💭 Chair of government-funded charity says Islam is “demonic”
Posted: Wed, 22 Feb 2023
The government recently gave thousands of pounds to a Christian group whose chair said Islam is “demonic” and “spiritual wickedness”, the National Secular Society has found.
Zion Projects, a Christian charity based in Eastleigh, Hampshire, is one of 16 religious organisations given a total of £1.3 million in public money as part of the government’s ‘Faith New Deal’ fund. Zion Projects was awarded £43,220 last year for a project entitled “As One Hampshire”.
In this 2020 video on Vimeo shows Danny Stupple, the chair and a trustee of Zion Projects, making anti-Islam comments during a Covid-19 lockdown meeting of the “Eastleigh Prophetic Hub”.
In the video, which opens with the Zion Projects logo, Stupple responds to a question about Islamic ‘calls to prayer’ being broadcast during lockdown by saying “a very strong force of spiritual wickedness known as Islam is engaging in warfare against the Lord with its open air prayers”.
He said that Islamic prayers are “one example” of “the enemy” trying to use the Covid-19 pandemic, adding that the Islamic system of belief “is truly demonic”.
He advised that anyone who hears the calls to prayers should “deny it power in Jesus’ name”, which is “more than able to deal with the spiritual forces of wickedness in those prayers”. He called such a scenario a “warfare context”.
The findings follow a recent report by Muslim advocacy group Mercy Mission UK which questioned the absence of Muslim organisations among recipients of ‘faith new deal’ grants. All but three of the recipients are Christian; two are interfaith organisations, and one is Jewish.
A freedom of information request to the Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (DLHC) found 351 organisations applied for Faith New Deal funding, including at least 21 Muslim groups.
The NSS has written to Baroness Scott of Bybrook, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at DHLC, to express its concerns and ask what checks were made on the recipients of Faith New Deal funding.
Stupple: Dominic Cummings ‘anointed’ to achieve Brexit
In the same video, Stupple also suggests God is using the pandemic to “make the point of the value of life” because he anticipates “the same amount of babies being saved as the number of people who die” as a result of women being unable to get abortions during lockdown.
He also claims that Brexit is “important to the Lord” and that Dominic Cummings has an “anointing” to accomplish it.
He says biblical creationists don’t “make the mistake of thinking like the world thinks with its evolutionary offer”, which “leads us into a wrong conclusion about the origin of things such as virus.”
Stupple ran as an independent candidate in the Eastleigh 2013 by-election. He opposed same-sex marriage as part of his campaign, saying “real marriage is between a man and a woman” in a campaign video.
Zion Projects was also awarded £19,750 by Hampshire County Council last year to “help to provide a range of projects including a community café”.
The ‘faith new deal’ fund
The government’s “Faith New Deal pilot scheme” was launched in 2021 for faith-based organisations that provide community services to “tackle issues affecting the most vulnerable”. Groups with no religious ethos were ineligible for funding.
The NSS has criticised the scheme as “discriminatory” and has raised concerns about the ethics of giving public money to faith groups which may have an agenda to proselytise. Several of the groups funded by the faith new deal require workers and volunteers to be Christians.
In addition, four groups with Christian connections received a total of nearly £1 million from the DLHC’s UK Community Ownership Fund, according to updates from the DLHC published this month. They included Barking’s Lifeline Church and Sawyers Church, both of which are affiliated with the Evangelical Alliance which opposes same-sex relationships.
The “As One” campaign
Zion Projects’ “As One Hampshire” project appears to be a local branch of the national “As One” campaign by Uturn UK, a Community Interest Company which promotes “street associations” to engender “civic responsibility and volunteering”. Church leaders are used to promote the street associations locally.
Posted by addisethiopia / አዲስ ኢትዮጵያ on November 9, 2017
Kicked ‘like a football’ were the words used by a Pakistani Christian to describe a brutal assault that left him unconscious outside a restaurant in Derby last month. The victim, Tajamal Amar, claims Muslim men singled him out for offence he’d caused by displaying a cross and two large red poppies on his car, and for being a Kaffir – a derogatory term for non-Muslims. As it happens, the attack occurred towards the end of National Hate Crime Awareness Week, and has been recorded as a hate crime. The British Pakistani Christian Association, a group who’ve been supporting Amar, inform me his wife and daughter have been moved to a new location; he remains in hospital. But is his case symptomatic of a broader anti-Christian sentiment brewing in Britain?
Persecution of Christians in Pakistan (from where Amar was forced to flee), the Middle East, China, Nigeria and Modi’s India is well documented. Isis has committed genocide in Iraq and Syria, edging Christianity towards extinction. The bloodletting of Egypt’s Copts continues. In Pakistan, blasphemy laws are enforced, as in the cause célèbre of Asia Bibi, who remains languishing on death row. But when the BBC asks whether it’s ‘inadvisable’ to display poppies or hang a crucifix from your rear view mirror – here in Britain – it makes it harder to ignore the echoes of intolerance reverberating in our midst. While liberals and interfaith interlocutors struggle to have honest conversations about doctrinally motived hate, the truth is people like Amar aren’t alone.
Last November, Nissar Hussain a Christian convert (from Islam) was forced to leave his Bradford home under armed police escort following years of persecution. His terrible ordeal culminated in 2015, with a sickening assault outside his family home (captured on CCTV) by two hooded thugs, one brandishing a pickaxe handle. Hussain suffered a shattered kneecap and broken hand. A softly spoken and intelligent man – Hussain tells me he suffers from chronic post-traumatic stress disorder and feels betrayed by both politicians and Anglican leaders. Apostates like Hussain are of course particularly vulnerable, because Islamists believe it’s their God given duty to kill them. But contempt for Christianity comes from many quarters, not just Islamists.
In fact, the government’s hate crime action plan from last year, Action Against Hate, points to the chilling case of a Christian teenager who faced physical abuse and a mock crucifixion by his coworkers. When Belfast bakers Ashers refused to make a cake with the slogan ‘support gay marriage’, they were subjected to arson and death threats by gay rights extremists. Is this not Christianophobia?
Following the jihadist murder of Father Jacques Hamal in France last year, the Home Office released a £2.4 million fund to enhance security for places of worship. Of the applicants there were 225 churches, 36 mosques, 11 gudwaras and three other places of worship (funding for synagogues is separate). Remarkably, many churches that bid successfully used funds to protect themselves from Satanists and witches. A middle-aged vicar I spoke with from South West England told me how a witch had cursed him in the expectation he’d ‘drop dead’. The drawing of pentagrams on the church’s walls was a regular occurrence. If he’d chosen to tell the police, I suppose a curse could be classified as hate crime.
But how big is the problem? I’ve had access to a fascinating response to freedom of information requests to 25 UK police forces (from 2014) by think tank Parliament Street. This unearthed 165 or so incidents affecting Britain’s clergy between 2008-13. Incidents range from robbery, assaults like grievous bodily harm (GBH), actual bodily harm (ABH), through to obsessive stalkers, and bites from dogs, and even humans. A record relating to an incident in Hertfordshire shockingly reads: ‘Offender approached the Injured Party and bit fingers.’ Serving the Son of God has its risks. However, complaints of Christianophobia are thin on the ground, despite media and politicians showing an indifference to Christian suffering.
Home Office statistics from last year on religious hate crimes in England, Wales and Northern Ireland indicate there were 316 incidents (out of a total of 4213) affecting Christians between March 2015 and March 2016. Organisations like National Churchwatch who describe themselves as a ‘leading organisation for security and advice in the Christian sector’, believe anti-Christian hate crime is significantly under-reported. Director Nick Tolson previously sat on a Home Office panel awarding security grants to places of worship. He said that, unlike anti-Semitism and Islamophobia, anti-Christian hate is predominantly a phenomenon seen in rural Britain, rather than in urban areas. Tolson, a former police officer told me, ‘National Churchwatch is working with True Vision to run four seminars around the country to tackle anti-Christian hate crime. The seminars will involve talking with clergy about how to keep safe and how to deal with crime should it occur.’
His organisation is collaborating with academics from Royal Holloway, University of London in developing a survey aimed at clergy from the Church of England, Church of Wales and the Roman Catholic Church. A snapshot into the sorts of crimes clergy experience, and if the context is anti-Christian, will no doubt help inform policy makers moving forwards.
Meanwhile, the investigation into Amar’s case continues and two men have been interviewed in connection with the assault on suspicion of causing GBH. It’s sobering to think that someone who fled religious persecution overseas now feels unsafe in Britain.
— ‘Write Letter To Family About Converting To Islam‘: Furious stepfather refuses to let his stepdaughter, 12, complete her homework after she is asked to pen them a note about becoming a Muslim
Posted by addisethiopia / አዲስ ኢትዮጵያ on May 20, 2017
Controversial Book Claims Elites In Uk And The Continent Are Encouraging Mass Immigration Because They’ve Lost Faith In Historic Christian Values
A couple of days ago, I saw TV footage of the outspoken Labour MP Jess Phillips on the campaign trail, seeking re-election in her suburban Birmingham constituency.
She was asked which issues voters mentioned most often on the doorstep. Ms Phillips did not miss a beat.
‘Immigration comes up…’ she said thoughtfully. And then, as if remembering herself, she started talking about bin collections instead.
It was, I thought, an enormously revealing moment. For there is no issue so potentially dangerous as immigration. Many people have intense feelings about it, and many feel unable to raise them publicly.
Even in private, self-consciously tolerant people discuss immigration very tentatively, if at all.
The shadow of Enoch Powell — the Birmingham-born Tory who was cast into the wilderness after his controversial speech in 1968 about ‘rivers of blood’ (a phrase he never actually used) — still hangs over the debate.
A few years ago, I was at a lunch in London, sitting next to the former editor of a national newspaper and the editor of one of Britain’s best-known magazines, both of them highly educated and liberal-minded people. The subject turned to immigration.
‘It’s gone much too far,’ one said. ‘You’re quite right,’ said the other, ‘but of course you can’t say so.’
The journalist Douglas Murray has no such qualms. Best known for his acerbic columns in the Spectator magazine and his prize-winning book on the Bloody Sunday inquiry, he has just hurled a literary hand grenade into the debate about immigration and identity in today’s Europe.
Indeed, the opening lines of his new book, The Strange Death Of Europe, could hardly be more incendiary.
‘Europe is committing suicide,’ Murray writes. ‘Or at least its leaders have decided to commit suicide… As a result, by the end of the lifespans of most people currently alive, Europe will not be Europe and the peoples of Europe will have lost the only place in the world we had to call home.’
The causes, he thinks, are twofold. First, our political leaders have knowingly colluded in the ‘mass movement of peoples into Europe’, filling ‘cold and rainy northern towns’ with ‘people dressed for the foothills of Pakistan or the sandstorms of Arabia’.
Second, he believes Europe’s intellectual and cultural elites, including those in Britain, have ‘lost faith in its beliefs, traditions and legitimacy’. Crippled with guilt, obsessed with atoning for the sins of empire, they have lost sight of the historic Christian values that their people expect them to defend.
As a result of their deluded utopianism, Murray thinks, Europe is ceasing to be Europe. Indeed, he believes that European culture as generations have understood it — the culture of Michelangelo and Mozart, Shakespeare and Goethe, Dickens and Wagner — is doomed.
‘Instead of remaining a home for the European peoples,’ he writes, ‘we have decided to become a “utopia” only in the original Greek sense of the word: to become “no place”.’
You will not be surprised to hear that Murray’s book has gone down badly with the bien-pensant types at The Guardian, whose reviewer described it as ‘gentrified xenophobia’ and a ‘slightly posher’ version of ‘naked racism’.
In its way, that verdict tells you all you need to know about the intellectual blinkers of the liberal intelligentsia.
Even so, at the risk of being accused of xenophobia by The Guardian — which would admittedly put me in crowded company — I believe he has penetrated closer to the heart of our current discontents than legions of liberal academics.
For one thing, it is refreshing to get some honesty about the historically unprecedented nature of immigration into Europe in the past 70 years.
In case you need reminding, the figures for Britain alone are simply mind-boggling.
Between 1997 and 2010, for example, the last Labour government allowed a staggering 2.2 million people to settle in this country, the equivalent of two Birminghams.
Under David Cameron, the Tories promised to reduce immigration to the tens of thousands. Yet the latest figures show that annual net migration is about 273,000, roughly a city the size of Hull arriving every year.
It is worth noting, by the way, that mass immigration has always been immensely unpopular. When I wrote a history of Britain in the Sixties, I could hardly fail to notice that even back then, at least seven out of ten people were dead against it, as shown by the deluge of approving letters that greeted Enoch Powell’s supposedly toxic speech.
Maybe his admirers were wrong; maybe they weren’t. But whatever your own view of immigration, there has never been an issue on which the political class has so consistently gone against the wishes of the British people.
At this point in the argument, your standard liberal academic would typically interject to insist that Britain has always been a nation of immigrants. We all come from somewhere else anyway, they say, we are all mongrels, so how dare we close the gates to a few more?
But as Douglas Murray shows, this is a shameless rewriting of our past. For most of our history, we have never been a nation of immigrants. Even the most famous influx in our history, the Norman Conquest, involved a tiny population transfer, the equivalent of no more than 5 per cent or so.
As much as the BBC and other news organisations like to pretend that Britain has always been a beacon of diversity, the plain fact is that until the mid-20th century the massive, overwhelming majority of the people who lived here had been born here. Look at photo after photo from late Victorian London and the uniformly pale faces stare back at you.
The arrival of the French Huguenots in the 1680s, often cited by apostles of diversity, involved about 50,000 people, all of whom were white and Christian.
And although the Irish migrants who arrived in the 19th century faced more than their fair share of prejudice, our islands’ interlinked histories meant they were far from complete outsiders.
Liberal-minded types often find this embarrassing. Either they try to rewrite our history, relentlessly playing up the presence of tiny minorities of Africans and Asians, or they peddle a caricature of pre-Fifties Britain as a grey, boring place, which desperately needed an injection of immigrant colour.
This is not just a British hang-up. As Murray writes, European liberals love to paint their own societies as ‘slightly boring or staid places’. They write as if ‘there is a hole at the heart of Europe which needs filling and without which we would otherwise be poorer’.
(By the way, this is something they would never dream of saying about countries such as Bhutan or Burkina Faso. Nobody ever suggests that what these unforgivably monoracial countries need is an influx of migrants from Surrey.)
As a superbly damning example, Murray gives us the views of the impeccably liberal Fredrik Reinfeldt, Sweden’s Prime Minister between 2006 and 2014, who enjoyed the dubious reputation of being the ‘Scandinavian David Cameron’. He was a passionate advocate of mass immigration. Swedish people, he once said, were ‘boring’, while national borders were ‘fictional’ constructs.
And in a perfect illustration of what Murray sees as the European elite’s chronic self-flagellation, Mr Reinfeldt even declared that ‘only barbarism is genuinely Swedish. All further development has been brought from outside’.
This would have come as a shock to the Swedish playwright August Strindberg, the film director Ingmar Bergman and the members of Abba, not to mention their countrymen who invented the seatbelt and the pacemaker.
In any case, the results of Mr Reinfeldt’s liberal utopianism have been staggering. With just 10 million people, Sweden has taken in more refugees per capita than any other country. In 2015 alone, it accepted 180,000 incomers — more than the population of all but the three largest Swedish cities.
In recent months, the relationship between immigration and crime in Sweden has become hugely controversial. This is thanks largely to Donald Trump’s comments about ‘riots’ in Sweden based on a report on Fox News, which blamed an alleged breakdown in law and order in the country on an influx of migrants over the past 20 years.
But as Murray suggests, the really telling story is surely the rise of the far-Right Sweden Democrats — a nationalistic, anti-immigrant party that has come from nowhere to lead the opinion polls for the past two years. And this not in Thirties Germany but in 21st-century Sweden, ostensibly one of the most contented, tolerant and egalitarian societies on Earth!
It would, I think, be unforgivably lazy to blame this on the supposed racism of the great unwashed, as liberal intellectuals love to do.
In fact, almost every indicator shows that old-fashioned, poisonous prejudice has virtually died out, not just here in Britain, but across much of Western Europe.
Whatever The Guardian might think, Murray himself is not racist. Indeed, he writes movingly about the plight of the thousands of refugees who have paid up to $1,500 (£1,150) each to travel on dangerous boats across the Mediterranean. As he remarks, any decent person should want to help them, not to ‘push them back into the sea’.
Posted by addisethiopia / አዲስ ኢትዮጵያ on November 25, 2016
France did not perceive it at the time, but it placed itself in a trap, and the trap is now closing.
In the 1970s, the Palestinians began to use international terrorism, and France chose to accept this terrorism so long as France was not affected. At the same time, France welcomed mass-immigration from the Arab-Muslim world, evidently as part of a Muslim wish to expand Islam. France’s Muslim population has since grown in numbers while failing to assimilate.
Polls show that one-third of French Muslims want the full application of Islamic sharia law. They also show that the overwhelming majority of French Muslims support jihad, and especially jihad against Israel, a country they would like to see erased from the face of earth.
“It is better to leave than flee.” — Sammy Ghozlan, President of the National Bureau of Vigilance against Anti-Semitism. He was later mugged, and his car was torched. He left.
Villiers also mentions the presence in “no-go zones” of thousands of weapons of war. He adds that weapons will probably not even have to be used; the Islamists have already won.
Originally, France’s dreams might have been of displacing America as a world power, accessing inexpensive oil, business deals with oil-rich Islamic states, and the prayer of no domestic terrorism.
France is in turmoil. “Migrants” arriving from Africa and the Middle East sow disorder and insecurity in many cities. The huge slum commonly known as the “jungle of Calais” has just been dismantled, but other slums are being created each day. In eastern Paris, streets have been covered with corrugated sheets, oilcloth and disjointed boards. Violence is commonplace. France’s 572 “no-go zones,” officially defined as “sensitive urban areas”, continue to grow, and police officers who approach them often suffer the consequences. Recently, a police car drove into an ambush and was torched while the police were prevented from getting out. If attacked, police officers are told by their superiors to flee rather than retaliate. Many police officers, angry at having to behave like cowards, have organized demonstrations. No terrorist attacks have taken place since the slaughter of a priest in Saint-Etienne-du-Rouvray on July 26, 2016, but intelligence services see that jihadists have returned from the Middle East and are ready to act, and that riots may break out anywhere, any time, on any pretext.
Although overwhelmed by a domestic situation it barely controls, the French government still intervenes in the world affairs: a “Palestinian state” is still its favorite cause, Israel its favorite scapegoat.
Last Spring, even though both France and the Palestinian territories were in terrible shape, French Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault anyway declared that it was “urgent” to relaunch the “peace process” and create a Palestinian state. France therefore convened an international conference, held in Paris on June 3. Neither Israel nor the Palestinians were invited to it. The conference was a flop. It concluded with a vapid statement about the “imperative necessity” to go “forward.”
France did not stop there. The government then decided to organize a new conference in December. This time, with Israel and the Palestinians. Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, noting that Israel does not need intermediaries, refused the invitation. Palestinian leaders accepted. Saeb Erekat, the Palestinian Authority spokesman congratulated France, adding, not surprisingly, that the Palestinian Authority had “suggested” the idea to the French.
Now Donald Trump is the U.S. president-elect, and Newt Gingrich is likely to play a key role in the Trump Administration. Gingrich said a few years ago that there is no such a thing as a Palestinian people, and added last week that settlements are in no way an obstacle to peace. As such, the December conference looks as if it might be another failure.
French diplomats nevertheless are working with Palestinian officials on a UN resolution to recognize a Palestinian State inside the “1967 borders” (the 1949 armistice lines), but without any peace treaty. They are apparently hoping that outgoing U.S. President Barack Obama will not use the American veto at the Security Council, allowing the passage of the resolution. It is not certain at all that Barack Obama will want to end his presidency on a gesture so openly subversive. It is almost certain that France will fail there too. Again.
For many years, France seems to have built its entire foreign policy on aligning itself with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC): 56 Islamic countries plus the Palestinians. Originally, France’s dreams might have been of displacing America as a world power, accessing inexpensive oil, business deals with oil-rich Islamic states, and the prayer of no domestic terrorism. All four have been washouts. It is also obvious that France has more urgent problems to solve.
France persists because it is desperately trying to limit problems that probably cannot be solved.
In the 1950s, France was different from what it is now. It was a friend of Israel. The “Palestinian cause” did not exist. The war in Algeria was raging, and a large majority of French politicians would not even have shaken hands with unrepentant terrorists.
Everything changed with the end of the Algerian war. Charles de Gaulle handed Algeria over to a terrorist movement called the National Liberation Front. He then proceeded to create a strategic reorientation of the France’s foreign policy, unveiling what he called the “Arab policy of France.”
France signed trade and military agreements with various Arab dictatorships. To seduce its new friends, it eagerly adopted an anti-Israel policy. When, in the 1970s, terrorism in the form of airplane hijackings was invented by the Palestinians, and with the murder of Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics, “the Palestinians” all at once became a “sacred cause” and a useful tool for leverage in the Arab world, France, adopting the “cause,” became rigidly pro-Palestinian.
The Palestinians began to use international terrorism, and France chose to accept this terrorism so long as France was not affected. At the same time, France welcomed mass-immigration from the Arab-Muslim world, evidently as part of a Muslim wish to expand Islam. The Muslim population has since grown in numbers, while failing to assimilate.
France did not perceive it at the time, but it placed itself in a trap, and the trap is now closing.
France’s Muslim population seems anti-French in terms of Judeo-Christian, Enlightenment values, and pro-French only to the extent that France submits to the demands of Islam. As France’s Muslims are also pro-Palestinian, theoretically there should have been no problem. But France underestimated the effects of the rise of extremist Islam in the Muslim world and beyond.
More and more, French Muslims consider themselves Muslim first. Many claim that the West is at war with Islam; they see France and Israel as part of the West, so they are at war with them both. They see that France is anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian, but they also see that several French politicians maintain ties with Israel, so they likely think that France is not anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian enough.
They see that France tolerates Palestinian terrorism, and seem not to understand why France would fight Islamic terrorism in other places.
To please its Muslims, the French government may believe it has no choice other than to be as pro-Palestinian and as anti-Israel as possible — even though it looks as if this policy is failing badly in the polls.
The French government undoubtedly sees that it cannot prevent what increasingly looks like a looming disaster. This disaster is already taking place.
Perhaps France’s current government is hoping that it might delay the disaster a bit and avoid a civil war. Perhaps, they might hope, the “no go zones” will not explode — at least on their watch.
France today has six million Muslims, 10% of its population, and the percentage is growing. Polls show that one-third of French Muslims want the full application of Islamic sharia law. They also show that the overwhelming majority of French Muslims support jihad, and especially jihad against Israel, a country they would like to see erased from the face of earth.
The Muslim Brotherhood is primarily financed by Qatar, a country that invests heavily in France — and that has the comfort of its very own U.S. airbase.
Jews are leaving France in record numbers, and these departures do not stop. Sammy Ghozlan, President of the National Bureau of Vigilance against Anti-Semitism, repeated for many years that, “It is better to leave than flee.” He was mugged. His car was torched. He left, and now lives in Israel.
The rest of the French population clearly sees the extreme seriousness of what is happening. Some of them are angry and in a state of revolt; others seem resigned to the worst: an Islamist takeover of Europe.
The next French elections will take place in May 2017. French President François Hollande has lost all credibility and has no chance of being reelected. Whoever comes to power will have a difficult task.
The French seem to have lost confidence in Nicolas Sarkozy, so they will probably choose between Marine Le Pen, Alain Juppé or François Fillon.
Marine Le Pen is the candidate of the far-right National Front.
Alain Juppé is the mayor of Bordeaux, and often campaigns in the company of Tareq Oubrou, imam of the city. Until recently, Tareq Oubrou was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood. Alain Juppé seems to believe that the present disorder will calm down if France fully submits.
François Fillon will probably be the moderate-right candidate. He recently said that “Islamic sectarianism” creates “problems in France.” He also said that if a Palestinian State is not created very soon, Israel will be “the main threat to world peace.”
Three years ago, the French philosopher Alain Finkielkraut published a book, The Unhappy Identity (L’identité malheureuse), describing the dangers inherent in the Islamization of France and the major disorders that stem from it. Juppé chose a campaign slogan intended to contradict Finkielkraut: “The Happy Identity“.
Since the publication of Alain Finkielkraut’s book, other pessimistic books have been published that became best-sellers in France. In October 2014, columnist Eric Zemmour published The French Suicide (Le suicide français). A few weeks ago, he published another book, A Five-Year Term for Nothing (Un quinquennat pour rien). He describes what he sees happening to France: “invasion, colonization, explosion.”
Zemmour defines the arrival of millions of Muslims in France during the last five decades as an invasion, and the recent arrival of hordes of migrants as the continuation of that invasion. He depicts the creation of “no-go zones” as the creation of Islamic territories on French soil and an integral part of a colonization process.
He writes that the eruptions of violence that spread are signs of an imminent explosion; that sooner or later, revolt will gain ground.
Another book, Will the Church Bells Ring Tomorrow? (Les cloches sonneront-elles encore demain?), was recently published by a former member of the French government, Philippe de Villiers.
Villiers notes the disappearance of churches in France, and their replacement by mosques. He also mentions the presence in “no-go zones” of thousands of weapons of war (AK-47 assault rifles, Tokarev pistols, M80 Zolja anti-tank weapons, etc). He adds that weapons will probably not even have to be used — the Islamists have already won.
In his new book, Will the Church Bells Ring Tomorrow?, Philippe de Villiers notes the disappearance of churches in France, and their replacement by mosques. Pictured above: On August 3, French riot police dragged a priest and his congregation from the church of St Rita in Paris, prior to its scheduled demolition. Front National leader Marine Le Pen said in fury: “And what if they built parking lots in the place of Salafist mosques, and not of our churches?” (Image source: RT video screenshot)
On November 13, 2016, France marked the first anniversary of the Paris attacks. Plaques were unveiled every place where people were killed. The plaques read: “In memory of the injured and murdered victims of the attacks.” No mention was made of jihadist barbarity. In the evening, the Bataclan Theater reopened with a concert by Sting. The last song of the concert was “Insh’ Allah”: “if Allah wills.” The Bataclan management prevented two members of the US band Eagles of Death Metal — who were on stage when the attack started — from entering the concert. A few weeks after the attack, Jesse Hughes, lead singer of the group, had dared to criticize the Muslims involved. The Bataclan’s director said about Hughes, “There are things you cannot forgive.”
Posted by addisethiopia / አዲስ ኢትዮጵያ on July 4, 2016
Much of my wife Mary’s and my time is spent traveling the country, helping to elect conservatives to the House and Senate. I am chairman of the Conservative Campaign Committee.
On a rare stop back home in Florida, we decided to enjoy a day at our favorite, New Smyrna Beach. After multiple stops for gas, banking, and Walmart, we were finally on our way. It brought back fond childhood memories of hot summer family trips to the beach; mom, dad, fat Aunt Nee, and five kids all crammed into a station wagon with no air conditioning. The ritual included picking up Aunt Nee from her house and several stops for select foods to take with us. I remember the excitement I felt after all the stops and we were finally headed to Carr’s Beach, the only Maryland beach open to blacks.
Back to present day. Before we left home, Mary said, “Don’t forget a book to read.” Scanning our bookshelves, Ann Coulter’s book published in 2006, Godless, caught my eye.
In her book, Coulter said, “If a Martian landed in America and set out to determine the nation’s official state religion, he would have to conclude it is Liberalism, while Christianity and Judaism are prohibited by law.” Coulter said liberalism is the state-sanctioned religion and is a godless one. Ten years later, liberalism has become the state-mandated religion. Remarkably, practicing Christianity hasbecome illegal.
Coulter says that despite liberals claims of being non-religious, liberalism has all the attributes of a religion. Coulter exposes the “Church of Liberalism,” in which “its sacraments (abortion), its holy writ (Roe v. Wade) … its clergy (public school teachers), its churches (government schools, where prayer is prohibited but condoms are free) … its cosmology (in which mankind is an inconsequential accident).”
I would include the LGBT agenda as a sacrament of the Church of Liberalism.
Seemingly overnight in America, our freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and parental rights have been taken away. Obama’s DOJ says it will prosecute anyone who speaks badly about Islam. Christians are being persecuted and even jailed for not obeying sacraments of the Church of Liberalism. Federal judges have decreed that parents are not allowed to opt out even their preschool childrenfrom LGBT indoctrination in school curricula.
Just like the Hitler Youth, the Obama administration has indoctrinated students to become Church of Liberalism spies. Students are instructed to report family members who make racist and politically incorrect comments around the dinner table.
My dad and Mary’s mom taught us that the Democrats were for the little guy, the working man. Our parents are clueless regarding how far to the left their party has moved, becoming a godless cult – home of the Church of Liberalism.
The Church of Liberalism’s control of our government will dramatically increase if liberal zealot Hillary Clinton becomes president. Americans have been beaten down, forced to embrace the sacraments of this religious cult. A perfect example is ESPN awarding the Arthur Ashe Award to Bruce Jenner, a man in drag.
C’mon, folks: you can imagine what most of the men in that hall at the awards event were thinking. For the most part, pro sports is a celebration of maleness. And yet those high-testosterone pro-athletes knew they had better smile and applaud Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner or be forced into sensitivity training and risk losing their livelihood.
Typical of religious cults, the Church of Liberalism does not tolerate opposing points of view. Church of Liberalism zealots used the federal government to silence the Tea Party. The Church of Liberalism seeks to punish and silence Fox News. The Church of Liberalism brands all opposition, “hate speech” enabling them to use government to silence Christian pastors and close down Christian churches.
Decades of the Church of Liberalism controlling public education has reaped masses of dumbed down Americans, brainwashed into embracing the Church of Liberalism’s tyranny. Dummies believe that Church of Liberalism zealots are good guys, advocates for the disenfranchised, defending them against mean, selfish, and racist Christians and Conservatives.
For example, Obama routinely trashes and rules against Christianity while forcing Christians to submit to the sacraments of the Church of Liberalism. Obama displays his utmost respect for Islam. And yet Obama’s administration has made it quite clear that speaking badly about Islam or any of the sacraments of the Church of Liberalism could land you in jail.
Think about this, folks. Church of Liberalism zealots are free to outrageously blame Christians and law-abiding American gun owners for a massacre they had nothing to do with. We have suffered numerous incidents of Islamic terrorists attacks, killing Americans on U.S. soil. And yet, our federal government threatens to jail anyone caught speaking badly about either of these two religions (Church of Liberalism and Islam).
Christians are being banned from many jobs and jailed for not submitting to sacraments of the Church of Liberalism.
Folks, the America we knew is gone. Prayer, repentance, and a regime change should be our first baby steps toward restoring our nation. This is one of the many reasons why my battle cry is “Never Hillary!”
Posted by addisethiopia / አዲስ ኢትዮጵያ on May 11, 2016
German Philosopher Georg Hegel once wrote that “the only thing we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history.” His observation during his life was very accurate, both for the past and future generations. Each generation of men builds on the lessons from their ancestors, and whatever lessons that are not learned are forgotten. This is not per se a bad thing- except when the lessons you have to learn are critical to your survival or that of others.
An example of a lesson which can be forgotten is my father knew how to use a slide rule while growing up. I don’t know how to use a slide rule- I have a calculator. Would it be nice to know? Yes. But it is not necessary.
However, some lessons- many lessons- are just important to learn for your own safety. Things like “look both ways before crossing the street,” or “don’t trust whatever strangers tell you.” These are things that, while they can be rephrased for a modern context, are timeless lessons because they teach principles which guide a child for life and are not tied to one specific skill set.
One such lesson that is of critical importance as it pertains to governing societies is that a civilization is a precious organism, a delicate life form that is hard to acquire and easy to lose, and once it is lost it may never come back. Yet it is precisely civilization that allows man to realize his greatest capabilities in this life, and for traditional Christian civilization, to direct this to the love of God and of neighbor.
If civilization is the goal of human social organization, then it must be consequently understood that not only are people who participate in society supposed to work for the greater good of each other, but they are also to work against the enemies of civilization. One such common example are criminals, and by that I mean people who intentionally undermine the social order by engaging in behavior that is inherently dangerous to civilization. Things like theft, robbery, rape, and murder, but also smaller acts such as public urination, wanton intoxication, fighting, and just being a general nuisance all, in varying degrees, damage the bonds which hold society together. Too much damage and the society will collapse. Sure, people may still live in that area, but it will be just that- an area inhabited with people but no bonds between them other than simply nominal associations. The end result is a shell of a people that once was, and uncivilized civilization that exists without existing and, like a car on an empty highway, follows a road to nowhere.
The disorder that other humans cause is the reason why government exists. If there was no original sin, there would be no need for a government in a human sense because the law of God would be so emblazoned on our hearts that we would know to choose right becuase, given that evil is a perversion of good, we would not know how to choose the perverse over the righteous.
But clearly, we live in a post-original sin world and have for quite some time. Men are prone to all kinds of sins, public and private, and some men will stop at nothing to realize their own gains of money or power regardless of the damage they do to others. Some people just do not care about society and want to destroy it for reasons of malice. There are countless reasons, but all are the same in spirit, since they are based on the idea that some men want to destroy society and do not care about the consequences it has on others.
Governments and the institutions they erect theoretically are meant to serve the public. Borders and laws as well as prisons keep people out of society who are unable or unwilling to participate in it through civilized means as much as they protect civilized people from the barbarians outside the gates. Put simply, and this is not popular to say in the west today, but some people are not fit to live in society with others.
I used to be able to say this comparison was an exaggeration, but not so much any more
Put this into the context of the current “refugee” crisis in Europe today. Germany just invited 61,000 Muslim “refugee” this month alone, not counting the previous.
61,000 people is basically a small city. And cities are very diverse, dynamic places with their own characteristics. Merkel is just dumping them into her society like a landscaper dumps grass clippings into a trash barrel. However, if you have ever done grass cutting before, you know that grass clippings are (a) heavy, (b) they fill up trash bags fast, and (c) are a burden because they are often times heavy and can break the trash bag they are being carried in. Just like you cannot keep dumping grass clippings into a bag, you cannot keep dumping refugees into a society because that society will break- there is a limited capacity of how much that bag (or society) can physically bear without falling apart. If the society falls apart, the old bag gets thrown away, the clippings put in a new bag, and then dealt with.
Yet how is Germany, a nation with a long, proud history, any different or perhaps, exempt, from the lessons of the past?
Posted by addisethiopia / አዲስ ኢትዮጵያ on March 25, 2016
The following mind boggling stories below demonstrate the fact that demons are loosed on the earth, and the judgments upon the earth by the living God are becoming increasingly more rapid and intense. The time has arrived to separate the wheat from the chaff and the sheep from the goats.
In today’s Europe hateful Muslims and murderers are better protected by the elites than local populations and Christians. Ask the murderers why they murder innocent people, and you get arrested and charged, but when the same hateful preachers and murderers who return from their training camps in Pakistan, Syria and Turkey they are given benefits and housing!! As a blogger precisely noticed:
“Hundreds of Muslims raped and tortured innocent British children for years and years all over the UK yet they didn’t even get cautioned by the police, even thought the police admit they knew. Then they arrest someone because of his twit?. The conclusion is the murderers can do anything and we can do nothing, or even say anything, about it.”
Isn’t it disturbingly amusing how this sort of story comes out again and again in the aftermath of another atrocity by Muslims? Pay attention to how everything is reported and presented. By now everyone knows that the good-for-nothing lamestream media does this whenever Islamic atrocities occur. As Dr. Ben Carson correctly observed it: ‘If Christianity disappeared’ many in the Mainstream Media ‘would be just fine with that’. Asked if he thought there was a global war against Christians going on today, Carson said yes. “Christians are caught between secularism, which is on the rise and doesn’t like to be reminded of its negative aspects, and between Islamic Jihadists, who want to dominate the religious scene,” he said.
One should only ask, whether they fear the local Christian population more than Muslims. Possibly! Despite all the horror and tragedy the Islamic ideology is inflicting across the world, the antichrist elites continue importing millions of potential murderers. Why? It has become more and more clear that they’ve planned to use them in their final battle to get rid of the “hated Christians” and replace them with Muslims. The latest, and probably the last battle for the elites begun some 50 years ago – when they first allowed mass Muslim migration into Europe. (Algerians and Moroccans, Pakistanis and Turks).They don’t seem to have fear of Muslims because it’s easy to manipulate and control them, they can just set up a puppet imam and control the whole community and nation. They know that Chrstians are mostly independent and free-minded and very hard to control –hence, are the most dangerous.
Notice how the Secular hatred and Islamic murders are intensified almost exclusively around Christian Holydays!
Islamic jihad struck Brussels Tuesday morning – first at Brussels Airport and then at a metro station 400 meters from EU headquarters – leaving at least 34 people dead and 230 injured.
It was an apocalyptic scene, according to survivors, “with blood and dismembered bodies everywhere,” even “thrown into the air.” One man recalled the “horror. I saw at least seven people dead. There was blood. People had lost legs. You could see their bodies but no legs.”
Witnesses heard the attackers yelling in Arabic moments before the bombs – one of which contained nails – detonated. Other jihadi trademarks – including an unexploded suicide vest and a Kalashnikov rifle beside the body of a slain terrorist – were found. Islam’s ancient war tactic of blending in with non-Muslims was also implemented.
Horrific as the attack is, its inspiration and Western responses to it are all too typical – meaning, as I opined last year after the Paris massacre, “many more such attacks and worse will continue. Count on it.”
First, as happened on 9/11, Muslims around the world – those unnamed millions the media refer to as “ISIS supporters” – celebrated, including by once again handing out candy and shouting Islam’s victory war cry, “Allahu Akbar.” Yes, that ancient Islamic hate was back in the air and rampant on social media. “We are not just clapping, but we are happy again. We are smiling, we are laughing, and we are joyful like it’s a day of celebration,” tweeted one ISIS sympathizer. Another wrote: “#Brussels, if you continue your war against the religion of Allah then this is our response.” Another wrote: “What a beautiful day today. F*** Belgium.” Yet another wrote, “A lot of duas [Muslim prayers] were answered today.”
Still, most Muslim sympathizers were quick to portray their bloodlust as a product of grievances against the West: “the most common remark under the hashtag was ‘You declared war against us and bombed us, and we attack you inside your homeland.’ Another popular reaction from ISIS supports on Twitter was that the Brussels attacks were intended to avenge the Muslims’ blood that was spilled in Mosul in a series of airstrikes by the Western coalition over the weekend.”
Meanwhile, and as usual, in its communiques to fellow Muslims, ISIS articulated the attack through a distinctly Islamic paradigm. It even signaled the attack with the words, “We have come to you with slaughter” – an assertion based on the Muslim prophet Muhammad’s words to a non-Muslim tribe that refused to submit to Islam: “I have come to you with slaughter.”
If this assertion is not clear enough concerning the intent and mission of Muhammad – and those who seek to follow him – another canonical assertion attributed to him and regularly quoted by jihadis, including over a decade ago in the opening paragraph of al-Qaeda’s “Declaration of War against Americans,” has the prophet saying:
I have been sent with the sword between my hands to ensure that no one but Allah is worshipped – Allah who put my livelihood under the shadow of my spear and who inflicts humiliation and scorn on those who disobey my commandments (The Al Qaeda Reader, p.12).
Unfortunately, this one aspect – that Islamic scripture clearly, plainly, and unequivocally promotes violence against all who refuse to submit to Allah – is the very same aspect most vehemently denied by Western elites. Already, as always happens after an Islamic terror attack in the West, the talking heads are warning against “rampant Islamophobia” and a backlash against Muslims. Media are hosting professional liars, like Ramadan Foundation’s Muhammad Shafiq, who insists that “terrorism is forbidden in Islam” (even though the Koran calls on Muslims to terrorize those who resist Islam, e.g., 3:151 and 8:12).
Still, due to these growing numbers of jihadi attacks on Western soil, increasing numbers of politicians are responding with tough – but ultimately meaningless – words: “We are at war,” responded French prime minister Manuel Valls. “We have been subjected for the last few months in Europe to acts of war.”
This is true. But just like George W. Bush’s famous “war on terrorism” – a war on a method, not its motivation – Valls doesn’t indicate whom “we are at war” with, even though the most elemental step in winning a war is to “know your enemy.”
One of the few American political aspirants who need not revise his tone in light of this attack is Donald Trump. Over two months ago, he said, “Go to Brussels. Go to Paris. Go to different places. There is something going on, and it’s not good, where they want sharia law. … You go to Brussels – I was in Brussels a long time ago, 20 years ago, so beautiful, everything is so beautiful – it’s like living in a hellhole right now.”
This latest terror strike in Europe will likely reignite the refugee debate, which, while important, also minimizes the significance of the issue. The common denominator among all these recent terror strikes throughout the West is not that the culprits were all refugees, but rather that they were all Muslim. Many terror attacks were homegrown. Muslim citizens of America were responsible for Fort Hood (13 murdered), the Boston Marathon (four murdered), Chattanooga (four murdered), and most recently San Bernardino (14 murdered).
Of course, Europe could have spared itself if only it would’ve looked to the plight of non-Muslim minorities living in Muslim-majority nations. As far back as 2012, after Western supported jihadi/freedom fighters were unleashed on Assad’s formerly stable Syria, intentionally displacing hundreds of thousands of Christians, the Syrian Christian archbishop correctly predicted “the jihadis will not stop here [Middle East], the war will spread to Europe.” Four years later, and the war has certainly begun.
Consider the 2010 massacre at the Our Lady of Salvation Church in Baghdad. Armed jihadis stormed the church during Sunday worship service, opened fire indiscriminately at the Christian worshipers before detonating their suicide vests. At least 58 Christian worshippers, including many women and children, were murdered, and nearly 100 wounded – many, like in Brussels, losing their arms or legs (see here for graphic pictures). If the Brussels jihadis used nails in their bombs, the Baghdad church jihadis wore vests “filled with ball bearings to kill as many people as possible.”
Now, if Brussels – or New York, or London, or Madrid, ad infinitum – was really “intended to avenge the Muslims’ blood that was spilled in Mosul in a series of airstrikes,” as aggrieved Muslims regularly claim, then one must ask: why are immensely weak, outnumbered, ostracized, and politically disenfranchised Christian minorities living in the Muslim world, who are wholly incapable of hurting any Muslim, also being terrorized and slaughtered, to the point of genocide?
The answer should be clear. So long as Islam calls for jihad against those who reject Allah and his prophet, attacks like Brussels (and the countless before it) will continue. Before the age of political correctness, the Encyclopaedia of Islam put it this way:
[The] spread of Islam by arms is a religious duty upon Muslims in general[.] … Jihad must continue to be done until the whole world is under the rule of Islam[.] … Islam must completely be made over before the doctrine of jihad [warfare to spread Islam] can be eliminated.
This is the one ugly fact that few want to accept, much less act on – and understandably so, for the ramifications are immense.
“And WHERE are the hundreds of pictures showing the bodies of the children in the airport? ONE drowned “refugee” child was shown on virtually every media outlet in the country!?”
Posted by addisethiopia / አዲስ ኢትዮጵያ on January 27, 2016
The Madness of Frau Merkel
If we’ve learned anything in the last eight years it’s that supposedly smart people can be suicidally stupid, and that idiot savants can easily rationalize sabotaging their own nations.
Obama isn’t the only elite messiah who favors national suicide for past sins, though he is certainly the blindest, most self-righteous and willfully destructive one in American history.
Then there is Frau Angela Merkel — the Chancellor and Chief Guilt-Tripper of Germany. Frau Merkel shares Obama’s fantasy world, where only the Good People rule and the rest follow orders. The EU even has a slogan for it: it’s called the “democracy deficit” — meaning that ordinary voters have no power whatsoever. Yes, the EU is spreading love and peace all over, but — shucks — there’s still a ways to go.
The EU’s seemingly suicidal policy deliberately aims to dilute the percentage of ethnic Europeans in their native countries, to empower the new Franco-German capital in Brussels. This is exactly what Otto von Bismarck did in the 1800s to destroy the provincial capitals of German-speaking Europe, and to centralize all power in one Reich in the Prussian capital of Berlin. Fanatical German nationalism, xenophobia and militarism in the 20th century were a direct product of Bismarck’s imperial unification policy.
Which is why the EU’s kleptocracy can actually destroy the economy of southern Europe without triggering a voter revolt. The elite has knowingly imported more than 50 million Muslims from the tribal backwaters of Pakistan and the Middle East, to serve as welfare voters for Eurosocialist parties, especially in capital cities like Amsterdam, Paris, and Berlin. The EU has also imposed the mass-media cult fantasy of Political Correctness over its colonial peoples; and it has been nice enough to export PC to the United States by way of our Eurosocialist universities.
By now normal voters in Europe are so far removed from the center of power that they’ve basically given up. They are utterly powerless, because they will be scapegoated as Nazis if they ever rebel against the new Ruling Class. By now they are used to following orders, just like the olden times.
So a few weeks ago Frau Merkel could order the opening of Europe’s borders to hundreds of thousands of fraudulent Syrian “rapefugees,” mostly young men who are even now marauding through Europe’s formerly civilized cities. You can see them viciously beating upyoung women on YouTube; and Europe’s present will certainly be our future, if the IslamoLeft has its way.
Two German judges have now declared Frau Merkel’s open borders actions to be unconstitutional — but hey, who’s gonna do anything about it? By now those ravening invaders have gone to ground, dumped their fake Syrian passports, signed up to vote for Islamo-Left parties, and applied for welfare asylum as persecuted victims.
You don’t need a crystal ball to see what’s next: See the rape epidemic in Norway and Sweden for starters. Or, as Frau Merkel charmingly put it, “Germany will have to live with a higher number of criminals.” We’re pretty sure that Obama believes the same thing, but he hasn’t actually said it yet. Same policy, same ideology, same suicidal outcome.
Frau Merkel has learned from Obama that you can spread disaster in your wake and still blame your own voters, and that, in the mass-media-cult of the Islamo-Left, nobody will hold you responsible. On the contrary.
The newest Left-Fascist alliance will cheer on your sabotage of your own people because they know that ordinary folks can’t be trusted to know what’s best.
Obama has a lifelong mission to punish America for the long-ago sin of slavery. In jihadist slang the same thing is called Darb al Harb, or the House of War. It means that you and I are their targeted enemy, like it or not, just as Saul Alinsky wrote in his little book.
Napoleon Chagnon is the most important scientific anthropologist of our time, because he has exposed the true nature of primitive tribal warfare. (See his 1988 Science article called “Life history, blood revenge, and warfare in a tribal population.”)
For a hundred years field anthropologists have watched tribal warfare going on, year after year, but they were not allowed to publish the truth. Leading anthropologists like Margaret Mead and Ashley Montagu simply lied about the violent tribes they knew about.
In reality, as we now know from Chagnon and many others, group aggression is the norm among human clans all over the world. Gang warfare isn’t just happening in inner city Chicago. Up to a third of adult males in traditional tribes die as a result of group or individual violence.
After a lifetime of field work with the hyper-aggressive Yanamamo Indians of Venezuela, Chagnon has made a compelling scientific case that warfare is almost universal in human tribes, and that the clearly understood goal of group violence is to kidnap and rape women, kill adult males, take loot and slaves, and run away for more of the same.
If up to a third of males are violently killed every generation, with another third in the next and so on, in time, human genes will favor preparedness for war.
And yet — warlike tribes also make peace among accepted in-groups, while reserving their aggression for out-groups. The fact is that humans are prepared both for war and peace.
And that is indeed what anthropologists report about the warrior tribes of New Guinea, South and North America, the Vikings, the Mongols, the Khoi San of Africa, the Middle East and all the rest.
Now get this: The great Arabian Desert has long been populated by war-making tribes, just like the ones Napoleon Chagnon studied in the field. Mohammed was a desert raider (and occasional trader) who talked to the Archangel Gabriel in his dreams, and who naturally produced a holy book that reflected his own tribal culture.
(A good source on all this is Lawrence of Arabia’s story of his time in the Arabian Desert in WW1, which included being raped by one of his allies. Lawrence never went back.)
In primitive tribal warfare, women belong to the victorious male or gang of males by right of conquest, as the divinely ordained spoils of war, along with male slaves and loot. According to Chagnon, Yanamamo men freely boast about the sexual benefits of warfare. Raping the daughters of an enemy clan is glorified. To a warrior every raped woman means both a practical and genetic victory over an enemy clan, in the everlasting Hobbesian violence of the primitive world.
Rape is a crime in more civilized cultures, and a major cause for shame, guilt and punishment. But to primitive tribal males, it is the greatest sign of victory, as long as rape is committed against an enemy clan.
Therefore, what Angela Merkel recently did, in the eyes of the invading “refugees,” is to signal tribal surrender to an essentially primitive war cult.
You may want to read that sentence again, and maybe check Chagnon’s historic Science article for evidence. The web is the biggest scientific library in history, and there is enough good anthropology to balance the usual lies from the usual suspects.
In Quranic warfare, killing, looting and rape are justified and even commanded.
The rules of holy warfare have been debated by various priesthoods since the early caliphates, and they are now enshrined in written codes of conduct in the name of Allah. Muslim imams and mullahs are not shy about glorifying Mohammed’s life as a tribal warrior, and as a model for all men. Islam has simply incorporated the tactics of ancient tribal warfare into its holy books.
Last year the Saudi Wahhabi priesthood publicly declared that ISIS is religiously justified in its endless bloody crimes, especially if the victims are Shi’ites, Christians, Yazidis, atheist Europeans like Frau Merkel, and all the rest. If you don’t worship Allah in the Wahhabi way, you’re on the plate for dinner. Their enemy Shi’ites believe the same thing about the Wahhabis, of course.
If you go back far in human history, this is part of standard human misbehavior — just as peace making is also based in human nature. We are not doomed to kill each other forever. We can, and often we have actually learned to be better, as pointed out by good scientific sources like Harvard’s Steven Pinker and science journalist Nicholas Wade.
Globally, humanity has learned to reduce our tendency to glorify fighting and war. That is why civilizing law codes are so profoundly important in our history, from the Code of Hammurabi to the Mosaic Ten Commandments and the many legal codes of genuinely civilized societies. Humans can certainly be evil, yes, but we also have a capacity for good.
What Chagnon has taught us is that rape is often the most important motivation for tribal war. In cruel Darwinian terms, rape is a way for one clan to spread its genes to others, thereby passing on a genetic preparedness for sexually-motivated violence to future generations.
The tragedy of Islam is to be enormously successful in its conquests since the 7th century, and to fail miserably, time and time again, in building genuine civilization.
That is why we are seeing a resurgent jihadist Islam today, after seventy years of modernism. It is another reactionary fallback to the tribal past.
Persia had a glorious culture before it was conquered by Arab Muslims. The Byzantine Empire was one of the two apostolic sources of Orthodox Christianity, before it was stamped out by Muslim Berbers, Tuaregs, and Turks in Northern Africa. The Buddhist monasteries of Northern India were massacred by the Ghurid Muslims around the year 1200, so that today there are not many Buddhists left in India, where Gautama Buddha first taught. Islam is profoundly reactionary, the most violent and reactionary belief system on earth. Check the facts if you doubt it.
When Stalin’s Soviet armies conquered East Germany at the end of WW II, they committed mass rape, like the Imperial Japanese in Nanking. The Japanese practiced kidnapping women as sex slaves. No doubt some Allied troops committed rape as well — but rape was a crime by the military codes of conduct of the Allied armies. It was not glorified but punished.
The difference between civilized and primitive war is in the codes of conduct that are actually enforced, often with the death penalty.
Civilization is all about rational codes of conduct and their enforcement. That is why the Laws of Hammurabi, the Ten Commandments, and Blackstone on English Common Law are so historically important.
Angela Merkel is a Eurosocialist who was brought up in Marxist East Germany. Merkel was deeply indoctrinated in Political Correctness, the most recent political mythology of the European Union.
But the Muslim code of conduct is the Quran, which emerged out of the universal tribal warfare of the Arabian Desert of the 7th th century. Mohammed was a tribal chief who transformed that culture into Islam.
Islam means “submission,” — not “peace” — and a Muslim is “one who submits.” As in obeying military orders, just like the goose-stepping armies of Europe in World War I.
Nazi soldiers used to yell “Zum Befehl!” (By your Order!) to their officers when they were told to commit some fresh horror. Every two-bit corporal could speak in the name of Hitler, who had absolute power. In Islam your local imam or tribal emir has absolutely power to order life and death, in lieu of direct orders from above. That belief gives mere human beings divine and absolute justification to do their worst.
Allah commands war against the infidel to his believers. Slave taking, killing, robbing, and general mayhem are commanded in the Qur’an.
Merkel and Obama either know those facts already, and are working in collusion with jihad, or they are so mentally fixated in goofy leftism that they will never learn the truth.
Either way they send out constant signals of surrender to every jihad-indoctrinated male in the world.
Over the centuries Europe has always fallen for wave after wave of delusional beliefs, all liable to explode into major wars. The wars of the Reformation and Counter-Reformation had scarcely stopped smoking when Frederick the Great invented nationalistic militarism in Prussia, while the French invented the guillotine, to ensure universal liberty, equality, and brotherhood. Which then kicked off the Napoleonic Wars, then the Franco-Prussian War of revenge, then WW1 and 2, followed by the Soviet Empire, which also acquired its Marxist cult from Germany.
Each international slaughter came after years of media-driven indoctrination into some world-saving, self-aggrandizing ideology, first religious, then imperialistic and militaristic, then Napoleonic, followed by German campaigns of revenge against France, then two compulsive replays in the two world wars, then Soviet imperialism, and now the European Union.
The grand new EU claims to have the answer to war and peace forever. It’s not a secret that the EU wants to run the world through international institutions like the UN, the most corrupt collection of thugs, genociders and rapists on earth.
The EU is of course a messianic cult like all the others, with the difference that previous European delusions killed foreigners; but this time the ruling class has declared war on its own peoples.
Frau Merkel may not look like a black Chicago Machine politician, but in their hearts they are twin souls.
Nude Statues Covered in Rome for Visit of Iran’s Rouhani, Italians Outraged
Out of respect for Iranian President Hassam Rouhani, Italy’s Prime Minister Matteo Renzi had a series of nude statues at the Capitoline Museum completely covered for the leader’s visit Tuesday, which has a number of Italians hopping mad.
These were no mere fig leaves, but immense white wooden boxes that completely shielded the offending statues from the sensitive eyes of President Rouhani and the Iranian media train that has followed his trip to Italy, Italian news sources revealed. Twitter also gave its own insight:
Moreover, at the banquet held in Rouhani’s honor, no wine was served at table to anyone, out of respect for the Muslim rule of abstinence.
Italian citizens were furious at what they considered an affront, and some have suggested that the error was serious enough to cause the Prime Minister political problems.
As one article noted, Italy is already playing host to the president of a regime that holds the world record for executions; that imprisons, tortures and kills political prisoners; that humiliates women; and that for decades has commissioned the assassination of dissidents. What need was there—the piece asks—to add further humiliation to the already questionable call of receiving the Iranian leader at all?
“To cover the statues of the Capitoline Museums, to cover and symbolically renounce our art and our culture,” the piece continues, “means the surrender of a country and a national and global embarrassment that no Italian citizen deserved and no business deal justifies.”
Prior to the visit to the Museum, Rouhani reportedly signed contracts with Italy worth up to $18.4 billion.
“The decision to cover the nudity of the statues at the Capitoline Museums,” said Fabio Rampelli of the Alleanza Nazionale party, “is worthy of the worst Islamist terrorist. It was a decision that offends Western culture and the supremacy of art as a vehicle of culture and freedom.”
Another essay similarly complained that Italy had “bowed down” to Rouhani and art had been “sacrificed” to a new relationship between Iran and Italy. The “astonishing tribute to the Islamic culture” was even more offensive, the article noted, by “the small amount of time dedicated in official talks to the subject of human rights and of Iranian hostilities toward Israel.”
Posted by addisethiopia / አዲስ ኢትዮጵያ on November 28, 2015
One of the frequently cited quips in the halls of Congress is that politics makes for strange bedfellows, meaning that some alliances between Democrats and Republicans, especially given today’s toxic environment in Washington, are hard to fathom. However, perhaps even more difficult to understand is the strange affinity that has developed over the past two decades between Islamists – radical Muslims – and the American progressive movement, or what Michael Walsh has termed the “unholy left.”
At first glance, the two entities seem utterly different – one proceeding from the darker recesses of Islamic culture, and the other a seemingly quintessential product of American idealism. In fact, however, what we find between the two political movements is a confluence of interests and perspectives on a variety of matters. Indeed, often the affinity of these two outlooks is frightening.
For instance, both share an animus bordering on hatred for Christianity and Judaism, with the secular progressives trying to expunge Christians from public life, while Islamists yearn to annihilate Jews. Certainly, academic progressives do nothing to discourage the anti-Semitic hatred of Muslims from being expressed on American campuses, as David Horowitz recently pointed out. Why, he wonders, do prominent American universities, such as Brandeis and UCLA, permit offshoots of the Muslim Brotherhood to have free rein on their campuses? “Any other group that preached hatred of ethnic groups or supported barbaric terrorists who slaughter men, women and children as part of a demented mission to cleanse the earth of infidels would face campus sanctions, disciplinary action, and be charged with conduct code violations.”
But apparently this doesn’t bother secular progressives, who dominate American higher education. Quite the contrary: progressives luxuriate in moralistic narcissism whenever presented with the opportunity to condemn “primitive thinkers” for “Islamophobia,” sometimes even after radical Muslims have perpetrated some horrific attack, as in the Fort Hood massacre. And other times, it just takes a youngster falsely accused of bringing a bomb to school, which turned out to be a homemade clock, to trigger progressive sensibilities: “Finally,” crowed The Daily Beast, “the Muslim hero America has been waiting for.” In fact, Ahmed Mohamed’s little exercise earned him a visit to the White House and a note of encouragement from Hillary Clinton. He later departed with his family for the apparently more agreeable clime of Qatar, a Muslim country. Perhaps officials are more tolerant there.
They’re not, of course, nor are secular progressives in America or radical Islamists everywhere. Neither believes in free speech, as progressives put clamps on expression wherever they can, especially in higher education, by forbidding outside speakers to lecture and by doubling down on trigger warnings, microaggressions, miniscule free speech zones, and “safe places” for suffering souls overcome with a case of the vapors after being exposed to a dissident thought. Meanwhile, Islamist punishments for blasphemy are unforgiving, brutal, and nefarious.
Further, secular progressives and radical Islamists hold America in contempt, and they favor rule by an unaccountable elite – an administrative-bureaucratic class of experts, in the progressive case, a vision that has lurked in the progressive imagination since Teddy Roosevelt’s days, while Muslims insist on obeisance to sharia enforced by religious overseers. Both aspire to totalitarian rule under dictatorships of those who are self-selected by political or religious criteria. These presiding masters are radically anti-modern and yearn to establish or recreate primeval societies based on apocalyptic rants of environmental cultists on the one hand and atavistic seventh-century radicals on the other. Both movements lie habitually, with the assurance that deception is justified by the needs of their religious-political movements, and with the assurance of never having to face the consequences of their words and actions. Finally, both are supported by very large segments of their societies.
Of course, there are differences as well, several of which are important. For instance, radical Islamists view Western libertinism with abhorrence, do not tolerate homosexuality or feminism, and worship a higher being – all of which are anathema to secular progressive ideology. Indeed, in the long run, progressives could no more live under sharia than Islamists could celebrate the gay lifestyle. But this matters little in the short run, during which each side finds the other useful for combating a common foe – a constitutional democracy with Judeo-Christian roots. This means that secular progressives and Islamists will continue to work in concert, indefinitely, for all the reasons cited above. And in spite of isolated setbacks, they are winning.
Can a Dying Civilization Defeat ISIS and Radical Islam?
By any measure, we are losing the war against ISIS and radical Islam. A bigger problem is we do not yet realize we are losing or why. Their legions are growing, their ambitions are apocalyptic, and our resolve is as strong as silly putty.
Without question, our military is superior to any other on earth and we could inflict devastating damage to ISIS if we unleashed our military forces against them. But we are not going to do that—not today, not next month and not after the next atrocity strikes Cleveland, Phoenix or Richmond.
We have a President and his designated replacement-in-waiting who think “climate change” is a greater threat than Islamists with nuclear weapons, and that the way to defeat squads of suicide bombers is to welcome their brothers, sisters and cousins as our neighbors and give them the right to vote.
But we have a deeper problem than our commander in chief being AWOL. If you ask yourself how he can get away with never uttering the words “radical Islam,” then you might begin uncovering the deeper problem: Obama is not alone in willfully avoiding the truth about an enemy sworn to our destruction. He has many accomplices and coconspirators.
If we are honest we must face a very dark and sobering fact: The outcome of this war is far from certain. We are proud of being a nation of can-do optimists, but we are also a nation in denial about a culture in a tailspin.
The real enemy is not “over there” in Syria and Iraq, or in Paris or London. The enemy is already here in our homeland, and I am not speaking of terrorist cells, Syrian refugees, or radical imams. I am speaking of the accelerating rot in our own culture.
Our secular culture is adrift in a sea of relativism, escapism, and self-indulgent inanities, with our media and entertainment elites leading the parade.
Where were you, Daddy, when we were waging the war on terror?” Oh, well, I was watching reality TV. On TV, the good guys always defeat the bad guys. And I can always change the channel.
In this besotted condition, we are ill equipped to fight an enemy full of passion, idealism and self-confidence. Islamist suicide bombers believe they are dying for a higher purpose, the greater glory of Allah. What, exactly, are our ideals? The freedom to enjoy pornography and polygamy and 24-hour pizza delivery?
The war with ISIS and its Islamist allies is what historian Samuel P. Huntington called a “clash of civilizations” in a book by that title in 1996.
Tocqueville warned us 200 years ago that we would never be defeated by an invader, but we could abandon liberty by adopting a “soft tyranny” of democratic corruption.
The early 20th century economist Joseph Schumpeter gave a similar warning about the inevitable corruption of morals that comes with capitalism’s triumph. If everything is permitted in an open marketplace, higher values will be replaced by cheaper ones— and there is no principle within pure capitalism to halt that cultural degeneration.
Then in our generation, along comes “multiculturalism” to teach that there are no superior cultures, only different ones. Witchcraft is as much a legitimate personal religion as Christianity or Buddhism if that is what turns you on, and polygamy is just another “lifestyle” with its own cable TV channel.
The great Russian novelist Alexandr Solzhenitsyn saw this deepening hollowness in the West as a global development spanning five centuries, with Soviet Communism only a symptom of lost souls. In his Templeton Lecture in 1983, long before the rise of radical Islam, he warned:
“It has become embarrassing to state that evil makes its home in the individual human heart before it enters a political system. Yet it is not considered shameful to make dally concessions to an integral evil. Judging by the continuing landslide of concessions made before the eyes of our very own generation, the West is ineluctably slipping toward the abyss.”
ISIS and radical Islam have declared war on us not because of anything we have done—not because we are a friend to Israel and not because we have not yet toppled the bloody Syrian dictator Assad. ISIS and radical Islamists hate us for who we are. The irony is, we ourselves do not know who we are.
The Chinese philosopher Sun Tsu said it best in The Art of War:
“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”
ISIS hates the West as an abominable nest of infidels, infidels who reject the Quran and Shariah Law, and so must be annihilated. We are the obstacle to the new Caliphate. OKAY— got it: We stand against the Caliphate. But what do we stand for? What is our alternative ideal to the Islamist ideal? Those happy optimists who think this is a largely academic question should consider the generational dimension to cultural identities and dissatisfactions.
While radical Islam may indeed hold little attraction for the large majority of Muslim immigrants and refugees now relocating in Europe and America, it will be different matter for thousands of their children. The mastermind behind the Paris terror attack was the son of successful, fully assimilated Moroccan immigrants.
A growing number of reliable public opinion polls of Muslim populations (Pew, Gallup, Rasmussen, among others) reveal that 13% to 32% of Muslims have a positive view of ISIS — as do 17% of Syrian refugees.
So, it is both reasonable and prudent to ask ourselves — what percentage of the children of several million Muslim migrants will choose the values of our ascendant secular hedonism over the allure of “true Islam”? One percent of two million is 20,000 potential jihadists.
Radical Islam’s principles are out there for all to see if they open their eyes. But what are our principles? In truth, they are up for grabs.
Posted by addisethiopia / አዲስ ኢትዮጵያ on October 12, 2011
Last month a Christian owner of a Café where bible verses were being displayed on television screens was told (quite incorrectly) by police that he was breaking the law.
The fact that British police would consider the displaying of Christian scripture an illegal offence is a concerning indication of the mentality that British society has come to adopt towards all things Christian.
For anyone who follows the British media’s reporting of American politics, the continuous attempt to run down certain American politicians on account of their faith rather than engaging with their politics has now become a rather boring familiarity.
Bush and Palin are crazed evangelical fundamentalists we are forever being told, oh yawn, is this kind of cheap and lazy defamation really what we have to make do with for journalism?
Yet what is far more concerning is what is happening to Christians here in our own country. It is only when one steps back and takes an overview of the litany of cases where Christians have been discriminated against for their religious convictions, that it is possible to appreciate what resembles a sustained assault against the Christian communities in Britain.
Whether it is the case of the nurse who was suspended for offering to pray for a patient, the van driver who faced disciplinary action if he refused to remove a palm cross from his dashboard, the couple who were prohibited from fostering because of their Christian beliefs or the supply teacher who was dismissed when she mentioned praying for a child’s family. The list goes on and on.
Then there are the truly bizarre cases of town councils choosing not to put up their annual display of Christmas decorations or the BBC dropping the use of the terms BC and AD because of their Christian connotations.
It is as if there is a systematic effort to extrapolate British society from its Christian heritage and the values that have for centuries served as a basis for British culture and identity. Those who have been responsible for these moves have often advocated for them on the grounds of creating a more secular and therefore a supposedly more inclusive and pluralistic society for everyone.
Yet it is hard to escape the fact that it has often been the very same people who have promoted secular values when it has come to driving out Christian aspects of public life, who have simultaneously lent their support for the establishment of a parallel religious legal system in the form of Sharia law courts.
Indeed there seems to be a curious disparity here.
How is it that the media has often lambasted Christian individuals who have found themselves dismissed from work or even in court on account of their views on sexuality and yet concurrent to this we hear so relatively little about those hard-line Islamic preachers who have openly preached hate over issues of gender and homosexuality, issues that the liberal press claims to champion.
At our universities these speakers are often provided with an open platform on the grounds of free speech and freedom of religious expression. Those were the kind of arguments that many in the British media were at pains to stress when discussing the ground zero mosque in Manhattan. And while our media obsessed over supporting the building of one mosque in America, it all but ignored the burning down of countless churches elsewhere in the world, not to mention the massacring of Coptic Christians in their Churches in Egypt or the murder of Iraqi Christians in their places of worship there.
Yet this is symptomatic of a growing double standard. We all remember the crowds who turned out for the protest at the Pope rally last year but where were the demonstrations against the then Mayor Ken Livingstone sponsoring the visit to London by the extremist cleric Yusuf al-Qaradawi?
The reality now seems to be that in Britain, Christians are treated by entirely different standards to that thought appropriate for other religious groups. It is as if Christians and their faith have become fair game. But it should not be left to Christians to campaign on this issue alone.
As much as I am not a Christian, it still seems clear that all of us who value the rights and freedoms afforded by a liberal democracy should ensure that there is fair treatment for Christians in Britain.
More than that, we as a society need to recognize that Christianity has played a major and for the most part extremely positive role, in forming our nation’s history and national identity.
Those who cannot bring themselves to understand this will naturally also prove unable to appreciate what it means to actually be British and our society will continue to suffer from the chronic loss of values and any sense of purpose that currently seems to be at the heart of so many of the social challenges that we now face.
Source: Huffingtonpost, posted: 11/10/11
BBC is anti-Christian and ageist, viewer survey finds
The BBC uses “derogatory stereotypes” to portray Christians while marginalising older women, according to the corporation’s own research.
Viewers and staff expressed concerns about “tokenism” and diversity “box-ticking” and warned that positive discrimination was skewing recruitment.
Many people believe the corporation retains a politically Left-wing or “liberal bias” and that religions other than Christianity were sometimes better represented, according to they survey.
The report based on the poll results, obtained by the Daily Mail, concluded: “In terms of religion, there were many who perceived the BBC to be anti-Christian and as such misrepresenting Christianity.”
It added: “Christians are specifically mentioned as being badly treated, with a suggestion that more minority religions are better represented despite Christianity being the most widely observed religion within Britain.”
One respondent was quoted as saying: “As a Christian I find that the BBC’s representation of Christianity is mainly inaccurate, portraying incorrect, often derogatory stereotypes.”
Another added: “Seldom do we find a Christian portrayed in drama, and when we do, it is usually a “weak” person or a “bigot”.”
The BBC generated blasphemy protests from Christian groups in 2005 when it aired Jerry Springer: The Opera, which became one of the most complained about shows in television history.
A BBC spokesman said: “We have strict editorial guidelines on impartiality, including religious perspectives, and Christian programming forms the majority and the cornerstone of our religion and ethical output.”
_______
Addis Ethiopia Weblog 