A Hum of Hate


Has anyone noticed the Dems and the Mainstream Media (MSM) constantly call President Trump and his Conservative supporters violent racists? But on the contrary it is the Dems and MSM either inciting Leftists to be violent or angering Conservatives to the point of violence. Justin Smith looks at the true origins of hate inspired violence.

 

JRH 8/18/19

Your generosity is always appreciated: 

Please Support NCCR

Support this Blog HERE. Or support by getting in 

the Coffee from home business – OR just buy some healthy coffee.

***********************

A Hum of Hate  

A Steady Erasure of America’s Culture

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent Sun 8/18/2019 12:09 AM

 

Contrary to what anyone might think, including the hardcore Democratic Party communists and their Antifa buddies, there is absolutely nothing socially redeeming, insightful or advanced and “forward thinking” in the “progressive” ideas that advocate “kill whitey” and set forth the fallacy that all conservative Christian whites must also be “white supremacists”, who must be punished for slavery and the crimes of their ancestors. Although their identity politics agenda has always been a grift, a con, and cover for their anti-white agitation, in times when they couldn’t simply be in the open with their hatred for “whitey” as they are now, whether the hate comes from self-loathing Leftist whites or from people of color, the hardcore Democrat socialists and communists and Antifa fascists currently inject hatred of whites into every conversation and keep a quiet low-grade riot, a hum of hate, boiling just under the surface waiting to explode and destroy America’s domestic tranquility.

 

I’m guilty of nothing except loving America, so I won’t be checking my “white privilege” anytime soon, and I suggest any other white people should stop buying into this racist nonsense, that somehow we are guilty for having benefited from our Forefathers’ sins of slavery. I accept none of it.

 

Far from “white supremacy”, the average white male has consistently been denied equality for decades. They have been discriminated against in university admissions and employment, and especially most recently, free speech is denied to them. Google fires white males for stating facts. The ridiculous overused charge of white supremacy is now being used like a club to beat the white people to the back of the bus, in a dangerous machination to propagandize white people out of existence.

 

I’ve always been proud of who I am, a strong willed American patriot — who also just happens to be white. But for me, race has never been something I concerned myself with too much, other than times I have addressed some inconsiderate and insulting bigoted and racist remark or action aimed at any person, regardless of their color, white, red, yellow or black. And I always looked more at the content of one’s character, their race being secondary to everything and of little importance to any interaction I might have with them, unless it was an issue for them.

 

The 1965 Immigration Act was signed on October 3rd, before an entirely white audience on Liberty Island, with Ellis Island in the background, after extensive promises that it wouldn’t alter America’s demographic, political or cultural sectors. However, it proved to be a revolutionary bill that has gutted our immigration quota system, blocking most Europeans’ efforts to immigrate to America, a contrived ploy by “progressive Democrats” such as Senator Ted Kennedy, who claimed our system was “discriminatory”; they understood that most of the Third World would vote Democrat when any of their members reached our shores. And look at America’s diseased multicultural socialist population today, from Black Lives Matter to the New Black Panthers and Antifa to CAIR [SA DTN, National Review, IPT, Anti-CAIR to name a few aware exposés] and the Muslim Brotherhood [SA DTN: ‘THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD’S “GLOBAL PROJECT FOR PALESTINE”’, DTN: ‘THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD’S “GENERAL STRATEGIC GOAL” FOR NORTH AMERICA, CEP: ‘THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD’S TIES TO EXTREMISTS’, Gatestone Institute: ‘History of the Muslim Brotherhood Penetration of the U.S. Government’ and CIRC: ‘Barack Obama’s Support for the Muslim Brotherhood’], and even La Raza [La Raza Unida and National Council of La Raza (as of 7/11/17 aka UnidosUS)].

 

For the past fifty-five years, Americans have watched a steady erasure of their culture occur right in front of them, with even their art being deemed “racist” due to its depiction of Historical FACT, in a blatant and arbitrary manner, as Third World hordes of invaders, often socialists and anarchists, swarm the nation and revise our history in their attempts to obliterate our cultural identity, that was once indisputably European and First World in nature. There was absolutely no moral imperative to pursue such a destructive agenda and this purge, but the anti-American, anti-freedom and anti-liberty forces within our own Congress and federal government decided to weaponize immigration, as a means to circumventing and eventually eradicating our U.S, Constitution and the very Founding of America.

 

Thomas Jefferson once said: “When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty.” [Blog Editor: In researching this quote, I discovered many quotes attributed to Jefferson used in relation to the 2nd Amendment and rebellion were not ever written or spoken by our 3rd President. That includes Justin’s quote used above. BUT many of those falsely attributed quotes of Jefferson reflect Jeffersonian sentiments. For example here is an excerpt from Jefferson to Madison dated January 30, 1787 reads:

 

“I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical.1 Unsuccesful rebellions indeed generally establish the incroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions, as not to discourage them too much. It is a medecine necessary for the sound health of government.”

 

And an excerpt from Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright dated June 5, 1824 reads:

 

“the constitutions of most of our states assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, both fact and law, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person; freedom of religion; freedom of property; and freedom of the press.” (Underlined emphasis is mine)]

 

It is not justice when our government abdicates its primary responsibility to defend and protects the people and culture that placed it in power, and it chooses to codify into law the forces that will annihilate us, just as is currently also evidenced in unconstitutional “legislation” by sanctuary cities and sanctuary states. We also see this through the Democratic Party’s refusal to secure the border. It is primarily due to this injustice and such egregious “laws” as the 1965 Immigration Act, among others, and the refusal of the current House to hear our grievances, that all Americans must take a new and more forceful stance, to see this destructive madness end.

 

I am not so concerned myself, with being “replaced” by people of color, as many whites are obsessed with the issue; however, I am concerned that an overwhelming number of the people of color who are immigrating to America hold to ideologies that are antithetical to Western Principles and the Founding Principles that made America great, i.e. communism and Islam, and that they now openly speak of erasing the white race from the face of the earth, through violence and murder, just as one should expect from all good Marxists, especially now that their ranks have grown so large in America among the Millennials, and especially once they attain the majority.

 

In July of 2016. Micah Johnson, a black nationalist and the murderer of six Dallas police officers, told the hostage negotiator that he was angry on the behalf of Black Lives Matter and he “wanted to kill white people, especially police officers”. [Johnson liked a] Facebook page [from the Black Nationalist group known as African American Defense League] encouraged followers to “Attack Everything In Blue Except the Mailman”.

 

Over the past decade, King Samir Shabazz, leader of Philadelphia’s New Black Panthers, has stated on numerous occasions, that “You want freedom, you gonna have to kill some crackers [white people] … You gonna have to kill some of they (sic) babies.” The rules of behavior seem to be non-existent and these new radicals have zero respect for the rule of law and anyone’s Constitutional rights, not even one’s right to life, the most sacred of all things.

 

Tom Curry, a black man and an associate professor of philosophy at Texas A & M, in a 2014 interview entitled ‘White People Are the Problem’, essentially denied that people can reason logically despite their race. He even criticized Dr. Martin Luther King, JR. and other black theologians and theorists for suggesting that white people can be reasonable, and revealing his own racism and intolerance, he stated, “[for blacks] to be equal, in order to be liberated, some white people might have to die.”

 

[Blog Editor: In full disclosure, the Left (e.g. Left-Wing Fact Checkers like Snopes) claim Curry was smeared and taken out of context. Rod Dreher (that I embedded link in the name “Tom Curry,” takes the Conservative position Curry was advocating killing White people. The podcast interview pointed to by Justin Smith (transcript embedded above in the title) actually has Curry saying, “… some white people may have to die” speaks so fast that I am unsure Curry is advocating killing White people or if he is advocating African-Americans have as much right to bare arms as a White person to protect themselves from an angry White person. I’ll let you make the call:

 

VIDEO: Dr. Tommy Curry on killing whites

 

Posted by Rob Redding

Published on Dec 27, 2012] 

 

We can also thank useful idiots like Frank Zappa and songs similar to ‘Trouble Every Day’, for the racial environment we have inherited, that enshrines the Watts Riots in Los Angeles in August of 1965. In part and in self-loathing style, it serenades one with the disturbed words, “… I’m not black, but there’s a whole lot of times I wish I could say I’m not white”.

 

Noel Ignatiev, an academic and a son of Jewish Russian immigrants, has campaigned for whiteness to be abolished, once stating: “The goal of destroying the white race is simply so desirable, it boggles the mind trying to understand how anyone could possibly object to it.” Ignatiev has stated that white people are a cancer and should kill themselves; and I say to him, “You First.” [Blog Editor: The quote Justin is referencing never took place. It derives from a satirical website called Diversity Chronicle which published a fake interview with Ignatiev claiming a Harvard retirement speech to his White students. Part of the problem is at the time in question Ignatiev had not retired. (according to The Blaze 11/26/13)  BUT in my opinion, even the words spoken and the interview never happened, it’s not difficult to extrapolate such an offensive story from Noel Ignatiev based on his anti-White legacy which is entirely accurate.]

 

Heavy Democrat controlled areas of the United States, such as Baltimore, Oakland, Los Angeles and Portland, are now permanent riot zones. There may not be a riot today in any of these Leftist communities and their ghettos, but tomorrow may not say the same, given the Democratic Commies’ tireless efforts to rile blacks and anti-white poor whites to mobilize to action outside of their designated riot zones. It can only be a matter of time, before all hell breaks loose in America, if we stay this course.

 

Americans will not have a nation without a sovereign identity and there can be no sovereign identity without a nation. This is the key insight of multiculturalist Marxists, and their agenda that has always been focused on America’s destruction. To have a multicultural society is to have no culture whatsoever, and once a people’s historical identity — their heritage —  is destroyed, the nation is not far behind. And this is precisely what is currently unfolding in America, as the various ideologies struggle against one another — socialism and tyranny vs capitalism and freedom — and as the bureaucrats attempt to perform basic duties as the turmoil envelopes them.

 

I could give a good damn less if I am replaced at some point, since I expect to die sometime within the next forty years or so, maybe even tomorrow, but I am concerned that those who follow may not — probably won’t from all indications — have the same respect and love for America that I hold for Her deep within my breast. I am concerned that those who follow seek to tear the Founding asunder “by any means necessary”, including violence, and although I have defended all races in my lifetime, at one point or another, whenever a group of any people come to murder me and mine, simply due to the fact that I happen to be white, I will spill their blood ’til I grow tired or am killed myself.

 

Any man of any color who stands for those principles of truth and honor, our nation’s Judeo-Christian and Western principles and the U.S. Constitution is one of my kin, one of my tribe, if tribalism is to be the rule of the day. And anyone seeking to destroy our culture and heritage and usher in something foreign is my enemy. Color never enters the equation, since I subscribe to the belief that all who are here legally are simply Americans, and my primary goal is to leave a nation behind me whose people and leaders ensure freedom and liberty for all, not just for people of color, not just for whites.

 

But just as we witnessed today, August 17th 2019, in Portland, Oregon where Mayor Ted Wheeler and the police seemed to once again give preferential treatment to Antifa over conservatives and Christians, the hardcore socialists and their multicultural race-baiters have largely attempted to de-platform, silence and marginalize conservative speech and any counter to their anti-American agenda, pushing us to resist however we can and however we must [See Townhall.com and Washington Examiner: HERE and HERE]. We have a moral right, a duty and an obligation to future generations to resist what we are currently witnessing and experiencing, a moral right firmly based on the duty to preserve and safeguard the world created by our ancestors and the Founding Fathers, coupled with the sense that we must pass this legacy of freedom and liberty forward to our children and their children’s children and beyond. And however repugnant we might find violence as the solution, past honorable men, moral men, once found it necessary to use violence to secure our freedom and liberty.

 

[Blog Editor: In the process of researching Antifa violence a mere one day ago, I am appalled by the lack of respectable Conservative sources reporting on the Antifa perpetrated violence. I also found it interesting that there was a lack of reporting on groups typically described as White Supremacist (e.g. The Proud Boys) being attacked by Antifa thugs. Sources I consider to Left-Wing biased MSM were all over the place on three different search engines. Unsurprisingly Google did not even have one Conservative site (that’s all that Duck Duck Go and Bing had) in their search engine listings that stopped at 10 levels as of 6:30 PM 8/18/19. Duck Duck Go had Townhall.com and Bing had two similar listings both the Washington Examiner. Does that mean the Conservatives didn’t report? I DON’T BELIEVE IT! I just believe their websites were ostracized.]

 

I hope and pray that civil war really isn’t quite as possible as I know it is. And more than any “race war”, this will be a war between the forces of tyranny and freedom, as old as time itself.

 

The Left doesn’t share this view, and it seems to welcome such a coming death dealing conflagration and the unleashing of the dogs of war, especially since the instigators think they will be unscathed by it, when the violence and killing starts in earnest. But, their names are on lists, and those with their names on lists, when such firestorms ignite usually end up in a garbage dump or hung from a pole, regardless of who wins.

 

This path will not end well, for the nation as a whole, and it especially will not end well for the socialists and racists; but it will end, one way or another, with the good and decent patriotic Americans actively confronting and impeding the machinery of our destruction.

 

Americans must engage this conflict with everything within their being, and with all the love they hold for our country, because this truly is a struggle for the very survival of America, our nation-state and our culture. There is nothing more important this very moment, than this domestic existential threat to country, since this represents the struggle of our century. Nothing will ever be more honorable than fighting for the survival of our people, and the very laws of nature demand it, since only a perverse fool could believe that “being on the right side of history” means capitulating to one’s own extinction.

 

By Justin O. Smith

________________________

Edited by John R. Houk

Text enclosed by brackets and all source links are by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

 

Take America Home to Better Days


Norman Rockwell

Christmas Homecoming by Norman Rockwell

 

If you are a Baby Boomer (or actually older), you’ll appreciate Justin Smith’s reminiscing of younger days. If you are from any generation of Americans that are post Baby Boomer born, you should read this as a Jeremiad warning of a possible (Justin might argue probable) American decent into a dark future.

 

JRH 7/21/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

************************

Take America Home to Better Days

[Before the] Destroying the [of] American Family

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 7/20/2019 7:08 PM

 

Older men, such as myself, surely must sit in amazement and incredulous dismay at the direction the “Women’s Liberation” movement has taken America, since the 1970s, as it is currently and regularly stated in many sectors of society, that men’s energy and sexuality must be “harnessed and directed”, while at the same time men and their masculinity are attacked, as something “toxic”. Women in all settings, especially the nuclear family, used to be the harnessing factor, but now, it seems they spew a hatred of men better than anything of socially redeeming worth.

 

It is important to recall that this movement emanated from the Communist Manifesto and the teachings of Marx and Engels, and it was aimed primarily at accelerating the destruction of the nuclear family.

 

And when one looks at the results, one finds it has succeeded better than could be imagined, as today, America sees large populations of angry young men, void of social mores, without any direction for their lives and largely unemployed or a perpetual student; they are men-boys without any interest in babies, who have grown up shiftless and violent.

 

Far too many of America’s young women exhibit the same ailments and social ills, as the young men, while even worse, they are neglectful of the children they have borne, they are unkempt and in many instances, they exhibit few of the finer feminine qualities and bear little resemblance to women. We can call them “female”, but as for “women” that remains questionable, for they are far from the strong women of yesteryear that helped strong men build an Exceptional and strong America.

 

Those embittered young men who are involuntarily celibate, “incels“, say that this condition is forced on them, because women simply will not have sex with them. Yet, they do nothing extra to help themselves appeal to any woman at all. Women, on the other hand, heap on an extra amount of abuse and do nothing to help them change, ridiculing them instead.

 

Women blame the “patriarchy” for their hostile attitudes to modern men, and yet women work, own property, vote, hold public office, drive, have credit in their own name, go to college, have sex whenever they want and they even murder their own babies at will, and they have done all of this for a very long time. So, I don’t know exactly what the patriarchy is doing to hold them back, but they’ve been pretty inept to this point.

 

Deny it all you wish, but this vicious cycle is a direct result of the immoral policies long advocated by the Democratic Party, in the name of “the people”, “freedom” and “the Constitution”, when the exact reverse was the only truth. It’s always been about power and control, and it’s a firm truth that the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world, which is the reason Democrats say, “it takes a village to raise a child” and advocate the lie that the State’s interest in the children of their domain supersedes the parents’ rights.

 

Currently, women similar to women of yesteryear, all the good and decent conservative Christian women of America today, are the natural caretakers of our children, and as such, they also double as the societal gatekeepers. Throughout history, women wielded more power than many admit, through their families and the social circles of the world.

 

When I was a young boy and we would attend family reunions or holiday gatherings, I recall the interactions between my numerous aunts and uncles, the great aunts and uncles especially, as the men were sent outside to drink their beer and spit their tobacco, with the hilarious rolling of the eyes from the women and their warnings to stay away from the kids and watch their mouths. These same rough and tough strong willed men would wash up and behave themselves at the table, when dinner was served, lest the wrath of the Aunts come down upon them like a ton of bricks, and then they rose on Monday and went to work, because they had families depending on them. However, today’s Aunts are right beside the men, drunk as skunks or high as a kite on meth or heroin or whatever the day’s drug of choice might be and encouraging this bad behavior to their children, on the record and fully displayed for all the world to see.

 

If a man wanted to be accepted in society and have any sort of decent home life, he stayed out of trouble, worked a steady job, stayed clean and took care of business in general, with most even attending a church of one denomination or another, never drinking, or at least drinking too much, and staying away from women who drank too much. Even being in the companionship of a divorced woman was frowned upon at one time, although I do agree this was probably taking things too far, for any time, since sometimes some people just shouldn’t be together; and, these were the men most sought after by women, in years gone by.

 

Women were more sophisticated, refined and decorous in those days, They were more kind and loving and took care of themselves and their families. One wouldn’t find any of them leaving their children alone, while they spent the entire night at a club, and their houses weren’t such messes that even a self-respecting badger or bear wouldn’t live there. And unlike so many of the women today, they didn’t treat their vaginas like a hostage situation was underway and the only way in or out was through a financial transaction of goods or hard cash, quite similar to the oldest profession.

 

We humans are supposed to be far above the animal world. We are supposedly better than the animals who mate and then go on their way without another thought other than surviving another day, yet more often we see our young acting not much better than the animal kingdom. Too many single parents are trying to raise children, on both sides of the genders, and it makes for a difficult situation and so often a less than desirable and suitable situation for any child, that brings suffering to all.

 

From and economic viewpoint, I don’t see us ever returning to a time where women didn’t work outside of the home, and not many would really want that, although I know many conservative women who actually prefer devoting all their energies to their family’s needs and obtaining them through the best of their abilities. However, with technology making life so much easier and no one having to spend a whole day doing laundry and such things, and with food easily accessed at the local grocery store, one would think it leaves much more time for men and women alike to attend the churches and synagogues and to get closer to those Judeo-Christian principles of Our Founding, to get better acquainted with the Western virtues of Our Founding [Blog Editor: A closer examination of Western virtues & America’s Founding in this essay entitled, “Liberty and Virtue in the American Founding”] and to counter the trends of immoral secularism aimed at destroying the foundation of our families, society and culture.

 

It’s all about personal freedom and choices.

 

Our youth are choosing to turn their backs on God and America’s Founding principles, because they have succumbed to the pretty Marxist lies and propaganda that glorify every vile and evil thing imaginable under the sun. They prefer the glitz and the supposed glamour that comes with the immoral lifestyles that are so prevalent today, the lifestyles that bring nothing but misery, sorrow and a hard death, with one’s conscience and soul blackened nearly beyond redemption. They will soon learn a hard lesson, and we can only pray and work towards the end that leads them back along the path of God’s Righteousness and a life well lived, with having lived it reward enough, the sweet kind and loving memories taking Us home to better days, and children held close as the treasure they are.

 

By Justin O. Smith

_______________________

Edited by John R. Houk

Text enclosed by brackets and all source links are by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

 

Introducing the Tolerance of the Intolerable:


What Happens When Mixing Multiculturalism, Islam & Multiculturalism?

John R. Houk

© July 12, 2019

 

On July 10 I posted about Tommy Robinson being a “Rebel Against UK Multiculturalism” pleading for his support even after his unjust conviction criminalizing telling the truth about Muslim pedophilia rapists in the United Kingdom.

 

On July 11 I posted “The UN, Globalist Multiculturalism & Islam One World Despotism” being an agenda leading toward the end of National Sovereignty and Liberty in Western Culture but especially as we Americans have known in the U.S. of A.

 

Today’s post somewhat combines the themes of the last two posts about how elitist Multiculturalists are creating New Speak terminology to force a brainwashed population to tolerate what common sense would tell you is intolerable.

 

It’s time for an English vocabulary lesson. Noisy Room has picked up a Linda Goudsmit post at Pundicity introducing the word “Tolerism” describing Tommy Robinson’s political persecution by the UK judicial system ending Free Speech while submitting to Islamic dhimmitude in the name of culture destroying Multiculturalism.

 

Multiculturalism Destroying Cultures:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

JRH 7/12/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

****************************

The Humanitarian Hoax Of Tommy Robinson’s Conviction: The Death Of Free Speech – Hoax 38

 

By Linda Goudsmit | Pundicity

July 11, 2019 11:29 AM

Noisy Room

 

Tommy Robinson surrounded by police

 

The Humanitarian Hoax is a deliberate and deceitful tactic of presenting a destructive policy as altruistic. The humanitarian huckster presents himself as a compassionate advocate when in fact he is the disguised enemy.

 

The conviction of journalist Tommy Robinson is a humanitarian hoax that has destroyed free speech in England and threatens free speech worldwide. What does this have to do with America?

 

Tommy Robinson is a British journalist who has been reporting on Muslim rape gangs throughout England that have been raping little English school girls with impunity for decades. The savagery of their acts, and that British authorities are covering up this massive atrocity against the innocent, is extremely destabilizing to British society. Civilized people reject the protection of perpetrators at the expense of victims.

 

For civilized people, Tommy Robinson is the heroic whistleblower who exposed the horror of Muslim rape gangs and their unspeakable acts of barbarity in England. British society experiences enormous confusion and cognitive dissonance because British authorities protect Muslim rape gangs and embolden them by prohibiting the reporting of their heinous acts of savagery. Why is this happening?

 

Let’s sort this out by examining the reasons in numerical order.

 

  1. Tolerism

 

Tolerism is defined by Howard Rotberg in his 2014 book, Tolerism: The Ideology Revealed, [Blog Editor: The GoodReads.com added by me. Book Review] as “excessive leniency to opinions of certain groups, and excessive intolerance to the opinions of other groups.” Rotberg explains that the breakdown of Western society is a direct result of Leftist tolerists who insist that tolerance is more valuable than justice.

 

The once free Britain has reduced itself to a dhimmi nation by tolerating its sharia-compliant Muslim population at the expense of its native Christian population. Make no mistake, there is an Islamic religious war being waged worldwide that seeks to eliminate competing religions and establish a global Islamic caliphate ruled by religious sharia law. Britain’s leaders are tolerists insisting that tolerating Muslim rape gangs in the name of cultural diversity is more important than justice for its victims. Tolerism is Britain’s fatally flawed political ideology providing victory to the Muslim Brotherhood, the multi-national organization that has declared Islamic religious war on the West.

 

Anyone who still questions the global intentions of the Muslim Brotherhood should read its 1991 An Explanatory Memorandum: From the Archives of the Muslim Brotherhood in America the general strategic goals for the group in North America.

 

Populism rejects the twisted logic of political tolerism and embraces the common sense warning of Austrian/British 20th-century philosopher Sir Karl Popper:

 

“If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. . . . We should, therefore, claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.”

 

The British court’s decision values tolerance over justice. Why would they do that?

 

  1. Leftist/Islamist Alliance

 

In America, the Leftist/Islamist alliance is trying to destabilize and overthrow duly elected populist President Donald Trump. POTUS is the consummate whistleblower in America, exposing the staggering malfeasance of the Washington swamp and the Leftists, Islamists, and globalists who live there.

 

Leftists in America ignore, “Islamic tenets of misogyny, homophobia, antisemitism, pedophilia, gang-raping non-Muslim little girls, female genital mutilation, and wife-beating as long as these sharia-compliant Muslims are anti-American anti-Trumpers. Any anti-American anti-Trump Islamist is welcomed into the Leftist tribe because they are all warriors in the Culture War against America. America-first President Donald Trump is the existential enemy of the Culture War and the target of the Leftist/Islamist alliance.”

 

In England, the Labor party is equivalent to the Leftist Democrat party in America, both prefer globalism to national sovereignty. In England, the Labor/Islamist alliance is trying to destabilize England and create chaos to subvert the will of the people and stop the implementation of BREXIT.

 

So, what do President Trump and Tommy Robinson have in common? Tommy Robinson is the whistleblower in England and the existential enemy of the leftist Labor party that prefers tolerism to justice. Why?

 

Tommy Robinson and President Trump are claiming, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.

 

  1. Tolerism vs Justice

 

What is the goal of tolerism in England and America? Why do Leftists in America and Labor in England ignore the obvious violations of the laws and norms in their Judeo-Christian countries and surrender their culture to the savagery and barbarism of Islamic sharia norms?

 

Tolerism is a paradox because tolerists selectively decide what to tolerate. Whistleblowing and truth-telling about Muslim rape gangs is not tolerated – it is criminalized. So, a two-tier system of justice is established that prohibits anti-Muslim speech and protects anti-Christian and antisemitic speech. Why?

 

If you want to know the motive, look at the result. The effects of this egregious double standard is that anti-Christian burning of churches, and antisemitism including defacing synagogues is rampant and unpunished in England. If the British courts continue to protect sharia-compliant Muslim perpetrators and their criminal acts at the expense of native Britains, social chaos will result. Remember, seismic social change requires social chaos.

 

Tommy Robinson and President Trump, each in his own way, is exposing the truth of tolerism and its global anti-American, anti-British attacks on our sovereignty and shared Judeo-Christian norms. Their separate efforts continue to unravel the ongoing deceitful multi-national efforts fomenting the social chaos necessary to impose a globalized New World Order.

 

Sir Karl Popper warned us about tolerism. George Orwell warned us that, “During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.”

 

  1. Freedom of Speech

 

Every tyrannical regime the world has ever known begins its reign of terror by eliminating freedom of speech. Lenin did it, Trotsky did it, Hitler did it, now Leftists in England and in America are doing it by disingenuously relabeling free speech as hate speech. There is no freedom without freedom of speech which is why speech is universally the first freedom eliminated by despots.

 

The same tolerist Culture War being waged against America by the Leftist/Islamist alliance is attacking England. Leftism and Islamism have a common cause to destroy the status quo even though their ultimate objectives will make them inevitable enemies. The Islamists are fighting for a global religious Islamic caliphate. The Leftists/Labor are fighting to destroy the national sovereignty and cultural identities of their respective countries in preparation for socialism in America, and a unified European State in England.

 

The irony, of course, is that members of the Leftist/Labor/Islamist alliance are all useful idiots for the globalist elite who finance and foment their lawlessness. The alliance members are just too arrogant to realize they are participating in their own destruction.

 

Seismic social change requires social chaos. The Leftist/Labor/Islamic alliances in the United States and England are providing the necessary social chaos for the globalists who fully intend to impose a New World Order – an internationalized world ruled by themselves under the corrupt auspices of the United Nations. There is no humanitarianism in the conviction of whistleblower Tommy Robinson. His conviction is part of the coordinated attack on free speech and a free and sovereign England imposed by the globalist elite using tolerism and the unholy Labor/Islamist alliance.

 

July 8, 2019, will be recorded as the day free speech died in Britain, the day Tommy Robinson was convicted for reporting the crime of Muslim rape gangs in England. The only law that Tommy Robinson broke was the Islamic supremacist sharia law forbidding criticism of Islam. Islamic sharia law does not consider the raping of little English school girls to be a crime – the prohibition is against criticizing and reporting it. England has reduced itself to a grotesque dhimmi nation willing to sacrifice its own little girls in a globalist power grab that requires social chaos.

 

The humanitarian hoax of tolerism that convicted Tommy Robinson must not be allowed to silence him permanently. Hopefully, populist President Donald Trump will grant Tommy Robinson humanitarian asylum in the United States where he can still expose the realities of an Islamicized England. Britain is, after all, the proverbial canary in the expansionist Islamist coal mine.

________________________

Introducing the Tolerance of the Intolerable:

What Happens When Mixing Multiculturalism, Islam & Multiculturalism?

 

John R. Houk

© July 12, 2019

____________________

The Humanitarian Hoax Of Tommy Robinson’s Conviction: The Death Of Free Speech – Hoax 38

 

© 2019 NoisyRoom.net

 

The UN, Globalist Multiculturalism & Islam One World Despotism


John R. Houk

© July 11, 2019

 

After WWII the image of the United Nations was an international organization that the Allied victors would utilize to prevent another nation to pull any conquest objectives ala Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Imperial Japan. After the war and the public emerging of atrocities committed by Nazis and the Japanese war machine populations of Western nations breathed a sigh of relief that a UN would prevent global despotic atrocities.

 

The first dent in this relief was the Communist international revolutionary agenda of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR – essentially Russia) and Communist (Red) China. Those Communist giants used their satellite vassal yet officially independent nations to fill the UN with Marxist opposition to everything Western especially to the USA.

 

The USSR and Red China in their efforts to woo global Communism began to assist Third World nations willing to be anti-Western (with anti-Americanism as the focus) in their development. Hence Communist revolutionaries began to emerge in newly independent nations formerly dominated as Western Colonies primarily of European nations.

 

The Muslim world advanced despots as monarchs and dictators who nationalized the Western control of the oil industries managed by Multinational Corporations (MNC). Islam is inherently antagonistic to all things non-Muslim inspired by Islamic revered writings.

 

The USSR tried to use this Islamic antipathy to export Communist principles to the Muslim world. However, Islam-alone brainwashing ultimately meant the Muslim despots used the USSR support to offset the power of Western supported MNCs. Essentially Muslim despots played an international game of pitting the USA and the USSR against each other to shore up their own Islamic authoritarian regimes.

 

THEN the unthinkable according to Islamic doctrine occurred. Jews abused for centuries in the West gained sympathy due to Nazi genocide resulting in a gradual reclamation of the Jewish Homeland. A homeland that had been under one form or another of Islamic control due to conquest since the mid-600s AD.

 

A Jewish Homeland is unthinkable because in intolerant doctrine, once conquered by Islam a land must remain Islamic forever. The Islamic vision of conquest domination in three opinions:

 

 

 

 

Five Stages of Islamic Conquest

The absence of Communist satellite nations due to the collapse of the USSR led to the domination of two groups in the UN: Nations dominated by Leftist Globalist Multiculturalism and Nations dominated by Islamic Thought.

 

Since I’m not really an erudite writer let’s look at some quotes relating to Leftist (perhaps Marxist) Globalist Multiculturalism (all from essays or opinions that should be read in full at your leisure):

 

The Pox of Multiculturalism; By Bruce Walker; American Thinker; 5/19/18:

 

What the left calls “multiculturalism” is actually the systematic destruction of cultures and the replacement of these cultures by a synthetic, artificial, and meaningless global culture.  When the left talks about “diversity,” it really means the crushing of differences in thought, values, and art into a sort of baby food which neither nourishes the soul or elevates the mind.

 

 

Multiculturalism is an effort to destroy culture in the name of harmonizing cultures.  It is, at best, gross globalist imperialism.  It is, at worst, the Orwellian deconstruction of all societal values and beliefs.

 

Multiculturalism: As A Tool To Divide And Conquer – The Layman’s Primer; By Louis Beam; LouisBeam.com:

 

No nation is born multicultured. Multiculturalism is an unnatural as well as unhealthy condition that can only afflict states in national decline. A multicultural state carries in it’s [sic] geneses the seeds of eventual national destruction.

All multicultural nations will be found to be in a state of political, moral, economic and social decay. Greed and corruption will characterize the government coupled with oppressive measures directed against citizens. Lies and deceit will be stock and trade of media, politicians, and educational institutions. Such are the bellwethers of a multiculturalist advent.

In modern times multiculturalism is instituted from the top down as an elitist ruling class tool used to play one or more racial or ethnic groups against another. The ensuing cultural melee serves the political designs, economic goals and power needs of elitist rulers and their sponsors. This technique was developed by Marxist ideologues who used multiculturalism in Russia to divide and conquer resistance to the institution of a communist state. The end result of their successful takeover was the murder of thirty million humans in the Soviet Union alone. Many more elsewhere.

The same internationalist cabals who sponsored Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin as the multicultural leaders of the Soviet state from their banking houses in New York, similarly sponsor the multicultural leaders of the United States, Canada, and Europe today. An interlocking network of foundations such as Ford and Carnegie, international banking empires such as Rockefeller and Rothschild, and government agencies firmly in their control work in tandem with controlled propaganda outlets such as the New York Times, CBS, and Hollywood, to promote, foster, and institute multiculturalism today. While the examples used in this essay deal primarily with the United States the same process with the same methods is being employed elsewhere. This of itself is prima facie evidence of a cabal which promotes multiculturalism as a tool to achieve its objectives.

Multiculturalism is being used as a hammer to forge the compliant people who will compose the obedient states of the New World Order. As a weapon of post modern political warfare multiculturalism has few equals, which, thus explains its use currently against all of Western Europe, the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Deliberate fragmentation of these nations and the resultant loss of national identity and purpose into politically disharmonious units, serves as a stepping stone to world government. And who will compose that world government? A ruling class consisting of an “economic hierarchy” that replaces the philosophy of the nineteenth century “natural hierarchy.” A force that views countries and the people that live in them first as economic targets to be exploited, and second as military targets to be defeated if they resist.

 

 

Social instability, caused by a steady erosion of standards and values, coupled with a scramble over dwindling economic opportunities by conflicting ethnic groups, produces precisely the alienation and conflict needed to implement a multicultural state. Further, the lack of common standards and values leads to personal disorganization, resulting in unsociable behavior. This is the life support system of a multicultural state. In a word: anomie.

As a political tool multiculturalism has several applications. It is used to prevent a national consensus among the electorate. The confluence of divergent life views, cultures, beliefs, religions, ethnic habits, etc. insures a swirling river of discontent upon which the multiculturalist rides. It is a perfect method of ensuring that there can never in the future be accord, unity, and a common agreed upon destiny among those ruled. Multiculturalism represents a basic form of divide and conquer, to the benefit of corrupt government and its sponsors.

Multiculturalism is likewise a financial tool used to socially and economically level a targeted population. When implemented, it becomes in fact a battle over scarce resources and shrinking economic opportunities, with government weighing in on the side of cheap labour. A continual flow of impoverished workers is insured through immigration (both legal and illegal), who by working for less compensation continually drive wages down. For the vast majority of citizens the standard of living will not increase, but rather constantly decrease.

 

As a general rule:

 

The amount of multiculturalism in any society is directly proportional to the corruption at the top of a political system and inversely proportional to national unity.

This means: multiculturalism will have succeeded in so much as the country has failed.

 

Multiculturalism can further be used as “transitional tool” to take a targeted population from one form of government to another. When a political condition of greed, massive corruption, and diversity of objective is coupled to a social condition of drugs, violence, and discontent, therein exists the perfect environment for governmental change to a system that more closely serves long term interests of ruling elitists. Seeing that both the problem and solution are provided by the same people makes the CIA’s importation of some one hundred billion dollars worth of cocaine and other drugs into the United States understandable. While at the same time explaining FBI, ATF, and other, more secretive federal government agencies involvement in domestic terrorism or its cover-up. Suddenly, that which erroneously was previously thought to be unrelated events show their common thread and purpose.

Within the deleterious milieu of multiculturalism exists the propaganda opportunity for re-education of the people into a more malleable entity. A targeted population will be shaped mentally by new forms of public education in the schools, media indoctrination, and by elitist pronouncements. Thus placed in a crucible of economic necessity and social pressure, once free citizens become despondent masses, adjusting to and accepting fundamentally changing national circumstances as a matter of expedient survival. For the reticent, conformity by force will ensue in the form of legal penalties disguised as ant-drug, anti-terrorism, or anti-hate laws. All of this leading toward what George Orwell so aptly predicted in his book 1984:

 

“Almost certainly we are moving into an age of totalitarian dictatorships. An age in which freedom of thought will be at first a deadly sin and later on a meaningless abstraction.”

A society is being spawned where those with the most unsociable behavior, deviant lifestyle, or personal failures are given the most by government. This is TRUST ME READ ENTIRE ESSAY

 

The Globalism Threat – Socialism’s New World Order; By Jeff Carlson, CFA; TheMarketsWork.com; 2/24/17:

 

 

Globalism is often clad in free trade garb but in fact there is a hindrance of free trade with globalism. Globalism, through its attempt to erase national borders (and identities), applies a broad economic brush to varying problems and economic conditions of differing regions and as a result fails by definition. Globalism tends to exacerbate economic problems rather than fixing them, and hinders free trade by distorting market responses.

Globalism initiates with talk of open borders and free trade but inevitably leads to concentrated government and centralized planning. …

 

 

Although the terms are often used interchangeably, Globalization is NOT the same as Globalism. They are very different things. Globalization is a natural economic outgrowth of trade. Globalism is a political goal – plain and simple.

 

 

Globalism differs from Capitalism in several distinct aspects. Globalism promotes globally centralized control of laws, foreign policy and monetary policy. Unlike Capitalism, Globalism inherently blends rule of law with rule of man. Globalism comes into existence through the ownership of laws. And through the ownership of law, Globalism gains ownership of nations.

 

If you refer back to Gramsci, Alinsky and the Left, you will recall I introduced several concepts – Counter Hegemony, Critical Theory and Gradualism. Antonio Gramsci created the Theory of Cultural Hegemony – the way in which nations use cultural institutions to maintain power in capitalist societies. Gramsci felt that in order to change society, the entire value systems of Societal Institutions must be overturned. This would require the introduction of an entirely new set of values and beliefs – Counter Hegemony. Gradualism – along with Critical Theory – were the processes used to achieve Counter Hegemony. Marxist/Socialist philosophers – led by the Frankfurt School – picked up where Gramsci left off and brought these ideas to America. They refined Gramsci’s Marxist ideas – they reshaped them.

 

 

If Culture is the true source of Capitalism – how do you truly change Culture? You change it by removing the identities of Culture. As Theodor Adorno stated, you create a “genuine liberal” – an individual “free of all groups, including race, family and institutions”. A Global Citizen.

 

The tool used to accomplish this goal? Political Correctness – or “same thinking”. Raymond V. Raehn put it this way; “Political Correctness seeks to impose a uniformity of thought and behavior on all Americans and is therefore totalitarian in nature”. Political Correctness is Cultural Marxism – also known as multiculturalism. Political Correctness is the translation of Marxism from economic to cultural terms. And once you’ve changed the culture you can change the laws.

 

The end game of Political Correctness – its ultimate goal – is Globalism.

 

And it is here we must be careful. For Globalization has opened a pathway to Globalism. This is the very reason the two are so often presented as the same. An economic process – Globalization – has been altered and repackaged to further a goal of societal change. This is why Globalists so often dress Globalization as Globalism. Globalization is required for Globalism to become a reality. But Globalism is NOT a necessary prerequisite for Globalization.

 

 

… Just as Communists first seek to impose Socialism on their way to Communism, so do Globalists seek to turn Globalization into a stepping stone towards Globalism. Their goal is to convince citizens they are one and the same. Using Gradualism.

 

But there is a distinct difference – and an obstacle. Globalization can lead to benefits for all while still preserving the nation-state. Which means the concept of national identity stands firmly in the way of Globalism. In order to maintain national identity you must first maintain self-governance and full sovereignty. Globalism seeks to break national identity by subsuming national laws. Ultimately, preservation of national or sovereign law is the key to preventing Globalism.

 

In 1995, the Commission on Global Governance issued a report titled Our Global Neighborhood. The report advanced the view that nations are interdependent and called for a strengthened United Nations. The Commission made a standard definition of global governance stating that;

 

“Governance is the sum of the many ways individuals and institutions, public and private, manage their common affairs. It is a continuing process through which conflicting or diverse interests may be accommodated and cooperative action may be taken. It includes formal institutions and regimes empowered to enforce compliance, as well as informal arrangements that people and institutions either have agreed to or perceive to be in their interest…It is our firm conclusion that the United Nations must continue to play a central role in global governance.”

 

It was the U.N.’s first real published step towards World Governance. Towards Globalism.

 

 

… Of particular note is the UN’s focus and treatment of Israel. Since the creation of the UN’s Human Rights Council in 2006, there have been 121 condemnations of nations for human rights violations. Of these, 62 condemnations were of Israel. Condemnations for the rest of the world’s nations combined equaled 59.

 

Corruption, fraud and mismanagement in U.N. procurement have been ongoing since the organization’s creation.

 

 

How is “piercing the shell of state sovereignty” accomplished? It is done slowly and incrementally. It is done through division – by undermining society through created rifts. It is accomplished through the application of Political Correctness. Society is slowly fractured into divisions of class, race and gender. Sub-groups are created within these divisions to further enhance societal stress. By lessening national identity the process of usurping national sovereignty becomes easier. There is a reason why George Soros, the self-avowed billionaire globalist, funds 150 different progressive organizations through his Open Society Foundation. Groups like the ACLU, Black Lives Matter, CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations), Human Rights Campaign, La Raza and the Women’s March. More importantly, this is why Globalists are in favor of unlimited immigration – and the national strife and divisions it creates.

 

… THIS MAY SEEM A LONG QUOTE BUT THE ESSAY IS MUCH LONGER AND WORTHY TO BE READ

 

I used a lot of posting space to understand the influence of Leftist Globalist Multiculturalism in the United Nations. The other influence in the UN is from Muslim dominated nations committed to Islamic Thought.

 

A rational person would think or wonder: How in the world can Marxist oriented Globalist Multiculturalism and those committed to Islamic thought be on the same page?

 

The simplistic answer is both concepts seek a global New World Order by dismantling the Old World Order.

 

The Old World Order is currently dominated a Western Christian Heritage that has developed governing institutions related to various forms of Representative Democracy. For clarity: Not absolute Democracy which degenerates into mob rule which is its own form of despotism. At present, the American Republic form of governance is the best paradigm of Representative Democracy.

 

The American Republic is the ideological enemy Globalist Multiculturalism and Islamic Thought.

 

What in the essence of the traditional sovereign American Republic bugs the crap out of Islamic Thought? For brevity’s sake here is a quick (meaning not exhaustive) comparison between Islam and guarantees in the U.S. Constitution courtesy of Bill Federer at WND:

 

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that Congress shall make no law prohibiting the “free exercise” of religion, yet Mohammad said “Whoever changes his Islamic religion, kill him.” (Hadith Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 9, Book 84, No. 57). The Quran also states in Sura 4:89 “Those who reject Islam must be killed. If they turn back (from Islam), take hold of them and kill them wherever you find them.”

 

The First Amendment states Congress shall not abridge “the freedom of speech,” yet Islamic law enforces dhimmi status on non-Muslims, prohibiting them from observing their religious practices publicly, raising their voices during prayer, ringing church bells or say anything considered “insulting to Islam.” Islamic law relegates non-Muslims to “dhimmi” status, where they are not to propagate their customs among Muslims and cannot display a cross, Christmas decorations, or the Star of David.

 

The First Amendment states Congress cannot take away “the right of the people to peaceably assemble,” yet Islamic law states non-Muslims cannot repair places of worship or build new ones, they must allow Muslims to participate in their private meetings, they cannot bring their dead near the graveyards of Muslims or mourn their dead loudly.

 

The First Amendment states Congress cannot take away the right of the people “to petition the Government for a redress of grievances,” yet Islamic law states non-Muslims are not to harbor any hostility towards the Islamic state or give comfort to those who disagree with Islamic government.

 

The Second Amendment states “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” yet Islamic law states non-Muslims cannot possess arms, swords or weapons of any kind.

 

The Third Amendment states one cannot be forced to “quarter” someone in their house, yet Islamic law states non-Muslims must entertain and feed for three days any Muslim who wants to stay in their home, and for a longer period if the Muslim falls ill, and they cannot prevent Muslim travelers from staying in their places of worship.

 

The Fourth Amendment guarantees “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures,” yet Islamic law states if a non-Muslim rides on a horse with a saddle and bridle, the horse can be taken away.

 

The Fifth Amendment states that “no person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime … without due process of law,” yet Mohammad said “No Muslim should be killed for killing a Kafir (infidel).” (Hadith Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 9, No. 50).

 

The Sixth Amendment guarantees a “public trial by an impartial jury” and the Seventh Amendment states “the right of trial by jury shall be preserved,” yet Islamic law does not give non-Muslims equal legal standing with Muslims, even prohibiting them from testifying in court against Muslims.

 

The Eighth Amendment states there shall be no “cruel and unusual punishments inflicted,” yet the Quran states: “Cut off the hands of thieves, whether they are male or female, as punishment for what they have done – a deterrent from Allah.” (Sura 5:38) A woman who has been raped is also punished “with a hundred stripes.” (Sura 24:2) Women can be beaten: “If you experience rebellion from the women, you shall first talk to them, then (you may use negative incentives like) deserting them in bed, then you may (as a last alternative) beat them” (Sura 4:34). Honor killings of wives and daughters who have embarrassed their families have been reported by the United Nations in Muslim populations of Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Pakistan, Syria, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Yemen and increasing in Western nations.

 

The 13th Amendment states there shall be no “slavery or involuntary servitude,” yet the Quran accommodates slavery as Mohammad owned slaves.

 

The 14th Amendment guarantees citizens “equal protection of the laws,” yet the Quran does not consider Jews, Christians and other non-Muslims as equal to Muslims before the law. Referring to Jews as “the People of the Book,” Mohammad said: “They are those whom Allah has cursed; who have been under his wrath; some of whom were turned into apes and swine” (Sura 5:60, 7:166, 2:65).

 

The 15th Amendment guarantees “the right of the citizens … to vote shall not be denied … on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude,” yet strict interpretation of Islamic law does not allow voting, as democracy is considered people setting themselves in the place of Allah by making the laws.

 

The 16th Amendment has some similarities with Islamic law, as “Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes from whatever source derived.” Mohammad said “Fight those who believe not in Allah … until they pay the jizya [tax] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” (Sura 9:29)

 

The 18th Amendment [Blog Editor: Repealed by 21st Amendment] has some similarities with Islamic law, as “the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors … for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.”

 

The 19th Amendment allows women to vote, yet in strict Islamic countries women cannot vote.

 

The 21st Amendment allows for the sale of liquor, yet Islamic law states non-Muslims are not to sell or drink wine and liquor openly. [Bold text by Blog Editor]

 

It is my humble opinion if the Globalist Multiculturalist Left and the Muslim World ended sovereignty nations, eradicated effective Representative Democracy and/or caused the demise of the American Republic; the Globalists and some kind of Muslim coalition would engage in a bloody war for global domination. You could count on genocides from both sides.

 

NOW! To the inspiration of these thoughts leading to global strife with unpredictable winners and losers. The Gatestone Institute has posted some news about how the United Nations intends to “War” on Free Speech at least as America knows it. Many UN speech restrictions have already affected Free Speech in the rest of the so-called Free World.

 

JRH 7/11/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

*************************

UN Launches All-out War on Free Speech

 

By Judith Bergman

July 10, 2019 at 5:00 am

Gatestone Institute

 

  • In other words, forget everything about the free exchange of ideas: the UN feels that its ‘values’ are being threatened and those who criticize those values must therefore be shut down.

 

  • Naturally, the UN assures everyone that, “Addressing hate speech does not mean limiting or prohibiting freedom of speech. It means keeping hate speech from escalating into something more dangerous, particularly incitement to discrimination, hostility and violence, which is prohibited under international law”.

 

  • Except the UN most definitely seeks to prohibit freedom of speech, especially the kind that challenges the UN’s agendas. This was evident with regard to the UN Global Compact on Migration, in which it was explicitly stated that public funding to “media outlets that systematically promote intolerance, xenophobia, racism and other forms of discrimination towards migrants” should be stopped.

 

  • In contrast to the UN Global Migration compact, the UN’s action plan against hate speech doescontain a definition of what the UN considers to be “hate” and it happens to be the broadest and vaguest of definitions possible: “Any kind of communication in speech, writing or behaviour, that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis of who they are, in other words, based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, colour, descent, gender or other identity factor”. With a definition as broad as this, all speech could be labelled “hate”.

 

  • The new action plan plays straight into the OIC’s decades-long attempts to ban criticism of Islam as ‘hate speech’. In the wake of the launch of Guterres’ action plan, Pakistan has already presented a six-point plan “to address the new manifestations of racism and faith-based hatred, especially Islamophobia” at the United Nations headquarters. The presentation was organized by Pakistan along with Turkey, the Holy See and the UN.

 

In January, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres commissioned “a global plan of action against hate speech and hate crimes on a fast-track basis,” and said that governments and institutions need “to mobilize solutions that respond to people’s fears and anxieties with answers…” One of those answers, Guterres appeared to suggest, is shutting down free speech. Pictured: Antonio Guterres. (Image source: Fiona Goodall/Getty Images)

 

In January, United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, tasked his Special Adviser for the Prevention of Genocide, Adama Dieng, to “present a global plan of action against hate speech and hate crimes on a fast-track basis”. Speaking at a press conference about the UN’s challenges for 2019, Guterres maintained, “The biggest challenge that governments and institutions face today is to show that we care — and to mobilize solutions that respond to people’s fears and anxieties with answers…”

 

One of those answers, Guterres appeared to suggest, is shutting down free speech.

 

“We need to enlist every segment of society in the battle for values that our world faces today – and, in particular, to tackle the rise of hate speech, xenophobia and intolerance. We hear troubling, hateful echoes of eras long past” Guterres said, “Poisonous views are penetrating political debates and polluting the mainstream. Let’s never forget the lessons of the 1930s. Hate speech and hate crimes are direct threats to human rights…”

 

Guterres added, “Words are not enough. We need to be effective in both asserting our universal values and in addressing the root causes of fear, mistrust, anxiety and anger. That is the key to bring people along in defence of those values that are under such grave threat today”.

 

In other words, forget everything about the free exchange of ideas: the UN feels that its ‘values’ are being threatened and those who criticize those values must therefore be shut down. Not only that, but — disingenuously — the UN is comparing dissent from its agendas with the rise of fascism and Nazism in the 1930s.

 

Now the action plan that Guterres spoke of in January is ready. On June 18, Guterres presented the United Nations Strategy and Plan of Action on Hate Speech:

 

“Hate speech is…an attack on tolerance, inclusion, diversity and the very essence of our human rights norms and principles,” Guterres said. He also wrote in an article on the subject, “To those who insist on using fear to divide communities, we must say: diversity is a richness, never a threat…We must never forget, after all, that each of us is an “other” to someone, somewhere”.

 

According to the action plan, “Hate is moving into the mainstream – in liberal democracies and authoritarian systems alike. And with each broken norm, the pillars of our common humanity are weakened”. The UN sees for itself a crucial role: “As a matter of principle, the United Nations must confront hate speech at every turn. Silence can signal indifference to bigotry and intolerance…”.

 

Naturally, the UN assures everyone that, “Addressing hate speech does not mean limiting or prohibiting freedom of speech. It means keeping hate speech from escalating into something more dangerous, particularly incitement to discrimination, hostility and violence, which is prohibited under international law”.

 

Except the UN most definitely seeks to limit freedom of speech, especially the kind that challenges the UN’s agendas. This was evident with regard to the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration in which it was explicitly stated that public funding to “media outlets that systematically promote intolerance, xenophobia, racism and other forms of discrimination towards migrants” should be stopped.

 

Whatever constitutes intolerance, xenophobia, racism or discrimination was naturally left undefined, making the provision a convenient catchall for governments who wish to defund media that dissent from current political orthodoxy on migration.[1]

 

In contrast to the UN Global Migration compact, the UN’s action plan against hate speech does contain a definition of what the UN considers to be “hate” and it happens to be the broadest and vaguest of definitions possible:

 

“Any kind of communication in speech, writing or behaviour, that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis of who they are, in other words, based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, colour, descent, gender or other identity factor”. With a definition as broad as this, all speech could be labelled “hate”.

 

The action plan, “aims to give to the United Nations the room and the resources to address hate speech, which poses a threat to United Nations principles, values and programmes. Measures taken will be in line with international human rights norms and standards, in particular the right to freedom of opinion and expression. The objectives are twofold: Enhance UN efforts to address root causes and drivers of hate speech [and] enable effective UN responses to the impact of hate speech on societies”.

 

The UN makes it clear in the plan that it “will implement actions at global and country level, as well as enhance internal cooperation among relevant UN entities” to fight hate speech. It considers that “Tackling hate speech is the responsibility of all – governments, societies, the private sector” and it envisages “a new generation of digital citizens, empowered to recognize, reject and stand up to hate speech”. What a brave new world.

 

In the plan, the UN sets up a number of areas of priority. Initially, the UN will “need to know more to act effectively” and it will therefore let “relevant UN entities… recognize, monitor, collect data and analyze hate speech trends”. It will also seek to “adopt a common understanding of the root causes and drivers of hate speech in order to take relevant action to best address and/or mitigate its impact”. In addition, the UN will “identify and support actors who challenge hate speech”.

 

UN entities will also “implement human rights-centred measures which aim at countering retaliatory hate speech and escalation of violence” and “promote measures to ensure that the rights of victims are upheld, and their needs addressed, including through advocacy for remedies, access to justice and psychological counselling”.

 

Disturbingly, the UN plans to put pressure directly on media and influence children through education:

 

“The UN system should establish and strengthen partnerships with new and traditional media to address hate speech narratives and promote the values of tolerance, non-discrimination, pluralism, and freedom of opinion and expression” and “take action in formal and informal education to … promote the values and skills of Global Citizenship Education, and enhance Media and Information Literacy”.

 

The UN is acutely aware that it needs to leverage strategic partnerships with an array of global and local, governmental and private actors in order to reach its goal. “The UN should establish/strengthen partnerships with relevant stakeholders, including those working in the tech industry. Most of the meaningful action against hate speech will not be taken by the UN alone, but by governments, regional and multilateral organizations, private companies, media, religious and other civil society actors” the action plan notes. “UN entities,” it adds, “should also engage private sector actors, including social media companies, on steps they can take to support UN principles and action to address and counter hate speech, encouraging partnerships between government, industry and civil society”. The UN also says that, “upon request” it will “provide support to Member States in the field of capacity building and policy development to address hate speech.”

 

The action plan also reveals that the first concrete initiative is already planned. It is an “international conference on Education for Prevention with focus on addressing and countering Hate Speech which would involve Ministers of Education”.

 

The new action plan plays straight into the decades-long attempts of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) to ban criticism of Islam. In the wake of the launch of Guterres’ action plan, Pakistan has already presented a six-point plan “to address the new manifestations of racism and faith-based hatred, especially Islamophobia” at the United Nations headquarters. The presentation was organized by Pakistan along with Turkey, the Holy See and the UN.

 

According to news reports, the plan was proposed by Pakistan’s Permanent Representative to the UN, Ambassador Maleeha Lodhi at a session titled “Countering terrorism and other acts of violence based on religion or belief”.

 

“A particularly alarming development is the rise of Islamophobia which represents the recent manifestation of the age-old hatred that spawned anti-Semitism, racism, apartheid and many other forms of discrimination,” the ambassador said in her speech. She added, “My Prime Minister Imran Khan has recently again called for urgent action to counter Islamophobia, which is today the most prevalent expression of racism and hatred against ‘the other'”.

 

“We are fully committed to support the UN’s strategy on hate speech,” said the Pakistani ambassador, “This is a moment for all of us to come together to reverse the tide of hate and bigotry that threatens to undermine social solidarity and peaceful co-existence.”

 

In 2017, Facebook’s Vice President of Public Policy, Joel Kaplan, reportedly agreed to requests from Pakistan’s Interior Minister Nisar Ali Khan, to “remove fake accounts and explicit, hateful and provocative material that incites violence and terrorism” because “the entire Muslim Ummah was greatly disturbed and has serious concerns over the misuse of social media platforms to propagate blasphemous content”.

 

At the UN, Pakistan’s Ambassador Lodhi called for government interventions to fight hate speech, including national legislation, and reportedly “called for framing a more focused strategy to deal with the various expressions of Islamophobia. A ‘whole of government’ and a ‘whole of society’ approach was needed. In this regard, the Pakistani envoy urged the secretary-general to engage with a wide range of actors, including governments, civil society and social media companies to take action and stop social media users being funneled into online sources of radicalization”.

 

The UN’s all-out war on free speech is on.

 

Judith Bergman, a columnist, lawyer and political analyst, is a Distinguished Senior Fellow at Gatestone Institute.

 

NOTES:

 

[1] According to Objective 17 of the UN Global Compact on migration, member states commit to: “Promote independent, objective and quality reporting of media outlets, including internet-based information, including by sensitizing and educating media professionals on migration-related issues and terminology, investing in ethical reporting standards and advertising, and stopping allocation of public funding or material support to media outlets that systematically promote intolerance, xenophobia, racism and other forms of discrimination towards migrants, in full respect for the freedom of the media.” [Emphasis added.]

____________________

The UN, Globalist Multiculturalism & Islam One World Despotism

John R. Houk

© July 11, 2019

___________________

UN Launches All-out War on Free Speech

 

© 2019 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute. [Blog Editor: Permission was not acquired to cross post. Upon request the cross post will be removed.]

 

 

Rebel Against UK Multiculturalism:


Donate to Tommy Robinson Legal Defense

John R. Houk

© July 10, 2019

 

Tommy Robinson is a crusader for British Culture against the Islamization of the UK. Since the UK is full in dedicated to multiculturalism, that places Robinson on the UK’s political persecution list.

 

Being a political target in the UK makes Robinson a criminal in the eyes of British law and a target for vilification by the British press which are more dedicated even more to Leftist multicultural cultural programming than the U.S. Mainstream Media.

 

Douglas Murray writing for the National Review provides an evenhanded fair history of Tommy Robinson from violent EDL days to present day  “citizen journalist” (dated 5/31/18): https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/05/tommy-robinson-grooming-gangs-britain-persecutes-journalist/

 

With that in mind, Tommy Robinson has actually been convicted for making Muslim pedophile grooming sex trafficking anxious. Here is a 3:38 minute video from Ezra Levant on this British injustice against Robinson (H/T The Tundra Tabloids):

 

VIDEO: Tommy Robinson GUILTY! Ezra Levant reacts

 

Posted by Rebel Media

Published on Jul 5, 2019

 

See ALL our reports about Tommy Robinson’s trial and SUPPORT The Rebel’s independent journalism: https://www.therebel.media/real-reporters-tommy-robinson-trial-london-uk-ezra-levant/

 

Ezra Levant of TheRebel.media reacts to Tommy Robinson being found guilty on contempt of court charges on July 5, 2019. MORE: https://www.therebel.media/tommy-robinson-news-guilty-verdict-contempt-uk-politics-ezra-levant

 

MORE TO READ

 

As an American protected by the First Amendment guaranteeing Free Speech and a Free Press, I find this British verdict against Tommy Robinson outrageous. In the UK all media is now denied to Robinson meaning public pleas for help if not censored now, it soon will be. The UK is slipping more and more into Big Brother totalitarianism. This is the kind of repression that caused thirteen British Colonies to declare independence in 1776.

 

Below is an email appeal for Tommy Robinson from Canadian Elsa Schieder which ultimately asks for support for at least Robinson’s legal defense bills with a link for this purpose. In case you are already inspired, here is that link: https://www.tr.news/freedom-for-tommy (The link is sponsored by TR [Tommy Robinson] News. You will first notice to donate in British Pounds Sterling, but there is a dropdown arrow-menu to switch that to U.S. Dollars, Euros, Canadian Dollars or Australian Dollars.)

 

JRH 7/10/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

*********************

We Have a Dream – from Martin Luther King Jr to Now

 

By Elsa Schieder

Sent July 9, 2019 9:48 AM

Sent via WorldTruthSummit.com

 

 

Martin Luther King, Jr. – August 20, 1963

 

“I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.'”

 

We Too Have a Dream

 

That’s why I’m writing. Because so many of us join with Martin Luther King, Jr, in the dream of equal rights, of living in a land of freedom and justice. We say, as he did: It’s time for one law for all, and for the law applied equally to all.

 

I’m sure he never imagined the possibility of what is going on today.

 

Over and Over, Unequal Treatment

 

So many of us face both unequal treatment under the law, and laws claiming to be for justice, but mandating unequal treatment.

A travesty of justice – that is what Tommy Robinson has lived for years.

 

Tommy Robinson

 

And that is what can be expected in much of the West if the charges relate to something that may put Islam in a bad light, or if someone does something that is or can be seen as anti-Islamic. A man put a bacon sandwich at a mosque. His sentence: one year. The outcome: his death half-way through his prison term.

Here’s the most recent case of the utter injustice Tommy has experienced. On May 25, 2018, after checking carefully that he was not breaking any law, Tommy was accused of breaking a law he did not break, denied fair trial, and within 5 hours sentenced to 13 months for saying to a live video audience something that was on the BBC website, and jailed.

He chose to spend most of his imprisonment – almost 3 months, until the appeal – in solitary confinement, to increase his chance of staying alive. That was only the beginning.

 

In the appeal, the judge – a top UK judge – threw out the case, but left it open that the case could be reopened.

It was. On July 4 and 5th, 2019, there was another trial, this time at the Old Bailey, where most cases are for crimes like murder, rather than for reading from the BBC website. This time, the judge – another top judge – chose to convict. The conviction seems in large part due to Tommy’s having asked convicted rapists how they felt about their verdict. This showed, it was argued, insensitivity to their feelings.

Just yesterday, Tommy appealed to Trump for political asylum. He is to be sentenced within 2 days. The sentence could be for as long as 2 years. He is sure he will be murdered in prison.

The legal system, through the actions of the courts, has been – blatantly, visibly, outrageously – unjust, unfair, endangering Tommy. The greatest danger to Tommy has been through his being placed in prisons with a high proportion of Islamic violent offenders, including murderers. Why has he been sent to such prisons? No answer is required.

One reason the government can do as it does is that the mainstream media publishes untruths – like that Tommy pleaded guilty; like that Tommy had endangered the trial of rape gang members (though the case had ended, and the rapists had been convicted); like that Tommy is a racist Islamophobic hoodlum; and on.

A larger reason is that the legal system, the government, the mainstream media, the establishment religions, are all – as shown by massive evidence – massively corrupted, massively complicit. There is rot wherever one turns.

One way to help is to donate to Tommy’s legal defense fund. The cost to Tommy to date: over 100,000 pounds. Here is the link to donate: https://www.tr.news/freedom-for-tommy

 

Over 250,000 people were listening
on August 20, 1963, when Martin Luther King, Jr spoke.

How Many People Are Listening Now?

 

In 1963, the media reported Martin Luther King’s speech. It was easy to hear his message.

Now, the mainstream media tells blatant untruths.

“The truth shall set you free.”

We need everyone to hear the truth.


Over and Over, Laws that Discriminate

 

There is another massive injustice happening. Not only are laws unfairly applied, with any infringement used as an excuse for a massive punishment, but unjust laws, laws that discriminate, are increasing in number.

In the United States, there used to be Jim Crow laws, laws that discriminated against blacks – like, blacks go to the back of the bus. Now, there are new Jim Crow laws – like, Christian whites, don’t even try to get on the bus.

John Naughton (name changed to protect his identity) was falsely accused of sexual harassment. He went to prison. He now has a criminal record though he was innocent and though he had proof of his innocence, proof that the allegation was malicious in intent. Most likely the accuser was racially targeting him.

Why did he end up in jail? John is working class. He works full time, but his pay is not enough to cover legal costs. The choice he was given: plead guilty, or pay for legal costs, which will mean losing your home.

What could he do?

John is one of many.

 

What About Assistance with Legal Representation?

 

John lives in the UK, where legal assistance used to be available for people in his situation.

It isn’t any more.

The law is now overtly a Jim Crow law. It overtly discriminates.

Needed: one law for all.

Instead, now low income is irrelevant in terms of qualifying for government assistance for legal representation.

All that counts is membership in some designated groups.

John Naughton did not qualify. No one classified as white qualifies, unless that white person belongs to a non-Christian religion or is a refugee.

There is one law for non-whites, especially Islamic non-whites, another for whites, especially Christian whites.

Blatant discrimination. Blatant injustice.

From a Travesty of Justice to Joining Together

 

Everywhere one turns, blatant miscarriages of justice. Unequal treatment. Laws that discriminate.

All people against injustice must join together and act: keep informing ourselves, inform others, and join political parties that expose the rot and expose the truth – about Islam, about the consequences of mass incoming, about the taboo against non-politically correct thinking in the education system.


The War on Truth

 

Here are quotes attributed to Hitler’s minister of propaganda, Joseph Goebbels:

 

– If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it, and you will even come to believe it yourself.

– Propaganda works best when those who are being manipulated are confident they are acting on their own free will.

– This is the secret of propaganda: Those who are to be persuaded by it should be completely immersed in the ideas of the propaganda, without ever noticing that they are being immersed in it.

– Propaganda must facilitate the displacement of aggression by specifying the targets for hatred.

– It is the absolute right of the State to supervise the formation of public opinion.

 

Hitler and Goebbels – many powerful quotes that apply today.


Join Together – LINK, ACT

 

We can do the best we can on our own.

Donating is vital – time, effort, money.

Staying informed and reaching out to others – also vital.

More that is needed.

Plato: If you do not take an interest in the affairs of your government, then you are doomed to live under the rule of fools. 

The situation is actually far more dangerous than living under the rule of fools. Currently, throughout much of the West, from all the evidence, we are living under the rule of, at best, dangerous cowards and reality-deniers – at worst, evil-doers out to destroy the West.

We need to be involved, as far as we can.

Where to turn?

There are parties typically denigrated as “populist” – as if the population were rotten.

In the UK, one truth-telling party is Anne Marie Waters’ For Britain: https://www.forbritain.uk

If Gerard Batten continues to lead, there is UKIP:
https://www.ukip.org

(If Batten is replaced as leader – as is almost certain, as he has just been barred from running by the party he co-founded – this party may well return to silence about anything negative relating to Islam).

How can you tell truth from untruths told over and over?


Again, Join Together!

Justice for All.
Save the West!

 

All the best to all who care and do what we can,

Elsa

July 9, 2019 – 2 days before Tommy’s sentencing

  1. Please share. You can forward, or this sendout is online at:
    http://westindanger.com/justice-for-all.html 

INTERVIEWS WITH TOMMY

From July 8, the interview where Tommy appeals for political asylum: https://youtu.be/Ux93kfCiJk4 [blog Editor: The link is to a 39 minute of Alex Jones interview with Tommy Robinson. It is worth to watch because Robinson’s passion. Interspersed throughout the interview are pay-the-bills advertisements. Of they are as annoying to you as I found them simply fast-forward.]


On June 26, 2019, just a few days before the trial, Tommy gave a detailed accounting
 of his encounters with the legal system, starting from the day of his arrest on May 25 2018:
http://elsasblog.com/190628-court-case-update.html

Truth Teller in an Anti-Truth World

 

On May 23 2018, 2 days before his arrest, things had never looked better: http://elsasblog.com/180603-tommy-robinson-interview.html

 

Tommy Robinson Interview, May 23, 2018

 

For lots more, come explore
http://elsasblog.com
and
http://TruthSummit.info 

July 9, 2019

_______________

Rebel Against UK Multiculturalism:

Donate to Tommy Robinson Legal Defense

 

John R. Houk

© July 10, 2019

_______________________

We Have a Dream – from Martin Luther King Jr to Now

 

World Truth Summit
2074 Concession #3, 
Hawkesbury East, 
Ontario, Canada

 

The Jihad on the Christian Cross


Here is a politically incorrect thought sure to be reviled by Left Wing Multiculturalists and maybe even some Religious Liberty-minded Conservatives: Islam is soooo anti-Christian and Antisemitic in its revered writings, the death-cult should be illegalized as a legitimate religion in ANY Western Nation but especially in the U.S. of A.

 

Unless you are a Muslim supporter of this cult you might ask, “Why?”

 

I suspect Raymond Ibrahim would not publicly agree with me for politically correct reasons, his recent post – “The Jihad on the Christian Cross” – is a good enough reason to me to illegalize Islam.

 

JRH 6/7/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

***********************

The Jihad on the Christian Cross

 

By Raymond Ibrahim 

06/07/2019

RaymondIbrahim.com

 

Cover story photo of the 15th issue of Islamic State magazine, Dabiq, titled “Break the Cross.”

 

A 37-year-old Muslim migrant in Rome was recently arrested for homicide after he stabbed a Christian man in the throat for wearing a crucifix around his neck.  “Religious hate” is cited as an “aggravating factor” in the crime.

 

This is hardly the first “religious hate” crime to occur in the context of the cross in Italy.  Among others,

 

 

  • A Muslim migrant invaded an old church in Venice and attacked its large, 300-year-old cross, breaking off one of its arms, while shouting, “All that is in a church is false!”

 

 

The fact is, Islamic hostility to the cross is an unwavering phenomenon—one that crosses continents and centuries; one that is very much indicative of Islam’s innate hostility to Christianity.

 

For starters, not only is the cross the quintessential symbol of Christianity—for all denominations, including most forms of otherwise iconoclastic Protestantism—but it symbolizes the fundamental disagreement between Christians and Muslims.   As Professor Sidney Griffith explains, “The cross and the icons publicly declared those very points of Christian faith which the Koran, in the Muslim view, explicitly denied: that Christ was the Son of God and that he died on the cross.”  Accordingly, “the Christian practice of venerating the cross … often aroused the disdain of Muslims,” so that from the start of the Muslim conquests of Christian lands there was an ongoing “campaign to erase the public symbols of Christianity, especially the previously ubiquitous sign of the cross.”

 

This “campaign” traces back to the Muslim prophet Muhammad. He reportedly “had such a repugnance to the form of the cross that he broke everything brought into his house with its figure upon it,” wrote one historian (Sword and Scimitar, p. 10).  Muhammad also claimed that at the end times Jesus (the Muslim ‘Isa) himself would make it a point to “break the cross.”

 

Modern day Muslim clerics confirm this.  When asked about Islam’s ruling on whether any person—in this case, Christians—is permitted to wear or pray before the cross, Sheikh Abdul Aziz al-Tarifi, a Saudi expert on Islamic law, said, “Under no circumstances is a human permitted to wear the cross” nor “is anyone permitted to pray to the cross.”  Why?  “Because the prophet—peace and blessings on him—commanded the breaking of it [the cross].”

 

Islamic history is a reflection of these sentiments.  For instance, the aforementioned Sheikh al-Tarifi also explained that if it is too difficult to break the cross—for instance, a large concrete statue—Muslims should at least try to disfigure one of its four arms “so that it no longer resembles a cross.”  Historic and numismatic evidence confirms that, after the Umayyad caliphate seized the Byzantine treasury in the late seventh century, it ordered that one or two arms of the cross on the coins be effaced so that the image no longer resembled a crucifix (Sword and Scimitar, p. 54).

 

Testimonies from the very earliest invasions into Christian Syria and Egypt of Muslims systematically breaking every crucifix they encountered abound.  According to Anastasius of Sinai, who lived during the seventh century Arab conquests, “the demons name the Saracens [Arabs/Muslims] as their companions.  And it is with reason.  The latter are perhaps even worse than the demons,” for  whereas “the demons are frequently much afraid of the mysteries of Christ,” among which he mentions the cross, “these demons of flesh trample all that under their feet, mock it, set fire to it, destroy it” (Sword and Scimitar, p. 27).

 

Reminiscent of the recent drawing of a cross in fecal matter on a French church, in 1147 in Portugal, Muslims displayed “with much derision the symbol of the cross. They spat upon it and wiped the feces from their posteriors with it.” Decades earlier in Jerusalem, Muslims “spat on them [crucifixes] and did not even refrain from urinating on them in the sight of all.” Even that supposedly “magnanimous” sultan, Saladin, commanded “whoever saw that the outside of a church was white, to cover it with black dirt,” and ordered “the removal of every cross from atop the dome of every church in the provinces of Egypt” (Sword and Scimitar, pp. 171, 145, 162).

 

Lest Muslim hostility to the cross still seem aberrant—limited to some obscure saying of Muhammad or “ancient history”—below is a very partial list of examples of how the crucifix continues to throw even “everyday” Muslims into paroxysms:

 

Egypt: A young Coptic Christian woman named Mary was mauled to death when her cross identified her as a Christian to Muslim Brotherhood rioters.  Similarly, 17-year-old Ayman, a Coptic student, was strangled and beaten to death by his Muslim teacher and fellow students for refusing to obey the teacher’s orders to cover his cross.

 

Pakistan: When a Muslim man saw Julie Aftab, a Christian woman, wearing a cross around her neck, he attacked her, forced battery acid down her throat, and splashed it on her face—permanently damaging her esophagus, blinding her in one eye, and causing her to lose both eyelids and most of her teeth.

 

Turkey: A 12-year-old boy in Turkey wearing a silver cross necklace in class was spit on and beaten regularly by Muslim classmates and teachers.

 

Malaysia: A Christian cemetery was attacked and desecrated in the middle of the night by unknown persons in the Muslim-majority nation.  Several crosses were destroyed, including by the use of “a heavy tool to do the damage.”  Separately, a Muslim mob rioted against a small Protestant church due to the visible cross atop the building of worship.  It was quickly removed.

 

Maldives: Authorities had to rescue a female Christian teacher after Muslim “parents threatened to tie and drag her off of the island” for “preaching Christianity.”  Her crime was to draw a compass—which was mistakenly taken for a cross—as part of a geography lesson in class.

 

As Islam’s presence continues to grow in Europe, it should come as no surprise that attacks on crosses are also on the rise.  Aside from the aforementioned attacks in Italy, the following occurred either in France and Germany, where attacks on churches and crosses have become endemic:

 

  • A Muslim man committed major acts of vandalism at two churches, including by twisting a massive bronze cross.  (Click for images.)

 

 

  • A Muslim man who checked himself into a hospital for treatment went into a sudden frenzy because there were “too many crosses on the wall.”  He called the nurse a “bitch” and “fascist” and became physically aggressive.

 

  • After Muslims were granted their own section at a cemetery, and after being allowed to conduct distinctly Islamic ceremonies, these same Muslims began demanding that Christian symbols and crosses in the cemetery be removed or covered up during Islamic funerals.

 

  • A German language report from notes that in the Alps and in Bavaria alone, some 200 churches have been attacked and many crosses broken: “The perpetrators are often youthful rioters with a migration background.”

 

In light of the above, it should come as no surprise that groups such as the Islamic State also make hostile references to the cross in their communiqués to the West: “We will conquer your Rome, break your crosses, and enslave your women, by the permission of Allah[.] … [We will cast] fear into the hearts of the cross-worshipers[.]”  The Islamic State even once disseminated a video showing its members smashing crosses in and atop several churches in territories under its sway (since taken down by YouTube); it beheaded and stabbed a man with his own crucifix; and it published pictures of its members destroying Christian crosses and tombstones in cemeteries under its jurisdiction.

 

Similarly, in post “Arab Spring” Libya, a video of a Muslim mob attacking a commonwealth cemetery near Benghazi appeared on the internet.  As the Muslims kicked down and destroyed headstones with crosses on them, the man videotaping them urged them to “break the cross of the dogs!” while he and others cried “Allahu akbar!”  Toward the end of the video, the mob congregated around the huge Cross of Sacrifice, the cemetery’s cenotaph monument, and started to hammer at it, to more cries of “Allahu akbar.”  Other Christian cemeteries in Libya have suffered similarly.

 

In Iraq, pictures emerged from a Christian cemetery that was vandalized by the Islamic State.  Broken and scattered crosses appear.  In one picture, the jihadis broke into a coffin, snapped off the head of the withered corpse, and threw the crucifixes surrounding it on the ground.

 

Such is the history and continuity of Islamic hate for the cross—that symbol which represents the heart of the Christian faith, namely the death and resurrection of Christ, two events Islam vehemently denies.

 

The jihad on the cross began with Muhammad, was carried out by early caliphs, and continues to this day by the jihadis of the world, not to mention the occasional “everyday” Muslim.

 

Note: For more on the long history of jihad on the Christian cross, see author’s recent book, Sword and Scimitar: Fourteen Centuries of War between Islam and the West.

_________________________

© 2019 · RaymondIbrahim.com ·

 

About

RAYMOND IBRAHIM is a widely published author, public speaker, and Middle East and Islam specialist.  His books include Sword and Scimitar: Fourteen Centuries of War between Islam and the West (Da Capo, 2018), Crucified Again: Exposing Islam’s New War on Christians (Regnery, 2013), and The Al Qaeda Reader (Doubleday, 2007).

 

Ibrahim’s writings, translations, and observations have appeared in a variety of publications, including the New York Times Syndicate, CNN, LA Times, Fox News, Financial Times, Jerusalem Post, United Press International, USA Today, Washington Post, Washington Times, and Weekly Standard; scholarly journals, including the Almanac of Islamism, Chronicle of Higher Education, Hoover Institution’s Strategika, Jane’s Islamic Affairs Analyst, Middle East Quarterly, and Middle East Review of International Affairs; and popular websites, including American Thinker, Bloomberg, Breitbart, Christian Post, Daily Caller, NewsMax, National Review Online, PJ Media, and World Magazine. He has contributed chapters to several anthologies and has been translated into dozens of languages.

 

Among other media, he has appeared on MSNBC, Fox News, C-SPAN, PBS, Reuters, Al-Jazeera, and NPR; he has done hundreds of radio interviews and some of his YouTube videos (here and here for example) have received over a million views each.

 

Ibrahim guest lectures at universities, including the National Defense Intelligence College, has briefed governmental agencies, such as U.S. Strategic Command and the Defense Intelligence Agency, provides expert testimony for Islam-related lawsuits, and has testified before Congress regarding the conceptual failures that dominate American discourse concerning Islam and the worsening plight of Egypt’s Christian Copts.

 

Ibrahim’s dual-background—born and raised in the U.S. by Egyptian parents born and raised in the Middle East—has provided him with unique advantages, from equal fluency in English and Arabic, to an equal understanding of the READ THE REST

 

Genocide of Christians Reaches “Alarming Stage”


If someone ever tells you there is a Moderate Islam and a Radical Islam and the latter is not representative of Islam, that person is an outright liar or is deceived into believing a lie.

 

It’s kind of like telling a Jewish Holocaust Survivor there is a Moderate Nazi and a Radical Nazi.

The horror that is Islam is being experienced NOW by Christians in Muslim dominated nations. Can you say GENOCIDE?

 

JRH 5/26/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

**************************

Genocide of Christians Reaches “Alarming Stage”

 

By Raymond Ibrahim
May 26, 2019 at 5:00 am

Gatestone Institute

 

  • Many of the world’s most persecuted Christians have nothing whatsoever to do with colonialism or missionaries. Those most faced with the threat of genocide — including Syria’s and Iraq’s Assyrians or Egypt’s Copts — were Christian several centuries before the ancestors of Europe’s colonizers became Christian and went missionizing

 

  • The BBC report highlights “political correctness” as being especially responsible for the West’s indifference….

 

  • Among the worst persecutors are those that rule according to Islamic law, or Sharia — which academics such as Georgetown University’s John Esposito insist is equitable and just. In Afghanistan (ranked #2), “Christianity is not permitted to exist.”

UK Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt (pictured) commissioned an “Independent Review into the global persecution of Christians,” which was recently published. (Photo by Jack Taylor/Getty Images)

 

Christian persecution ‘at near genocide levels,'” the title of a May 3 BBC report, cites a lengthy interim study ordered by British Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt and led by Rev. Philip Mounstephen, the Bishop of Truro.

 

According to the BBC report, one in three people around the world suffer from religious persecution, with Christians being “the most persecuted religious group”. “Religion ‘is at risk of disappearing’ in some parts of the world,” it noted, and “In some regions, the level and nature of persecution is arguably coming close to meeting the international definition of genocide, according to that adopted by the UN.”

 

British Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt is also quoted on why Western governments have been “asleep” — his word — concerning this growing epidemic:

 

“I think there is a misplaced worry that it is somehow colonialist to talk about a religion [Christianity] that was associated with colonial powers rather than the countries that we marched into as colonisers. That has perhaps created an awkwardness in talking about this issue—the role of missionaries was always a controversial one and that has, I think, also led some people to shy away from this topic.”

 

Whatever the merits of such thinking, the fact is that many of the world’s most persecuted Christians have nothing whatsoever to do with colonialism or missionaries. Those most faced with the threat of genocide — including Syria’s and Iraq’s Assyrians or Egypt’s Copts — were Christian several centuries before the ancestors of Europe’s colonizers became Christian and went missionizing.

 

The BBC report highlights “political correctness” as being especially responsible for the West’s indifference, and quotes Hunt again in this regard: “What we have forgotten in that atmosphere of political correctness is actually the Christians that are being persecuted are some of the poorest people on the planet.”

 

Although the BBC report has an entire heading titled and devoted to the impact of “political correctness,” ironically, it too succumbs to this contemporary Western malady. For while it did a fair job in highlighting the problem, it said nothing about its causes — not one word about who is persecuting Christians, or why.

 

The overwhelming majority of Christian persecution, however, evidently occurs in Muslim majority nations. According to Open Doors’ World Watch List 2019 [WWL], which surveys the 50 nations where Christians are most persecuted, “Islamic oppression continues to impact millions of Christians.” In seven of the absolute worst ten nations, “Islamic oppression” is the cause of persecution. “This means, for millions of Christians—particularly those who grew up Muslim or were born into Muslim families—openly following Jesus can have painful consequences,” including death.

 

Among the worst persecutors are those that rule according to Islamic law, or Sharia — which academics such as Georgetown University’s John Esposito insist is equitable and just. In Afghanistan (ranked #2) , “Christianity is not permitted to exist,” says the WWL 2019, because it “is an Islamic state by constitution, which means government officials, ethnic group leaders, religious officials and citizens are hostile toward” Christians. Similarly, in Somalia, (#3), “The Christian community is small and under constant threat of attack. Sharia law and Islam are enshrined in the country’s constitution, and the persecution of Christians almost always involves violence.” In Iran (#9), “society is governed by Islamic law, which means the rights and professional possibilities for Christians are heavily restricted.”

 

Equally telling is that 38 of the 50 nations making the WWL 2019 are Muslim majority.

 

Perhaps the BBC succumbed to silence concerning the sources of Christian persecution — that is, succumbed to “the atmosphere of political correctness” which it ironically highlighted — because in its own report, it did not rely on the WWL. The problem with this interpretation is that the study the BBC did rely on, the Bishop of Truro’s, is saturated with talk concerning the actual sources of Christian persecution. In this regard, the words “Islam” and “Islamist” appear 61 times; “Muslim” appears 56 times in this review on persecuted Christians.

 

Here are a few of the more significant quotes from the Bishop of Truro’s report:

 

  • “The persecution of Christians is perhaps at its most virulent in the region of the birthplace of Christianity—the Middle East & North Africa.”

 

  • “In countries such as Algeria, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Syria and Saudi Arabia the situation of Christians and other minorities has reached an alarming stage.”

 

  • “The eradication of Christians and other minorities on pain of ‘the sword’ or other violent means was revealed to be the specific and stated objective of [Islamic] extremist groups in Syria, Iraq, Egypt, north-east Nigeria and the Philippines.”

 

  • “[T]here is mass violence which regularly expresses itself through the bombing of churches, as has been the case in countries such as Egypt, Pakistan, and Indonesia.”

 

  • “The single-greatest threat to Christians [in Nigeria] … came from Islamist militant group Boko Haram, with US intelligence reports in 2015 suggesting that 200,000 Christians were at risk of being killed… Those worst affected included Christian women and girls ‘abducted, and forced to convert, enter forced marriages, sexual abuse and torture.'”

 

  • “An intent to erase all evidence of the Christian presence [in Syria, Iraq, Egypt, north-east Nigeria and the Philippines] was made plain by the removal of crosses, the destruction of Church buildings and other Church symbols. The killing and abduction of clergy represented a direct attack on the Church’s structure and leadership.”

 

  • “Christianity now faces the possibility of being wiped-out in parts of the Middle East where its roots go back furthest. In Palestine, Christian numbers are below 1.5 percent; in Syria the Christian population has declined from 1.7 million in 2011 to below 450,000 and in Iraq, Christian numbers have slumped from 1.5 million before 2003 to below 120,000 today. Christianity is at risk of disappearing, representing a massive setback for plurality in the region.”

 

The BBC should be commended for (finally) reporting on this urgent issue — even if it is three years behind the times. As the Truro report correctly observes, “In 2016 various political bodies including the UK parliament, the European Parliament and the US House of Representatives, declared that ISIS atrocities against Christians and other religious minority groups such as Yazidis and Shi’a Muslims met the tests of genocide.”

 

At the very least, it appears that the BBC has stopped trying to minimize the specter of Christian persecution as it did in 2013, when this situation was just starting to reach the boiling point.

________________________

Raymond Ibrahim, author of the new book, Sword and Scimitar, Fourteen Centuries of War between Islam and the West, is a Distinguished Senior Fellow at the Gatestone Institute and a Judith Rosen Friedman Fellow at the Middle East Forum.

 

Follow Raymond Ibrahim on Twitter and Facebook

 

© 2019 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute.

 

[Blog Editor: I did not ask or receive such permission; hence if requested this cross post will be removed.]

 

About Gatestone Institute

 

“Let us tenderly and kindly cherish, therefore, the means of knowledge. Let us dare to read, think, speak, and write.”
— John Adams

 

Gatestone Institute, a non-partisan, not-for-profit international policy council and think tank is dedicated to educating the public about what the mainstream media fails to report in promoting:

 

  • Institutions of Democracy and the Rule of Law;

 

  • Human Rights

 

  • A free and strong economy

 

  • A military capable of ensuring peace at home and in the free world

 

  • Energy independence

 

  • Ensuring the public stay informed of threats to our individual liberty, sovereignty and free speech.

 

Gatestone Institute conducts national and international conferences, briefings and events for its members and others, with world leaders, journalists and experts — analyzing, strategizing, and keeping them informed on current issues, and where possible recommending solutions.

 

Gatestone Institute will be publishing books, and continues to publish an online daily report, www.gatestoneinstitute.org, that features topics such as military and diplomatic threats to the United States and our allies; events in the Middle East and their possible consequences, and the transparency and accountability of international organizations.

 

Gatestone Institute is funded by private donors and foundations. We are grateful for your support. Gatestone Institute is a 501(c)3 not-for-profit organization, Federal Tax ID #454724565.

 

Nina Rosenwald, President
Naomi H. Perlman, Vice President