar Hussain, 27, also know as Abu Saeed al Britani, is a former security guard at Morrisons supermarket who lived with his mother in High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, before joining ISIS. The terrorist complains that he is particularly concerned about people stealing his shoes and unplugging his phone when it is charging.

“Arabs as a whole have a unique culture, which differs dramatically from the western lifestyle,” he wrote. Adding: “If one is unaware of these cultural differences then it could be quite peculiar, annoying and, at times, somewhat stressful to interact and associate with them.”

He proceeds to “list a few of their habits which Arabs are known for.” His subheadings include: “A lack of privacy for other’s space,” “Childish behavior,” “Stealing shoes,” “Etiquettes when eating,” “Getting angry” “Sleeping habits,” “The staring competition,” “Treating animals badly,” “Beggars,” “Driving ‘skills’,” and “Empty words.”

On Arab behavior generally, he says: “Unfortunately Syrians seem to be very childish in their dealings and mannerisms in how they interact with each other. It’s not an unusual sight to see a fully grown Syrian man acting like a child and playing around with other brothers… Sometimes it may get quite hard to hold a civilised conversation with a Syrian man.”

He warns later: “Another common trait among our Arab brothers is to get offended if you bring their errors to their attention,” and that, “when Arabs get angry their ability to judge justly tends to falter, and they get upset quickly when you tell them the bitter truth.”

Under the subheading “Administration work,” he states that, “As Westerners we are naturally good at administration work as our whole life is based on an organised structure.” However, “There are many flaws and errors in putting an Arab in charge.” He even confesses “how even the Kuffār [non-muslim] work harder and quicker at administration work.”

Continuing: “Another ‘great’ feature of Arabs in administration is that there is no queue in any of their offices. You could be waiting in line for half an hour and then another Arab would come and push in the queue and go straight in.”

The “Majority of the Arabs in administration are not only lazy workers but also unaware of their job role,” he states. “The solution is twofold. Number one; to pray to Allāh that He (sic) replaces the Arabs with others who know what they are doing. Number two; and a more practical solution, is to shout at them while asking for what you need” he instructs his readers.

He also complains about other jihadists waking him up in the night. “For those of you who have been to university, it’s a bit like uni-life with a group of friends all being together,” he writes.

Adding: “As westerners we naturally tend not to mention other people’s faults especially when it seems obvious as we believe that they would come to their senses. Usually coughing or clearing one’s throat is an indirect sign to tell others of your presence, but with Syrians, you literally need to state the obvious before they come to their senses.”

On eating and etiquette, he says: “Our Arab brothers, or Syrians to be more precise, lack these basic manners.” He explained how he had to treat fellow Jihadis “like children” when trying to serve them food because they would not remain seated. He concludes: “The difference between an Arab and a non-Arab in their manners is like the difference between the heavens and the earth.”

Under, “The staring competition”, he writes: “Syrians love to stare at foreigners, maybe because no tourist has ever visited Syria… it can be quite uncomfortable to have a fully grown man stand a few metres away from you staring at you.”

On animal welfare, he says: “It is not uncommon to see an Arab throw objects (sic) at animals and to chase a hungry cat away. Nor is it uncommon to see some from among them killing harmless dogs,” and says he regularly see’s dead dogs on the street with “bullet holes” in them.

He says beggars “here in Syria are fraudsters.”

“In the airport you may be confronted by a ‘poor’ Syrian man who is trying to get enough money to book a flight to another country.”

On driving, he says: “Many things which may seem illegal or irrational are quite common for Arabs to do. In the west, one is required to look into his side mirrors prior to moving lane or going to a slip road, however an Arab would hardly ever look into his mirrors, even if he is coming onto a busy motorway. Women casually walk on the roads…”

He seems most wound up about his phone and shoes, however: “In the west, it is common knowledge to walk out of a room wearing the same pair of shoes that you wore while entering the room. Nay, it is common sense. However here in Shām, our Syrian brothers have a very peculiar philosophy whereby they believe that everyone can share each other’s footwear, irrespective of foot size.”

Continuing: “Another common trait is that they see no issue in unplugging your mobile phone to charge their own phone. Even if it’s your own charger, they would casually take your phone off charge to charge their own phone, even if there is no real need for them to charge their phone at that current time.”

This is not the first time that Hussain has complained about life under IS. Earlier in the year he complained about having to peel potatoes without a proper peeler, struggling to wash his clothes and of how he hadn’t been able to find himself a jihadi bride.

***

A militants of the Islamic State beheading an Iraqi man. File photo

A militants of the Islamic State beheading an Iraqi man. File photo

ISIS beheads eight of its own militants on charges of treason

H/T Weasel Zippers

URFA – The extremist group of Islamic State (ISIS) on Sunday executed a group of its own Iraqi militants in Anbar province, on charges of dissidence attempts, local sources reported.

Speaking to ARA News in Anbar, a media source said that ISIS has recently arrested dozens of its own Iraqi militant fighters for trying to dissent and flee the city of Ramadi in Anbar province.

“The terror group beheaded eight of its militants in the town of Zankura in Anbar province, in addition to the arrest of dozens of local Iraqi militants,” the source reported.

“They were beheaded for committing high treason,” the source told ARA News on the condition of anonymity.

“They had planned their escape since weeks, but they were arrested on an ISIS checkpoint,” the source added.

In January, at least 15 ISIS militants in the Syrian border city of Tel Abyad have reportedly defected from the group and headed to the Turkish territory.

In October, 12 ISIS foreign militants were captured while trying to cross the border into Turkey. The group executed them on charges of treason.

Dozens of jihadists complained they were fighting against other rebel groups in Syria rather than against the regime of President Bashar Assad.

ISIS has reportedly created a special police force to arrest those who try to flee what it described as “duty”.

Over the last few months, dozens of militants dissented from the ranks of the radical group in Syria’s Raqqa and Iraqi provinces of Anbar and Nineveh, amid internal rifts over the distribution of money and power, according to local sources.

Reporting by: Jan Nasro

Source: ARA News

In Photos: Inside the Al Nusra Academy Training the Next Generation of Jihadis

Vice News, By Sally Hayden, Nov. 11, 2015:

In a classroom in northern Syria’s Aleppo province a teacher begins a lesson by saying: “Today we will learn about faith and beliefs.”

Abu Baser questions the assembled boys — all in khaki green — on the meaning of the word “faith,” before having them repeat: “The war gains belong to God and the messenger.”

This is the Lion Cubs Religious Academy, one of several schools run by al Qaeda’s Syrian affiliate, the al Nusra Front. VICE News filmmaker Medyan Dairieh gained exclusive access to the group earlier this year, spending time with the militia’s current leadership and the younger generation being groomed to replace them.

His footage shows children singing songs with lyrics like: “Oh mother, don’t be sad, I’ve chosen the land of jihad. Wipe your tears, I only went to fight the Jews,” and “Our leader [Osama] bin Laden who scares America with the power of his faith and his PK gun.”

In unison, they later chorus together: “All the Christians and a message to America, your grave is in Syria, our Front is victorious.”

Boy from Idlib. (Photo by Medyan Dairieh)

Boy from Idlib. (Photo by Medyan Dairieh)

Not all of the children in the ‘Lion Cubs Religious Academy’ come from families affiliated with al Qaeda, but the majority do. Trained to believe dying in jihad will make them a martyr, they could join the tens of thousands of child soldiers being used and abused in conflicts around the world.

Abu Anas — a student recently arrived from Uzbekistan — is still learning Arabic. He told VICE News that he misses his relatives in his home country, but doesn’t miss Uzbekistan itself because “they don’t approve of jihad and they call us terrorists. They’re frightened by us. They don’t want jihad. They don’t want Allah’s laws.” Questioned again later, he says his father “died as a martyr,” but won’t disclose where.

Another classmate said he had been forced to attend the school because his family wanted him to train to be a mujahideen fighter.

The students of the 'Lion Cubs Religious Academy' go on a school trip. (Photo by Medyan Dairieh)

The students of the ‘Lion Cubs Religious Academy’ go on a school trip. (Photo by Medyan Dairieh)

Al Nusra now control territories in Aleppo and Idlib provinces. The group is currently fighting on three fronts: against the Syrian regime, Kurdish forces, and the Islamic State.

“Youths will establish a caliphate, following the prophet’s traditions, and they will carry the message of jihad,” the children’s teacher tells VICE News.

Growing up surrounded by war, the young boys still experience many of the fixtures of a regular childhood. They play sports. They go on a school trip to an old amusement park where they push bumper cars rendered static without electricity. The children swim in a pool, some diving confidently, some clinging to rubber rings.

Many of the children have seen horrific acts. A boy from Idlib said: “I witnessed the Nusayris (Alawites) kill the men and slaughter the women and children.”

“There are many without any religious knowledge,” he continued. “I’ll teach them and invite them, but if they don’t listen, then I’ll use the sword.”

Read more

***

Also see:

With Open Gates: The forced collective suicide of European nations

Getty Images

Getty Images

The Final Solution to the European Problem

Gates of Vienna, by Baron Bodissey, Nov. 10, 2015:

The following video is a compilation of footage related to the European “migration” crisis taken in the last five or six years. I’ve seen most of these clips before, and Vlad and I have done our own subtitled versions of some of them. The person who put the video together recommends that viewers download it and mirror it, because it probably won’t stay up on YouTube for very long.

Yes, I know it’s got a section with Nick Griffin ranting on about Zionists and banks and whatnot. But not counting that, it’s a pretty good collage of what’s been going on:

***

The Glazov Gang-Sweden: On the Verge of Collapse:

Is the West Slip, Slip, Slipping Away?

George Washington statueNational Review, By Victor Davis Hanson — October 26, 2015:

Sometimes a culture disappears with a whimper, not a bang. Institutions age and are ignored, and the complacent public insidiously lowers its expectations of state performance.

Infrastructure, the rule of law, and civility erode — and yet people are not sure why and how their own changing (and pathological) individual behavior is leading to the collective deterioration that they deplore.

There is still a “West” in the sense of the physical entities of North America, Europe, many of the former British dominions, and parts of Westernized Asia. The infrastructure of our cities and states looks about as it did in the recent past. But is it the West as we once knew it — a unique civilization predicated on free expression, human rights, self-criticism, vibrant free markets, and the rule of law?

Or, instead, is the West reduced to a wealthy but unfree leisure zone, driven on autopilot by computerized affluence, technological determinism, and a growing equality-of-result, omnipotent state?

Tens of thousands of migrants — reminiscent of the great southward and westward treks of Germanic tribes in the late fifth century, at the end of the Roman Empire — are overwhelming the borders of Europe. Such an influx should be a reminder that the West attracts people, while the non-West drives them out, and thus should spark inquiries about why that is so. But that discussion would be not only impolite, but beyond the comprehension of most present-day Westerners, who take for granted — though they cannot define, much less defend — their own institutions.

RELATED: Is the West Dead Yet?

No one claims that such mass immigration into Europe is legal. No one wonders what happened to the fossilized idea of legal immigration, much less the legal immigrant who went through what has now been rendered the pretense of bureaucratic application for legal entry into Europe. Germany, which lectures others on law, is lawless.

In theory, Westerners have the power to stop the mostly young males from the Middle East from swarming their borders, but in fact they apparently lack the will. Or is it worse than that? Without confidence in their own values, much less pride in their accomplishments, are they assuaging the guilt over their privilege by symbolic acts of undermining the foundations of their own culture? Certainly, Germany, which insists on European Union laws of finance applying to its fellow European nation Greece, has no compunction about destroying, for its own particular purposes, the Union’s immigration statutes as they apply to Middle Easterners.

The same is true in the United States. Millions of foreign nationals from Latin America, and Mexico in particular, simply have crossed the border without even the pretense of legality. They assume Americans not only won’t enforce their own laws, but also will find ways to demonize any who suggest that they should. If there is now no such thing as an “illegal alien,” what in theory prevents anyone from arriving from anywhere at any time and making claims on the American state?

Again, the irony is not just that millions of Mexican nationals want into the U.S., but that, ostensibly, no one in Mexico or even the United States knows why that is so (certainly not the National Council of La Raza [“the Race”]) — much less wonders whether Mexico might learn from the U.S. about ways to make a nation’s own people become content enough to stay in their homeland. Only in the West does a migrant fault his host for insufficient hospitality while exempting his homeland, which drove him out.

RELATED: The Strange Case of Modern Immigration

Sanctuary cities illustrate how progressive doctrine can by itself nullify the rule of law. In the new West, breaking statutes is backed or ignored by the state if it is branded with race, class, or gender advocacy. By that I mean that if a solitary U.S. citizen seeks to leave and then reenter America without a passport, he will likely be either arrested or turned back, whereas if an illegal alien manages to cross our border, he is unlikely to be sent back as long as he has claims on victimhood of the type that are sanctioned by the Western liberal state.

Do we really enjoy free speech in the West any more? If you think we do, try to use vocabulary that is precise and not pejorative, but does not serve the current engine of social advocacy — terms such as “Islamic terrorist,” “illegal alien,” or “transvestite.” I doubt that a writer for a major newspaper or a politician could use those terms, which were common currency just four or five years ago, without incurring, privately or publicly, the sort of censure that we might associate with the thought police of the former Soviet Union.

RELATED: Are Sanctuary Cities the New Confederates?

It is becoming almost impossible in the West to navigate the contours of totalitarian mind control. Satirists can create cartoons mocking Christ, but not Mohammed. If a teen brings a suspicious-looking device of wires and gadgetry to school, he will be suspended — unless he can advance by his religious or ethnic background some claim on victimization.

In major news accounts, the identification of race and ethnic background of a criminal suspect is often predicated on liberal notions of social engineering. Recent graduates of journalism schools must have learned during their time there that identification by race of a white criminal suspect, but not commensurately of a suspect of color, is a social obligation, a way of avoiding a “micro-aggression,” the latest Orwellian exercise in creating a new word in hopes of inventing a new reality. Marchers with Black Lives Matter banners chant, “Dead Cops!” and also call for them to be roasted, even as to quote what they are saying is deemed racist. As the president of the United States lends his support to Black Lives Matter, a violent crime wave hits his upscale Capitol Hill neighbors, as young inner-city predators go on a rampage against the yuppie liberals living there. Liberal residents call it a “reign of terror,” yet they win as much attention from the president as does the slaughter each weekend in Chicago.

RELATED: We Have Officially Reached Peak Leftism

In a San Francisco middle school, recent democratic elections for student officers were massaged into nothingness, since the outcome did not result in the preferred architecture of diversity. Note that the female white principal who nullified the election should not, by her own logic and the theory of proportional representation, be principal of a school where her own race is in the minority. Bureaucratic apparatchiks, apparently aware that careers are enhanced or destroyed by the degree of adherence to diversity and political correctness, have become genteel fascists, somewhere in between those of the Soviet Union and those whom Orwell described in 1984.

When Hollywood puts out a movie called Truth, we know, also in good 1984 fashion, that it should be called Lies — a story of how the supposed noble end of electing a liberal president justifies all the sordid means necessary to achieve it, including amateurish forgery. The probable Democratic nominee for president of the United States just hours after the Benghazi attack announced in private to concerned parties that it was an al-Qaeda terrorist operation, while she was telling the world that it was a spontaneous riot in reaction to an illiberal video, confirming the Obama campaign’s old talking point that al-Qaeda was “on the run” and thus incapable of doing what it had just done. Truth? Lies? There are no such things — just operative and inoperative narratives. Ask the video maker who went to jail for his short movie, or the families of the dead Americans who were assured that it was not al-Qaeda that had killed their loved ones.

In the same mode, today’s campus is a cross between premodern Victorianism and something postmodern out of Clockwork Orange. Never have so many undergraduates hooked up for impersonal, crass, and callous sex, often fueled by alcohol and drugs, and never have the rules of such ad hoc intercourse been so formalized.

If universities really believe that they have and should have the power of stopping males from engaging in improper sexual congress that results in post-coitus unhappy parties, it would be much simpler to go back to the 1950s paradigm of segregating dorms by gender, banning alcohol from campus, viewing possession of illegal drugs as grounds for expulsion, and formulating new rules of treating women during sexual unions according to past formality and manners. A sober and drug-free male who picks up the tab, opens doors for women, watches his language around the opposite sex, and allows a woman some privilege in entering a building might be more receptive to asking formal (written?) consent at each ascending step of love-making, the apparent objective of the new campus sexual codes.

The one constant in the more recent manifestations of the slipping away of the West is the emergence of a new privileged, mostly white progressive class of plutocrat. A Google exec, an Al Gore, a university president, a diversity czar, a Goldman Sachs progressive, a Clinton Initiative apparatchik, a pajama-boy techie — none of them ever expects the ramifications of his ideology to hit home. They assume that they have the power and influence not only to change the mentalities of the caricatured middle class, but in the process to enjoy their own privilege without either guilt or risk. Opposing charter schools usually means your children are in private schools, just as championing open borders reflects one’s own gated community, just as promoting affirmative action in the abstract suggests recourse to a countervailing old-boy network to gain admissions, internships, and jobs for one’s own offspring. Our progressive elites resemble the opportunists of the French Revolution, who rode the crest of popular revolt — hoping that their calls for enforced egalitarianism and fraternity by any means necessary allowed their ample privilege to be exempt from the disorder they had incited.

The Obama administration did not create an anti-Western Western world (indeed, if Obama didn’t exist we would have to invent him), it simply summarized the recent pathologies of late Western life, codified them, and made them institutional, as in “workplace violence,” “white Hispanic,” “micro-aggression,” “sanctuary city,” and the rest of the lexicon of misrepresentation.

In the new West, freedom is inequality, liberty selfishness, and tribalism unity.

That is all ye need to know.

NRO contributor Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and the author, most recently, of The Savior Generals.

***

Also see:

STEALTH JIHAD VS. AMERICA — ON THE GLAZOV GANG

afsj-600x372

The Glazov Gang, by Jamie Glazov, Oct. 27, 2015:

This special edition of The Glazov Gang was joined by David Kupelian, the author of the new book, The Snapping of the American Mind and vice-president and managing editor of the online news giant WND.

David discussed Stealth Jihad vs. America, unveiling the Left’s enabling of the Muslim Brotherhood’s offensive. He also outlined the numerous ways the progressive agenda has spawned The Snapping of the American Mind.

***

The Foundation of America Cannot Be Compromised

Understanding the Threat, by John Guandolo, Oct. 21, 2015:

America has so strayed from its bedrock foundation, that simple discussions and policies seem complicated by the emotions of the day, people’s perspective, and a host of ideas swirling about our social and political world today.

Yet when we look at the world through the lens of our founding principles, we come to the quick realization that “compromise” cannot be reached with those who seek to implement rules, systems, and laws which undermine these founding principles.  These people are called enemies and must be defeated.

Screen-Shot-2015-10-21-at-11

Because our schools have done such a poor job of teaching what was common knowledge among young children a hundred years ago, many of our citizens have little grasp of the basic unyielding principles that ensure our liberty and, therefore, our prosperity.

In today’s America:  Presidential candidate Mrs. Clinton has to answer questions about the killing of the U.S. Ambassador in Benghazi, Libya; jihadi armies are moving across the Middle East, Africa and elsewhere; the President of the United States and his State Department are negotiating with the number one state sponsor of terrorism on the planet – Iran; U.S. leadership has surrendered Syria and the greater Middle East to Russia, and therefore Iran and China; U.S. Islamic organizations are intimately involved in National Security matters despite the fact they are Hamas/Muslim Brotherhood front groups; America stands over $20 trillion in debt; an avowed Socialist is running for President (unconstitutional); this Administration continues to abuse the power of the Executive branch while Congress still talks of “compromise” and “coming together”; and on it goes.

There are over 1.2 million abortions in America every year which are granted “legal” status by a Supreme Court ruling, and not by the Legislative branch of the federal government.  Businesses and individuals who stand firm against homosexual marriages in their private and public lives are finding the weight of the federal government coming down on them.

All of these issues seem divergent and unrelated, yet they represent the predictable outcome of a nation which strays far from its founding.  Our Ideals are found in the Declaration of Independence which states:

“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them…”

The foundation out of which our nation was born has a standard – The Law of Nature and the Law of God.

The right to defend oneself, the argument against homosexuality, the right to liberty, and many other self-evident truths all exist in the Law of Nature.  There is no slavery in nature.  The places we find homosexuality in nature are aberrations not the rule.  Defending yourself is the rule in nature – try to approach new born puppies, bears, or some other animal and see how the mother defends her own.

The Law of God naturally confirms what we see in nature, but where the Law of Nature in not clear, we look to the Law of God – the Bible.  Not only do we see where incest, rape, and other foul acts are unlawful, we see how governments are to be established ensuring sovereignty and authority are not shared.  God’s sovereignty is God’s.  Man’s is man’s.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

When America’s founders designed a nation like no other in human history, they did so by declaring self-evident truths – all human beings are created equally by God born with unalienable rights.  Unalienable rights come from God and, therefore, cannot be taken away by the government, a majority vote, or any other maneuver of the people.  The Declaration does not list all of the unalienable rights God gives us, but those can be found elsewhere including in the Bill of Rights.

FIRST, God gives us the right to life.  Because this right comes from God, no government, nor any man can remove this right because it is a right that belongs to the sovereignty of God alone.  When we allow millions of the most innocent in our society who have objectively done no wrong to be killed, we are surrendering a God-given right to the government it neither has the authority nor capacity to hold.

Secondly, the founders declared we are all born free as children of God (Liberty).  The founders understood liberty is our birthright, and they also knew the weight of the Ideal of the Declaration would make it impossible for slavery to continue.  In the end, slavery was abolished in America, yet it continues in many nations across the globe today.

Finally, the third unalienable right mentioned in the Declaration is the right to property (“happiness”).  Of this right William Blackstone, whose legal writings were considered the final authority in American courts for over 150 years after the ratification of the Constitution, stated: “So great moreover is the regard of the law for private property that it will not authorize the least violation of it – no, not even for the general good of the whole community.” (Commentaries on the Laws of England (Philadelphia: Robert Bell, 1771), Vol. I, p. 139).

Yet, today we see the government taking people’s private property to create bike paths, townhouse complexes, or some other “need of the community.”

We as Americans enter into a social compact to surrender our right to self-government to form a government whose sole duty is to protect our unalienable rights – the rights God gave us.

“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

Out of this framework came an American government rooted in Natural Law and the Bible.  From this place, our laws come.  Any laws contrary to Natural Law or the Bible are not valid laws.

From a society based in the rule of law and understanding it owes its life and liberty to God, comes prosperity.  It is no accident America is the most prosperous nation in the history of the world.

Screen-Shot-2015-10-21-at-11.39.10-PM-300x223

To pull the great foundational block of the Law of Nature and Nature’s God out from under America, is to destroy America and all that it is.  The natural outcome will be the kind of tyranny and despotism about which our Founding Fathers cautioned us.

For the younger generation, the result is Panem.  No cell phones, no video games, more rules, no freedom, and no joy.

The federal government in America at the political and bureaucratic level has failed to rule within its authority and has usurped God’s sovereignty as defined in our founding document.

There is no compromising with socialists, jihadists, communists, or marxists.  These are systems which enslave mankind and nullify the very principles upon which America was founded.

Our strategy must be one which is consistent with ensuring victory of future generations:  We win, they lose.

It is now up to the States and the people to stop the abuse of power of the federal level.

Also see:

Who is Responsible for the Atrocities in the Muslim World?

Nepalese migrant workerGatestone Institute, by Uzay Bulut, June 27, 2015:

  • If colonialism were the main problem, Muslims, too, still are, colonizers — and not particularly “humanitarian” ones, at that.
  • Islamic jihad and Islamic violence; the sanctioning of sex slavery; dehumanization of women; hatred and persecution of non-Muslims have been commonplace in the Islamic world ever since the inception of the religion. Deny everything and blame “the infidel.”
  • But is it America that tells these men to treat their wives or sisters as less than fully human? If we want to criticize the West for what is going on in the Muslim world, we should criticize it for not doing more to stop these atrocities.
  • Trying to whitewash the damage that the Islamic ideology has done to the Muslim world, while putting the blame of Islamic atrocities on the West, will never help Muslims face their own failures and come up with progressive ways to resolve them.

Every time the ISIS, Boko Haram, Iran, or any terrorist group in the Muslim world is discussed, many people tend to hold the West responsible for the devastation and murders they commit. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Blaming the failures in the Muslim world on Western nations is simply bigotry and an attempt to shift the blame and to prevent us from understanding the real root cause of the problem.

When these Islamic terrorist groups abduct women to sell them as sex-slaves or “wives;” conduct mass crucifixions and forced conversions; behead innocent people en masse; try to extinguish religious minorities and demolish irreplaceable archeological sites, the idea that this is the fault of the West is ludicrous, offensive and wrong.

Western states, like many other states, try to protect the security of their citizens. What they essentially need, therefore, are peaceful states as partners with which they can have economic, commercial and diplomatic relations. They do not need genocidal terrorist groups that destroy life, peace and stability in huge swaths across the Muslim world.

Western states also have democratic and humanitarian values, which Islamic states do not. The religious and historical experiences of the Western world and the Islamic world are so enormously different that they ended up having completely different cultures and values.

The West, established on Jewish, Christian and secular values, has created a far more humanitarian, free and democratic culture. Sadly, much of the Muslim world, under Islamic sharia law, has created a misogynistic, violent and totalitarian culture.

This does not mean that the West has been perfect and sinless. The West still commits some appalling crimes: Europe is guilty of paving the way for the slaughter of six million Jews in the Holocaust, and for still not protecting its Jewish communities. Even today, many European states contort logic to recognize Hamas, which openly states that it aims to commit genocide against Jewish people.

The West, however, accepts responsibility for the failures in its own territories: for instance, not being able to protect European women from Muslim rapists. These men have moved to Europe to benefit from the opportunities and privileges there, but instead of showing gratitude to European people and government, they have raped the women there, and tried to impose Islamic sharia law.

If we want to criticize the West for what is going on in the Muslim world, we should criticize it for not doing more to stop these atrocities.

The West, and particularly the U.S., should use all of its power to stop them — especially the genocides committed against Jews, Christians and other non-Muslims in the Muslim world.

We should also criticize the West — and others, such as the United Nations and its distorted Gaza War report — for supporting those who proudly commit terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians, and we should criticize the West for not siding with the state of Israel in the face of genocidal Jew-hatred.

We should criticize the West for letting Islamic anti-Semitism grow in Europe, making lives unbearable for Jews day by day.

We should criticize the West for having accepted without a murmur the Turkish occupation of Northern Cyprus for more than 40 years.

We should also criticize the West for leaving the fate of Kurds, a persecuted and stateless people, to the tender mercies of Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria — and now the Islamic State (ISIS). On June 25, ISIS carried out yet another deadly attack, killing and wounding dozens of people in the Kurdish border town of Kobani, in Syrian Kurdistan.

And we should criticize especially the current U.S. government for not being willing to take serious action to stop ISIS, Boko Haram and other extremist Islamic groups.[1]

The list could go on and on. Moreover, it would not be realistic to claim that these groups or regimes all misunderstand the teachings of their religion in exactly the same way.

It would also not be realistic to claim that the West has created all these hundreds of Islamic terror groups across the Muslim world.

The question, then, is: Who or what does create all these terrorist groups and regimes?

In almost all parts of the Muslim world, systematic discrimination, and even murder, are rampant — especially of women and non-Muslims. Extremist Islamic organizations, however, are not the only offenders. Many Muslim civilians who have no ties with any Islamist group also commit these offenses daily. Jihad (war in the service of Islam) and the subjugation of non-Muslims are deeply rooted in the scriptures and history of Islam.

Ever since the seventh century, Muslim armies have invaded and captured Jewish, Christian, Hindu, Buddhist and Zoroastrian lands; for more than 1400 years since, they have continued their jihad, or Islamic raids, against other religions.

Many people seem to be justifiably shocked by the barbarism of ISIS, but Islamic jihad does not belong just to ISIS. Violent jihad is a centuries-long tradition of Islamic ideology. ISIS is just one jihadist army of Islam. There are many.

All of this is an Islamic issue. The free West has absolutely nothing to do with the creation and preservation of this un-free culture.

Read more 

Uzay Bulut, born and raised a Muslim, is a Turkish journalist based in Ankara.

Why Other Cultures Are Welcome, But Islam Is Not

thai girlsBy Citizen Warrior, June 1, 2015:

I am an American. My ancestors were almost entirely Northern European. Tonight I was at a graduation ceremony for an American university. The party was to celebrate the graduation of fifteen students who were all born in Thailand but are now Americans. Almost everyone in the room was a student at the university and also born in Thailand but raised in America by their Thai parents. They all spoke Thai.

As I looked around the room, I saw people who retained much of their former culture, but also embraced American culture. I have no problem with these people. I welcome them to this country. Almost every culture that has moved to America has done the same thing — Irish, Italians, Japanese, Koreans, Buddhists, Hindus, Jains, Sikhs, Taoists, atheists, etc. — they bring their own culture, but also enjoy what’s good about American culture. They are all welcome here.

But the political ideology of Islam is dangerously domineering. For that reason, it is not welcome. Among its core tenets is a mission to make Islam the dominant religious and political system wherever its believers live, using peaceful means if possible and violent means if necessary.

The Thai students may retain some of their former culture, but they do not try to impose it on anyone else. They don’t protest or riot if anyone does something their culture disapproves of. They don’t sue people or assassinate them if they criticize Thai culture.

I’m not a racist or a xenophobe. I enjoy people from all cultures and religions, except those who are committed to eliminating all other cultures, religions, political systems, and ways of life but their own — a principle that is not only part of Islamic doctrine, it is Islam’s prime directive.

ISIS Targets City that Inspired Washington, D.C. for Destruction

Palmyra (wikipedia)

Palmyra (wikipedia)

Frontpage, May 22, 2015 by Daniel Greenfield:

The great columns and pediments of Washington, D.C. that give it a Roman and Greek air have their origins in a lost city in the Syrian desert. After Robert Wood and James Dawkins visited the ruins of Palmyra in the eighteenth century, the illustrations of the bare columns and broken arches helped inspire neoclassical architecture. Now the city that helped inspire Washington is occupied by ISIS.

It is a historical irony that the classical architecture of our national capital where Islamic terrorists are appeased owes a good deal to a forgotten Christian outpost that surrendered to the armies of Islam.

Some would even say that history is repeating itself.

Palmyra fell when it was besieged by the savage horde of Khalid ibn al-Walid; the Sword of Allah. The Sword of Allah was known for numerous atrocities. One particularly gruesome account describes how he murdered the Arab poet and chieftain Malik ibn Nuweira for returning taxes demanded by Mohammed to his people, telling them, “Your wealth is now your own.” The Islamic IRS was even nastier than ours.

The Sword of Allah cut off Malik’s head and used it to cook dinner before raping his wife. Through such atrocities, that helped inspire the modern crimes of ISIS, the Sword of Allah was able to keep Mohammed’s conquests together after his death. When he came to Palmyra, the Sword swore by Allah that he would conquer it even if it were in heaven and capture its sons and daughters.

Hoping to save their lives, the people of Palmyra surrendered and became dhimmis. Arabic replaced Aramaic, Islam replaced Christianity and the city once founded by King Solomon mostly vanished from history. Those inhabitants who survived the terrible centuries of Islamic occupation, lost their identity, their religion and any knowledge that they were of a nobler kind than their brutal conquerors.

Palmyra falls again with its capture by ISIS. This fall may be its final one. If ISIS has its way, the ruins of the city that helped inspire the rebirth of classical architecture in England and America will be destroyed.

Like the old armies of Islam that destroyed the Library of Alexandria because its books were a threat to the totalitarian writ of the Koran, ISIS destroys the remains of the civilizations that predated Islam. It is not alone in seeking to destroy the histories of more civilized times so that none of the peoples under its rule can ever seek to better themselves by reaching for something higher and better than the Koran.

America found inspiration in ancient civilizations to reach higher. ISIS wants a world where no one can ever know that there were better men than Mohammed and the Sword of Allah, so that its followers will aspire to be nothing better than murderers and rapists, destroying the past to kill the future.

While the archeological mass destruction practiced by ISIS and the Taliban is well known, “moderate” Muslim kingdoms like Saudi Arabia engage in the same practice. Wahhabism began with the destruction of relics. While Europeans were marveling over Palmyra, the House of Saud was massacring thousands and destroying historical artifacts across Iraq and Syria in a manner indistinguishable from ISIS.

The Islamic State’s Caliph has vowed that “After Ramadi, will come Baghdad and Karbala.” ISIS is retracing the path of the House of Saud, which had declared, “We took Karbala and slaughtered and took its people (as slaves), then praise be to Allah… and we do not apologize for that and say: ‘And to the unbelievers: the same treatment.’”

That horrid event took place in the same year that Washington D.C. was incorporated as a city and the Library of Congress was founded. There could hardly be a better contrast between Islam and America.

That is what we are up against, not only in the fight against ISIS, but in the Clash of Civilizations.

Islamists in Libya and Timbuktu, after Obama’s illegal regime change destabilized the region, were left free to destroy mausoleums and shrines. When UNESCO protested, the Jihadists of Ansar Dine, the Defenders of Islam, responded by mocking the helpless international organization, “We are all Muslims. UNESCO is what? [We are acting] in the name of Allah.”

Now UNESCO is appealing to protect Palmyra from the modern Swords of Allah, but it’s equally helpless to do so. The Swords of Allah and Defenders of Islam are savages who thrive on terror. They destroy everything that reminds them of their own cultural inferiority. They cannot be reasoned with.

UNESCO chief Irina Bokova calls the potential destruction of Palmyra, a UNESCO world heritage site, “an enormous loss to humanity.” But we cannot save the ruins of Palmyra until we recognize that the forces threatening it today are the same as those that left it a forgotten ruin in the desert.

The enormous loss to humanity started when the warlords of Islam began the destruction of thousands of years of civilization. ISIS is only finishing what the armies of Mohammed began.

When it burns manuscripts in the Mosul Library, ISIS is following up Caliph Omar’s destruction of the Library of Alexandria. When the Jihad conquered Persia and found “innumerable quantity of books and scientific treatises”, Omar commanded, “Throw them into the water.”

Until we recognize that ISIS is the extension of the Islamic imperative of cultural mass destruction, we will continue losing cultural heritage sites, not only in the Middle East, but in Europe as well, where churches are being turned into mosques, Georg Engelhard Schröder’s Juno is covered up in the Swedish Legislature to avoid offending Muslims and a Mozart opera is shut down in Berlin.

Palmyra is likely to meet the same fate as Aleppo and Nimrud. As have Hatra and Khorsabad.

The ruins of Nimrud were bulldozed and blown up. In Mosul, ISIS savages rampaged through the museum smashing artifacts. Dabiq, the ISIS magazine, explained that, “The kuffar (non-Muslims) had unearthed these statues and ruins in recent generations and attempted to portray them as part of a cultural heritage and identity that the Muslims of Iraq should embrace and be proud of.”

ISIS, like the armies of Islam dating back to Mohammed, has as its core mission the destruction of the pre-Islamic cultures that might inspire people living under Islam to better themselves, to look beyond the black veil of Islam to the past and the future. There is nothing savages hate more than civilization.

What is at stake in the Clash of Civilizations is the destruction of civilization. The ruins of Palmyra inspired our civilization. Their threatened destruction should inspire us to protect our own civilization from the Swords of Allah before all that remains of our cities is the ruins of a lost greatness.

***

Also see:

42% of Canadian Muslims Admit Islam and West ‘Irreconcilable’

Female-Madrassa_Reuters-640x480Breitbart, by Jordan Schachtel, April 14, 2014:

Two recently-released polls found that 42 percent of Canadian Muslims agree that Islam is “irreconcilable” with Western society.

The surveys also found that over 60 percent of Jewish and Christian Canadians believe that Islam is incompatible with the West. Among secular Canadians, 46 percent shared the “irreconcilable” viewpoint, the Vancouver Sun reported.

The polls asked 2,000 individuals and its surveying took place in 2013 and 2014.

Jack Jedwab, who’s Association for Canadian Studies commissioned the poll, said of its results: “It’s quite disconcerting that our poll results consistently show about 60 percent of Canadians see the West and Islamic society as ‘irreconcilable.’ It puts you up against a dead end.”

“It’s a huge blow to interfaith dialogue,” he added.

Jedwab discussed the “Clash of Civilizations” that occurs when people from Islamic cultures have to blend into Western society, citing Koranic mandates that require women to cover themselves. “Some people say the niqab reflects the oppression of women. Others say it’s just a piece of clothing. My view is it does represent the oppression of women,” he said.

Ezra Levant of Rebel Media said that the poll was important because it discussed a “sensitive subject” matter that is largely avoided by “politically correct journalists.”

The polls were conducted before a series of Islamic terror attacks against Canadian officials in late October. The first attack was carried out by an Islamic State supporter, who proceeded to run over two police officers with his vehicle before police shot the jihadi dead. The second attack targeted Canada’s Parliament Hill in Ottawa. The jihadi gunman, Michael Zehaf-Bibeau, killed a Canadian soldier before being shot dead by the House of Commons Sergeant-at-Arms.

The Political Left’s Marriage to the Islamic Jihad: Culture of Death

jihad1-300x200UTT, by John Guandolo, Feb. 18, 2015:

In this second of a 4-part series on The Political Left’s Marriage to the Islamic Jihad, we will explore the Culture of Death that pervades both ideologies at their core.

To read the first installment, click here.

************

Let us begin with the fact that the Political Left is responsible for more murders in the last 90 years than all other ideologies combined, including the Islamic Jihad.  From Vladamir Lenin to Mao Zedung to Pol Pot to Adolf Hitler to Josef Stalin the communists and socialists in the 20th century killed tens of millions of people – in brutal and barbaric ways.

Elites on the Political Left will say these “extreme” examples of Stalin and Hitler are not related to their efforts to bring “equality” and “justice” to the average man and woman, and they would never support such treatment of people.  This soft-spoken language of socialism is no less dangerous because it lays the foundation for the likes of Stalins and Hitlers, and have for over 90 years.

We must also begin with the fact that America was founded on the principle that God gave us our right to life and, therefore, each of us has value and dignity in the eyes of God.  This “unalienable right” as written by Thomas Jefferson in our Declaration of Independence, is defined in legal dictionaries in the 1800’s to mean “a right that could not be taken away from you even if you tried to give it up.”  When free people surrender the right to life in any manner, we surrender it for all of us.  Tyranny knows no boundaries.

The programs and policies of the Political Left (or “Progressives” if you will) give no heed to God and call for the extermination of the unwanted in society.  A notable data point is a darling of the Left, George Bernard Shaw, who acknowledges his support for the Hitler regime and for killing people who could not justify their existence.  In this video, Shaw says, “I think it would be a good thing to make everybody come before a properly appointed board…every five years…and say sir or madam, would you be kind enough to justify your existence.”  The implications of such a statement, and his broader comments on this matter, exemplify the mindset and darkness of the Political Left.

Whether it be  forced abortions (China) or the promotion of abortion in the United States to the tune of over 1.2 million children killed each year (and over 57 million since Roe v Wade), to programs which promote the killing of elderly who are past their functional use, mentally ill people, and the disabled, the Political Left has a recorded history of a willingness to kill unjustly.  One can think of few things more institutionally evil.

Putting cover phrases on euthanasia like “dying with dignity” does not minimize the effect on society by attempting to control when the lives of its citizens should end.

There is also a more subtle angle on the Left’s Culture of Death – their silence towards a Culture of Life.  From the 1600’s when pilgrims and settlers came to places like Plymouth and Jamestown, the Bible was the first and primary book used to teach children moral principles and guide them in their lives, and is also the moral guide Americans were admonished by our Founders if this nation is to survive.  The New England Primer and other such books followed, which taught biblical principles to school children across this nation up through the 1930s.  Principles like “Love thy Neighbor” were taught to our children, and they learned their self-esteem came from knowing that the creator of the universe sees them and loves them, and, therefore, they have value.  In the 1930’s, the Progressives began working diligently to remove God from our classrooms and from the public square in direct contradiction to the ideals espoused in our Declaration, and against the legal framework of the Constitution.

By intentionally removing the principles which teach the dignity and importance of life, the Political Left made it easier for the Culture of Death to creep into our society.

The Political Left’s disconnect from reality cannot be discarded as an accelerant as we discuss this topic.  Just this week, State Department Spokeswoman Maria Harf stated on a television interview that ISIS can only be stopped if we get to the root cause of the problem (ISIS) – a lack of jobs.  This kind of soft-mindedness promotes the Culture of Death of the Islamic Movement (and others for that matter) because it intentionally refuses to address a massive threat to humans across the globe that is clear and present in our midst, and that has clearly identified itself.

That Culture of Death in Islam, is not a difficult one to uncover.  There is no disagreement among the scholars of Islam that it is a permanent obligation upon the Muslim community to wage Jihad until the entire world is subordinated to Islamic Law (Sharia).  Islamic Law specifically calls for beheadings, stonings, crucifixions, and other such punishments.  Islam teaches – because Allah commanded it – that Muslims cannot take Jews and Christians for friends (Quran 5:51: “Take not the Jews and Christians as friends and protectors…”) – although they can pretend to befriend them if it suits a purpose – so hatred that energizes the violence is a part of this ideology as well.

And all of this is taught at the first grade level in Islamic schools around the world today.

The Jihadis teach toddlers to hate and kill non-Muslims for the sake of Allah.  In this video a small girl speaks succinctly about her hatred for the Jews.  In Iran, huge crowds chant “Death to America.”

But the more compelling evidence is in the reality of what we see on the ground level daily, and the example of the Islamic prophet Mohammad.  Across the globe the world witnesses Islamic Jihadis beheading children and putting their heads on stakes, burning people alive, burying women up to their chests and stoning them to death, and similar barbaric behavior.  And the Muslim world, for the most part, is silent.

ISIS

 

The silence we hear is the silence of consent because this behavior is directly supported in the Quran and by the example of the prophet Mohammad.  Mohammad himself cut the heads off of Jews at the Battle of the Trench, instructed his followers to kill anyone who slanders Islam, taught that the Jews and Christians are the enemies of Islam, and called for Jihad until Islam rules the world.

The behavior we are witnessing by ISIS and other jihadi groups is a part of the Culture of Death in the Islamic Movement, and it finds common ground with the Progressives on the Political Left.

The Left must not be aware that when the Caliphate is established, the Muslims will kill them first.