A Month of Islam and Multiculturalism in Britain: August 2016

1885

Tanveer Ahmed (right), a Sunni Muslim, was sentenced to 27 years in prison for the murdering Asad Shah (left), who belonged to the Ahmadi branch of Islam. Ahmed confessed to killing Shah in Glasgow because he claimed Shah had “disrespected the Prophet Mohammed.”

Gatestone Institute, by Soeren Kern, September 19, 2016:

  • “To use the term ‘honor killing’ when describing the murder of a family member — overwhelmingly females — due to the perpetrators’ belief that they have brought ‘shame’ on a family normalizes murder for cultural reasons and sets it apart from other killings when there should be no distinction.” — Jane Collins, MEP, UK Independence Party.
  • Voter fraud has been deliberately overlooked in Muslim communities because of “political correctness,” according to Sir Eric Pickles, author of a government report on voter fraud.
  • “Not only should we raise the flag, but everybody in the Muslim community should have to pledge loyalty to Britain in schools. There is no conflict between being a Muslim and a Briton.” — Khalil Yousuf, spokesman for the Ahmadiyya Muslim community.
  • Only a tiny proportion — between five and ten percent — of the people whose asylum applications are denied are actually deported, according to a British asylum judge, quoted in the Daily Mail.
  • Police in Telford — dubbed the child sex capital of Britain — were accused of covering up allegations that hundreds of children in the town were sexually exploited by Pakistani sex gangs.

August 1. Nearly 900 Syrians in Britain were arrested in 2015 for crimes including rape and child abuse, police statistics revealed. The British government has pledged to resettle up to 20,000 Syrian refugees in the UK by the end of 2020. “The government seems not to have vetted those it has invited into the country,” said MEP Ray Finch. The disclosure came after Northumbria Police and the BBC were accused of covering up allegations that a gang of Syrians sexually assaulted two teenage girls in a park in Newcastle.

August 1. Male refugees settling in Britain must receive formal training on how to treat women, a senior Labour MP said. Thangam Debbonaire, chairman of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Refugees, called for a “refugee integration strategy” so that men “understand what is expected of them.” She said it could help prevent sexual harassment and issues “including genital mutilation.”

August 2. Jane Collins, MEP for the UK Independence Party (UKIP), launched a petition calling for the BBC to stop using the term “honor killing.” The petition says the term “cultural murder” should be used instead. It states:

“To use the term ‘honor killing’ when describing the murder of a family member — overwhelmingly females — due to the perpetrators’ belief that they have brought ‘shame’ on a family normalizes murder for cultural reasons and sets it apart from other killings when there should be no distinction.

“Murder is murder, whether it be for cultural excuses or others. The term ‘honor killing’ is a euphemism for a brutal murder based on cultural beliefs which have no place in Britain or anywhere else in the world.”

August 3. Zakaria Bulhan, a 19-year-old Norwegian man of Somali descent, stabbed to death an American woman in London’s Russell Square. He also wounded five others. Police dismissed terror as a possible motive for the attack, which they blamed on mental health problems. But HeatStreet, a news and opinion website, revealed that Bulhan had uploaded books advocating violent jihad on social media sites.

August 4. A public swimming pool in Luton announced gender-segregated sessions for “cultural reasons.” The move will give men exclusive access to the larger 50-meter pool, while women will have to use the smaller 20-meter pool. The gender-segregated sessions are named ‘Alhamdulillahswimming,’ an Arabic phrase which means “Praise be to Allah.” UKIP MEP Jane Collins said the decision to have segregated times for swimming was “a step backwards for community relations and gender equality.” She added:

“The leisure center said this is for cultural reasons and I think we all know that means for the Muslim community. This kind of behavior, pandering to one group, harms community relations and creates tension. Under English law we have equality between men and women. This is not the same in cultures that believe in Sharia Law.”

August 5. Egyptian members of the Muslim Brotherhood may be allowed to seek asylum in Britain, according to new guidance from the Home Office. The document states that high profile or politically active members

“may be able to show that they are at risk of persecution, including of being held in detention, where they may be at risk of ill-treatment, trial also without due process and disproportionate punishment…. In such cases, a grant of asylum will be appropriate.”

The new guidance contradicts previous government policy. In December 2015, then Prime Minister David Cameron said Britain would “refuse visas to members and associates of the Muslim Brotherhood who are on record as having made extremist comments.”

August 5. Stephen Bennett, a 39-year-old father of seven from Manchester, was sentenced to 180 hours of community service for posting “grossly offensive” anti-Muslim comments on Facebook. One of the offending comments: “Don’t come over to this country and treat it like your own. Britain first.” He was arrested under the Malicious Communications Act. The judge said Bennett, whose mother-in-law and sister-in-law are Muslims, was guilty of “running the risk of stirring up racial hatred.” He described it as “conduct capable of playing into the hands of the enemies of this country.”

August 6. British MPs face a six-year alcohol ban when the Palace of Westminster, which has dozens of bars and restaurants, undergoes a multi-billion-pound refurbishment beginning in 2020. They will move to an office building operating under Islamic Sharia law. Their new home, Richmond House, is one of three government buildings which switched ownership from British taxpayers to Middle Eastern investors in 2014 to finance a £200 million Islamic bond scheme — as part of an effort to make the UK a global hub for Islamic finance. Critics say the scheme effectively imposes Sharia law onto government premises.

August 8. Lisa Duffy, a candidate to succeed Nigel Farage as leader of the UK Independence Party (UKIP), called for a ban on Muslim women wearing a veil in public buildings, shopping centers and on buses and trains. She also demanded that Islamic faith schools be closed to combat radicalization, as well as a “complete and comprehensive ban” on Sharia courts in the UK. She said the veil is “a symbol of aggressive separatism that can only foster extremism” and claimed that it is often “forced on women by men who view them as their property.”

August 8. Stanley Johnson, a former Conservative MEP and Chairman of the European Parliament’s Intergroup Group on Animal Welfare, called for all halal meat offered for sale in the UK to be clearly labeled as such. He wrote:

“The halal market is worth £2.6 billion in Britain alone, and the export market is also growing particularly in the Middle East. Most of us eat halal meat unwittingly on a daily basis, since it is sold in most major outlets, including big brand-name supermarkets, without being labelled as such.”

August 9. Tanveer Ahmed, a 32-year-old taxi driver from Bradford, was sentenced to 27 years in prison for the “barbaric, premeditated” murder of a shopkeeper in Glasgow. Ahmed admitted to repeatedly stabbing Asad Shah to death outside his shop in March 2016 in a sectarian attack motivated by hatred of Shah’s religious views.

Ahmed, a Sunni Muslim, confessed to attacking Shah, who belonged to the Ahmadi branch of Islam, which believes Mohammed was not the final Muslim prophet. As he was led from the dock, Ahmed raised a clenched fist and shouted in Arabic: “Praise for the Prophet Mohammed, there is only one Prophet.” His cry was repeated by supporters in the public gallery.

Read more

Soeren Kern is a Senior Fellow at the New York-based Gatestone Institute. He is also Senior Fellow for European Politics at the Madrid-based Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos / Strategic Studies Group. Follow him on Facebook and on Twitter.

New show at The Rebel: Culture Wars with Tiffany Gabbay

unnamed (6)

Islam and terror: Smashing the “small minority of Muslims” MYTH

By Tiffany Gabbay, @Tiffany_Gabbay, April 19, 2016:

Tonight’s program will shatter the “small minority of Muslims” misconception peddled by the mainstream media, Hollywood and the Left in general.

Using hard facts and statistics, we show that the carnage the world has been experiencing at the hands of terrorists is VERY much about Islam, the religion, and that the number of radicals is not a “tiny minority,” as we’re told by the Ben Afflecks of the world.

Truth told, hundreds and hundreds of millions of Muslims, including many in the West, hold radical beliefs. Author Raheel Raza, a practicing Muslim, is honest and open about this on the show.

PLUS: We tackle the refugee issue with terrorism expert Andy McCarthy – Yes, Trump’s proposal to bar Muslims from entering the U.S. is constitutional

***

“Since 9/11, there have been 28,000 Islamic terror attacks” — each one followed by “meaningless renditions of John Lennon’s ‘Imagine’”

Integration Is Not the Answer to Muslim Terrorism

twins_for_fpm

Frontpage, by Daniel Greenfield, April 1, 2016:

There is a famous photo of Anjem Choudary, the head of multiple banned organizations calling for imposing Sharia law on the UK whose follower was responsible for the Lee Rigby beheading, getting drunk as a young law student. Friends recall “Andy” smoking pot and taking LSD, sleeping around and partying all the time. Andy was really well integrated, but he still turned back into Anjem.

While the proliferation of segregated Muslim areas, no-go zones in which English, French or Dutch is the foreign language, is a major problem, it is a mistake to think that “integration” solves Islamic terrorism.

It doesn’t.

The Tsarnaev brothers who carried out the Boston Marathon bombings seemed integrated. Nobody noticed anything wrong with Syed Rizwan Farook, the San Bernardino shooter, or Faisal Shahzad, the Times Square bomber. They weren’t lurking in a no-go zone. They had American friends, an education and career options if they wanted them. They didn’t want them. And that’s the point.

Bilal Abdullah was a British-born doctor who tried to carry out a terrorist attack at Glasgow International Airport. He wasn’t marginalized, jobless or desperate. He had a cause.

Quite a few converts have become Muslim terrorists. If integration were the issue, white converts to Islam wouldn’t be running off to join ISIS or plotting terrorist attacks like Don Stewart-Whyte, who converted to Islam and planned to blow up planes headed from the UK to the US. Along with his friend Oliver Savant, the son of a secular Iranian father and British mother, they are the reason why you can’t carry liquids onto a plane.

Muslim terrorism is not caused by failed integration, but by a conscious disintegration. What is often described as “radicalization” is really a choice by “integrated” Muslims to become religious and to act on their beliefs. Muslim men who formerly dressed casually begin growing beards and wearing Salafist garb. They consciously reject what Western society has to offer because they have chosen Islam instead.

Islamic terrorists have not been alienated by our rejection. They champion an alien creed that rejects us.

The debate over Islamic terrorism is bogged down by a refusal to name it and understand what it is. ISIS is not a form of “nihilism” that European Muslims resort to after being alienated by racism and driven to despair by joblessness. It’s an alternative system that draws on over a thousand years of Islamic religion and culture. It’s not a negative choice, but a positive one. It’s not an act of despair, but of hope.

Social, linguistic and cultural integration won’t stop Islamic terrorism. They may prevent it in some cases and accelerate it in others. But it’s not the primary factor. Religion is. Cultural integration won’t make much of a difference in the face of religious disintegration.

This is the type of integration that is the real problem. Some of the worst Jihadists are culturally integrated and religiously disintegrated. They speak the native language fluently. They are intimately familiar with popular culture. They move easily among the native population. It’s their belief system that is fundamentally disintegrated and whose demands cannot be integrated without a civil war.

Their choices are not a referendum on our society. What we do in response to their terrorism is.

The issue is not economic. It is not linguistic. It is not about alienation or racism. It is about religion. And Europe is not comfortable with religion. It assumes that the religious is political, but in Islam, the political is instead religious. Europe has given no thought to how Islam can be integrated as a religion. Instead it has relied on the assumption that all religions are basically alike and that the aims and ideas of Islam are therefore interchangeable with those of Catholics, Lutherans, Jews and anyone else.

Every Islamic terrorist attack sends the message that its ideas and aims are not interchangeable.

Europe does face challenges of cultural integration. But cultural disintegration isn’t blowing up airports or subways. Religious disintegration is. Cultural disintegration accounts for crime, riots and unemployment. It occasionally feeds into Islamic terrorism, but ideological violence is aspirational. It’s generally practiced by members of the middle class with money, leisure time and lots of self-esteem.

Like left-wing terror, Islamic terrorism is based on realizing a set of ideas about what the world should be like. These ideas are already embedded in the worldview of every Muslim to some degree. This is not a clash of civilizations or even cultures. It is a collision between the political and the religious.

The EU’s Federica Mogherini states, “Islam belongs in Europe…. I am not afraid to say that political Islam should be part of the picture.” Mogherini thinks of political Islam as a social welfare organization with a steeple, like the rest of the political religions of Europe. But political Islam is theocracy. And Europe was never able to integrate theocracy. Instead it overshadowed it with nationalism and then Socialism.

Secular Europe has forgotten what religion is. Religion is passion, conviction and redemption. It is not something that you occasionally live on the weekends. It transforms your life and your worldview.

How do you integrate that? Do you do it with language lessons, job training and a pat on the back?

Islamic terrorism is what happens when Muslims “get” religion. Not of the occasional casual variety, but of the fundamentally transformative kind. Integration assumes that once Mohammed is at university and drinking beer that he won’t suddenly decide to Jihad his way across Europe. But there are plenty of examples that show what a poor and fitful defense this is against the rebirth of a religious conviction.

Cultural integration is an issue, but the real issue is philosophical integration. The real challenge is not in linguistic integration, but in the integration of ideas. And it is impossible to do that without addressing what Islam actually is and what it believes. Islam is not Lutheranism with more Arabic. Political Islam is not a soup kitchen and a used clothes bin. It is a conviction that the world is locked in a titanic struggle between Islam and the infidels, the forces of light and darkness, which must be won at any cost.

How do you integrate an ideology that is convinced that non-Muslim political systems are evil into Europe? What explanatory videos will you use to admonish Ahmed from Syria that he shouldn’t set off bombs at the railway station even though his religion commands him to fight the infidels? Which job will you use to induce Abdul to abandon his fervent belief that everyone must live under Islamic law?

Sanctimony and denial won’t untangle this Gordian knot. No amount of NGOs will turn Islam into something else. Cultural integration won’t transform Muslims into non-Muslims. All it does is make them conflicted and insecure. And that is why it is those second-generation culturally integrated Muslims who go to bars, call themselves Andy or Mo, sell drugs, go to university, who take a detour into Syria and come back with bomb plans and big plans for transforming Europe into an Islamic state.

Cultural integration builds up a conflict with Islam. Some Muslims respond to it by abandoning Islam, others by embracing it. If we fail to recognize this, then integration becomes a ticking time bomb.

A Dozen Bad Ideas for the 21st Century

bad-ideas

Written in 2011, timeless wisdom from Mark Durie:

By Mark Durie, Feb. 10, 2011:

Here is a list of false beliefs and modes of thought which make it hard for people in the West to come to terms with the challenge of Islam today.  If you are deeply attached to any of these ideas or ways of thinking, you will have difficulty accepting the truth about Islam’s teachings and their impact.

  1. The belief that all religions are the same. They are not.  Different faiths make different claims about what is true, and about what is right and wrong and produce radically different societies.  The same is true for different political ideologies: consider the different trajectories of North and South Korea.  Atheists have helped entrench this belief, because to acknowledge material differences between religions would undermine the atheist (and radical secularist) narrative.
  2. The belief that religion is irrelevant as a cause of anything.  According to this view, religion can be exploited or hijacked as an excuse or an instrument (e.g. of oppression – such as an ‘opiate of the masses’), but not an underlying cause of anything.  Marxist ideology has made a significant contribution to establishing this belief. In accordance with this assumption, security analysts all over the Western world presuppose that religion cannot be the cause of terrorism: so they and the politicians they advise must say that terrorists have ‘hijacked’ religion.
  3. The belief that we all worship the same God. We do not. Thousands of different gods are worshipped by people on this earth.  These gods manifest different characteristics, and make different demands.  The worship of them forms very different kinds of people and communities.
  4. The belief that one can justify anything from any sacred text. This is not true.  It is a postmodern fallacy that all meaning is in the eye of the beholder.  Certain texts lends themselves to supporting particular beliefs and practices much more than others.
  5. The belief that the Christian Reformation was a progressive movement. This is not true.  In fact the Christian Reformers aimed to go back to the example and teaching of Christ and the apostles.  Throughout the  whole medieval period reformatioalways meant renewing the foundations by going back to one’s origins.   Understanding ‘reformation’ in this way, Al Qa’ida is a product of an Islamic reformation, i.e. it is an attempt to go back to the example and teaching of Muhammad.
  6. The belief that dispelling ignorance will increase positive regard for the other. This was the message of Harper Lee’s powerfull novel To Kill a Mockingbird(pub. 1960). Although it is true that racial hatred can feed on and exploit ignorance, accurately dispelling ignorance sometimes rightly increases the likelihood of rejecting the beliefs or practices of another. It is illogical to assume that those opposed to a belief are the ones who are most ignorant about it.  Ignorance can breed positive regard for what is wrong just as easily as it can breed prejudice against what is good.
  7. The belief that everyone is good and decent, and if you just make a sincere effort to get to know another person, you will always come to respect them.This is not universally true.  Holding this view is a luxury.  Those who have experienced life under evil governments or in dysfunctional societies are shocked at the naivety of this assumption.
  8. The belief that putting something in context will always produce a more innocuous interpretation.This is not true.  Attending properly to context can make a text even more offensive than it would otherwise have been.  Conversely, if you take something out of context you may regard it more positively than you ought to.  In reality, radical interpretations of the Qur’an, such as are used to support terrorism, almost always involve an appeal to a rich understanding of the context in which the Qur’an was revealed, including the life of Muhammad.  On the other hand, many have taken peaceful verses of the Qur’an out of context, in order to prove that Islam is a peaceful religion.
  9. The belief that extremism is the problem, and moderation the solution. Warnings against taking things to extremes are as old as Aristotle.  More recently the idea was promoted by Eric Hoffer, in The True Believer(pub. 1951) that mass movements are interchangeable, and an extremist is just as likely to become a communist or a fascist.  He claimed that it was the tendency to extremism itself which is the problem.  This idea has become very unhelpful and generates a lot of confusion. ‘Moderation’ or ‘laxity’ in belief or practice can be destructive and even dangerous, e.g. in medical surgery or when piloting a plane.  Ideas that are good and true deserve strong, committed support, and the best response to bad ideas is rarely lukewarm moderation.
  10. The belief that the West is always guilty. This irrational and unhelpful idea is taught in many schools today and has become embedded in the world views of many.  It is essentially a silencing strategy, sabotaging critical thinking.
  11. Two wrongs make a right reasoning.E.g. Someone says that jihad is a bad part of Islam, to which a defender of Islam says ‘What about the crusades?’  Someone says the Qur’an incites violence, to which someone else replies ‘But there are violent verses in the Bible.’  This kind of reasoning is a logical fallacy. A specific sub-type of this fallacy is tu quoque reasoning:

    Tu quoque (‘you too’) reasoning: you can’t challenge someone else’s beliefs or actions if you (or your group) have personally ever done anything wrong or have objectionable characteristics. E.g. A Catholic says jihad is bad, but someone counters that popes supported the Crusades. This is a sub-type of the ‘two wrongs make a right’ reasoning: it too is a logical fallacy.

  12. Belief in progress: everything will always get better in the end. This is a false, though seductive bit of wishful thinking.  Bad ideas have bad consequences.  Good societies can easily become bad ones if they exchange good ideas for bad ones.  Bad situations can last for a very long time, and keep getting progressively worse.  Many countries have deteriorated for extended periods during the past 100 years.  It is not true that ideologies or religions will inevitably improve or become more ‘moderate’ as time passes, as if by some magical process of temporal transformation.  But things are not always going to get better.

The West won’t even defend its own values. How can it be expected to defeat Isis?

BELGIUM-ATTACKS-TRIBUTEThe Spectator, by Brendan O’Neill, March 23, 2016:

Here’s a sobering fact for you: yesterday in Brussels, Isis sympathisers killed five times as many civilians in one hour as British airstrikes have killed or injured Isis fighters in Syria since December. At the last count, in late February, British airstrikes over Syria had killed or hurt just seven Isis fighters in three months. Seven. Not even 10; seven. In Brussels, a small gang of Isis fanboys killed 35 civilians.

British airstrikes in Syria were launched to great fanfare in the aftermath of the terror attacks in Paris in November. Hillary Benn was widely hailed for his Commons speech in which he said, ‘What we know about fascists is that they need to be defeated.’ Much of the media went into Churchillian mode. There was a feeling that, like our grandfathers 70-odd years ago, we were off to fight fascism.

The reality has been rather different. It took four weeks for British airstrikes to kill a single member of Isis. Many of the strikes were done with drones, leading one military aviation expert to brand Britain’s intervention a ‘non-event’. And then in February it was confirmed that, so far, only four British strikes have hit Isis fighters, causing seven deaths or injuries. Churchillian? Dad’s Army, more like.

Of course there are good reasons why Isis bombers in Brussels killed more people in one hour than the RAF have killed Isis fighters in Syria. Those terrorists are all about killing. That’s their aim: to slaughter as many as they can with their primitive bombs and to create a media spectacle of bloodied Westerners. The RAF, on the other hand, must take care to avoid civilian casualties, and is as interested in weakening Isis by attacking its infrastructure as it is in killing Isis fighters.

And yet there’s no doubting the chasm that now exists between our leaders’ rhetoric about Isis and the action they’re willing to take against it. They describe Isis as a colossal, existential threat to Western values, yet they send no men, no ground troops, to wage war against it. Just the occasional manned flight or some flying robots.

Listening to our leaders’ heated talk about fighting fascists and watching their less-than-heated action in Syria, we’re left with this stickler: either they don’t believe their own rhetoric about Isis being a grave moral threat and thus are quite chilled out about attacking it, or they do believe it but lack the bottle, the moral resolve, to fight Isis for real. I think it’s the latter.

This is the defining feature of the Isis era: the West has the military might to fight Isis, but not the moral conviction. It has the machinery, the men, but it lacks the thing every warrior needs: a deep belief in what he’s fighting for, in this case the idea that our enlightenment values, our free, open societies, are superior to their backward way of life. We in the West agree that we hate Isis, but we don’t agree that the Western way of life is something worth defending, or even something we should be especially favourable about anymore.

We see this severe self-doubt after every attack. After Paris, with the suggestion that the French brought the terror on themselves with their militarism overseas, followed by handwringing over all those people waving the French tricolour or singing the French national anthem, which a Guardian hack described as horrible and racist and ‘not a million miles from the Isis anthem’. After Belgium, too, with talk about how Europe’s mistreatment of Muslims might be provoking these attacks, and already some rumblings about the people offering solidarity by putting pictures of Tintin on their social-media pages — don’t they know Tintin is ‘racist’ and ‘uncomfortably divisive’?

Too often, the message is that the West is rotten, racist; that we invite terrorism, maybe even deserve it, with our thoughtless foreign policy or racist traditions. The post-9/11 cry of ‘Why do they hate us?’ has given way to a new self-loathing mantra: ‘Of course they hate us — we’re bastards.’

The refusal to big-up Western values has been institutionalised in the idea of Islamophobia, which is not just about protecting Muslims from assault or discrimination — a noble thing to do — but is about policing any expression of belief in the superiority of Western or enlightened values. In the words of the Runnymede Trust, which shaped the definition of Islamophobia, any suggestion that the Islamic way of life is ‘inferior to the West’ is an expression of prejudice, and everyone should be taught that the Islamic outlook is ‘as equally worthy of respect [as Western values]’. Laws and codes against Islamophobia represent the institutionalisation of relativism, the suppression of loud and proud defences of the virtues of Western life and thought.

And then we think we can take the fight to Isis? No, sorry: you can’t defend Western ideals overseas if you’re demeaning them at home in public, cultural and academic debate. Bravery is a function of belief; we take risks when we’re fighting for something we truly care for. The reason the West seems incapable of launching any kind of serious, boots-driven war on Isis is because it doesn’t truly care for itself or its values anymore.

In the Aftermath of Brussels, There Is a Mistake We Shouldn’t Make

MaalbeekNational Review, By David French, March 22, 2016:

It’s happened. Again. Another significant terror attack in another great European city. London, Madrid, Paris, and now Brussels. It should go without saying that this is exactly what happens when nations open their borders to Islamic radicals and then allow the spirit of jihad to flourish within their cities. It should go without saying that these radicals cannot be “won over” even by the best of intentions, the most politically correct policies, or the most fervent desires for multiculturalism. Europe tries to “win over” Islamists. Islamists merely try to win.

We’ve known these normal rules of terrorism for years — even if we don’t want to face them. Large Islamic communities can and will shelter jihadists, protecting them with their silence even if they don’t actively facilitate their attacks. Terrorist safe havens that used to exist mainly in the Middle East, North Africa, and Afghanistan/Pakistan now exist in the heart of Europe. Jihadists laugh at Western squeamishness (Belgian law actually prohibits nighttime police raids — a policy terrorists have exploited before) and use our sensitivities to facilitate mass murder.

But here’s what we often don’t know. Here’s the mistake we always make after a major terror attack — we believe this is what jihad looks like, and that stopping jihad means stopping violence. But the reality is that terrorist bombings represent merely an aspect of jihad — the most spectacular and bloody, to be sure — but only a part of the sinister whole.

In the aftermath of 9/11, Americans were treated to a parade of “experts” who assured a worried public that jihadists were perverting the meaning of the term, that the term really and truly only referred to a peaceful, internal struggle — the quest for goodness and holiness. We’ve learned to laugh at this nonsense, but in so doing I fear that we’ve wrongly narrowed the term. To us, jihad is a bomb. It’s a beheading.

No, jihad is an eternal, all-encompassing unholy war against the unbeliever. It is waged in the mind of the believer, to fortify his or her own courage and faith. It is waged online and in the pages of books and magazines, to simultaneously cultivate the hatred and contempt of the committed for the kafir — the unbeliever — while also currying favor, appeasement, and advantage from the gullible West. Jihad is the teaching in the mosque. It is the prayer in the morning, the social-media post in the afternoon, and the donation to an Islamic “charity” in the evening.

There is jihad in predatory, coordinated sexual assault, there is jihad when Western camera crews are chased from Muslim neighborhoods, and there is jihad when Muslim apologists invariably crawl from the sewers of Western intelligentsia, blaming Europeans for the imperfections in their life-saving hospitality.

So don’t make the mistake of believing that Europe or America only “periodically” or “rarely” deal with jihad. We confront it every day, just as the world has confronted it — to greater or lesser degrees — ever since Muslim armies first emerged from the Arabian peninsula. While not all Muslims are jihadists, jihad is so deeply imprinted in the DNA of Islam that the world will confront it as long as Islam lives.

And so combatting jihad isn’t simply a matter of firepower — though that is certainly vital to the work — nor is it a matter of perfecting intelligence and police tactics. It’s the spiritual and intellectual effort of generations. And while the West currently enjoys unmatched military superiority, its mind and spirit aren’t just grotesquely decayed, they’ve been intentionally vandalized. Unless we can reverse that decline — and rediscover the eternal truths that defined our civilization — our guns, bombs, and magnificently-trained troops will merely constitute the rear guard, the force that delays the inevitable.

Until Europe can rediscover its heart — the courage and faith that turned back the ancient Caliphs — then the bombs will stop only when the jihadists have won.

— David French is an attorney and a staff writer at National Review.

New Refugee Deal Goes Into Force in Europe

Migrants from Pakistan wait to enter Moria camp for migrants and refugees on the Greek island of Lesbos on March 21, 2016. PHOTO: STR/AFP/GETTY IMAGES

Migrants from Pakistan wait to enter Moria camp for migrants and refugees on the Greek island of Lesbos on March 21, 2016.
PHOTO: STR/AFP/GETTY IMAGES

By CounterJihad, March 21, 2016:

A new deal between Turkey and the European Union aims to limit the refugee flood pointed at Europe.  Refugees who do not apply for asylum, or whose requests are denied, will be returned to Turkey.  However, the European Union has promised to accept an equal number of refugees as those it deports to Turkey from Greece.  The deal also promises to make travel easier for Turkish nationals into Europe, and some financial payouts.

The number of refugees, principally from the civil war in Syria, has reached levels not seen since the Second World War.  The flood shows no sign of slowing.  Understanding that they will be dealing with refugees for some time to come, people across the Western world have been debating what to do.  In spite the short-term deal, there is no indication that a consensus is forming on the long term problem.

One argument stands on the fact that it is vastly more expensive to care for refugees the further West they travel.  Estimates are that it costs ten times as much to care for a refugee within Europe proper than it does in states bordering Syria, where the cost of living is much cheaper.  A similar figure applies to refugees brought to America, a fact being discussed by the legislature in South Carolina:

Kevin Bryant, a Republican from Anderson, S.C., noted that the Palmetto State has welcomed almost 850 refugees from all over the world since 2010.  “Why should we bring one refugee here when we could spend the same money and help 10 in their part of the world?” Bryant told the Associated Press.

Others, especially in Canada, believe that refugees have a right to be resettled at any cost.  Indeed, the government is planning to use taxpayer money to build mosques across the country for the use of refugees.  The money would be taken out of the Defence Department’s budget, thus cutting military spending in favor of resettling refugees in Canada.

Critics in Europe say that costs are not limited to money alone.  They point to the chaos that the refugee crisis has brought.  Sweden has 53 “no-go” areas controlled by Muslims where police are not permitted to enter, according to a report by Danish journalist Jeppe Juhl.

Muslim leaders have rejected these kinds of arguments.  In America, the Council on American-Islamic Relations’ national spokesman said that such concerns are, if “not illegal,” at least “un-American.”  CAIR was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in a terrorist financing trial, but remains deeply involved in America’s debates over government policy toward Muslims.

In Europe, the Central Council of Muslims in Germany claims that the chaos caused by migrants proves that Islam is not a problem.  “The Muslim faith is irrelevant to these drunken men who do such disgraceful things,” according to the council’s leader.  Thus, though the men are Muslims, their failures are individual rather than a function of their faith.  But this does not explain the no-go zones that crop up in Islamic areas across Europe.

While the debate continues, refugees live in filth and squalor in many makeshift camps.  This is especially true for women and the children abandoned with them.  Reckless smugglers have flourished in the face of government disagreement.

***

Islamic Refugees Riot Because Woman Refuses Hijab

refugee riotCounter Jihad, Feb. 26, 2016:

A riot between Iraqi, Afghan and Syrian refugees was sparked when a female migrant from Syria refused to wear a headscarf as required by the Islamist readings of sharia law.  The mass violence led to nearly a dozen arrests as camp furniture was turned into makeshift weapons by the sudden mobs.

The Daily Mail (UK) reports:

Footage of the fight at the migrant centre showed members of the two groups using everyday items against one another during the riot.  Theo Francken, secretary of State for asylum and migration, said: ‘I find it totally unacceptable that some young Afghans find it necessary to tell them to wear a headscarf and that they should not dress against western Syrian girls.  They come here, they are guests here. We are not with them. They have to adapt to our rules.’

Unfortunately, the violence highlights the risk of refugees from the Middle East as a vector for hardline Islamist attitudes and interpretations of sharia law.  Nor are the attacks likely to end with fellow refugees from Muslim-majority nations.  Though establishing control and enforcing sharia on that community is certainly the goal of radical factions, they are unlikely to be satisfied with that.  Such control over a sharia-compliant community can be used as a base from which to expand efforts to require submission from the rest of the population.

These attacks on the freedom of women do not require any formal infrastructure.  Attitudes towards women in the host nations, especially Afghanistan and the tribal or Shi’a Islamic regions of Iraq and Syria, are sufficient to provoke violence against women who do not submit to their norms.  This was most obviously seen during the recent attacks in Cologne, and indeed across Germany, against hundreds of women engaged in ordinary Christmas celebrations.

Though recent arrivals in the West, these attackers are somehow conscious of the protections extended to them by political correctness.  It is as if they have somehow been briefed on the limits police will face in trying to restrain Muslims:

The Muslim men used a tactic… well known to those of us who’ve followed the scant reports on the rape jihad as it has proceeded from Tahrir Square to Malmö to Rotherham: A group of men encircles the targeted woman or girl, trapping her while walling off police and other would-be rescuers. Knowing they are a protected class, the Muslim men have no fear of the cops — “You can’t do anything to me,” and “Mrs. Merkel invited me here,” are just some of the reported taunts. By the time “help” reaches one victim, the assailants have moved on to the next.

The question must be asked: has the fame of the Western fear of offending Islam flown so far, or are they in fact being briefed by someone? If the latter, who is telling them that they can prey on Western women and stand up to our police without fear?

Our governments must be made to understand we insist on police who will not back down to these assaults. The handcuffs should be on those raping and assaulting women, not on the police.

Germany’s “Rapefugee” Crisis

ll (1)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also see:

Dominance and Submission in Cologne and the Persian Gulf

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

Crisis Magazine, by William Kilpatrick, Jan.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also see:

Jihad: “All the Fault of the West!”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RELATED: After Paris, Obama Refuses to Lead

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RELATED: Obama’s Increasingly Surreal War on ISIS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MEMRI, by A. Agron, Nov. 12, 2015:

Introduction

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

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

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

Read more

***

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He says beggars “here in Syria are fraudsters.”

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

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

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

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

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

***

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

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

ISIS beheads eight of its own militants on charges of treason

H/T Weasel Zippers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reporting by: Jan Nasro

Source: ARA News

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Boy from Idlib. (Photo by Medyan Dairieh)

Boy from Idlib. (Photo by Medyan Dairieh)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read more

***

Also see:

With Open Gates: The forced collective suicide of European nations

Getty Images

Getty Images

The Final Solution to the European Problem

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

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

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

***

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