Category Archives: Western Law
Get Off The Sinking Ship
This article was written by Pastor Chuck Baldwin and originally published atNewsWithViews.com
This column dated November 21, 2013, created a firestorm of outrage and venom from hundreds of pastors and Christians. It was a rude awakening for me, for sure. I have long maintained that the vast majority of today’s pastors and church members are smugly content in abject apathy and indifference. However, after the vehement reaction to the above-mentioned column, I can now state dogmatically that the problem is actually much, much worse than I realized. Today’s churchmen are not merely content to not being involved; they are absolutely committed to not being involved. It goes much deeper than apathy; it is apostasy.
See my November 21 column “This Pastor Proves My Point”
My email inbox and mailbox filled with vitriolic rebukes from pastors and Christians. I was called just about every dirty name in the book and relegated to the depths of the damned–and those were the mild ones. At the heart of these feelings of contempt is the rejection of Natural Law. It’s not only that today’s pastors and Christians have not been taught the Biblical principles of Natural Law and, therefore, don’t understand it; today’s churchmen have developed a willful and stubborn conviction against Natural Law.
I will even go so far as to say that the majority of our pastors and church leaders today are monarchists at heart. The lack of instruction and understanding of the Biblical principles of Natural Law have created a generation of churchmen who are more than willing to submit to the unnatural laws of tyranny and oppression. Until two weeks ago, I didn’t truly comprehend the depth of this volitional slavery.
The statements being made by today’s pastors and Christians are so nonsensical and asinine that it is extremely difficult to believe that any person, much less pastors and Christians, could even utter them. Here are just a few examples of what pastors have said:
“If federal agents or troops came to my house and put my wife on the kitchen table and raped her, Romans 13 tells me I could not interfere.”
“If government forces came to my home intent on harming my wife and children, I would not resist; I would simply tell my family to run.”
“America’s Founding Fathers were rebels against God. They had no right to fight a war for independence. Subjection to a king, even a tyrannical one, is God’s Will.”
“Anyone who resists civil government is going to hell.”
“There is no such thing as natural law, and anyone who promotes it is of the devil.”
Dear reader, trust me: the comments above are reflective of the majority of pastors and Christians I have heard from over the past couple of weeks. Truly did Jesus say, “Can the blind lead the blind? shall they not both fall into the ditch?” (Luke 6:39 KJV) That is exactly what is happening in America today: the blind are leading the blind into the ditch of tyranny and oppression.
Last Sunday, I delivered a message entitled, Biblical Evidence For Natural Law. I invite readers to watch the archived video of that message: Biblical Evidence For Natural Law
Listen to the Scripture: “For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another.” (Romans 2:14, 15 KJV)
The great theologians and Bible scholars of yesteryear all understood the Biblical teaching of Natural Law. Here are a few samples of some of church history’s greatest Bible commentators on this passage in Romans 2.
Albert Barnes: “The expression means clearly by the light of conscience and reason, and whatever other helps they may have without revelation. It denotes simply, in that state which is without the revealed will of God. In that condition they had many helps of tradition, conscience, reason, and the observation of the dealings of divine Providence, so that to a considerable extent they knew what was right and what was wrong.”
John Wesley: “The Ten Commandments being only the substance of the law of nature.”
Adam Clarke: “Do, without this Divine revelation, through that light which God imparts to every man, the things contained in the law–act according to justice, mercy, temperance and truth, the practice of which the revealed law so powerfully enjoins; these are a law unto themselves.”
John Gill: “The matter and substance of the moral law of Moses agrees with the law and light of nature…which they have by nature and use, and which natural reason dictates to them.”
Matthew Henry: “They had that which directed them what to do by the light of nature: by the force and tendency of their natural notions and dictates they apprehended a clear and vast difference between good and evil. They did by nature the things contained in the law. They had a sense of justice and equity, honour and purity, love and charity; the light of nature taught obedience to parents, pity to the miserable, conservation of public peace and order, forbade murder, stealing, lying, perjury, etc. Thus they were a law unto themselves.”
Think about it: man did not have the written, revealed laws of God for some 2,500 years of recorded history. Yet, they did have the Law of God “written in their hearts,” or Natural Law.
Sir William Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England were, without a doubt, among the most influential writings upon America’s founders. In his commentaries (second section), Blackstone said, “Man, considered as a creature, must necessarily be subject to the laws of his creator, for he is entirely a dependent being. A being, independent of any other, has no rule to pursue, but such as he prescribes to himself; but a state of dependence will inevitably oblige the inferior to take the will of him, on whom he depends, as the rule of his conduct: not indeed in every particular, but in all those points wherein his dependence consists. This principle therefore has more or less extent and effect, in proportion as the superiority of the one and the dependence of the other is greater or less, absolute or limited. And consequently, as man depends absolutely upon his maker for every thing, it is necessary that he should in all points conform to his maker’s will.
“This will of his maker is called the law of nature. For as God, when he created matter, and endued it with a principle of mobility, established certain rules for the perpetual direction of that motion; so, when he created man, and endued him with freewill to conduct himself in all parts of life, he laid down certain immutable laws of human nature, whereby that freewill is in some degree regulated and restrained, and gave him also the faculty of reason to discover the purport of those laws.”
In that same second section of his commentaries, Blackstone further said, “This law of nature, being coeval with mankind and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other–It is binding over all the globe in all countries, and at all times; no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this: and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original.”
Before Biblical Law said, “Thou shalt not kill,” Natural Law said, “Thou shalt not kill.” Before Biblical Law said, “Thou shalt not commit adultery,” Natural Law said, “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” Before Biblical Law said, “Thou shalt not bear false witness,” Natural Law said, “Thou shalt not bear false witness.” Before Biblical Law said, “Thou shalt not steal,” Natural Law said, “Thou shalt not steal.” How is it, and since when is it, that pastors and Christians do not understand this?
Natural Law, by its very definition, demands procreation, protection, provision, and prohibition. From the very act of Creation, Adam and Eve were given in their hearts (by God) the desire to procreate. Does anyone deny that those who produce children have a right and duty to protect and provide for their children? Does not all of nature have an innate desire to produce young then protect and provide for the young that they produced? The bird and the beast build a nest or den for its young; it catches or hunts food for its young; and it uses every means in its power to drive away predators from its young.
How, in the name of God, can today’s pastors and church leaders say they would not protect their own families from harm? How can they treat so flippantly the duty and responsibility to provide safety and security for home and community? Does a badge give a person the right to act like a predator? You mean to tell me that God would have us bring our children up in the “fear and admonition of the Lord” only then to sit back and do nothing while human beasts with badges devour and enslave them? What nonsense! What rubbish!
Beyond that, prohibition is as intrinsic to Natural Law as is procreation, protection, and provision. In the beginning, Adam and Eve were given great authority over the entire natural kingdom–yet, they were also given jurisdictional prohibition: they were not allowed to eat of the Tree of The Knowledge of Good and Evil. Even in that state of perfect innocence, when Adam was the absolute master of all that God had created on earth, he had limited jurisdiction. And when Adam violated that jurisdictional prohibition, there were consequences that had to be paid. And that was the pattern for all human authority.
There is only one Sovereign: the Creator-God. All human authority, be it vocational, familial, ecclesiastical, or political, is limited and jurisdictional. Anytime human authority oversteps its jurisdictional borders, Natural Law (God’s Law “written in our hearts”) demands resistance. And the amount and type of resistance is commensurate to the amount and type of usurpation.
When the “kings of the nations” seized property not belonging to them and kidnapped some of Abram’s family, he did not quote Romans 13 and sit complacent. He gathered his armed servants (who were already trained in the art of war) and pursued the oppressors. He put together a military strategy and attacked the predators and destroyed them. Not only that, when he returned, he was blessed by Melchizedek, who was “the priest of the most high God.” (Genesis 14)
Hebrews 7 says Melchizedek was a type of Jesus Christ. Many Bible scholars believe that Melchizedek was actually a Christophany, meaning a pre-Bethlehem appearance of Christ. Think of it: Christ Himself (or a priest who is clearly a type of Christ) blessed Abram after he attacked and destroyed the usurpers who had transgressed their jurisdictional authority. And exactly where was it written that Abram should do this thing? It was written in his heart. Again, the resistance was commensurate to the transgression.
And those who say that violent resistance to tyrannical government is unbiblical and sinful should tear the entire Book of Judges out of their Bibles. Where in the Mosaic Law were the laws of insurrection recorded? They weren’t. Yet, for a period of over 300 years, champion after champion felt the call of God in his heart to resist with violence the tyrants who were subjugating his country. Furthermore, Hebrews 11 places men such as Gideon, Barak, Samson, and Jephthah in the great “Hall of Faith.” And, remember, Romans 15:4 says that the Old Testament was written “for our learning.”
Western Civilization is rooted in Natural Law. Scholars in and out of the Church have historically accepted the Natural Law principles of the rights and duties of procreation, protection, provision, and prohibition as being “self-evident.” In his book, “Political Obligations,” University of Virginia political science professor George Klosko wrote, “[I]t is generally held that obedience to government is not unconditional. Though we have significant moral requirements to obey, these can be overridden by countervailing factors. For instance, a government that becomes tyrannical can lose its right to be obeyed, while obligations to obey specific laws that are unjust can also be not binding.” (George Klosko, Political Obligations, Oxford University Press, New York, Oxford, 2005, 11)
Klosko’s philosophy matches the philosophy of the vast majority of Christian and non-Christian scholars including Sir Edward Coke, Hugo Grotius, Samuel von Pufendorf, Emerich de Vattel, Samuel Rutherford, John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Thomas Hobbes, and Thomas Aquinas (to name a few).
Compare the Natural Law teaching of history’s great scholars (many, if not most, of whom were Christians) to the teaching of so many of today’s pastors and church leaders. The differences are stark. The great preachers, theologians, and scholars of history produced a thirst for both God and freedom and gave birth to the greatest free land the world has ever known. And what are today’s pacifist preachers producing? An apathy and indifference that has brought our country to the brink of a modern-day Dark Ages. Everything that America’s colonial pastors such as John Leland, John Witherspoon, John Peter Muhlenberg, James Caldwell, and Jonas Clark fought so bravely to bequeath to us is being surrendered by the cowardice and apostasy of the modern pulpit.
As I said, after reading the voluminous pieces of correspondence touting absolute submission to the state, I am convinced that a majority of pastors and church leaders today are monarchists at heart. Accordingly, so many of America’s pastors today are not shepherds; they are slaves. They have repudiated the faith of our fathers; they have repudiated the inspiration and sacrifice of thousands of years of history; they have repudiated sound scholarship and reason; they have repudiated the values and virtues that protect everything that is sacred; and they have repudiated the Biblical Natural Law principles of liberty and justice.
Ichabod is written over the establishment church.
I am further convinced that the only way liberty and justice can be restored to America is for Christians to get out of these idolatrous government churches and form tens of thousands of independent, non-affiliated, non-establishment churches and home-churches. It must happen; it’s going to happen!
I pray that God will use whatever time I have left on this earth to be part of the prophecy that famed Bible teacher A. W. Tozer uttered before his death in 1963. Tozer said:
“I hear Jesus saying…Matthew 23:37, 38, ‘O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to her, how often would I have gathered your children together, even as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you would not! Behold, your house is left to you desolate.’
“As the Church now stands, the man who sees this condition of worldly evangelicalism is written off as somewhat fanatical. But the day is coming when the house will be left desolate and there will not be a man of God among them.
I would like to live long enough to watch this develop and see how things turn out. I would like to live to see the time when the man and women of God–holy, separated and spiritually enlightened–walk out of the evangelical church and form a group of their own; when they get off the sinking ship and let her go down in the brackish and worldliness and form a new ark to ride out the storm.”
I agree with Tozer. Get off the sinking ship, folks. Form a new ark to ride out the storm. Pastors and churches that have repudiated Biblical Natural Law principles–including the duty of self-defense–should themselves be repudiated.
What follows is the transcript of the speech I delivered at the second National Policy Institute’s conference, which was held at the Ronald Reagan Building in Washington, DC on October 26th.
(Ed.Note: Emphasis mine. ZTW)
Ladies and Gentlemen,
It is not always easy to tell the difference between destiny and chance.
I discovered the “Alternative Right” three years ago, by a link posted on a Swiss blog. It was a perfect illustration of a famous line in Simon and Garfunkel’s song The Sound of Silence: “The words of the prophets are written on the subway walls, and tenement halls.”
I was going through a period of questioning at that time. I had been working for a couple of years for the “conservative movement” in Paris and I couldn’t fail to notice that all my efforts had been invested in a cause that was not really mine, that had never really been mine actually.
Until that fateful day of July 2010, I had always centered my attention on France. My only knowledge of the other Western countries was through history books, movies or touristic trips.
Regarding politics proper, I wasn’t much interested in what was going on outside France. Though I was involved with the Right, I had always been wary of the American Right. For me, being right-wing in America meant worshipping the Holy Scrap (also known as “the Constitution”), waving a stars and stripes flag in the garden of a generic white-picket-fenced house, and making boring, tired jokes about the French who “always surrender.” I had still not digested my dish of freedom fries.
Discovering the Alternative Right was an Epiphany for me, as I think the discovery of the European New Right was for many Americans present in this room today. I’m thinking particularly of Richard Spencer and of John Morgan, the editor-in-chief of Arktos Media.
I discovered that though I wasn’t feeling at home in the French “conservative movement,” there were “people like me” on the Web, all over the Western world, who shared my hopes and concerns.
Ironically enough, I even discovered French authors thanks to American publications like AlternativeRight.com or Counter-Currents.com. Of course, the name “Alain de Benoist” was familiar to me, but he was not very popular, let alone read, in my corner of the Right.
Now, it seems that more and more Western people (White people as you say in America) are aware of the fact that what brings them together is much stronger than what divides them. And I’m not only talking about activists like us here. When this British soldier was beheaded in London by two African Muslims last Spring, I could see many manifestations of solidarity by average Western people. It’s something that would have been unthinkable a mere decade ago. As this example shows, reasons for this growing awareness among Western people are often negative ones: Westerners face the same danger of being displaced in their historic homelands.
There are positive reasons too, the first of which being the fact that we are the heirs of a great civilization. But although it is important to focus on the positive more than on the negative, it’s about a problem that is remarkable but not often commented on that I want to talk today: the generational divide.
When I say that this problem is not often commented on, it is not quite true. Actually, the liberal narrative about generational relationships is that the baby-boom generation, thanks to a courageous revolution, managed to put an end to an oppressive, reactionary, boring society.
There is some truth to that liberal narrative. But the generational divide applies differently to nationalist movements, and this is what I want to dedicate my attention to today.
More than a generational divide, there is, first off, a generational gap in right-wing movements. If the generation of my grand-parents (born between the two world wars) was rather conservative in the right sense of the word, the baby-boom generation is, in my experience, much more liberal in its outlook, hence the lack of right-wing activists from this generation. This is what explains “gerontocracy,” i.e. government of the old, in many right-wing movements, especially in Europe.
Even self-defined right-wingers born during the baby-boom are liberal in their views.
The most striking thing that I noticed, in France, Europe and America, was the inability of baby-boomers, even when they see themselves as dissidents, to completely break away from the institutions. The desire of recognition, the fear of social rejection makes the right-wing baby-boomer gives legitimacy to the very institutions that are willing to destroy him.
For instance, right-wing baby-boomers show a great deal of respect to Academia. They are very proud of their PhD when they hold one, and when they don’t, they are all the prouder to mention that an author they publish does. Well, at a time when there are PhDs in queer, gender, black, and even chicano studies in America, is it so important to mention that? Wouldn’t we be better advised to give as little legitimacy to university degrees as we can, given the circumstances?
This PhD cult among right-wing baby-boomers is related to their own rationalistic, scientistic delusions. Since conservatives are outmoded liberals — and many White nationalists are conservatives: they just want to conserve their people as it is, as if it were possible to save said people without becoming a new one in the process — they still believe in the Enlightenment myth that one would just have to show “the truth” to people to gain credibility and support. (And trying — in vain — to gain credibility from an Establishment that despises or hates them is an important trait of right-wing baby-boomers.)
But this idea that people would just have to know “the truth” to support the cause of saving Western civilization and the White race is fallacious. People have to be inspired rather than convinced, and they won’t be inspired by a set of bell curves, IQ tables and cranial measurements. Furthermore, it reduces “the truth” to the only things that can be numbered and quantified. The problem with that idea is that our struggle is a qualitative one. We can’t “prove” that architecture has become ugly since the 20th century, for example. Yet it’s something that has to be said.
I mentioned the PhD cult because it is one of the most obvious problems in right-wing intellectual circles. But this excessive respect of right-wing baby-boomers is granted to institutions in general, chiefly to the State, the Nation-State.
Since I was born in the 1980′s, at a time when the main Western countries had already been “enriched” with mass immigration, I understand that it is easier for me to dissociate myself from my own Nation-State.
Here, I’m reminded of an American friend I met in Paris a few weeks ago. He was born in the 1960′s, and when I mentioned to him the idea of an Ethnostate, he chuckled: for him, up to ten years ago, he had always considered he was already living in an Ethnostate: the United States.
And in day-to-day life, it remains common to hear people say “we” and “us” when they talk about the State. “We went to Iraq.” “Our troops are bringing democracy there.” “Syria’s chemical weapons threaten us.” I’m using silly examples here to make a point, but if you listen to people around you, you will inevitably notice that they keep saying — and thus thinking — that the State is them. That the State is the Nation.
But it’s getting more and more necessary to get rid of this false consciousness. Since the end of the 18th century and the American and French revolutions, the Nation-State has monopolized the way Westerners see themselves. This triumph is so complete that even multiculturalists use the Nation-State as a comforting reference to impose their dogma on the West. In every Western country, you can hear the same mantra that “Our [national] identity is diversity.”
Some people in our movement suggest that we should likewise use the Nation-State as a means to make people aware of our goals. The problem is that we can’t use the same tactic, for two reasons: first, we are obviously not in charge of the State. Second, a strict national consciousness leads to serious errors of interpretation. It is common in countries that used to have colonies and slaves to hear people say that our problems are rooted in colonization and slavery. In my homeland, the troubles with the Algerian community are thus attributed to French colonization and civil war there.
But Sweden, which never had any colony nor slaves, is facing similar, if not graver threats than Britain, America or France. We are not attacked for what our ancestors did, or allegedly did, but for what we are: White, Western people.
From my understanding, it is easier for my generation to see a brother or sister in another Westerner than it is for the former generation, which was born in the aftermath of the Second World War. In France, Front National is still anti-German, as well as it is anti-British and anti-American. But for the young generation, all these grudges are fading into irrelevance. A Briton might dislike the Germans or the French, wrongly or rightly, but those are unlikely to drug and pimp his daughters, behead a soldier in broad daylight, or burn the city down when a drug dealer is killed by the police.
In case you are wondering, I’m talking about things that actually happened in Britain in the last years.
Young Westerners know that they are more and more becoming one nation, the same way that other races, as Jared Taylor had noted in his book White Identity, are more and more seeing themselves as one people when they live in the West.
The right-wing baby-boomer is not able to fully understand what is happening in other Western countries, since he relies solely on national, liberal media, unlike young right-wingers who get information via alternative, Pan-Western websites. The liberal media gives him a distorted image of reality. As he knows that mainstream journalists are liberal, he basically inverts their depictions of other “far-right” movements in other Western countries to make his own opinion of them. Right-wingers, most often, only define themselves in opposition to the Left. What the Left likes, they hate. What the Left loathes, they love. It is thus easy to manipulate them into supporting a controlled opposition, given that their only justification to support is: “Since liberals hate it so much, it must be doing something right.” By this false standard, George W. Bush “was doing something right” when he made up the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq to invade this country.
Generally speaking, the right-wing baby-boomer is subject to the bourgeois dream, which has been known as the “American dream” since the end of the Second World War: a world of peace, trade, and boredom.
Right-wing baby-boomers share the project of two American politicians (both born before the baby-boom though), Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan, whose similarities are more obvious than their differences. Their common motto can best be summed up as “Leave us alone.” Well, we of the New Guard don’t want to be “left alone.” We want to rule. We want to rule not only because we want actual power to get ourselves out of the present situation, but because we know that the “leave us alone” idea, which was behind the White flight phenomenon, is precisely what has led us to our current dispossession. Baby-boomers wanted to be “left alone,” so they fled to even further suburbs, moving further and further away from their own responsibilities. It is this process, White flight, that guaranteed that the ongoing dispossession could go on without being too painful.
The “good news” is that it is becoming impossible to continue the White flight process. Rising housing costs, growing gas prices, the concentration of jobs in city centers are putting the bourgeois dream to an end. It is now almost impossible for a generation that can only wait tables after a masters degree to keep fleeing. Problems will have to be faced, and dealt with.
At this point, I realize that I might seem unfair to the previous generation, but keep in mind that baby-boomers did what everyone else would have done if given the choice. This choice no longer exists. The quiet, suburban life has become impossible for the reasons mentioned before.
What is to be done, then? As of now, nobody, including myself of course, has a genuine solution to offer. Many in our circles claim that it is “five to midnight,” but I would argue that it is “five past midnight.” Not because it is too late, but because it is too soon. A mere decade ago, many people in this room, including, again, the foolish 20-year-old liberal that I was, were not aware of what was going on. Our awakening is too recent to find political solutions to our current problems now. For politics as we would like it to be to become possible, we have to win the intellectual and cultural battles, which right-wing baby-boomers have never really considered worth fighting. It is time we do so.
What we can thus do in the meantime is to get intellectually prepared as a movement (for the individual and practical aspects of this preparation, Piero San Giorgio and Jack Donovan are more competent than I am). The first task would be to get rid of intellectual debates dating back to the Cold War, with the false dichotomies between libertarianism and socialism, conservatism and progressivism, etc.
This necessity to go beyond these false dichotomies seems obvious to activists like us, but it is still in these terms that politics are debated today.
When I say that we have to go beyond Left and Right, I don’t mean that we have to reject both notions altogether — our ethno-national project obviously belongs on the Right — but the way they have been defined and falsely opposed for these past seventy years. The alternative is not between the kolkhoz and IKEA, the best reason for that being that the kolkhoz and IKEA are two sides of the same materialistic coin. We have to find a way out of here, a way forward and upward, and that implies rising above these irrelevant debates.
As a radical movement, we need to attract intelligent and educated young men, who are the future.
Crime statistics and differences of achievement between races are important, to be sure, but no snowboarding session on the bell curve will attract young men to us. We need to show them a way out, and thus to remind them of the need to gradually withdraw from the prevailing disorder, but we also have to show them a way into, and that is what the Old Guard has been unable to do so far.
Don’t get me wrong: I’m not trying to bury the Old Guard, or even to dispute its achievements. We wouldn’t be here today if the Old Guard had not taken the first step in the past. But we can’t keep doing the same things for decades.
It is now clear why we want to found a new society, now is coming the harder part: what we want and how we are going to achieve it.
The answer is not sure at this point. What is sure is that the powers of creation, not only of reaction, will have to be summoned.
Thank you for your attention.
From Alternative Right: http://alternativeright.com/blog/category/children-of-oedipus
UK Muslims say Prime Minister David Cameron should be lauded for his consistent attacks on ‘Islamophobes’ while painting a rosy picture of Islam
Over the last decade meetings with senior ministers in the previous Labour administration around Islamophobia or anti-Muslim prejudice literally led nowhere. The focus was extremism, extremism and extremism.
TellMamaUK* Over the last 3 years, there have been problems, though there has been an important re-shifting of the relationship between the Government and Muslim communities. Out has gone violent extremism just related to Muslim communities and in has come ‘tackling extremism,’ which includes Far Right and other forms of extremism.
* TellMamaUK lost its government funding for lying about ‘Islamophobic’ incidents: Muslim-hate-monitor-to-lose-backing.html
Out has gone groups that placed themselves as sole representatives of Muslim communities, and in has come a multitude of voices from Muslim communities. Out has also gone inaction about Islamophobia or anti-Muslim prejudice and in has come a consistency in dealing with this social phenomenon which Baroness Warsi stated in early 2011, had sadly passed the ‘dinner table’ test.
This change in position around anti-Muslim prejudice is clear through recent speeches by the Prime Minister and others. Take for example, David Cameron talking recently at the Eid-Ul-Adha celebration at 10 Downing Street. The full text of the speech can be found here and is well worth a read to reflect the change in position.
The Prime Minister makes clear the following: “We still have a huge battle fighting prejudice in our country, and I think perhaps particularly Islamophobia – people telling lies about your religion – is one that we have to face up to particularly strongly in our country. And it’s a time to remember that. It’s also a time to remember that welcoming people to our country of all faiths is something that has to go across every single part of life.”
Or take this position by David Cameron regarding misinformation circulated in his consitituency regarding the development of a local mosque. Or take a range of projects that ministers within his Government have approved and will be looking to approve.
What the Prime Minister needs right now, is people who believe in pluralism, equality and fairness in our society and communities to stand with him; to support his vision of a country where hate should be challenged through existing systems and structures and where every community has a role and a part to play in that future. We say to the Prime Minister, this is a vision that draws all people towards a modern, stronger and more competitive Britain. Thank you!
Surreal and Suicidal: Modern Western Histories of Islam
Rereading some early history books concerning the centuries-long jihad on Europe, it recently occurred to me how ignorant the modern West is of its own past. The historical narrative being disseminated today bears very little resemblance to reality.
Consider some facts for a moment:
A mere decade after the birth of Islam in the 7th century, the jihad burst out of Arabia. Leaving aside all the thousands of miles of ancient lands and civilizations that were permanently conquered, today casually called the “Islamic world” — including Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Iran, and parts of India and China — much of Europe was also, at one time or another, conquered by the sword of Islam.
Among other nations and territories that were attacked and/or came under Muslim domination are (to give them their modern names in no particular order): Portugal, Spain, France, Italy, Sicily, Switzerland, Austria, Hungary, Greece, Russia, Poland, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Lithuania, Romania, Albania, Serbia, Armenia, Georgia, Crete, Cyprus, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Macedonia, Belarus, Malta, Sardinia, Moldova, Slovakia, and Montenegro.
In 846 Rome was sacked and the Vatican defiled by Muslim Arab raiders; some 700 years later, in 1453, Christendom’s other great basilica, Constantinople’s Holy Wisdom (or Hagia Sophia) was conquered by Muslim Turks, permanently.
The few European regions that escaped direct Islamic occupation due to their northwest remoteness include Great Britain, Scandinavia, and Germany. That, of course, does not mean that they were not attacked by Islam. Indeed, in the furthest northwest of Europe, in Iceland, Christians used to pray that God save them from the “terror of the Turk.” These fears were not unfounded since as late as 1627 Muslim corsairs raided the Christian island, seizing four hundred captives and selling them in the slave markets of Algiers.
Nor did America escape. A few years after the formation of the United States, in 1800, American trading ships in the Mediterranean were plundered and their sailors enslaved by Muslim corsairs. The ambassador of Tripoli explained to Thomas Jefferson that it was a Muslim’s “right and duty to make war upon them [non-Muslims] wherever they could be found, and to enslave as many as they could take as prisoners.”
In short, for roughly one millennium — punctuated by a Crusader-rebuttal that the modern West is obsessed with demonizing — Islam daily posed an existential threat to Christian Europe and by extension Western civilization.
And therein lies the rub: Today, whether as taught in high school or graduate school, whether as portrayed by Hollywood or the news media, the predominant historic narrative is that Muslims are the historic “victims” of “intolerant” Western Christians. That’s exactly what a TV personality recently told me live on Fox News.
So here we are, paying the price of being an ahistorical society: A few years after the Islamic strikes of 9/11 — merely the latest in the centuries-long, continents-wide jihad on the West — Americans elected a man with a Muslim name and heritage for president, who openly empowers the same ideology that their ancestors lived in mortal fear of, even as they sit by and watch to their future detriment.
Surely the United States’ European forebears — who at one time or another either fought off or were conquered by Islam — must be turning in their graves.
But all this is history, you say? Why rehash it? Why not let it be and move on, begin a new chapter of mutual tolerance and respect, even if history must be “touched up” a bit?
This would be a somewhat plausible position — if not for the fact that, all around the globe, Muslims are still exhibiting the same imperial impulse and intolerant supremacism that their conquering forbears did. The only difference is that the Muslim world is currently incapable of defeating the West through a conventional war.
Yet this may not even be necessary. Thanks to the West’s ignorance of history, Muslims are flooding Europe under the guise of “immigration,” refusing to assimilate, and forming enclaves which in modern parlance are called “enclaves” or “ghettoes” but in Islamic terminology are the ribat — frontier posts where the jihad is waged on the infidel, one way or the other.
All this leads to another, perhaps even more important point: If the true history of the West and Islam is being turned upside its head, what other historical “orthodoxies” being peddled around as truth are also false?
Were the Dark Ages truly benighted because of the “suffocating” forces of Christianity? Or were these dark ages — which “coincidentally” occurred during the same centuries when jihad was constantly harrying Europe — a product of another suffocating religion? Was the Spanish Inquisition a reflection of Christian barbarism or was it a reflection of Christian desperation vis-à-vis the hundreds of thousands of Muslims who, while claiming to have converted to Christianity, were practicing taqiyya and living as moles trying to subvert the Christian nation back to Islam?
Don’t expect to get true answers to these and other questions from the makers, guardians, and disseminators of the West’s fabricated epistemology.
In the future (whatever one there may be) the histories written about our times will likely stress how our era, ironically called the “information age,” was not an age when people were so well informed, but rather an age when disinformation was so widespread and unquestioned that generations of people lived in bubbles of alternate realities — till they were finally popped.
Raymond Ibrahim is author of Crucified Again: Exposing Islam’s New War on Christians, which deals with both history and current events. A Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and an associate fellow at the Middle East Forum, he wrote his master’s thesis on an early battle between Islam and the West under the direction of military historian Victor Davis Hanson.
Found at The Daley Gator
Found at Gates of Vienna
Tommy Robinson Has Committed No “Real” Crimes – Britain is Collapsing and Won’t Protect Her Own Citizens
The Blog of The Re-Enlightenment has published an excellent article entitled “Middle England must listen to Tommy Robinson” about the EDL and the necessity for the English middle class to wake up to the dangers of Islamic supremacism.
One of the difficulties in building a broad-based British political movement to resist Islamization is the reluctance (or should I say obstinacy?) of middle-class Britons to have anything to do with a phenomenon that is spearheaded by the working class.
We can only hope that this article is a bellwether of things to come. The author is a self-described “privately educated, second generation immigrant, middle class lawyer who lives in a big house with a small mortgage”.
Below are some excerpts from a much longer piece:
I wrote a post last week called “Time to be honest about the English Defence League”, in which I expressed some frank views about the EDL and its leader Tommy Robinson, and since then I’ve been regretting it. Not because I was too honest but because I wasn’t honest enough.
I’ve spent quite a bit of time thinking about everything more carefully and I’ve watched a number of clips of Robinson on YouTube. In short I’ve been completely blown away by his bravery, his commitment, his intelligence and his integrity. I really think it’s about time everyone started taking him seriously for what he is, which is a political activist of the highest calibre.
There are dozens of things on the internet but these are the ones I watched. I really hope you commit some of your time to watching them (the second one is audio only). If you don’t then I can’t see how you can dismiss Robinson so lightly.
- Speech at the European Parliament, Brussels
- Radio clash with George Galloway
- Interview after the murder of Lee Rigby
- Assaulted with Kevin Carroll of the EDL, and then arrested
- BBC3 Free Speech
- Piece to camera in the lounge
Robinson is completely committed to defeating Islamism. We all know he has a dodgy past but that’s nothing unique amongst the general population and it’s certainly nothing unique amongst political activists. His past doesn’t disqualify him from speaking out against Islamism and it doesn’t make his opinions any less valid.
We forget that taking part in an institutional system of rules-based theft is no disqualification to sitting in either of our legislative chambers, or that being violent in a Houses of Parliament bar (twice) merely makes an elected public official an eccentric character, or that committing criminal damage as an undergraduate at Oxford University provided you’re wearing a nice suit and you’ve had the finest education money can buy, and smoking cannabis at Eton College, is no disqualification to becoming prime minister of the United Kingdom. Yet criminal convictions are an automatic bar to disapproving of ruthless, totalitarian ideologies.
Robinson’s real crimes are not actual crimes, though. I can’t stand class-based victim narratives but even I have to conclude Robinson has committed the ultimate crime of being a working class white lad and expecting to have an opinion on Islamism, which will be the defining issue of the century people reading this blog post will die in. I dismissed Robinson because of his background and because of the EDL’s image. I should have known better than to be such a snob.
From Gates of Vienna: http://gatesofvienna.net/
Do You Value Your Life Style and Country? There is one Group of People Who Want to take it From You – Muslims. Wake up Before They Do.
“Let Cant cease, at all risks and at all costs : till Cant ceases, nothing else can begin.” – Thomas Carlyle.
So you disagree with the Counter-Jihad tendency in its entirety; You’re a Leftist, or a Marxist, or a self-declared ‘anti-Racist’. Perhaps - like the majority – you’re still undecided on Islam, but incline against confrontation with it. Whichever category you fall into, you probably loathe people like us – ‘hateful people’ who stress the need to take the fight to the enemy.
Some people, at this point, would begin to call you names; the term ‘Dhimmi’ is typical, and is used to suggest a mixture of stupidity, passivity and learned helplessness in the opponent. I’m sure you’re not stupid. In fact, compared to some of the footsoldiers of the Counter-Jihad tendency, you probably possess a far superior grasp of international affairs. You might also do sterling activist work on other issues like poverty, economic inequality and minority rights. You are bright, good-natured people and among your number I once proudly counted.
I can understand how you found your position on this subject too. The case against Islamophobia is well-presented, reasonable and often convincing.
Perhaps some of the following ideas undergird your argument:
1. Islamophobia is Racism.
Islamophobia has an ugly face and a hateful, inarticulate voice. The anti-Islam English Defence League boasts hundreds of men with bald heads and bomber jackets, and whenever a BBC camera lingers on a crowd of them for more than five seconds, it seems inevitable that some dickhead makes a Nazi salute.
The BNP, too, never stop talking about the threat from Islam, and yet we know that they hate Blacks, Gays and Jews as well. Perhaps ‘Islamophobia’ is just a case of racists picking on Islam as an alternative to doing nothing, and maybe when they’ve finished with the Muslims, they’ll move on to other minorities.
2. Islamism is Over-Hyped by Zionists.
Jewish Nationalists (Zionists), have a clear vested interest in ‘Islamophobia’ and the way it can draft Europeans into the fight against Israel’s enemies in the Middle East. Consistent with this, many of the authors most identified with anti-Islam sentiment (Mark Steyn, Pamela Geller, Bat Yeo’r, Sam Harris etc…) are of Jewish extraction. Perhaps this is reason enough to doubt what they - and we - are saying.
Muslim countries have valuable minerals and resources they usually won’t give to us. Perhaps our elites require a degree of anti-Muslim feeling in order to sell colonial wars to the electorate which would otherwise be impossible to justify.
4. Why Can’t we Move On?
The attack which seemed to start it all – 9/11 – occurred over ten years ago. Isn’t it time we all moved on? Americans behave like it was the end of the world, and yet it wasn’t really the end of a day’s trading. 3000 people died. A similar number die each hour from poverty. Why should you care about the fat, bloated Yanks when there are people dying all over the world, including those impoverished by American policy?
Many of these points are valid and all of them have foundations in reality.
Not one of them however succeeds in abolishing the Islamist threat.
Let’s tackle them in reverse order:
The events known as 9/11 were not (contrary to what the internet might tell you) American initiatives. Whether too much is made of the tragedy is besides the point. It happened, it was evil and it demanded a response.
The issue of the Islamic world’s resources (and their exploitation by the West) is something we can actually agree on. The modern Jihadi Enterprise has been largely enabled by America’s foolhardy sponsorship of the Saudi royal family and the injection of trillions of dollars into the economies of the Wahhabi Gulf. Similarly, the American purchase of oil and gas from Iraq or indeed any Islamic source is, to us, wholly undesirable and we recommend alternatives be sought out.
Jewish Nationalism, whatever some of its adherents might believe, has not benefited greatly from anti-Islam sentiment. The greatest enemies of the Jewish state – Syria, Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah, are black-listed on the grounds of terrorism, genocide, and totalitarianism. Their identity as Islamic is not the foremost reason for their isolation. If it were, then Saudi Arabia and Egypt would have been disowned long ago.
Still, this is not to say that Jewish Nationalists don’t desire a Western World more sympathetic to their position. Why on Earth wouldn’t they? It is fundamental to any type of activism that one wants ones cause to succeed. The pursuit of sympathy and alliance can hardly be called sinister or underhand, and the methods used to acquire sympathy must be judged, in any case, on their independent merit. Books about Islam by Jewish authors should be open to the same scrutiny as any other political work, but if that scrutiny, after finding nothing wrong with them, continues unabated, it can justly be reclassified as bigotry.
The English Defence League is not a registered political party. It is open for all to join without qualification or even so much as a background check. Given that its marches allow for (and indeed encourage) aggression and the display of nationalistic sentiment, it is inevitable that some undesirable elements will be pulled in alongside the best of the catch.
Unconvinced? Let’s go on then….
You might possess a more general objection to ‘victimizing’ a group of people for the cultural affiliation into which they were born. This too is perfectly sane and morally sensible. Our answer, however, is necessarily hard-hearted:
This is a war for the future of our civilization. All manner of cruelties are obliged of us in times of war that, in a time of peace, would be considered reprehensible. We must murder those who wish to murder us before they can try. We have no sensible reason to doubt the intentions behind words such as ‘Death to the West’. When Iranians and Egyptians chant this, they are not threatening a distant immaterial concept, but you and I, our families and friends.
And while we talk of civilization, tell me, do you value any of the following things:
Music, Television, Art, Non-religious Literature, free mixing of the sexes, Sport…?
Well, the Salafi brand of Islamist (if he is successful) will prevent your children from enjoying any of these activities. They will be banned by the state and religious authorities.
Our various and hard-won society will collapse into a tedious rhythm of prayer, food and sleep. Nothing else. Popular entertainment will be limited to the sadistic festivals of public execution.
If you’re a woman, I must ask, do you like your family?
Well you better had do. For in Salafist Europe, you will be answerable and obedient to your family until the age of marriage and after that to a husband chosen for you by them.
Do I really need to go on?…
All I’m asking you to do is think; To be honest with yourself. I’d wager that youdo like music, that you do like mingling with people of the opposite sex. I think you value our civilization as much as we do and would miss it greatly should it disappear.
It may be good nature that led you down this road of untruth, but unless you rejoin one that is more rational, you will end up in alliance with some very terrible people indeed.
If you’re able to think about these things – even for a short while - without political conditioning, you’ll come to see very quickly which side is yours to defend.
D, LDN. at Defend the Modern World: http://defendthemodernworld.wordpress.com/
‘[T]he nation that gave the world the Magna Carta is dead’.
—Pam Geller and Robert Spencer
If the patient is not dead, it certainly is Stage IV terminal.
Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer co-founded anti-Muslim group Stop Islamization of America.
They were due to speak at an English Defence League march in Woolwich, where Drummer Lee Rigby was killed.
A government spokesman said individuals whose presence “is not conducive to the public good” could be excluded by the home secretary.
He added: “We condemn all those whose behaviours and views run counter to our shared values and will not stand for extremism in any form.”
Sounds like the Home Secretary, The Right Dis-Honorable Theresa May, MP, is afraid to allow-in views that challenge her pathetic Dhimmitude, or the wretched Dhimmitude of the Cameron Government.
What are you so scared of, Terry? Words?
More from the story:
Keith Vaz, chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, who had called for the bloggers to be banned from the UK, said: “I welcome the home secretary’s ban on Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer from entering the country. This is the right decision. The UK should never become a stage for inflammatory speakers who promote hate.”
You mean like…oh, I don’t know…the Imams that infest the British Isles like locusts from Scotland down to the white cliffs Dover???
From Pam’s first one:
I have been banned in Britain. My crime? My principled dedication to freedom. I am a human rights activist dedicated to freedom of speech, freedom of conscience and individual rights for all before the law. I fiercely oppose violence and the persecution and oppression of minorities under supremacist law. I deplore violence and work for the preservation of freedom of speech to avoid violent conflict.
I have never been convicted of any crime. I have never been arrested. I became a writer and activist in the wake of 911.
For this I am banned. I shed no tears. I am banned from Mecca, too. [BOB:Who would want to go to that pit, anyways]?
The Dhimmitude, it burns.
And The Flames Of Albion rage out-of-control.
This land of such dear souls, this dear dear land, Dear for her reputation through the world, Is now leased out, I die pronouncing it, Like to a tenement or pelting farm: England, bound in with the triumphant sea Whose rocky shore beats back the envious siege Of watery Neptune, is now bound in with shame, With inky blots and rotten parchment bonds: That England, that was wont to conquer others, Hath made a shameful conquest of itself. Ah, would the scandal vanish with my life, How happy then were my ensuing death!
—John of Gaunt, Richard II, Act II, scene i
Who is John Gaunt?
From Bob: http://thecampofthesaints.org/
Britain is in denial. There is no real public debate on a historic event that is transforming the country. Mention of it occasionally surfaces in the media, but the mainstream political class never openly discuss it. What is that historic event? By the year 2050, in a mere 37 years, Britain will be a majority Muslim nation.
The Commentator This projection is based on reasonably good data. Between 2004 and 2008, the Muslim population of the UK grew at an annual rate of 6.7 percent, making Muslims 4 percent of the population in 2008. Extrapolating from those figures would mean that the Muslim population in 2020 would be 8 percent, 15 percent in 2030, 28 percent in 2040 and finally, in 2050, the Muslim population of the UK would exceed 50 percent of the total population.
Contrast those Muslim birth rates with the non-replacement birth rates of native Europeans, the so called deathbed demography of Europe. For a society to remain the same size, the average female has to have 2.1 children (total fertility rate). For some time now, all European countries, including Britain, have been well below that rate. The exception is Muslim Albania. For native Europeans, it seems, the consumer culture has replaced having children as life’s main goal.
These startling demographic facts have been available for some time (see ‘Muslim Population “Rising 10 Times Faster than Rest of Society”’, The Times, 30 January 2009. Also the work of the Oxford demographer David Coleman). But on this historic transformation of the country there is silence from the political establishment.
Not everyone agrees with these demographic figures. Population projection, some say, is not an exact science. Perhaps the Muslim birth rate will drop to European levels.
But this seems to be wishful thinking. For years it was believed that Muslims would enter what is known as “demographic transition”, with European Muslim birth rates falling to native European levels. But that demographic transition has not happened. In Britain, for example, the Pakistani and Bangladeshi communities continue to have significantly higher birth rates than the national average, even after more than 50 years in the country.
Over the short term (a few generations) demographic forecasting is as scientific as any social science can be. Britain and the rest of Europe are in native population decline and European Muslim birth rates are up. If that trend continues, then the projection of a majority Muslim population in Britain is sound. Even the highly respected economist and historian Niall Ferguson accepts the figures.
Many British people find it hard to believe their country could become majority Muslim. After all, it was never what they wanted so why, in a democracy, should it be happening? But we’ve had such disbelief before. Back in the 60s and 70s, many people scoffed at the notion that London could ever be majority non-white. But today it is.
The fact is that the deathbed demography of native Britons has come up against increasing Muslim birth rates and the result is a classic Malthusian geometric increase in the Muslim population. As Malthus emphasised, populations increase geometrically, not arithmetically. Given two populations, one declining one increasing, within a few generations the geometric increase of one over the other can be substantial.
Why has the Muslim birth rate not fallen to native levels? Just as there may be consumerist-cultural reasons for the low birth rates of native Britons, there may be strong cultural reasons for higher Muslim birth rates. As the journalist Christopher Caldwell puts it: “Muslim culture is full of messages laying out the practical advantages of procreation. As the hadith saying has it: ‘Marry, for I will outnumber peoples by you.’”
Yassir Arafat understood the political power of high birth rates. The Palestinian population increased sevenfold in one generation from 450,000 in 1967 to 3.3 million in 2002. The wombs of Palestinian women, Arafat said, were the “secret weapon” in his cause. The Israeli government is very much aware of Palestinian demographics.
Population projections over the long term can be wrong. But for Britain, over the short term, whatever way you do the numbers, they all point in one direction: Britain will be a majority Muslim state by the year 2050.
The political and social consequences of all this will be significant. Britain’s traditional foreign policy, particularly regarding the US and Israel, would very likely change. In fact the US and Israel are already anticipating the consequences of a majority Muslim Western Europe.
Britain’s social landscape would also be changed. The Adhan, the Muslim call to prayer, would very likely be heard throughout most of Britain. The traditional iconic sights and sounds of the country would also change from church bell-towers to minarets. Very likely all of this would happen gradually but there can be little doubt that it will happen, and it would be perfectly democratic.
Given that such a historic change is taking place, the silence of the political class is curious, to say the least. Britain, until the 1950s, could trace its ethnic and cultural ancestry back thousands of years. In 1903, in Cheddar Gorge Somerset, the remains of a pre-historic man were found. Known as Cheddar Man, DNA tests on this almost 9000 years old skeleton showed that he has living descendents today, still in Somerset.
In fact, genetic studies show that the populations of the British Isles (and Western Europe) have been stable for millennia, giving the lie to the oft quoted liberal comment that “Britain has always been a country of immigrants.” That’s false. Until the mass immigration of the 1950s, Britain was ethnically homogeneous. (See Bryan Sykes’s Blood of the Isles.)
The former Conservative MP George Walden, considering the fears of his fellow MPs in discussing particularly Muslim immigration, wrote:
“I’d be so alarmed by the situation I’d do everything possible to suggest it was under control. It’s up to politicians to play mood music in a crisis, and up to the people to understand that there’s little else governments can do. The last thing they can say is that we face a threat to which we can see no end because it’s based on a clash of cultures. On the IRA we told the truth; on the Islamic problem, we lie.” (Walden, Time to Emigrate? p.120)
Back in the 60s and 70s, the British political establishment united in condemning Enoch Powell, not just as a racist but as being factually incorrect in his demographic predictions. Since then, the subject of immigration has split British politics between the truth-denying, but morally superior, political mainstream and the truth-telling legacy of the bogeyman Enoch Powell.
For good or bad, the history of the last 40 years has vindicated Powell on many issues and shown the political establishment to have been wrong. Some major figures on the liberal-left now acknowledge this fact.
David Goodhart, the founder of Prospect magazine, in his new book The British Dream, argues convincingly that he and others on the liberal-left got it wrong on immigration.
But they also got it wrong on democracy. The projection of a Muslim majority by the year 2050, coupled with the fact that the vast majority of the British people have consistently opposed large-scale immigration, post-war British politics must represent the greatest ever failure in democracy. If ever the “Iron Law of Oligarchy” were proved right, then it is post-war British politics that has done it.
The long stretch of Britain’s exclusively European identity is now coming to an end, yet the political class refuse publicly to discuss such a culturally transforming event. Why the silence from the politicians? Are they not proud of their achievement?
The answer is that the demographic projections of a majority Muslim Britain show the British political class to have been catastrophically wrong on multiculturalism and immigration, and they are genuinely afraid to admit it. The British political establishment cannot give the full truth about immigration.
The U.S. Dept. of Justice Now Wants “Civil Rights” to Trump “Freedom of Speech” on The Internet? What???
Gross irresponsibility and the left-wing hyper-politicization of the Justice Department has engulfed it in a storm of scandal that Eric Holder is unlikely to survive despite Obama’s continued support. Still it presses forward with its Hopey Changey agenda, now with plans to impose sharia on the Internet:
In its latest effort to protect followers of Islam in the U.S. the Obama Justice Department warns against using social media to spread information considered inflammatory against Muslims, threatening that it could constitute a violation of civil rights.
It is now a violation of “civil rights” to exercise constitutional rights. The time is coming to choose between them.
Our rulers have a special meeting with Muslims entitled “Public Disclosure in a Diverse Society” planned for tomorrow:
Special speakers for the event will be Bill Killian, U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Tennessee, and Kenneth Moore, special agent in charge of the FBI’s Knoxville Division. …
Killian and Moore will provide input on how civil rights can be violated by those who post inflammatory documents targeted at Muslims on social media. …
Killian said the presentation will also focus on Muslim culture and how, that although terrorist acts have been committed by some in the faith, they are no different from those in other religions.
The public will be reminded yet again that Timothy McVeigh wasn’t a Muslim, therefore we can ignore the well over 20,000 lethal Islamic terror attacks that have taken place since 9/11.
Obama has made it clear from the beginning whose side he is on in the great conflict between Islam and Western Civilization that has been going on for centuries. Just as his thuggish, Chicago politics approach has trickled down through the IRS, his support for Islam saturates the top levels of the federal bureaucracy.
But soon we might not be allowed to talk about it, lest Muslim colonists regard the topic to be inflammatory and therefore a violation of their civil rights.
On tips from G. Fox, Ben S, Jolly Rodger, Tchhht!!!, Gunny Sarge, Sammy, and Steve A.
From Moonbattery: http://moonbattery.com/
MUSLIM LIES! The truth about the so-called ‘Islamophobic wave of attacks’ on Muslims after the brutal murder of a British soldier by a Muslim savage
Contrary to widespread Muslim propaganda about mosque attacks and assaults on Muslims, the vast majority of incidents recorded were anti-Muslim messages on Facebook and Twitter. (What a surprise, Muslims lying to get pity)
UK Daily Mail Claims that large numbers of Muslims were attacked in the aftermath of the Woolwich murder were questioned yesterday. A Government-funded project warned it had received more than 200 reports of Islamophobia following British soldier Lee Rigby’s murder, including attacks on mosques and Muslim women.
Project director Fiyaz Mughal said the figure represented a ‘substantial spike’ in hate crimes and warned of ‘a sustained wave of attacks and intimidation’ against Muslim communities across Britain.
But more than half of the incidents reported to the Tell Mama (Measuring Anti-Muslim Attacks) hotline related to offensive messages on Twitter, Facebook or online blogs, and only a tiny minority were physical attacks, it has emerged.
The claims raised questions about the way Tell Mama presented its figures in the days after Drummer Rigby’s murder, amid repeated calls for calm to avoid reprisal attacks. Mr Mughal said Tell Mama had received 162 reports of anti-Muslim prejudice in a 48-hour period.
Between four and eight incidents are normally reported daily to the charity, which receives £214,000 a year in funding from the Department for Communities and Local Government to provide data and reports on attacks against Muslims to combat hate crime.
A total of 212 incidents were reported between the Woolwich murder on May 22 and the end of last week. The attacks received widespread coverage alongside warnings from Mr Mughal of a ‘cycle of violence’ against Muslims which had led to ‘a sense of endemic fear’.
But while they included a petrol bomb attack on a mosque in Grimsby and in another incident in Essex where a man entered a mosque armed with a knife, only 17 cases involved individuals being physically targeted, a Sunday newspaper reported.
Six people had things thrown at them and most of the other 11 incidents related to attempts to rip off women’s headscarves or other items of Islamic dress.
More than half – 120 – related to offensive or abusive messages on social networking sites including Facebook and Twitter.
Contacted by the Daily Mail, Mr Mughal refused to discuss the figures, which he said would be independently checked by Birmingham University for a report next month. Any attempt to downplay the significance of verbal or online abuse was ‘an affront to hate crime reporting’, he said.
He was also challenged on the figures during an interview on Radio 4’s Sunday programme, when he conceded that the number of physical attacks was ‘quite small’.
He said: ‘We are talking mainly about generalised abuse, targeted comments said at a street level as well as targeted comments online. ‘So most of it is generalised abuse, thankfully it is not extreme violence.
‘This is not just an issue of attacks, physical attacks against individuals, this is about looking at the whole picture.’ In a statement on the Tell Mama website, the project said verbal and online abuse were ‘recordable hate incidents’ along with violent assaults and attacks on mosques.
From Bare Naked islam: http://www.barenakedislam.com/
Champion of British Liberty and Truth – Paul Weston – Exposes The islamic Takeover of British Media and Thought
An Example of Left-Liberal Treason
Paul Weston uses the latest news about prison jihad in Yorkshire to illustrate the treasonous behavior of the globalist elites who have rammed Multiculturalism down the throats of Britons.
An Example of Left-Liberal Treason by Paul Weston
There is a great deal of difference between times of peace and times of war. This may seem a very obvious statement, but I’m not sure left-liberals really understand the simplicity behind it.
Before mass immigration and multiculturalism so efficiently sickened the cultural, racial and body politic, it would have been impossible to blow up buildings, trains, planes and buses without first defeating the military defenders of the crushed nation. It would have been equally impossible to display foreign flags whilst loudly proclaiming they were destined to fly over government buildings; equally impossible that native soldiers should not wear their uniforms in public due to safety concerns; and equally impossible for soldiers in mufti to be murdered and decapitated in a city street just yards away from a military barracks.
We are clearly not living in a time of peace in Britain, but nor are we living in a time of war if war is judged in world-war historical terms. Perhaps it is best to say we are in a “sort of war” or a “low-level war” that, although hardly warranting the description “fully-fledged”, cannot be written off as unimportant and of no concern.
Britain’s security services have stopped Muslim terrorist atrocities like 7/7 each and every year since the last lot of Muslim jihadists slipped through the net and murdered and maimed people on our transport systems. Muslims routinely try to replicate this attack because Muslims consider themselves at war with us — be it as a claimed retaliation for our involvement in Iraq/Afghanistan, or simply because Britain is Koranically designated as part of the House of War not ruled by Muslims — as is their supremacist and divine right.
A similar low-level war has been waged against young indigenous girls in Britain, who have been chosen because they are the non-Muslim enemy and therefore deemed a permissible target of rape-jihad, which again is Koranically ordained. This monstrous evil has been going on for well over a decade, but has been deliberately covered up by the government, the police, the media and the social services.
And why did they cover it up? The reason, they tell us, is to ensure the laughable continuation of “community cohesion”, no matter there is no community cohesion in any geographical or societal area where Islam lives alongside non-Islam, or even where Sunni Islam lives alongside Shia Islam in the wider world.
But even citing community cohesion is disingenuous. If the left-liberal elites were truly concerned about cohesion, they would cover up all aspects of the failed ideology of multiculturalism, such as “right-wing” attacks on mosques, and not simply aspects where the consequences of Muslim barbarity reflect badly upon the Muslim perpetrators.
This explains why the BBC filled their studios with Muslim apologists after the 9/11 and 7/7 bombings, and also explains why the Times journalist Andrew Norfolk delayed breaking the news about Muslim gang-rapists on the grounds it would play into the hands of “far-right” groups who are clearly the enemy in the eyes of left-liberals.
Islam clearly considers itself at physical war with us, yet left-liberals consider themselves involved in an ideological war not with illiberal Islam, but with groups they label as far-right. This is a truly evil label when such people are in reality just normal, decent, liberal men and women whose only crime is to be indigenous white Christians who are understandably a tad miffed about their women being raped, their soldiers decapitated and their country and culture wrested from them by barbarian mono-culturalist Muslims.
So, we must admit we are in a low-level war, a clash of competing civilisations which, barely contained today, has the capacity to become an all-out civil war in the future as the internal enemy’s numbers grow. It is interesting therefore to take a look at who is on which side, and who has decided the racial/religious designation of the true enemy.
One side consists of Islam (not radical Islam, just Islam) and their left-liberal allies, the other side of indigenous Brits who would rather the country remained culturally, racially and religiously similar to the Britain they were born into, namely the Britain of their parents and grandparent’s generation.
Is it too provocative to suggest left-liberals have taken the Muslim side in this low-level war? I don’t think so. We have all seen and heard their reactions to the murder of Fusilier Lee Rigby, which was to essentially whitewash Islam and concentrate instead on defaming “right-wing” organisations such as the EDL and anybody else who had the temerity to associate Koran-quoting Islamic murderers with the political/religious/supremacist ideology of Islam.
We must not inflame and polarise opinion when it could result in “Islamophobia”, they tell us, yet they are more than happy to inflame and polarise EDLophobia it would seem, which is odd when the EDL exist purely as a reaction to Muslim violence. This perverse left-liberal alliance with Islam is particularly noticeable with regard to the BBC and The Guardian which both had the following to say about a particular event which occurred on Sunday last week.
First, the BBC:
Two prison officers have been taken hostage and attacked by three inmates at a maximum-security jail near York. The incident on Sunday at Full Sutton Prison in East Yorkshire lasted for four hours. A Prison Service spokeswoman said the staff received treatment for their injuries, which were not thought to be life-threatening.
The Prison Officer’s Association (POA) said it was aware of the “hostage incident”. Police are investigating. The POA told the BBC it was sending a national representative to the prison to determine exactly what happened. Steve Gillan, the POA’s general secretary, said: “Until the full facts of the incident are known we do not wish to comment further for fear of compromising any police investigation.
“We can confirm that officers sustained injuries and had it not been for the professionalism of prison officers dealing with this violent incident the outcome could have been worse.” The Prison Service spokeswoman said the incident started at 16:25 BST and ended at 20:40 “after staff intervened”. She would not confirm reports that one of the warders was held.
And The Guardian:
Police are investigating an incident at Full Sutton prison. A prison officer was held hostage and beaten at an east Yorkshire prison by inmates. The attack took place at Full Sutton prison on Sunday. A Ministry of Justice spokeswoman said: “An incident involving three prisoners took place at HMP Full Sutton on 26 May from 4.25pm and was successfully resolved at 8.40pm after staff intervened.”
The spokeswoman said on Tuesday that two officers were receiving treatment. She refused to comment further, saying the police were investigating. The Prison Officers Association said it was aware an officer had been held hostage and injured but it was still trying to ascertain the facts of the incident.
These stories, although relating to an incident two days ago, were taken from the front pages of their websites on Tuesday morning. Both left-leaning “news” organisations have had plenty of time to glean further information, but for such basic journalistic professionalism we have to turn to The Daily Mail, a newspaper routinely sneered at by left-liberals as being right-wing and not worth the paper it is printed on.
Three jailed Islamic extremists stabbed a warder and beat him for four hours after the prison imam called on them to pray for murdered soldier Lee Rigby, it was reported last night. The trio snatched the warder from E-wing at Full Sutton prison, near York, and held him hostage before stabbing him during a stand-off with guards.
The terrified victim, who is in his 30s, was locked in a cleaning room where he was also apparently beaten with mop handles and told he was going to die. The prison’s National Tactical Response Group were called and eventually managed to free him and he was taken to hospital with serious injuries.
A prison source told the Daily Mirror: ‘The fear was that the gang had somehow got hold of knives from the prison kitchen and they would attempt to behead him. ‘By the time the attack finished the officer was covered in bruises and blood. He feels very lucky to be alive. He was told they would kill him.’
The three prisoners were thought to have become enraged following a prison imam’s call for Muslim inmates to pray for soldier Lee Rigby, who was stabbed to death by extremists last week. Two of the attackers are believed to be an African-born fanatic and British man who converted to Islam while in prison.
Full Sutton Prison houses dozens of extremist prisoners and there has been recent concern about the spread of radical Islam behind its walls.
Why would the BBC and The Guardian not cover this story properly? The simple answer is that they have chosen to take sides in a war, regardless of whether the war is fully fledged or low-level, and the side they have taken is not the side that represents the interests of Great Britain or its people.
Or, put more simply, left-liberals have committed treason and continue to commit treason on an ongoing basis. They are not held to account because the government and the police are also committing treason, and the head of the government is David Cameron, a man who describes himself as a Conservative but who is, in reality, just another left-liberal traitor.
Paul Weston is a British-based writer who focuses on the damage done to Western Civilisation by the hard left’s ongoing cultural revolution, which seeks to destroy the Christian, capitalist and racial base of the West. He is the leader of Liberty GB, his website may be found here, and his political Facebook page here.
For links to his previous essays, see the Paul Weston Archives.
From Gates of Vienna: http://gatesofvienna.net/2013/05/an-example-of-left-liberal-treason/#more-28781
The word ‘backlash’ is a curious one to apply to the mood of English society following the events of last week. Nevertheless, the BBC, Daily Telegraph and numerous other media outlets invariably chose to label the disgust present in every patriotic soul these past few days, an ‘Anti-Muslim backlash’, as if it were a change of heart, or an irrational misunderstanding.
The word ‘backlash’ is usually employed when talking about something that has previously been over-praised. The television series ‘The Office’ for example was praised so much and so often, that within weeks of the final episode being broadcast, pop-culture scribblers began to predict a ‘backlash’ against it. For me this isn’t what we’ve seen over the past few days.
This has not been so much a backlash as the natural response to an act of evil by a morally healthy population.
The day before last, some hot-headed liberal emailed this blogger to accuse me of taking pleasure in the Woolwich tragedy. He charged me with being ‘excited and delighted’ by the event and the way it would bolster my ‘prejudice’. He’s wrong about ‘delight’, but I won’t lie and say he is entirely wrong regarding ‘excitement’. Something within me was undeniably excited when news broke of the Woolwich attack. It was the urge to take the battle to the enemy. I knew this particular atrocity would prove more socially explosive than the usual assaults on our transport infrastructure. The victim was a young, rosy-cheeked soldier wearing a ‘Help for Heroes’ sweater. His killer was a Qur’an-quoting thug showing zero remorse. Good and evil were thus both clearly identifiable. How could people not be whipped up into anger by such an event?
Still, I’m far from justifying everything that has occurred since then. According to the BBC, there have been arson attempts on Mosques, Death threats sent to Islamic community centres, and racist graffiti painted on the walls of multicultural enclaves. Most famously, a Muslim woman in Woolwich was rumoured to have had her Hijab ripped off by a passing youth.
I won’t defend the breaking of the law. But as to the people who commit these actions, they are not without legitimate grievance. Our elected leaders are plainly doing nothing to address the conditions which led to the murder. David Cameron spoke, ludicrously, of the attack as being a ‘betrayal of Islam’, and not, as a braver leader might have put it, an ‘application’ of the faith. With leaders like these, how are young people supposed to feel?
The exception to all this moping about, has been – predictably – the English Defence League. Just hours after the murder occurred, EDL activists were in Woolwich, chanting and making themselves known. They were filling a void left by our police, our politicians and our media.
Lamentably, the same old classist rhetoric has come forth from those who should know better. Yes, yes, we know most EDL members are (gasp!) ‘working class’, and that consequently they sound different to the people who read the news. That doesn’t make them any less human, or any less English, or their patriotism any less valuable.
The poor are always more essential in times of conflict than the rich. It’s been that way in this country for centuries. Shakespeare wrote these lines in ‘Richard II’:
‘The pale-face’d moon looks bloody on the earth And lean-look’d prophets whisper fearful change; Rich men look sad and ruffians dance and leap, The one in fear to lose what they enjoy, The other to enjoy by rage and war.’
What was true in Shakespeare’s age is true in ours. The chattering classes in London want to deny that war is upon us because they fear the conditions of war; they fear ’losing what they enjoy’. The ruffians by contrast, with nothing to play with but abstract ideals like Queen and country, are joyfully stepping up to the plate. Good for them, I say!
Soon, the dust will settle on this particular tragedy. Anger cannot last forever and grows weary like any other emotion. But from what I’ve seen in this ‘backlash’, the people of this country are louder, braver and more morally confident than ever before. We may not be there yet, but we are getting closer to the final straw that brings the country, young and old, into concert. For now, let’s wish the EDL well. I hope they make clear to the Muslims that, whatever else they might think of this world (and this life), England is not a faint or negotiable concept and that once roused, its people do not fall quickly back to sleep.
From Defend The Modern World: http://defendthemodernworld.wordpress.com/
Obama Ignores That This War Between Civilized People and Barbaric islam Has Been Going on For Centuries
By Alan Caruba
“More than dumping the war of words, the White House signed off on a new counterterrorism strategy that amounted to running away from Iraq and Afghanistan as quickly as possible and limiting the offensive campaign to whacking top-level al Qaeda with drone strikes”, noting that “The new strategy was bound to fail, fighting the last war while al Qaeda evolved into a global insurgency that has spread from Pakistan to Nigeria.”
“We’re not scaremongering, this is really happening.” – Idioteque, Radiohead.
My University in London used to be a Polytechnic. Before that, it was a parking lot. By gradients then, the same space has become progressively less functional over the ages, and it now blights the cultural life of an otherwise charming town.
In appearance, the main building resembles a very old-fashioned, inner-city high-school. The campus is tiny relative to normal universities. There is no green space nearby and we are surrounded on all sides by busy roads. The website calls it ‘cosy, modern and artful’. In reality it is compact, ugly and depressing.
I didn’t need to attend this place. I received very good A-level results. Warwick University was among the first institutions to offer me a place. I turned them and others down because I wanted to attend somewhere further away from the small, boring town in which my parents live. More specifically, I was determined to live and study in London.
What I had in mind was the London I saw on television, a stuffy, slightly upmarket New York in effect, with intelligent men and aspirant women supping cocktails and espresso, you know the kind of place. What I have become used to since I arrived here is a city of burkas, terrorism, homophobia, black-tar Heroin, and prostitution; a magnificent metropolis half-destroyed by a single cultural minority.
You may think, dear general reader, that the panic and hysteria over Islam is unwarranted or driven by third-party interests (oil politics, Jewish Nationalism, Racism etc…). The ‘me’ just a day or two into freshers week would completely agree with you. The ‘me’ now wants you to listen carefully and without prejudice as to why this is not the case.
I realise now that the present epoch is a contest between two starkly different futures: One in which the West is Islamised and the other in which the West is restored. The first is a nightmare of which some of us already have a taste, and which we are fully prepared to fight to prevent.
I’ll give you three examples from personal experience…
During my first year of study, I was resident in a student halls with many other people, most of them Muslim, most of them British-born. Throughout this year I witnessed and on occasion suffered cultural bullying of a type I never imagined existed. This was the bullying routinely talked about on racist websites, and which I had always assumed to be Islamophobic fiction.
Here’s a question for you – In what situation do you think it is appropriate to label a women you don’t know a ‘slag’? I’m sure, assuming you are a decent and rational person, that you would only imagine yourself using such language in public during a fit of rage over something like a terrible betrayal, or after being physically attacked by a female stranger…..
Well, the non-Muslim women of my block grew used to hearing this word in retribution for such crimes as wearing shorts on their way to netball practice. They became used to hearing it when they went out in groups to local nightclubs and when they returned home in the early hours of the morning. They hardly blinked when such slurs were screamed out of windows, day-in and day-out, and it went unreported.
Here’s another question for you – In what situation do you think it is justified to spread lies about people you barely know?
Well, lies of the most serious and defamatory kind were routinely spread about non-Muslim students by Muslims that year, via intranet email, graffiti and loud insinuation. The women (the ‘slags’) were alleged to be infected with sexual diseases. The boys were alleged to be homosexual and/or riddled with AIDS. The ‘evidence’ for such slurs were the lifestyles of the Kaffir, and their attending of parties, easy laughter and the congregating with people of the opposite sex etc…
Here’s a second example….
On St Valentine’s Day during the second year, the Student Union decided to propose a Valentine’s Day Singles Ball, in which single men would come wearing badges saying ‘single’ to meet single women, who would be identified likewise. It sounded quite silly I remember thinking, but if people enjoyed it, who cared?
You don’t need me to tell you who cared about it, and who eventually protested loudly enough for the Ball to be cancelled. It was the ****** University Islamic Society, a sprawling and powerful mafia with tentacles reaching into every aspect of student life. They thought the ball would encourage promiscuity and so they lobbied against it.
Again, nobody said a word.
A third and final example I’ll give of my awakening to the Islamic issue, is the most serious. You might well dismiss what you’ve read so far as ‘anti-social behaviour’ and no worse than the behaviour of other social groups. But not this occasion:
I was sitting in class one day, near the back of the room. The lecturer had finished talking and now we were told to discuss amongst ourselves the things we’d heard. A group of Muslim men just across from me were apparently uninterested in the lecture that day as they commenced to discuss videos they’d been emailing each other instead. It took me a short while, but I came to understand that these were decapitation videos. Hearing this, I nervously looked over at the faces of the men and saw sick, sadistic smiles.
At the end of that year, I was a fully developed ‘Islamophobe’. I can’t and won’t deny what I witnessed and what I saw others go through. And more than this, I won’t help the taboo to survive which allowed for these abuses to go unreported.
If there is one thing my University made clear during Fresher’s Week, it was the ‘multi-faculty policy on discrimination’. In lengthy assemblies, we were told in a frank and serious tone that no ‘discrimination’ of any kind was tolerated longer than it took for those responsible to be expelled.
A climate of fear, no less palpable than that of totalitarian dictatorship was cast over us all.
You’ll notice that I haven’t provided you with the name of my University. This is because I am currently studying there, and do not wish to be beaten to a pulp by students. I wouldn’t trust the staff or security to help me in such a situation. This University is Islamic territory now.
The people I hope to reach are those who might have any illusions about the determination of the Muslims to enforce their way of life onto the rest of us. It is not a ‘Zionist fabrication’. It is not a ‘fantasy’ of White Nationalists. I am a perfectly liberal guy, and have a zero-tolerance policy for racism.
The threat is real.
From Defend The Modern World: http://defendthemodernworld.wordpress.com/
“The problems of the Clash of Civilization cannot be postponed much longer. They are our problem. We cannot save 1 billion people from themselves, but we can save ourselves from them.”
Muslims are The Problem.
The Muslim world has two approaches to the West; underhanded deceit and outright terror. The practitioners of the former are considered moderates and the latter extremists. The West has two approaches to the Muslim world, regime change and love bombing. With regime change we bomb their cities to save them from their rulers and with love bombing we shamelessly flatter and appease them in our own cities to save them from themselves.
Westerners worry a great deal over who runs the Muslim world. Muslims do not care very much who runs Western countries. They prefer weak liberal Western leaders to strong ones, but they do not believe that there is truly a moral difference between them. Even a Hussein in the White House has not improved America’s ratings in the Muslim world.
Muslims are religiously and culturally antagonistic to the West. Whether a John McCain or a Barack Hussein Obama is in the White House; America is still a great non-Muslim power. That very fact, in contradiction to the promises of the Koran and its deity, will continue to bring forth a xenophobic response no matter how much America flatters the Muslim world.
Westerners focus their animus on Muslim leaders, on a Saddam, a Gaddafi or an Arafat– not recognizing that the hostility comes not from the leaders, but from the people. We can remove all the leaders of the Muslim world and replace them with muppets, and it won’t noticeably change the underlying bigotry of the Muslim world. And very soon the muppets will also start chanting, “Death to America” because it’s the popular thing to do.
Regime change, whether through armed force or democratic revolutions, won’t save the Muslim world.
The Muslim world is not backward by their standards, it is backward by our standards. It refuses to make the social and political changes that the West did, but that is because it does not like the trade-offs that come with those changes. And that is a choice that each Muslim country and society has to make. Individualism, freedom and tolerance are not acceptable values in the Muslim world. And totalitarianism, theocracy and repression are not acceptable values in ours. The Muslim world has no obligation to accede to our cultural standards, but we accordingly have no obligation to accede to theirs.
There is always a gap between civilizations, but rarely has the gap yawned as starkly as it does now. We are as eager to bring the Muslim world into the light, as they are to drag us into the darkness. And the momentum is on their side. We don’t have the answers that we think we do. Democracy is not the solution. Neither is embracing Muslim culture with open arms. They don’t have the answers either, but they have something better; unrestrained violence that is fueled by the moral desperation of a failed culture struggling against the tidal pull of that failure. Like a drowning man, if we try to save them, then they will pull us down with them.
How does one protect them from the damage that they do to their own character? And how does one save people from their own hate?
We are not so wise and so perfect that we can claim to know how to save 1 billion people from themselves. Right now we are having a good deal of trouble saving us from ourselves and we cannot be expected to shoulder the burden of reforming the Muslim world as well. Whatever spiritual or cultural redemption waits for them, can only come from themselves and through themselves. It will not come through a change of government or lavish praise. Only through a growing moral awareness. There is no telling when or if such an awareness will come. There are animal rights campaigns in China and anti-rape campaigns in Africa– but no progress on human rights in the Muslim world. It is likely that China will be vegetarian before non-Muslims are treated as equals in the Muslim world.
It has been made manifestly clear that Muslim violence against us, both individual and collective, will not cease any time soon, and that such violence is informed by the scriptures of their faith. While some Muslim countries claim to harbor no violent intentions toward us– such claims often prove false under the pressure of domestic unrest and growing religiosity.
If the Muslim world has raised up a wall of sand against freedom, tolerance and the recognition of our common humanity– then it is best for their sake and ours that they remain on their side of that wall of sand.
If they refuse to coexist with us, either locally or globally, then that is their choice. They may have their paradise of hefty-bagged women, towering mosques and cowering infidels– so long as their bigotry and oppression remains on their side of the wall of sand. When they breach that wall, then they have to live by our laws, not theirs. If there is no room for our laws in their lands, then there is no room for their laws in ours.
Thinkers and politicians talk on of how to save 1 billion Muslims from themselves. Remove their tyrannies, some cry. But what will they replace them with? More tyrannies. Governments reflect their peoples. If 1 billion Muslims really wanted to be free, they would be. The tyrants are expressions of their condition, not repressions of their moral will. The Muslim world does not differ on whether there should be tyranny, but on what manner of tyranny it should be. The Arab Spring has proven that.
The most fundamental error of the West toward the Muslim world is that of condescension. Western governments may see Muslims as minorities, but they see themselves as majorities. And throughout the world they are majorities. Muslims in the West do not see themselves as minorities, but as natural majorities who have the right to impose their will and their way of life on a minority that functions as a majority only because it has not yet been overrun and conquered. Unlike refugees who come from cultures where they are minorities, Muslims come expecting to have things done their way. And when the West accedes, that only affirms the Muslim sense of privilege.
The West condescends to Muslims, and Muslims condescend to the West. Both reassure the other that everything is fine. But while the West’s condescension is based on wishful thinking, that of the Muslim world is based on progressive conquest. If diplomacy is the art of saying, ‘Nice Doggie’ while looking for a stick, then the West isn’t looking for the stick, and the Muslim is.
The West’s missionary impulse toward the Muslim world is not only misplaced, it is positively dangerous. How can the West convince the Muslim world to believe as it does, when it no longer knows what it believes?
The Muslim world lacks such weaknesses. It cannot be crippled by moral quandaries, ideological contradictions, philosophical crises or doubts about the future. Its members do not recognize contradiction, rather they embrace them, until those contradictions explode in violence.
Western codes are black and white, Muslim codes combine all shades into one. When the Muslim world is confused or in doubt, it resolves these feelings with violence. The West does not resolve them at all. While the West broods, the Muslim world slits throats. The problems of the Clash of Civilization cannot be postponed much longer. They are our problem. We cannot save 1 billion people from themselves, but we can save ourselves from them.
Two years ago, on Election day, Oklahoma voters overwhelmingly approved a state bill in support of anti-sharia legislation. But the Islamofascists at CAIR (Council on Anti-American Islamic Relations) and their Commie pals at the ACLU sued to block the anti-sharia bill and were able to convince a few Obama dhimmi judges to overturn the will of the people on appeal. Hopefully, this time, the patriotic citizens of Oklahoma will succeed in their crusade to have barbaric sharia law banned from their state courts forever.
Associated Press Once again, Oklahoma lawmakers are considering banning judges in the state from basing any rulings on foreign laws, including Islamic Sharia law.
A Senate panel on Tuesday overwhelmingly approved the bill, which has broad support in the Republican-controlled Legislature. The bill would specifically make void and unenforceable any court, arbitration or administrative agency decision that doesn’t grant the parties affected by the ruling “the same fundamental liberties, rights and privileges granted under the U.S. and Oklahoma constitutions.”
Muslim groups will start buying billboards condemning the people of Oklahoma who want to outlaw sharia in their state:
“This is a way to protect American citizens … where somebody may try to use any kind of foreign law or religious law to affect the outcome of a trial,” said Sen. Ralph Shortey, R-Oklahoma City, who sponsored the bill. Shortey described it as “American Law for American Courts.”
A handful of other states have laws aimed at keeping courts from basing decision on foreign legal codes, including Islamic law. Oklahoma voters approved a constitutional amendment in 2010 that would have specifically prohibited courts from considering Sharia law, but a federal judge blocked its implementation after a Muslim community leader alleged it discriminates against his religion.
CAIR uses social media to disparage criticism of Islamic sharia law as bigotry and lies:
Shortey said he didn’t know of an instance in Oklahoma where a judge has relied on foreign laws, but he said there have been cases in other states. That prompted state Sen. Brian Crain, R-Tulsa, to describe the measure as a “solution that’s looking for a problem.” Crain was the only member of the Senate committee to vote against the bill.
The panel approved the bill 8-1. It now heads to the full Senate for a vote. A similar measure has been introduced in the Oklahoma House.
CAIR Islamists gather their fellow jihadists to try to intimidate opponents and interfere with hearings:
The executive director of the Oklahoma chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union said Oklahoma courts already are required to enforce state and federal laws when they conflict with foreign law that violates public policy.
“This bill is entirely unnecessary and creates significant uncertainty for Oklahomans married abroad as well as those Oklahomans who have adopted a child from another country or are seeking to do so,” Executive Director Ryan Kiesel said in a statement. “These Oklahoma families don’t deserve to have this type of doubt cast over them. ”It also creates an atmosphere of uncertainty for foreign businesses seeking to do business with Oklahoma businesses.”
From bare naked Islam: http://www.barenakedislam.com/
“Dr. Peter Hammond, the author of “Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat”, pointed out that Islam is not a religion, nor is it a cult. What Americans and others in the West do not grasp is that it is a complete, total, 100% system of life. Islam has religious, legal, political, economic, social and military components, but it is the religious component that masks the other elements of Islam.”
Where Will All The Native Anglo-Saxons Go Now That They Have Turned Their Country Over to The mooslim Parasites?
BRITISH WHITE FLIGHT? The unintended consequences of forced multiculturalism when the majority of immigrants are Muslim supremacists
The failure of multiculturalism in the UK is directly connected to the mass importation of a group who not only refuses to assimilate with the native culture, but desires to replace it with Islamic culture, laws, and traditions of misogyny, bigotry, racism, and homophobia.
UK Daily Mail Britain is ‘self-segregating’ as white families flee urban areas for the countryside and outer suburbs. The trend is causing an ‘ethnic cliff’, in which the proportion of households from minority backgrounds is vastly different in areas just a few miles apart.
Some outer London boroughs – including Enfield, Waltham Forest and Redbridge – have seen their white British population drop by as much as a quarter over the past decade. The same applies to urban areas around the capital such as Luton, Reading and Bedfordshire.
Meanwhile, the white British population in many suburban and rural districts just next door has soared, according to research produced by Birkbeck College, University of London, in conjunction with think tank Demos.
‘Between 2001 and 2011, the proportion of white British in London’s population fell from 58 to 45 per cent,’ said Birkbeck professor of politics Eric Kaufmann. ’The share of ethnic minorities reached 40 per cent of the total, a 39 per cent increase.’
‘This has caught many by surprise… Analysts implied that London would not become “majority minority” in most of our lifetimes, but the latest census figures suggest otherwise.’ Affluent white families from diverse wards in London are shifting to less diverse (less Muslim) wards in the outer suburbs.
In the extreme example of Barking and Dagenham, the research shows, a third of the white British population departed between 2001 and 2011. Since many lack the resources to move or are council tenants, this suggests that a majority of local white British who could leave may have done so.
The phenomenon has gone largely unnoticed until now because British city centres tend to have a fairly broad racial mix visible on the streets, in shops and restaurants and in many workplaces. Prof Kaufmann added: ‘While white avoidance of ethnic (Muslim) minorities is the first thought that comes to mind, it’s important to consider the alternative explanations. Most diverse wards are urban and poor.
‘Whites may be leaving for better schools, cheaper homes, fresher air, or because they are more likely to be retirees, wealthier or better educated. Only a statistical approach which controls for these factors can tell us whether ethnic preferences are key.’ (Nope, they are moving to get away from Muslims. Period)
The share of minorities in London has increased by a percentage point a year since 1991. Prof Kaufmann likened the situation to that in the US – where white Americans leave or avoid ‘majority minority’ neighbourhoods and seek out areas that are over 70 per cent white.
He added: ‘Whether Britain will follow in America’s footsteps is an open question: much will depend on the residential preferences of working-class British whites and whether they are able to realise them.’
From Bare naked Islam: http://www.barenakedislam.com/
FFA A measure to ban the use of foreign laws in domestic courtrooms is progressing in Florida’s statehouse, one of dozens of similar efforts across the country that critics call an unwarranted campaign driven by fear of Muslims. The Blaze has reported before about allegations that Sharia law has been finding its way into Florida courtrooms. Forty such bills are being pursued in 24 states, according to a tally by the National Conference of State Legislatures, a movement backers say is a response to a glaring hole in legal protections for Americans.
Click here to send your email to House Judiciary Committee members.
Florida Family Association sent out two alerts that encouraged supporters to send emails to members of the Florida House Civil Justice Subcommittee to encourage them to support HB 1209 Application of Foreign Laws in Certain Cases. This bill would prohibit certain provisions of foreign laws including Sharia law from being considered by Florida courts if they do not afford the same liberties, rights and privileges guaranteed by the Florida and US Constitution.
Assembly of Muslim Jurists of AmericaAMJA’s goal: replacing our Constitution with sharia law:
The enablers of radical Islam in government, academia and the media regularly dismiss warnings about sharia law creeping into American judiciaries.. They have either never heard of, don’t want to know about, or don’t want you to know about AMJA. Learn more here: mainstream-american-muslim-jurists-blueprint-for-undermining-americas-legal-system
Thousands of supporters sent emails which encouraged members of the Florida House Civil Justice Subcommittee to support HB 1209. The subcommittee passed HB 1209 on the morning of January 31, 2012 with a bi-partisan vote of 13-0. Click here for the official Florida House Civil Justice Subcommittee vote record.
The companion bill in the Florida Senate SB 1360 passed the Florida Senate Judiciary committee on Wednesday, January 25, 2012 by a vote of 6-0. Click here to read more on SB 1360.
There are numerous provisions of Sharia law which are inconsistent with Florida statutes. Sharia law authorizes polygamy, pedophilia and perpetuates violence towards women and death for dishonoring the faith. HB 1209 and companion bill SB 1360 are significant legislative starts in the right direction to protect Americans from the intrusion of some provisions of Sharia law which are inconsistent with American laws.
Section 3 of HB 1209 and SB 1360 Application of Foreign Law in Certain Cases states “Any court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency ruling or decision violates the public policy of this state and is void and unenforceable if the court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency bases its ruling or decision in the matter at issue in whole or in part on any foreign law, legal code, or system that does not grant the parties affected by the ruling or decision the same fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges guaranteed by the State Constitution or the United States Constitution.” Click here to read the full bill.
The Florida House Judiciary Committee is scheduled to consider HB 1209 on February 22, 2012 at 8:00 am.
If Florida courts accept provisions of Islamic Sharia law or other foreign laws and legal codes which are inconsistent with American laws it will undermine public policies enacted by our representative form of government and change our value system.
Florida Family Association has prepared an email for you to send which encourages Representatives on the House Judiciary Committee to support House Bill 1209.
To send your email, please click the following link, enter your name and email address then click the “Send Your Message” button. Because opponents try to use our email system to send opposing messages we NO longer allow for changes in the wording of the subject line or message of the email prepared for you to send to advertisers.
Please click here to send your email to encourage the House Judiciary Committee members to support HB 1209.
From Bare Naked Islam: http://www.barenakedislam.com/
A Federal Court Finally Interprets Constitutional Law Correctly and Rules Obama’s Power Grabs Unconstitutional
Finally, a first step. A Federal Court provides us with much needed relief from the maniacal power grab of a President out of control. If a Republican played third world dictator, there would be hell to pay from a rabid media. But the reporting on this is comical: “Obama claims he acted properly…..”
Obama Labor Board Recess Appointments Are Unconstitutional, Federal Court Rules AP, January 25, 2013
WASHINGTON — A federal appeals court has ruled that President Barack Obama violated the Constitution when he bypassed the Senate to fill vacancies on a labor relations panel.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit says Obama did not have the power to make recess appointments earlier this year to the National Labor Relations Board.
Obama claims he acted properly because the Senate was away for the holidays. But the court says the Senate technically stayed in session when lawmakers gaveled in and out every few days for so-called “pro forma” sessions.
GOP lawmakers used the tactic specifically to prevent Obama from using his recess power to fill vacancies in an agency they claimed was too pro-union.
The Obama administration is expected to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court.
From Atlas Shrugs: http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/
Now where would they get that idea from?
ROME, JANUARY 24 – A new survey by Paris-based Ipsos research company on Thursday showed 74% of French respondents believe the Muslim religion is ”intolerant” and incompatible with their social values.
The survey, published on the Le Monde newspaper website, also showed eight out of 10 French people believe the Islamic religion tries to impose its views on others, 10% believe a majority of Muslims are fundamentalists, and another 44% believe a many but not all Muslims are fundamentalists. Most respondents did not know how to define fundamentalism, however.
The data varied across age groups and political affiliations, but represents a majority in each category of respondents.
From Weasel Zippers: http://weaselzippers.us/
The Bee and the LambPart 9 (continued)
By Takuan Seiyo
A Whole New Road to Serfdom
That Which is Not Seen
For over 60 years, White mea-culpists have had a firm grip in all fields of cultural mind imprinting: education high and low; paper media, then electronic, then digital media; all forms of entertainment, the plastic arts and music high and low, and religious instruction and worship too. Their main endeavor has been to enforce their compulsory (e.g. K-12) and discretionary (e.g. television) self-flaying on account of long-ago Slavery, Colonialism, Imperialism, Male Supremacism, Racism, Antisemitism, and so on.
It’s the evils of the Iberian Inquisition — which were evil — but not the evils of the Japanese equivalent in which, in the 40 years up to 1597, 50,000 Christians were publicly crucified, burned or beheaded. Nor the evils of the worldwide Islamic Inquisition which — not in the 16th century but now, in the 21st, condemns Muslim apostates to barbaric execution. It’s America’s destruction of the snail darter but not Mussulmanism’s destruction of the Bamyan Buddhas or its proposed destruction of the Sphinx and the Pyramids, let alone its obliteration of all the pre-Rome cradles of Christianity but for remaining ruins in the Middle East and dust of the desert in North Africa.
It’s the evils of feudalism and industrial workers’ exploitation in Europe and America, but not the strict Confucian evils of Northeast Asia. There, a member of the ruling class in China had, essentially, a free hand with anyone of the lower classes, a Japanese samurai could test his sword by cutting down an insolent peasant, and farmers were so squeezed by their fief holders that they habitually sold their daughters to bordellos for the few coins it provided for next season’s seed.
Feminism, Socialism and anti-Antisemitism should have arisen in Saudi Arabia or Yemen, Algeria or Peshawar, for good reasons. Instead, aggressive White androphobes of all genders which I can no longer count are decimating the philogynous and egalitarian West. Equality psychos are tearing down the most egalitarian society that ever existed (except for initial communist experiments, before they turned bloody). American Jews, at the apex of the greatest fortune and philosemitic tolerance their long diaspora has ever bestowed on their kind, are busy supporting all the ideologies and policies that demolish their safe harbor and build up their Muslim, Black and Third World enemies. They will come to rue their tacit assumption that better the antisemite you don’t know than the few hundred imputed and real ones catalogued at ADL.
One would be hard put to find a nation not based on the invasion of another people’s territory and their mass slaughter. Yet poisoned American madmen proclaim “No Thanks for Thanksgiving” as though the Indians themselves did not fight endless genocidal wars from Peru to Canada, with torture, ritual murder or slavery for the captives and, at times, cannibalism too.
Leftoid masochists and the Christian meek call for returning Hawaii to the Hawaiians and capitulating before a massive Mexican reconquista of one-third of America. The self-defined “Feminist-Tauist-NeoPagan-Post-Structuralist-Deconstructionist-Socialist” useful idiot Gillian Schutte begins her New Year 2013 Dear White People by “wholeheartedly apologizing for what my ancestors did to the people of South Africa and inviting you to do the same.”
Yet the Magyars don’t seem to feel much guilt over the Illyrians, Pannonians, Sarmatians and Celts whose land and lives they took in the 9th century, to form Hungary. The rightful Etruscan landowners are not bearing angry placards in front of the Vatican. The Japanese are not planning to relinquish Hokkaido to its original owners, the Ainu. The tall, white and fair-haired Chachapoyas of the Andean forest have, alas, no remnants left to sue the Incas for genocide in a Peruvian court of law. The Aztecs, whether in Jalisco or Los Angeles, don’t agonize over having taken what would become Mexico City from its original Culhuacan owners, with lots of grisly details. Yet for 38 years Neil Young has been reminding adoring audiences about “Cortez the Killer”, discreetly omitting Tlacaelel the killer and the killer people whom Cortez killed.
Hitler’s Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust (1996) is a book by Daniel Goldhagen presenting the thesis that the German nation as such was composed of willing executioners of the Jews because of a unique “eliminationist antisemitism” in the German people, with long historical roots. However, even that great moral abyss of Western civilization — the Holocausts — stands out more in its industrialized and organizational features than it does either in the quality of its hatefulness or its relative or even absolute volumes. And Holocausts they were, for in addition to the nearly 6 million Jews, the Germans also murdered over 21 million civilian Slavs, and that’s counting Russia, Ukraine, Poland, Lithuania, Belarus and Czechoslovakia alone.
In absolute numbers, the total number of World War II non-German civilian victims of Nazi Germany is smaller than the 50 million victims of the Bolsheviks in Russia, or Mao’s 70 million in China, or the Mughal-Muslim genocide of Hindus — the latter have their own Holocaust Day on August 14.
In relative numbers, in just one year, 1994, the Hutus and Tutsis in Rwanda, killed off a total of one million, in a population of 7 million. 75% of the Tutsi population was erased. Is it more humane to go by a stroke of a blunt machete than by a whiff of Zyklon B?
The Khmer Rouge murdered at least 2 million Cambodians between 1975 and 1979: one quarter of the population, by a conservative count. Is it more humane to die by wallops from a Cambodian pickaxe handle than by a bullet from a German Mauser?
Inscription on the back (in German): “Ukraine 1942, Jewish Aktion, Ivangorod.”
There is a special horror attached to the Third Reich, because those were 20 th century Europeans, Christians, and in many ways the smartest, most civilized people on Earth. But the Holocausts do not prove that Whites are worse than other people, just that they are no better. The history of the Third Reich also proves that with the right formula of economic blowup, misery and humiliation, sparked by charismatic evil, no people are immune to such horror, at no time.
Several businesses, groups, and individuals have sued in court to fight the payment of fines for adhering to their religious convictions. Some Federal court judges (will miracles never cease) have actually issued injunctions protecting those folks from being hammered with massive fines, at least until they have had their day in court.
Enters this b*tch, the Skank of SCOTUS:
Obama’s Gun Control Presidential Threat is Impeachable Offense
By Clash Daily This weekend the President of the United States declared war on legitimate gun owners who have the protection of the U.S. Constitution under their Second Amendment rights. Barack Obama informed the host of Meet the Press on the December 27th show and its viewing audience that he would use the full authority and “full weight” of the presidential arsenal of his office to unleash the dogs of war against legal gun owners.
The threat is real, because if one considers the nature of Obama’s cavalier attitude toward upholding or even recognizing the legitimacy of the authority of the U.S. Constitution, he has little regard for it. He has ignored the 10th Amendment regarding state’s rights, the Second Amendment regarding gun rights, and even laws passed by congress, like the Defense of Marriage Act. His presidency has been a renegade take-over and emasculation of the very constitution he swore to uphold.
The course of action is clear for the Congress of the United States: the President of the United States has decided to pursue a direction that even the U.S. Supreme Court in 2008 and 2010 cases, has concluded is legally without merit. The president believes through his actions that the Second Amendment can be marginalized, and with the full consent of a weakened congress, that gives in to his pressure as it did on January 1st with the Fiscal Cliff bill.
What is left to wonder for Americans to weigh about the need for impeachment proceedings as guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution. There is nothing left to debate, to discuss, to bargain or barter over. An assault on freedom and the constitution regarding gun rights is not open for negotiation or for misinterpretation.
Impeachment hearings are a serious step for any congress to consider, and it takes a matter which is defined by the U.S. Constitution as impeachable offenses for judiciary hearings to be undertaken by the House of Representatives.
Three sitting presidents have been investigated by congress, which had impeachment charges brought against them, beginning with President Andrew Johnson in 1867, Richard Nixon in 1974, and Bill Clinton in 1998. In each of the cases, the three presidents attempted to thwart either the will of the legislative branch, lied to the legislative branch or mislead the legislative branch in open and contemptible violation of the law.
Yet, in each case there was not an attempt to openly circumvent the constitutional authority of congress or eliminate constitutional protections guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, as Obama has engaged in. This sitting president has engaged in such actions as defined by the Constitution’s framers as well as those states that approved this essential American document.
The impeachment investigation by congress is a critical and necessary first step:
“Those who adopted the Constitution viewed impeachment as a remedy for usurpation or abuse of power or serious breach of trust. …Thus, the impeachment power of the House reaches “those who behave amiss, or betray their public trust,” according to the Washington Post’s “Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment”.
The betrayal of the public trust is a key component that elevates Obama’s conduct, both past and present, to this impeachment threshold. By engaging in continuing dismissive conduct regarding selective enforcement of the laws of the United States he bears congressional investigation. He has therefore “betrayed the public trust”, by these actions that the framers of the U.S. Constitution felt warranted impeachment of the nation’s highest constitutional officer.
“The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” ~ Article II, Section 4 of the United States Constitution
Let the first action of the new congress be one which serves notice on the re-elected president, that due to high crimes and misdemeanors you are so charged with Impeachment!
Image: The Senate as a Court of Impeachment for the Trial of Andrew Johnson; source: Harper’s Weekly, April 11, 1868; author:Theodore R. Davis; United States Library of Congress’s Prints and Photographs division; public domain/copyright expired
Kevin Fobbs has more than 35 years of wide-ranging experience as a community and tenant organizer, Legal Services outreach program director, public relations consultant, business executive, gubernatorial and presidential appointee, political advisor, widely published writer, and national lecturer. Kevin is co-chair and co-founder of AC-3 (American-Canadian Conservative Coalition) that focuses on issues on both sides of the border between the two countries.
College Professor – Dr. Jonathan Matusitz – Explains Why The US Government Does Not Call Terrorism By Its Name
Found at Blazing Cat Fur
Sharia law in Arizona: Muslim mom gets probation after brutally ‘beating daughter and burning her with hot spoon’ for talking to a boy at school, Devout Dad freed after stabbing her in the throat
This is Arizona. Not Yemen, not Iran, but Phoenix. A Muslim mother was sentenced to two years’ probation after she was accused of beating her teenage daughter because the girl refused to go along with an arranged marriage and was spotted talking to a male student at her high school. Her devout Muslim father cut his daughter’s neck with a knife on February 7, leaving a one-and-a-half inch wound. He had admitted trying to kill her with the knife. And they are freed. This is sharia in America.
Honor violence is not merely sanctioned in Islam, it is encouraged. And honor murder of the offspring is sanctioned under Islam: read it, page 584 in Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law.
Obama say, “respect it!” Four more years!
“Woman gets probation after ‘beating daughter and burning her with hot spoon’ for speaking to a boy at school” Daily Mail
Sentenced: Yursah Farhan (right) , 51, was given two years’ probation for unlawful imprisonment of her daughter, 19-year-old Aiya Altameemi
An Iraqi mother was sentenced to two years’ probation after she was accused of beating her teenage daughter because the girl refused to go along with an arranged marriage and was spotted talking a male student at her high school.
Yursah Farhan, 51, who lives in Phoenix, Arizona, was spared jail time in exchange for a guilty plea to unlawful imprisonment of her daughter, 19-year-old Aiya Altameemi.
The girl’s father, Mohammed Altameemi, 46, also received two years’ probation for disorderly conduct, and her 18-year-old sister, Tabarak Altameemi, received the same sentence for assault.
Prosecutors said the incident started when Aiya was spotted by family members talking to a young man outside her high school.
The father and Aiya’s sister confront the young woman and took her home, where Mohammed Altameemi struck her several times. The girl’s mother and sister admitted to tying her to a bed with a rope that was secured with a padlock and beating her.The family home in lives in Phoenix, Arizona
Aiya Altameemi also claimed that she was burned with a hot spoon on her face and chest while her sisters held her down.
She told school officials about the incident and claimed that her family was trying to protect her because they ‘want her to be a virgin for an arranged marriage’ to a 38-year-old man, according to court documents.
Farhan was arrested at St. Joseph’s hospital in Phoenix in February because she had hit her daughter so violently with her hands and a shoe that the girl required medical treatment.
Farhan told police she wanted to punish the girl because her culture states that ‘a female is not allowed to be having contact with males’.Arrest: Farhan is shown apparently in the hospital around the time of her arrest
There was a brief struggle in the emergency room when officers arrived to arrest Farhan, who refused to be handcuffed and was eventually carried out by two people.
The prosecution case against Farhan’s husband Mohammed Altameemi stated that he cut his daughter’s neck with a knife on February 7, leaving a one-and-a-half inch wound.
He had admitted trying to kill her with the knife, until her sister Tabarak Altameemi intervened.
Records show the 19-year-old then had her mouth taped up and her hands and body bound with a rope.School: Farhan’s daughter was caught speaking to a young man here
Tabarak Altameemi is also accused of breaking a glass over her sister’s head around 11 months ago.