Thursday, 14 December 2017

US: America's First Lady

Like most people in 2015 hearing news of the islamist attack on an exhibition in Garland Texas, which featured artwork depicting muhamed through the years, my reaction was one of incredulity, coming only four months after the Charlie Hebdo shooting where a dozen journalists and cartoonists were killed, the 'Draw Muhammed' competition seemed a reckless and unnecessary provocation.

I was soon to learn that this was indeed a deliberate 'provocation', but in the sense that Rosa Parks had been provocative on her infamous bus ride in Montgomery Alabama, or the way that the Boston Tea Party had also been a deliberate and dangerous provocation.

During the following news cycle, three names appeared and reappeared with increasing levels of disdain, first among them was Pamela Geller; as activist and organizer in chief, she joined Robert Spencer and Geert Wilders to personify what we in the West are doing to thoroughly 'deserve' the murderous enrichment that islam bestows upon us.

Shortly after that I decided to research islam for myself, and looking back now I can see how clearly racist we are in the West. By assuming their religion is inherently peaceful, we are also assuming that it is only 'cultural' or 'ethnic' differences that make so many Muslims violent and cruel - we find it far too easy to blame the people, rather than the ideology.

After many years living in blissful ignorance, finding the truth about islam and mohamed was surprisingly simple. In the days when Google was still a trusted and impartial arbiter, a few quick searches brought the whole sorry story to light: rape, murder, robbery, slavery, deceit, torture, narcissism, pedophilia and even rumors of necrophilia - it's all there, the perfect example for ISIS and their ilk.

Needless to say, my view of the Garland Three changed significantly, and now I can readily empathize with Spencer and Wilders, but Pamela Geller and her strident Zionism remains an enigma, so I was pleased to pre-order a copy of her latest book, Fatwa: Hunted in America.

The first thing to note is that this book is not about Pamela in any trivial or personal sense. It is primarily about her fight to keep the freedoms that we all take as granted, to use her own words, she says more than once: "This is not about me", but that's a shame because I, and probably many others, would like to know a little more about 'The most dangerous woman in America'. There is some insight to her early life but it seems her mission takes precedence and she almost forgets herself. A picture does emerge over the following chapters, but this book is primarily about her struggle (jihad against Jihad?) and the vicious hostility of those she is fighting for, as much as from those whom she is fighting against.

There are lots of facts and dates, and if my preamble was news to you, then this book should serve as a concise introduction to one of the greatest threats to your current way of life. If you already know the challenges we face, then her book is an interesting compendium and reference.

It was fitting for me, that on the day I finished reading, President Trump officially recognized Jerusalem as the Capital of Israel, another provocative action to be sure, and one that I know will have pleased Pamela.


Monday, 27 November 2017

Saudi: A new king on the block

Saudi Arabia is now moving toward a form of 'moderate' islam. So says their new leader and who could not rejoice at such news, if it were true.

But moving towards a moderate islam confirms that there is also an immoderate islam, and also to admit that the Saudis have previously been followers of that radical ideology. Nothing new here, but I guess an admission of truth is better than continued denial.

The problem is that page one of the International Liars Manual, states that a half truth is always more convincing than a complete lie, so what are we to make of these latest claims?

A skeptic (count me in), would point to the failure of Saudi aggression in Yemen, including their support for Al Qaeda and miserable results of their arming, aiding and financing terrorism in Syria, Iraq and almost everywhere that islamic terrorism exists. Could these disasters have something to do with the new apparent humanity of the Saudi leadership?

That Russia and Iran have emerged stronger from this Saudi destructiveness might also have something to do with the Arabian change of direction, and although we may need to wait a while longer for proof, we should not allow optimism to overrule caution, because the Saudis have a word for telling non-Muslims what they want to hear about the moderateness of their religion.

The American public, especially under Trump, are unlikely to give Saudi Arabia the sort of support they demand, while they continue with their murderous, misogynistic and dehumanizing ways, so is this the real motivation for embracing such wonderful freedoms as letting women drive?

As with the abolition of slavery in 1962 when US pressure forced an earlier flirtation with moderation, we should not underestimate the political agility of Saudi rulers, nor should we assume that one minuscule movement towards humane behaviour indicates anything more than a single, small step in the right direction.






Monday, 13 November 2017

US: Speaking against hate

For anyone concerned with combating Jihad terrorism, there are some interesting developments in USA.

I write now about the actual fight for hearts and minds of the good people on this planet who oppose wanton murder, enslavement and oppression, and not the mendacious platitudes of the 'War on Terror' espoused by presidents Bush and Obama.

Why this war of ideas is being fought here in the West, and not in those countries that fund and support the war against us, is still quite mysterious. And make no mistake, despite Bush's bluster, this is a war that was declared against us long before 9/11 and the resulting military adventures.

One of the leading figures in this, the real war on terror, is Robert Spencer, author and Director of Jihad Watch, and he combines those efforts with speaking engagements around the world, where he tries to educate and inform those who will listen, about the dangers we all face.

On 14th November he is scheduled to address the College Republicans at Stanford University where one might assume he will be met by young and inquiring minds, all of whom have a vested interest in finding out about the growing threat to what is, after all, their very own future. But the event has been met with stout resistance, such that it appears opposing Islamic terrorism, is itself a crime.

Given the high repute of Stanford, we could still hope for some coherent and well reasoned objections rather than the usual personal insults that trying to save humanity usually engenders, and one piece that caught my eye, was from a young Jewish student who equated counter terrorism with antisemitism; an interesting juxtaposition, but she had reasons which deserve looking into.

She cites a seminar where they discuss the notion that 'hatred accumulates', saying that:-

"Nazism was only a thinkable outcome because hateful ideologies," ...[I'm excluding a small reference here which is probably libelous]... "gained widespread acceptance and intensity throughout the history of the Western world."

While this is a viable conclusion - that small hatreds become reinforced and grow over time - she appears to take another step, and suggest that hatred for one group or race, can quickly turn against another, and again, this is a valid conclusion but it supposes that the person or group committing this nastiness was already looking for something to hate, so that for them, today's Muslim is simply tomorrow's Jew:-

"Any platform for Islamophobia is well-equipped to double as a platform for anti-Semitism."

Unfortunately, the title of Spencer's latest book 'Confessions of an Islamophobe' does give some leeway for her to use the islamophobic smear, even if the book's purpose is to dissect and debunk the term, but hey, that's showbiz.

In any case, her use of that term here is merely to signify Muslim hatred; but when did opposition to (or even hatred of) Jihad terror, become hatred of Muslims, or is she saying that all Muslims are engaged in, or support, Jihad terror?

The other problem with her theory is this:-

If it's OK to hate people who one perceives as themselves being hateful, doesn't that mean one has started down the slippery slope of 'hatred accumulation', and that same one is subsequently just waiting to have their hatred re-directed towards some poor and unsuspecting innocent?

In truth, as a regular reader and commenter on Jihad Watch, I can testify that Robert Spencer is probably the least hateful person I have encountered online, and given the horrendous subject matter that he deals with on a daily basis, that is little short of astounding.





Tuesday, 7 November 2017

Russia: 100 years later

The October Revolution happened in November, and followed the February Revolution...confused?

Well don't worry, because what really matters is that an ideological and popular uprising soon turned to bloody barbarism, and that always seems to be the pattern.

From the French Revolution's Reign of Terror, to the Arab Spring's shift into Winter, euphoria turns to dread, as the vacuum caused when existing political and legal structures fail, is quickly filled by those who were kept in check by those very same forces of law and order.

What does this mean to the West today?

Since the fall of the Soviet Union, which was seeded in those dark days of 1917, we may feel confident that we can withstand any ideological threat, either from the far Left or from the near East, but it may not be the ideology that we should fear, because the real threat comes, not from violent ideologies, but from the void left by the accompanying collapse of Law and Order.

So, when crimes go unpunished while reporting criminality is itself a crime, revolution is probably already upon us.

Thursday, 2 November 2017

US: A day to remember

Halloween 2017, eight people murdered and 11 injured by an islamic terrorist proving what diversity can mean for the unwary.

Legend has it, that on the same day, 500 years earlier, Martin Luther published his thesis on the ails and ills of the Roman Catholic Church. His work was soon reprinted and distributed to begin what we now call the Protestant Reformation.

Whatever we think of the effects of that publication and the subsequent upheaval it initiated, there is no dispute that the words and ideas expressed resulted in a seismic shift in Christian thinking and history.

Back to the Manhattan murderer:-

He departs his killing machine, brandishing 'weapons' designed, not to kill more people, but to provoke his demise by a policeman's bullet, and entry to whatever his religion calls an afterlife; so convinced is he of martyrdom, that he shouts aloud that his god is greater [than that of those he has just slain] and waits to be shot dead. This doesn't happen, but his commitment to jihad remains.

And what does his community say? Are they appalled and dismayed by his actions, or are they committed to preserving their treasured status of victimhood?

So a question arises. Why does such a heinous crime, in the name of a 'religion of peace', not produce an outcry from his coreligionists?

If one document could so fundamentally change Christianity, how can so many acts of barbarism (more than 30,000 since 9/11), not change islam? And think about 9/11, almost 3000 killed and over 6000 injured, just a few blocks from this latest attack. Where was islam's introspection and debate following that earlier rendition of allahu akbar?

Surely, no true Religion of Peace could possibly continue unashamed and unabashed in the face of such brutality, without at least examining the possibility that so many koranic verses extolling the virtues of murder and mutilation might be having an effect on it's followers?

It might be a 1400 year old question, but it still requires asking: when will islam have it's own reformation?

Or to put it another way, just how bad does this have to get?


Monday, 4 September 2017

Myanmar: A lesson for EU and US

As another IS inspired insurgency begets blood and destruction, the West appears incapable of recognizing, much less, understanding the threat of islamist expansionism.

The Saudi funded Salafist ideology that stretches out from Mecca, through the Balkans to the Caucasus,  down into Africa,  and east through Afghanistan to India and Kashmir, and on to the Philippines and China, is unrelenting and cruel. Anywhere, it seems that fundamentalist islam goes, war will soon follow.

When muslim populations grow, so inevitably the number of extremists increases, so too does the expansionist orthodoxy of Wahhabism, which provides the financial incentive and scriptural justification for murder and mayhem.

As with all the above conflicts, there are histories and versions of history, which each side will cite to validate their own position. There will also be crack-downs by governments and atrocities by combatants, both regular and guerrilla, and the media will take a side, based not on facts, but on who is paying the most and lobbying the hardest.

The issue for the West, though, is not who is at fault, but where will these conflicts affect next?

Terrorism is not a new phenomenon in the West, but never before has it claimed 'divine' sanction, and never have it's potential perpetrators been allowed to enter their avowed target populations in such unmanageable numbers.

Then what happens when our own muslim populations are so large, that the much vaunted minority of extremists, reaches sufficient numbers to threaten our stability and social cohesion?

Many on the Right will say that we have already reached this tipping point and that Sweden, France, Belgium etc are all the evidence we need to start defensive preparations in advance of the upcoming conflict; but the Left say that there's nothing wrong, and that we should welcome many thousands, or even millions, more muslims into Europe and America.

While the one viewpoint may be paranoid, the other is surely delusional.

And delusional is an apt word to describe, not just the German chancellor, but also the people who are threatening to vote her back into office.



Wednesday, 23 August 2017

EU: A post from afar.

Sitting here, in comfort and shade, half-way round the world and in another hemisphere, Europe looks quite different, yet uncomfortably familiar.

Spain has suffered an almost catastrophic attack, which nonetheless left many dead and many more injured.

Nothing to do with islam, of course, and that platitude continues to gather corpses.

The reaction among the people here is one of amazement that NATO countries can have so little control of their borders and societies.

The problem is seen very much as a security issue with little understanding of the problems we face.

A largely Christian continent like South America, cannot understand, how an erstwhile civilised and moral group of countries, could so quickly descend into social dysfunction.

But they do not live in Europe.

They do not live with the reality of a rampant fifth column of terrorist enablers and sympathisers, colluded and abetted by a fearful and corrupt establishment.

In this land, where using traffic indicators is considered the action of a wussy, and wearing a crash helmet, a sign of the oppressed, can have no concept of the dread of being called a racist or islamophobe.

For nations uncowed by political correctness, the issue is simple: Our people are dying, and we are doing nothing about it.

But there are many miles between us, and these incidents are seen as growing, but uncoordinated, much as our press would have us believe; the news blackout, it appears, is global, and in one respect, that is not such a bad thing.

For if they knew or asked about the rape gangs and sharia courts, there is nothing that I could begin to say in explanation, save to fall back on that old and trusted response to awkward questions:

Me no speakie da lingo.