Facebook’s War on Freedom of Speech

Gatestone Institute, by Douglas Murray, February 5, 2016:

  • Facebook is now removing speech that presumably almost everybody might decide is racist — along with speech that only someone at Facebook decides is “racist.”
  • The sinister reality of a society in which the expression of majority opinion is being turned into a crime has already been seen across Europe. Just last week came reports of Dutch citizens being visited by the police and warned about posting anti-mass-immigration sentiments on social media.
  • In lieu of violence, speech is one of the best ways for people to vent their feelings and frustrations. Remove the right to speak about your frustrations and only violence is left.
  • The lid is being put on the pressure cooker at precisely the moment that the heat is being turned up. A true “initiative for civil courage” would explain to both Merkel and Zuckerberg that their policy can have only one possible result.

It was only a few weeks ago that Facebook was forced to back down when caught permitting anti-Israel postings, but censoring equivalent anti-Palestinian postings.

Now one of the most sinister stories of the past year was hardly even reported. In September, German Chancellor Angela Merkel met Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook at a UN development summit in New York. As they sat down, Chancellor Merkel’s microphone, still on, recorded Merkel asking Zuckerberg what could be done to stop anti-immigration postings being written on Facebook. She asked if it was something he was working on, and he assured her it was.

At the time, perhaps the most revealing aspect of this exchange was that the German Chancellor — at the very moment that her country was going through one of the most significant events in its post-war history — should have been spending any time worrying about how to stop public dislike of her policies being vented on social media. But now it appears that the discussion yielded consequential results.

Last month, Facebook launched what it called an “Initiative for civil courage online,” the aim of which, it claims, is to remove “hate speech” from Facebook — specifically by removing comments that “promote xenophobia.” Facebook is working with a unit of the publisher Bertelsmann, which aims to identify and then erase “racist” posts from the site. The work is intended particularly to focus on Facebook users in Germany. At the launch of the new initiative, Facebook’s chief operating officer, Sheryl Sandberg, explained that, “Hate speech has no place in our society — not even on the internet.” She went to say that, “Facebook is not a place for the dissemination of hate speech or incitement to violence.” Of course, Facebook can do what it likes on its own website. What is troubling is what this organization of effort and muddled thinking reveals about what is going on in Europe.

The mass movement of millions of people — from across Africa, the Middle East and further afield — into Europe has happened in record time and is a huge event in its history. As events in Paris,Cologne and Sweden have shown, it is also by no means a series of events only with positive connotations.

As well as being fearful of the security implications of allowing in millions of people whose identities, beliefs and intentions are unknown and — in such large numbers — unknowable, many Europeans are deeply concerned that this movement heralds an irreversible alteration in the fabric of their society. Many Europeans do not want to become a melting pot for the Middle East and Africa, but want to retain something of their own identities and traditions. Apparently, it is not just a minority who feel concern about this. Poll after poll shows a significant majority of the public in each and every European country opposed to immigration at anything like the current rate.

The sinister thing about what Facebook is doing is that it is now removing speech that presumably almost everybody might consider racist — along with speech that only someone at Facebook decides is “racist.”

And it just so happens to turn out that, lo and behold, this idea of “racist” speech appears to include anything critical of the EU’s current catastrophic immigration policy.

By deciding that “xenophobic” comment in reaction to the crisis is also “racist,” Facebook has made the view of the majority of the European people (who, it must be stressed, are opposed to Chancellor Merkel’s policies) into “racist” views, and so is condemning the majority of Europeans as “racist.” This is a policy that will do its part in pushing Europe into a disastrous future.

Because even if some of the speech Facebook is so scared of is in some way “xenophobic,” there are deep questions as to why such speech should be banned. In lieu of violence, speech is one of the best ways for people to vent their feelings and frustrations. Remove the right to speak about your frustrations, and only violence is left. Weimar Germany — to give just one example — was replete with hate-speech laws intended to limit speech the state did not like. These laws did nothing whatsoever to limit the rise of extremism; it only made martyrs out of those it pursued, and persuaded an even larger number of people that the time for talking was over.

The sinister reality of a society in which the expression of majority opinion is being turned into a crime has already been seen across Europe. Just last week, reports from the Netherlands told of Dutch citizens being visited by the police and warned about posting anti-mass-immigration sentiments on Twitter and other social media.

In this toxic mix, Facebook has now — knowingly or unknowingly — played its part. The lid is being put on the pressure cooker at precisely the moment that the heat is being turned up. A true “initiative for civil courage” would explain to both Merkel and Zuckerberg that their policy can have only one possible result.

Douglas Murray, a British writer, journalist and commentator, is based in London, England.

***

 

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:

It’s Still the Demography, Stupid

1702Steyn Online, by Mark Steyn, Ten Years On, January 19, 2016:

Ten years ago this month – January 2006 – The Wall Street Journal and The New Criterion published my first draft of what would become the thesis of my bestselling book, America Alone. The Journal headline sums it up: “It’s the Demography, Stupid.” Opening paragraph:

Most people reading this have strong stomachs, so let me lay it out as baldly as I can: Much of what we loosely call the Western world will not survive this century, and much of it will effectively disappear within our lifetimes, including many if not most Western European countries. There’ll probably still be a geographical area on the map marked as Italy or the Netherlands–probably–just as in Istanbul there’s still a building called St. Sophia’s Cathedral. But it’s not a cathedral; it’s merely a designation for a piece of real estate. Likewise, Italy and the Netherlands will merely be designations for real estate. The challenge for those who reckon Western civilization is on balance better than the alternatives is to figure out a way to save at least some parts of the West.

The argument was straightforward. The western world is going out of business because it’s given up having babies. The 20th century welfare state, with its hitherto unknown concepts such as spending a third of your adult lifetime in “retirement”, is premised on the basis that there will be enough new citizens to support the old. But there won’t be. Lazy critics of my thesis thought that I was making a “prediction”, and that my predictions were no more reliable than Al Gore’s or Michael Mann’s on the looming eco-apocalypse. I tried to explain that it’s not really a prediction at all:

When it comes to forecasting the future, the birthrate is the nearest thing to hard numbers. If only a million babies are born in 2006, it’s hard to have two million adults enter the workforce in 2026 (or 2033, or 2037, or whenever they get around to finishing their Anger Management and Queer Studies degrees). And the hard data on babies around the Western world is that they’re running out a lot faster than the oil is. “Replacement” fertility rate–i.e., the number you need for merely a stable population, not getting any bigger, not getting any smaller–is 2.1 babies per woman. Some countries are well above that: the global fertility leader, Somalia, is 6.91, Niger 6.83, Afghanistan 6.78, Yemen 6.75. Notice what those nations have in common?

Scroll way down to the bottom of the Hot One Hundred top breeders and you’ll eventually find the United States, hovering just at replacement rate with 2.07 births per woman. Ireland is 1.87, New Zealand 1.79, Australia 1.76. But Canada’s fertility rate is down to 1.5, well below replacement rate; Germany and Austria are at 1.3, the brink of the death spiral; Russia and Italy are at 1.2; Spain 1.1, about half replacement rate. That’s to say, Spain’s population is halving every generation. By 2050, Italy’s population will have fallen by 22%.

Enter Islam, which sportingly volunteered to be the children we couldn’t be bothered having ourselves, and which kind offer was somewhat carelessly taken up by the post-Christian west. As I wrote a decade ago:

The design flaw of the secular social-democratic state is that it requires a religious-society birthrate to sustain it. Post-Christian hyperrationalism is, in the objective sense, a lot less rational than Catholicism or Mormonism. Indeed, in its reliance on immigration to ensure its future, the European Union has adopted a 21st-century variation on the strategy of the Shakers, who were forbidden from reproducing and thus could increase their numbers only by conversion.

That didn’t work out too great for the Shakers, but the Europeans figured it would be a piece of cake for them: “westernization” is so seductive, so appealing that, notwithstanding the occasional frothing imam and burka-bagged crone, their young Muslims would fall for the siren song of secular progressivism just like they themselves had. So, as long as you kept the immigrants coming, there would be no problem – as long as you oomphed up the scale of the solution. As I put it:

To avoid collapse, European nations will need to take in immigrants at a rate no stable society has ever attempted.

Last year, Angela Merkel decided to attempt it. The German Chancellor cut to the chase and imported in twelve months 1.1 million Muslim “refugees”. That doesn’t sound an awful lot out of 80 million Germans, but, in fact, the 1.1 million Muslim are overwhelmingly (80 per cent plus) fit, virile, young men. Germany has fewer than ten million people in the same population cohort, among whom Muslims are already over-represented: the median age of Germans as a whole is 46, the median age of German Muslims is 34. But let’s keep the numbers simple, and assume that of those ten million young Germans half of them are ethnic German males. Frau Merkel is still planning to bring in another million “refugees” this year. So by the end of 2016 she will have imported a population equivalent to 40 per cent of Germany’s existing young male cohort. The future is here now: It’s not about “predictions”.

On standard patterns of “family reunification”, these two million “refugees” will eventually bring another four or five persons each from their native lands – or another eight-to-ten million. In the meantime, they have the needs of all young lads, and no one around to gratify them except the local womenfolk. Hence, New Year’s Eve in Cologne, and across the southern border the Vienna police chief warning women not to go out unaccompanied, and across the northern border:

Danish nightclubs demand guests have to speak Danish, English or German to be allowed in after ‘foreign men in groups’ attack female revellers

But don’t worry, it won’t be a problem for long: On the German and Swedish “migrant” numbers, there won’t be a lot of “female revelry” in Europe’s future. The formerly firebreathing feminists at The Guardian and the BBC are already falling as mute as battered wives – saying nothing, looking away, making excuses, clutching at rationalizations… Ten years ago, I wrote:

The problem is that secondary-impulse societies mistake their weaknesses for strengths–or, at any rate, virtues–and that’s why they’re proving so feeble at dealing with a primal force like Islam.

“Multiculturalism” was less an immigration policy than an advertisement of our moral virtue. So the really bad thing about New Year’s Eve is not that Continental women got groped and raped by coarse backward “migrants”, but that all these gropes and rapes might provoke the even more coarse and backward natives. I did all the gags a decade ago:

The old definition of a nanosecond was the gap between the traffic light changing in New York and the first honk from a car behind. The new definition is the gap between a terrorist bombing and the press release from an Islamic lobby group warning of a backlash against Muslims.

And so it goes ten years on. We’re beyond parody now. A decade back, I noted:

Then September 11 happened. And bizarrely the reaction of just about every prominent Western leader was to visit a mosque: President Bush did, the prince of Wales did, the prime minister of the United Kingdom did, the prime minister of Canada did . . . The premier of Ontario didn’t, and so 20 Muslim community leaders had a big summit to denounce him for failing to visit a mosque… But for whatever reason he couldn’t fit it into his hectic schedule. Ontario’s citizenship minister did show up at a mosque, but the imams took that as a great insult, like the Queen sending Fergie to open the Commonwealth Games.

Nobody makes that mistake these days. Six Canadians working for a Quebec Catholic humanitarian organization repairing schoolrooms in Burkina Faso get slaughtered by Muslim terrorists, and the Prince Minister skedaddles to a mosque run by a woman-hating loon to hold the moment of silence.

Like I said, I did all the jokes way back when, and it’s not so funny after ten years. My thesis was straightforward: a semi-Muslim France will not be France; it will be something other, and – if you happen to value things like freedom of speech and women’s rights – it will be something worse:

Can a society become increasingly Islamic in its demographic character without becoming increasingly Islamic in its political character?

This ought to be the left’s issue. I’m a conservative–I’m not entirely on board with the Islamist program when it comes to beheading sodomites and so on, but I agree Britney Spears dresses like a slut: I’m with Mullah Omar on that one. Why then, if your big thing is feminism or abortion or gay marriage, are you so certain that the cult of tolerance will prevail once the biggest demographic in your society is cheerfully intolerant? Who, after all, are going to be the first victims of the West’s collapsed birthrates?

And so it goes, on the streets of the most “liberal” “progressive” cities on the planet.

A few weeks before The Wall Street Journal published my piece, I discussed its themes at an event in New York whose speakers included Douglas Murray. Douglas was more optimistic: He suggested that Muslim populations in Europe were still small, and immigration policy could be changed: Easier said than done. My essay and book were so influential that in the decade since, the rate of Islamization in the west has increased – via all three principal methods: Muslim immigration, Muslim birthrates of those already here, Muslim conversion of the infidels. David Goldman thinks aging, childless Germany has embraced civilizational suicide as redemption for their blood-soaked sins. Maybe. But it is less clear why the Continent’s less tainted polities – impeccably “neutral” Sweden, for example – are so eager to join them. As I wrote:

Permanence is the illusion of every age. In 1913, no one thought the Russian, Austrian, German and Turkish empires would be gone within half a decade. Seventy years on, all those fellows who dismissed Reagan as an “amiable dunce” (in Clark Clifford’s phrase) assured us the Soviet Union was likewise here to stay. The CIA analysts’ position was that East Germany was the ninth biggest economic power in the world. In 1987 there was no rash of experts predicting the imminent fall of the Berlin Wall, the Warsaw Pact and the USSR itself.

Somewhere, deep down, the European political class understands that the Great Migrations have accelerated the future I outlined way back when:

Can these trends continue for another 30 years without having consequences? Europe by the end of this century will be a continent after the neutron bomb: The grand buildings will still be standing, but the people who built them will be gone. We are living through a remarkable period: the self-extinction of the races who, for good or ill, shaped the modern world.

It’s the biggest story of our time, and, ten years on, Europe’s leaders still can’t talk about it, not to their own peoples, not honestly. For all the “human rights” complaints, and death threats from halfwits, and subtler rejections from old friends who feel I’m no longer quite respectable, I’m glad I brought it up. And it’s well past time for others to speak out.

Islamic Jihad: Symptom of a Western Cause

mBy Raymond Ibrahim, Dec. 16, 2015:

Origianally posted at PJ Media

As someone specializing in Islamic jihadism, one would expect I’d have much to say immediately after jihadi attacks of the sort that recently occurred in San Bernardino, or Paris, or Mali, where a total of about 180 dead.  Ironically, I don’t: such attacks are ultimately symptoms of what I do deem worthy of talk, namely, root causes.  (What can one add when a symptom of the root cause he has long warned against occurs other than “told you so”?)

So what is the root cause of jihadi attacks?  Many think that the ultimate source of theongoing terrorization of the West is Islam.  Yet this notion has one problem: the Muslim world is immensely weak and intrinsically incapable of being a threat.  That every Islamic assault on the West is a terrorist attack—and terrorism, as is known, is the weapon of the weak—speaks for itself.

This was not always the case.  For approximately one thousand years, the Islamic world was the scourge of the West.  Today’s history books may refer to those who terrorized Christian Europe as Arabs, Saracens, Moors, Ottomans, Turks, Mongols, or Tatars[1]—but all were operating under the same banner of jihad that the Islamic State is operating under.

No, today, the ultimate enemy is within.  The root cause behind the nonstop Muslim terrorization of the West is found in those who stifle or whitewash all talk and examination of Muslim doctrine and history; who welcome hundreds of thousands of Muslim migrants while knowing that some are jihadi operatives and many are simply “radical”; who work to overthrow secular Arab dictators in the name of “democracy” and “freedom,” only to uncork the jihad suppressed by the autocrats (the Islamic State’s territory consists of lands that were “liberated” in Iraq, Libya, and Syria by the U.S. and its allies).

So are Western leaders and politicians the root cause behind the Islamic terrorization of the West?

Close—but still not there yet.

Far from being limited to a number of elitist leaders and institutions, the Western empowerment of the jihad is the natural outcome of postmodern thinking—the real reason an innately weak Islam can be a source of repeated woes for a militarily and economically superior West.

Remember, the reason people like French President Francois Hollande, U.S. President Barack Hussein Obama, and German Chancellor Angela Merkel are in power—three prominent Western leaders who insist that Islam is innocent of violence and who push for Muslim immigration—is because they embody a worldview that is normative in the West.

In this context, the facilitation of jihadi terror is less a top down imposition and more a grass root product of decades of erroneous, but unquestioned, thinking.  (Those who believe America’s problems begin and end with Obama would do well to remember that he did not come to power through a coup but that he was voted in—twice.  This indicates that Obama and the majority of voting Americans have a shared, and erroneous, worldview.  He may be cynically exploiting this worldview, but that doesn’t change the fact that it’s because this warped worldview is mainstream that he can exploit it in the first place.)

Western empowerment of the jihad is rooted in a number of philosophies that have metastasized into every corner of social life, becoming cornerstones of postmodern epistemology.  These include the doctrines of relativism and multiculturalism on the one hand, and anti-Western, anti-Christian sentiment on the other.

Taken together, these cornerstones of postmodern, post-Christian thinking hold that there are no absolute truths and thus all cultures are fundamentally equal and deserving of respect.  If any Western person wants to criticize a civilization or religion, then let them look “inwardly” and acknowledge their European Christian heritage as the epitome of intolerance and imperialism.

Add to these a number of sappy and silly ideals—truth can never be uttered because it might “hurt the feelings” of some (excluding white Christians who are free game), and if anything, the West should go out of its way to make up for its supposedly historic “sins” by appeasing Muslims until they “like us”—and you have a sure recipe for disaster, that is, the current state of affairs.

Western people are bombarded with these aforementioned “truths” from the cradle to the grave—from kindergarten to university, from Hollywood to the news rooms, and now even in churches—so that they are unable to accept and act on a simple truism that their ancestors well knew: Islam is an inherently violent and intolerant creed that cannot coexist with non-Islam (except insincerely, in times of weakness).

The essence of all this came out clearly when Obama, in order to rationalize away the inhuman atrocities of the Islamic State, counseled Americans to get off their “high horse” and remember that their Christian ancestors have been guilty of similar if not worse atrocities.  That he had to go back almost a thousand years for examples by referencing the crusades and inquisition—both of which have been completely distorted by the warped postmodern worldview, including by portraying imperialist Muslims as victims—did not matter to America’s leader.

Worse, it did not matter to most Americans.  The greater lesson was not that Obama whitewashed modern Islamic atrocities by misrepresenting and demonizing Christian history, but that he was merely reaffirming the mainstream narrative that Americans have been indoctrinated into believing.  And thus, aside from the usual ephemeral and meaningless grumblings, his words—as with many of his pro-Islamic, anti-Christian comments and policies—passed along without consequence.

—–

Once upon a time, the Islamic world was a super power and its jihad an irresistible force to be reckoned with.   Over two centuries ago, however, a rising Europe—which had experienced over one millennium of jihadi conquests and atrocities—defeated and defanged Islam.

As Islam retreated into obscurity, the post-Christian West slowly came into being.  Islam didn’t change, but the West did: Muslims still venerate their heritage and religion—which impels them to jihad against the Western “infidel”—whereas the West learned to despise its heritage and religion, causing it to be an unwitting ally of the jihad.

Hence the current situation: the jihad is back in full vigor, while the West—not just its leaders, but much of the populace—facilitates it in varying degrees.  Nor is this situation easily remedied.  For to accept that Islam is inherently violent and intolerant is to reject a number of cornerstones of postmodern Western thinking that far transcend the question of Islam. In this context, nothing short of an intellectual/cultural revolution—where rational thinking becomes mainstream—will allow the West to confront Islam head on.

But there is some good news.  With every Islamic attack, the eyes of more and more Western people are opened to the true nature of Muhammad’s religion.  That this is happening despite generations of pro-Islamic indoctrination in the West is a testimony to the growing brazenness of the jihad.

Yet it still remains unclear whether objective thinking will eventually overthrow the current narrative of relativism, anti-Westernism, and asinine emotionalism.

Simply put, celebrating multiculturalism and defeating the jihad is impossible.

However, if such a revolution ever does take place, the Islamic jihad will be easily swept back into the dustbin of history.  For the fact remains: Islam is terrorizing the world, not because it can, but because the West allows it to.

[1] Although the original Mongol-Tatar conquerors were not Muslim, most of them eventually converted to Islam—finding natural appeal in its divine validation for conquest, rapine, and plunder—and articulated their later wars on Christendom and others in the name of jihad.

RAYMOND IBRAHIM is a widely published author, public speaker, and Middle East and Islam specialist.  His books include Crucified Again: Exposing Islam’s New War on Christians (2013) and The Al Qaeda Reader (2007).

The Logic of Islamic Intolerance

we_1

Frontpage, by Raymond Ibrahim, Dec. 2, 2015:

A sermon delivered by popular Saudi Sheikh Muhammad Salih al-Munajjid clearly demonstrates why Western secular relativists and multi culturalists—who currently dominate media, academia, and politics—are incapable of understanding, much less responding to, the logic of Islamic intolerance.

During his sermon, al-Munajjid said that “some [Muslim] hypocrites” wonder why it is that “we [Muslims] don’t permit them [Western people] to build churches, even though they allow mosques to be built.”  The Saudi sheikh responded by saying that any Muslim who thinks this way is “ignorant” and

Wants to equate between right and wrong, between Islam and kufr [non-Islam], monotheism and shirk [polytheism], and gives to each side equal weight, and wants to compare this with that, and he asks: “Why don’t we build them churches like they build us mosques? So we allow them this in return for that?”  Do you want another other than Allah to be worshiped?  Do you equate between right and wrong? Are Zoroastrian fire temples, Jewish temples, Christian churches, monks’ monasteries, and Buddhist and Hindu temples, equal to you with the houses of Allah and mosques? So you compare this with that? And you equate this with that?  Oh! Unbelievable, for he who equates between Islam and kufr [non-Islam], and Allah said: “Whoever desires a religion other than Islam, never will it be accepted from him, and in the Hereafter he will be among the losers” (Koran 3:85).  And Prophet Muhamad said: “By Him in whose hand is the life of Muhamad (By Allah) he who amongst the Jews or Christians hears about me, but does not affirm his belief in that which I have been sent, and dies in his state (of disbelief), he shall be of the residents of Hellfire.”

What’s interesting about the sheikh’s zealous diatribe is that, although “intolerant” from a Western perspective, it is, in fact, quite logically consistent and reveals the wide gap between Islamic rationalism and Western fantasy (despite how oxymoronic this dichotomy might sound).

If, as Munajjid points out, a Muslim truly believes that Islam is the only true religion, and that Muhammad is its prophet, why would he allow that which is false (and thus corrupt, cancerous, misleading, etc.) to exist alongside it?  Such gestures of “tolerance” would be tantamount to a Muslim who “wants to equate between right and wrong,” as the sheikh correctly deplores.

Indeed, not only does Islam, like traditional Christianity, assert that all other religions are wrong, but under Islamic law, Hindus, and Buddhists are so misguided that they must be warred against until they either accept the “truth,” that is, converting to Islam, or else being executed (Koran 9:5). As for the so-called “people of the book”—Jews and Christians—they may practice their religions, but only after being subdued (Koran 9:29) and barred from building or renovating churches and synagogues and a host of other debilitations that keep their (false) religious practices and symbols (Bibles, crosses, etc.) suppressed and out of sight.

From an Islamic paradigm—where Allah is the true god and Muhammad his final messenger—“intolerance” for other religions is logical and difficult to condemn.

The “altruistic” aspect of Islamic “intolerance” is especially important.  If you truly believe that there is only one religion that leads to paradise and averts damnation, is it not altruistic to share it with humanity, rather than hypocritically maintaining that all religions lead to God and truth?

After blasting the concept of interfaith dialogue as beyond futile, since “what is false is false—even if a billion individuals agree to it; and truth is truth—even if only one who has submitted [a Muslim] holds on to it,” the late Osama bin Laden once wrote that “Battle, animosity, and hatred—directed from the Muslim to the infidel—is the foundation of our religion. And we consider this a justice and kindness to them” (The Al Qaeda Reader, pgs. 42-43).

Note the altruistic justification: It is a “justice and kindness” to wage jihad on non-Muslims in the hopes that they convert to Islam.  According to this logic, jihadis will always be as the “good guys”—meaning that terrorism, extortion, sex-jihad, etc., will continue to be rationalized away as ugly but necessary means to altruistic ends: the empowerment of, and eventual world conversion to, Islam.

All of this logic is alien to postmodern Western epistemology, which takes for granted that a) there are no objective “truths,” certainly not in the field of theology, and that b) religion’s ultimate purpose is to make this life as peaceful and pleasant as possible (hence why “interfaith dialogue” in the West is not about determining the truth—which doesn’t exist anyway—but finding and highlighting otherwise superficial commonalities between different religions so they can all get along in the now).

The net result of all this? On the one hand, Muslims, who believe in truth—that is, in the teachings of Islam—will continue attacking the “false,” that is, everything and everyone un-Islamic.  And no matter how violent, Islamic jihad—terrorism—will always be exonerated in Muslim eyes as fundamentally “altruistic.” On the other hand, Western secularists and multiculturalists, who believe in nothing and deem all cultures and religions equal, will continue to respect Islam and empower Muslims, convinced that terrorism is an un-Islamic aberration destined to go away—that is, they will continue disbelieving their own eyes.  Such is the offspring of that unholy union between Islamic logic and Western fallacy.

Islamic State’s Global Ambitions

3463035770Secure Freedom Radio with Dr. Sebastian Gorka, Diana West, Soeren Kern, Tom Rogan, Jim Hanson on November 25, 2015:

Dr. SEBASTIAN GORKA, Distinguished Chair of Military Theory at the Marine Corps University:  Podcast: Play in new window | Download

  • Seriousness of the Islamic State’s global threat
  • Growing threat of ISIS in the United States
  • How to deal with the refugee crisis and the Muslim Brotherhood

DIANA WEST, Author of “American Betrayal”: Podcast (podcast2): Play in new window | Download

  • Multiculturalism’s negative effect on the West
  • Immigration destroying Western culture
  • Threats coming from Canada’s acceptance of Syrian refugees

SOEREN KERN, Distinguished Senior Fellow at the Gatestone Institute: Podcast (podcast3): Play in new window | Download

  • Germany as a case study in the rise of European Islamic supremacism
  • Europe’s model of immigration verses that of the US
  • Angela Merkel perpetuating a public health crisis  through refugee resettlement
  • European Union’s failing model of a single currency and open borders

TOM ROGAN, Senior Fellow at the Steamboat Institute, and Columnist for National Review: Podcast (podcast4): Play in new window | Download

  • Islamic State’s movement to the West
  • Concern of “No Go Zones” in Europe
  • Dealing with the hijra from the Middle East

JIM HANSON, Executive Vice President of the Center for Security Policy, former operator in the U.S. Army Special Forces: Podcast (podcast5): Play in new window | Download

  • Identifying the ideological background of Islamic jihadists
  • Danger of the violent and pre-violent stages of jihad to America
  • Importance in the designation of the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization
  • Review of Turkey shooting down a Russian fighter jet

M-Day: The Invasion of the West

American Thinker, By David Solway, Nov. 1, 2015:

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, later Pope Benedict XVI, wrote in his 2007 volume Europe: Today and Tomorrow:

“There is a self-hatred in the West that can be considered only as something pathological. The West attempts in a praiseworthy manner to open itself completely to the comprehension of external values, but it no longer loves itself; it now only sees what is despicable and destructive in its own history, while it is no longer able to perceive what is great and pure there.”

This attitude of self-detestation is both the seed and the fruit of what we have come to call multiculturalism. Benedict does not reject multiculturalism in toto, arguing for its spiritualization, but recognizes that it “is sometimes mostly the abandonment and denial of what is one’s own, a flight from what is one’s own.”

The current pope takes a very different view of the West’s obligation to the Other, having appealed “to the parishes, the religious communities, the monasteries and sanctuaries of all Europe to take in one family of refugees.” According to this saintly luminary, the mistreatment of asylum seekers “makes one cry,” since they are merely “victims of injustice, of this throw-away economy” and war.

Pope Francis’ entreaty to the West flows directly from the 1968 episcopal conference in Medellin, Columbia, which, couched in Marxist categories beloved of Liberation Theologians, spoke of “listening to the cry of the poor and becoming the interpreter of their anguish.” It represented a determined effort, in the ecclesial language it affected, to turn the center into the periphery and the periphery into the center, that is, to raise the Third World to the level of the First and consign the capitalist West to the margins of History.

One way of accomplishing this task is revolution; another is the multicultural flooding of the West with Third Worlders who will radically transform the social, cultural, political and economic structure of Western civilization. (See Leonardo and Clodovis Boff, Introducing Liberation Theology.)

It appears that Pope Francis has got his wish, as Europe has been blessed with wave upon wave of asylum seekers benefitting from both pontifical authority and official complaisance. It has become evident that government officials in many countries and the mainstream media are in lockstep complicity, painting these asylum seekers as refugees deserving of our sympathy, and suppressing information about the epidemic of rape, disease and violence they bring with them. Regrettably, our contemporary Good Samaritans, Liberation Secularists, similarly engaged in exchanging the nodes of center and periphery, have much to answer for. Europe and the West in general are dying of multiculturalism, an affliction that looks as if it may be irreversible.

Hundreds of thousands of Muslims supposedly fleeing the carnage in Syria, over 70 per cent of whom are single males of draft age, are swarming the borders of Europe while some of their number will soon be airlifted into North America. Daniel Greenfield underlines the obvious, “Everyone can see that the majority of Muslim migrants are not sad Syrian toddlers, but angry Muslim men.” Indeed, the EU estimates that only one out of every five migrants claiming asylum is actually from Syria. But one in five is more than enough for Kilian Kleinschmidt, appointed by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) as Senior Field Coordinator of the Zaatari refugee camp in Jordan. The Syrians, he laments, “are the most difficult refugees I’ve ever seen.” Physical intimidation, death threats, smuggling, theft and mafia-like control of the camp’s affairs and resources are their stock in trade.

Clearly, it is not only the Syrians who are “difficult.” To adapt the famous line from the Meatloaf hit song, four out of five ain’t bad. The Human Relief Foundation estimates that 95-97 per cent of the migrants crowding Calais, hoping to make their way to the U.K. “to get money,” are “fit,” restive, violence-prone young men who hail from many Muslim nations.

Deputy Chief executive of the Human Relief Foundation (HRF), Kassim Tokan, seems puzzled by the fact that many of these claimants come from “certain countries, which are safe, [where] they can work.”  Another report reveals that approximately 90 per cent of the Muslim “refugees” from “certain countries,” packing a train from Budapest to Vienna, were men between the ages of 18-45, who threatened, beat and stole from other passengers — a harbinger of things to come. The mayhem they will visit upon the West — which German Chancellor Angela Merkel ludicrously deems an “opportunity” based on “the principles of dignity, human rights and the right to political asylum” — will be nothing short of cataclysmic.

But the malignant farce goes on. Syrian migrants are now suing the Berlin state government for lagging on benefit payments. Carol Brown provides some of the details of the German catastrophe: school children have been indentured to clean up garbage and human waste in public places; trains are out of service until they can be disinfected; girls have to cover up lest the invaders be offended or lose control of themselves; and mysterious illnesses have begun to circulate. Thomas Lifson has re-posted a video of these Muslim interlopers showing them trashing the free housing they received, a handsel of what Europe may look like in the course of time. The graphic images of the Austrian town of Nickelsdorf, mounded with refuse and smeared with fecal matter, present an even clearer picture of Europe’s future.

And, as usual, the media are traitorously complicit. As Dave Jolly writes in Godfather Politics, “The media completely ignores the huge financial and security impact that the refugees are placing on some of these countries. Many European nations are on the brink of bankruptcy and cannot afford to start paying out millions of Euros to support the refugees. Some of the countries have expressed concern about the security risks, stating that they suspect members of ISIS have been hiding among the refugees in order to spread their terrorism into other countries.”

Nor should America expect to be spared. Refugee resettlement programs are targeting small American communities and unlikely states, which as Carol Brown says, is how “you wind up with pockets of Somalis in places like Wyoming.” The state of Idaho is fast becoming a Muslim haven as it absorbs migrants, not only from Syria, but from Iraq, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Somalia. Tennessee is increasingly prey to Muslim infiltration. The Islamization of Kansas is proceeding as we speak. “Maine’s generous welfare policies,” Greenfield points out, “began collapsing once Somali Muslims swarmed in to take advantage of them.” Brown comments: “may we, here in America, do everything possible to ensure that this is not our future” — though the Obama presidency, the media consortium, the entertainment industry and the American education system are doing everything in their power to make sure it will be. And following the election of pro-Muslim power broker Justin Trudeau in my own country, Canada, too, has opened the sluice valve to its eventual destabilization. It is no accident that ISIS supporters have celebrated Trudeau’s electoral victory.

Even though the oil-rich Islamic nations have refused to admit these asylum seekers, knowing the cost in resources and the prospect of social unrest and internecine conflict such an influx would entail (while, it must be said, plotting to export Islam to the West), liberal politicians have opened the door wide to what is nothing less than an invasion, on the grounds of mercy and compassion. Plainly, more sinister calculations may also be at work — electoral bloc advantages, or potentially treasonable policies of societal collapse, as may be the case under the Obama administration. The argument we sometimes hear that these Muslim hordes will enter a progressively depleted workforce and generate sufficient taxable income to support Europe’s aging pensioners is an obvious canard; most will find themselves on welfare, adding to Europe’s fiscal woes. That we are witnessing a disaster in the making is of no consequence to our leaders or the elite opinion makers and bleeding-heart constituencies in league with them.

195515_5_

As Bret Stephens warns in a Wall Street Journal op-ed titled The Death of Christendom, “The death of Europe is in sight.” He then asks rhetorically,

“Could Europe’s liberal political traditions, its religious and cultural heritage, long survive a massive influx of Muslim immigrants, in the order of tens of millions of people? No. Not given Europe’s frequently unhappy experience with much of its Muslim population. Not when you have immigrant groups that resist assimilation and host countries that make only tentative civic demands.”

His analysis of the looming disaster is unimpeachable. Europeans no longer believe in the things from which their civilization sprang:

“Judaism and Christianity; liberalism and the Enlightenment; martial pride and capability; capitalism and wealth. Still less do they believe in fighting or sacrificing or paying or even arguing for these things. Having ignored and undermined their own foundations, they wonder why their house is coming apart.”

The same admonition applies to the West in general. If it is not true to its core inheritance, namely “the marriage of reason and revelation that produced a civilization of technological mastery tempered by human decency,” and deeds its immemorial patrimony to the standard bearers and foot soldiers of an incompatible and destructive civilization, John Winthrop’s “City on a Hill” will surely come to resemble Ezekiel’s Valley of Bones.

For what is now taking place affects us on an immense scale of historical detritus. The institutions that guarantee our rights and freedoms are falling into rubble no less than the triple walls of Constantinople were reduced under the siege of Mehmed II. Just as the artillery bombardment of Constantinople was carried out by Western mercenaries in the service of Mehmed, bringing massive cannon to bear against the city (see Franz Babinger, Mehmed the Conqueror and His Time), so are we — the appeasers, facilitators, and sycophants as well as the tolerant, apathetic and misguided — surrendering the legacy of the ages to an army of barbarians and to our own self-contempt.

This is how we make restitution for what we have come to regard as our “despicable” history. This is our form of “liberation theology” in its secular manifestation, our “abandonment and denial of what is one’s own.” To put it in other terms, Francis has got the better of Benedict and those of us who still remain faithful to our roots have got the worst of Francis.

The multicultural paradox is readily disambiguated with just a little thought. Our social charity is the product of our spiritual penury, and the political calculus of our leaders in its demographic, electoral or empathetic forms is the result of intellectual debauchery. For what we call the refugee crisis is really the crisis of the West. And the refugees, the asylum seekers, the migrants marching in their hundreds of thousands and soon-to-be millions through our open borders are really an army we have recruited in the campaign to destroy ourselves. M-Day, it would appear, is in its final planning stage. And we have become our own fifth column, the multicultural architects of our own destruction.

***

Also see:

THE MUSLIM MADNESS OF MERKEL

mrk (1)Frontpage, by Daniel Greenfield, Oct. 9, 2015:

German Chancellor Angela Merkel insisted that refusing to take in Muslim migrants is a “danger for Europe.” Merkel as usual had it backward. It’s her program of taking in Muslim migrants that represents the gravest threat to the freedom and future of Europe since the fall of the Soviet Union.

Merkel may have already doomed Germany. The Bild newspaper published a leaked secret government document estimating that the number of migrants invading Europe this year might reach 1.5 million.

And that bad news gets much worse because the document estimates that each migrant will bring in as many as eight family members once they’re settled in, bringing the year’s true total to 7.36 million.

That’s almost 10 percent of the population of Germany. In just one invasion.

And the migrants are mostly young men entering a rapidly aging country whose young male population is under 5 million. Germany’s Muslim population already approaches 5 million. The median age of Germany’s Muslim population is 34, while the median age for the overall population is 46.

Merkel has rapidly sped up the rate at which Germany’s young male population becomes Muslim.

The document predicts up to 10,000 invaders entering every day. It foresees no end to the arrivals even when it gets cold. These words add up to the end of Germany and the end of Europe.

With numbers like these it’s no wonder that Merkel is frantically trying to shift the burden, berating Eastern European countries for their nationalism and failing to learn from history even though as a former Communist and a German leader, she represents the two political forces that historically did the most to deprive these nations of their national rights and their independence.

Merkel invokes the Berlin War to claim that fences don’t work. But the Berlin Wall kept people from leaving. The fences that Hungary has built are constructed in self-defense, not to keep Hungarians in, but to keep invading Muslims out. It’s Merkel whose EU totalitarianism represents a new Berlin Wall that mandates open borders for Muslim migrants while preventing countries from leaving the EU.

When Merkel states, “The refugees won’t be stopped if we just build fences. That I’m deeply convinced of, and I’ve lived behind a fence for long enough,” she is not only deliberately mangling the moral difference between a fence that keeps invaders out and a fence that keeps people in, but her own complicity in these fences. East Germany needed a fence because people wanted to flee its totalitarian regime. The European Union needs political fences to keep countries from escaping its political regime.

The choice isn’t between open borders and the Berlin Wall. Rather the open borders that Merkel advocates are another form of the Berlin Wall. Communist countries don’t make immigration difficult. They make emigration impossible. Free countries make immigration difficult, but emigration easy.

That’s how democracy is supposed to work. It allows the people of a nation to decide who can enter while allowing anyone to leave. Merkel’s EU brings back the USSR’s ‘Prison of Nations’ where everyone can enter, but no one can leave.

Merkel warns European countries that refusing Muslim immigrants is “not negotiable.” This is the type of language that totalitarian regimes use.

Europeans are told that they will lose their credibility if they don’t take in Muslims. “Who are we to defend Christians around the world if we say we won’t accept a Muslim or a mosque in our country?” she asks. “That won’t do.”

But taking in Muslims has prevented Germans from defending Christians even in their own country, not only in the Middle East.

Christian refugees in Germany report being persecuted, threatened and beaten by Muslims. An Iranian Christian refugee spoke of death threats from Syrian Muslim migrants. An Iraqi Christian family was beaten and told, “We will kill you and drink your blood.”

A Lutheran pastor says that he is asked by refugees, “Will we have to hide ourselves as Christians in the future in this country?”

That question is better addressed to Angela Merkel and her mad Muslim vision for Germany.

Islamizing Germany will not enable it to defend Christians in the Middle East. Instead it will make the government even more vulnerable to terrorist blackmail and political pressure from Muslims. And if Merkel were really concerned about Christians, she wouldn’t be fighting European countries that want to take in Christian refugees instead of Muslim migrants. Not only hasn’t her appeasement of Muslims done anything to help Christians in the Middle East, but it has endangered Christians in Germany.

Despite resistance from her own party, Merkel continues doubling down. She has seized control of refugee policy from her own interior minister, who was skeptical of her action and who may have helped leak the Bild document, and she continues to ignore calls for refugee limits from her own party.

Meanwhile Muslims in Germany are vocal about refusing to accept any limitations of Muslim immigration.

Merkel isn’t really an open borders fanatic. She’s a political hack who made a tragic mistake and is desperately trying to dump it on the rest of Europe. After originally taking the correct line, Merkel folded and rather than admit that she made a mistake whose implications will destroy her country, she is desperately manufacturing one ridiculous excuse after another to defend her actions.

Her calls for sharing the burden amount to dumping the consequences of her unilateral policy on the rest of Europe. It’s exactly the type of behavior she condemned from Greece, only to hypocritically practice a version of it that is far more disastrous, both from the standpoint of security and economics.

Merkel’s plan is to unilaterally demand that the rest of Europe “share” in the welfare, crime and terrorism of the Muslim migrants that she chose to take in. And there’s nothing fair about that.

But the Eurocrats can’t wrap their heads around the idea of border fences. The closest they can come to the idea is to hypocritically plead with Turkey to secure the borders that they refuse to secure.

The Turkish solution still requires Europe to take in another 500,000 Muslims from Turkey in exchange for its tyrannical Islamist ruler agreeing to secure its borders. This means outsourcing European border security to a hostile Muslim country whose ruler dreams of reviving the Ottoman Empire and boasted, “The mosques are our barracks, minarets our bayonets, domes our helmets, the believers our soldiers.”

That’s the sort of man that Europe will be turning over its security too. Meanwhile those 500,000 Muslims will also have to be “shared” all across Europe.

Merkel claims that the migrants “present more opportunities than risks.” What opportunities are these exactly? Half the Muslim “youth” in Germany are already unemployed.  Barely a third of Muslim immigrants earn a living through professional employment.

What opportunities will adding millions of Muslims to the welfare rolls accomplish except to create more jobs for the government bureaucrats who sign their welfare checks?

Merkel’s allies claim that she deserves the Nobel Prize. She certainly does. Hitler and Stalin were both nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. And Merkel has done more damage to Germany and Europe than any leader since these two worthy gentlemen before her had.

***

We’re living in a German-dominated Europe of Disharmony – UKIP Leader Nigel Farage

German Law v Islamic Law, A Must-Watch Documentary (constitution.com)

Also see:

Europe’s Migrant Crisis Is Simply Muslim History vs. Western Fantasy

Progressive Europe erased or rewrote its own history. Now they can’t recognize an invasion by people to whom history is everything.

PJ Media, by Raymond Ibrahim, September 29, 2015:

The world as understood by Islamic nations varies wildly from the Western nations’ understanding of the world. Whereas Muslims see the world through the lens of history, the West has jettisoned or rewritten history to suit its ideologies.

This dichotomy of Muslim and Western thinking is evident everywhere. When the Islamic State declared that it will “conquer Rome” and “break its crosses,” few in the West realized that those are the verbatim words and goals of Islam’s founder and his companions as recorded in Muslim sources — words and goals that prompted over a thousand years of jihad on Europe.

Most recently, the Islamic State released a map of the areas it plans on expanding into over the next five years. Not only are Mideast and Asian regions included, but the map includes European lands: Portugal, Spain, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Greece, parts of Russia, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Romania, Armenia, Georgia, Crete, and Cyprus.

The reason for this is simple. According to Islamic law, once a country has been conquered (or “opened,” as the euphemistic Arabic words it), it becomes Islamic in perpetuity.

This, incidentally, is the real reason Muslims despise Israel. The motivation is not sympathy for the Palestinians — if it was, neighboring Arab nations would’ve absorbed them long ago, just as they would be absorbing all of today’s Muslim refugees. No, Israel is hated because the descendants of “apes and pigs” — according to the Koran — dare to rule land that was once “opened” by jihad and therefore must be returned to Islam. (Read more about Islam’s “How Dare You?” phenomenon to understand the source of Islamic rage.)

All of the aforementioned European nations are seen as being currently “occupied” by Christian “infidels” and in need of “liberation.” This is why jihadi organizations refer to terrorist attacks on such countries as “defensive jihads.”One rarely hears about Islamic designs on European nations because they are large and blocked together, altogether distant from the Muslim world. Conversely, tiny Israel is in the heart of the Islamic world, hence it has received most of the jihadi attention: it was a more realistic conquest. But now that the “caliphate” has been reborn and is expanding before a paralytic West, dreams of reconquering portions of Europe — if not through jihad, then through migration — are becoming more plausible, perhaps more so than conquering Israel.

Because of their historical experiences with Islam, some central and east European nations are aware of Muslim aspirations. Hungary’s prime minister even cited his nation’s unpleasant past under Islamic rule (in the guise of the Ottoman Empire) as a reason to disallow Muslim refugees from entering. But for more “enlightened” Western nations — that is, for idealistic nations that reject or rewrite history according to their subjective fantasies — Hungary’s reasoning is unjust, inhumane, and racist.

To be sure, most of Europe has experience with Islamic depredations. As late as the 17th century, even Iceland was being invaded by Muslim slave traders. Roughly 800 years earlier, in 846, Rome was sacked and the Vatican defiled by Muslim raiders.

Some of the Muslims migrating to Italy vow to do the same today, and Pope Francis acknowledges it — yet he still suggests that “you can take precautions, and put these people to work.”

We’ve seen this sort of thinking before: the U.S. State Department cited a lack of “job opportunities” as reason for the existence of the Islamic State.

Perhaps because the UK, Scandinavia, and North America were never conquered and occupied by the sword of Islam — unlike the southeast European nations that are rejecting Muslim refugees — they feel free to rewrite history according to their subjective ideals. Specifically, they stress that historic Christianity is bad and all other religions and people are good. Indeed, books and courses on the “sins” of Christian Europe from the Crusades to colonialism abound. (Most recently, a book traced the rise of Islamic supremacism in Egypt to the disciplining of a rude Muslim girl by a Christian nun.)

This “new history” – which claims that Muslims are the historic “victims” of “intolerant” Western Christians — has metastasized everywhere, from high school to college and from Hollywood to the news media, institutions which are becoming increasingly harder to distinguish from one another. When U.S. President Barack Obama condemned medieval Christians as a way to relativize Islamic State atrocities — or at best to claim that religion, any religion, isnever the driving force of violence — he was merely being representative of the mainstream way history is taught in the West.

Even good, authoritative books of history contribute to this distorted thinking. While such works may mention “Ottoman expansion” into Europe, the Islamic element is omitted. Turks are portrayed as just another competitive people, out to carve a niche for themselves in Europe with motivations no different than, say, the Austrians, their rivals. That the “Ottomans” were operating under the distinctly Islamic banner of jihad, just like the Islamic State is today, is never made clear.

Generations of this false history have led the West to think that being suspicious or judgmental of Muslims is unacceptable, and that Muslims need to be accommodated. Perhaps then, they’ll like the West.

Such is progressive wisdom.

Meanwhile, in schools across much of the Muslim world, children are being indoctrinated into glorifying and reminiscing about the jihadi conquests of yore — conquests by the sword and in the name of Allah. While the progressive West demonizes European/Christian history — when I was in elementary school, Christopher Columbus was a hero, when I got into college, he became a villain — Mehmet the Conqueror, whose atrocities against Christian Europeans make the Islamic State look like boy scouts, is praised every year in “secular” Turkey on the anniversary of the savage sack of Constantinople.

The result of Western fantasies and Islamic history is that today Muslims are entering the West unfettered in the guise of refugees. They refuse to assimilate with the “infidels,” and form enclaves — in Islamic terminology, ribats – that serve as frontier posts to wage jihad against the infidel one way or another.

This in not conjecture. The Islamic State is intentionally driving the refugee phenomenon, and has promised to send half a million people — mostly Muslims — into Europe. It claims that 4,000 of these refugees are its own operatives:

Just wait. … It’s our dream that there should be a caliphate not only in Syria but in all the world, and we will have it soon, inshallah.

It is often said that those who ignore history are destined to repeat it. What happens to those who rewrite history in a way to demonize their ancestors while whitewashing the crimes of their ancestors’ enemies? The result is before us. History is not repeating itself; sword-waving Muslims are not militarily conquering Europe. Rather, they are being allowed to walk right in.

Sweden’s Populist Surge

Muslim immigration has changed the face of Sweden.

Muslim immigration has changed the face of Sweden.

MEF, by Daniel Pipes
The Washington Times
August 26, 2015

According to the most recent poll, the innocuously-named but ferociously anti-establishment Sweden Democrats (Sverigedemokraterna or SD) has the largest support of any political party in Sweden. This news has potentially momentous implications not just for Sweden but for all Europe.

Sweden is a special place. One of the richest and most peaceful countries in the world (it has not been engaged in armed conflict for two centuries), until recently it was a remarkably homogenous society where socialism, with its optimistic assumption that people are born good and circumstances make them bad, worked and the government enjoyed great prestige. Swedish pride in the country’s accomplishments translates into an ethical superiority symbolized by the oft-heard claim to be a “moral superpower.”

1629

This heritage has also inspired an intolerance of dissent, however; “Be quiet, follow the consensus, let the bureaucrats carry it out.” The country has become so notorious for its stifling faux-unanimity that I actually heard a Dane recently ask at a public forum, “Why has Sweden turned into the North Korea of Scandinavia?”

Swedish history militates against hard-headed, flexible responses to problems.

Also, Sweden’s history creates a no-crisis mentality that militates against the hard-headed, flexible responses needed to cope with current problems the country now faces, especially those connected to waves of mainly Muslim immigrants. As one interlocutor put it to me in Stockholm earlier this month, “Past success has led to current failure.” For example, security in Sweden is well below what might find in a country like Bolivia, with few inclinations to make improvements, rendering Islamist violence all but inevitable.

In this stultification, the SD stands out because it offers the only political alternative. Proof of this came in December 2014, when the SD appeared to have the swing vote in a crucial budget vote between the left and right blocs in the country’s unicameral legislature, the Riksdag – until all the other seven parties joined together in a grand coalition to deny it any influence.

A subway ad in Stockholm illustrates the Sweden Democrats' messaging.

A subway ad in Stockholm illustrates the Sweden Democrats’ messaging.

As this act of desperation suggests, the Sweden Democrats offer a populist – and not, as usually described, a “far right” – brew of policies anathema to all the legacy parties: Foremost, it calls for assimilating legal immigrants, expelling the illegals, and reducing future immigration by at least 90 percent. It also forwards a number of other policies (concerning crime, defense, the European Union, and Israel) far outside the Swedish consensus and utterly obnoxious to the other parties.

With good reason, the establishment hates and fears the SD, pedantically finding any possible fault with the party, starting with its alleged neo-fascist past (though fascist connections are not unique to SD) and going on to the tiniest foibles of its leadership.

Supporting the SD remains taboo. The national police commissioner once tweeted about “vomiting” on seeing the SD’s leader; naturally, his staff dare not acknowledge their supporting for the party. But one officer estimated for me that 50 percent of the police vote SD.

sweden

Despite being ostracized, the SD increasingly connects with Swedes (including some immigrants), giving it substantial electoral gains, roughly doubling its parliamentary vote every four years: from 0.4 percent in 1998 to 1.3 percent in 2002, 2.9 percent in 2006, 5.7 percent in 2010, and 12.9 percent in September 2014. And now, less than a year later, a YouGov poll shows it having nearly doubled again, to 25.2 percent, meaning that it leads the governing Social Democrats (who have only 23.4 percent support) and the major (nominally) right-wing party, the Moderates (with 21 percent).

The political climate in Sweden has shifted. Ideas once outside the mainstream now receive a hearing.

No less important, I learned in Stockholm, the intellectual and political climate has shifted. Journalists, policy specialists, and politicians all noted that ideas outside the mainstream just a year ago now receive a hearing. For example, four major newspapers have questioned the consensus in favor of high immigration. Beside the surging SD vote, this shift results from several factors: the shocking rise of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), which has altered the debate; continued upset at the December compact that excluded the SD from having its due parliamentary influence; and the receding memory of Anders Behring Breivik’s 2011 murderous rampage in Norway.

In all, it appears that denial and censorship can only continue for so long before the instinct of self-preservation kicks in. The Western country most prone to national suicide is possibly waking up from its stupor. If this change can take place in Sweden, the “North Korea of Scandinavia,” it can, and likely will, occur elsewhere in Europe.

Daniel Pipes (DanielPipes.org, @DanielPipes) is president of the Middle East Forum.

***

The IKEA Murders: Sweden in Crisis

Gatestone Insisute, by Ingrid Carlqvist
August 23, 2015

  • The mosque fire received huge attention, while the rape epidemic is basically ignored. When a Swedish woman and her son are brutally knifed to death in the most Swedish of all places – an IKEA store – the Prime Minister has nothing to say.
  • The normal democratic order, where citizens can contact politicians or the media to make their voices heard, has all but evaporated in Sweden. Newspaper websites have removed the reader comment fields, and the politicians hide behind a wall of officials who brand callers expressing concern “racist,” and hang up. Sweden is governed by a power that has shut down the democratic process.
  • Questions flooded the social media: Who are these people that are let into Sweden? How many of them are not innocent victims of war, but in fact war criminals and other criminals, hiding among the refugees?
  • The most relevant question is: Why has one government after another chosen to spend Swedish taxpayers’ money to support and shelter citizens of other countries, while some of them try to kill us?
  • None of the mainstream media has confronted the government about the violent crimes committed by asylum seekers against Swedes. On the contrary – the media have done the utmost to convince Swedes that everything is safe and sound in Sweden. Better than ever, in fact.
  • “Where do I apply for asylum… when the day comes that I can no longer live here?” – “Ewa,” on Facebook.
  • Violent crime is up 300% and rape is up 1,472% since 1975, the year the Swedish Parliament decided to turn homogenous Sweden into a multicultural country.

A surge of rage has washed over otherwise docile Sweden. After a double homicide at an IKEA store in Västerås, where an illegal alien stabbed two random Swedes to death, more and more people are questioning why the government is exposing Swedish citizens to murderers from across the globe.

On August 10, news of the IKEA murders shocked Sweden. Two asylum seekers from Eritrea (the second largest source of asylum applicants in Sweden), were suspected of having grabbed knives from the kitchenware department and attacked two random Swedes. The victims were 55-year-old Carola Herlin and her 28-year-old son, Emil.

Carola Herlin, Director of the Moro Backe Health Center, was murdered on August 10, along with her son, in the IKEA store in Västerås, Sweden.

The elder of the two asylum seekers, a 36-year-old man, had twice been denied residency status in Sweden — because he had already been granted residency it in Italy — but he had not yet been deported. (Eritreans without residence permits in other EU-countries automatically get to stay in Sweden.)

The killer also inflicted life-threatening injuries on himself, and underwent several surgeries before the police could finally question him. On August 14, he confessed. His 23-year-old compatriot was released from custody, because the police no longer believe he had anything to do with the murders or had even known what his friend was planning to do.

Fear has now struck the Swedes. Even those who had routinely brand critics of immigration and multiculturalism racist, were shaken to the core. Questions flooded the social media: Who are these people that are let into Sweden? How many of them are not innocent victims of war, but in fact war criminals and other criminals, hiding among the refugees? And should we pay billions in taxes to support and shelter citizens of other countries, while some of them try to kill us?

The fact that the police refuse to deny the persistent rumor that one of the IKEA victims was beheaded, only adds fuel to the fear.

So many questions and no answers. No one from the government has even bothered to make a statement about the horrific double murder. None of the mainstream media has confronted the government about the violent crimes committed by asylum seekers against Swedes. On the contrary – the media have done the utmost to convince Swedes that everything is safe and sound in Sweden. Better than ever, in fact. The day after the double murder, Sweden’s largest morning paper, Dagens Nyheter, published an article titled, “After all, deadly violence on the decline.” The article begins:

“In recent weeks, several brutal murders have been committed, and many people ask themselves where society is headed. The answer is that Sweden has, after all, become a safer place. Deadly violence has been on the decline for some time.”

Nowhere does the article explain that the reason deadly violence has been on the decline is that emergency medicine is now able to save the lives of a lot more victims of knife- and gunshot-injuries. The so-called Laser Man, for example, shot a number of immigrants in Sweden in the 1990s. Forensic pathologist Jovan Rajs commented, “The Laser Man shot eleven people, and one of them died. In the 1930s eight or nine would have died, in the 1970s about five, and today probably none.”

Ergo, deadly violence remains on an even level thanks to better health care in Sweden, but all other kinds of violent crime (including attempted homicide) has gone off the charts. Violent crime is up 300% and rape is up 1,472% since 1975, the year the Swedish Parliament decided to turn homogenous Sweden into a multicultural country.

Ninety percent of asylum seekers to Sweden lack proper identification papers, so in reality no one knows how many murderers, rapists and thugs hide among the 100,000 or so people granted asylum in Sweden every year.

Frustrated Swedes are now howling with powerlessness on social media. The normal democratic order, where citizens can contact politicians or the media to make their voices heard, has all but evaporated. Newspaper websites have removed the reader comment fields, and the politicians hide behind a wall of officials, who brand callers expressing concern “racist,” and hang up. Thousands bear witness to this on Facebook. One person who actually got to talk about her uneasiness is Ewa, who writes on Facebook about calling Immigration Services:

“Well, I’ve unleashed the devil now. I called Immigration Services and demanded to talk to a Unit Manager. … I gave him an earful about every injustice I could think of, like how badly we treat our elderly and how we take away their homes and give them to asylum seekers. I also told him how unsafe Swedish women feel due to all these gang rapes perpetrated by asylum seekers and other foreigners. Also asked him if we all have to be beheaded before they stop taking in these kinds of people. … Now I’m sitting here, feeling completely empty after crying, screaming, discussing, raging and getting all this frustration out of me. Told him there are many of us who feel depressed because of what Immigration is doing. He was really sorry I feel this way. Yes, I told him, a lot of people feel this way but they are afraid to open their mouths because then they are labeled racist. You don’t even have to be a Sweden Democrat to see that our country is falling apart more and more with each passing day. Something you and all the rest at Immigration Services are responsible for. Where do I apply for asylum, I asked, when the day comes and I can no longer live here? Our country is ruined economically, socially and so forth and you are responsible. He answered that it was the politicians who decided about this, but that they would do everything in their power to make things better.”

Another woman, Amanda, wrote on Facebook that she e-mailed Prime Minister Stefan Löfven. She noted that “nothing may change, but at least I’ve made my voice heard.” Her e-mail read:

“Hi, why did the Prime Minister feel it was essential and urgent to go and talk about the fire at the mosque in Eskilstuna, no one even knew what started it when he held his speech? But now, he’s as silent as the grave. Why? It’s his/your unconditional and lax immigration policies that have enabled this culprit to move freely in society, despite having received a deportation order not just once, but twice. Can you tell me if this is something the citizens of this country should get used to, that immigrants, upon receiving deportation orders, kill people in order to get a lifelong contract with the Swedish state? It is your personal responsibility every time this happens, I hope you know that. Because this is nothing if not a political issue regarding immigration, and… its massive consequences to an entire nation.”

The mosque fire in Eskilstuna that Amanda referred to happened December 25, 2014, and is one of many incidents affecting Muslims and other immigrants that have received huge attention, while the rape epidemic in Sweden is basically ignored. After the fire, the Prime Minister was quick to make a statement:

“It is despicable, a despicable act. We will never tolerate this type of crime. People who want to practice their religion should have the right to do so. Today I feel great sympathy and empathy for those affected.”

Three months later, it turned out no crime was behind the mosque fire, and police dropped the investigation. Most likely, it was caused by an accident or children playing with fire.

But when a Swedish woman and her son are brutally knifed to death in the most Swedish of all places – an IKEA store – the Prime Minister has nothing to say.

Read more

Ingrid Carlqvist is editor-in-chief of Dispatch International. Follow Ingrid Carlqvist on Twitter

Islamophobia: Fact or Fiction?

Terry JonesGatestone Institute, by Denis MacEoin, August, 15, 2015:

  • Edward Said leaves us with the impression that all prejudice is only on the part of the West.
  • To the traditionally minded, news of such things as man-made laws based on objective evidence, free speech, equal justice under law, democracy, elections, freedom for women, freedom of religion and respect for the “other,” and so on, may have come as a sort of horror. Despots recoiled from the very thought of democracy. Religious leaders fumed at secular education, the freedom to question and say what one liked, even about religion.
  • “It is the nature of Islam to dominate, not to be dominated; to impose its law on all nations and to extend its power to the entire planet.” — Hasan al-Banna’, Founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, 1928.
  • The vast amount of what is called “Islamophobia,” however, is not that at all. Fair criticism is not phobic, responses to Islamic terrorism are reasonable reactions to violence.
  • Based on news reports of Muslims murdering other Muslims and killing Christians, there is, ironically, probably more Islamophobia among Muslims for each other than there is from Westerners toward Muslims. There is also probably more “Infidelophobia” by Muslims toward non-Muslims than by non-Muslims toward Muslims.
  • Again this year, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation held a conference calling for a universal blasphemy law — legislation it has repeatedly tried to pass for over a decade, with the help of U.S, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The aim is not to protect other religions (about which Muslims blaspheme without cessation), but to block any criticism of Islam.
  • Sometimes it seems as if Islam ceases to be treated as just another religion and becomes a religion intolerant of all others and unduly protective of its own rights and privileges. In democratic states, Islam is evidently already the only religion that may not be criticized, even though criticism of religion has for centuries been a cornerstone of free speech and transparency that are essential elements in democracy. These freedoms really matter, yet not one Muslim country can claim to implement or protect them, especially freedom of religion.

On July 9th, the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance, within the Council of Europe, published its annual report for 2014. The report identifies a dramatic increase in antisemitism, Islamophobia, online hate speech and xenophobic political discourse as main trends in 2014. It also indicates that “Islamophobia is reported in many countries, counteracting integration efforts for inclusive European societies. According to the report the rise of extremism and in violent Islamist movements has been manipulated by populist politicians to portray Muslims in general as unable or unwilling to integrate and therefore as a security threat.”

This is, of course, troubling, and it is right for the Commission to treat it as a growing problem. But just how widespread is the issue, and to what extent is it readily identifiable?

Some claims of Islamophobia have their roots in the perception of increasing Muslim violence within Europe; some are based on existing racist attitudes, and some are derived from Muslim perceptions of victimhood and charged sensitivities. The latter is the main reason why defining Islamophobia is not as simple as describing anti-Semitism, anti-immigrant prejudice, or anti-black racism.

To understand this more clearly, it is necessary to slip back briefly to the past.

In 1978, Palestinian-American professor Edward Said (1935-2003) published a book, Orientalism, which changed the way many people thought about the Middle East and Islam. Said’s book, deeply flawed, nevertheless became a bestseller translated into thirty-six languages. Those of us who were the first to read it – teachers and students in Islamic and Middle East Studies – were taken in by its façade of intellectual impartiality and the sense we all had that it opened our eyes to our own work in an original way. It was, to use Thomas Kuhn’s celebrated phrase, a paradigm shift that changed our understanding of our researches and the meaning they had, for we were precisely the ‘orientalists’ Said so tartly scolded. Some of moved away in later years, but many are still mesmerized by that smooth prose and challenging flair.

It wasn’t long before Said’s appeal moved into other disciplines and to other regions far from the Middle East. Orientalism even laid the foundations for a new item on the academic curriculum: “Post-colonial Studies.” The subject, now taught in universities in many countries, has produced a vast literature, has its own academic journals and numerous associations and institutes. Said, like Franz Fanon, Gayatri Spivak, Derek Gregory and others, remains a core figure, andOrientalism a central text.

According to Said, Westerners, by virtue of not being Muslims, have always falsified and distorted their writings about Islam and Muslims. Said claimed to see deeply-ingrained prejudice in the works of French, British, Russian and other Orientalist scholars and writers. To him, Orientalism was (and is) a tool of the colonial powers, assisting their mission supposedly to administer and subdue the peoples of the East. Since former colonies have achieved independence, he contends that the former imperialists still exert pressure on the ex-colonies in order to control them. Israel is regarded by most Marxists, socialists, and even many liberals as an entity created to colonize the Arab Middle East and is often condemned, even by people who are supposedly educated and should know better, in abrasive terms as a malign extension of the West.

Perhaps the best-known sentence in Said’s book is: “[S]ince the time of Homer every European, in what he could say about the Orient, was a racist, an imperialist, and almost totally ethnocentric.” As Bernard Lewis has been heard to remark, “If that were true, the only reports of marine biology would have to be by fish.” But for Said and his followers, the world is divided between Western guilt and Eastern victimhood.

What is missing from Said’s work is any attempt to deal with the long history of Islamic empires,[1] the conquest of, and permanent rule over, non-Muslim states and peoples, and the often distorted ways in which Muslim writers have sought to interpret and explain Christian, Jewish, Hindu and other worlds. Said leaves us with the impression that all prejudice is only on the part of the West.

Said continues to have admirers, most in academic departments of English or multicultural studies, but as time passes, more and more scholars are calling his views into question. Writers such as Bernard Lewis, Ibn Warraq, Efraim Karsh, and Robert Irwin have exposed a string of faults in Said’s narrative, from factual errors to staggering bias.[2]

Despite his bias, distortion of facts, and openly documented deceptions, many of Said’s followers, who are unwilling or unable to do their own work, see him as an intellectual to students and teachers who adhere to an anti-establishment, anti-Western, and socialist world view.

For many, his book, Orientalism played a role in delegitimizing the West and furthering causes such as multiculturalism or anti-Zionism. In the meantime, however, not surprisingly, the book’s influence spread, into the Islamic world and the smaller world of Muslim communities in the West. Better-educated Muslims read and digested Said’s message, in a manner rather different from Western readers, many or most of whom were atheists and agnostics. For Muslim readers, Said’s message that the West was hostile to Islam became the first strong antidote to their sense of failure. Muslims saw themselves as backward but now believed they were the victims of a Western conspiracy to deny them the fruits of their great civilization. To disparage the West became, for many, a religious imperative.

For religious Muslims, it was becoming increasingly important to deal with the stresses caused by their economic, political, and military subordination to a flourishing West, coupled with their own lack of progress in the non-Muslim world and at home. The repeated defeat of multinational Arab armies by the “despicable” Jews of Israel stood, and for millions of Muslims still stands, as a symbol of their need to reassert themselves on the world stage — as Iran is trying to do today.

Read more

‘Lord of the Rings’ Actor Says Islamic Terrorism and Political Correctness Could Equal the End of ‘Our Civilization’ in Blunt Interview

The Blaze, by Dave Urbanski, Aug. 12, 2015: (h/t Kyle Shideler)

“Lord of the Rings” actor John Rhys-Davies said Western inaction and political correctness in the face of Islamic terrorism threatens civilization as we know it.

John Rhys-Davies (Image source: Nicole Wilder/Syfy/NBCU Photo Bank via Getty Images)

John Rhys-Davies (Image source: Nicole Wilder/Syfy/NBCU Photo Bank via Getty Images)

“There is an extraordinary silence in the West,” the Welsh thespian observed on Adam Carolla’s podcast Monday. “Basically, Christianity in the Middle East and in Africa is being wiped out. I mean not just ideologically but physically, and people are being enslaved and killed because they are Christians. And your country and my country are doing nothing about it.”

Carolla launched into a brief tirade about the widespread fear of “judging” others.

“This notion that we’ve evolved into a species that’s incapable of judging other groups and what they’re doing, especially when it’s beheading people or setting people on fire or throwing acid in the face of schoolgirls,” Carolla said. “I like that kind of judging! That’s evolved!”

When things turned to how the West ultimately handed its enemies in World War II, Rhys-Davies spoke about the battle’s long-term results.

“Fascism in Europe was destroyed,” Rhys-Davies said. “Japanese imperialism in the Far East was wholly destroyed. They were the greatest generation. They knew what they were fighting for, and they won.”

Rhys-Davies’ interview with Carolla promoted the DVD release of “Return to the Hiding Place,” a film about Jews in Holland during World War II, The Hollywood Reporter said.

“This is a unique age. We don’t want to be judgmental,” said Rhys-Davies, also known for his role in Indiana Jones’ friend in “Raiders of the Lost Ark” and its sequels. “Every other age that’s come before us has believed exactly the opposite. I mean, T.S. Eliot referred to ‘the common pursuit of true judgment.’ Yes. That’s what it’s about. Getting our judgments right. Getting them accurate.”

He then turned his attention to today’s elected officials: ”It’s an age where politicians don’t actually say what they believe. They are afraid of being judged as being partisan. Heaven forbid that we should criticize people who, after all, share a different value system.”

“But it’s all relevant,” he said, mocking politically correct talking points. “It’s all equally relative, isn’t it? We’re all the same. And God and the devil, they’re the same aren’t they, really? Right and wrong? It’s really just two faces of the same coin.”

Rhys-Davies added that “we have lost our moral compass completely,” and if we don’t find it “we’re going to lose our civilization. I think we’re going to lose Western European Christian civilization, anyway.”

Here’s the podcast. Rhys-Davies’ commentary on these subjects begins around the 15-minute mark. (Content warning: Some profanity):

‘The Nightmare’ — Europa and the Incubus

‘The Nightmare’, by Henry Fuseli (1781); a visual metaphor for the Incubus of Islam sitting astride the paralyzed, sleeping Europa.

‘The Nightmare’, by Henry Fuseli (1781); a visual metaphor for the Incubus of Islam sitting astride the paralyzed, sleeping Europa.

Jihad Watch, by Ralph Sidway, July 29, 2015:

Europe, Britain and the West are pinned down by Sleep Paralysis beneath the weight of Islam and Muslim Immigration

Sometimes an image — a metaphor — is much more effective at presenting truth than even the most persuasive argument or laying out of facts.  ‘The Nightmare’ is such an image.

Europeans may still have some dim collective memory of the Muslim conquest of the Iberian peninsula (Spain) in the early 8th century, of Islam’s nearly successful colonization of the rest of Western Europe (Gaul, etc.), of centuries of Muslim raids on Italy, of Muslim piracy and dominance in the Mediterranean Sea, of repeated Muslim attempts to invade Europe through the Balkans, and of the eventual fall of Constantinople in 1453, and of Turkish crimes against the Greeks during the 18th and 19th centuries and the Armenian Genocide in the early 20th.

Then there are the great, providential battles and movements which halted, turned back and expelled the Muslim invaders from the West: Charles Martel (“the Hammer”) and his victory in the Battle of Tours (732), the “Reconquista” of Spain, the valiant self-sacrifice of Tsar-Martyr Lazar and the Serbs at the Battle of Kosovo (1389), and the famous defense of Europe against the Ottoman Muslims at the Gates of Vienna in 1683.

Yet today’s Europe seems completely moribund, ignoring both its own history as well as the history of Islamic expansion. 

It is as if Europa and her Sisters (England, America, Canada, Australia, etc.) suffer from a nightmarish sleep paralysis like helpless maidens of old, the Islamic incubus pinning her down and completely sapping her will and strength to resist. 

The British have all but surrendered already, turning a blind eye to Muslim rape gangs preying on thousands of British girls, trampling on freedom of speech by shutting down criticism of Islam, and advancing Sharia courts and Islamic finance systems. The realm which gave us the Magna Carta is behaving as if she may voluntarily raise the black flag of jihad over Buckingham Palace, a final token act of appeasement as the Islamic crocodile gnaws on England’s extremities.

The metaphor of the demonic Incubus (Islam) preying upon the paralyzed sleeper (Europa) is hardly a stretch, as this particular demon was believed to engage in sexual activity with its victim, trying to foster a hybrid human-demon child, and if unable to do that, then to bring about madness, demon possession, sickness and ultimately death to its host.

Does this not describe the horrific nightmare being played out in cities across Europe and England? Muslim immigration (the “Incubus”) literally “penetrates” Western societies (the “Sleeper-Victim”), creating hostile, alien enclaves which begin in embryonic form, but eventually give birth to hellish Shariah No-Go zones. By the time the somnambulant host begins to awaken, it has been driven nearly mad from its inner conflict between liberal freedoms and its weakened impulse to defend itself. A quick survey of the evil, supremacist behavior of Muslim populations in FranceSwedenDenmark, et al bear witness to this plague.

The great irony of this pathological societal inner conflict is that those enabling the destruction of Western civilization through advocating Muslim immigration and preferential treatment of Islam routinely demonize with the charge of “Islamophobia” those who see the dangers of Islam and dare to speak out against it. Those who willingly aid and abet the Incubus and gladly receive its demon seed accuse Christians and lovers of freedom of being demons. 

The United States now seems at least to be trying to rouse herself from her political atonia (symptomized by the Obama administration scrubbing all national security directives from any reference to Islam, which inspires 90% of all terrorist acts worldwide), yet under this administration cannot and will not confront the actual root cause of Muslim terrorism and jihad, which is embedded in Islam’s DNA through the Quran and the example of Muhammad. 

America’s problem thus seems to be less a case of paralysis, and more one of volition. For example, 4-star Admiral James Lyons, former Commander of the US Pacific Fleet, recently reported that the Muslim Brotherhood has “penetrated” (there’s that word again) all of Obama’s National Security agencies. And the President’s ‘Summit on Countering Violent Extremism’ actually includes as one of its partners the terrorist-and-ISIS-linked Islamic Society of Boston.

The Islamic State sees Europe’s paralysis and America’s moral and ideological disarray, hence its ever increasing boldness. And Muslims the world over see it too, hence reports that tens of thousands of Muslims from all around the globe, including from Western democracies, are streaming to the Levant to join the Islamic State, even as Muslim immigration into Western host societies continues to escalate.

Are we in the early stages of a long defeat, leading to the death of a once-great civilization? 

Unless paralyzed and catatonic Europa and her Sisters can shake off their sleep and throw off the Incubus pinning them down, the night looks long and the future dark indeed.

_______

Ralph Sidway is an Orthodox Christian researcher and writer, and author of Facing Islam: What the Ancient Church has to say about the Religion of Muhammad. He operates the Facing Islam blog.

ISLAM’S RAPE OF SWEDEN — ON THE GLAZOV GANG

ingrid-calqvist-dispatch-in

By Jamie Glazov, July 3, 2015:

On this week’s Glazov Gang, the show was joined by Ingrid  Carlqvist,  the Editor-in-Chief of Dispatch-International.com. She came on the show to discuss Islam’s Rape of Sweden, shining a frightening light on the Muslim terror that has maimed her country:

Also see: