Month: March 2018

A protected class and its protected speech

There was a headline recently
about the death in Kenya of the last captive northern
white rhino.

This item has not yet made the MSM, but give
it time. The bloviating MSM is pretty desperate for news of any kind that will
shoot down Trump, and I’m certain that a determined “reporter” will come up
with ambiguous and verbose parallels between Trump and the dead rhino. Perhaps
the rhino shed his yellow hair?

At the moment, however, the MSM is
gathering steam to make a major impeachment-worthy story over Stormy Daniels’ claim
that over a decade ago (or more) she
hugged Donald Trump in amorous and scandalous collusion. It is supposed
that no American president ever had “relations” with a “loose” woman; one
supposes that JFK was a chaste
Catholic, and that FDR was a pillar of sexual
propriety, as well, and that having such a tête-à-tête proves that a man who so dallied was not
qualified to sit in the Oval Office. Name me a president who never had
sex with any women outside his family circle. Jimmy Carter, perhaps. The MSM is
no doubt hoping that Stormy will help to accomplish what Humpty Dumpty Robert
Mueller failed to do
after a year of “investigating” the existence of a prancing unicorn. The
Mueller investigation, amounting to likely thousands of pages of useless
documents, has the credibility

Stormy replaces Robert Mueller, sue

Trump’s lawyer, first step?

of the
Steele Dossier, with the consistency of a dandelion puff.

The subject here is not Trump’s extracurricular
adventures, which I think most Americans care very little about, but rather, freedom
of speech, here and abroad. Germany’s
outlawing freedom of speech concerning the opposition to and criticism of Islam
is by now
old hat.

The MP for the hard-right Alternative for
Germany (AfD) party detected in the force’s multilingual new-year greeting a
bid “to appease the barbaric, Muslim, rapist hordes of men”. The next day her
tweet—and, for 12 hours, her entire account—vanished from Twitter. In the
subsequent political storm Alice Weidel, co-leader of the AfD, came to Ms von
Storch’s defence: “Our authorities are subordinating themselves to imported,
rampaging, groping, punching, stabbing migrant mobs,” she tweeted. That, too,
was promptly deleted.

Germany’s memories of the Gestapo and the
Stasi undergird its commitment to free speech. “There shall be no censorship,”
decrees the constitution. Even marches by Pegida, an Islamophobic and
anti-immigrant movement founded in 2014, receive police protection. But the
country of Kristallnacht and the Holocaust also takes a punitive attitude to
what it deems “hate speech”. Inciting hatred can carry a prison sentence of up
to five years, Hitler’s “Mein Kampf” is available only in annotated form, and
it is illegal to single out any part of the population for insult or other
abuse that could “breach the peace”. …

Reconciling these two convictions—for free speech and against hate
speech—is becoming harder, particularly since Angela Merkel’s refugee gambit in
2015. Opening Germany’s borders to some 1.2m mostly Muslim migrants has fuelled
the rise of nativist outfits like the AfD and Pegida. Racist propaganda and
sensationalist reports (some, though not all, fake) of criminal and rapist
immigrants have rippled across social media. In 2016, for example, the number
of criminal investigations into online hate speech in Berlin rose by 50%. A
number of the newcomers from the Middle East and Africa are anti-Semitic.
Confronting such ills without encroaching too much on freedom of expression is
tricky.

The most prominent example of the balancing act is the new Net
Enforcement Law (NetzDG), of which Ms von Storch’s and Ms Weidel’s tweets were
early victims. Inspired by the rise of fake news and a report suggesting that
only a minority of illegal posts on social media were being removed within a
day (and just 1% or so on Twitter), the law cleared the Bundestag last June and
came into force on January 1st. It sets out 20 things defining a comment as
“clearly illegal”, such as incitement to hatred or showing the swastika. Once
posts are flagged by users, a social-media firm has 24 hours—extended to a week
in complex cases—to check and remove those that contravene the rules, or face a
€50m ($60m) fine. In the first week, Facebook’s over 1,000 German moderators
have had to process hundreds of thousands of cases.

Not a “summer soldier”

What is more surprising is how swiftly
Britain has emerged as a fascist, authoritarian country, to the point of
advising Britons to snitch or inform on anyone they might see reading or
accessing “extremist” literature or sites, or behaving suspiciously. Pamela Geller
reported in her March 23 article, “UK Police Call
for ‘Counter-Terrorism Citizens’ to Report Others Viewing ‘Extremism,’”

What? The British
authorities routinely allow jihad inciters and jihad preachers into the
country, while they ban counter-terror experts and counter-jihadists, and now
they are appealing to the British public, asking them to act as
“counter-terrorism citizens” and help thwart plots and stop the wave of Islamic
extremist attacks hitting the nation.

But what will
happen if British citizens heed this call and start reporting suspicious
activity? Will they be arrested for hate speech and “Islamophobia”?

Britain is
finished as a free nation.

Whose
“suspicious” activity? The racket produced by a coven of Druids making weird
sounds in the neighboring flat? An “Asian” man purchasing half a dozen pressure
cookers, or a bag of drugs in the local chemists’?

They will
be punished, fined, jailed, or silenced by banishment just as Martin Sellner, Brittany Pettibone, Lauren
Southern, and others (Geller
and Robert Spencer) have been because they spoke out against the Islamic
invasion of Britain and European nations.

Back to Sweden, which has gone over the
totalitarian cliff in Wile
Coyote style and isn’t even visible as it plummets to the hard ground
below. Swedish police will invest little energy in investigating “hate crimes” (such as rape, assaulting
civilians and the police). Special victims of “hate crimes” will be Muslims.
Robert Spencer reports in “Sweden:
Police to focus on combating “hate speech,” quoting a Swedish
publication:

The Police in the South Region will now
focus more on combating and investigating so-called hate crime as “harassment
of an ethnic group.” A special regional group will be formed responsible for
investigating and prosecuting such cases throughout the region, the police have
announced on their website. According to the police, investigations must be
conducted with urgency and special skills.

It is ahead of the forthcoming elections
this autumn that the police in southern Sweden now have to make extra efforts
to fight so-called hatred and crime against democracy.

The police mention crimes as “harassment of
an ethnic group,” but point out that the hate crime designation may apply to
any crime if the intention was to attack someone because of their national
origin, ethnicity, color, belief or sexual orientation. If there is a so-called
hate crime motive, the perpetrator could receive a more severe penalty for the
crime.

Crime
against democracy is described as a crime that threatens someone’s
constitutional right to exercise, for example, the freedom of expression and
religion.

The police in the South region already have
a hate crime group, and it is going to be expanded in the spring to work
throughout the region. It will have a “holistic mission” combating crime
against democracy and hatred.

Pamela Geller: Will never surrender

“Hate speech” and “hate crime” are foggy
enough in terms of precise definitions, being offences based on what the
authorities think a person’s motive
is or was. Flipping the bird at anyone could be construed to be “hate speech” because
someone did not like someone, but took no other action, and the object of the
action may feel offended. It’s the emotion
that is unapproved by the authorities. It is the “failure” of the state or the
political establishment to regulate and determine what a mind can think and
see. After the failure, come stricter controls, in action and in language (political
correctness).

But what is a “crime against democracy”? The
Swedish government is guilty of a “crime against democracy” for welcoming
countless migrants who resist assimilation. Sweden is no longer a “democracy,”
(a term I’ve always had problems with, because democracy means mob rule; in Sweden Muslims engage in mob rule) and
nor are Germany and Britain; the only group whose “freedom of expression” is no
longer opposed or prohibited is that of Muslims. Muslims can demonstrate
noisily in the streets in mosques or on Speakers Corner in London or preach
against the West and be as “hateful” as their lungs can stand, and not be
accused of “hate speech.” Antifa can
violently close down a scheduled speech at a public venue but not be charged
with hate speech or a hate crime; with perhaps of committing a physical
assault, but never deemed as guilty of a hate crime. Antifa and Islam
ideologically have much in common.

An interesting and comprehensive site, Markl Humphrys, details
the consistent alliance between many intellectuals, the MSM, and politicians
with totalitarians in modern times.

German
philosopher Martin
Heidegger supported the Nazis.

German film
director Leni Riefenstahl
made propaganda films for Hitler, which encouraged many young Germans to
enthusiastically join the growing Nazi genocide.

American writer Ezra Pound not only
supported but actually worked for the fascists in WW2.

Belgian
deconstructionist Paul de
Man supported the Nazis.

Nobel Prize
winning Norwegian author Knut
Hamsun supported the Nazis, and wrote a eulogy
for Hitler in 1945.

Spanish artist Salvador
Dali supported Franco and was ambiguous about Hitler.

French fashion
designer Coco Chanel
was a Nazi agent.

The co-founder
of Amnesty International Sean MacBride
supported the Nazis and worked for them.

Sinn Fein / IRA supported the
Nazis and worked for them.

In Markl Humphry’s document, one can see how far back totalitarians
have been winning friends, and how much, in academia, the MSM, in education, and
in popular culture (such as Hollywood).

“Illegal hate speech”, is broadly defined by the European Commission as
“incitement to violence or hatred directed against a group of persons or a
member of such a group defined by reference to race, color, religion, descent
or national or ethnic origin.”

But even if the “hate speech” doesn’t result in violence, one can still
be charged and arrested for it, in live public or private discussions and in
print, or just banned. The measure of “offence” is an emotional one tacked to “hurt feelings” or the aggression into a “safe
place.” The protected class is largely exempt from the enforcement of hate
speech laws. Its depredations and crimes can be deliberately hidden from the
public. Gatestone has
an interesting column on European censorship.

One commentator noted about German “hate speech” laws noted:

Under
this legislation, if Muslims generated any terror or rape attacks, reporting
and commenting as such would be a punishable crime. Therefore, no reporting,
the general public is kept ignorant and Brussels achieves the goal of ending in
the public’s mind the main significant anti-Muslim immigration reasons. Look
ma, no Muslim rapes or terror. Aren’t they wonderful and kudos to the EU for
keeping us safe and making the right choice.

Linda Sarsour’s Sharia

By Edward Cline

On March 22, 2018

In Uncategorized

Linda
Sarsour as

Loweezy,
from Snuffy
Smith

The Koran has been a
work-in-progress for fourteen centuries.
Much of the Sura post-dates Mohammad’s alleged
existence and death (632), and was authored by various Muslim theologians
and scholars over the centuries after his reputed demise. Sharia law resembles in fact and in practice a
savage Rubik cube which can be twisted indefinitely until it reveals the answer,
for example, that
women are inferior to men in all respects. Islam is fundamentally, in
regards to women, thoroughly misogynist.

American Muslim activist Linda Sarsour champions Islam;
ergo, she champions Sharia law. The countless rapes
of European women in Europe and the ongoing anti-hijab protest by women in Iran
concern her naught. She is just another back-stabbing “feminist” who has
nothing to say about the persecution and brutal abuse of women by Islam around
the world, or about the grooming
gangs in Britain. Sarsour advocates the full implementation of Sharia in
the U.S.

Given the numerous rapes of
Western women by Muslims in Britain, Europe, and in virtually every quarter of
the globe, one can’t believe that rape is forbidden in the Koran. Ambiguously, that is.
In all instances, I gather that if a non-Muslim woman is raped, she must have multiple witnesses
to the crime, or if she is married, she must produce several witnesses to it. More
to the point, non-Muslim rape victims would never get a hearing under Sharia law.
Males have twice as much credibility as any Mulsima. BillionBibles
offers a simple guide to understanding Sharia law.

• Theft is punishable by amputation of the hands (Quran
5:38).
• Criticizing or denying any part of the Quran
is punishable by death.
• Criticizing Muhammad or denying that he is a prophet is punishable by
death.
• Criticizing or denying Allah is punishable by death (see Allah
moon god).
• A Muslim who becomes a non-Muslim is punishable by death (See Compulsion).
• A non-Muslim who leads a Muslim away from Islam is punishable by death.
• A non-Muslim man who marries a Muslim woman is punishable by death.
• A woman or girl who has been raped cannot testify in court against her
rapist(s).
• Testimonies of 4 male witnesses are required to prove rape of a female (Quran
24:13).
• A woman or girl who alleges rape without producing 4 male witnesses is
guilty of adultery.
• A woman or girl found guilty of adultery is punishable by death (see
“Islamophobia“).
• A male convicted of rape can have his conviction dismissed by marrying
his victim.
• Muslim men have sexual rights to any woman/girl not wearing the Hijab (see Taharrush).

I
get four wives and ten white slag slaves!

It
says that right here!

• A woman can have 1 husband, who can have up to 4 wives; Muhammad
can have more.
• A man can marry an infant girl and consummate the marriage when she is 9 years old.
• Girls’ clitoris should be cut (Muhammad‘s words, Book 41, Kitab Al-Adab, Hadith 5251).
• A man can beat his wife for insubordination (see Quran
4:34 and Religion of
Peace).
• A man can unilaterally divorce his wife; a wife needs her husband’s
consent to divorce.
• A divorced wife loses custody of all children over 6 years of age or
when they exceed it.
• A woman’s testimony in court, allowed in property cases, carries ½ the
weight of a man’s.
• A female heir inherits half of what a male heir inherits (see Mathematics in Quran).
• A woman cannot speak alone to a man who is not her husband or relative.
• Meat to eat must come from animals that have been sacrificed to Allah –
i.e., be “Halal.”
• Muslims should engage in Taqiyya
and lie to non-Muslims to advance Islam.

Not counting the rapes of women and children

Islam is the totalitarian
ideology, Sharia is its implementation. Germane to the countless rapes of
European women is this rule:

Men have sexual rights to any woman/girl not wearing the Hijab.

And,

A male convicted of
rape can have his conviction dismissed by marrying his victim.

If you’ve seen the mug
shots of the British gang groomers, you might want to ask: what rape victim
would want or agree to marry her rapist? There are numerous Western women who make the
oft fatal mistake of forming an alliance with a Muslim male and who pay with
their lives. The publicized murders and physical abuse of Western women by
their Muslim husbands should give them long pause for thought.

Moreover, in
relation to the “protected” status of Islam and Muslims in Britain, enforced by
its dhimmi police and Theresa May and
her government, who would prefer to persecute non-Muslim Britons for
criticizing Islam, rather than haul in the groomers and “lone wolf” rapists,
there is this rule

A woman or girl who has been
raped cannot testify in court against her rapist(s).

This helps to
explain why Islamic and migrant criminals often get off scot free, (especially in
Europe) if they are charged at all, or get light sentences in prisons
chock-a-block populated with Dawah-obsessed
Islamic inmates. Infidel women are not permitted into Sharia courts

Speaking of Dawah,
in a “soft” interpretation of Islam, in About
Islam, is the claim that violence (“compulsion”) is not a part of Islam.

Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands
out clear from error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah has grasped
the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah hears and knows
all things.}
(Al-Baqarah 2:256)

They will “burka” the Statue of Liberty

But if you reject Islam
and Allah, a target will be taped to your back and you will be marked for
death, as many Muslim
apostates have been.

There is another
“soft” interpretation of the Islamic position on rape. Thought.Co.
writes:

Rape
is completely forbidden in Islamic law, and is a crime punishable by death.

In
Islam, capital
punishment is reserved for the most extreme crimes which harm individual
victims or destabilize society. Rape falls into both of these categories.

Islam
takes very seriously the honor and protection of women. The Quran repeatedly reminds men
to treat women with kindness and fairness. Rape is a horrible crime which
causes a women humiliation and physical harm.

This is so
disingenuous a position, that, “Rape is completely forbidden in Islamic law,” because
it is amply asserted in the Koran and
Hadith that Muhammad routinely raped
captured women.

From My
Islam is this episode:

This story is reported in the Book of
Tabaqat and is published also in the trusted Islamic site. Safiyah was
seventeen and very beautiful when Muslims killed her father, husband and many
of her relatives. In the same day the Prophet of Allah wanted to sleep with
her. Here is the exact text of the story.

The reason Safiyah rejected the sexual
advances of the 57-year-old Muhammad should be obvious to any objective person.
I believe most women prefer to mourn than jump into bed with the killer of
their father, husband and many relatives on the same day of their death. But
the fact that the prophet of Allah could not contain his sexual urges for one
day to let this young girl grieve, says a lot of his thinking and moral character.
However as for the rest of the story we are not sure whether it is true or was
fabricated by Muslim historians to wipe [erase] the impression of rape.

Allah said to
Muhammad (in his sexually fired imagination):

And all married women (are
forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess…” (Q.
4:24 )

The “prophet”
also doled out other captive women to his troops to do with as they pleased per
Q4:24.

Robert
Spencer details the sanction of the rape of non-Muslim women in a revealing
article in Jihad
Watch, “Female al-Azhar prof: Allah allows Muslims to rape
non-Muslim women.”

Jihad is only
between Muslims and infidels. Spoils, slaves, and prisoners are only to be
taken in war between Muslims and infidels. Muslims in the past conquered,
invaded, and took over countries. This is agreed to by all scholars—there is no
disagreement on this from any of them, from the smallest to the largest, on the
issue of taking spoils and prisoners. The prisoners and spoils are distributed
among the fighters, which includes men, women, children, wealth, and so on.

When a slave
market is erected, which is a market in which are sold slaves and sex-slaves,
which are called in the Qur’an by the name milk al-yamin, “that which
your right hands possess” [Koran
4:24]. This is a verse from the Qur’an which is still in force, and has not
been abrogated. The milk al-yamin are the sex-slaves. You go to the
market, look at the sex-slave, and buy her. She becomes like your wife, (but)
she doesn’t need a (marriage) contract or a divorce like a free woman, nor does
she need a wali. All scholars agree on this point—there is no
disagreement from any of them. […] When I want a sex slave, I just go to the
market and choose the woman I like and purchase her.

He and
his followers had no reservations about child
rape, either. There was 6-year-old Aisha, the “marriage” to whom
he consummated when he was 53 years old and she was 9-years-old. If you can
The
Guardian, a British left-wing newspaper, in a rare instance of moral outrage
against Islam, wrote, in “The hypocrisy
of child abuse in many Muslim countries”, wrote:

Sharia in practice

picture it without needing a barf bag, imagine Mohammad “consuming” the girl, she
had to put aside her rag doll until he was finished.

And in the Middle East, it’s
young girls who are considered desirable and men are able to satisfy their
lusts legally through child marriages. In Yemen, more than a quarter of girls are
married before the age of 15. Cases of girls dying during childbirth are not
unusual, and recently, one 12-year-old child bride even died from internal
bleeding following sexual intercourse. In
another case, a 12-year-old girl was married to an 80-year-old man in Saudi Arabia.

So why is the practice of child
marriage sanctioned in Muslim countries? Unfortunately, ultra-conservative
religious authorities justify this old tribal custom by citing the prophet
Muhammad’s marriage to Aisha. They allege Aisha was nine years old when the
prophet married her. But they focus conveniently on selected Islamic texts to
support their opinions, while ignoring vast number of other texts and
historical information, which suggests Aisha, was much older, putting her age of marriage at 19.
Child marriage is against Islam as the Qur’an is clear that intellectual
maturity is the basis for deciding age of marriage, and not puberty, as
suggested by these clerics.

The Koran – a hard or “soft” interpretation
of it – or a literal translation, or from the Buraq’s mouth, means the
imposition of Sharia law.

Diabolic Dabiq: Or, Why We Hate Islam

By Edward Cline

On March 22, 2018

In Uncategorized

One
day, when ISIS is sitting on Death Row, waiting for the imam to come and
minister his final ablutions, or a raghead to help you find his Wudu, this is
the confession the death obsessed Muslim will pen:

We hate you, first and foremost, because you
are disbelievers; you reject the oneness of Allah – whether you realize it or
not – by making partners for Him in worship, you blaspheme against Him,
claiming that He has a son, you fabricate lies against His prophets and
messengers, and you indulge in all manner of devilish practices.

Speaking
as one who rejects the oneness of Allah-Walla (whatever that may mean), I think
you are all homicidal, sired-by-second-and-third cousins to guarantee a
constant lineage of mental sub-normal offspring with definite cognitive
deficiencies, and have the IQ of a retarded turtle. I hate you, too. I’m amused
by your rage every time President Trump calls you bloodthirsty
“terrorists.” Why you should be so upset is beyond comprehension; after all,
haven’t you said any number of times?:

Quran
8:12 – “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve.
Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them”

Verse
(8:12)

Yusuf Ali:
Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): “I am with
you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instil terror into the hearts of
the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips
off them.”

Quran (8:15) – “O ye who believe! When ye meet those who disbelieve in battle, turn
not your backs to them. (16)Whoso on that day turneth his back to them,
unless maneuvering for battle or intent to join a company, he truly hath
incurred wrath from Allah, and his habitation will be hell, a hapless journey’s
end.” (Don’t chicken out?)

Or, in your own dissembling lingo, which resembles the
Klingon tongue:

Ith yoohee rabbuka ila almala-ikati
annee maAAakum fathabbitoo allatheena amanoo saolqee fee
quloobi allatheena kafaroo alrruAAba
faidriboo fawqa al-aAAnaqi
waidriboo minhum kulla
bananin — :”I shall
cast terror into the hearts of those who are bent on denying the truth;
strike, then, their necks, [O believers,] and strike off every one of their
finger-tips!” (Muhammad Asad)

So, if you’re not terrorists, busy
in terrorism, what is it you’re doing? Baking cookies? Knitting doilies? Why would you object
to being called terrorists?

Well, on to more curious assertions

Muslims are the Morlocks who eat the Eloi

Thus,
even if you were to stop fighting us, your best-case scenario in a state of war
would be that we would suspend our attacks against you – if we deemed it
necessary – in order to focus on the closer and more immediate threats, before
eventually resuming our campaigns against you.

Furthermore,
just as your disbelief is the primary reason we hate you, your disbelief is the
primary reason we fight you, as we have been commanded to fight the disbelievers
until they submit to the authority of Islam, either by becoming Muslims, or by
paying jizyah – for those afforded
this option – and living in humiliation under the rule of the Muslims. Thus,
even if you were to stop fighting us, your best-case scenario in a state of war
would be that we would suspend our attacks against you – if we deemed it
necessary – in order to focus on the closer and more immediate threats, before
eventually resuming our campaigns against you. Apart from the option of a temporary
truce, this is the only likely scenario that would bring you fleeting respite
from our attacks. So in the end, you cannot bring an indefinite halt to our war
against you. At most, you could only delay it temporarily. “And fight them
until there is no fitnah [paganism]
and [until] the religion, all of it, is for Allah” (Al-Baqarah 193).

We hate you because your secular, liberal societies permit the very things that
Allah has prohibited while banning many of the things He has permitted, a
matter that doesn’t concern you because you separate between religion and
state, thereby granting supreme authority to your whims and desires via the
legislators you vote into power. In doing so, you desire to rob Allah of His
right to be obeyed and you wish to usurp that right for yourselves.
“Legislation is not but for Allah” (Yusuf 40). Your secular liberalism has led
you to tolerate and even support “gay rights,” to allow alcohol, drugs,
fornication, gambling, and usury to become widespread, and to encourage the people
to mock those who denounce these filthy sins and vices. As such, we wage war
against you to stop you from spreading your disbelief and debauchery – your
secularism and nationalism, your perverted liberal values, your Christianity
and atheism – and all the depravity and corruption they entail. You’ve made it
your mission to “liberate” Muslim societies; we’ve made it our mission to fight
off your influence and protect mankind from your misguided concepts and your
deviant way of life.

3.
In the case of the atheist fringe, we hate you and wage war against you because
you disbelieve in the existence of your Lord and Creator.

You witness the
extraordinarily complex makeup of created beings, and the astonishing and
inexplicably precise physical laws that govern the entire universe, but insist
that they all came about through randomness and that one should be faulted,
mocked, and ostracized for recognizing that the astonishing signs we witness
day after day are the creation of the Wise, All-Knowing Creator and not the
result of accidental occurrence. “Or were they created by nothing, or were they
the creators [of themselves]?” (AtTur 35). Your disbelief in your Creator
further leads you to deny the Day of Judgment, claiming that “you only live
once.” “Those who disbelieve have claimed that they will never be resurrected.
Say, ‘Yes, by my Lord, you will surely be resurrected; then you will surely be
informed of what you did. And that, for Allah, is easy’” (At-Taghabun 7).

We hate you for your crimes against Islam and wage war against you to punish
you for your transgressions against our religion. As long as your subjects
continue to mock our faith, insult the prophets of Allah – including Noah,
Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad p
– burn the Quran, and openly vilify the laws of the Shari’ah, we will continue
to retaliate, not with slogans and placards, but with bullets and knives.

We hate you for your crimes against the Muslims; your drones and fighter jets
bomb, kill, and maim our people around the world, and your puppets in the
usurped lands of the Muslims oppress, torture, and wage war against anyone who
calls to the truth. As such, we fight you to stop you from killing our men,
women, and children, to liberate those of them whom you imprison and torture,
and to take revenge for the countless Muslims who’ve suffered as a result of
your deeds. 6. We hate you for invading our lands and fight you to repel you
and drive you out. As long as there is an inch of territory left for us to
reclaim, jihad will continue to be a personal obligation on every single
Muslim. What’s important to understand here is that although some might argue
that your foreign policies are the extent of what drives our hatred, this
particular reason for hating you is secondary, hence the reason we
addressed it at the end of the above list.

The fact is, even if you were to
stop bombing us, imprisoning us, torturing us, vilifying us, and usurping our
lands, we would continue to hate you because our primary reason for hating you
will not cease to exist until you embrace Islam. Even if you were to pay jizyah
and live under the authority of Islam in humiliation, we would continue to hate
you.

No doubt, we would stop fighting you then as we would stop fighting
any disbelievers who enter into a covenant with us, but we would not stop
hating you. What’s equally if not more important to understand is that we fight
you, not simply to punish and deter you, but to bring you true freedom in this
life and salvation in the Hereafter, freedom from being enslaved to your whims
and desires as well as those of your clergy and legislatures, and salvation by
worshiping your Creator alone and following His messenger. We fight you in
order to bring you out from the darkness of disbelief and into the light of
Islam, and to liberate you from the constraints of living for the sake of the
worldly life alone so that you may enjoy both the blessings of the worldly life
and the bliss of the Hereafter. The gist of the matter is that there is indeed
a rhyme to our terrorism, warfare, ruthlessness, and brutality.

As much as some
liberal journalist would like you to believe that we do what we do because
we’re simply monsters with no logic behind our course of action, the fact
is that we continue to wage – and escalate – a calculated war that the West
thought it had ended several years ago. We continue dragging you further and
further into a swamp you thought you’d already escaped only to realize that
you’re stuck even deeper within its murky waters… And we do so while offering you
a way out on our terms. So you can continue to believe that those “despicable
terrorists” hate you because of your lattes and your Timberlands, and continue
spending ridiculous amounts of money to try to prevail in an unwinnable war, or
you can accept reality and recognize that we will never stop hating you until
you embrace Islam, and will never stop fighting you until you’re ready to leave
the swamp of warfare and terrorism through the exits we provide, the very exits
put forth by our Lord for the People of the Scripture: Islam, jizyah, or – as a last means of
fleeting respite – a temporary truce.

With Islam, it’s always “temporary.”

Phobias a la carte

By Edward Cline

On March 19, 2018

In Uncategorized

Mueller could not find the Prancing Unicorn

There’s “Islamophobia,” which
literally means an “unreasoning” fear of Islam (a fear, but utterly reasonable,
based on the repeated jihadist attacks that have killed hundreds of people) and
what it can do to your rights or your life or your country – that is, to end
them .

And then there is
“Trumpophobia,” meaning a persistent, unreasoning, obsessive, incurable hatred
of Donald Trump, a phobia based on emotion stemming from an unremitting resentment
that Trump “robbed” them of another shot at a “transformative,” destructive hegemony
over the culture, as Obama had permitted them the luxury during his eight-year term.

The condition is similar to
the criminal psychosis inculcated by Islam. The neurosis – or rather the psychosis – goes on and on
like a yammering broken record with no off switch.
The Trump- Russia collusion investigation that Robert Mueller has been
chasing as an elusive, highway mirage for a year, was finally declared without
substance and basically illusionary. It was a highway to nowhere. State governments
have built many of those. One got tired of seeing Mueller’s morose face almost
everywhere one turned.

There is the phobia narrated
by a Swedish
countess who moved from Sweden to Hungary because there are few if any Muslim
migrants there to
molest her, rob her, deny her job because her employment interviewers of
migrants. This is a common phobia, as the countess, explains, among Swedes who
are afraid to intervene in molestation, because they could be stabbed. Many Swedes, she reports, are moving to
countries that do not permit the mass invasion of migrants.

Of particular concern is the
phobia exhibited by James
Comey, the former FBI director fired by Trump. His legion of crimes and
misdemeanors is admirably explicated by Joseph
E. diGenova

at Hillsdale College. After outlining Hillary’s numerous crimes, misdemeanors,
and acts of treason, Comey refused to indict her, as he said they weren’t
serious enough to merit a grand jury, and let her off the hook. In February 2018, diGenova details those crimes in “The
Politicization of the FBI.”

The
Hillary Clinton email scandal began in 2013 with the U.S. House of
Representatives investigation into the attack on the American embassy in
Benghazi, Libya, on September 11, 2012. It was during that investigation that
accessing Secretary of State Clinton’s emails became an issue. But it wasn’t
until The New York Times broke the story on March 2, 2015, that Clinton
had a secret, personal server that things really took off.

Thousands
of emails that the House at first requested, then subpoenaed, conveniently
disappeared—remember those reports about BleachBit and the smashing of
Clinton’s numerous phones with hammers? Clinton and her aides were, to say the
least, not forthcoming. It was clearly time for the FBI and DOJ to act, using
the legal tools at their disposal to secure the emails and other materials the
House had subpoenaed. But that didn’t happen.

One
tool at their disposal was the grand jury—the sine qua non of a criminal
investigation. Grand juries are comprised of 16 to 23 citizens who hear a
prosecutor’s case against an alleged criminal. The subject of the investigation
is not present during the entire proceeding, which can last up to a year. A
grand jury provides investigators with the authority to collect evidence by
issuing subpoenas for documents and witnesses. FBI agents and prosecutors
cannot themselves demand evidence. Only a grand jury can—or a court, in cases
where a subpoena recipient refuses a grand jury’s command to provide documents
or to testify.

Incredibly, FBI Director Comey and Attorney
General Lynch refused to convene a grand jury during the Clinton investigation.
Thus investigators had no authority to subpoena evidence or witnesses. Lacking
leverage, Comey then injudiciously granted immunity to five Clinton aides in
return for evidence that could have been obtained with a subpoena. Even when
Clinton claimed 39 times during a July 2, 2016, interview—an interview led by
disgraced FBI agent Peter
Strzok—that she could not recall certain facts because of a head injury,
Comey refused the case agents’ request to subpoena her medical records.

“Head injuries – a.k.a. phobias for the truth,
or, what European authorities habitually attribute to a murdering jihadi, “mental
problems” – seem to be fairly common in Washington, D.C. The Islamic phobia is based on a fear of
offending Muslims or Islam, or of being accused of racism, even though Islam is
not a race, but a supremacist ideology in the guise of a religion. In Comey’s case
his phobia seems to have been viraly communicated from Hillary Clinton, a habitual liar.

Comey’s dereliction did not stop at the
failure to utilize essential prosecutorial tools. He violated several rules
that prosecutors consider sacrosanct:

Comey allowed one lawyer to represent four
material witnesses, an arrangement ripe for the four to coordinate testimony.

After needlessly giving immunity to two
lawyers representing Clinton, Comey permitted both to sit in on her July 2,
2016, FBI interview—a patent conflict. He claimed he could not control who sat
in on the “voluntary” interview. That’s nonsense. He could have convened a
grand jury, subpoenaed Clinton, and compelled her to appear and be questioned without
a lawyer or else plead the Fifth Amendment.

Comey authorized the destruction of laptop
computers that belonged to Clinton’s aides and were under congressional
subpoena.

Comey ignored blatant evidence of
culpability. It is ridiculous to the general public and risible to those who
have security clearances for Clinton to claim she thought that “(c)” placed
after paragraphs in her emails meant the material was in alphabetical order
rather than meaning it was classified. If she thought (c) indicated alphabetical
order, where were (a) and (b) on the documents? Clinton and her supporters
touted her vast experience as a U.S. Senator and Secretary of State, positions
requiring frequent use of classified information and presumably common sense.
Yet neither experience nor common sense informed her decisions when handling
classified materials.

Comey and the FBI never questioned Clinton
about her public statements, which changed over time and were blatantly false.
“I did not email classified information to anyone” morphed into “I did not
email anything marked ‘classified,’” which morphed into the claim that (c) did
not mean what it clearly meant. False and changing statements are presented to
juries routinely by prosecutors as evidence of guilt.

Breaking DOJ protocols, violating the chain
of command, and assuming an authority he never had, Comey usurped the role of
the U.S. attorney general on July 5, 2016, when he announced that the case
against Clinton was closed.

The next excellently parsed
phobia of Comey, Mueller, and Company is by Victor David Hanson in his March
13th essay, “Swamp
Things in the Russia Investigation,” in which he writes,

“The Swamp”
usually refers to the vast federal bureaucratic machinery of mostly unelected
top officials who exercise influence and power without worry about the
appearance of conflicts of interest. They are often exempt from the
consequences of the laws and regulations that affect others. The chief
characteristics of the swamp are the interlocking friendships, business
relationships, marriages and partnerships in Washington, and their immune
response against anyone who challenges them.

Robert Mueller’s
investigation into alleged collusion between Russia and Donald Trump’s
presidential campaign has proven the locus classicus of a
dysfunctional and highly incestuous Washington culture—so much so that it
borders on being a caricature of a Washington investigation.

The Origins of the
Robert Mueller Appointment: How did it come about? Mueller’s acquaintance,
former FBI Director James Comey (Mueller and Comey were lauded dating back to
the Bush Administration as “brothers
in arms”), has testified that he was so exasperated with the president that
he leaked his own confidential and likely classified memos of presidential
meetings to the press via a friend in order that it
“might prompt the appointment of a special counsel.” It certainly did that.
And mirabile
dictu, the special counsel was soon none other than Robert Mueller with
whom Comey had had a professional relationship in a variety of contexts for
nearly 20 years. At some point, will one of Mueller’s staff have to depose him
to ask whether he ever discussed the possibility of a special counsel
appointment with Comey prior to Comey’s firing?

The two FBI investigators (and Lisa
Page) had a long-concealed amorous relationship characterized by an
overriding antipathy for Donald Trump and a desire to ensure that he was not
elected president or, barring that, did not prove a successful president. Strzok interviewed Michael Flynn, Huma
Abedin, and Cheryl
Mills. Both Page and Strzok communicated concerning the “insurance” idea
that might suggest efforts to stop Trump’s election or thwart his presidency,
with deputy director Andrew
McCabe.

When the inspector general
released evidence of their prejudices and romantic involvement, they were
dismissed. But Mueller apparently did not announce exactly why they were taken
off his investigation. Their staggered departures were reported in the press as
normal reassignments and not as connected, as if to inform the public why they
were leaving would somehow not be in the Mueller investigation’s interest….

The two FBI investigators had a
long-concealed amorous relationship characterized by an overriding antipathy
for Donald Trump and a desire to ensure that he was not elected president or,
barring that, did not prove a successful president. Strzok interviewed Michael
Flynn, Huma Abedin, and Cheryl Mills. Both Page and Strzok communicated
concerning the “insurance” idea that might suggest efforts to stop Trump’s
election or thwart his presidency, with deputy director Andrew McCabe.

When the inspector general released evidence
of their prejudices and romantic involvement, they were dismissed. But Mueller
apparently did not announce exactly why they were taken off his investigation.
Their staggered departures were reported in the press as normal reassignments
and not as connected, as if to inform the public why they were leaving would
somehow not be in the Mueller investigation’s interest.

In sum, all the Swamp
creatures discussed by Hanson and diGenova worked secretively but assiduously to
find “dirt” on Donald Trump in order to remove him from office, and to manipulate
reality. The dirt was not found, because
it didn’t exist. Their animus is incurable.
They will not let go the inexorable fact that they lost. Their phobias will
likely follow them to their graves, and, hopefully, first, to their jail cells.

The Era of Malice

By Edward Cline

On March 17, 2018

In Uncategorized

The Era of Malice

Whatever happened to those
friendly, blue pith- helmeted British “constables on patrol” of yore? The stolid ones who walked the foggy streets armed
only with nightsticks, and gave you some visible assurance they were on the
lookout for bad guys, and not you?

They’ve been long buried, or retired,
or have been replaced by PC-friendly, PC-compliant nonentities who’ll take
orders and harass or arrest advocates of the freedom of speech, rather than
risk dismissal and a pension for calling a Muslim a Muslim. They’d
prefer to arrest Winston Churchill for
bad-mouthing Nazis or Muslims than blow a whistle in pursuit of criminals. Paul
Weston, a British libertarian, was arrested
and silenced for reading excerpts from Churchil’s The
River War. The “constables” are now on the lookout for you and for any evidence of “hate
speech” against especially Muslims.

It’s evidence of Britain’s
capitulation to Islam that it persecutes the advocates of the opposition of
such capitulation that three individuals were barred from entering Britain
because they allegedly posted a threat to “public safety” by holding their
views. Lauren Southern,
and Austrian activist Martin Sellner of
Génération Identitaire and his girlfriend, American author and YouTuber
Brittany Pettibone. Southern was detained in Calais, while Sellner
and Pettibone were imprisoned for three days after being grilled on their
political beliefs and speeches in Islamized Europe.

Sadiq
Khan, the Muslim mayor of London, and determined to “transform” the City into a
Sharia-compliant center of Islamic triumph, has called for the tech companies
to sift out and crush free speech, as though the
tech companies weren’t doing enough already. Do not defame Islam with “Islamophobia”
or you will “spend a
night in the box” or worse. Khan makes Oliver Cromwell look like a Quaker.
The American Thinker has his number. On
March 14th it ran this article, “Sadiq
Khan Squelches Freedom of Thought and Expression”:

Sadiq Khan, the
first Muslim mayor of London, will be speaking at a conference of
technology executives in Austin, Texas.  The gist of his remarks has
been announced.  It
is a speech advocating a troika of control, condemnation, and confiscation.  The
control he requests is that the masters of the internet bar anti-Islamic
comments and threats.  His condemnation is of President Donald Trump
for his tweets (especially those in support of Britain First), which have
proven to be an encouragement to those with an anti-Islamic
agenda.  And he suggests that the big technology firms be taxed not
on the basis of profits, but on the basis of revenue if the anti-Islamic
messages continue on the internet, thus threatening confiscation if his
“advice” is not taken.  He has expressed delight at Germany’s
hate speech laws, advocated and advanced by Angela Merkel.

CAIR
attempted to shut down a talk by Anni
Cyrus,, a former Iranian refugee invited by a chapter of the American
Legion, to speak about the horrors women face in mullah land (and which she
endured for fifteen years), but failed when the chapter president, an
ex-Marine, told CAIR to go shoe a goose. Jihad
Watch wrote:

Regardless of
CAIR’S effort to silence Anni Cyrus, the event
went as planned, on Sunday, March 11, thanks to the American Legion’s
refusal to bow to an organization as unsavory as CAIR and allow it to dictate
who it features as speakers. This is an important push-back against how
confused and compromised the American public sphere has become. Anni Cyrus is a
courageous and much-needed voice trying to dispel that confusion. She should be
heard, without interference from the polite and sinister authoritarians of
CAIR.

Midnight for S.A. whites

In the meantime, the genocide
of white farmers (and of whites in general) continues apace in South Africa,
whose Parliament adopted the new
law that would confiscate without compensation
white-owned farms, and also just murder whites or reduce them to subsistence-level
penury. Quartz
Africa offers this confusing report
concerning the Australian offer to “fast-track” visas for white farmer:

A potential offer by Australia to give white
South African farmers “humanitarian” visas has sparked backlash from the South
African government.

Australia’s home affairs, immigration and
border protection minister Peter Dutton said he had asked his department to
“look at ways in which we can provide some assistance”, following claims in the country’s Rupert Murdoch-owned newspapers
that “white South African farmers are murdered every week….”

The South African government denies
that it intends to wipe out whites.

“There is no need to fear. We want to say to
the world that we are engaged in a process of land redistribution which is very
important to address the imbalances of the past,” a spokesperson for
international relations minister Lindiwe Sisulu told
Guardian Australia. “But it is going to be done legally, and with due
consideration of the economic impact and impact on individuals.”

There is plenty to fear. “Redistribution”
means a Stalinist
policy, which resulted in the deaths by murder or by intended starvation of
millions of Russians, a phenomenon which will be repeated in South Africa. It is not
only farmers who will be targeted, but the countless white engineers and
technicians who have been removed from their jobs and relegated to shanty towns or squatter
towns.

The
Daily Beast, a digital Antifa -clone of the Internet censors (in company with Google,
Twitter,
and Facebook),
recently ran an article by one of its “star” reporters on the Instagram and the
daughters of widely read and admired Pamela Geller.
The
Federalist, in a not-very-friendly story, reported:

Will never surrender

The Twitter account of Instagram
celebrity Claudia Oshry, who goes by the username Girl With No Job, has
gone dark, after The Daily Beast unearthed political tweets from 2012
and revealed that her mother is right-wing provocateur Pamela Geller.

Claudia and her sisters Jackie, Olivia and
Margo Oshry, had gone to “great lengths to conceal their connection to their
mother,” who has been the target of multiple attempts on her life, The Beast
reported Wednesday. A man
was convicted last October for attempting to behead Geller on behalf
of ISIS last year. In 2015, Geller hosted a controversial drawing contest in
Garland, Texas offering cash prizes of the best drawing of the prophet Mohamed.
The event was the target of a mass shooting that was foiled by police officers
who saved
countless lives by stopping the two terrorists. [Not merely “stopped” them,
but shot them dead.]

The sisters had also posted messages
supportive of President Trump as well as tweets mocking Obama, which The Beast
highlighted.

Pamela Geller is a “provocateur”? Not really. That’s what The Federalist called
her. She reports the news which the MSM
ignores and which the tech giants try their best to hide from sight of viewers,
or remove altogether, or quash completely. The actions by the Daily Beast have
imperiled the lives of these women.

The madness caused by Islam
and anti-Trumpism
has morphed into unabashed malevolence.

The Official Blog Of Edward Cline

Month: March 2018

Progressive Extinction of Freedom of Speech

Linda Sarsour’s Sharia

Diabolic Dabiq: Or, Why We Hate Islam

Phobias a la carte

The Era of Malice

The Era of Malice