Monday, 13 November 2017
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
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
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
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
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.
Tuesday, 25 July 2017
But it was not easy, and some of those intrepid fighters for all our futures, paid the ultimate price for their conviction.
Today, another renegade ship is sailing into controversy as the C-Star sails towards the Libyan coast in an attempt to end the terrible plight of refugees and migrants who are being ferried into Europe in their thousands. Those who do not perish on the journey, live mainly to regret ever setting out in the first place.
The Defend Europe project is straightforward:-
"Our goal is to document the doings of the NGOs, expose their collaboration with the human smugglers, and intervene if they do something illegal."
Simple enough, yet the media have already denounced the mission as racist, far-right extremism, and pounced on the first mainstream journalist who has attempted to meet with the crew. This is strange behaviour, because Katie Hopkins may not be everyone's favorite, but she is a known quantity and we should get an honest impression of what is actually happening.
When even Mama Merkel admits the folly of her failed policies towards unsustainable immigration, are we not entitled to know more about this voluntary attempt to uncover the real perpetrators of the human misery that continues, showing no signs of abating?
As we see here at section 30 the laws on rescue at sea are extremely vague, particularly where migrants or those claiming asylum are concerned.
"Since the “next port of call” with reference to the disembarkation of rescued persons is nowhere clearly defined, there are a number of possibilities, which would need to be further explored to clarify this concept. In many instances, especially when large numbers of rescued persons are involved, it will in effect be the nearest port in terms of geographical proximity given the overriding safety concerns..." [Emphasis mine]
So, if it is true that NGO's are colluding with people smugglers to ferry people across the Mediterranean, rather than to the nearest geographical port, then we need to know so that we can put an end to it.
We know that International Law has fallen out of favor, and the EU appears incapable of fixing this problem, so perhaps a small band of volunteers is what's needed, regardless of their supposed political viewpoint.
Thursday, 13 July 2017
It seems that an enterprising lawyer enticed Trump Jr to attend a meeting on the pretext of serving up some juicy information on Hilary Clinton from the 'Crown Prosecutor of Russia', that such a post does not exist seems to have escaped everyone, but to be fair to the junior Trump, it's difficult to imagine who could resist such an opportunity.
Apparently the meeting lasted just a few minutes before he realized he'd been scammed, and left.
It is now being portrayed as a serious security incident, but I wonder what else was he supposed to do?
Should he have ignored the suggestion that Russia had sensitive information on a Presidential Candidate?
What if they had, and the Donald Jr had helped to prevent a major security incident, or if he hadn't gone to the meeting and some other catastrophe had ensued, would that have been preferable?
With the Clinton's links to foreign sponsors of terrorism common knowledge, was he not right to follow the lead, the only question is what would he have done with anything incriminating that he might have uncovered. Would he have used it for political gain, or would he have immediately turned it over to US security? We will never know the answer, but must surely give him the benefit of any doubt.
While the frenzy surrounding this nonsense continues, those politicians and pundits gleefully making all they can of the discomfort to president Trump, should be very careful about the outcome, because if the emails, texts and liaisons of their children are to be fair game for scrutiny, then I doubt that many in Washington or beyond, will escape unscathed.