Download Stripping the Gurus PDF



THE STANDARD LINE, especially from Christians and atheists, is: “Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims.”

Except for abortion-clinic bombers. And Timothy McVeigh (a “confirmed Catholic” in his youth). And Anders Breivik. And the Black Panthers. (“April 1969: Twenty-one members of the New York chapter are indicted and jailed for a bombing conspiracy. In May 1969, three members of the New Haven chapter tortured and murdered Alex Rackley, a 19-year-old member of the New York chapter, because they suspected him of being a police informant. Spring 1970: The Oakland BPP engages in another ambush of police officers with guns and fragmentation bombs.”) And the feminists who threatened Erin Pizzey for her research showing that most domestic violence is reciprocal. (Wikipedia: “Pizzey has been the subject of death threats and boycotts because of her research into the claim that most domestic violence is reciprocal, and that women are equally capable of violence as men. Pizzey has said that the threats were from militant feminists.”) And the IRA.

And Nelson Mandela:

“We the members of the Umkhonto have pledged ourselves to kill them—kill the whites.” These are lyrics from the anthem of Umkhonto we Sizwe, or “Spear of the Nation.” The organization is better known as the MK, the military wing of the Marxist African National Congress (ANC). The MK was established by its commander, Nelson Mandela, to prosecute a terrorist war against South Africa’s racist apartheid regime.
Mandela had been out of prison for about two years in September 1992 when, fist clenched in the “black power” salute, he was filmed singing the anthem with a number of his comrades.

As always, one man’s (or woman’s) freedom fighter or Crusader is another man’s (or womyn’s) unrepentant terrorist.

The ANC, however, were no freedom fighters. The armed struggle Mandela led was not to give every South African an equal opportunity to enjoy the fruits of liberty. It was a will-to-power struggle to give the Communists dominion over the country.

Oops. Still, a terrorist nonetheless, even with the best of intentions and motivations. Or not.

Not to mention the patriotic, rallying-round-the-cultic-flag Americans who threatened the Dixie Chicks with death if they didn’t just “shut up and sing” rather than openly opposing the war in Iraq. (For his own part, the best that the otherwise eloquent and loquacious hawk Christopher Hitchens could manage in response to the Chicks’ simple and relatively innocuous declaration that they were embarrassed that George W. Bush was from their home state of Texas, was to call that trio of beautiful, immensely talented, brave and faithfully married women “fat sluts.” Rarely have such hopelessly stupid words been uttered by such an otherwise keenly intelligent, witty and insightful man—disastrously wrong though he may have been in his belief that no alternative regime, or even civil war, could be worse than Saddam Hussein; with that naïve and uninformed belief providing the basis for his support of the 2003 invasion.)

Likewise, Christian abortion-clinic bombers have always been exactly “morally equivalent” to Islamic terrorists. That is, within the basic set of nonsensical Christians beliefs, if one could save the innocent souls of countless unborn children through the terrorist killing of doctors and mothers who were going to spend eternity in hell anyway, it is a simple “moral calculus” to conclude that such actions are entirely “rational” within that belief-set:

The man accused of fatally shooting three people at a Colorado Planned Parenthood clinic last year said he hoped that when he died fetuses in heaven would thank him for stopping more abortions....

In the same way, in a world where human souls are sent at death to either heaven or hell, it would simply be rational to do everything you can to save the souls of humans on other continents. Indeed, within that set of beliefs, the failure to do precisely that is morally inexcusable.

No surprise, then, that both Christianity and Islam have been instruments par excellence for colonialism, as that is their “rational” outcome, even independent of any economic or political influences.

Further, if one really believes in heaven, the only rational reason to delay one’s entrance into that blessed eternity with Jesus is if one is working tirelessly for the salvation of others. There is no other rational reason to postpone one’s own death, within any heaven-or-hell system of beliefs, wherein one’s own salvation has already been secured.

How many Christians have you ever met who lived like that? If Mother Teresa had lived up to her myth (she didn’t, not even close), she might qualify; but who else?

Nor is any of that excused by the idea that “people are allowed to believe whatever they want to believe, in the privacy of their own conscience.” For, as soon as that idea is combined with the reality that “your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins,” and with the fact that people’s batshit-crazy beliefs influence the way that they vote (which in turn affects others), it becomes obvious that belief in religious nonsense, and its inherent tendency to pummel the noses of others based on pure fairy tales, is outright immoral. Worse, when such religious believers procreate, they will do their very best (in a form of child abuse) to indoctrinate/brainwash their children into the same “God-fearing” belief-system—i.e., “believe, or you’ll burn in hell forever.” There, too, even with the best of intentions, they are breaking the noses of others who are too young to even understand that they are being psychologically abused.

(Even Scientology’s Sea Org contract was only for a billion years; but for Christians and Muslims, the salvational decisions made in this one life affect one’s soul eternally. No reincarnation-based religion can even be placed in the same category, of cultic psychological abuse. And if you’re wondering about the other toxic Abrahamic religion, early Judaism did not concern itself with the afterlife.)

Nor is the difference between Christianity and Islam merely that Christianity has experienced a “reformation” since its “long ago” (!) Inquisition and witch-hunts. (“Except within the Papal States, the institution of the Inquisition was abolished in the early 19th century, after the Napoleonic Wars in Europe and after the Spanish American wars of independence in the Americas. The institution survived as part of the Roman Curia, but in 1904 was given the new name of ‘Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office.’ In 1965 it became the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.”)

Not to mention that, when Monty Python released their classic satire The Life of Brian, numerous regions in Europe succeeded in banning the motion picture:

“[T]he film was shunned by the BBC and ITV, who declined to show it for fear of offending Christians in the UK. Once again a blasphemy was restrained—or its circulation effectively curtailed—not by the force of law but by the internalization of this law.” On its initial release in the UK, the film was banned by several town councils—some of which had no cinemas within their boundaries, or had not even seen the film. A member of Harrogate council, one of those that banned the film, revealed during a television interview that the council had not seen the film, and had based their opinion on what they had been told by the Nationwide Festival of Light, a grouping with an evangelical Christian base, of which they knew nothing.
Some bans continued into the 21st century. In 2008, Torbay Council finally permitted the film to be shown after it won an online vote for the English Riviera International Comedy Film Festival. In 2009, it was announced that a thirty-year-old ban of the film in the Welsh town of Aberystwyth had finally been lifted, and the subsequent showing was attended by Terry Jones and Michael Palin alongside mayor Sue Jones-Davies (who portrayed Judith Iscariot in the film).... In 2013, a German official in the state of North Rhine-Westphalia considered the film to be possibly offensive to Christians and hence subject to a local regulation prohibiting its public screening on Good Friday, despite protests by local atheists.
In New York ... screenings were picketed by both rabbis and nuns (“Nuns with banners!” observed Michael Palin). It was also banned for eight years in Ireland and for a year in Norway (it was marketed in Sweden as “The film so funny that it was banned in Norway”).

The “Christian tolerance” for free speech (i.e., heresy) did not stop there. Rather, as Michael Palin further observed:

I certainly didn’t expect to hear people say that [The Life of Brian] might be an incitement to violence.... It’s a dangerous thing to say.

Those threats of violence came from Christians in the 1970s protesting a film. Only because the violence did not materialize are they distinguishable from Muslim reactions to the Danish cartoons, a quarter of a century later.

Likewise for devout Christian reactions to other artistic expressions of blasphemy against their “One True Religion”:

Examples include Andres Serrano’s Piss Christ (an image of a crucifix submerged in what appears to be urine) and Chris Ofili’s Holy Virgin Mary, with its image of an African Madonna crafted from the author’s trade-mark use of paint and elephant dung, with cherub-like images of female genitalia. Serrano received death threats, and in the Brooklyn Museum of Art, Ofili’s painting needed an armed guard and Perspex screen to protect it, after high-profile critics including Mayor Giuliani attacked the museum for showing it.

Likewise, consider the response of Pope Francis to the 2015 Charlie Hebdo massacre:

If my good friend Dr. Gasparri says a curse word against my mother, he can expect a punch. It’s normal. You cannot provoke. You cannot insult the faith of others. You cannot make fun of the faith of others.... There are so many people who speak badly about religions or other religions, who make fun of them ... who make a game out of the religions of others. They are provocateurs. And what happens to them is what would happen to Dr. Gasparri if he says a curse word against my mother. There is a limit.

Or, as Christopher Hitchens observed years earlier, with regard to the fatwa against Salman Rushdie: “The Cardinal of New York, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi of Israel, and the Vatican newspaper L’Osservatore Romano united in defining the problem as one more of blasphemy than of terrorism.”

But, of course, like the witch-hunts, all of that is in the distant past, and should not be held against today’s Christianity. It has reformed since then. Har.

Recently in Pakistan, a Muslim boy deliberately cut off his own hand, believing it had inadvertently blasphemed the Prophet. He might as well have been following Jesus’s barbaric injunction (in Matthew 5:30) that “if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell.”

Thankfully, on that point, at least, Christianity has indeed reformed ... by deliberately ignoring the explicit teachings of its founder.

Religions do not typically “reform” voluntarily, except in watering themselves down to attract greater numbers of adherents, and in their younger followers seeing all the mouth-watering goodies (e.g., alcohol and pre-marital sex) that are being denied to them, and wantin’ to get them some o’ that without giving up their salvation. They thus tend toward more lenient interpretations of a holy scripture which, if it was ever God’s Word to begin with, should never have been tampered with, including via non-fundamentalist interpretations. That is, if it really is the inspired Word of God, the fundamentalist interpretation is the only possible correct one. Or, if it isn’t that inspired Word, it’s worse than garbage.

For example, the Bible does not explicitly forbid pre-marital sex (for men), simply because there was no such socially acceptable option in Biblical times. (Per Deuteronomy 22:20-1, however, women are required to be virgins on their wedding night; those who were not, were stoned to death. That requirement of female virginity was never abrogated by anything in the New Testament.) Recent generations of Christians, however, have ridiculously taken that missing “thou shalt not” as permission to engage in the activity pre-nuptially, as it were. But there again, the fundamentalists are right: any reasonable reading of the so-called Word of God makes it obvious that sex before marriage is on the list of “don’ts.” Fortunately, Jesus (who never even lived) will forgive them that transgression, and they will all live happily ever after, in that magical heavenly land where the streets are paved with gold, no one ever grows old, and there is neither marriage nor childbirth (i.e., no sexual activity).

It can be argued that the literalists follow the precise passages and the moderates invent complex arguments to excuse the difficult passages away. I would argue that the reason so many Muslims are orthodox and strict is because that indeed, is the correct way to interpret the Qur’an—that is, if you believe it is the direct word of God and “not to be doubted.”

Indeed. If any holy book was the real, revealed Word of God, what possible excuse could there be for “reforming” its injunctions to “not suffer a witch to live,” etc.? If the Bible was the Word of God, then the Inquisitionists and witch-hunters got it right the first time. It is the reformers who should be worried about what God will think of their Satan-inspired activities!

As 2 Timothy 3:16 infallibly informs us, “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.” (This is the verse commonly used in circular claims like: “The Bible is true because God wrote it.” “How do you know He wrote it?” “Because the Bible says so.”)

Religious believers, in particular Christians, are fond of saying (of atheists) that “if you believe in nothing, you can believe anything.” That facile expression, however, overlooks the glaring fact that, in believing that Jesus lived, died on the Cross for their sins, and rose again, they are the ones who will believe anything, so long as it is taught to them by a trusted authority/parent figure or supportive in-group. That is, they have showed beyond any doubt that they have no functioning skeptical “baloney detectors,” and require no reality-testing of their beliefs. Had they been born in a different part of the world, they would believe in the Qur’an, Allah, and Muhammad as his Prophet, every bit as devoutly as they believe in Jesus as the Son of God. Hell, had they been born in ancient Greece, they’d believe in Zeus.

That is explained eloquently in this post on Why Religion Needs To Be Destroyed:

The thing that is so terrifying about faith and belief to an atheist, is the fact that it’s a clear indicator that you have no standard of evidence for the things you will believe. To someone who is not inside of your head, this forces us to wonder what else you could be led to believe.
When you talk to us about virgin births and walking on water, turning water to wine and rising from the dead, as though these things are historical fact, we are forced to be afraid of the other ideas you might accept without evidence.
It is fact that good people are led to believe awful things all the time. It is fact that grown adults, with intelligence and compassion, are duped into joining cults all the time. It is fact that moderate believers can and have been led further into their faith to the point that they have been compelled to commit awful acts of violence.
The fact is, without evidence, you believe the impossible stories of the Bible or the Quran or the Torah. The fact is, you have zero standard of evidence for what you will accept as fact. We have absolutely no choice but to wonder and be extremely concerned about where you might draw the line. At which point does human life, liberty and rights become more important than your faith? At which point do the stories become too much, and too insane to believe? Where are your boundaries, where is your stopping point, and would you go all the way like the Muslim extremists did in Paris this morning [i.e., the 2015 Charlie Hebdo attacks], given a good enough story about God wanting you to?
How far would you go to please your God? If you wouldn’t go as far as the extremists, where, exactly is the line you will not cross, and why?
In the heat of debate, I’ve heard and read many believers admit they would kill their child if their God demanded. Do you fall into this category? Why or why not?....
I beg of you, believers, to consider thinking long and hard about what your standard of evidence is. What evidence should there be before you accept something is true? Because if you continually accept things on faith, there really is no line, no matter what you say. You could be led to believe anything, and just like the good people who ended up dead at Jonestown or the normal, average, decent German soldier in World War II who only wanted to protect his country and was led to believe he had to hurt innocent civilians to do so, you could be led to do something awful. These people were not idiots. They were not compassionless. They were not awful human beings. They were good people who were led to do awful things because they had no standard of evidence for the things they would believe.

Of course, even with standards of evidence, when the punishments for disloyalty or disobedience far outweigh the benefits of “just following orders” from an unquestionable authority, it will be very difficult to resist that authority.

Religion must end because it perpetuates living without critical thought. It weakens the line that good, decent human beings will not cross. It creates fuzzy boundaries and mass gullibility. It says, “here is something nonsensical you must accept on faith” and it makes people outside of your head wonder, if you’ll accept this nonsensical idea on faith, what other insane ideas can you be convinced of?
It puts yourself in danger. It puts me in danger. It puts the world in danger.

The real difference between the two overgrown death-cults of Jesus-ism and Muhammad-ism is only that Christianity has been subjected, over the past few centuries, to secular forces of Enlightenment thought and science:

When Christians came to the colonies they went to their corners, Protestant, Puritans, Anglicans and Catholics; and if one entered the others’ colony there was persecution and death. Christians killing Christians for believing different versions of Christianity....
[T]hroughout the Enlightenment era and since, Christianity was effectively forced to accept co-existing with secularism, free speech, and more permissive sexual mores. Islam is clearly way behind and elements of it are trying to revert to ancient barbarism.

Indeed, Islam has festered in a pre-rational, human-rights bereft desert vacuum which the pre-2001 West had little interest in except for its oil, and in the CIA’s support of Osama bin Laden as a tool against Russia in the Cold War, etc. The latter point is taught to Canadian soldiers by their military commanders, and was further explicitly acknowledged by no less than Hillary Clinton:

Well prior to that, the Mujahadeen were created by President Carter and his National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan.

Even moderate Muslims today would typically vote in favor of blasphemy and hate-speech laws, to prevent a repeat of perceived offenses to them and their “Prophet” (a true exemplar of hate speech) like the Danish cartoons. The same laws would take away the freedom of speech as exercised by Geert Wilders and the late Theo van Gogh (murdered by a Muslim). When you are welcoming people into your country who would eagerly take your freedoms away from you if they only had the numbers to do so, and who are reproducing at well above replacement rate, you really need to reevaluate whether that is in any way a good idea. (The U.S. Pew Forum think-tank “put the 2005-10 fertility rate among UK Muslims at 3.0, which means that the average British Muslim had exactly three children in her lifetime, compared to 1.8 children for non-Muslim women.” In Canada, the fertility rate for Muslims is 2.4, compared with 1.6 children per woman for non-Muslims.)

From Why Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s Criticism of Islam Angers Western Liberals:

A December 2015 report by the Pew Research Center [found that decisive] if not overwhelming majorities of Muslims in most of the 39 countries surveyed wanted Sharia law—a fundamentalist legal code based on the Koran and other Islamic texts—to be the official law of the land in their countries. In Indonesia, home to the world’s largest Muslim population, 77 percent of Muslims said they want Sharia law imposed. In Pakistan the figure was 84 percent; in the Palestinian territories, 89 percent; in Iraq, 91 percent and in Afghanistan it reached 99 percent.

Support for Sharia law, or the punishment of death for adultery or apostasy, indelibly marks a Muslim as non-moderate and not capable of integration into Western civilization, with its “one law for all.” Thus, globally, two-thirds of Muslims are radicals, even if they are not personally chopping off hands and blowing things up.

Or perhaps it’s merely one-half of Muslims, globally, who are radicals. That wouldn’t be so bad now, would it?

Likewise, consider this review of John Esposito and Dalia Mogahed’s Gallup-published book, Who Speaks for Islam?:

[T]here are not 91 million radicals in Muslim societies but almost twice that number. [The authors] must have shrieked in horror to find their original estimate on the high side of assessments made by scholars, such as Daniel Pipes, whom Esposito routinely denounces as Islamophobes....
The cover-up is even worse. The full data from the 9/11 question show that, in addition to the 13.5 percent, there is another 23.1 percent of respondents—300 million Muslims—who told pollsters the attacks were in some way justified. Esposito and Mogahed don’t utter a word about the vast sea of intolerance in which the radicals operate.
And then there is the more fundamental fraud of using the 9/11 question as the measure of “who is a radical.” Amazing as it sounds, according to Esposito and Mogahed, the proper term for a Muslim who hates America, wants to impose Sharia law, supports suicide bombing, and opposes equal rights for women but does not “completely” justify 9/11 is ... “moderate.”

As Emma-Kate Symons further notes in “Moderates are losing the fight to save Islam from racists and extremists”:

[J]ihadists like the 2015 Paris attackers and their counterparts in Kenya, Australia, and Syria have libraries filled with erudite theological and religious texts providing the spiritual underpinnings for their actions. And they can’t be kept out with walls and better security, because they are within the society—they are homegrown [i.e., via previous generations of Muslim immigration, all of which will only worsen in the future without “walls and better security” being put into place now]....
These young men are not doing what they are doing because they are all poor, miserable, excluded, alienated-types.
As we know, the Abdeslam family was fully “integrated” with a family income of more than €100,000 ($120,000), even owning bars.

One of the accomplices in the Brussels terror attacks, too, had previously been featured on television as a model example of “integration,” via his sports-team membership.

No one would ever accuse Yusef Islam (Cat Stevens) of being anything but a moderate, peace-loving Muslim. Yet his alleged support for the fatwa against Salman Rushdie, following the publication of The Satanic Verses, has been well publicized:

At a lecture, back in 1989, I was asked a question about blasphemy according to Islamic Law, I simply repeated the legal view according to my limited knowledge of the Scriptural texts, based directly on historical commentaries of the Qur’an. The next day the newspaper headlines read, “Cat Says, Kill Rushdie.” I was abhorred, but what could I do? I was a new Muslim. If you ask a Bible student to quote the legal punishment of a person who commits blasphemy in the Bible, he would be dishonest if he didn’t mention Leviticus 24:16 [“And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him”].

Nor were the Levitican punishments for blasphemy entirely rolled back in the New Testament, per Luke 12:10:

And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven.

Stevens converted to Islam (the religion) in 1977; he had been practicing it devoutly for more than a decade by 1989. In short, he was lying through his teeth about his supposedly neophyte state as a believer of the religion:

When asked about my opinion regarding blasphemy, I could not tell a lie and confirmed that—like both the Torah and the Gospel—the Qur’an considers it, without repentance, as a capital offense. The Bible is full of similar harsh laws if you’re looking for them. However, the application of such Biblical and Qur’anic injunctions is not to be outside of due process of law, in a place or land where such law is accepted and applied by the society as a whole....

All of which means simply that when Muslims have the votes to change the laws in the West, Yusef will abide gleefully by the decisions of the then-Sharia courts. That is, after all, what the Prophet wants. Peace be upon him. Or, as the British Muslim activist Anjem Choudary explicitly stated: “By 2050, Britain will be a majority Muslim country. It will be the end of freedom of democracy and submission to [the Christian] God. We don’t believe in democracy, as soon as they have authority, Muslims should implement Sharia. This is what we’re trying to teach people.”

The Islamists are very clear about this. Democracy is un-Islamic, it is an infidel concept. Islamist political parties have gone on record as saying that whilst they are happy to use the democratic process to gain power they have no intention of retaining democracy once they get into power.

In that regard, note that

In the 2001 UK census, the percentage of Londoners identifying as white British was 59.79%. In the 2011 UK census this dropped to 44.89%. This is absolutely staggering. If current trends continue in 2021, 2031, 2041 and 2051—and they absolutely are continuing—then not only will white British people be a minority, they will be a very tiny and insignificant minority.
After decades of denial, French demographers now agree that about 25 per cent of school-age children are Muslim. So France faces a cultural and political revolution within a generation.

In 2007, Rushdie himself composed a letter to the editor of The Daily Telegraph. There, he

complained of what he believed was Yusuf’s attempts to “rewrite his past,” and called his claims of innocence “rubbish.” In November 2010, in an interview on George Stroumboulopoulos Tonight on CBC Television Rushdie was asked about Yusuf’s appearance at Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert’s Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear in Washington, DC the previous month. He said, “I thought it was a mistake to have invited him and I actually called up Jon Stewart and we had a couple of conversations and I think, you know, by the end of it I think he’s pretty clear that it was probably a misstep. Because he’s not a good guy. It may be that he once sang ‘Peace Train’... but he hasn’t been Cat Stevens for a long time, you know. He’s a different guy now.”
At a 2012 fundraiser, Stewart recalled that phone conversation with Rushdie, who expressed disappointment that a performer was used “who wanted to kill me.” Stewart said he was unaware of Yusuf’s 1989 comments at the time. “So I’m like, I’m sure he doesn’t believe that people should be put to death for apostasy,” Stewart recalled. “I said, ‘look, I’m sorry you’re upset, but I’m sure the guy isn’t really like that. Let me talk to him.” Yusuf said the whole thing was a misunderstanding, but added, “although why do you have to insult the Prophet?” Stewart continued, “We get into a whole conversation, and it becomes very clear to me that he is straddling two worlds in a very difficult way. And that he actually still—and it broke my heart a little bit. I wish I had known that. I wouldn’t have done [the bit], I don’t think. If I had known that, I wouldn’t have done it. Because that to me is a deal breaker. Death for free speech is a deal breaker.”
In the April 23, 2014 episode of The Daily Show, Stewart stated unequivocally that inviting [Yusef] Islam was a “mistake” and that he “should have looked into it more.”

For all the points which Sam Harris gets blindingly wrong, he’s right about the dangers of Islam, even in its moderate variants.

* * *


A [2016] poll carried out by ICM discovered that more than half of Muslims disagree with homosexuality being legal in Britain, while a quarter support Sharia law being introduced into parts of the country instead of British law....
A third of those polled said it was acceptable for a British Muslim to keep more than one wife, while 39 per cent said wives should always obey their husbands.
Nearly half of those questioned said it was unacceptable for a gay or lesbian person to teach their child, with the majority also opposing gay marriage.

And from “UK Equalities Chief Who Popularized The Term ‘Islamophobia’ Admits: ‘I Thought Muslims Would Blend into Britain… I Should Have Known Better’”:

“For a long time, I too thought that Europe’s Muslims would become like previous waves of migrants, gradually abandoning their ancestral ways, wearing their religious and cultural baggage lightly, and gradually blending into Britain’s diverse identity landscape. I should have known better”....
Even left wing columnist Yasmin Alibhai-Brown [said]: “[W]e [liberal Muslims] are a dying breed—in 10 years there will be very few of us left unless something really important is done”....
[R]esearch from across Europe [has] revealed attitudes amongst Muslims on the continent have hardened. The younger the Muslim, the more likely they are to hold hard-line views, one recent study found.

Indeed, an April, 2016 New York Times article noted:

Friends who teach the equivalent of high school seniors in the predominantly Muslim districts of Molenbeek and Schaerbeek told [Brussels government official Yves Goldstein] that “90 percent of their students, 17, 18 years old, called them heroes,” he said.

Even “moderate” Muslims are, on average, less tolerant and supportive of free speech and homosexuality than are moderate Christians. My own (straight) experience with the latter, in “tolerant Toronto,” has included extended contact with a twenty-something musician who, in public, claimed to have no problem with gays as long as they weren’t hitting on him. In private, however, he openly averred that gays “weren’t using their holes for what God made them for.” Indeed, walking north along Yonge Street while returning from a folk-icon concert, we passed a group of young men; his unsolicited remark after them was that they “had problems,” merely for looking like they might be a group of homosexuals.

Another equally holy Christian of my long-term acquaintance observed, apropos of nothing, that my neighborhood was “very gay.”

A third fellow, Jewish enough to observe their holy days religiously, could not help but make disparaging remarks about a group of insufficiently macho students, while hosting an open stage at a college pub.

These are Christians and Jews who were born and raised in the most famously multicultural and supposedly “tolerant” city in the world. Yet their tolerance is only skin-deep; scratch beneath that, and you will find pure, Bible-justified homophobia.

(None of those moderates, by the way, had any qualms about pre-marital sex. At least one of them, however, drew the line at sleeping with married women. That, after all, would constitute adultery. And adultery makes Baby Jesus cry.)

If you imagine that “moderate” Muslims, aside from those who are gay themselves, would in any way be more supportive of alternative sexual orientations and lifestyles, or respectful of women, than are that collection of unbridled fools, and the many others like them, you are woefully mistaken. (In mid-December of 2015, the moderate Muslim nation of Tunisia jailed six students for homosexuality.)

As Ray Harris (no relation to Sam) notes in “The Many Faces of Islam”:

Indonesia is the most populous Muslim nation on the planet. It is also regarded as a moderate Muslim nation. Lilis Lindawati of Tangerang, a satellite town just outside Jakarta, might dare to disagree. She was arrested for being a lone female out at night. She was bundled into a van whilst she was waiting for a bus after finishing her shift as a waitress. She was charged for being a prostitute despite the fact she was married, had two children and was three months pregnant.... She was jailed for three days. Twenty six other women were also charged for similar “offences.”
This is a foretaste of the new Indonesia. Draconian censorship laws are before parliament that will curb freedom of expression in film, theatre, literature, photography and the media in general. They will also ban displays of public affection and curtail how women dress.
Yes, you say—but this is just the actions of a few conservatives. I wish. As it turns out so-called moderate Muslim organizations also support the new laws. The only people fighting them are a coalition of artists, intellectuals and feminists....
The term moderate means little. It only has meaning in relation to a position that has been defined as extreme. A moderate is simply someone who is less extreme.
This is where many in the West have been fooled. They grab onto to the term moderate Muslim as if the “moderate” in question believes the same sort of things a moderate Westerner might. This is often far from the truth. Many moderate Muslims are very conservative by Western standards. So much so that the term moderate is next to useless....
Many progressives read Muslim politics in terms of Western imperialism. This is not the determining factor. The rise of orthodox power can be seen as a reaction to the secular and nationalist remake of Turkey. For decades after WWI Muslim countries such as Egypt, Iraq, Iran, Syria, etc, tried to follow Turkey’s example and played with various forms of nationalism. The Baath party of Iraq and Syria chose a kind of totalitarian, socialist nationalism originally inspired by Nazism. Nasser of Egypt tried a form of Pan-Arabic nationalism which became increasingly totalitarian. Syria and Egypt even tried a short lived attempt at unification, the United Arab Republic (1958-61).
Many progressives think that the recent wave of Islamist violence is a reaction to recent events. It isn’t. The Muslim Brotherhood was founded in 1929 as a reaction to the secular and modernist reforms of the day. They attempted to assassinate Nasser in 1954. Hamas, who recently won government in Palestine, is an offshoot of the MB.
The heartland has always been in opposition to the reforms of the periphery. The Islamists have always been a part of the political scene and have always been opposed to secularist, nationalist and modernist experiments.

And from his “The Myth of Islam as a Religion of Peace”:

Perhaps the question that should be asked of moderates is this, if the radicals are a minority and if they do not represent the “real” Islam how is it they have been able to carry on a global jihad on several fronts, jihads that include civil wars, secessionist movements, revolutions, assassinations and global terrorism? The list of countries that have been affected by this global jihad is quite long. As I write this [in 2005] incidents have occurred in England, Egypt, Sudan, Somalia, Thailand, Indonesia, the Philippines, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Kashmir and Bangladesh. The simple fact is that there is broader private support for the Islamists’ objectives than is ever admitted to publicly and a number are sitting on the fence, waiting to see which way things turn out.

Likewise, consider this, from “CNN tells Trump how to defeat jihad: ‘Don’t turn this into a war or clash of civilizations’”:

The vast majority of Muslims who do not ascribe to the radical strain of Islamist ideology powering the jihadists have shown themselves to be singularly ineffective in countering them. In November 2015, only 30 Muslims protested against the jihad massacres in Paris. In July 2015, a Muslim rally in Ireland against the Islamic State drew fifty people. In October 2014 in Houston, a rally against the Islamic State organized by the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) drew the grand total of ten people. In August 2013 in Boston, about 25 Muslims rallied against “misperceptions” that Islam was violent. About the same number showed up in June 2013 at a progressive Muslim rally in Toronto to claim that their religion had been “hijacked.” Contrast those paltry showings to the thousands of Muslims who have turned out for rallies against cartoons of Muhammad or against Israel. In January 2015, after the Charlie Hebdo jihad massacre, 800,000 Muslims protested against Muhammad cartoons in Chechnya; there were protests also in Iran, Pakistan, Ingushetia, elsewhere. In Pakistan, 10,000 Muslims protested against Muhammad cartoons. In Australia, 1,000 Muslims rallied against Charlie Hebdo and the freedom of speech. In Kyrgyztsan, 1,000 Muslims rallied, chanting: “I am not Charlie, I love my Prophet.”

As the journalist Barbara Kay put it:

If it were only core jihadists we had to contend with, we wouldn’t have much to fear. Unfortunately the terrorist core is surrounded by circles that are more or less supportive of jihadist goals: the Muslim Brotherhood and the organization CAIR, for example, are composed of Islamists who eschew violence themselves, but support triumphalist Islam through legal means: political/institutional memberships, lawfare and relentless promotion of a demonstrably mythic, but guilt-inducing “Islamophobia.”
The largest group of concern are those Muslims who are neither Islamist or jihad-supportive, but hold beliefs in retrograde cultural practices that cannot co-exist in harmony with western civilization.

Speaking of which:

[T]here are now 85 Sharia councils in Britain which—according to Zurich professor Elham Manea, herself a Muslim—are enforcing on Muslim communities (especially with regard to marriage) a version of Islam as extreme as that practiced by the Taliban or in Manea’s native Yemen.
[O]ver 40 per cent of the mosques in Britain are controlled by the Deobandis, promoters of the same form of fundamentalist Islam as the Taliban.
* * *

For further information on the behavior of moderate Muslims in the West, see Anne Marie Waters, “Rotherham: The Perfect Storm – An investigation into Muslim grooming gangs.” Comparable sex slavery has been brought to Canada by its cultural enrichers:

For the political protests against the Islamization of Europe, and the dishonest attempts by leftist, fascist thugs to label those as “far-right” activities, see Waters’ “PEGIDA – The Lies, and the Truth.” On ISIS, see The Atlantic’s “What ISIS Really Wants,” and “Secret Pentagon Report Reveals U.S. ‘Created’ ISIS As A ‘Tool’ To Overthrow Syria’s President Assad.”

For the literal insanity of contemporary political correctness—and the corresponding victim-mongering, persecution complexes, and absurd hierarchies of oppression (e.g., where a white woman raped by a non-white/Muslim man is undeserving of sympathy even from her cultic feminist sisters)—that plays no small part in enabling real terrorism in the world, see Jonathan Chait’s “Not a Very P.C. Thing to Say.” And then reflect on this fact:

[I]t was feminists who pioneered the tactics that radical Muslims are now using. Feminists were the ones who campaigned most loudly, in the last 30 years, for the right not to be offended, and feminists were instrumental in trail-blazing the censorship culture that now dominates universities and still results in the banning of pop songs and the “no platform” movement for anyone who does not follow a particular political line.
So now we see what this sort of thing leads to, and the same muddled, authoritarian gender activists who created the enabling climate for censorship are now showing us their hypocrisy by complaining when other people play the same games. And of course once the authoritarian door is opened there is no easy way back, and a few minor defeats will not stop the Islamists. They have learned well from the techniques of the very feminists who now fear them. I suppose that’s full of ironies, but it’s not much comfort for those of us who have to live with the increasingly nasty results.

Why, then, would the progressives (esp. women) who are already unable to walk down the streets of Europe without being literally molested, kidnapped and raped, continue to support Islam and its widely misogynistic practitioners? Sam Harris offers one insightful analysis of that “Regressive Left,” as being

[p]seudo-liberals who are so blinded by identity politics that they reliably take the side of a backward mob over one of its victims. Rather than protect individual women, apostates, intellectuals, cartoonists, novelists, and true liberals from the intolerance of religious imbeciles, they protect these [Muslim] theocrats from criticism.

The former leftist Anne Marie Waters offers a complementary hypothesis:

I am increasingly convinced that the far-left sees Islamism as the only movement capable of crushing capitalism and bringing an end to the age of America. The totalitarian nature of Islamist ideology appears to suit them. The control of thought and speech which is the inevitable result of Islamism is already underway on the left, as is the use of Orwellian double-speak to disguise uncomfortable facts. The appalling treatment of women and gays is side-stepped and discounted.

Ray Harris independently confirms that reading:

I’ve had people tell me that it would be better if Iraq was ruled by Shia fundamentalists if this meant the defeat of U.S. imperialism.

Conversely, with regard to American foreign policy, as Nick Cohen wrote in “Shame on the liberals who rationalize terror”:

You can say the attacks on the World Trade Centre and Pentagon were a rational response to American support for Saudi Arabia and Israel. If America wanted to be safe, it should stop supporting Saudi Arabia and Israel. The British Left claimed that the 7/7 attacks on London were a rational response to British involvement in the 2003 invasion of Iraq. It wasn’t true: Mohammad Sidique Khan, the terrorist cell’s leader, was training in Islamist camps long before the Iraq war. Nevertheless, the point still held: you can suppose that Western foreign policy provides a “rationale” for Muslims who become terrorists. You can say, as John Kerry implied, that if Charlie Hebdo had steered clear of Islam, it would never have been bombed. You can say that Jews would not be targets if they renounced Judaism. You can say that Islamic State would not have attacked Paris if the French had stayed out of Syria. You can say that the existence of Israel explains Hamas. You can say that IS would not treat Yazidi women as sex slaves if they had embraced its version of Sunni Islam. You can say there is a rationale for the Iranian subjugation of its Sunni minority and the Saudi subjugation of its Shia minority, for both are potentially dangerous to their respective states. You can say that Muslim countries would not persecute homosexuals if they went straight, or order the death of apostates if they remained good Muslims. There is no limit to the number of reasons you can find. Every time you rationalize, however, you miss the obvious and ignore an often openly fascistic ideology whose appeal lies in its supernatural certainties and totalitarian promise of a new heaven on earth.
Every step you take explaining radical Islam away is apparently rational and liberal. Each takes you further from rationalism and liberalism. In your determination to see the other side’s point of view and to avoid making it “really angry about this or that,” you end up altering your behaviour so much that you can no longer challenge the prejudices of violent religious reactionaries. As you seek rationales for the irrational and excuses for the inexcusable, you become a propagandist for the men you once opposed.

If jihad and the influx of Middle Eastern refugees, economic migrants, and terrorists into Western countries was merely a reaction to American foreign policy, or an attempt by “the Jews” to expand Israel’s borders (as various loony anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists believe), we would not see conservative leaders like Germany’s Angela Merkel willingly flooding their own countries with Islamic migrants—a suicidal travesty that surely has nothing to do with either American hegemony or Germany’s “historical support” for Israel!

I am no conspiracy theorist, but the following explanation strikes me as more likely than the unwittingly “half-stories” told above:

The accelerated pace of the 2015 Muslim hijra invasion was conceived, planned and executed by Quisling traitors comprising the elite leadership of the European branch of the international socialist movement, headquartered in Brussels. To paraphrase British nationalist patriot Paul Weston, if a farmer deliberately inserts a fox into the henhouse, who is guilty of killing the hens? Now, today, across Europe the stage is being set for the genocide of the weak, confused and defenseless European hens. The former East German Communist functionary Angela Merkel achieves high marks at both Muslim fox insertion and German hen repression.

Why have you not heard more about the effects of that “fox insertion”?

National public service broadcaster Zweites Deutsches Fernsehen (ZDF), which was recently forced into a humiliating apology for their silence on migrant violence and sex assault, is being drawn into a fresh scandal after one of their former bureau chiefs admitted the company takes orders from the government on what it reports. He said journalists received instructions to write news that would be “to Ms. Merkel’s liking”....
[T]he topics about which are reported are laid down by the government....
“Today, one is not allowed to say anything negative about the refugees.”

Frau Merkel has indeed been agitating for censorship even of private citizens who speak out against her sanctioned Muslim invasion:

Merkel has been personally pushing for more censorship on Facebook. In September, the Chancellor was caught on tape pressuring CEO Mark Zuckerberg to work to counter “racism” on the social network. German prosecutors have also been investigating Facebook for “not doing enough” to counter hate speech. The pressure paid off, and now Sheryl Sandberg [COO of Facebook] herself has flown to Germany to declare that hate speech “has no place in our society.”

Dutch residents have likewise been visited in their homes by police after posting even mild tweets regarding the influx of refugees into their hitherto-peaceful and tolerant cities:

“With these visits, the police are trying to persuade the citizens what effect a post or tweet on the Internet can have,” said a spokesman for the National Police. With ten real-time intelligence units’ digital detectives groups spread across the country, Facebook pages and Twitter accounts are monitored. It looks for posts that go “too far”....
“[Hate speech] is a subtle boundary that [a person] can easily exceed” said law professor Nico Kwakman, affiliated with the University of Groningen. “You may say, ‘I think Islam an outdated religion.’ That is an opinion. But if you go on to say: “Muslims are not good and should be re-educated,” [you cross] a boundary. “It also depends on who [makes] the remark [and] when.”

If such blinkered and misguided leaders and followers (not least in the mainstream media) have their way, we may yet live to see widespread civil wars throughout Europe, and the death of democracy and civilization worldwide.

Naïve liberal hopes that Islam can be reformed are far removed from, for example, the no-go zone of London’s Tower Hamlets (35% Muslim, as of 2011):

Tower Hamlets and other parts of East London have been the focus of repeated attempts by Islamists to impose Sharia law on members of the public.
Extremist Muslim preachers—sometimes referred to as the Tower Hamlets Taliban—have issued death threats to women who refuse to wear Islamic veils. Neighborhood streets have been plastered with posters declaring: “You are entering a Sharia controlled zone. Islamic rules enforced.” And street advertising deemed offensive to Muslims has been vandalized or blacked out with spray paint.
The Sunday Telegraph uncovered more than a dozen other instances in Tower Hamlets where both Muslims and non-Muslims have been threatened or beaten for behavior considered to be a breach of fundamentalist “Islamic norms.” Victims said that police ignored or downplayed outbreaks of hate crime, and suppressed evidence implicating Muslims in them, because they feared being accused of racism or “Islamophobia.”
One victim, Mohammed Monzur Rahman, was left partially blind after being attacked by a mob in Cannon Street Road, Shadwell, for smoking during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan....
The owners of restaurants and shops in Brick Lane in Whitechapel, a popular area of London, have been warned that they faced forty lashes if they continued to sell alcoholic products....
An analysis of 2011 census data reveals the existence of more than 100 Muslim enclaves in Britain. The Muslim population exceeds 85% in some parts of Blackburn and 70% in a half-dozen wards in Birmingham and Bradford. There are also large Muslim communities in Dewsbury, Leicester, London, Luton and Manchester, among others.

Those demographics, augmented by the influx of so-called refugees into Europe, will likely have a tragic but predictable outcome: a “Score of Beslans and Mumbais”:

The hard core of the battle-hardened jihadists now fanning out across Europe understands the tried-and-true process of igniting a civil war through terror. They will calculate that the European military and police cannot and will not sustain the battle against an unceasing campaign of terrorism. Brussels cannot remain on virtual lockdown forever without its economy being wrecked. What will happen when a Paris-type attack, or worse, is a daily event in a dozen European cities?
As I mentioned above, just the other day in northern Italy eight hundred combat-style pistol-grip shotguns were discovered in a truck on their way from Turkey to Belgium. Do the math. The Paris attacks were carried out by approximately eight jihadists armed with Kalashnikovs, shotguns and TATP suicide vests (which can be manufactured anywhere there is a kitchen). Now imagine a “Super Tet Offensive,” with every type of target on the hit list from airports to zoological parks, each being assaulted by an eight-man squad of such killers. Some attacks smaller, some larger, from pairs to platoons in strength.
Today, perhaps only a few short months prior to Tet 2016, there is no Islamic high command located in Europe or elsewhere in charge of planning specific terror operations. There is no OKW (Oberkommando der Wehrmacht, the supreme command of the German Nazi armed forces) planning an Islamic Operation Barbarossa, hence, there is no command and control structure for Western intelligence to penetrate and disrupt.
Instead of a central brain directing many hands, think of a vast swarm of stinging jellyfish, all moving in loose formation, with the same generalized attack plan in their collective hive-mind. At the end of 2015, individual muhajirun may have only a basic awareness that they are heading to Europe to conduct a great jihad. As D-Day draws nearer, coded messages will proliferate with cryptic references to portentous events from Islamic history. “Get ready, and prepare to conduct major operations” will be the thrust of the online chatter and encrypted wireless messages. In each European city, targets will be individually scouted by local muhajirun in anticipation of a general outbreak of jihad terror attacks.
How many mosques have already received a truckload of shotguns or Kalashnikovs? Run the numbers again: eight jihadists per terror attack, eight hundred weapons per truck, 80,000 Viet Cong fighters in the original Tet Offensive, and an estimated 800,000 muhajirun flooding into Europe. Using radical mosques as clandestine armories is S.O.P in the Middle East, so why would the jihadists not use the same tactics in safe and docile Europe? Out of a sense of fairness and respect for European laws? Please. In the words of Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan, “The mosques are our barracks, the domes our helmets, the minarets our bayonets and the faithful our soldiers…” And bear in mind that anyplace an AK-47 can be smuggled, so too can a few kilos of Semtex.
Imagine a dozen or even a score of Beslan, Russia, and Mumbai, India terror attacks all happening at the same time, across that number of European cities. Initially, the first string of major surprise attacks will be coordinated by the most well-organized terror networks using currently unbreakable wireless encryption. Many of the attacks will involve numerous captured hostages, often children, with impossible demands being made to guarantee their safety. Or no demands will be made; just rape and slaughter will ensue, as in the Russian Beslan example. This outbreak of major attacks will be the signal for the general jihad offensive to begin.
The Beslan Massacre happened in 2004 at the hands of yet another killer gang of aggrieved Islamists. Two squads of Chechen Muslim terrorists arrived on the first day of school in a Russian town, using false police vans as camouflage. They took a thousand young hostages and held them for three days. The Muslim terrorists murdered over four hundred innocents, often after rape and torture.
In Mumbai in 2008, ten Pakistani Muslim terrorists armed with Kalashnikovs and grenades created utter havoc over a four day period, attacking a train station, a hospital (unsuccessfully), landmark hotels and a Jewish center, murdering 164 people and wounding over 300. Simultaneous Beslan, Mumbai and Paris terror attacks, accompanied by car bombs, will be the model for the 2016 jihad offensive in Europe.
What Hitler’s Nazis accomplished with Stukas and Tigers and motorized divisions, the Islamonazis will attempt to accomplish by a massive “Tet Offensive on steroids,” overwhelming and stunning the European meta-system into immediate paralysis and first psychological, then material defeat. At least, that is the outcome that the Islamonazis will be striving to achieve. The 1968 Tet infiltration and mass-attack strategy didn’t succeed in Vietnam, and maybe it won’t work in Europe, either. It’s more likely that the hoped-for general uprising by all European Muslims against the kuffar will not be triggered, and it may simply stall and sputter out.
In strategic terms, if nothing else, the 2016 jihad offensive and subsequent civil war in Europe will open up a second major front in the war against the Islamic State, causing NATO and the West to turn their attention inward toward their own survival, and thereby take pressure off the other theaters of war in Iraq and Syria.
And for the Europeans to win the coming civil war, they will have to be at least half as brutally ugly as their Muslim invaders, and that means pretty damn brutally ugly. But while the jihadists will be operating at maximum brutality from day one, the placid and polite European authorities will be starting from far behind in that department. For example: a standard jihadist tactic is to flee from a terror attack straight back into the embrace of their co-religionists in the Sharia-zone ghettos, and hide behind their women and children. Then what will the authorities do? Go in and try to arrest them? (Just joking.) Wait for their next excursion with more terror bombs? Or gut the entire suspected block with shell fire? This is what I mean by damn ugly. The French reaction to the Paris attacks gives a hint of how this phase will run.
Best case scenario, and I don’t see this as likely: the 2016 Islamic Tet attackers will be wiped out the way the Viet Cong were in 1968. But if there are enough simultaneous attacks, in total numbers involving anywhere near the 80,000 or so fighters of the Vietnamese Tet, I can’t see how the present European forces can defeat the jihadists in less than a month, if at all. By very simple math, that number of jihadists means ten thousand Paris-level attacks. Think about that. Ten thousand Paris level attacks! All taking place in the same month, the same week, even on the same day, right across Europe. The politically-correct and overly polite European policemen (and even their militaries, at first) won’t be up to mounting successful counterattacks and rescue operations against a score of Beslans happening in schools, hospitals and concert halls. Not while at the same time, airports, train stations, power plants and other targets are being hit by Paris-sized terror squads right across Europe.
And count on this, for it is a standard tactic used by all Islamonazis in this extremely dirty style of warfare: just like in Beslan in 2004, where the killers arrived in false police vans, in 2016, ambulances, emergency vehicles and other official conveyances will either be hijacked or painted to simulate the real thing. Suicide bombers will arrive in official uniforms to sneak past security. This is a standard tactic, I repeat for emphasis. A jihadist dressed in a policeman’s uniform will drive a hundred-kilo bomb straight into the police headquarters in an official, marked police car. Goodbye, police HQ. (And incidentally, good luck at planning the rescue operation for your town’s local Beslan-in-progress, after your local police HQ is cratered, and much of their crisis leadership is wiped out.)
A few examples; I could go on for pages. The milk truck or bakery van will deliver terrorists to the middle school at mealtime. An ambulance will pull into the hospital’s underground parking garage and detonate. The cement truck won’t be delivering cement. Muslim jihadists are very proud of coming up with ever more clever ways to fool stupid infidels by abusing their naïve faith in official uniforms and corporate logos. The jihadists hurry to sign up for suicide driver school, just for the prospect of exploding a massive bomb inside of a crowd of filthy kuffar, and launching themselves straight into the arms of their seventy-two waiting virgins. This is how they will fight in Tet 2016. Forget this lesson at your extreme peril.
Another painful European history lesson has been largely forgotten since the days of the Troubles in Northern Ireland. In the 1990s, the IRA forced the British to the peace table when it became clear to all parties involved that the Brits could not prevent car bombs from exploding in the heart of the London financial district, costing billions in repair and lost-opportunity costs after each new blast. Essentially, a competent terrorist organization can hold a modern city hostage in this manner.
A few dozen to a hundred (at most) active IRA terrorist fighters managed to pull off this feat. And they were not even trying to kill people; rather, their goal was to wreck important office towers, with the British economy as their primary target. Usually, the IRA detonated their London car bombs during off-hours in these final terror actions of the Irish Troubles. The Muslim car bombers will not be as considerate in the coming European Civil War. They will strike for maximum civilian casualties, in an attempt to terrorize European leaders into surrender and submission to their Islamist demands.

That tragic forthcoming war aside, the long-term fight isn’t between people who enjoy the fruits and freedoms of Western civilization, versus those who would see it destroyed for the glory of God/Allah. Rather, the final Battle is between believers in the One True Abrahamic God—even if Christians, Muslims and Jews have different understandings of Him—and staunch unbelievers whose souls are going to hell anyway, so why not expedite that journey, before they corrupt anyone else with their disbelief? The longer you allow them to think freely, the more (third party) souls will be lost, forever:

In the first Afghan War (modern era) the jihadis were useful against the Soviets. The error was that after the war (unlike the war against the Germans) we failed to turn on our “allies” [e.g., the USSR, in WWII]. Instead we embraced them.
We saw them as “godly” and useful against the atheists....
It turns out that we have more in common with the atheists than with the Islamics.

Or, as the investigative journalist Robert Dreyfuss put it:

Today it’s convenient to speak about a Clash of Civilizations. But ... in the decades before 9/11, hard-core activists and organizations among Muslim fundamentalists on the far right were often viewed as allies for two reasons, because they were seen a fierce anti-communists and because the[y] opposed secular nationalists such as Egypt’s Gamal Abdel Nasser, Iran’s Mohammed Mossadegh....
In the 1950s, the United States had an opportunity to side with the nationalists, and indeed many U.S. policymakers did suggest exactly that.... But in the end, nationalists in the Third World were seen as wild cards who couldn’t be counted on to join the global alliance against the USSR. Instead, by the end of the 1950s, rather than allying itself with the secular forces of progress in the Middle East and the Arab world, the United States found itself in league with Saudi Arabia’s Islamist legions. Choosing Saudi Arabia over Nasser’s Egypt was probably the single biggest mistake the United States has ever made in the Middle East.
Would the Islamic right have existed without U.S. support? Of course.... But there is no question that the virulence of the movement that we now confront—and which confronts many of the countries in the region, too, from Algeria to India and beyond—would have been significantly less had the United States made other choices during the Cold War.

That said, one of the more idiotic claims made frequently by atheists is that any believer who accepts the tenets of a religion is doing so as a “conscious choice.” But even with the information freely available on the Internet today, Muslims who were born into their religion and who would be killed if they were to leave it have certainly not made a free “conscious choice” to believe. The same is true of Christians for whom apostasy equates to burning for eternity in hell: they too have made no such easy conscious choice as non-believers imagine.

As the Charlie Hebdo survivor Zineb el Rhazoui put it: In Morocco, where 99% of the population is Muslim, “‘being Muslim is not a choice’ unless you’re Jewish or Christian.”

Or in the words of Godless Mom:

I think religious people are going about their understanding of reality horribly wrong.... I think they’ve been lied to, they’ve been led to believe the things they believe and given little to no choice in the matter.

Or, as Jamie Glazov notes, with wholly unintentional irony, on the JihadWatch site run by the Greek Catholic Robert Spencer:

There are millions of people who go under the label “Muslim” but who may not agree with, or follow, all Islamic mandates, or who may want to reform them, or who may not even know anything about them—or who may have simply been born into the religion and were never even given a choice as to who they wanted to be.

Rather than falling back on the easy claim that belief in any religion is a “choice,” it would be much more accurate to say that brainwashed believers raised in any religion were literally “born that way,” to precisely the same extent that gays and transgenders are, even if the religious characteristics are (mostly) the product of social indoctrination rather than genes.

It is equally misguided to say that “We are all born atheists,” and that we only accept one or another religion due to brainwashing. Rather, we are all born superstitious, with strong inclinations toward the idea that thoughts and words can change the external world directly, plus belief in sympathetic magic—the voodoo-like idea that effects resemble their causes.

So, it would be much more accurate to say that we are all born shamans. Further, we only outgrow that primitive, magical-thinking state through the sustained exercise of logic and reason, and by demanding scientific evidence for our mental models of reality—leaving behind the very notions of “belief” and “faith” as they are taught by organized religion.

Atheists are likewise mistaken when they assert that homophobia is the product only of religious teachings, i.e., that all homophobes are religious believers. Like conservativism, atheism attracts both very smart, and very stupid people. The latter, stuck in concrete stages of psychological development and thus lacking the capacity for abstract thought and cogent reasoning, also lack the ability to put themselves into the position of others, to imagine how the world looks through their eyes. Since IQ tests are, at their basis, tests of the ability to think abstractly, low IQ and bigotry are highly correlated.

(Meeting people from stereotyped groups only breaks down those stereotypes if the stereotypes are false; otherwise, it will reinforce them. Smart people tend to meet only the best representatives from other ethnic groups, e.g., in university or business-office settings. Thus, it is easy for them to imagine that the stereotypes in question are false, when a broader experience of the less-intelligent members from the same groups would show that most stereotypes are largely true. Likewise, “Journalists and politicians can look the other way, because they don’t live in the same world as ordinary people.... Thus they are unaware of the problems regular people in mixed suburbs and smaller cities experience, in places where things happen closer to home. To most journalists, a critical view on immigration is just a negative theory and a theoretical, political viewpoint, not an actual observation of people’s everyday reality. This is precisely why they believe the problems don’t exist—they themselves have never encountered them.” In such sheltered circumstances, it is easy to be “liberal.”)

Further, there can be a “yuck factor” concerning anal sex, related to the natural aversion to feces. So, in the bottom line, anyone who claims that all homophobes are religious believers simply hasn’t interacted with any really stupid atheists. One cure for that would be to hang around a construction site, or any similar magnet for concrete-thinking “caveman” mentality, for awhile.

Finally, the simplistic idea that “Good people practice good religion and evil people practice evil religion” ignores the social-psychology component of that practice, and so is at best half right. The “bad” guards in Philip Zimbardo’s prison study, after all, weren’t born that way, but rather became quickly deformed into that behavior by the authoritative system into which they were cast. In that regard, note that there is no greater Authority than God, and his Son/Prophet: If He tells you to kill all the unbelievers, even an otherwise “good” person will find it difficult to question that instruction. Or was the Abraham of biblical legend being a “bad” parent when the angel of God told him to kill his son Isaac, to prove his obedience, and Abraham went along with it? What would made-up God have done if made-up Abraham had resisted? Tortured him like he later did with made-up Job?

So: Are Christian abortion-clinic bombers bad people who were given license to act out on their inherent evil by their religion, or are they rather otherwise-decent people who took their religion (deadly) seriously, and thus became “radicalized”?

(Hint: As with the “Nature vs. Nurture” debate, or genes vs. environment, human behavior is motivated by an interaction between individual and social psychology, with the mix being being roughly proportional to each person’s measure of non-conformity.)

* * *

In Canada, mass immigration began in the early ’70s under Pierre Trudeau, explicitly with the idea that those new citizens would vote for the party that let them in. That is, it began as an unapologetic vote-grab by the left, and set Canada on the path to being a pioneer and world leader in multiculturalism.

That same philosophy has since been adopted by other nations. “For example, 93% of French Muslims voted for Socialist President François Hollande, and almost 90% of American Muslims voted for President Obama.”

However, mass immigration also came to be supported by the Conservatives, as a means of increasing the supply of both skilled and unskilled labor (via family reunification), and thus of driving wages down even in high-tech industries. (Had they attempted to reduce the annual quotas, of course, they could have been called racists.)

Since the year 2000 I have personally worked with immigrants from Russian who labored as computer programmers for several months for free, prior to being hired. I have seen programmers, born in Canada, from my own graduating class, forced to do the same free work, with the hope of later getting on salary. A dozen years ago, I worked with a software developer from Slovakia, who possessed both a Computer Science degree and an MBA, and was being paid a mere $15/hour to administer a TSE company’s website and write .NET code. While his girlfriend was attending university in another part of Ontario, he sent out more than a hundred resumés, hoping to get a job closer to her, but failed to secure even a single interview.

Likewise, in the US, Bill Gates was always a primary voice in agitating for more H-1B visas, on the false pretense that there were not enough native-born persons with the appropriate talents. And yet, the facts prove otherwise:

Roughly twice as many American undergraduates earn degrees in science, technology, engineering, and math disciplines than go on to work in those fields.... [I]n 2009 less than two thirds of employed computer science grads were working in the IT sector a year after graduation....
In industries where talent is scarce, economists generally expect wages to rise, as desperate companies go chasing after what few qualified souls they think can do the job. That’s exactly what’s happened to oil and gas engineers over the last decade during the energy boom, for instance.... [P]rogrammer salaries have been stagnant ever since the dotcom bubble went bust more than a decade ago.

University of California at Davis professor Norm Matloff has produced many papers on the effects of immigration on the I.T. sector in North America. For an overview of his work, see his “Ten-Minute Summary of the H-1B Work Visa.”

As it stands, any entry-level programming position advertised on a job board can expect to receive 500 submissions, and senior-level software developers today are paid roughly what essentially unskilled construction workers were earning several decades ago.

Mass immigration has further had the effect of breaking the white Christian monopoly in Western culture—an effect welcomed by many if not most non-whites and non-Christians, e.g., gays, feminists and progressive/naïve atheists. (“[S]ince it was enacted, Canada’s multicultural immigration policy has reduced the white population from 96% to 70%, and it is predicted to reduce us to a minority in the coming years.”) In the words of Hungary’s Prime Minister, Viktor Orbán: Leftists “know the Muslims will never vote for parties with Christian roots.... [With] Muslim masses they can push traditional conservative parties from the power forever.” Conversely, no less an atheist than Richard Dawkins has apparently recognized that Christianity acts as a bulwark against Islam.

Of course, such “bulwarking” only goes so far: Angela Merkel is a Lutheran member of the Evangelical Church in Berlin, Brandenburg and Silesian Upper Lusatia. She also supports “state schools enabling Islamic religious instruction (similar to the provision of denominational Christian religious instruction).”

Yet, with or without such foolishly segregated schooling, the odds in favor of a multicultural paradise being formed in any context are not good:

Data from numerous studies show that the more ethnically diverse a society the greater the risk of conflict and, conversely, the more difficult it is to forge unity. Civil conflict is less likely in more homogeneous societies. Academic researchers have attempted to quantify the risk.
In the 1990s a global study by Rudolf Rummel at the University of Hawaii measured how 109 variables contributed to collective violence of the extreme variety—guerrilla and civil war—between 1932 and 1982; that’s a 50 year period. He found that one fifth of the variation in collective violence was caused by just one variable, the number of ethnic groups within the society. Conflict was made more intense when the antagonistic parties had different religions....
A study of contemporary societies by Finnish sociologist Tatu Vanhanen examined ethnic conflict defined more broadly to include discrimination, ethnic parties and interest groups, as well as ethnic violence and civil war. Vanhanen used evolutionary theory to hypothesize that diversity would cause conflict to rise. Among the 176 societies he studied, Vanhanen found that in 2010 two thirds of global variation in ethnic conflict was explained by ethnic diversity. In other words, much of the difference between united peaceful countries and those riven by ethnic conflict is the latter’s ethnic diversity.

My own country of Canada was 0.9% Muslim in 1991, 2.0% in 2001, and 3.2% in 2011. Their raw numbers are predicted to triple over the next two decades, placing them at around 7% of the total population by the early 2030s.

Those numbers did not, and could not, factor in the 50,000 Syrian refugees that our foolish new “Hopey-Changey” Liberal Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, has committed to importing by the end of 2016. Half of those are to be sponsored by the federal government, and the other half by private/credulous supporters, i.e., the Canadian equivalent of Michael Moore. (See the Map of destination communities and service provider organizations for how many of those government-assisted, privately sponsored [PSR], and Blended Visa Office-Referred refugees are likely to be enriching a community near you.)

The previous Conservative PM had a much more sensible, if less politically correct approach to the situation:

[The Conservatives] announced they would concentrate on bringing in members of religious and ethnic minorities, prompting accusations of an anti-Muslim bias and charges that the government was violating UN rules.

Good for them, if they were. The same policies actually led to accusations, by the Regressive Left, that the government was stereotyping, and discriminating against, male Muslim refugees. Those are the same useful idiots, of course, who would not dream of speaking out against the rampant stereotyping and discrimination against white men (for supposedly all being rapists, unconscious racists or worse, and beneficiaries of the patriarchy, etc.).

Nor are even legitimate Syrian refugees needed in the Canadian workforce ... even if they could speak English, and if their much-touted teaching/engineering/medical credentials were valid in Canada:

The unemployment rate in Canada has been over 7 percent since August of [2015].... With our economy in the state it presently is, as reflected in the low value of the Canadian dollar, things are likely to get worse, probably much worse, before they get better. Yet, at the Prime Minister’s behest, the governments of Quebec, Alberta, Manitoba, and it would be fair to assume every other province in the Dominion, have been offering taxpayer-funded incentives for employers to hire the incoming Syrians.
When 7.2% of Canadians are unemployed, and the provincial governments are giving incentives to employers to hire Syrians, the Prime Minister’s efforts to bring large numbers of these Syrians here will only make things worse for Canadians who are out of work.

Speaking of speaking English, the CBC recently reported:

“Sixty per cent of our new Syrian adults [in Nova Scotia] are pre-benchmark—they don’t have [Language] Level 1”.... “They would be starting from scratch.”
The assessment also found 30 per cent of the Syrian adults do not read or write in their first language of Arabic.

So apparently they’re not all teachers, doctors and engineers—i.e., not the “cream of the crop” we had been led to believe the new arrivals would consist of, when this was all foisted on us back in 2015.

Not surprisingly, then, other Syrian refugees recently given a tour of Parliament Hill in Ottawa expressed their frustration at having difficulty in finding jobs!

Only a complete imbecile (and/or a Liberal Prime Minister) could have failed to see that coming from a kilometre away.

Not surprisingly, a mere few months after so-called Syrian refugees arrived in Nova Scotia, the Chronicle Herald newspaper, in a since-deleted article, reported on schoolyard violence perpetrated by the children of those same illiterate refugees:

That article revealed that “refugee children” at the school are “choking, pushing, slapping, and verbally abusing their fellow classmates,” and are “causing parents to worry about the school’s disciplinary action”....
One boy yelled “Muslims rule the world” while choking [a local parent’s] daughter. School staff intervened, but to her knowledge, the students were not disciplined.
Missy’s son, who is in Grade 5, has also been the subject of rough play on the soccer field. During games, “refugee students” reportedly take their thumb and slide it across their neck from left to right while staring into the eyes of their competitor; imitating the slicing of the throat, the paper reported.
Missy said the school’s response to this and other on-field violence was to cancel intramurals and soccer.
Another mother, who also asked not to be named, said her daughter was slapped after she and a “classmate” disagreed in the schoolyard.

After the Chronicle Herald’s attempt to “memory hole” that exposé, Rebel Media followed up on the story, verifying its truth:

Similar issues with Syrian migrant students have been documented across Canada:

There has also been at least one sexual assault perpetrated by a Syrian migrant on a 14-year-old Canadian girl at her first high-school dance.

Incidentally, some of the unskilled, uneducated, illiterate adult Syrian refugees, inherently having nothing to contribute to the First World, have ungratefully compared the “budget hotels” in which they’re being housed, at taxpayer expense (with cable TV and free food), to “prisons”:

Some children are unable to go out to play because they still don’t have the proper winter clothes, Zaneb Adri Abu-Rukti, a Syrian mother, told Metro Morning through an Arabic translator. She added that she and her fellow refugees feel like they’re “trapped in a prison.”
Some of the government-sponsored refugees say they’re not getting much help, and would rather go back to their refugee camps in Jordan and Lebanon.

Other ingrates have complained about the (free) food they were given:

Muslims from other countries have enriched Canada in even more-chilling ways:

In this heated discussion on a downtown Toronto street, a Christian surrounded by a group of Muslims is told that nine is the right age for a girl to have sex, and that those who oppose Islam should be killed.

It did come as a relief to find that, in a population roughly one-tenth of the USA, we currently have fewer than 90 mosques. Of less relief, however, was the discovery, moments later, via the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada, that as of 2012 there were more than 180 “(Mosques) and Islamic Centres in Canada.”

The ISCC was founded by the same literally moderate, terrorism-condemning (at least for attacks committed in the U.S. and Canada!) yet extremely obtuse, Sharia-supporting imam, Syed Soharwardy, who registered a formal complaint with the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission over Ezra Levant’s republishing of the Motoons.

Depressingly, in early 2015 Levant fired the born-Jewish, ex-Catholic, then born-again Christian, and now-Anglican believer Michael Coren from Levant’s newly launched website, for not being “on brand” with The Rebel’s target audience ... based on a piece Coren had written for a different newspaper, in which he failed to be sufficiently outraged by Ontario’s sex-ed curriculum. That is, Coren was effectively fired for opinions expressed on his own time.

So much for freedom of speech: As always, the idea that “I may not agree with what you say, but I’ll fight to the death to defend your right to say it” is just a hollow boast and a means toward an ideological end, especially for rabid conservatives like Levant. Perhaps not surprisingly, “Levant has been successfully sued for libel on two separate occasions, while apologies and retractions were issued by him or on his behalf on three other occasions.”

(In a related context, a Twitter account observed: “Berkeley ’60s Free Speech movement was never about Free Speech, but about seizing Power. Now that they have it, they don’t need free speech.” The same is true of Jews and Christians who claim they would fight to the death to preserve the free-speech rights of others, when what they really want is blasphemy laws to safeguard their own religions, while still being free to bitterly mock others, most of all atheists, for their wrong beliefs and supposed lack of morals. That is, the psychology that led such believers in Imaginary Things to burn witches and heretics just a few centuries ago has not changed in the interim, only the world around them has.)

Ezra Levant’s other claim to infamy, per his comedian friend Rick Mercer, is his penchant for proudly leaving his gas-guzzling SUV idling, just to piss off the environmentalists ... while apparently not realizing that, in the zero-sum game of the oil industry, that wasted fuel would ultimately result in financial benefit to Saudi Arabia and their ilk. His own media outlet has effectively admitted as much, in criticizing Justin Trudeau’s oil policies!

Even more depressingly, Imam Soharwardy himself has since been a person of interest to the Canadian police forces:

Police in Canada are investigating allegations of hate speech by a local imam who called a publisher and its administration “devil” and “kafir.”
Professor Syed Badiuddin Soharwardy, an imam at a mosque, has been under investigation by the Calgary Police for spreading hate messages against a local publisher on a mass level through [the] Internet.
A number of people reported to the police that Soharwardy launched a malicious campaign against a local publisher (unnamed due to the sensitivity of the nature) with the support of his followers, provoking the public at large.
The National Press Council and the Canadian Journalists Association has also expressed serious concerns over the threats made to the publisher.

Of even less relief is the observation, by an analyst with military experience, that “When any non-Islamic country, such as France ... attains approximately a ten-percent Muslim population, violence and civil war become a constant threat. Ten percent of a total national population translates into more than fifty percent of fighting-age men in key urban districts, due to the concentration of Muslims in Sharia-zone ghettos, combined with aging European demographics.”

In his article, “Immigration or an iPhone,” Daniel Greenfield further notes, with regard to the sacrifice of American civil liberties for the sake of Muslim immigration:

We have already made a thousand accommodations and we will make a thousand more. There will be more databases, naked scanners, eavesdropping, vans that can see through walls, backdoors to every server, registrations, warrantless searches, interceptions and regulations. There will be heavily armed police on the streets. And then curfews and soldiers. These things exist in Europe. They’ll come here....
Some hawks will cheer every terror-fighting measure short of closing the door on the root cause of the problem. They would rather see every American wiretapped, strip-searched and monitored every hour of the day than just stop the flow of Muslim terrorists into this country....
Muslim immigration is forcing us to constantly choose between our lives and our civil liberties. It’s a Catch-22 decision with no good choices. Terrorists push governments toward totalitarianism so that their own alternative totalitarian state starts to seem like a less terrible alternative. But the refusal to fight terrorism also makes the totalitarian state of the terrorists more viable....
The simple reality is that privacy carries too high a price as long as we have large numbers of people in this country who want to kill us in equally large numbers. If we want our privacy back, it’s not the FBI that is standing in our way. It’s the religious organizations that are paid to bring Muslim “refugees” to this country. It’s the liberal, libertarian and even conservative voices that think there is something wrong with pausing the mass migration of the group that is disproportionately responsible for our terror problem. It’s the media that would rather discuss anything and everything than discuss the problem we are really dealing with.

Among those refugee-sponsoring organizations in America, as in Angela Merkel’s Germany, are the Lutherans:

The LSSND website says that as the “state refugee coordinator appointed by the North Dakota Department of Human Services, Lutheran Social Services of North Dakota” they “welcome about 400 refugees each year” who are “resettled in Fargo, West Fargo, Grand Forks, and Bismarck,” and in total have “resettled” 7,600 “refugees” in those cities....
The LSSND website says that it is supported by the Lutheran Services in America (LSA), the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.

Incidentally, the only U.S. media to reprint the Danish cartoons was the humanist magazine Free Inquiry. Suspiciously, that well-known fact is rarely mentioned by Christians, impacting as it does their imagined monopoly on the defense of Western (i.e., secular Enlightenment) culture ... and their simultaneous contempt for Satan-influenced atheists: As the loopy father-of-a-homophobe Christian once said to me, “The Devil has the greatest hold on us when we deny his existence”!

Either way, it is unlikely that Soharwardy could launch the same wild guesses as he has about Levant’s motivations, against the typically leftist/feminist, politically correct, and Muslim-welcoming humanists in question. As he stupidly put it:

The reprinting of the cartoons wasn’t about free speech. The originals are readily available on the Internet for any who wish to see them. The reprinting seem [sic] aimed more at forcing people who are deeply unhappy about the cartoons, and who would not seek them out, to be faced with them again.

And therefore Soharwardy logically launched a human-rights complaint, guaranteeing that Muslims who had never even heard of Levant or his magazine would be reminded, on a daily basis, of the cartoons that upset them so. Brilliant “own goal,” that.

By contrast, the editor-in-chief of Free Inquiry stated clearly: “What is at stake is the precious right of freedom of expression.”

By exactly the same token, The Niqab and Burqa represent regressive attitudes towards women, not fashion choice:

Some may argue the garments pose a security risk; for obvious reasons, they would be quite right to make such an argument.... The salient issue with these particular garments however is not necessarily the garment itself, but deeply ingrained cultural and religious attitudes towards women who are not covered by them; in western countries this refers to almost all females of course. The social cohesion challenges these attitudes introduce should be concerning for everyone, but in particular the feminist movement, who evidentially continue to be silent on these issues....
Conservative and devout Muslims—who happen to be the majority in countries such as the United Kingdom and France—possess strict beliefs pertaining to female modesty. Females covered, by perhaps a Niqab or Burqa, are considered to have a significantly higher sexual value and chaste than females who are not covered. Furthermore, a female not covered is considered to be making herself significantly more sexually available than a female who is covered.
If these attitudes sound retrograde, regressive and backward, that’s because they are. These attitudes are certainly an inconvenient truth for the “progressive” left-wing liberals who are forever promoting the concept of cultural diversity and equality. They simply refuse to acknowledge the issues, and attribute these attitudes to being the scourge of “all men.” This is incredibly unhelpful and counterproductive to being able to address matters at hand....
For those like myself who have actually known many conservative Muslims, what I have written here will come as no surprise. I used to know a Muslim taxi driver who was from Afghanistan. After being driven by him on multiple occasions, his draconian attitudes towards native Australian girls became evident, thus voicing his consideration of uncovered Australian girls as “sluts” and “whores.” More concerning to me than his actual disgraceful attitudes towards western women, was the fact he’d actually resided in Australia for over 30 years.
Surely we need to raise serious questions regarding integration, and moreover, if integration is even possible with such inherently regressive cultural attitudes—which are the antithesis to our own deeply held values. Superfluous perhaps to say, I never used his services again. This was not an isolated incident unfortunately, and I have had similar experiences with Muslim men from Iran, Pakistan, Lebanon and Somalia.

Or as Jerry Coyne put it:

If hijab was voluntary, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia would not need morality police to enforce “proper” coverage of women. If hijab was voluntary, why did women in Iran and Afghanistan wear it en masse only when Islamic law came into force, or, as in the case of Egypt, when Islam became more powerful? If hijab was voluntary, why do sites like My Stealthy Freedom (note the word “Freedom”) feature Muslim women taking off their headscarves and reveling in their uncloaked hair?
The fact is that although veiling oneself may be seen as a “choice” in some countries, as in the US—and we should ponder how much of a “choice” it really is here given social pressure to veil and the covering of girls that often begins when they are five or six years old—it is most certainly not voluntary in other places: places where the hijab is only one of many ways that women are oppressed. Those who say their clothing is a matter of choice should fight for the rights of women everywhere to have that same choice.

Not to be outdone, of course, there’s the New Testament book of 1 Corinthians 11:3-13:

The head of the woman is the man.... [E]very woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head.... [F]or if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?

So, you see, if Christians really believed that the Bible was the infallible, true-for-all-time, unalterable Word of God....

As R.C. Sproul put it:

The wearing of fabric head coverings in worship was universally the practice of Christian women until the twentieth century. What happened? Did we suddenly find some biblical truth to which the saints for thousands of years were blind? Or were our biblical views of women gradually eroded by the modern feminist movement that has infiltrated the Church...?

Another one of those pesky “reformations,” eh? Next thing you know, they’ll be having a go at 1 Corinthians 14:34-5:

The women should keep quiet in the meetings. They are not allowed to speak; as the Jewish Law says, they must not be in charge. If they want to find out about something, they should ask their husbands at home. It is a disgrace for a woman to speak in a church meeting.

Or, consider the infamous counsel in Romans 3:7:

For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?

That, of course, is the precise equivalent, in “lying for Jesus,” to the taqiyya regularly (and rightfully) condemned by Christians when it is performed by Muslims in their proselytizing. For example, Qur’anic verses concerning the killing of “innocents” are typically presented as if they apply to non-Muslims, the only problem being that only Muslims can be innocent; or where, based on multiple possible meanings of a key word, Allah telling Job to beat his wife with a green branch is absurdly re-interpreted as him instead “walking away” from their argument (with a branch newly in hand, for what possible purpose?!).

And then what of Deuteronomy 13:6-9, i.e., the death penalty for apostasy?

If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods [or no gods at all!], which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;
Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth;
Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him:
But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.

For all of his vaunted “turn the other cheek” moral counsel, Jesus never abrogated the death penalty for infidels who have turned away from Yahweh (i.e., God the Father), just as he never rolled back the capital punishment for homosexuality demanded in Leviticus 20:13:

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

On top of that, while Christians rightfully waste no time condemning Islam’s “pedophile Prophet” for marrying his “favorite wife” when she was six years old, and consummating the marriage at age nine, they are evidently blissfully unaware that such behavior is completely in line with their own Old Testament.

For one, Numbers 31:18 sanctions marriage to pre-pubescent girls. Further, rabbis long ago deduced, from the verses of Genesis, that Rebecca was all of three years old when she was married off to 40-year-old Isaac.

In Biblical times people were married at a very young age. Girls were usually betrothed before they reached puberty—majority of the time the marriage would have [been] consummated when the girl reached puberty, and that was usually between the ages of eight, nine or older. (Note: when a girl reached puberty prior to the 20th century, she was considered to be an adult in most cultures/societies.).... There was no law against a pre-pubescent girl being married off. Actually ... the Mishnah gave approval for a man to have intercourse to a betrothed girl, any time after the age of three years old.

Not to mention that King David, at age 70, married a 12-year-old virgin girl.

Those Biblical customs, too, were never repudiated by Jesus in the New Testament. In fact, child marriage was practiced into the late 1800s in Christian Europe and America, with the age of consent typically being ten years of age (or in some cases, as low as seven).

Thankfully, such repressive and regressive Christian attitudes lie only in the dim and distant past, along with the Crusades, Inquisition, and witch hunts.

Or do they?

On the contrary, Saint Paul (1 Corinthians: 6-9) confirms the eternal punishment to which homosexuals are condemned, even after the life and death of Jesus:

Those who indulge in sexual sin, or who worship idols, or commit adultery, or are male prostitutes, or practice homosexuality, or are thieves, or greedy people, or drunkards, or are abusive, or cheat people—none of these will inherit the Kingdom of God.

Further, from “Cruz-Aligned Pastor: Execute Girl Scout Leaders For ‘Promoting Homosexuality’”:

Kevin Swanson, the pastor courted by Ted Cruz who has repeatedly called for the execution of gay people, including just minutes before speaking with Cruz at an event last November in Iowa, dedicated a radio program last week to attacking the Girl Scouts for supporting women’s and LGBT rights, saying that the group’s leaders are worthy of death.
Swanson ... said that Girl Scout leaders have violated Jesus’ teaching that it would be better for someone to have a millstone hung around their neck and thrown into the sea rather than cause a child to sin....
“You’ve got to take what He says and you have to apply it,” Swanson said.

As to where that leaves the homosexually abusive priests of the Catholic Church....

Yet, again the question: Is Swanson a psychopath who is merely using religion as an excuse for acting-out his own twisted fantasies ... or is he basically a good person, who is taking his religion so deadly seriously, as the literal Word of God, that he would act on its bloodthirsty message, and the implied moral calculus wherein it is better to execute a few Girl Scout leaders than to allow them to corrupt millions of young minds?

Likewise for devout Muslims:

According to an affidavit filed in court by the FBI Thursday, FBI agents arrested Lionel Williams around just before 1 p.m. Wednesday based on probable cause that he “knowingly attempted to provide material support and resources” to ISIL....
A neighbor says she never suspected this. “Lionel has been a good young man. He converted to Islam about five years ago,” said Irene Stewart. “I just don’t see it. I just really don’t see it. To me, he’s a good man.”

Given Pastor Swanson’s aforementioned call for the execution of gays, not to mention abortion-clinic bombers who are doing their best to save the souls of the unborn, only the most ignorant God-botherers could pretend that, supposedly unlike Muslim terrorists, “Christians don’t kill in the name of God” ... while bowing before a Hairy, Heavenly Thunderer who casts terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve, via the threat of eternal hellfire, every bit as much as do Muhammad and Allah. Likewise, both George W. Bush and Tony Blair believed themselves to be genuinely guided by God, in their invasion of Iraq. Not to mention that anyone who used the Bible to support slavery or Manifest Destiny was doing that in the name of God. Plus the Ku Klux Klan, whose members “swear to uphold Christian morality.” And just a few centuries ago, every death from the witch-hunts and the Inquisition, and of many an earlier Crusade, were directly attributable to Christians killing in the name of their God.

What Would Jesus Do? All of the above. But more importantly, What Would Donald Trump Do?

Well, inspire young, oppressed Muslim women in America to remove their hijabs, for one (typos corrected):

Hey the_donald, I’m a 19 year old girl living in America with Muslim immigrant parents. Until yesterday, I had not once removed my hijab in my life while outside. I tried to do it once when I was 10 years old, and my parents grounded me for a week.
Let me tell you something right now, there are no “moderate Muslims.” There are no “assimilated Muslims.”

Faisal Saeed Al Mutar is probably closer to the truth when he says: “Muslims belong to a spectrum from liberal to extremist, there is an obvious connection between Wahabi/Salafist interpretations of Islam and terrorism and there are peaceful interpretations of Islam too that are not at war with liberal values.” But still, at least half of Muslims worldwide are radicals, in the sense of at least being supportive of violent extremism; and like Christians in their day, when they have the numbers to do so they will use their democratic votes to elect a theocracy that effectively enshrines their beliefs in government and law.

It is noteworthy that the GOP’s official platform included a plank specifically addressing how to make Dominionist theocracy the law of the land in a section detailing how they will “rebirth the Constitution” to better reflect the evangelical lie that America was founded as a Christian nation.

Correspondingly, Michele Bachmann Says Congress Cannot Pass Laws That Contradict The Laws Of God:

[Former House Rep.] Michele Bachmann ... declared that Congress can never pass laws that violate the laws of God because doing so only “degrades the greatness of a nation.”
Bachmann declared that a marble portrait of Moses in the House chamber is there as a reminder to all lawmakers that “a holy God gave to Moses the moral law, the Ten Commandments, the law upon which every other law has descended and upon which no other law, if it violates that moral law, could stand because that is the ultimate law.”

Likewise, consider this, from Mike Pence Will Be the Most Powerful Christian Supremacist in U.S. History:

The enemy, to them, is secularism. They want a God-led government. That’s the only legitimate government,” contends Jeff Sharlet, author of two books on the radical religious right, including The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power. “So when they speak of business, they’re speaking not of something separate from God, but they’re speaking of what ... would be called biblical capitalism, the idea that this economic system is God-ordained”....
In November 1996 ... Richard Neuhaus’s journal First Things, published a “symposium” titled “The End of Democracy?” Acknowledging that it might be viewed as “irresponsibly provocative and even alarmist,” the symposium bluntly questioned “whether we have reached or are reaching the point where conscientious citizens can no longer give moral assent to the existing [Clinton] regime.” A series of essays raised the prospect of a major confrontation between the church and the “regime,” at times seeming to predict a civil-war scenario or Christian insurrection against the government, exploring possibilities “ranging from noncompliance to resistance to civil disobedience to morally justified revolution.”
[Watergate conspirator] Chuck Colson authored one of the five major essays in the issue.... Colson wrote ... that a “showdown between Church and State may be inevitable. This is not something for which Christians should hope. But it is something for which they need to prepare.”
[James] Dobson said the essays “laid an indisputable case for the illegitimacy of the regime now passing itself off as a democracy,” adding, “I stand in a long tradition of Christians who believe that rulers may forfeit their divine mandate when they systematically contravene the divine moral law.

As the Ohio pastor Frank Amedia put it:

[I]f every Christian in the U.S. voted, “we’d control everything” and be able to impose “God’s law” on issues like marriage and transgender rights.
“If we voted, and voted the things of God, there wouldn’t be any of these discussions going on,” he said. “We would own it from the top to the bottom in Christ, and we wouldn’t have to politically justify why God’s name isn’t Allah, why God didn’t make man and woman as one gender. We wouldn’t have to justify why a man can’t wake up in the morning and say he feels like a woman and go into a little girls’ bathroom. We wouldn’t have to justify why a man should not be married to a man and a woman to a woman. We would just have to say, ‘That’s God’s law.’ And you know what, you don’t accept it, too bad.”

Or where did you think American sodomy laws came from? Obviously, those derive from the country’s Bible-based morality as a “Christian nation”: “Most sodomy related laws in Western civilization originated from the growth of Christianity during Late Antiquity.”

Not surprisingly, leading Christian figures in Europe hold essentially the same opinion as Pastor Amedia, regarding the superiority of “God’s law”:

[T]he Church of England [has] long held support for Sharia law being recognized in Britain as a supplementary law. The former Archbishop of Canterbury suggested that Britain should regulate Sharia matters, in a notorious speech, when he argued for a higher law than secular law and called for Sharia to be recognized.

And up in the Land of Bagpipes:

David Robertson, an ardent anti-secularist and soon to be moderator of the Free Church of Scotland ... said: “Christianity is the bedrock and foundation of our secular society. Islam is different. Islam has no doctrine of separation of the spiritual from the political. Islam is, and has always been, a political movement.” This from the next head of a church which called for Biblical principles in the Scottish government.

Finally, consider the dynamics which brought Turkey's Recep Erdogan to power, in what is increasingly an authoritarian, theocratic state:

“There would be no need for a call for Sharia,” Gulden Sonmez, an Istanbul human rights lawyer said, “if you could practice religion freely”....
Elected mayor of Istanbul in 1994, Erdogan banned alcohol from city-owned cafés....
Erdogan sent two daughters to Indiana University in part to evade Turkey’s prohibition against wearing Muslim head scarves in public universities....
In 2014 ... he was elected President, a change that signaled a shift in power in the Turkish government. Though Presidents had been selected by Parliament and held little real power in the past, Erdogan was elected directly by the people and quickly showed signs that he intended to play a larger role than past Presidents had.
In 2015, after what looked like it might be a slip in power, AKP surprised some observers with another landslide victory....

When the people want a theocracy, and have democracy thanks to the previous activism of secularists, there is nothing to stop them from electing a leader who will ensure that their god’s will is enacted, even in the most brutal forms of “divine justice.”

One may very well defend the idea that “Islamophobia” doesn’t exist, and far from being an irrational phobia is rather a justified fear of anything but the most liberal applied interpretations of the Qur’an. But independent of that, there is no doubt that any rational secular person should be “Abrahamophobic,” regardless of whether the savage laws of “God” are expressed through the “holy books” of Christianity, Judaism or Islam.

The courageous young Muslim woman quoted above continues:

Throughout my life, I have been to three different mosques regularly. Everyone there had some kind of animosity to America. Either they support jihadist actions outright or they refuse to condemn them, or they victim-blame Christians and the West. Every time there’s a terrorist attack, all over the media there are reports of Muslims who speak out against jihad or protest terrorists.
This is bullshit.
The last time I went to service at my mosque was right after the Brussels attack. You want to know how many of them were condemning it? Zero. Not a single one. My parents over Facebook (which they refuse to let me post publicly to) both started complaining about Islamophobia that would sprout. Not even a faux prayer for the victims. I’ve been secretly watching Trump and his speeches for the last few months, and agreeing with what he says about Islam. This religion is fucking garbage. You want to know what people at my mosque say to me when I ask them about Trump or about terrorists crossing the border?
“Don’t speak woman.”
I have internalized this all my life and just recently I had joined a feminist group on campus where there were a surprising number of Trump supporters, who have helped me through this. While they didn’t push me to take off my hijab and renounce Islam, I’ve decided to do it myself. My parents have not assimilated. None of my “friends” from mosque have either. I want to be a doctor, I want to have sex, I want to walk around town without a male chaperone. None of these things are permitted. Let me be clear, no Muslim girl is wearing a hijab by choice. They know that if they’re caught without one, they WILL be punished. My parents will probably disown me when they find out, but fuck it.
The worst part is all the liberals on campus apologizing for Muslims, especially the Bernie girls going around wearing hijabs “in solidarity.” Well congratulations, you are officially a conquered people of the caliphate. When liberals do this and encourage more Muslims to enter the country, people at the mosques are not sighing in relief that whites aren’t racist, they are giddy that they are accepting the new Islamic state so easily.
Only Trump is standing up to these animals. We don’t want a single one in our country. If Trump doesn’t win, I will happily die the last woman not covering her head. Liberals have no idea what Islam really is.

Likewise, consider this first-hand report, from Sweden:

I have myself met with several salafists. In 2007, I had coffee with a crowd from the Örebro mosque (and briefly met Mehdi Ghezali, the “Swede” that was imprisoned at Gitmo), and I asked them what their view of the then-living terrorist leader Usama bin Laden was. Was bin Laden right or wrong to attack the United States? Wrong, they said. However, when asked to explain why he was wrong, it wasn’t the immorality of attacking what we in the West would call innocent civilians that disturbed them. Instead, they explained that bin Laden was wrong because only a caliph can order jihad. And bin Laden was, in their eyes, no caliph. This was the reason his actions were wrong. They also explained that they believed it is right to stone adulterers to death, but that the penalty can only be carried out in an Islamic state. When I asked if they wanted Sweden to become an Islamic state, they said yes....
[T]hat is why it is very encouraging for the Swedes who want to defend the Sweden we love to hear the President of the United States talk about the things we can see with our own eyes, but about which we get no response from the elites who are more likely to travel to New York than to a Swedish suburb or small city.

President Donald Trump may well be a loud-mouthed, volatile buffoon in several dozen ways. And with the law of unintended consequences being what it is, he may not even be the cure for political correctness run amok that free-thinking persons would hope for. But when it comes to publicly recognizing the dangers of Islam, he stands nearly alone among Western politicians in honoring the quote often attributed to George Orwell:

“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.”

Fight on the seas and oceans, in the no-go zones and the universities paralyzed with political correctness and self-serving identity politics. Never surrender.

P.S. A good analysis of the history of non-white immigration to Europe can be found here:

If you look at Britain as a single example, much immigration from the 1940s to the 1970s was accidental, a product of the retreat from Empire. The first migrants were invited from the Caribbean after the war to perform low-paid jobs such as street-sweeping and driving public transport; with this, began a steady but quiet influx. [Why would such labor be needed after the war, when it was performed perfectly well by native-born Brits before WWII? Simple: The loss of workers as wartime casualties and permanently disabled veterans; the opportunity for able-bodied men to work in reconstruction efforts; and the supply-and-demand effects of additional workers in driving non-unionized wages down. In such a situation, both labor unions and businesses would be happy to see unskilled immigration.] Migration from Pakistan became noticeable in the 1950s and 1960s, with people from those countries filling job vacancies in the steel and textile industries and working as doctors for the NHS. Asian refugees from Idi Amin’s Uganda arrived in Britain in the early 1970s, at a then seen-as-calamitous rate of 40,000 per year. I’m sure somebody French or German could give equally good explanations for migration to their countries during this period because all of what I have just described is in no way part of some diabolical plot to wipe out Caucasian ethnicity and culture in Britain or any other country in Europe.
When it comes to the migration that has taken place to our continent over the last twenty years though, it is different to the earlier wave: this movement of peoples is far more chaotic and destructive of indigenous culture; multiculturalism and equality/race-relations laws were able to smooth the earlier transition of large numbers of people into European societies. That is not to say that everything had always gone well; but the very worst of what could have happened in terms of civil strife had been avoided. The sheer weight of numbers of migrants though in the last two decades, and the bewildering number of countries from which these people have come, has made multiculturalism a busted flush: it is an outdated concept now simply because the migrants are utterly overwhelming the societies into which they come, unintentionally displacing whole local populations. Once again I would ask, is this really all planned, part of some diabolical scheme? And once again I would have to answer an emphatic: no. Utter chaos is enveloping Europe, a product of its position as a First World continent and its predilection for left-wing government. [Yet notably, in 2000 the Labour Party under Tony Blair deliberately opened up the UK to mass immigration in support of their “social objective” of multiculturalism, intending to “rub the Right’s nose in diversity.” So at least as of that point, and until the introduction of a points-based system in early 2008, there was indeed a “diabolical plot” to wipe out native British monoculture.] Even the governments that claim to be right-wing are in reality no more than old-fashioned centrists. They all employ liberal thinking firstly as a default setting, and secondly as a knee-jerk reaction to the mounting chaos they are spectacularly failing to quell. The giving of Pan-European prizes is the equivalent of the wealthy gentlemen on the Titanic sitting in the smoking room with brandy and cigars, blinding themselves to the obvious.
Unless European nations turn to right-wing governments—right-wing in the traditional sense, the continent is doomed to descend into another Dark Ages. The ancient nation states of Europe will indeed disappear, but not in the way that those at the helm of the European Commission might hope: a splintering, a fragmentation will take place into statelets and fiefdoms that are an offshoot of places outside of Europe such as the recently proclaimed “Caliphate” in Iraq and Syria. This process that will make a mockery of a possible single European state; future Presidents of the European Commission will be like the last Byzantine Emperors whose prerogative stretched no further than the walls of Constantinople itself.

Compare Douglas Murray’s take on Enoch Powell’s infamous “Rivers of Blood” speech, where the situation in London, as of 2011—45% White British, 15% black, and 12% Muslim, with 37% of the population being born outside the UK—is far worse than even Powell could have imagined:

As to why “progressive” immigration policies have historically been championed by Jewish activists in particular, one explanation can be found in How and Why Sweden Became Multicultural:

The answer to the question why Jews seem to have a predilection for multiculturalism in the host countries they reside in, is that they as a seemingly invisible minority among lots of other more visible and apparently problematic minorities no more appear as a social category....
Thus, reduced solidarity and cohesion in society favors the ethnic interest of the Jewish minority group. Multiculturalism is a Jewish group evolutionary strategy to minimize the presence of potential anti-Semitism among the non-Jewish majority population in each country where the policy has been introduced. The Jewish minority is safer in ethnically heterogeneous countries because they don’t stand out from the crowd there....
Göran Rosenberg recalled that historically, Jews had always thrived in nations and empires with multicultural, pluralistic and tolerant environments, while they fared badly in strong ethnic or nationalistic societies. European Jews have always been the emblematic stranger or “other.” Therefore, by definition, a society where the stranger is welcome is good for the Jews, although they have not always appreciated this link.... The future of European Jewry is dependent on our ability to shape a multicultural, pluralistic and diverse society.
Consequently, it is not a coincidence that Jewish organizations like the American Jewish Committee see immigration as a specific Jewish issue.

Thus, during the Syrian refugee crisis Israel refused to accept any refugees ... while simultaneously aiding the migration of the same unwanted people into Europe.

For a truly chilling and well-documented summary of the immigrant/refugee situation in Germany, and of what will eventually become of all countries in Europe who persist in their delusion that open borders and the acceptance of Muslim economic migrants are in any way a good thing, see this email sent to John Podesta in February of 2016, and published by WikiLeaks:

Britain is something of the odd man out in immigration-devastated Europe, having also received large numbers of successful non-Western immigrants such as Hindus/Sikhs and Chinese. By sharp contrast, the UK’s Muslims, blacks, Roma and other problem immigrant groups do no better than those on the Continent....
Muslim Immigration and Multicultural Madness have left a trail of misery and mayhem across Germany—with far worse to come because of demographics.
  • Muslims make up only 9% of Berlin’s population, yet account for 70% of young repeat criminals, revealed Berlin public prosecutor Roman Reusch. To be more precise, 46% of Berlin’s juvenile serial criminals are of Arab descent, while 33% of them have Turkish ancestry. In an un-German display of harsh-truth telling, Reusch said in Der Spiegel that “in parts [of Berlin], the population consist almost exclusively of problem cases.” As he tells it, immigrant children as young as six or seven years old turn to crime and grow up to see honest hard-working people as targets—walking sources of easy money. German society is completely powerless in the face of growing ruthless violence and crime. To describe the German police and criminal-justice system as a big joke would be unfair to big jokes. You won’t be surprised to hear that the outspoken public prosecutor has meanwhile been sacked from his job and banned from talking to the media.

  • The German police admits that large immigrant areas of Berlin, Hamburg, the Ruhr Area, etc. have become police no-go areas, where criminals and extremists have free reign. Within no time at all, a lone police patrol car making a foray into Germany’s ethnic war zones finds itself surrounded by a baying lynch mob, much like US soldiers in Baghdad at the height of the troubles, added Roman Reusch.

    Check out footage of Berlin’s Wedding district, which has become too dangerous for a single police officer to work in, as told by a policeman dressed in civilian clothes for his own safety. A ZDF report explains that rapidly growing immigrant violence against police officers is not confined to Berlin and Hamburg. The Ruhr Area, to mention another example, has also seen the emergence of ghettoized police no-go areas. That is confirmed by a Westen interview with Bernhard Witthaut, the tightlipped chairman of Germany’s largest police union, who knows so much more than he is prepared to let on.

  • A police spokesman points out Berlin’s ever-worsening ultraviolent ghettos on a map. In a few decades, he won’t need to be so precise and can just wave in the general direction of Berlin. The operative word is demographics—a concept alien to German leftists, who suffer from a severe case of innumeracy.

  • Whites are fleeing West Berlin to escape immigrant violence specifically targeting native Germans. So says juvenile court judge Kirsten Heisig in a ZDF report. Groups of heavily armed young Turks and Arabs routinely beat white youngsters into pulp, especially their faces and teeth, while filming the whole episode for distribution among their mates. The juvenile court judge provides the grisly details.

  • Anti-white racism of the most virulent kind has become a fact of life across Europe, but perhaps nowhere more so than in Germany. Kirsten Heisig’s book When Patience Comes to an End details the visceral hatred many Muslims feel toward native Germans, who are subjected to a daily torrent of abuse and ethnic slurs in their own country. Even young Turkish women think nothing of calling native girls “German whores” and chanting that “Germans should be gassed,” she writes. Here young Muslim women shout “So sieht Deutscher Inzest aus” at police officers.

    Lone native students at Muslim immigrant-dominated vocational high schools quite often won’t last a week and are lucky to escape their bullies physically unhurt. In this footage, four immigrants mug a German man in a Berlin subway station, beating him into a coma and leaving him permanently brain-damaged. The four perpetrators were teenagers from Albania, Kosovo, Iraq and Nigeria, who had earlier shouted “Scheiß-Nazis” and “wir hassen Deutsche” at the victim and his colleagues. The fact that, in all likelihood, most or all of them are refugees granted asylum by Goody-Goody Germany further adds to the heinous nature of the crime. I can give similar examples until the cows come home, and these are only the ones that somehow slipped past the censors. Clearly, Germany is now well beyond the banana republic phase and has entered the realm of patsydom. Always lurching from one form of extremism to the next, Germans have now decided that the role of an über-schlemiel is a perfect fit. The New CorrectThink is: Deutschland unter alles!

  • As Green Party Co-Leader Cem Özdemir acknowledges, anti-Semitism is rife and rampant among German Turks and other Muslims. Matters are no better in Turkey itself, if a Dutch English-language article is anything to go by. This footage with English subtitles of two anti-Semitic incidents was recorded in the Netherlands, but could just as easily have been filmed anywhere else in Western Europe. Multicultural Europe is ringing to the sound of Judenbeschimpfungen, and we ain’t heard nothing yet. Even pre-Toulouse, various in-the-loop sources said that many if not most Jews in Continental Europe were ready to flee to Israel or America at a moment’s notice. The German Left always hears echoes of the 1930s and ’40s, and they don’t know how right they are.

  • 43% of gays in Berlin have experienced hate crimes perpetrated by Muslims in particular, while two thirds of Turkish high school students in Berlin display homophobia. The same picture can be seen in the rest of Multicultural Europe. To quote the Toronto Sun, “If you think Amsterdam is the gay capital of Europe, you’re half-right, but 10 years out of date. Today it’s the gay-bashing capital of Europe.” Although I can quibble over one or two remarks made in the article, its main thrust is spot on.

  • Yet another target group for young Muslim males consists of German girls. I am not only referring to the large number of white sex slaves once or still held by German Muslim pimps (the most conservative estimate for the Netherlands is 6,000), but also German girls and women in general. About 2.5 minutes into this clip Muslim feminist Seyran Ateþ explains that young Muslim men use the word Hure as an abusive term for German girls as a matter of course. Another favorite is Deutsche Schlampe.

  • Unlike the Multikultis, the German working class cannot block out or distort awful reality and needs to live in the real world. For example, I have a hunch that there are precious few Multikulti converts to be found among German bus drivers. In another clip, a German bus company spokesman explains that even immigrant pensioners beat up bus drivers. Let me also show you images of a 78-year-old German female shopkeeper hit 50 times in her face by a 14-year-old Bosnian. The young robber belongs to a family granted asylum by Germany. Heart-warming, don’t you think?

  • Der Spiegel reports that a staggering 50% of Berlin’s Turks live on the dole. But if you include stay-at-home Turkish women living indirectly off benefits, the unemployment figure rises to about 70%! Everything I’ve read about Berlin’s Arabs suggests to me that subsidized slothfulness among them is even worse. A humorous sign in America’s Rocky Mountain National Park sums up what is wrong with Welfarized Europe, “Please do not feed the squirrels. If you feed the squirrels, they’ll become overweight, and prone to disease. Their population will grow, and they’ll lose their ability to forage for food on their own. They will expect you to feed them and will attack you if you don’t. They’ll become like little welfare recipients, and you wouldn’t want to do this to them.”

  • A mind-mashing 63% of preschool immigrant children (often 4th generation!) in Berlin’s Kreuzberg district speak little or no German and are theoretically inadmissible to an elementary school, reveals Professor of Pedagogy Ali Ucar in Time magazine. That’s what Muslim parents call “giving your child a head start in life.” The wider problem is that these kids bring along zilch educational and character-building baggage, courtesy of can’t-be-bothered parents. The poverty of aspiration among welfarized Muslim immigrants is a far greater impediment to progress than the poverty of wealth experienced by newcomers in the distant past.

  • At one Berlin vocational high school visited by Spiegel TV Magazin reporters, up to 50% of immigrant students in some classes are unteachable, which may well be representative for Berlin. Not that the rest is Nobel Prize material, to use the understatement of the past millennium. It’s worth your while to view the whole report, which will leave even the most jaded observers shocked and depressed. Ordinary Germans will pick up the tab in the form of astronomic welfare costs and an extremely violent crime wave.

  • Young Turkish criminals have a vocabulary of 500 German words largely devoid of any grammar. As a matter of fact, Time writes that most third-generation Turks speak insufficient German (read: Mickey Mouse German) and that almost three-quarters of German Turks live in Turkish-speaking enclaves. You will be straining to follow any of the Turks in the featured clips, whose German is so dreadful as to be almost comical.

  • The language skills of Arab criminals (in Germany, Arab is catchall tag for anyone from that region) do not seem to be any better than those of Turkish street goons. Here you’ve got a young Arab street thug in a TV studio telling a German audience that he routinely beats up Germans for money and for “giving him a wrong look.” However, his Street German is so bad that even Germans can hardly make out what he is saying. He could well be a member of the untouchable Kurdish-Lebanese 2,600-member Miri clan—one of many Arab clans and extended families who plunder and terrorize Germany with total impunity. The PC-straightjacketed German police strikes me as being no more effective than the two bungling detectives in The Adventures of Tintin.

  • The cataclysmic language situation among Deutschtürken does not stop Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the Prime Minister of Greater Turkey, from making the beyond-bizarre demand that German Turks learn Turkish as a first language and continue speaking Turkish in a foreign land. Pushing the envelope like a bulldozer, he is now even clamoring for Turkish-only high schools in Germany. Well, why not? He is already in full control of all Turkish mosques in Germany and might just as well go the whole hog. During a 2001 speech before German Turks in the city of Düsseldorf, he even had the gall to tell them, “You’re my citizens!” When will Germany, which is beginning to look like a Turkish colony, come to its senses?

  • With a rapidly graying population of 82 million, Germany is now playing host to 5 million Muslims. They divide into 4 million Turks (including 400,000 Turkish Kurds), 500,000 Arabs (a label used for just about anyone from that part of the world), 300,000 Ethnic Albanians (originate in Albania, Kosovo and the Republic of Macedonia) and smaller groups. That figure of 4 million Turks—which includes second-, third- and fourth-generation Turks—comes from Wikipedia, The Globe and Mail and other sources. Not factored in are the large numbers of illegal Turkish immigrants living in Little Istanbuls across Germany and working in the black-market economy.

    Predictably, I could not readily find reliable info on the future ethnic face of Germany. So for demographic clues, let’s look at France, which is home to 62 million people, including 6 million Muslims. A Jerusalem Post article and other sources expect France’s Muslim community to be the majority within 50 years. “If the low birth rate of indigenous French citizens and the prolific demographic expansion of the existing 6 million Muslims continue,” writes the newspaper, “there is every likelihood that in 50 years France would become a predominantly Muslim nation.” In actual fact, The Jerusalem Post is being wildly overoptimistic, having completely overlooked a game-changing event: Turkey’s probable entry into the EU, which is the herd of pink elephants in the immigration debate.

    Locally and regionally, Muslim dominance will make itself felt much sooner in Europe. For example, overwhelmingly Muslim immigrants already account for about half of the population in the Netherlands’ four biggest cities, even forming a small majority in Amsterdam. An even more striking example is Brussels, Europe’s Capital. Predominantly Muslim non-Western immigrants represent 70% of the Brussels population and will reach 85% within a decade, according to sociologist Jan Hertogen, whose delight at this development knows no bounds. To put it vividly, Brussels has turned into one Big Banlieue, except for the EU & NATO Gravy Train, whose official religion of PCness could not contrast more sharply with dire reality across Western Europe. Belgium’s second-largest city, Antwerp, will have a majority-immigrant population within less than a decade, while other major Belgian cities are not that far behind.

  • A Turk with a sense of humor or realism has marked out future “Turkish Europe” on a map. Actually, he is being modest! Indulging in a bit of wild-eyed speculation, I suspect that Turkey’s PM envisages the creation a “Greater Turkey sphere of influence” [that] includes the Great Seljuq Empire, the Ottoman Empire, the Mogul Empire, all regions speaking a Turkic language (200 million people have a Turkic language as their native or second tongue), the whole Muslim world, plus rapidly growing “Satellite Dish Europe,” which may well double in number or much more on Turkey’s likely admission into the EU. Once the influx of Turks picks up momentum, the whole of Western Europe will frantically wave them on in the direction of Germany, shouting at the top of their lungs, “Deutschland gut, Deutschland multikulti!”

  • While women’s shelters are overflowing with terrified immigrant women, nutty-as-a-fruitcake German judges tell abused Muslim women that their inhumane treatment at the hands of their menfolk is all in the game for Muslim females. “In Germany today,” The Independent writes, “Muslim women have been reduced to third-class citizens stripped of core legal protections—because of the doctrine of Multiculturalism, which says a society should be divided into separate cultures with different norms according to ethnic origin.” Also bear in mind that most abused Muslim women are too terrified to ask for outside help in the first place and for good reason. Germany, too, has seen its fair share of reported honor attacks, which probably only form the top of the tip of the iceberg. It is much more difficult but not impossible to hide honor murders. Given the shocking attitudes of young German Muslims toward honor crimes Germany must brace itself for much more of the same.

  • The German Multikulti Terror State is an extremely dangerous place for the Politically Incorrect. To mention just four immigration critics, Kirsten Heisig killed herself; Seyran Ateþ went into hiding after an attack in which no one lifted a finger to help her; Thilo Sarrazin will require body guards for the rest of his life; while Roman Reusch has been demoted and media-muzzled. In the blink of an eye, I could Google together half a dozen prominent activists who have suffered similar fates. On top of that, thousands of second-tier dissidents have probably been ostracized and harassed out of existence. Hey, who needs the Stasi, when you’ve got the Multikultis?!

  • Perhaps mentally exhausted from her lone uphill battle against the Mighty Multikulti Mafia, juvenile court judge Kirsten Heisig committed suicide in 2010. What will not have helped matters were the growing number of unbearably grisly cases she was facing on a daily basis, as well as the death threats and unimaginable invective directed at anyone foolish enough to speak out on the Immigration Disaster. This clip displays an English-language text saying that many believe that the judge was murdered and goes on to show German news footage of her with English subtitles. Her book When Patience Comes to an End became a No. 1 bestseller in Germany and will spawn a movie.

  • At the same time, ghastly tidings from the rest of Western Europe keep coming in thick and fast. A tiny selection from my bulging mailbag: 100,000 girls and women mutilated by FGM practitioners in the UK; an immigrant rape epidemic in Scandinavia; four Jews and three soldiers murdered in France; predominantly black gangs have parceled up and terrorize London; Pakistani lover boys ply their awful trade in Britain almost without let or hindrance; plus public-transportation workers, hospital staff, ambulance employees, firemen and police officers across the Continent suffer from unbelievable levels of violence, threats and verbal abuse from immigrants, with some of the most appalling scenes witnessed in Sweden, rated as having the worst immigration record in the whole of Western Europe by Elsevier magazine.

  • Almost all Turks in Germany and Turkey are in complete denial about Deutschtürken’s atrocious behavior across the board and even bask in utterly risible victimhood. What strikes me the most about a Turkish culture so obsessed with “honor” is the total absence of any shame over bringing so much hatred, aggression, crime, misery, urban decay, welfare costs and dysfunctionality in all areas of life to Germany and other European host countries. In a brief window of opportunity—which was slammed shut in the wake of the media coverage surrounding the Far-Right Murders—German public television made a few halfhearted attempts to debate catastrophic immigration in Germany. If I heard this correctly while listening with half an ear, at the beginning of one program, a Turkish interviewee unblinkingly described immigration in Germany as “ein Erfolgsmodel” (a success model), without eliciting roars of Homeric laughter from the studio audience. I could almost hear the WDR journalist thinking, “Oh my God, we’ve got a live one here,” before he went into full career-protection mode and managed his best bullshit smile ever. One of the few exceptions in the Turkish community is feminist-social scientist Necla Kelek, who has defended Thilo Sarrazin, the bête noire of German politics, explaining that he addresses “bitter truths” in his much-talked-about book.

The Multikulti Mullahs still have Germany in a chokehold, but for how much longer?
Multiculturalism—the human variant of mad cow disease—seems to have run its course in much of Europe, but is still going strong in Germany. Tune into German television or visit German news websites, and it’s like going back in time to much darker days. Most (but definitely not all!) German media coverage of Turkish and other Muslim immigrants is just one big blur of Multikulti twaddle. In fact, the reporting is so delightfully deceitful that it becomes entertaining in a demented freaky sort of way. In strident denial of staring-them-in-the-face immigration calamities, the vast majority of German journalists continue to preach the multicultural gospel with all the religious fervor of snake-oil televangelists, threatening the growing number of apostates with fire and brimstone.
For example, the Hezbollah faction within the ZDF sees the subject of Deutschenhaß (hatred of Germans) as one big joke and uses its well-honed rapier wit to maximum effect . The phrase “cringe television” does not even begin to do justice to Germany’s Multikulti TV. Even worse than many journalists are German Leftwing politicians, who are to lying what Holland is to cheese. Baron Münchhausen cannot hold a candle to, say, SPD and Green politicians waxing lyrical about immigration and rejecting the crushing facts of life with deadpan delivery. To quote Canada’s Globe and Mail newspaper, “Like Canadians, Germans have been swamped by official propaganda celebrating the joys of ethnic diversity. In both countries, expressing doubts over immigration policy has been socially verboten.”
Although Germany is now surrounded by smaller nations that are beginning to see the light (the Netherlands, Flanders, Denmark, Switzerland and Austria), Germany remains trapped in the PC Dark Ages. Why is this so? Under Hitler’s looming shadow—which obliterates any well-informed and rational discussion of snowballing immigration problems—German Polite Society has long had an easy task of ruthlessly imposing its particular brand of PC Nastiness on the German masses. The frequent invocation of Hitler still serves as a nuclear weapon in the immigration debate, as infantile as that may sound to more mature and developed nations. German society is like a dog that has never outgrown its puppy phase, and the Left is hell-bent to keep it that way. Say anything deviating one syllable from Loopy Lefty orthodoxy, and you are accused of being a Nazi (quite often by folks with strong Leftwing Nazi credentials), put your career at risk, face ostracization and become an easy target for violence and intimidation from Muslim Supremacists and Black Blockers. The German national character also comes into play. Most Germans are docile, group-oriented and fearful of authority to a degree that their naturally rebellious and big-mouthed Dutch neighbors—the New Yorkers of Europe, if you will—would find side-splittingly hilarious.
But as Johan Cruyff famously observed, “Every disadvantage has its advantage.” The rapidly escalating immigration mess created by Germany’s Multikulti-Narren has now become so horrendous that reality can no longer be hidden from view. Quite a few über-shocking media reports had slipped past the PC censors, before the Far-Right Murders put a halt to that blast of glasnost. In three years’ time, a select group of German journalists with balls and brains will probably pick up where they left off and will once again tell the unvarnished truth on immigration. Equally important, more than half of Germans are now in revolt against the Leftwing Establishment, and their number will only increase in the face of the demographics-driven banlieue-ization of their country. Germany has also produced a dozen immigration critics of note, including those mentioned in my previous email. Even Angela Merkel, normally as cautious as a snail braking hard for a curve in the road, felt compelled to talk to the nation like a Dutch uncle. What is further working against the Multikultis’ still-iron grip on power is that Germany is becoming the odd man out in its own neck of the woods. Thankfully, the sort of PC Wackoism that is pretty much prevalent among Germany’s Ruling Classes is getting rarer by the day in Western Europe and is being steadily pushed out to the fringes of Western Europe (Britain and Sweden/Norway).
The demasqué of the Multikulti Horror State is complete, but that news has not yet reached the German powers that be.
Polish-born Henryk Broder is well aware that neighboring countries—left reeling from their own immigration experience—are beginning to regard Germany as la risée de l’Europe. In a TV appearance, Broder makes a scathing assessment of German Polite Society, which is incapable of accepting even the most basic home truths and having a productive public debate about an issue that, because of unrelenting demographics, will loom ever larger in Germany. The enfant terrible of German journalism takes the whole Multicultural Cabal to task and cuts through all the crap: Almost all immigrant problems in Germany are Muslim-connected. No number of red herrings fished up by the multi-billion Diversity Industry will ever change that Mother of All Facts. And no amount of starry-eyed rhetoric on the part of Green Party Co-Leader Cem Özdemir, who locks horns with Broder in the TV program, will ever make the slightest bit of difference. You might just as well try to wish gravity away.
Tragically, the immigration situation is so much worse than even Broder thinks in his lily-white innocence. Just take a load of the litany of human disasters in Germany detailed above. Alternatively, examine the state of affairs in equally blighted neighboring countries. Let me quote a few facts and figures from the Netherlands—the only country in the world where oft-devastating immigration statistics are fairly freely available. Shockingly, in the Netherlands 55% of all young Moroccan males have been the subject of a police investigation. Indeed, the unofficial, yet reliable figure for Amsterdam is 70%! As if all of that weren’t deeply troubling enough, psychologist Indra Boedjarath explains that many Moroccan youngsters suffer from psychological problems, adding that numerous Moroccan criminals are “slightly mentally handicapped.” On and on it goes.
Although I have only built up a very rough impression of the Dutch equivalent of the BBC’s Crimewatch program (cannot bear to watch it for more than a few seconds at a time), the common thread running through all episodes seems to be that almost all of the thugs are non-Western immigrants and that almost all the victims are whites. The victims are often on the bottom rungs of society—from supermarket staff to frail senior citizens, who have been intimidated, humiliated, robbed, beaten silly or stabbed with blood-curdling brutality in their own country. The crime-program makers have even developed their own PC language to identify the never-ending immigrant rogues’ gallery paraded on Dutch TV screens, week after deeply depressing week. Moroccan suspects have a “North African appearance,” while blacks have a “negroid appearance.” Not that long ago, one Dutch black comedian joked that he watched this crime show to see what his mates had been up to, but few Dutch people were laughing.
The newly published book The Immigration Taboo by Joost Niemöller discloses that 50% of the Netherlands’ non-Western immigrants are unemployed, adding that this percentage is seven times worse than that among natives. Presumably, he confines himself to those actually drawing unemployment benefits. Throw in the little-discussed fact that almost all immigrant women in the Netherlands are unemployable according to the NRC newspaper, and real unemployment (all working-age people without jobs) among immigrants in Holland may well come out at 70% or thereabouts. Could it even be worse? Has Niemöller also counted all those immigrants who are jobless, yet have been falsely declared “disabled”? Bear in mind that the tiny Netherlands holds the per-capita world record for the number of people on various forms of “disability” benefits, aka the Scam of the Century, namely 715,000....
More broadly speaking, there is not even a single Western European country with a successful Muslim community.... Instead, in only slightly varying degrees, Muslim immigration is just one long tale of woe and misery for the long-suffering host countries, which are in for far worse to come in the decades ahead because of barely understood demographic realities. Incidentally, the same sad observation can be made of the Black Diaspora in Western Europe, North America, Latin America and the Caribbean....
Germany’s Immigration Disaster Deniers have as much credibility as alien abductees spirited away in a UFO with Bigfoot at the controls.
Immigration Disaster Denial has deep roots in German society and goes way beyond the usual suspects—aging Communists in their last hurrah (so left-over ’60s rabble and relics of the GDR dictatorship). Almost as fanatic and myopic are the folks called das liberale Bildungsbürgertum, to use Roman Reusch’s caustic epithet for Germany’s Class of Educated Ignoramuses, who live in a whites-only cocooned fantasy world and indulge in Gutmenscherei at the expense of the vulnerable in society, slandered as “racists” when they have the chutzpah to complain about their awful lot. Suffer in silence, will you, and let us dream on! For example, I was aghast to learn that the flat-earthist book The Scaremongers: The German Fear of Islam had been penned by a journalist in the employ of the Frankfurter Allgemeine and not some fringe Trot rag. Who would have thought? It’s almost as if Germany’s Babbling Classes wish to make up for their lack of humor and humanity with nonstop misguided moralizing and grotesque grandstanding. In my experience, those who holler the loudest about morality possess the least amount of it.
History will render a devastating verdict on the FAZ journalist and all other flat earthers, lampooning the PC Era as a period of moral and mind meltdown of the sort Europe has seen so often in recent times. However, that is cold comfort to the many long-suffering victim groups described in my messages, including white elderly people who are imprisoned in their own homes in ethnic hellholes and are forced to live out their final days amid horrific levels of vandalism, theft, vitriolic threats and violence from even very young immigrant children, backed up by bigger siblings and parents, as I heard in distressing accounts. I also witnessed some of these blood-boiling scenes in South Rotterdam. The very least that white senior citizens across the multiculturally afflicted parts of Western Europe can expect is name-calling and intimidation, as exemplified by footage with English subtitles of a white elderly woman in a city train in Copenhagen who is being bullied by a North African man (probably a Moroccan). One highly unusual comment to the Danish train clip reads, “My Muslim brothers are such pigs, I understand why everyone hates them.”
In various interviews, ex-public prosecutor Roman Reusch reserved special scorn for Germany’s Clueless Cultural Classes, who sit pretty in their affluent whites-only enclaves far removed from all the ethnic misery and engage in exalted Multikulti-Moralreiterei to the severe detriment of the working hoi polloi. He sharply contrasts the Multikultis’ lofty position in society with that of a lowly sales assistant who has already been robbed three times by hordes of armed immigrants and needs to pop tranquilizers every morning, so that she can get through another day in the multicultural war zone. In the words of German journalist Sabine Beppler-Spahl, “Being ‘pro-immigration’ and ‘pro-multiculturalism’ in Germany today is like a lifestyle choice, a way of proving that you are culturally refined and cosmopolitan, unlike the supposedly uncultured, racist working classes.” Every German pays a hefty price for botched immigration through higher taxes, but it is bottom-of-the-heap whites in the “war trenches of society,” who figuratively and literally bleed for the ignorance, idiocy and callousness of the Yapping Classes. Sadly, the working class is only one of various segments of German society increasingly hurting and suffering at the hands of Muslim immigrants. Other hard-hit victim groups include Jews, gays, the old and frail, plus native young people. And matters are set to get so much worse for them, owing to dramatic demographics, including Turkey’s likely admission into the EU....
My Internet Blitz across Germany confirmed my very worst fears.... There must have been a point in my life when I simply gave up on a country whose Yapping Classes appear to have all the acuity of mind seen in a special-needs schoolyard and all the moral courage found in a weasel farm. To paraphrase that old JFK quip, when I digitally rampaged through Germany, the thing that surprised me the most was that matters were as God-awful as I’d been saying they were.

The reasons why Germany is so intent on destroying itself with Third World immigration, in the process of trying to prove to the world that it is not a nation of evildoers defined by the Holocaust, are explained well here:

Muslim immigration has had comparably negative effects in Sweden...

...and Luton...

When even the BBC cannot sweep those horrors under the rug, you know things are bad, even with only 5% of the population being Muslim, as of 2011.

And this is how the Muslim community in Britain and elsewhere treats its atheist apostates:

Finally, this is how Sharia law is being applied in present-day London, destroying the lives of moderate-Muslim women:

My older daughter, Lubna (not her real name) moved to London in 1994 after the breakdown in her marriage. After the British courts granted her a civil divorce, I hoped that would be the end of our involvement with my ex-son-in-law. Sadly this was not to be the case. He visited our local mosque and denounced me to the gathering, saying that I was “a loose woman” who was pimping her daughters. He asked the mosque elders to help him get his children and his wife back to save their morals. A delegation from the mosque visited my home to convince me that the best thing would be to make my daughter return to her husband. I told them she was divorced but they said the English divorce meant nothing and was not valid in Islam. I was so angry at the vile allegations of these men.
Another imam, a close family friend of ours, told us that Lubna would have to seek a khula (divorce) from a Sharia court. I vehemently disagreed and cited the cases of several Muslim women I had known who had been divorced in the English courts without any need for a religious divorce. These women had since remarried too. The imam said the mosques had failed in their duty and that these women would go to hell as they were committing zina (adultery) and producing haram children. I reluctantly agreed to speak to Lubna.
We appeared before the Sharia court. The whole process in the Sharia court at Regents Park mosque was shocking. Lubna was dismissed every time she spoke; I was treated very disrespectfully every time I tried to intervene. They were not interested in anything we had to say, not even the real risks that my ex-son-in-law posed to his children let alone to my daughter. He had beaten my grandson a few years earlier and split his head open. He still has scars on his face.
None of the information from the civil proceedings (affidavit, non-molestation orders, etc.) was admissible in the Sharia Court. When Lubna’s ex-husband stated that he did not want to grant khula but wanted a reconciliation “for the sake of the children,” the Judges agreed. I was horrified. As my daughter and I were protesting so much, a further hearing date was set. At the next hearing, Lubna was told to reconcile and that a khula would not be granted. We were also told that my ex-son-in-law had custodial rights over my grandchildren and that they would remain with Lubna as long as my ex-son-in-law agreed....
After the hearing, Lubna lived with a sustained campaign of harassment and abuse from my ex-son-in-law. During this time he kidnapped my grandchildren and threatened to keep them if Lubna did not allow him to come and live with her. He threatened to kill me and my other children if she involved the police. It was only with the help of her father-in-law that the children were returned to her.
What happened next, I cannot even bring myself to say the words so I will quote from Lubna’s statement, “... Very late one night my ex-husband broke in and violently raped me. I did not report this to the police as I was too scared. After the rape he wrote to my mother and the imam and told them I had slept with him and that we were now together again. My mother came to my house as soon as she received the letter and was shocked to see the injuries resulting from the violence I suffered that night”....
My family in Pakistan were horrified to hear that there were Sharia courts in England. My family sent written advice from several scholars in Pakistan and India which confirmed that there was absolutely no need for a khula as the civil divorce was recognized as a formal termination of the marriage....
I do not understand where these Sharia courts have come from. I come from the generation of immigrants to this country that was able to be part of British society and to be Muslim without the need for separate legal systems. After the Sharia court proceedings ended I supposed that my life would continue as it had done before. Nothing could have prepared me for what lay ahead.
The ostracism began with people who had once been friends starting to avoid me. I asked my friend Guljabeen if she knew what was going on. Guljabeen told me that the incident at the mosque (where I was accused of pimping my daughters) had become common knowledge in the area where we lived. My children were no longer welcome in the homes of their Muslim friends. I used to sing the naats and nasheeds at prayer gatherings and was well known for doing this. All invitations to do this ceased.
Three of my other daughters have married non-Muslims and left Islam. I have suffered almost total ostracism for supporting them in their choices. My closest friend from childhood, who lives in the area, has stopped visiting me....
I am so sad for the generations to come if we continue on the path of this new Islam.

Prev   Table of Contents Next

Download Stripping the Gurus PDF