CLEARLY BIDEN KNOWS HOW MUCH THE MUSLIM DICTATORS AND BUSH'S SAUDIS PAYMASTERS HAVE PUMPED INTO THE PRESIDENTIAL LIBRARIES OF GEORGE BUSH, BILLARY CLINTON, BARACK OBOMB AND THE FRAUDULENT CLINTON FOUNDATION FAMILY SLUSH FUND!!!
Biden supports ‘guilty’ Muslims, ignores ‘innocent’ Christians
On May 16, President Biden issued a brief video ostensibly dedicated to expressing his support for the religious freedom of “all” people (though in reality dedicated to only one religious group):
All people should be able to practice their faith with dignity, without fear of harassment or violence. We will defend the right of all, as we stand with you. That’s why I ended this shameful Muslim travel ban. And that’s why this administration will speak out for religious freedom for all people, including Uighurs in China and Rohingya in Burma. We also believe Palestinians and Israelis equally deserve to live in safety and security and enjoy equal measure of freedom, prosperity, and democracy. My administration is going to continue to engage Palestinians and Israelis and other regional partners to work toward sustained calm.
It is hypocritical for Biden to claim that he cares about the religious rights of “all” people -- when he clearly means only “all Muslims.” So too is it vexing to note that, unlike those whom he totally ignores -- for example, the hundreds of millions of Christians currently being persecuted at the hands of Muslims -- those Muslims whom he does mention as deserving protection are not exactly innocent.
Consider the three Muslim peoples he singled out: the Palestinians, the Uighurs in China, and the Rohingya in Burma. Far from trying to live peaceably with their non-Muslim neighbors, and like other Muslim populations living alongside or under the authority of non-Muslims, all three have been known to engage in hostile, subversive, and terroristic activities.
One need not dwell much on the well-documented scourge of Palestinian terrorism -- primarily in the guise of Hamas and Hezb’allah -- which, as is well known, is the root cause for conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. But consider the other two lesser known Muslim peoples.
The Rohingya of Burma have been committing the same sort of anti-infidel mayhem, violence, terrorism, and rape that one is accustomed to associating with “radical Islam” -- though news of it seldom reaches the West. The main difference is that, unlike, say, the West, Burma has 
responded with uncompromising ruthlessness -- thereby making it the “bad guy” in the media. Consider the words of popular Buddhist leader Ashin Wirathu, whom the media refer to as the “Burmese bin Laden”: “You can be full of kindness and love, but you cannot sleep next to a mad dog,” says the monk in reference to Muslims: “I call them troublemakers, because they are troublemakers.”
Similarly, Reuters quotes the Chinese government saying that it “destroyed 1,588 violent and terrorist gangs” in Xinjiang, where most Uighurs and other Muslims live, “arrested 12,995 terrorists, seized 2,052 explosive devices, punished 30,645 people for 4,858 illegal religious activities, and confiscated 345,229 copies of illegal religious [jihadi] materials.” The same report says that 30 Islamic terror attacks occurred between 1990 and 2016, killing 458 and injuring 2,540.
Critics argue that China is untrustworthy and essentially fabricating claims of Islamic terrorism to demonize and persecute the Uighurs. And yet, history and current affairs indicate that wherever and whenever Muslim minorities live amidst non-Muslim majorities, they tend to instigate, agitate, subvert, and resort to terrorism. Either way, like Burma and unlike the West, no doubt the Chinese have been intolerantly brutal in the crackdown on their Muslim population.
The point here, of course, is not to argue that all Muslims are troublemakers and therefore “deserve” whatever treatment they get; rather, it is to highlight another instance of humanitarian hypocrisy, this time by Joe Biden. For, while he never mentions the persecution of those minorities who do no wrong, seek to live peaceably with their neighbors, and certainly never resort to terrorism -- and yet are persecuted solely on account of their religious identity, as millions of Christians throughout the Muslim world are today -- he expresses concern only for Muslims, who are notorious for provoking others into prolonged conflicts.
Incidentally, it’s worth adding that, unlike most of Islam’s persecuted Christians -- who are indigenous to the land, often many centuries before Islam invaded it -- Muslims in Burma, China, and Israel are not indigenous, but rather the descendants of Muslim conquerors or forced converts, another inconvenient fact that helps shed light on the current conflicts.
Raymond Ibrahim, author of Sword and Scimitar, is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center, a Judith Rosen Friedman Fellow at the Middle East Forum, and a Distinguished Senior Fellow at the Gatestone Institute.
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE BANKROLLED EVERY FUCKING MUSLIM DICTATOR OF EGYPT FOR THE LAST 50 YEARS TO THE TUNE OF BILLIONS!!!
Quran (9:29) - "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book [Jews and Christians], until they pay the Jizya [the tax for being a Jew or Christian] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."
Churches in Egypt: Harassed Islands in a Sea of Mosques
Thousands of mosques go up, but woe to the Christian who dares open a church.
Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. This article originally appeared on Coptic Solidarity.
According to a May 19, 2021 Arabic-language report, Egypt’s Ministry of Endowments just announced that, since September 2020, 1,413 mosques—1,315 of which are brand new—were opened in the North Africa nation.
This announcement underscores the double standards that Christians and Muslims can expect in Egypt. For inasmuch as mosques proliferate all throughout the nation, building new or even renovating old churches is like pulling teeth for Copts.
According to one detailed study by author Adel Guindy, “there is one church per 5,800 Orthodox Copts”; this forces many Christians “to travel far distances outside of their towns for religious services (baptism, marriage, funerals, and regular mass).” On the other hand, based on the number of mosques in Egypt (114,000 in 2016, more now) and Egypt’s estimated Muslim population, there is about one mosque for every 700 Muslims. In other words, even after balancing out the ratio between Muslims to Christians, there are still about eight mosques for every one church. The discrepancy could not be clearer.
As Coptic Solidarity observed in a 2019 report, “The Egyptian government does not apply a single law equally for the building and repair of mosques, churches, and synagogues.” Indeed, in late 2016—around the time that St. Peter’s Cathedral in Cairo was bombed, killing 25 Coptic worshippers, and as several other churches were being closed by authorities—the Egyptian government again boasted about opening 10 new mosques every week and allotting several billion Egyptian pounds to opening thousands more. Similarly, Al Azhar “the main authority in theology and Islamic affairs,” is entirely subsidized by the government (13 billion Egyptian pounds, USD $726 million, in 2018).
On the other hand, every Christian place of worship in Egypt is supported by its (often impoverished) congregation, with no governmental aid; moreover, “the Egyptian government,” continues the CS report, “has ordered the shuttering of multiple churches in direct contravention of law”; and whereas “the Egyptian government appoints Imams and pays their salaries, Christian and other minority faith leaders receive no government compensation.”
Why such a double standard exists can be traced back to Article 2 of Egypt’s Constitution: “Islam is the religion of the State … The principles of Islamic Sharia are the main source of legislation.” As it happens, Islamic Sharia is decidedly hostile to non-Muslim places of worship; strictly interpreted, Sharia forbids the building or renovating of churches in Egypt. Although that law is not strictly enforced, its “spirit”—which breeds hostility for churches amongst Egypt’s rank and file—lives on.
Thus, on those occasions where Christian tenacity overcomes the red tape “jihad,” and a church permit is secured, there’s the Muslim mob to contend with. Once local Muslims get wind that a church might be recognized in their neighborhood, they form in large mobs — typically after Friday prayers, when the imam riles them — riot, attack, and sometimes kill Christians, and torch their homes and/or church in question. Then to diffuse the situation, local authorities, some of whom aid or cover for the mob, promptly revoke the church’s pending permit on the claim that it poses a “security concern” for the village.
“A great deal of Muslim young men, aged 16-26, from our village and nearby gathered in front of our church building, shouting ‘Allahu Akbar’ and chanting hostile slogans against Copts and the Church, such as ‘We don’t want a church in our Islamic village,’” recalled Moheb, a member of one of the Luxor churches closed. “They tried to break the front door … but we locked [it] from the inside. We immediately called the police who arrived and dispersed the demonstrators but they didn’t arrest anyone. They then closed the church building, sealed it and placed security guards with it.”
Responding to that closure, Gamil Ayed, a local Coptic lawyer, voiced typical Christian sentiment: “We haven’t heard that a mosque was closed down, or that prayer was stopped in it because it was unlicensed. Is that justice? Where is the equality? Where is the religious freedom? Where is the law? Where are the state institutions?”
Two months before those eight churches were closed, another nearby church was shut down under identical circumstances. “There are about 4,000 Christians in our village and we have no place to worship now,” responded a local resident, Rafaat Fawzy. “The nearest church is … 15km [or nine miles] away. It is difficult to go and pray in that church, especially for the old, the sick people and kids.”
He too continued by asking the same questions on the minds of millions of Christians in Egypt: “Where are our rights? There are seven mosques in our village and Muslims can pray in any place freely, but we are prevented from practicing our religious rites in a simple place that we have been dreaming of. Is that justice? We are oppressed in our country and there are no rights for us.”
A few days after the Luxor church closings, Muslims assaulted Christians in al-Minya because they “objected to the presence of a church in the area”; three Christians were hospitalized.
All of these attacks took place, it bears mentioning, two years after Egypt’s much touted “church law,” which passed in 2016 and was meant to ease restrictions on churches, but which, in fact, “discriminates against the Christian minority in Egypt,” to quote Human Rights Watch.
The many difficulties Egypt’s Christians encounter in the context of church worship is just one of several violations against their human rights. Whether their daughters are targeted for abduction and forced conversion and marriage, or whether they are arrested and imprisoned on the accusation that they mocked Islam, or whether they must be demonized and hated thanks to the teachings of often government-connected mosques and universities, Christians simply do not share in the same human rights that Muslims do in Egypt.
Raymond Ibrahim Interview: Truth About Islam Must Be Acknowledged
How an ideology's teachings are antithetical to Western values.
Fri Sep 11, 2020
Note: Journalist Niram Ferretti interviews Raymond Ibrahim, a Shillman Fellow at the Freedom Center, for the Italian publication, L’Informale (original here). Pasted below are excerpts from the English version.
Question: How much is the concept of jihad intended as holy war, central to the way Islam has interpreted itself during the centuries?
The concept of jihad was central from the start—at least according to the earliest Muslim historians who often portray the first warriors of Allah as being zealously motivated by the notion of jihad.
Question: The last time that Islam tried to penetrate Europe through war was on the 12th of September 1683 at Kalhenberg, near Vienna, where 65.000 thousand Christians fought against 200,000 Ottoman Turks. For how long after that date did jihad against the West stopped and when and why was it resumed?
Raids continued for some time, particularly by sea, and well into the late 1700s, meaning for about a century after the successful defense of Vienna. Even as the Ottoman Empire was beginning its slow retreat from eastern Europe, the Muslim slavers of the so-called Barbary States of North Africa wreaked havoc all along the coasts of Europe—even as far as Iceland. The United States of America’s first war—which it fought before it could even elect its first president—was against these Islamic slavers. When Thomas Jefferson and John Adams asked Barbary’s ambassador why his countrymen were enslaving American sailors, the “ambassador answered us that it was founded on the laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that … it was their right and duty to make war upon them [non-Muslims] wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners….”
Question: In his seminal book of 1996, Samuel P. Huntington wrote about Islam and the West the following sentence, “Kto? Kovo? Who is to rule? Who is to be ruled? The central issue of politics defined by Lenin is the root of the contest between Islam and the West”. Do you agree?
Yes, inasmuch as that Muslims must always work to make Islam rule over non-Muslims, based on their sharia, which while allowing for truces and times of peace—particularly when Islam is weak vis-à-vis infidels—also sees the spread of Muslim rule as the culmination of the Islamic mission that began in the early 630s.
Question: Let us now talk about your new book, Sword and Scimitar: Fourteen Centuries of War between Islam and the West. What has brought you to write a book focused specifically on the battles which have occurred along the centuries between Islam and the West?
Yes, as indicated by the title, the book is a military history between Islam and the West, narrated around their eight most decisive clashes, the first and last of which occurred more than a millennium apart. But while the eight battles/sieges form the centerpieces of the book’s eight chapters, the bulk of the narrative chronologically traces and tells the general, but much forgotten story of Islam and the West, most of which of course revolved around warfare—with all the attendant death, destruction, slavery, and geopolitical demarcations and map rearrangements. We can say I began working on portions of this book some twenty years ago—since around 1998-99, when I first started doing academic research for what became my MA thesis in History: a close examination, including through the original Arabic and Greek sources, of the battle of Yarmuk—the first major military encounter between Islam and the Eastern Roman Empire in 636, highlighted in Chapter 1 of the Sword and Scimitar.
Question: To what extent is the Islamic terrorism that we are facing today a continuation of the battles between Islam and the West that you describe in Sword and Scimitar?
To a very great extent. Both the motivation and the pattern of terrorist acts are very much mirror reflections of past Islamic motivations and patterns. In other words, from the start to finish, the book pages are full of all the ugly words and deeds committed by modern groups such as the Islamic State—ordering Europeans to convert to Islam or face the sword; the willful destruction of churches; the mass slaughter—including by beheading, crucifixion, or burning—of Christian defenders, and the mass enslavement and rape of Christian women and children—all of these permeate the pages of my book.
Question: Islam is a way of life. It is a complete set of ideas and rules which differs deeply from our Western values. Is there any chance of an accommodation between Islam and Western societies or this is just wishful thinking?
Can water and oil mix? In the same manner, pure Islamic teachings and pure Western values are often antithetical to one another. For example, the West believes in freedom of religion, whereas in Islam those who seek to apostatize are penalized, including by death; the West believes in freedom of speech, whereas in Islam any critical talk concerning Muhammad can get one killed. One can go on and on but the point should be clear. Of course, a nominal/secular Muslim may be able to assimilate in a Western society, but that is not a reflection of Islam, which is hardly nominal but rather a full way of life based on sharia.
Question: According to you what are the ways in which Europe on one side and the United States on the other should face the reality of Islam in such a manner that could be helpful both for Westerners and Muslims? What are the false assumptions that must be rejected?
First, the truth must be acknowledged—including for example the truth that, for well over a millennium, Muslims invaded European/Christian territory on the same logic that Islamic terror groups cite—that it is their right to invade, conquer, butcher, and enslave infidels for no less a reason that because they are non-Muslims. If this is how Muslims have been behaving for centuries, is there really any need to find “reasons” why some of them are behaving so now? Are grievances, territorial disputes, etc., necessary to explain this unwavering hostility? Once these facts are embraced, the rest, including policy—for instance, the question of Muslim immigration—should become self-evident.
Question: How inbred is religious violence in Islam and how it differs from the way in which it is presented in the Bible and has accompanied Christianity in the course of its history?
Many apologist for Islam like to claim that the Bible, especially the Jewish scriptures (or the Old Testament), is just as if not more bloody and violent than the Koran—so why do we insist that Muslim violence is rooted to Muslim scriptures? The problem with comparing violence in the Bible — both Old and New Testaments — with violence in the Koran is that it conflates history with doctrine. The majority of violence in the Bible is recorded as history; a description of events. Conversely, the overwhelming majority of violence in the Koran is doctrinally significant. The Koran uses open-ended language to call on believers to commit acts of violence against non-Muslims. See “Are Judaism and Christianity as Violent as Islam?” for my most comprehensive and documented treatment of this tired apologia.
Vox Jorno Unclear What's Behind Antisemitic Attacks by Muslims Waving PLO Flags
America has the worst media in the world. And Vox is the worst media of any outlet except for the New York Times.
But Zack Beauchamp is the one leading figure in lefty digital media that not even the New York Times, the Washington Post, or CNN wanted.
Why? Well there was the time he claimed that there was some sort of giant bridge between the West Bank and Gaza. That led to this unforgettable correction in Beauchamp's Vox explainer, "11 crucial facts to understand the Israel-Gaza crisis"
"An earlier version of this post suggested there was a bridge connecting Gaza and the West Bank. Various plans to do this have been floated, but the bridge was never actually built."
There were also various plans floated to build a canal separating America from Mexico, to overthrow the United States, and to blow up the moon.
"An earlier version of this post suggested the moon had been blown up. Various plans to do this have been floated, but the moon was never actually blown up."
Now Zack turned his laser acumen to the bafflingly inexplicable crisis of antisemitism.
These attacks appear to be linked to the recent flare-up in fighting between Israel and the Palestinian militant group Hamas. In some cases, the perpetrators waved Palestinian flags or shouted pro-Palestinian slogans...
What’s less clear is why these incidents are happening.
If you think this is beyond stupid, Zack is just getting started.
It’s also possible that the anti-Semitic attacks are part of the generalized surge in American anti-Semitism since 2016, which most experts link to the rise of Donald Trump and the alt-right movement.
As a writer who believes in the power of reason, I hate to say this, but the only rational response to Zack Beauchamp writing about Israel (or any Vox explainer) is a headdesk.gif spammed non-stop.
It's like listening to AOC talk about economics or a dog bark at a tree.
Zack Beauchamp then cites Jewish Currents' insistence that the surge in antisemitism was made up by the ADL. He doesn't bother to mention to his audience that JC is a rabidly anti-Israel and anti-Jewish site that originated in the Communist Party.
In LA, the attackers — who drove to a specifically Jewish neighborhood to find Jews to hurt — were flying Palestinian flags. In Times Square, the violence grew out of a pro-Palestinian protest. In Florida, the attackers yelled, “‘Free Palestine, fuck you Jew, die Jew.”
This isn’t normal. Something new appears to be happening, but it’s not yet clear what it is.
It's a mystery. We're gonna need to dig into it some more to figure out what's going on here.
But the fact that some of these incidents seem directly tied to pro-Palestinian events and sentiment, with little or no connection to the far-right factions that traditionally commit the most serious anti-Semitic violence in the United States, presents troubling data points. It’s possible, if not likely, that the European pattern of violence in Israel causing anti-Semitic violence at home could become a reality in America.
It's a mystery wrapped in an enigma wrapped in a media cover-up.
Quran (9:29) - "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book [Jews and Christians], until they pay the Jizya [the tax for being a Jew or Christian] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."
“Attorney General Eric Holder's tenure was a low point even within the disgraceful scandal-ridden Obama years.” DANIEL GREENFIELD / FRONTPAGE MAG
MAXINE WATERS, LOUIS FARRAKHAN, ERIC HOLDER and BARACK OBAMA – RACIST, VIOLENT HATE MONGERS!
http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2018/09/black-ghetto-nazi-maxine-waters.html
Rep. Maxine Waters is fine with Farrakhan. And the left is fine with Waters. Eric Holder recently posed with Farrakhan. DANIEL GREENFIELD / FRONTPAGE MAG
MAD MAXINE: THE BANKSTERS’ DELIGHT…. Only the Obombs and grifters Hillary and Billary have sucked in more bribes from banksters than this evil woman.
https://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2018/11/judicial-watch-maxine-waters-unfit-to.html
The new Fox ‘Soul’ network has announced
that it will air Nation of Islam leader Louis
Farrakhan’s “Message to America” on a
special July 4th program, despite his history
of racism, antisemitism, and homophobia.
THE (REALITY) OF THE DEMOCRAT PARTY:
Anti-Semitic, open borders for cheaper labor and funded by criminal banksters… and these pols are making vast fortunes sucking the blood of America!
https://globalistbarackobama.blogspot.com/2018/09/obomb-muslim-anti-semitic.html
We must not let them cheat their way to power over the rest of us. Their ongoing vote fraud must be stopped and the Democrats need to take a look at themselves and at what they have become. It's not a pretty picture. What they have become threatens to destroy the greatest nation on the planet and they are doing it on purpose. They have nothing but contempt for the US as founded and for those of us who love this country. PATRICIA McCARTHY – AMERICAN THINKER
“Then we suffered the rattling election of Barack Obama, whose active membership in a white-, Jewish-, and America-hating church was well known to the electorate. His close personal relationship with the likes of his adored Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Louis Farrakhan was no secret. Obama was open about his goals. He told us he was out to "fundamentally transform America" and the world.” ALAN BERGSTEIN
“There is a deep racist and anti-Semitic disease in the leadership of the Democrats. As Senator Cory Booker brings his hatred for the Jewish State to the Senate, he should be asked whether he agrees with his hero, “The only good Zionist is a dead Zionist we must take a lesson from Hitler”.
DANIEL GREENFIELD
Clinton, a serial rapist, is welcomed to McCain's funeral, as is his wife, who as a "manifest felon" is the epitome of every unscrupulous behavior and trickery she can get away with by committing fraud, harming American lives, and lying to the American public. By Eileen F. Toplansky
MAXINE WATERS USES NAZIS TACTICS TO HARASS TRUMP
…. But where was her big mouth when Obama and the Clinton were sucking in bribes and looting the poor of Haiti, or operating a fraudulent slush fund charity????
http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2018/06/her-corruptness-rep-maxine-waters.html
"But what the Clintons do is criminal because they do it wholly at the expense of the American people. And they feel thoroughly entitled to do it: gain power, use it to enrich themselves and their friends. They are amoral, immoral, and venal. Hillary has no core beliefs beyond power and money. That should be clear to every person on the planet by now." ---- Patricia McCarthy - AMERICANTHINKER.com
"Attorney General Eric Holder's tenure was a low point even within the disgraceful scandal-ridden Obama years.” DANIEL GREENFIELD / FRONTPAGE MAG
MAXINE WATERS, LOUIS FARRAKHAN, ERIC HOLDER and BARACK OBAMA – RACIST, VIOLENT HATE MONGERS!
http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2018/09/black-ghetto-nazi-maxine-waters.html
Rep. Maxine Waters is fine with Farrakhan. And the left is fine with Waters. Eric Holder recently posed with Farrakhan. DANIEL GREENFIELD / FRONTPAGE MAG
MAD MAXINE: THE BANKSTERS’ DELIGHT…. Only the Obombs and grifters Hillary and Billary have sucked in more bribes from banksters than this evil woman.
https://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2018/11/judicial-watch-maxine-waters-unfit-to.html
|
Throughout her storied political career, Waters has been embroiled in numerous
controversies, including abusing her power to enrich family members, getting a communist dictator to harbor a cop-murdering Black Panther fugitive still wanted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and accusing the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) of selling crack cocaine in black neighborhoods. JUDICIAL WATCH
Hitler’s Multicultural Supporters
You don’t have to be a white supremacist to love Hitler.
Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.
“The world today needs a Hitler,” CNN correspondent Adeel Raja tweeted. Tala Halawa, the BBC's "Palestinian" specialist, had previously tweeted a rant that included #HitlerWasRight.
Researchers have found that the #HitlerWasRight hashtag was intertwined not just with the usual white supremacists, but with more "progressive" hashtags like #FreePalestine.
Raja, a Pakistani Muslim, and Halawa, who hails from Israel’s West Bank, don’t fit the image of what people think Hitler’s fanbase looks like, but they’re more typical than you might think.
During the latest conflict between Israel and Hamas terrorists, Pakistani celebrities and politicians praised Hitler.
“I remember a saying by Hitler who said he had spared some Jews to let the world know why he killed them. Today I have developed a firm faith in this," a Pakistani parliamentarian declared.
Pakistani actress Veena Malik tweeted the same fake Hitler quote. “I would have killed all the Jews of the world … but I kept some to show the world why I killed them.”
But it’s not just about Israel or the Jews.
Fayaz ul Hasan Chohan, a minister in Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan’s cabinet, allegedly named Hitler as one of his idols. He later positively compared Khan to Hitler. When CNN cut ties with Raja over his Hitler tweet, Khan’s right-hand man and one of his closest advisers, tweeted in support of him.
But then, as a Der Spiegel article began, “It's not hard for a German living in Pakistan to get used to these differences, but one contrast is hard to stomach: Most people like Hitler.”
“Pakistanis always hone in on that topic whenever they talk to Germans. ‘We're Aryans too,’ they say,” he observed.
The situation isn’t much better in Halawa’s West Bank where ‘Hitler’ is a popular name or nickname used by local terrorists. Among them is Jamal 'Hitler' Abu Roub, an Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade terror leader, whose original run for office led to headlines like "A Man Called Hitler Runs for a Seat" and "Palestinians Vote for Hitler".
"Oh Hitler, you have brought pride to the homeland and Allah," his supporters gushed.
Palestinian Authority media and leaders routinely praise Hitler. It’s not unusual to see Nazi flags flying on Arab Muslim homes in the West Bank or see Nazi salutes displayed at terrorist rallies.
Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian Authority boss, wrote a Holocaust denial thesis as part of his education in the USSR. A few years ago, he claimed that the Holocaust was the fault of the Jews.
But appreciation of Hitler among non-white racialist nationalists and supremacists goes well beyond the usual predictable antisemitism in the Muslim world. And it can be found right here.
In the United States, the two main non-white forms of racial nationalism, black nationalism and the La Raza movement, were rife with admiration for Hitler and Nazi Germany.
“What the Negro needs is a Hitler,” Marcus Garvey had declared, and urged his followers to read Mein Kampf. “Hats off to Hitler the German Nazi.”
Admiration for Hitler and Nazi Germany was not unusual for black nationalists.
In The German Case Against the Jews, W. E. B. DuBois defended Nazi bigotry. Under Hitler, he claimed that there was “more democracy in Germany than there has been in years past.”
The Nation of Islam carried forward the black nationalist agenda. Like Garvey, Malcolm X met with the KKK. He also welcomed the leader of the American Nazi Party, to a Nation of Islam event. After his conversion to more normative Islam, which is often used to falsely depict him as moderating his views, he met up with the infamous Islamic cleric known as Hitler’s Mufti.
Louis Farrakhan, the Nation of Islam’s current leader, has said, “Here come the Jews. They don’t like Farrakhan, so they call me Hitler. Well, that’s a good name. Hitler was a very great man.” The black supremacist leader suggested that "He raised up Germany from nothing. Well, in a sense you could say there's a similarity in that we are raising up our people from nothing."
This idea of Hitler as a model for black leaders pervades the black nationalist movement.
“We must take a lesson from Hitler,” civil rights leader Stokley Carmichael, who later changed his name to Kwame Ture, had argued . “I’ve never admired a white man, but the greatest of them, to my mind, was Hitler.”
On the other side of the trinity of identity politics is La Raza.
"Hitler represents, in short, an idea, the German idea, so often humiliated once called by the militarism of the French, the perfidy of the English," Jose Vasconcelos wrote in 1940. "What is becoming evident, even for the stubborn, is the triumph of Germany over its rivals and the historical change that will consequently take place in the world.”
“But we will win with the German victory!" he assured readers of his pro-Nazi magazine.
Vasconcelos, formerly Mexico's leftist Minister of Education, had embraced a new vision of Latinos as La Raza Cosmica: a new master race shaped by continental eugenics.
La Raza Cosmica became popular among Latino racialists in the United States leading to the rise of the racist Raza Unida movement whose chant "Viva La Raza!" meant "Hail the Race".
There was nothing unusual about Vasconcelos’s collaboration with the Nazis. Latin American eugenicists were often socialists with fascist sympathies who admired Nazi Germany. And when the Ford Foundation and other leftist organizations backed Latino nationalists in America, they mainstreamed eugenics, national socialism, and racial supremacism as progressive ideas.
As they’ve done with black supremacists and the Black Lives Matter movement.
The pernicious myth that racism is a fundamentally different phenomenon among non-white groups, politically or morally, is at the heart of everything from political correctness to critical race theory. But the admiration for Hitler and the Nazis across racial lines shows that’s a lie.
Racism is racism. And racial nationalists have a natural sympathy. That’s what impelled the alliances between Malcolm X and the KKK. It’s what turned a Nazi sympathizer’s racial tract into the basis for the La Raza movement in the United States. It’s why Hitler remains popular in the Muslim world and among a variety of non-white racialist and nationalist organizations.
You can see photos of black soldiers in Nazi uniforms fighting as part of the Mufti of Jerusalem’s Free Arabian Legion which included Arab and African Muslim soldiers. A generation after the Mufti was urging Hitler to wipe out the Jews, Malcolm X met up with him in Saudi Arabia on a pilgrimage to Mecca.
Malcolm X called Hitler's Mufti a “cordial man of great dignity” and casually noted that he “referred to New York as Jew York.” Three years earlier, Malcolm X had shared a stage with the leader of the American Nazi Party. And nothing had really changed with his famous “epiphany”.
Hitler’s popularity says little about the syphilitic failed painter, but a great deal about his fanbase and the nature of racism. Hate is universal and ubiquitous. It crosses all racial boundaries. There is no division between racism and reverse racism, between punching up and punching down.
Beyond antisemitism, Hitler and the Nazis remain popular among racial supremacists and nationalists because they embody the ultimate model and ideal of killing the ‘other’. Mass genocide is the final seductive and murderous fantasy that runs through Islamist groups, through black supremacist movements and through La Raza ideology.
Those who are not members of the group must die off or be killed.
There’s nothing ‘white’ about this idea. It’s as old as tribe and time. And some of the worst racists in the world are non-white members of racial movements that admire Hitler.
Outcry over Louis Farrakhan Rant Calling Prominent Jews Including Alan Dershowitz ‘Satan’
Notorious antisemite and Nation of Islam
leader Louis Farrakhan live-streamed a three-
hour Independence Day rant on YouTube
where he calls prominent Jewish Americans,
including Jonathan Greenblatt and Alan
Dershowitz, “Satan,” as well as repeating the
lie Israel was behind George Floyd’s killing.
The Combat Anti-Semitism Movement (CAM) on Wednesday called on YouTube to remove the video, saying it was “in clear contravention of YouTube’s own policies on hate speech.”
Farrakhan’s Fourth of July address also aired Saturday on Revolt TV, a cable channel owned by Sean “Diddy” Combs. Combs encouraged his 15.6 million Twitter followers to watch the video, tweeting “Everyone can watch…Just not the scared ones.”
Everyone can watch… Just not the scared ones.
— Diddy (@Diddy) July 4, 2020
In the address, the 87-year-old Nation of Islam leader called the head of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), Jonathan Greenblatt, “Satan.”
“Mr. Greenblatt, you are Satan. Those of you that say that you’re Jews, I will not even give you the honor of calling you a Jew. You are not a Jew… you are Satan and it is my job now to pull the cover off of Satan so that every Muslim when he sees Satan, pick up a stone, as we do in Mecca,” Farrakhan said.
“When you know who Satan is, you don’t have to kill him [but] the stone of truth, that’s what you throw. We cast truth at falsehood till we knock out its brains,” he continued.
He also called Jewish renowned defense lawyer Alan Dershowitz “a skillful deceiver” and “Satan masquerading as a lawyer.”
Farrakhan also implicated Israel in the death of George Floyd and in police violence in general.
“That’s why you gotta come at us like a coward,” he said. “Like snakes trying to wrap yourself around us so you could give us the treatment that you were taught in Israel. You may, as you gonna stop your police from going to Israel to learn how to kill better.”
“Your days of killing us without consequence are over,” he added.
Greenblatt took to Twitter to respond to Farrakhan’s “trademark antisemitism.”
“This is routine for Farrakhan- give him a platform, he never fails to espouse hatred,” Greenblatt said.
CAM Director Sacha Roytman-Dratwa wrote in a letter addressed to Matt Halprin, YouTube’s vice president of global trust and safety:
Louis Farrakhan has a long history of antisemitism, incorporating it into the very legitimate, important fight for civil rights and equality. His perversion of these values by promoting hatred and dehumanization of Jews is quite simply unacceptable.
According to CAM, by allowing the video, which has garnered nearly 900,000 views in three days, to remain on its site, “YouTube is allowing him to hijack the worthy cause of racial justice and use the video sharing site as a platform for anti-Semitism.”
“[Farrakhan] even suggested the Jewish community seeks to kill him, saying, ‘If you [Jews] make that move, I can guarantee your destruction,'” the letter reads.
In his address, Farrakhan bizarrely attempted to disavow accusations of antisemitism.
“They tell lies to make you think I am a bigot or antisemite, so that you won’t listen to what I’m saying. So far they’ve been pretty successful,” he said.
“If you really think I hate the Jewish people, you don’t know me at all. [I’ve never] uttered the words of death to the Jewish people,” he went on.
In the past his rancorous antisemitic rants have included calling Jews members of the “Synagogue of Satan” and claiming Jesus called the Jews “the children of the devil.”
Rabbi Abraham Cooper, associate dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, said he was not surprised by Farrakhan’s remarks.
“At this stage of history, no one can be surprised by the rants of America’s Godfather of antisemitism,” he told The Algemeiner.
Cooper also condemned Farrakhan’s “lurid antisemitic conspiracy linking the Jewish state to the death of George Floyd.”
The new Fox ‘Soul’ network has announced that it will air Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan’s “Message to America” on a special July 4th program, despite his history of racism, antisemitism, and homophobia.
Fox ‘Soul’ Network to Air Nation of Islam’s Louis Farrakhan July 4
The new Fox ‘Soul’ network has announced
that it will air Nation of Islam leader Louis
Farrakhan’s “Message to America” on a
special July 4th program, despite his history
of racism, antisemitism, and homophobia.
LIVE ON FOX SOUL: THE CRITERION
THE HONORABLE MINISTER LOUIS FARRAKHAN will deliver his MESSAGE TO AMERICA on JULY 4th at 11am ET / 8am PT.
For More information visit https://t.co/cQCGt59mm7 and tune into FOX https://t.co/ZQ7BibvsBi or Download the FOX SOUL APP pic.twitter.com/CdJoQLcEnP
— foxsoultv (@foxsoultv) June 26, 2020
Farrakhan’s history of hateful rhetoric is well-documented. In 2018, he compared Jews to termites. That same year, he drew criticism for defending the use of the phrase “death to America” during a conversation with students in Iran.
The main FOX network launched Fox Soul in January in an effort to reach African American audiences — and to reach beyond the conservative branding of Fox News. Fox Soul offers four hours of streaming programing daily.
Former New York State Assemblyman Dov Hikind (D), founder of Americans Against Antisemitism, made an impassioned plea on Twitter on Sunday for Fox Soul to cancel the program.
.@AmericansAA calls upon @FOXTV to immediately cancel the planned JULY 4 broadcast of Dishonorable Minister of Hate @LouisFarrakhan on @foxsoultv@splcenter considers the Nation of Islam to be an extremist hate group. So why amplify this hateful voice?!#CancelFarrakhanNow! pic.twitter.com/FJo632h4cR
— Dov Hikind (@HikindDov) June 28, 2020
The advertisement (above) for Fox Soul’s special Farrakhan broadcast includes a link to the Nation of Islam’s website.
The website (link not provided) is billing Farrakhan’s appearance as The Criterion: Announcement to the World. The website also includes links to purchase the Nation of Islam’s antisemitic trilogy, The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews.
The Nation of Islam has had controversial relationships with the anti-Trump “Women’s March,” and provided security for the recent funeral of George Floyd.
Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News and the host of Breitbart News Sunday on Sirius XM Patriot on Sunday evenings from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. ET (4 p.m. to 7 p.m. PT). His new book, RED NOVEMBER, is available for pre-order. He is a winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.
Black Lives Matter: Not Just Communist, But Viciously Anti-Semitic Too
No matter the color of their skin, Jews are going to be labeled “white.”
Clare M. Lopez
By the time violent rioters tore through the heavily Jewish neighborhood of Fairfax, Los Angeles on the night of Saturday May 30, 2020, it was too late. The vicious antisemitic, anti-Israel language of the M4BL and Black Lives Matter’s demands that included accusations against Israel of “apartheid” and “genocide” had been brushed aside. Black Lives Matter (BLM) delegations had traveled to the Middle East to endorse Palestinian terrorists in Gaza, Judea, and Samaria and pose for photo ops with the Palestinian flag. Statements from delegation leaders spoke of “occupation, ethnic cleansing and brutality” that Israel supposedly has perpetrated against the region’s Arab-Muslim population.
Even when city after city across America went up in flames after the May 25, 2020 killing of African-American George Floyd in Minneapolis by a white police officer, with BLM ‘protesters’ assaulting private businesses, their owners, and law enforcement officers alike, smashing store fronts, setting fires, and destroying property, some among America’s Jewish leadership could hardly get their statements of support out fast enough. Jewish American organizations, the Reform Movement, rabbinical leadership figures, progressive and Zionist activists, even the Hasidic Community of Crown Heights, Brooklyn in New York City all practically fell over one another in their haste to endorse the BLM movement.
The Jewish Federation of Santa Barbara was no different. On June 13, 2020, the group – including, among others, the Jewish Federation of Greater Santa Barbara, ADL Santa Barbara Tri-Counties, Santa Barbara Congregation of B’nai B’rith and Santa Barbara Hillel – issued a statement to condemn “racism” and “institutional biases.” The Focus Project, whose online website is remarkably empty, disseminated a set of talking points on June 16, 2020 that appear to date from September 2019. An increasingly popular trope is included among them that distorts the ancient Jewish term ‘Tikkun Olam’ in a way to make it seem like some kind of modern-day social justice program. In fact, ‘Tikkun Olam’ is a Kabbalist term that made its way into Judaism by way of the Aleinu prayer that is specific to Rosh Hashanah. ‘Tikkun Olam’ is not from the Torah (md’oraita) in origin at all – and therefore not one of the 613 obligatory commandments (mitzvot) nor anywhere to be found in the normative rabbinical literature concerning the praxises of Jewish Law (Halacha). Rather, as a kind of companion bit of moral guidance, ‘Tikkun Olam’ urges Jews to repair one’s individual relationship to the Almighty by way of observance of the actual ‘mitzvot’, or obligatory commandments that lead to perfecting personal behavior.
Now, just as ‘perfecting of one’s personal behavior before the Almighty’ has nothing to do with the social justice narrative per se, neither does it have anything to do with supporting a communist/Marxist, pro-Maoist organization, one of whose BLM co-founders’ declaration of the group’s Marxist ideology was featured on Twitter just days ago. Yes, the BLM movement was founded by three African-American women with longtime Marxist backgrounds: Alicia Garza, Opal I. Tometi, and Patrisse M. Cullors. Its original Platform (issued in August 2016, but scrubbed up a bit in its more recent iteration) called for collective ownership of all resources, the breaking up of banks, redistribution of wealth by way of confiscatory taxes on ‘high earners,’ free health care, and free education. Truly, Karl Marx would have blushed.
But back to the question of how BLM rioters came to be rampaging through Jewish neighborhoods of Los Angeles, CA, reportedly shouting “F___Jews”, and spray painting “F___Israel” and “Free Palestine” on the walls of the Congregation Beth Israel and at least four other synagogues. How did Jews come to be collectivized into the enemy “white privilege proletariat” class by these BLM Marxists?
That original BLM Platform also explicitly supports the BDS (Boycott, Divest, and Sanction) movement. Another indicator comes from Cullors (who organized the 30 May pogrom in LA): she reportedly told a New York Times reporter, “Let’s go into the heart of what is symbolically white in Los Angeles, which is Beverly Hills…These people need to hear our pain and our grief. We wanted to bring this to communities who often aren’t dealing with police violence.” No matter the color of their skin, therefore, Jews are going to be labeled “white”—as a pejorative from which it is always going to be impossible to escape. It goes back farther than that, however. By 2015, BLM representatives traveled to the Middle East to make common cause with Palestinians in Gaza, Judea and Samaria. Fast forward to late May 2020, shortly after the death of George Floyd, and the Democratic Socialists of America’s BDS national working group blatantly tried to link that killing to Israel, by claiming that U.S. police forces learned riot control techniques from Israeli police. Then, on June 1, Al-Awda, the Palestinian Right of Return Coalition, published a hideous cartoon at its website showing an Israeli soldier with his knee on the neck of a keffiyeh’ed Palestinian, arm-in-arm with an American police officer with his knee on the neck of a black man. The article it accompanied was entitled “Al-Awda PRRC statement of solidarity for Black lives and Black struggle.”
The BLM’s Marxist agenda is on full display across America today. Exploitation of the insurrectionist riots in which it plays a leading role to demonize Jews and Israel is, too.
Raymond Ibrahim Interview: Truth About Islam Must Be Acknowledged
How an ideology's teachings are antithetical to Western values.
Fri Sep 11, 2020
Note: Journalist Niram Ferretti interviews Raymond Ibrahim, a Shillman Fellow at the Freedom Center, for the Italian publication, L’Informale (original here). Pasted below are excerpts from the English version.
Question: How much is the concept of jihad intended as holy war, central to the way Islam has interpreted itself during the centuries?
The concept of jihad was central from the start—at least according to the earliest Muslim historians who often portray the first warriors of Allah as being zealously motivated by the notion of jihad.
Question: The last time that Islam tried to penetrate Europe through war was on the 12th of September 1683 at Kalhenberg, near Vienna, where 65.000 thousand Christians fought against 200,000 Ottoman Turks. For how long after that date did jihad against the West stopped and when and why was it resumed?
Raids continued for some time, particularly by sea, and well into the late 1700s, meaning for about a century after the successful defense of Vienna. Even as the Ottoman Empire was beginning its slow retreat from eastern Europe, the Muslim slavers of the so-called Barbary States of North Africa wreaked havoc all along the coasts of Europe—even as far as Iceland. The United States of America’s first war—which it fought before it could even elect its first president—was against these Islamic slavers. When Thomas Jefferson and John Adams asked Barbary’s ambassador why his countrymen were enslaving American sailors, the “ambassador answered us that it was founded on the laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that … it was their right and duty to make war upon them [non-Muslims] wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners….”
Question: In his seminal book of 1996, Samuel P. Huntington wrote about Islam and the West the following sentence, “Kto? Kovo? Who is to rule? Who is to be ruled? The central issue of politics defined by Lenin is the root of the contest between Islam and the West”. Do you agree?
Yes, inasmuch as that Muslims must always work to make Islam rule over non-Muslims, based on their sharia, which while allowing for truces and times of peace—particularly when Islam is weak vis-à-vis infidels—also sees the spread of Muslim rule as the culmination of the Islamic mission that began in the early 630s.
Question: Let us now talk about your new book, Sword and Scimitar: Fourteen Centuries of War between Islam and the West. What has brought you to write a book focused specifically on the battles which have occurred along the centuries between Islam and the West?
Yes, as indicated by the title, the book is a military history between Islam and the West, narrated around their eight most decisive clashes, the first and last of which occurred more than a millennium apart. But while the eight battles/sieges form the centerpieces of the book’s eight chapters, the bulk of the narrative chronologically traces and tells the general, but much forgotten story of Islam and the West, most of which of course revolved around warfare—with all the attendant death, destruction, slavery, and geopolitical demarcations and map rearrangements. We can say I began working on portions of this book some twenty years ago—since around 1998-99, when I first started doing academic research for what became my MA thesis in History: a close examination, including through the original Arabic and Greek sources, of the battle of Yarmuk—the first major military encounter between Islam and the Eastern Roman Empire in 636, highlighted in Chapter 1 of the Sword and Scimitar.
Question: To what extent is the Islamic terrorism that we are facing today a continuation of the battles between Islam and the West that you describe in Sword and Scimitar?
To a very great extent. Both the motivation and the pattern of terrorist acts are very much mirror reflections of past Islamic motivations and patterns. In other words, from the start to finish, the book pages are full of all the ugly words and deeds committed by modern groups such as the Islamic State—ordering Europeans to convert to Islam or face the sword; the willful destruction of churches; the mass slaughter—including by beheading, crucifixion, or burning—of Christian defenders, and the mass enslavement and rape of Christian women and children—all of these permeate the pages of my book.
Question: Islam is a way of life. It is a complete set of ideas and rules which differs deeply from our Western values. Is there any chance of an accommodation between Islam and Western societies or this is just wishful thinking?
Can water and oil mix? In the same manner, pure Islamic teachings and pure Western values are often antithetical to one another. For example, the West believes in freedom of religion, whereas in Islam those who seek to apostatize are penalized, including by death; the West believes in freedom of speech, whereas in Islam any critical talk concerning Muhammad can get one killed. One can go on and on but the point should be clear. Of course, a nominal/secular Muslim may be able to assimilate in a Western society, but that is not a reflection of Islam, which is hardly nominal but rather a full way of life based on sharia.
Question: According to you what are the ways in which Europe on one side and the United States on the other should face the reality of Islam in such a manner that could be helpful both for Westerners and Muslims? What are the false assumptions that must be rejected?
First, the truth must be acknowledged—including for example the truth that, for well over a millennium, Muslims invaded European/Christian territory on the same logic that Islamic terror groups cite—that it is their right to invade, conquer, butcher, and enslave infidels for no less a reason that because they are non-Muslims. If this is how Muslims have been behaving for centuries, is there really any need to find “reasons” why some of them are behaving so now? Are grievances, territorial disputes, etc., necessary to explain this unwavering hostility? Once these facts are embraced, the rest, including policy—for instance, the question of Muslim immigration—should become self-evident.
Question: How inbred is religious violence in Islam and how it differs from the way in which it is presented in the Bible and has accompanied Christianity in the course of its history?
Many apologist for Islam like to claim that the Bible, especially the Jewish scriptures (or the Old Testament), is just as if not more bloody and violent than the Koran—so why do we insist that Muslim violence is rooted to Muslim scriptures? The problem with comparing violence in the Bible — both Old and New Testaments — with violence in the Koran is that it conflates history with doctrine. The majority of violence in the Bible is recorded as history; a description of events. Conversely, the overwhelming majority of violence in the Koran is doctrinally significant. The Koran uses open-ended language to call on believers to commit acts of violence against non-Muslims. See “Are Judaism and Christianity as Violent as Islam?” for my most comprehensive and documented treatment of this tired apologia.
No comments:
Post a Comment