Do Islamist have the same social rules (norms) as everyone else? Are their irreconcilable differences between those of Islamist social norms and the rest of the of the world? Today we look at Islamic Supremacy.
+++++++++++++++++++++
Blog Editor: Rather than capitulate to Facebook censorship by abandoning the platform, I choose to post and share until the Leftist censors ban me. Recently, the Facebook censorship tactic I’ve experienced is a couple of Group shares then jailed under the false accusation of posting too fast. So I ask those that read this, to combat censorship by sharing blog and Facebook posts with your friends or Groups you belong to.
Paul Sutliff had Cathy Hinners on his podcast Civilization Jihad Awareness. The topic of discussion was Nashville police officers receiving some sort of training from a Mosque reputed to disseminate Radical Islam to its attendees. In case you have been desensitized, Radical Islam = Islamic Terrorism.
I appreciate that Paul began the podcast by giving a bit of history on the Muslim Brotherhood’s document: An Explanatory Memorandum – On the General Strategic Goal for the Group In North America (5/22/1991). You can read that grand strategy to Islamize America on a PDF on the Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT) website HERE. The IPT PDF begins with the Muslim Brotherhood’s original Arabic followed by the English translation which you’ll have to scroll down to read.
Central to the subject matter is the Islamic Center of Nashville (ICN). To understand how bad ICN is for America in general and Tennesseans in particular here is an excerpt from the Tennessee Star (which is interesting since the Tennessee press is usually Muslim-friendly) dated 11/20/17:
Former board members of the Islamic Center of Nashville (ICN), Awadh Binhazim and Kamel Daouk helped found the ICT; Binhazim served as Secretary of the Board and Daouk as Chairman.
Binhazim proselytized Islam in Nashville through his organization Olive Tree Educationwhich served as the dawa program for the ICN (which was recently visited by Metro Nashville students), with lectures and classes at Vanderbilt, Tennessee State University and presentations to local civic groups and law enforcement. Daouk served as the treasurer of Olive Tree.
According to a Politico article, the Olive Tree Education website listed several lectures by al-Qaeda leader Anwar al-Awlaki.
In 2010, a video of Binhazim at a Vanderbilt student program recorded him saying that Islamic law mandates capital punishment for homosexuality and that “as a Muslim he does not have a choice of whether to accept or reject what Islam teaches.”
Binhazim’s bio posted on Vanderbilt’s website notes that Binhazim held a variety of roles at the ICN including as Vice-President and Secretary of the ICN Board and as Director of Public Relations for the mosque. The ICN Imam during Binhazim’s tenure was Abdulhakim ali Mohamed who served the mosque from 1999-2007 and partnered in Olive Tree Education. This Imam came to Nashville from the radical Brooklyn Al Farooq mosque which had a documented history of raising money for terrorists and is the same mosque attended by the “blind sheik” who was convicted in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.
For the past 4 years I have been speaking throughout the country and Tennessee on Islamic organizations present in our country. These groups, like the Muslim Brotherhood, CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations) and the MSA (Muslim Student Association) have infiltrated every aspect of our society. They are also present in every state.
If you are in Tennessee and want to know more about who and where they are, contact me at **** [Blog Editor: I’m not going to be responsible for handing contact info. Go to LinkedIn if you feel the need to contact her.]
Also:
Be sure to listen every Monday to the Michael Delgiorno Show on Nashville’s Supertalk 99.7 WTN at 1005 (CT) as we talk about everything Islamic.
Dailyrollcall.com was founded by Cathy Hinners, a retired police officer.
Dailyrollcall.com is a source for exposing the Islamists and their organizations throughout the country, with an emphasis on the State of Tennessee. Dailyrollcall has also expanded to include other retired law enforcement and military personnel to actively investigate tips on Islamic infiltration and indoctrination. Thanks to our supporters we will be able to purchase video equipment to be able to expose publicly what we find. All information is thoroughly vetted and all sources are confidential.
(July 26, 2019) Cathy Hinners, a former #lawenforcement officer now Training consultant questions the wisdom of training new police officers at a mosque in Nashville connected to the #MuslimBrotherhood and past #terrorist.
______________________
Introducing Sutliff/Hinners Podcast on Probable Islamic Brainwashing in Nashville Police
Global Patriot Radiowhich lists On Demand episodes including many Civilization Jihad Awareness with Paul Sutliff
Paul Sutliff
Paul Sutliff has authored a few books related to Civilization Jihad as such you can find them on Amazon. From theSutliff Amazon Pageis a brief bio:
Paul Sutliff has a BA in religion and Philosophy from Roberts Wesleyan College, a MSEd from Nazareth College of Rochester and is completing a post-grad certificate in Intelligence Analysis. Paul is an educator, a research writer and a radio talkshow host. Paul says he is only an awakened Patriot to what is happening around him. Paul first started to look into the Muslim Brotherhood after the college where he earned his MSEd took $500,000 from the international Institute of Islamic Thought. It took only a short bit of research to realize that a former Catholic college had opened its doors to an enemy of the United States.
Paul Sutliff has an interesting discussion/interview with Dr. Stephen Kirby on his Civilization Jihad Awareness (Global Patriot Radio location) podcast on Blog Talk Radio last Thursday. Here’s the summary from the podcast location:
If you like Kirby’s info, he gives his website that explores Islam in relation to the West at https://islamseries.org/. If you are a Patriot weary of being called an Islamophobe when you tell people Islam is inherently contrary to the U. S. Constitution, this is an excellent podcast to arm yourself against the idiotic epithet of racism when exposing Islam in conversation.
The embed for the Sutliff-Kirby podcast is below the title. If the embed doesn’t take on one or both of the blog platforms I utilize, simply click on the title and the embedded link will take you directly to the podcast.
The Connecticut (CT) Mirror is caught spreading Islamic lies for a local Mosque to create the false picture of Islamophobic persecution. Paul Sutliff who also utilizes Act for America Connecticut exposes the false narrative promoted by Taqiyya specialist Dr. Reza Mansoor.
Dr. Reza Mansoor is not someone to trust when he talks to non-Muslims about what Muslims believe. Part of this is because he believes it in Islam’s best interest to deceive you, the non-Muslims about what Islam teaches on Jihad. This practice is part and parcel of practicing shariah and deceiving the non-believer.
This article provides no sources to stand behind Dr. Reza Mansoor’s statements on jihad. It ignores shariah which is cited in Reliance on the Traveller. An English translation of Arabic Umdat al-Salik. This book is recommended by the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT). I personally recommend to anyone who wants the truth on what jihad means to read o.9.0 Jihad. I also recommend reading the 1915 Fatwa given by the last official caliph. This fatwa was very clear on what jihad means and how it should be carried out. It speaks of three different levels of jihad, Heart, Word, and Action/Deed.
It is unethical in this country for a person claiming the title of professor to purposefully misinform the public in the area of his/her content. This is grounds for dismissal by professorial malfeasance.
In the same respect, articles and books exposing the recent lies of Dr. Mansoor on this topic were previously written in detail. “How Taqiyya Alters Islam’s Rules of War Defeating Jihadist Terrorism,” by Raymond Ibrahim was published in the Winter of 2010. This is among the best responses to this misinformation. Humorously, it was written 9 years ago.
My suggestion is for CT Mirror should remove the purposeful misinformation by Dr. Mansoor. Reliability of sources is key for any piece of journalism. Dr. Mansoor has shown himself not to be credible!
Jane Bate, of Connecticut ACT! for America also wrote a response:
I was very disappointed to read Vanessa de la Torre’s article, “At Muslim Sunday school, learning about Islam and correcting misconceptions.” This piece is full of ‘taqiyya,’ the obligatory deception of non-Muslims. An explanation of this phenomenon can be found in section r8.2 of the “Reliance of the Traveller“: r8.2 “Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory”.
In the article, we’re told the popular line that ‘jihad’ means a personal or spiritual struggle. Though it can mean that, and that sort of ‘jihad’ is considered the ‘greater jihad,’ nonetheless, approximately 98% of the times the word ‘jihad’ appears in Islamic doctrine, its meaning is military warfare. To describe it as a “personal struggle, then, is disingenuous.
And, of course, there’s the ubiquitous claim that Islam is the “religion of peace.” But how peaceful is a religion that mandates death for apostasy? (Section o8.1 of the Reliance) How about a religion that assigns no penalty to a Muslim who kills his children, grandchildren or non-Muslims? (Section o1.2 of the Reliance). Lastly, a thorough reading of the section of ‘jihad’ -military warfare against unbelievers – which begins with Section o9.0, will leave the reader with no doubts that this is no religion of peace.”
Paul Sutliff operates a podcast on BlogTalkRadio called Civilization Jihad Awareness. He recently sent an email to highlight a podcast with Andrew Jones discussing Islamization in ye old United Kingdom.
For those of us who like to embed audio or video, Paul placed the podcast on his Youtube channel and blog which has a similar name as the podcast: Paul Sutliff on Civilization Jihad. Along with the video is the transcript of the interview.
Pay attention. If Dem Party Multiculturalists get their way, the UK’s problems will be a forerunner to the USA’s problems.
JRH 12/21/18
So readers, I’ve been using a seven year old laptop to fulfill the old blogging habit. My lovely wife sprang for an upgrade. I’m a relatively small-time blogger but with a consistently growing readership despite some token censorship from the liberal-oriented blog and social platforms.
Your article for Jihad Watch was “UK from Appeasement to Collusion part 1, the Church of England.” I found it extremely important because the Church of England was one of the foundations of the Protestant Church. Over here they call it the Episcopal Church. I found it extremely important to think that this is happening in that particular church. I want the world to hear about this. With a problem of mass migration of Muslims which is also known as the hijra has come… how bad it is in the UK. Your article talks about a massive push to transform the UK after World War II. You mentioned that it never had a democratic mandate, what do you mean by that?
Andrew Jones
Well, mass immigration to the UK began after the 1945 later government leftwing party in Britain. That’s what’s called the nationality right in 1948. In this case, common wealth subjects, so that’s people who the respects as a British subject. And they have done residency in the UK, although this policy was later modified in the 1960s. So although the policy is debatable as the UK like America is a representative democracy, what a mean by no Democratic mandate is that this piece of very important legislation it wasn’t mentioned in the Labour Party manifesto for the 1945 election, so no one in the general population voted for it. From 1948 onwards, steady but digestible flow of immigration continued into the UK and there were many positive contributions to British life from this. But it began by Tony Blair, net migration tripled in 1998 and has continued at historic highs to the present date. So for example between 1998 and 2016, immigration has been between 400,000 and 650,000 per annum [year] with 43% of that being Muslim immigration.
Paul Sutliff
So that’s 400,000 to 650,000 per year?
Andrew Jones
Correct.
Paul Sutliff
Wow!
Andrew Jones
And 43% of that being Muslim immigration. So, what you have then is Blair’s government’s effectively stopped enforcing immigration law and arguably thereby becoming a criminal government. And the Conservative Party in subsequent governments, they’ve just continued that. Now, there’s a lot of speculation as to government motives for opening the floodgates for immigration like this, but according to Blair’s aid; a guy called Andrew Leather, it was done to quote, “Rugby Political Rights knows in diversity and render their arguments out of date.” So in other words, Blair was aiming to permanently transform the UK through mass immigration, deliberately swinging demographics in the left’s favor as immigrants and immigrant descendant communities, they overwhelmingly vote labor like Democrats in the United States. So, being extra-legal, this opening of the floodgates to mass immigration was again, it wasn’t put to the British public in any of labor’s election manifestos. This tremendous transformation of British culture has happened without anyone really being asked.
Paul Sutliff
It’s interesting how in different countries or on different continents, we’re having the same issues with leftists which are basically communists and how they’re trying to destroy our country’s governments by mass migration. I’m amazed. So, what’s been the impact on the UK of this mass migration?
Andrew Jones
Well, I think a lot of people would agree in Britain that there were many positives to the pre-Blair era immigration you know, you’re talking about as such a digestible level of diversity as it were. But since the Blair era, really the immigration has been too great an intensity to the British society to comfortably digest. Now, even a guy called Trevor Phillips now admits this, and he was Blair’s Equality and Human Rights Commissioner. So, he was someone who was at the center of the Labour Party’s project to diversify Britain and even he has admitted now it’s gone horribly wrong. Now, on a macro scale as you say like in America, the British and European political and business elites, it’s evident that they’ve developed a taste for mass immigration, an addiction even. This is true across most of the political spectrum so that the political left is to say mass immigration provides them with new voters and it’s ideologically is internationalist. So, it kind of breaks down the society, they’re sort of revolutionarily kind of set against. And for the center-right in America, you call them RINOs I believe, Republicans in name only; right?
Paul Sutliff
Yes, definitely.
Andrew Jones
Flooding the labor markets drives down labor costs and this in a way recreates the conditions of 19th-century capitalism at which are heavily in the boss’s favor. So the left and the center-right, they’ve aligned in what we now call globalism, and all of these vested political and corporate interests, they want mass immigration despite between 70-80% of public opinion across nations objecting to it, and plainly put, this is an attack on democracy. So where the UK now is with mass immigration, it’s a state of affairs where the native British are a minority in London; so 45% of the Capitals population is native British and native Brits are also likely now to be a minority in Birmingham, the UK’s second city. In the foreseeable future, Pew Research predicts the UK’s Muslim population in a medium migration scenario, it’s going to reach 16.7% by 2050 and that’s probably an underestimation. And Oxford University professor of demography; a gentleman called David Coleman, he’s calculated that nationally, the native British population will be a minority by 2066. So what you’ve got from this wave of mass immigration beginning after the war and then accelerating in 1990 under Tony Blair, it’s permanently transformed the UK, and what we now have is a kind of new cultural order emerging; it’s a phenomenal transformation.
Paul Sutliff
Wow! I’m just kind of —I don’t understand how a country can purposely move itself so much towards destruction. These statistics are just mind-numbing.
Andrew Jones
I think it’s the best of interest in the country which has pushed it in that direction, and I believe you have similar patterns in the United States.
Paul Sutliff
Not this drastic yet. Thank God for that. Andrew, you have an astounding statistic of an increase of Muslims through mass migration in the UK between 2001 and 2011; 75%. How are they integrating if at all, into English society?
Andrew Jones
Okay, lots of things going on here. The increase is due to a combination of high birth rates and mass immigration. So you have for example your typical middle-class British couple; they’ll be having you know one or two children at some point in their 30s. So that compares to an immigrant Muslim family, they will have maybe up to five children by the time they’re 30. So it’s a quick birth rate, and things change quickly demographically, people don’t really realize that they think it changes slowly, but it actually changes within the space of a couple of lifetimes. And maybe because of this combination of birth rates and mass integration, the Muslim population now constitutes around 6% of Britain’s total population; 12% of London’s population. This 75% increase statistic, is widely recognized, but I drew [took] it from the Muslim Council of Britain websites; the MCB they’re called. Now, they’re the supposedly moderate premier advocacy groups of British Muslims. The MCB, it was set up by Pakistani Islamists from a group called Jamaat-I-Islami, so essentially they are the Muslim Brotherhood.
Paul Sutliff
Yes, they are the Muslim Brotherhood, that’s exactly right.
Andrew Jones
Okay, so I would say one has to be a little bit careful about using the word “they” you know when we say “how are they integrating?” Because many British Muslims, they’re well integrated and they find the rise of extremism in their communities alarming. There’s a kind of almost like the silent moderate phenomenon, and it is particularly the case I think with the older generation of Muslim immigrants, many of whom came to the UK to participate in the British way of life. Now, the younger generation, however, they do seem to be more at risk of falling prey to extremism, and this is for a couple of reasons. There are the second and third generation identity issues which go with not entirely belonging to the old country, nor to the new country. So extremist ideology can move in on this insecurity and provide a ready-made sense of belonging and purpose as a family. And that alienation is added to by many of the more recent Muslim immigrants coming from highly “Shariasized” countries like Pakistan. Pakistan in the last 20-30 years, it’s Islamized, whereas the first generation of Muslim immigrants from Pakistan, they came from the kind of like the afterglow of the British Empire, so they had a dose of British culture in them before they arrived here, that’s not the case with the recent arrivals. And of course really as I’m sure your listeners know, and you know the great background problem globally is the rise of this purist extremist Islam which is funded by vast amounts of money from the Gulf states; these petrol dollars [oil money].
Paul Sutliff
And we have a lot of problems with that here with the Saudis funding a whole bunch of areas and Qatar funding things, especially that have to do with education. Can you outline some of the specifics on this lack of integration?
Andrew Jones
Okay, so the context in Britain that the second and third generation and the recent arrivals with Muslims finding something is one where between half and two-thirds of British mosques could reasonably be called extremists. You got figures like 45% of British mosques are Pakistani Deobandi sect. now, that’s the same sect of Islam followed by the Taliban. And I’ll just say that again, strap yourself in, but just under half of the mosques in the UK are the same sect as the Taliban.
Paul Sutliff
Wow!
Andrew Jones
Those figures are extraordinary. You add to that, all of the major Muslim advocacy groups, they are extremist run or linked. So we’re talking about the Muslim Council of Britain, the Muslim Association of Britain, the Islamic Society of Britain, Muslim engagements and development and the various Islamic charities. There is no government oversight or regulation of mosques, mosque schools or Islamic charities. So on an institutional level, Islam in the UK is predominantly anti integrationist and extremist-leaning. This upcoming generation of British Muslims, the people who are growing up now, they’re being heavily influenced by these organizations, so the problems are getting worse, and this is a problem the British government simply will not openly admit to.
Perhaps they won’t admit to it because of the rise of Islamic extremism and anti-integrationism is partly their fault. Successive governments have committed uncontrolled mass immigration which leads to the phenomenon of large immigrant enclaves that makes integration impossible. Recent governments, they’ve also failed to enforce the law with elements of the Muslim community so most glaringly and shamefully with the largely Muslim red gang epidemic. And government have also failed to aggressively pursue Jihadist living in the UK on the understanding that these terrorists, they fight back Jihad abroad and often in concert with British geopolitical interests like you know, using jihadist to topple Gaddafi in Libya for example. Now, a large part of this problematic appeasement is they’re all the major British political parties, they’re different shades of liberal. It’s the same liberal dish served with 3 slightly different sauces of appeasement. If you see what I mean. So in many ways, this liberalism is the root problem because the tendency of this liberalism is to tolerate and adapt “come-what-may,” and this creates the circumstances for Islamic extremism to thrive. So liberal tolerance which simply does not require integration of business Muslims, so why should they? Why shouldn’t they integrate?
Paul Sutliff
How is the UK adapting to this influx, this push of Muslims versus the Muslims adapting to their new homeland?
Andrew Jones
Okay, so the UK adapting to Islam versus Islam adapting to Britain. There is a tendency for the UK government not to require integration…. However, the UK is doing an awful lot of adaptation to Islam, and there are numerous examples of this. They’re pretty alarming, so this adaptation really is a sort of toleration. This is what’s driving nearly the Islamization of Britain. So let’s think of a few examples. Female Genital Mutilation [FGM] is a largely but not exclusively a Muslim practice.) This is wrong [upon women], and it’s seeing zero prosecutions since it was made illegal in Britain in 1985, with thousands of cases of female genital mutilation every year in Britain, as many as 1 a day, and there have been no prosecutions since it was made illegal in 1985. Staggering!
So you also have Halal sort of meat has been bulk bought by British schools and fed to unsuspecting non-Muslim children.
Jihadis returning to the UK after fighting in Syria, Iraq they’ve been allowed back into the country and many of them roam free without situational service monitoring.
Most importantly though, and this is the subject of a series of articles I am writing for Jihad Watch. All branches of the British states are being influenced by or infiltrated by extremist Muslim advocacy groups. Again, the root of the problem is the appeasing liberalism which dominates Britain’s culture. And the argument I’m making is that appeasement, it is mutating into collusion. Without wishing to be alarmist due to the UK’s radically altering demographics and the growing power of a Muslim voting bloc, politicians in Britain, they’re increasingly going along with the demands of Islamic activists. And the wider British population faces losing control of its political faith in the not-too-distant future. We’re seeing the Labour Party directly cleared with the extremist Muslim organization, for example, Muslim engagement. The Conservative Party is kind of in effectively playing catch-up. For example, by appointing a well-integrated Pakistani heritage Muslim Home Secretary; Sajid Javid, who in many ways he seems a good thing. But they’re chasing something, they’re chasing this rising voting block. Now, in the medium to long term, the UK by doing this is arguably adapting itself out of existence to the cultural entity and with this appeasement. It’s a growing problem and it’s going to come home to roost at some point I think.
Paul Sutliff
One of the things I noticed under President Obama’s rule here in the United States was a change in immigration policy. Until Obama, we had a requirement you had to assimilate into society. And you’re using terms like integrate and adapt which is what the U.S. immigration policy changed too. Can you give examples to the listeners of how that is happening in Europe?
Andrew Jones
It’s not being pushed that hard. I mean recently in Britain, there was a government drive to promote what’s called fundamental British values which are fundamentally liberal values and central to this was values like toleration and diversity which of course they are sort of shall we say adaptive, they’re accommodating and accepting, and there doesn’t really seem to be all that much assertion. You know, you can’t get much less assertive than not prosecuting for Female Genital Mutilation. So there you have a tangible instance of the almost complete lack of requirement to integrate. And so it’s a very reasonable perception, that Europe is kind of bending over backwards and not asserting anything of traditional European values or even traditional liberal values. Liberalism has you know…. Karl Popper pointed out, (the philosopher), that Liberalism is now sort of tolerating intolerance and it’s being destroyed in the process.
Paul Sutliff
Wow! I think it’s fascinating. You’re using the term FGM when we’re talking about this because we had a case in the United States recently where a judge decided that our law against Female Genital Mutilation is unconstitutional. It’s also interesting, that ties together with the Pakistani mosque, because the persons who were doing this, the persons who got caught were the Pakistani sect that you’re talking about. And I find that kind of blends together also. But I probably should go on ask the next question. I was amazed that no one in the UK government seems to be able to find a reason to shut the Muslim Council of prison Britain’s doors. When I read your reference to 2009 after former MCB Secretary General Dowd Abdullah assigned the Istanbul Declaration which calls for violence against UK Armed Forces. Would you please tell us about the Istanbul Declaration?
Andrew Jones
Okay, the Istanbul Declaration was a 2009 response by Muslim scholars and activists to the Israeli operation in Gaza at the time; Operation Cast Lead. British Naval Forces and allies of Israel participated in the sea blockade of Gaza, so stopping things going in and out of Gaza by sea route. This declaration said that there was quite “an obligation of the Islamic nation (the umma) to regard the sending of foreign warships into Muslim waters as a declaration of war; a new occupation, sinful aggression, and a clear violation of the sovereignty of the Muslim Nation (the umma). This must be rejected and fought by all means and ways.” That’s pretty clear. So as a result of this threat of violence, Gordon Brown’s government officially severed ties with the Muslim Council of Britain. But, the ties unofficially continue, and Theresa May has now renewed and strengthened these ties. We can see from this past attempts by the British government to assert itself, and the impulse to appease winning though, that a large growing politicized UK Muslim population is going to be influencing British foreign policy decisions in the years ahead. And sadly, the UK throwing Israel under the bus is something we’re going to see a lot more of.
Paul Sutliff
Wow! Any time I see a country that goes against Israel, I see its demise. But well, why has the UK government welcomed back these obvious extremists? I’m amazed that I mean, you’re hearing about all the Jihadis returning. Why are they welcoming them back?
Andrew Jones
Well I mean, the returning Jihadis is a slightly separate issue to the Muslim Council of Britain.
Paul Sutliff
I am sorry I mean welcoming back these extremists. Why would they welcome back the Muslim Brotherhood council into…? And I see it happened here under Obama, but you had a definite declaration of war against the UK which is kind of worse than we have. We have the Explanatory Memorandum which basically is a declaration of war, but for some reason, our representatives can’t see it.
Andrew Jones
Since the Istanbul Declaration, the Muslim Council of Britain, they’ve turned down their rhetoric. They have presented themselves with moderates, and that’s been part of its kind of worming its way back into government circles. So, they speak out against terrorism and of course, they consider the terrorism of Hamas as a legitimate resistance struggle. Now, that change of tone using, for instance, the moderate kind of mood music of interfaith dialogue and so on, that’s sweet music to the ears of the British government. The British government sees the Muslim Council as vital to have on board in his attempt to influence the Muslim community and to tamp down the potential for terrorism. So roughly speaking, the British government approach. It may well be something along the lines of, let the cultural Jihadists get what they want so the violent Jihadists won’t have a reason to attack us. As in the instance of refusing to grant a Pakistani Christian as Asia Bibi, asylum, that was done because the public order implications of her coming to Britain would have been significant. A large number of politicized British Muslims would have been out on the streets, and the government really doesn’t want that. So they didn’t grant her asylum. Which was morally and utterly reprehensible. But this is the situation that the British government faces. In a way, they’re being hobbled into going along with this stuff because implications of serious trouble are really quite significant. So if this is what the British government is up to, that’s in line with this Salafist idea of the aqd Aman, and this is what’s known as a “covenant of security.” So this is an Islamic extremist principle of not attacking non-Muslim countries which provide Muslims with security. Now, that may well be the loophole that the British government is trying to kind of wriggle through, but it’s a snare. It’s a snare which will tighten because it entails creeping Islamization.
Then you know, further down the line there’s the endgame of the Islamists. So given that the Muslim Brotherhood strategy is to infiltrate and embed itself in a non-Muslim society, slowly gain strength then finally use violence when necessary, and non-Muslim government abiding by this covenant ultimately faces either conflicts or total submission; there’s no positive outcome. So the Muslim Council of Britain which has well documented Brotherhood links, it seems to be very effective playing the British government along these lines, snaring it into collusion. But the basic British government’s objective is to try to in some way defuse the situation. And as part of this attempt to defuse the situation. They are trying to get the Muslim Council of Britain on board, but that’s a dangerous game to be playing.
Paul Sutliff
Wow! it’s definitely a dangerous game. What you’re talking about, it seems not so far in the future here — which is scary. This is the stuff I’ve been writing about and warning about, but it’s scary to think that some of this stuff is already that far ahead in the UK. You talk about your government knowing it is dealing with the Muslim Brotherhood; in fact, you state that Prime Minister Theresa May knows exactly who she’s dealing with because of the Jenkins report. Could you share with the listeners what this is?
Andrew Jones
The Jenkin’s Report was done in 2014. It was ordered by David Cameron’s government at the time, which is of course also known as the Muslim Brotherhood review. So John Jenkins; he was the British ambassador to Saudi Arabia, and the Saudis are currently not keen on the Brotherhood. So maybe that won’t be worse. The review was commissioned by Cameron to establish the precise nature of the Muslim Brotherhood subversive activities in the UK and how they facilitate the growth of extremism and terrorism. So basically it was an examination of what are these people up to, what are they doing? And the review; there’s access to an abridged and censored version of the reviews available online. But the review was and it remains largely censored, and it was countered by another branch of the British government; the Foreign Affairs Select Committee. And they wanted a more favorable view of the Brotherhood. Now, we can only speculate as to why that might have been, but the Foreign Office has Arabist leanings which dates back to the first world war and Lawrence of Arabia, and obviously that the British government has a lot of dealings with the Gulf states. So who knows what’s really going on behind the scenes, but something definitely went on. Now, Theresa May was Home Secretary at the time of the review, therefore she would have had access to it, she knows contents. And that means that she knows the true nature of Islamic activism in the UK, but she has strengthened and deepened ties with the Muslim Council nonetheless. Make of that what you will.
Paul Sutliff
And that is surprising. Here, the biggest issue we deal with is a group called CAIR, and for a while, they were banned, but now I mean they’ve really strengthened their ties, they solidified everything back with the federal government under Obama, but things are bad.
Andrew Jones
It is possible that the British government maybe seeing Trump as a kind of an unfortunate blip, and they are continuing with effectively the Obama doctrine which is to try to kind of share of the nonviolent extremists and get them on board, and separate out the violent extremists from the non-violent. And therefore and trying to take the wind out of the sails of the violent extremists.
Paul Sutliff
It gives them both what they want which is Islamization. That’s the sad part of it that they both want the same thing; they both want to transform the country into a Muslim country. Whether it’s here or there, they have the same goals — the violent and the nonviolent, and that’s the sad thing they don’t see it. Andrew, you called it.
Andrew Jones
Maybe they do see it and its short-term political expediency. Because what you’re talking about is the closing up of liberal governments to the non-violent extremists in the kind of, it is kicking the can of the problem down the line, so it becomes appeasement.
Paul Sutliff
That’s a good way to put it, because politicians, they basically only think of the immediate future, they don’t think long-term because they think about what effects their vote towards re-election….
Andrew Jones
I think it’s the election cycle.
Paul Sutliff
Yes, that is the sad truth. You talk about crossing the line from appeasement to collusion; what do you mean by this?
Andrew Jones
What I mean is that at certain points, during what the police says, in other words, appeasement, it can mutate into becoming basically the bully’s sidekick which is collusion.
Now, the situation the British government faces is that Islamic activists have promulgated this victim narrative among British Muslims you know, the specter of so-called Islamophobia. This victim narrative, it has the threatened violence coded into it, because Muslims are the victims; that discrimination and persecution, then if pushed they will be justified in using violence to counter their supposed depression. So something is being set up there to be activated as and when needed.
Now, it’s not easy, especially for the overly tolerant Western liberal to make a stand against the bully who’s pretending to be a victim. So the easy path is to give the Islamic activists what they want, and that is appeasement; diffuses a very uncomfortable confrontation in which the British government or any government for that matter would undoubtedly be cast as the prosecutor of Muslims, and the mainstream media would pile in on that. Now, that short-term pseudo-solution of appeasement. It of course, sets up bigger long-term problems. And one long-term problem is that if unchecked, appeasement becomes collusion. Dealing if the bully says to appease, is a hair’s breadth away from being on the police side, being a sidekick.
As a bit of an abstract, so to give you a tangible example, the entire Western European political and media leads are currently crossing that line, and the Charlie Hebdo massacre was perhaps the point at which that began. After that attack, the global liberal media collectively came into the Islamic injunction not to depict Muhammad. Look what they dressed up this cowardice and tolerance, a lot of appeasement due to the threats of violence. But not depicting Muhammad is not simply appeasement. It’s simultaneously sharia-compliant. So the global liberal media with checkmated into colluding with the Islamization of the west, and politicians are falling into this same trap.
Paul Sutliff
Well, the first thing that shocked me in your article Andrew on the Church of England was this willingness of an archbishop which is the head of the Church of England underneath the Queen, to enter into interfaith discussions with Jihadi type Muslims; you call them the extremists. What made me stop and take notice was your statement a former Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams advocated the absorption of aspects of Sharia law into the UK legislation. This is beyond my ability to comprehend; I don’t get this. Can you tell our listeners a little bit more about this?
Andrew Jones
Okay, I don’t see the former archbishop as doing anything that’s any different from the rest of Britain’s liberal elite. He seems to be sticking his head in the sand along with the rest of them. I mean, he might hope that as fellow theists in the Abrahamic tradition, Muslims might get on board and integrate if their religious needs are catered for. For instance, by the official sanctioning of Sharia Courts or intra-communal Muslim issues like divorce and so on. And he might also hope that the most moderate version of Islam is going to eventually prevail in Britain and if Britain is accommodating enough. As you point out though, these hopes though, ignore the facts, and therefore seem to be nationalizations underpinned by fear and the fear may well be that Islam wouldn’t do that and that Britain, therefore, has an insoluble problem on his hands. I can’t believe that a highly intelligent man like Roy Williams doesn’t see this. So his statement is perhaps a blend of wishful thinking and psychological denial.
Paul Sutliff
I was also shocked by Archbishop Williams’ willingness to somehow remain ignorant. Like you’re saying, it might be denial but he’s excusing willful connections of the ISB to terrorists influencers. Influencers such as Sayid Qutb, what do you think of this type of collusion with an enemy organization by a leader of the Church of England? Does it say to you and others that the head of the C of E is not a Christian?
Andrew Jones
The Islamic Society of Britain and they kind of dress themselves up as progressive, but they are influenced by this extremist strain within Islam and the Muslim Brotherhood people like Qutb and for example the ISB; as a member of the Islamic society in Britain. It has a relationship counseling service. But when you look closely, the relationship counseling service is really a kind of rebranded Sharia Court. That’s the game that they are playing. Now, I don’t see it as my place to comment on the quality of an individual’s Christian faith. However, I can see that Christian teachings could be mistakenly miss applied to justify appeasement you know turning the other cheek so on. But to reiterate though, I see Archbishop Williams and will be and almost the entire Britain principle and media elite and being gripped by a combination of fear, denial and this is liberal grid thing. This generation of liberals has taken the UK in a fairly dangerous direction and they now appear to be paddling hard to pretend the dangers aren’t there. Now due to this downward pressure coming from the elite. Islam has been great unmentionable in the UK and perhaps for a good reason. Because holing out the lies that are being spun. This month said emotion is something catastrophic you know, public order problems, and it’s no understatement to suggest that the possibility of serious civil unrest is at the forefront of the government’s considerations. They’re trying to avoid that I think at all costs really.
Paul Sutliff
Can you elaborate on that?
Andrew Jones
Okay, just imagine this is a hypothetical scenario now. Imagine if the UK government and the media; they one day you suddenly stop lying about the extent to many conspirators in the UK. They begin telling the truth about the Muslim Council of Britain, the other advocacy groups and when he talks in a huge number of business mosques. I mean really go to town on that and then make moves to counter it. So this is our hypothetical scenario. All of a sudden, that happens. Now, even if the government of a gradual “salami slice,” or “toothpaste” achieve approach and a slowly cutting away or squeezing out the extremists. The government would set up for themselves the following. They would have to arrest and probably intern without trial. They took in human rights legislation there. That’s thousands of jihadists. So in the UK, there are 3,000 or so jihadists on the immediate terror watch list…. and then being arrested, the government would then have a situation where the further 20 to 30,0000 potential jihadis in the UK which security services are aware 20-30,000 persons of interest out there, potential jihadis. These people with a crackdown being activated; they will be radicalized by that. They would kind of start to begin an interaction as it were. You add to that mix a combat-hardened call or a few hundred Isis and Al-Nusra front fighters, they’ve returned under tension in Syria in Iraq. Then you’ve got up two-thirds of mosques and madrassas and mosques schools. They would be aligned for closure with many extremist Imams needing to be deported. So you know human rights legislation would be shredded in this kind of scenario. And all of that simply could not be done within the existing liberal paradigm. In this hypothetical crackdown as the government moves against extremists, the victim narrative that the Muslim activists have been cultivating in Muslim communities for years. That will be on top and then violent resistance would then be justified and sooner or later, the call to jihad would rise up. Now the doomsday scenario will then be that all responses travel to the UK to “defend the 6 million Muslims.” Just as with any other conflict involving Muslims since the Afghan war against Soviet in the ‘80s. Internationally, all Muslim nations were objects to this “persecution.” In the Gulf states of Saudi Arabia and Qatar, they would use the enormous economic and media leverage they have in the UK to force submission. So the British government is in a tight spot and it would find out just how tight a spot is. Again, they tried to push back against Islamic extremism. It’s so depleted now. There are so many potential jihadists in the country 20-30,000 that the government if they try and do something about it, they would find themselves in a very difficult situation.
Paul Sutliff
Wow, that is as we say here in America, “putting yourself between a rock and a hard place.” It’s still putting off till tomorrow what we have to deal with today, but that’s a tough situation. What do you think the implications are for the UK when the Church of England is an advocate for the enemies of the UK? It even goes so far as to hide the enemy status according to your article. Does the UK have a chance to survive if this continues?
Andrew Jones
As things stand, if the UK continues on its present course of appeasement, it’s long-term future seems likely to be or will be very bleak indeed. Culturally and politically, it will be a slow death. As I just outlined though, the poisonous metal of Islamic extremism is grasped in the short-mid-term known as the potential for this doomsday scenario. So frankly the British government is over a barrel either way and then like I said earlier, the tendency of politicians is to focus on short-term and the election cycle and to not let “sleeping dogs lie.” So the general tendency is really to allow the problems to mount up to the long-term and that’s going to be bleak. Where the UK is now advocating for the enemy as you say in the guise of liberal tolerance, this is near ubiquitous across British public life and that’s really the theme of the series of articles on Jihad Watch. Limited opposition to this normalization, this appeasement moving into collusion. The limited opposition that there is from activists or from the non-mainstream political parties, the fringe parties like the United Kingdom Independence Party known as UK. That’s widely smeared but supposedly far-right and there’s the strange almost totalitarian atmosphere in Britain where people implicitly understand that they should not talk about Islam. Don’t go there. Don’t talk about it. Don’t mention it. Now that unspoken is a vacuum and the Islamic extremists are drawn into that vacuum. They depend upon it and they capitalize on it. They have in a sense created a “no go zone” in the minds of Western liberals. And from there, they will continue to push out and take more ground.
___________________
BA Religion and Philosophy from Roberts Wesleyan College, MSED from Nazareth College of Rochester, and a Graduate Certificate in Intelligence Analysis from Henley-Putnam School of Strategic Security at North American University.
Paul Sutliff sent an email to me on May 12 urging support about Youtube placing restrictions of a video post featuring Sutliff interviewing Dick Manasseri of Sharia Crime Stoppers.
Sutliff’s email said in part:
You Tube claimed yesterday morning that my video of an interview with Dick Manasseri was offensive. Funny thing is they also state I have not violated community standards! Dick Manasseri and I am doing what I can to fight this. Maybe this video out of all of themascares [Blog Editor: I am unsure of the intent of “themascares”] the Muslim Brotherhood silly. Feel free to check it out for your self.
The restrictions did not remove the video, but placed a warning that included the prevention of sharing and embedding:
Certain features have been disabled for this video
In response to user reports, we have disabled some features, such as comments, sharing, and suggested videos, because this video contains content that may be inappropriate or offensive to some audiences.
Here is Paul Sutliff graph that shows censorship and NOT offensive content:
TODAY- 5/14/18, as I was about to work on a post showing my disgruntlement with Youtube censorship, I discovered the restrictions were removed. Apparently, Paul Sutliff’s appeal was answered favorably. Good for Sutliff and begrudgingly – good for Youtube:
Civilization Jihad is a very real Islamic concept that is thriving in western society. In Europe it is combined with the effects of mass migration. In America and Canada it is being pushed on 4 levels. They started in the colleges, and moved their agenda in the public schools. Today they have influenced and infiltrated aspects of our society and govenment [sic] in ways that can only be described as seditious.
Paul will share with you what is happening now. Now, not last year, but this week! Prepare to be shocked. This is the News! Its current events! But your major media outlets hide this all important information.
Tonight we have Dick Manasseri joining us. Dick Manasseri leads Sharia Crime Stoppers. Prepare to be amazed at what this man is doing for America!
In full disclosure I was in the process of getting Sutliff’s interview out for others to share, thus I posted it to my Facebook page (who knows? Facebook may censor the video cross post). Here is Facebook embed to show I was making a rebellious effort to counteract censorship:
Paul Sutliff interviews Dick Manasseri of Sharia Crime Stoppers. The original video on Youtube is about 47-minutes. However, old Youtube censorship prevents sharing and embedding. So, I’m attempting a Facebook upload. Otherwise, to view the entire interview go to http://bit.ly/2IhqQP1. Censorship is evil.
Below is the interview as heard on Blog Talk Radio which may have a lengthy intro vintage Beatles song with reworked lyrics to fit the format of Paul Sutliff’s radio program: Civilization Jihad Awareness with Paul Sutliff.
Paul Sutliff speaking at Pegida Canada 4-28-18 screen capture
Paul Sutliff alerted me of a Pegida Canada event he was speaking at in Toronto on March 28. Paul linked me to a VladTepesBlog video at BitChute. Paul’s email is dated 4/28/2018 7:37 PM. The email went to several others on his contact list. I know this because several must hit reply to all which included me. All those email replies rightly patted Paul on the back for his efforts and one person provided Facebook links of the BitChute video.
So what’s the big deal?
Paul Sutliff marched with Pegida Canada to the venue where he was one of the speakers. In the process of marching Antifa was waiting to commit acts of violence against the Pegida march. Indeed, Antifa not only attacked Pegida and Paul Sutliff AND the Canadian Police (I think Toronto Police) that was there in force anticipating Antifa violent shenanigans.
You can hear Paul cheering the police as they protected Pegida Canada from the Communist anarchists known as Antifa. The video is nearly a half an hour long. As such I can’t upload it to my Youtube channel because they only let me up 10-minute videos. I am trying to upload it to my Facebook page, but I just got a message from Facebook telling me:
“The video in your post is being processed. We’ll send you a notification when it’s done and your post is ready to view.”
Amazingly, Facebook followed through with posting the video. I’m not holding my breath that Facebook censors remove the video or the entire post altogether.
At this point you should have a bit of awareness of what the Pegida Movement is and have an understanding of Antifa Communism.
Pegida is an international movement that first appeared in Germany as a protest against culture-clashing Muslim refugees which too often brought Muslim thinking about violence and rape against non-Muslims. The Multiculturalist Left is committed to dissipating their own culture by promoting massive Muslim immigration into Germany and other Western nations.
The Pegida Movement has spread like wildfire among European Union (EU) nations and non-EU European nations. In Multicultural Leftist Europe, anything or anyone that promotes the preservation of Western Culture by preventing people from cultures that clash with Western principles are labelled as Far Right. Since many people believe nationalist movements of the past (primarily Nazism and Fascism) to be Far Right. However, Nazis and Fascists are an element of Socialism that employed nationalist extremism to justify their form of Socialism (Mises Institute):
My purpose today is to make just two main points: (1) To show why Nazi Germany was a socialist state, not a capitalist one. And (2) to show why socialism, understood as an economic system based on government ownership of the means of production, positively requires a totalitarian dictatorship.
…
When one remembers that the word “Nazi” was an abbreviation for “der National sozialistische Deutsche Arbeiters Partei — in English translation: the National Socialist German Workers’ Party — Mises’s identification might not appear all that noteworthy. For what should one expect the economic system of a country ruled by a party with “socialist” in its name to be but socialism?
…
The basis of the claim that Nazi Germany was capitalist was the fact that most industries in Nazi Germany appeared to be left in private hands.
What Mises identified was that private ownership of the means of production existed in name only under the Nazis and that the actual substance of ownership of the means of production resided in the German government. For it was the German government and not the nominal private owners that exercised all of the substantive powers of ownership: it, not the nominal private owners, decided what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was to be distributed, as well as what prices would be charged and what wages would be paid, and what dividends or other income the nominal private owners would be permitted to receive. The position of the alleged private owners, Mises showed, was reduced essentially to that of government pensioners.
De facto government ownership of the means of production, as Mises termed it, was logically implied by such fundamental collectivist principles embraced by the Nazis as that the common good comes before the private good and the individual exists as a means to the ends of the State. If the individual is a means to the ends of the State, so too, of course, is his property. Just as he is owned by the State, his property is also owned by the State.
…
Of course, socialism does not end the chaos caused by the destruction of the price system. It perpetuates it. And if it is introduced without the prior existence of price controls, its effect is to inaugurate that very chaos. This is because socialism is not actually a positive economic system. It is merely the negation of capitalism and its price system. As such, the essential nature of socialism is one and the same as the economic chaos resulting from the destruction of the price system by price and wage controls. (I want to point out that Bolshevik-style socialism’s imposition of a system of production quotas, with incentives everywhere to exceed the quotas, is a sure formula for universal shortages, just as exist under all around price and wage controls.)
…
The requirements of enforcing a system of price and wage controls shed major light on the totalitarian nature of socialism — most obviously, of course, on that of the German or Nazi variant of socialism, but also on that of Soviet-style socialism as well.
…
Now against whom would it be more logical for the citizens of a socialist state to direct their resentment and hostility than against that very socialist state itself? The same socialist state which has proclaimed its responsibility for their life, has promised them a life of bliss, and which in fact is responsible for giving them a life of hell. Indeed, the leaders of a socialist state live in a further dilemma, in that they daily encourage the people to believe that socialism is a perfect system whose bad results can only be the work of evil men. If that were true, who in reason could those evil men be but the rulersthemselves, who have not only made life a hell, but have perverted an allegedly perfect system to do it?
It follows that the rulers of a socialist state must live in terror of the people. By the logic of their actions and their teachings, the boiling, seething resentment of the people should … READ ENTIRETY (Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian; By George Reisman; Mises Institute; 11/11/2005)
Socialism is Leftist, and Nazism is a form of Socialism.
Ergo, it is a bit deceptive to label Pegida – an anti-immigration preserve-Western culture movement – a Far Right organization. Unfortunately, too many associated with Pegida does have a sympathetic eye toward Nazism. One thing is certain about Nazism, it takes nationalism to racial superiority. One of the originators – Lutz Bachmann – of the German Pegida Movement was caught dressing up like Adolf Hitler in full Nazi regalia. Rather than blight the intent of the Pegida Movement Bachmann resigned his Pegida position in 2015. Although Pegida Germany has dwindled since its 2015 heyday, a resurgence seems to be occurring despite Bachmann’s association.
The existence of Muslim violence against Europeans growing and has inspired more Europeans to take a greater interest in their national culture. After all, the English translation for the acronym “PEGIDA” is Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamization of the West”:
Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamisation of the West (Occident) (German: Patriotische Europäer gegen die Islamisierung des Abendlandes), abbreviated PEGIDA or Pegida, is a Germannationalist, anti-Islam, right-wing political movement.[3][4] It was founded in Dresden in October 2014. Pegida believes that Germany is being increasingly Islamicised[5] and aims to oppose Islamic extremism.
Pegida wants to curb immigration, and accuses authorities of not enforcing existing immigration laws.[6] Pegida has held many demonstrations; often there have been many public demonstrations against them as well.[7] In 2015, the founder of Pegida resigned after being reported as having posed as Adolf Hitler and having made racist statements on Facebook.[8] He was later reinstated.[9]
… READ THE REST (Pegida; Wikipedia; Last updated 4/27/18 00:08)
Now let’s look at Antifa.
Antifa’s European origins begin of all places in Germany:
…
The organization was initially part of the Soviet Union’s front operations to bring about communist dictatorship in Germany, and it worked to label all rival parties as “fascist.”
The organization can be traced to the “united front” of the Soviet Union’s Communist International (Comintern) during the Third World Congress in Moscow in June and July 1921, according to the German booklet “80 Years of Anti-Fascist Action” by Bernd Langer, published by the Association for the Promotion of Anti-Fascist Culture. Langer is a former member of the Autonome Antifa, formerly one of Germany’s largest Antifa organizations, which disbanded in 2004.
The Soviet Union was among the world’s most violent dictatorships, killing an estimated 20 million people, according to “The Black Book of Communism,” published by Harvard University Press. The Soviet regime is second only to the Chinese Communist Party under Mao Zedong, which killed an estimated 65 million people.
…
The idea of the united front strategy was to bring together left-wing organizations in order to incite communist revolution. The Soviets believed that following Russia’s revolution in 1917, communism would next spread to Germany, since Germany had the second-largest communist party, the KPD (Communist Party of Germany).
…
“The ‘unified front’ thus did not mean an equal cooperation between different organizations, but the dominance of the workers’ movement by the communists,” Langer writes.
…
Both the communist and fascist systems were based in collectivism and state-planned economies. Both also proposed systems wherein the individual was heavily controlled by a powerful state, and both were responsible for large-scale atrocities and genocide.
The 2016 annual report by Germany’s domestic intelligence service, the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV), notes the same point: From the viewpoint of the “left-wing extremist,” the label of “fascism” as pushed by Antifa often does not refer to actual fascism, but is merely a label assigned to “capitalism.”
Antifa has come to America to oppose the American way of life with Communist thuggery:
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Police across the United States are being forced to deal with a new hard-Left, communist-derived movement organized under the code word “Antifa,” standing for “Anti-Fascist.”
The violent, confrontational nature of Antifa anarchists presents a challenge to U.S. law enforcement that is unprecedented; they reject the free speech principles upon which civil discourse depends, while seeking to achieve the demise of the U.S. Constitution, as it holds as illegitimate any compromise with their communist worldview.
…
The Antifa movement in the U.S. is a return to the communist paramilitary riot tactics developed to fight the Brownshirts of the Weimar Republic. The goal was to terrorize middle-class Germans into rejecting the Nazis who had embraced the social-welfare programs of prior regimes. Today, few except professional historians realize Germany was the first country in the world to introduce government-funded universal healthcare. This was part of Chancellor Otto von Bismarck’s “anti-socialist” legislation, adopted under the theory that a little socialism would prevent the German people from embracing a more virulent form of socialism.
…
Today, the Antifa movement that originally formed in Germany in the 1930s has taken root in the United States, with the goal of rubbing raw social and racial class tensions in order to delegitimize the U.S. Constitution, bring down the Trump administration, and cause the political chaos the Antifa movement believes will lead to the creation of a communist state here in the U.S.A.
Antifa Street-thug Insurrection Tactics
On January 20, Antifa thugs — most dressed in black from head to toe and wearing masks or bandannas hiding their faces — launched violent street protests in Washington, D.C., in an attempt to “shut down” Donald Trump’s inauguration.
In what was branded as a “DisruptJ20” protest, some 1,000 Antifa thugs broke windows at Starbucks, McDonald’s, and Bank of America, as well as in commercial buildings in downtown Washington. Antifa rioters flooded streets, blocked traffic, burned trash in the streets, and broke windshields of passing cars. They threatened to attack inauguration attendees on the streets, while shouting a continuous flow of angry, vulgar, and confrontational in-your-face insults.
…
The Antifa movement would like nothing better than an uprising of white-supremacist, far-right extremists to oppose them in fist fights.
But the truth is that in the United States, the majority of conservatives and libertarians voting for Trump are not white supremacists any more than they are far-Right extremists. The numbers of actual far-right extremists remain so relatively small that Antifa radicals are unlikely to destabilize or delegitimize the Trump presidency, regardless of how hopeful the far-Left remains. Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh are not Joseph Goebbels, regardless of how Tom Perez and Bernie Sanders characterize the voices on the political Right supporting Trump.
But the numbers of Antifa criminal protesters will grow, championed by leftist politicians that 1960s voters would fail to recognize as true supporters of the Constitution.
For the near-term future, we should expect the Antifa movement to remain a street-thug problem for riot-trained law enforcement units; it will continue to grow in numbers and in violent intensity as the Democratic Party further radicalizes and embraces communist ideals, and as the 2018 mid-term elections draw near. – READ ENTIRETY (How the Violent Hard-Left “Antifa” Movement Copies Communists in Weimar Republic Germany; By Jerome R. Corsi; New American; 8/15/17)
This is the hatred Antifa cowards acted out on Paul Sutliff and Pegida Canada.
Paul Sutliff examines the irreconcilable differences between Islamic Supremacy and the American perspective. Watch and learn!
