How the Christchurch Massacre has helped advance Islam.

Many Muslim leaders have declared that they want the whole world to become Muslim.  The Koran has pages of instruction to followers on how to persuade others to become Muslim. It also has pages of instruction on how to force others to become Muslim.  Some use Jihad, 'holy war,' in the hope of turning others to Islam.

Luckily, most people are good people, whether religious or not,  and do not resort to violence. They use other means, peaceful means, and they are making inroads. They are getting converts, but almost as important, more and more countries are making it risky, even unlawful, to criticise Islam.

It is a battle of religions, mostly covert, sometimes overt.

Something happened on the 14th of March, 2019, that may not appear significant in the battle, but is beginning to appear that it might be a major advance for the spread of Islam.

One Brenton Tarrant shot dead fifty people at two separate mosques in New Zealand.  There were also many injured, and another death in early May. Some of those killed were small children.

It was a terrible crime.  According to various summaries on what he called his 'manifesto,' his intention was to divide people in order to turn division and resentment into outright war. (The 'manifesto' has been censored.)

New Zealand's Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, said that the killer would not succeed in his intention, that his act was not dividing the community, it was uniting them.

She appeared to be right - to begin with.  There was an outpouring of sympathy, and the mounds of flowers grew,  as they do after every other terrorist attack.

Ardern's compassion was praised.  An online petition signed by thousands of people wanted her to receive a Nobel Peace Prize.



But that 'uniting' has been short-lived.  Resentment has grown when Ardern wears the hijab, a symbol of the lowly status of women within Islam, and a symbol of a religion that says that unbelievers should be killed.

Unbelievably, she has gone further.  The Islamic Call to Prayer was broadcast over New Zealand,  a call that states, among other things, that there is no god but Allah.  Surely that is blasphemy for all other religions, including Christianity, the main religion of most Western countries.


The translation:

Allahu Akbar

God is Great
(said four times)

I bear witness that there is no god except the One God.
(said two times)

I bear witness that Muhammad is the messenger of God.
(said two times)

Hurry to the prayer (Rise up for prayer)
(said two times)

Hurry to success (Rise up for Salvation)
(said two times)
Allahu Akbar
God is Great
[said two times]

There is no god except the One God





There have been remembrance services, and a fortnight after the event, yet another, even bigger, remembrance service.  And all of that time, Ardern has acted as if the whole world has committed a grievous sin against Islam.

So many pictures of her face, often wearing a hijab, making her grieving expression.

Her face was even shown projected onto a tall building in Dubai.  She may have taken it as a tribute to her beautiful nature, but I suspect it is more of a triumphant gloat that the leader of a Western Nation is bowing down to Islam.

There was a Benefit concert - 'Stand up for Christchurch.'  (TV, Win, 22/4/19) with the money raised to go to the victims and families of the Christchurch attack.




23rd April, it was announced that a silo in Melbourne is to be painted with that same image as the tower in Dubai. "It has, for us, become a beacon of tolerance, love and peace in these divisive times."   
But a typical reaction from a f/b discussion goes more like this - "What the fuck has Jacinda Ardern's nauseating act of sympathy towards a group of people whose 'religion' exhorts violence towards non muslims daily got to do with Melbourne ???!?!"

https://www.smh.com.au/national/victoria/a-beacon-of-tolerance-love-and-peace-jacinda-ardern-mural-to-be-painted-on-brunswick-silos-20190422-p51g7t.html?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR0TVrWkrWLLv2LxM41ESzuOAQn3v1AsgIcdo2Q_DQaJ5PEikrCw2Uj6wzc#Echobox=1555967722

And the privilege of permanent residency:

It has been announced that Muslims who were attacked in the Christchurch mosque massacre will be granted permanent residency in New Zealand.  It includes their immediate families.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6953195/Muslims-attacked-Christchurch-mosque-massacre-given-NZ-permanent-residency.html?fbclid=IwAR00N2S6SjXwxbuVoKkGZAm4f7FErFugR-ClfC-BoZc-rIEsIU3UF6BC9p4

Anzac Day  25th April. There was a suggestion that the ceremonies include an Islamic Prayer.   There were objections to this.  Islam has nothing to do with the commemoration of the sacrifices made by our soldiers in past wars. 

But then, two-thirds of the planned Anzac Day ceremonies in New Zealand were cancelled  - 'security concerns,' although, of course, no-one would say just where they feared that the threat might come from.  Surely it could not be that the Muslims in New Zealand are not those same lovely people that Ardern likes to hug.

https://7news.com.au/news/anzac/nearly-60-anzac-day-services-are-cancelled-in-auckland-over-safety-concerns-c-51796?utm_campaign=share-icons&fbclid=IwAR1qU-QmYwhiITuC9M1LosGsgbdPBo0yp5FEzLyFBqcaEzBUxLsGnHgcNs4

Police are boosting security at Anzac Day marches all over Australia and New Zealand. There was actually a sniper posted on the Shrine of Remembrance, Melbourne.

And in Bendigo, Victoria, for the first time, bollards were used against a potential vehicle attack by terrorists. 

In other country centres, it was the same, like a large truck, with large and heavy trailer attached, planted across the main road in to the centre of town, toward the scheduled march.  That truck was not merely for traffic control, as we would have assumed just a few years ago.

It is a sad thing that we have to take precautions like this.  It is obvious that it is Muslim fanatics that are the threat, but few want to admit that.


We should honour those ones who sacrificed for our freedom. It is shameful and a dishonour to all of us that some are afraid to do what we have done since WW1.


Right.  This is a chap known as 'Curly Kirk.' He did not survive the Japanese POW
 camps of WW2.

 
There are others, so many others, who fought for our country.  And yet now, we fear attacks from those living within our borders.

26th April, 2019.  Prince William and wife, Kate, visited New Zealand and met with affected families.  And again, we see  Ardern with her hijab and sad expression!  Some are still rewarding this with praise, though more and more of us are thoroughly disgusted.

There is criticism from some Muslim women as well.  There are places where the hijab is compulsory, places where women who revolt are very severely punished.  So is wearing the hijab showing solidarity with Muslims?  Or is it showing solidarity with those who force their women to wear it?  Sometimes it is not just a hijab that women are forced to wear, but whole wearable tents that say that a woman is no longer a person, but a thing. Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan under the Taliban, all strongly Islamic societies.

I wonder if Ardern understands that in some Islamic countries, she would be stoned to death for being an unmarried mother.

Jacinta Ardern is overdoing it.

There have been so many terrorist attacks by Muslims, and the world tries so hard to say that such violence is 'nothing to do with Islam,' or it was a lone wolf,  or maybe mental illness, or even domestic or workplace violence.

I have no doubt that she is truly grieved that such a thing happened in New Zealand, one of the few countries that has not experienced an Islamic inspired terrorist attack.

But the display has gone so far, it makes one wonder if a large part of it is a show made in the hope that there will be fewer attacks by Muslims against non-believers.  Maybe New Zealand will continue to be spared.

Maybe it has worked.  So far,  New Zealand has been spared any incidents of Islamic terrorism (that we know of.)

Other places, it goes on pretty much as usual.

In parts of Africa, there is a continuous war against non-Muslims.  In various Arabic countries, there are very few non Muslims left.  Either they have converted, been killed or left.

In Nigeria

"Nearly 300 people killed in at least seven Christian villages across Mid Nigeria in February and March of this year, including brutal rapes and maiming with machetes."   

"The Muslim group known as the Fulani have also maimed or killed over 6,000 Christian women, children, and elderly in the last two years."    

 https://www.jihadwatch.org/2019/03/nigeria-muslims-burn-four-churches-and-28-homes-rape-and-murder-christian-woman-in-raids-on-christian-villages?fbclid=IwAR3ypk6XIC6fqZ0MpzR3c7Yd9YlZvWazy6uYoGPxFs-273qAn6sFqNLSh94

There have also been numerous attacks on Christian churches all over the world - Africa, of course,  but also other countries of Europe, America, even Australia, though I have yet to see one of the fires at Australian churches being blamed on Muslims.

France has been particularly bad.  "French churches are coming increasingly under attack with an average of nearly three churches per day targetted for vandalism alone over the past three years."    (Brietbart News,  30th March, 2019.)

Mid March, 2019,  A Muslim woman was sentenced to eight years in prison for plotting to blow up Notre Dame Cathedral, Paris.

16th April, 2019:  Notre Dame is very badly damaged by fire. It could, of course, have been an accident. Findings are yet to be made public.



https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/04/catholic-churches-being-vandalized-across-the-usa/?fbclid=IwAR1GfcYiGhaK-hzGqde1_KysagJ-kt8a-5poFxD5bGy7W0X0L3Eor7DNb_c


Islamic terrorism continues. 

"In the 18 days after the Christchurch massacre, there have been 65 attacks, 418 killings by terrorism, overwhelmingly Islamist terrorists."   

These figures were provided by One Nation Senator, Peter Georgiou. 13/4/19) in relation to the censure motion on Senator Fraser Anning.  He was accused of blaming the victims.

Sri Lanka

Easter Sunday, 21st April, 2019, Sri Lanka.  There was a series of coordinated attacks on Christian churches and two hotels.  Around 250 dead, hundreds more injured. 

Someone suggested that it was revenge for the Christchurch attack, but that is unlikely. A multi-pronged attack such as this would have been in planning for months.

Two weeks later, Christian churches are still not permitted to open.  The threat continues.


As I said, Muslim attacks continue exactly as normal. 

And now for the repercussions of the Christchurch attack.

Gun Laws:

First, gun laws in New Zealand are to be drastically tightened.  This will not concern most of us.

Censorship:

The gunman's 'manifesto' has been banned, and having a copy can earn a person up to ten years in prison, an absurd sentence for what is scarcely a crime at all.  (I presume it can only apply to those in New Zealand.)  Since it was very long, and few would have been interested in the ravings of a lunatic, it is hard to know whether the banning will result in more or less reading of the script.

To see an illuminating article on the manifesto, go to: 
https://quadrant.org.au/…/the-anti-humanist-ideology-of-th…/

Just a couple of points from that article:  Tarrant was aggrieved that European civilisation was being undermined by the 'invasion'  of millions of immigrants from 3rd world countries.   But also he detested Conservatives, Marxists, the “cult of individualism”, urbanisation, industrialisation, drug addiction, capitalism, globalisation, democracy, exploitation of workers, free markets, multiculturalism, diversity and free trade.

He said: "I was a Communist, then an Anarchist, and finally a Libertarian before becoming an Eco-Fascist.”  

 He was also a member of Antifa, so if anything, he can be categorised as more left-wing than right-wing, if those terms meant as much as the media portray. 
That does not make him a 'right-wing' extremist, but mostly, a very garbled extremist.

NOT Conservative, and not right-wing, but these are the ones who have been blamed.

Copies of the livestream of the massacre have been banned.  I wonder if this could be a mistake, as such a banning gives rise to conspiracy theories - statements such as 'there were no bullet holes,' 'there was no blood, it could not be real,' and one I have seen  -  that in one picture Tarrant had a beard and in another, he did not.

Christchurch

I have no doubt it was real. It happened, an awful thing.  There could not possibly be a conspiracy that involved so many people.

Maybe only those who think that Christchurch is a small place at the other end of the earth could even contemplate such an idea.

But banning information is a prime way of fostering such ideas.





I didn’t think they would actually punish for sharing the video or the manifesto. It seems extreme. But a teenager is in prison now because he shared the livestream,  and a total of six people have appeared in New Zealand court on charges they illegally redistributed the gunman’s video. 
(7 news, 26/4/19) 

https://7news.com.au/news/terrorism/christchurch-mosque-shooting-new-zealand-man-pleads-guilty-to-sharing-video-online-c-80324?fbclid=IwAR2wz5zbGM2aK-V9ULk8i0OK1NvDytMAMwJGaZOOaCDx9MSoDE4BnVIX6PYhttps://www.thesun.co.uk/news/8660140/new-zealand-shooting-christchurch-teenager-shares-live-stream-faces-jail/

So New Zealand now has laws akin to a police state.     How very, very sad.


A new Law in Australia:

A new law was rushed through parliament that outlaws the sharing of 'abhorrent violent material.' The law has been widely criticized for the way it was rushed through and for its vagueness. And I am not at all sure how they will send non-Australian social media executives to prison for not pulling down live-streamed material 'expeditiously.'

Avi Yemini says of it 'These new laws mean that Australians will no longer be able to share video-news on “terrorist attacks, murders or rapes”, essentially implementing a Chinese-regime-style news filter.' (3rd April 2019)

In my own facebook feed, I am seeing far more posts that have been censored, though I have never watched 'abhorrent violent material.' My guess is that they are pulling any videos that show Muslims in a bad light.

There is a further crackdown on those who criticise Islam:

A prospective speaking tour of Australia by Milo Yiannopoulis was stopped.  He was refused a visa, though when he commented on the case, it was to condemn the violence.

May 3rd, 2019,  more conservative speakers have been banned from facebook. -  Paul Joseph Watson, Laura Loomer,  Milo Yiannopoulos, Paul Joseph Watson, several others.  None have incited violence and none of them are guilty of 'hate speech' (if any reasonable definition is used,) but all have criticised Islam, and that is no longer permitted.

Watson confirmed his ban, saying, “In an authoritarian society controlled by a handful of Silicon Valley giants, all dissent must be purged.”

Lesser known critics have also found themselves in 'facebook prison.' Islam must not be criticised.

https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/computers/item/32187-war-on-free-speech-facebook-bans-people-it-considers-dangerous?fbclid=IwAR20q7gG0sTUnYd8J3kygzLtwiJQTmIi0CLWOv91mmXU7IJwiK_glbbyI6s

https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2019/05/03/only-trump-can-stop-silicon-valleys-war-on-freedom-of-speech/

Obfuscation of the facts:

The media has often appeared reluctant to talk about it when Muslims are the aggressors, and that.  overwhelmingly, terrorism around the world is Islamic.  It is shown in the eagerness with which they pronounce a non-Muslim attack to be terrorism, such as the killing of a journalist in Ireland by the 'New IRA.' 

Or Tarrant, who was immediately pronounced a terrorist. It depends on your definition of terrorism, but if the Christchurch killings were to promote a religion or political view rather than simply to make division more bitter, it was not in his manifesto. But he did call himself a terrorist, and terrorism it was labelled, very early on.  Not a lone attack by a lunatic or anything else,  as killings by Muslims are so often called.  When a Muslim attacks, it tends to be called anything from 'workplace violence,' to 'domestic violence,' and frequently,  the perpetrator is called 'mentally ill,' rather than 'Muslim.'

So many dead in the Sri Lanka attacks.  They were aimed directly at Christians by Muslims.

The reaction?  'Be kind to Muslims. It was not Muslims, but ISIS,' one said.  And some, unbelievably could not bring themselves to speak of the Christian victims, but referred to them as 'Easter worshippers.'   I saw a news item (ABC)  that instead of saying that Muslims attacked Christians, said that the risk was of  'religious minorities attacking each other.'  


And there is more blind insistence that Muslims are only good and that Islam is a 'Religion of Peace.'

For instance: in response to my posting something about a book I bought, came this rant.  (Only a portion has been reproduced.)   "I'm a Christian, but I am shocked and ashamed to see this intolerant, bigoted, unwarranted hatred being peddled by people who seemingly know no better. If Christianity is a religion of tolerance, then show some." 

 The book is by Cheri Berens: ‘An American Woman Living in Egypt:  Life during an Islamic takeover.’   It is a memoir by one who still lives in Egypt, so obviously is not saying that all Muslims are bad. 

These days, any hint that Islam might not be all  good, all the time, tends to be greeted by a half-hysterical insistence that it is good, and that anyone who says not, is a hate-filled bigot.

And yet: "Australia's National Terrorism Threat Level remains PROBABLE. Credible intelligence, assessed by our security agencies, indicates that individuals or groups continue to possess the intent and capability to conduct a terrorist attack in Australia."

 And though it is not said, that terrorism threat is from Muslims, not from 'white nationalists' or anyone else. 
  https://www.nationalsecurity.gov.au/…/national-terrorism-th…

It reminds me of  what I wrote a while back in this blog - 'Threat?  What threat?'   People just prefer not to know. 
That was in June, 2018.

 http://mamcrae-author.blogspot.com/2018/06/threat-what-threat.html

Tarrant killed 51 people in that attack.  None of those people or their families or friends would think it any sort of a victory for Islam in its efforts to take over Western Civilization.

But when it has resulted in such an increased censorship,  then yes, it has been an advance for Islam in its struggle.  Its 'Jihad.'  The Christchurch Massacre has helped Islam's advance through Western Civilization.   

Threat? What threat?

In 1996, two British nurses living in Saudi Arabia were convicted of the murder of a fellow nurse, Yvonne Gilford. Like most foreign workers, they lived within a gated, 'secure' Compound. To most observers, their guilt was doubtful, and there was talk of a Saudi security guard seen in the area where the nurses had their rooms.  

The women's motive was supposedly something to do with a passionate lesbian love affair. To most of us, the idea that middle-aged women might murder for passion seems so unlikely as to be ludicrous.  (Gilford was fifty-nine.)  But the Saudi religion is Islam, and Islam has a very odd idea of female sexuality.  

Another possible motive was theft, and one of the nurses supposedly used the credit card of the victim.  

The murderers confessed (under coercion,) were sentenced, one to death by beheading, but both were later returned to Britain. 

Most of the world thought they'd been framed.    

But whether they were guilty or not is not what I wanted to talk about. Some years afterward, I worked with another medical professional, who had lived and worked in the same facility at the same time, and she told me that 'all of them there' were convinced that the accused nurses were undoubtedly guilty, and in a 'wise' sort of a voice, she told me that people will do anything for money.

But what I think is that it would have been too threatening a thought that anyone could be at risk of being framed for murder while in a country with such a different justice system, and far prefer to think that the two were guilty.  They felt safer that way. A lot safer. 

Tommy Robinson

It is akin to the reaction to the punishment of those who fall foul of the authorities because they speak too much truth.  

Tommy Robinson had been harassed for years because he spoke of the damage that the booming numbers of Muslim immigrants were doing to his home suburb of Luton, (London) and to make it worse, he spoke loudly about the Pakistani Muslim rape gangs (usually referred to as 'grooming gangs')  that were ignored for decades by the police.  

He is now in prison on what appears to most of the world to be a remarkably feeble pretext.  



But many, maybe most, people are saying that he knew he was doing the wrong thing and deserved to be locked up. It does not make one feel safe to think that the police and your government might imprison a person for too much truth-telling.  It does not make one feel safe to think that your formerly free and democratic nation is quickly turning into a totalitarian police state. 

We are like the three monkeys when we choose not to see what is happening. 

But it is vital we do see, before our freedom is gone. 

To quote Adolf Hitler - 'The best way to take control of a people and control them utterly is to take a little of their freedom at a time, to erode rights by a thousand tiny and almost imperceptible reductions. In this way, the people will not see those rights and freedoms being removed until past the point at which these changes cannot be reversed."

The edging toward the loss of free speech is happening in many places.  It is happening through persuasion, through 'education' especially at universities, and it is happening through coercion.  Occasionally, I still see someone say that being 'politically correct' is merely to do with politeness.  But it is far more than that.

When we cannot address the lunacy of having men who claim they are women competing in women's sport at a professional level without being accused of 'transphobia,' when we cannot speak of the ill effects of mass immigration without being accused of being 'racist,' and when we cannot talk of the threat posed by Islamic terrorism without being 'Islamophobic,' then we have lost our free speech.  

For the moment, in most places, criticism is as far as it goes, though even that is enough to  bring most of us into line.  But more and more countries are making 'hate speech' a crime punishable by a prison term. Oddly, this is not being used to control a Muslim imam calling for violence toward infidels, instead it is being used to silence those who criticise those Muslim imams who are calling for violence toward infidels.  

We are well on the way to losing our rights and freedoms, just as Hitler described. 

We must wake up, look around, read those articles many prefer to avoid, do not take as gospel the politically correct waffle you see on the ABC and like media, and start to reassert our rights.  Only if we use our rights will we manage to retain them.  I don't think it is too late.

Milo Yiannopoulos, Pamela Geller, free speech campaigners

Free speech is vitally important. It is enshrined in the American Constitution, and it is assumed as a right in all other civilised countries, whether it is part of their constitution or their Bill of Rights, or merely by custom over generations.

And yet, free speech is threatened. If it was not threatened, no-one would riot to close down events that didn't suit their view of the world, social media platforms would stick to deleting pornography and incitement to violence  rather than targeting unfashionable opinion. Facts would not be categorised as 'hate speech.'

 Milo Yiannopoulos is a flamboyant gay man, witty, entertaining, and sometimes outrageous, though in my opinion, not nearly as outrageous as is commonly claimed.  Milo's talks have provoked riots, the mere mention of his name can have some fuming because of  his 'hateful' opinions. And they will condone violence against him and against his supporters. 

He wrote a book, but his prospective publisher was worried about repercussions. They cancelled his contract.

Rioting because Milo Yiannopoulos was to speak.

He published anyway. Most of what Milo Yiannopoulos has to say is serious, rational, and pure good sense - that it is vital to overturn the extreme Leftist culture that now reigns in politics, entertainment and in education.







There were a few things I didn't like about his book - the use of some pretty vile profanity, for instance, and the assertion that 'ugly' should be cured with surgery.  But I remember that that particular one was in relation to the very loud 'feminists' he comes in contact with - the sort of 'feminism' that has nothing to do with the perfectly sensible variety we knew in the 60s and 70s. And I have seen on social media some gross specimens! Not that they were physically ugly so much - few of us are beautiful - but these ones seemed to want to display themselves as physically ugly as they could possibly manage, and in as few clothes as possible. So I can forgive him for that one - maybe.

Milo loves to be flashy. 

But then he'd say something that would make me break out in laughter. For instance, he related an incident when he was dressed up as a clown,  'I didn't mind about the clown costume because I still looked sexy as fuck.'


Milo is vain and he is funny. He is incredibly entertaining, but that is only one aspect. He is also very well read, and highly intelligent. I have seen him tie a Muslim activist into knots, because it so quickly became clear that he knew the religion of Islam, while the declared Muslim (Western, female) had very little idea.

For sheer entertainment, I would give this book 5 stars (out of 5) 


So why do they try and silence Milo?  He says: 'It isn't my outrageous behavior, my mockery of ideologies considered sacrosanct in America today, or even my addiction to uncomfortable truths. The establishment's real fear is that this book will affect readers, especially young people. In particular, they fear that the young people at the epicenter of political correctness in America's universities with begin to question the ideologies foisted upon them...'



Milo speaks out against Islam, among other things.  Since Islam declares that the punishment for being homosexual is death, it is no wonder that he despises the religion. But this is one reason that Milo is so heavily criticised  - we are not supposed to speak ill of Islam.  It is Sharia Law, the barbaric law handed down to devout Muslims from the 8th Century - that any criticism of Islam is forbidden. 

And yet European countries are now trying to enforce that law for them. How very, very sad.

Another advocate for free speech is Pamela Geller, who has been trying to shed a light on the facts of Islam ever since the Twin Towers were brought down by Jihadists in 2001.

And then they wanted to put an enormous mosque on the site instead. Some claimed it would be a symbol of unity or peace or something like that. Pamela saw it is as more like a symbol of  triumph.  Thousands agreed, and the proposal was eventually quashed.

But that was when her activism really began.

And ever since,  people have been trying to stop her talking. She points out, again and again, that you cannot call facts 'hate speech.' It makes no difference. Facts are routinely called 'hate speech.'

Her recent book is called 'Fatwa,'  as a Fatwa has been called against her. She sees routine death threats made against her, and at least once, there was a serious attempt to carry out the threat. 

In her book 'Fatwa,'  she describes her efforts to open people's eyes to the reality of Islamic teaching, and she describes the determined efforts to close her mouth. There were even efforts made to thwart her attempts to provide safety to young women threatened with 'honour killing' because they committed such 'crimes' as talking to an unrelated man, appearing in Western dress, or wanting to leave Islam. In Islam, of course, the prescribed punishment for  'apostasy' is death. 




Pamela uses direct quotes from the Koran to illustrate her points. And yet, because she is pointing out the actual teachings of the Koran, she is labelled bigot, racist, etc.  Facts should never be suppressed. How can one address a problem if one cannot describe that problem? 


Here we are in 2017, and yet many European nations plus Canada, Australia and Britain, are caving in to demands from Muslims in a misguided attempt to keep the peace. Pamela says that Islam is at war with civilisation, and the politically correct Leftists are in collusion with them, whether or not they understand what they are doing. She calls them 'craven quizlings.'

On page 60, she says 'Who would have imagined that twelve years after 9/11, patriots and freedom lovers dedicated to opposing the ideology behind those attacks on the homeland (and over 21,000 deadly Islamic attacks worldwide since) would be demonized, dehumanized, and the object of a campaign to get us banned from an allied nation. It could only be the result of insanity or ... defeat.' 

There was a terrorist attack in London. The advice from police was for people to run and hide. Pamela says:  'Running and hiding is no strategy in war. Operation Fetal Position is a recipe for disaster.' (Page 127) 

For speaking out, Pamela Geller finds herself the recipient of some truly dreadful threats, often on social media and usually blandly ignored, while her own posts are routinely taken down. This, for instance, that a Muslim posted pictures of her next to bloodied dismembered bodies along with threats too gross for me to say.  And yet that facebook page was not taken down. 

She says, (page 189)  'This is ultimately not about me; it is whether America will stand for freedom or surrender. I don't want to die, but I will not live as a slave.' 

But it seems that so many people would rather live in fear of repercussions by Muslims than to stand up to their threats. They refuse to even hear when people point out what the threat is. They would rather silence people like Pamela Geller than look at what is real. 

An excerpt from Pamela's book -  'All my work is in defense of the freedom of speech, the freedom of conscience, the equality of rights of all people before the law, and individual rights. The claim that I operate a hate group is a vicious smear and eerily evokes the circumstances that preceded the rise of the Nazis in the 1930s.' 


It's a strange world. On the news today, it speaks of the Christmas season being particularly dangerous as a season for terrorism. There is talk of new loudspeakers in cities so that they can sound an alarm when there is a terrorist attack, a heavy police presence is now routine at major events, and heavy bollards are being erected in places where crowds gather in order to protect against a terrorist deciding to deliberately drive into them.  And yet there is no mention of just who these 'terrorists' are, and what they might be murdering for.

Bollards erected in the hope of preventing an Islamic terrorist attack.

Milo Yiannopoulos and Pamela Geller are freedom fighters. They are fighting for the right to tell it as it is.  And they are telling us to open our eyes, particularly about the dangers posed by the spreading influence of Islam.

In certain circles, the penalty for being homosexual
is to be thrown from a tall building

As a gay man, Milo could be threatened with execution, as other gay men have been,  while Pamela is subject to a Fatwa.











Our government, our educational system, our politicians, would rather preach nonsense such that 'Islam is a religion of peace.'  One only has to read the Koran and the other Islamic 'holy' books to know how false is such a claim.

Both these books are worth reading.  Milo's book is entertaining, as well as informative, while Pamela's book goes into detail about the numerous times she has spoken out, and by one method or other,  has been silenced.  This part of the book becomes a little tedious to read, and yet the sheer repetition rams home her point that freedom of speech is under enormous threat. 

Pamela Geller - 'The foundation of my work is individual rights and equality for all before the law. These are the foundational principles of our constitutional republic.  That is now considered controversial. Truth is the new hate speech. Truth is going to be criminalized.'     

Both books can be found online. Many bookshops will probably not stock them - further proof of the threat to freedom of speech. 

Islam is winning

Islam is winning.

Islam wants to make the whole world part of its ‘Ummah.’ In other words, all of us to become Muslims.  The Koran commands it. Muhammad, when he first decided he was having revelations from Allah, tried to persuade people to follow him,  and when persuasion didn't work very well, he used treachery and murder instead. The more followers he managed, the bigger army he had at his command. He used his army to make himself rich, give his ‘soldiers’ plenty of booty to share, including of course, slaves, and the more he was able to force Islam onto his neighbours.

Those we now call Islamists are active in following his example. Mostly, they use modern tactics such as demanding concessions that no other religion would think of demanding, by using the absurdities of modern-day political correctness, and by depicting themselves as victims of Islamophobia at the slightest excuse, sometimes a manufactured excuse.

And they use terrorism. 'We will not be beaten,' people say whenever there is a new terrorist outrage. 'They may have guns but we have flowers.'  And,  'We will not allow them to make us afraid.'

No?  In Turin, Italy, 4th June, 2017, one and a half thousand people were hurt stampeding from a bang, possibly from a fire-cracker.  People might try and convince themselves that terror is not winning, but when so many people can be hurt because of an imaginary bomb, then it is clearly winning.

It is winning in many, many ways.

Each time some commentator speaks of the issue of terrorism without using the words 'Islam,'  'Muslim'  or even 'Islamist,'  then it is a win for Islam. The Australian ABC is laughable for its avoidance of any hint that Islam might have something to do with terrorism, even though almost every terrorist attack in the last fifteen years has been by Muslims in pursuit of its Islamist agenda.

They win each time a terrorism 'expert' pretends that Islamist terrorism has nothing to do with Islam. Waleed Aly, TV presenter and Muslim did a lengthy report on terrorism, and blamed it on everything else but Islam. (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/waleed-aly-on-terrorism-no-mention-of-islam/news-story/33a81d0c970b2f796ddf3c203e23877e)

They win when ordinary people hesitate to use the word 'Muslim' when it is obviously a Muslim. There was a ludicrous example in regard to the second London Bridge attack (June 3^rd, 2017) - a witness saw one of the perpetrators with his knife, he was shouting 'This is for Allah,'  and yet the witness 'couldn't say' whether he was a Muslim. I guess he thought that if he said it was a Muslim, then he would be 'racist.'  But if he was that close, he was lucky not to have had the knife slashing at his throat, and that is a lot more serious than simply being called a stupid word.

Each time a blogger gets criticised for telling it like it is, that is also a win for the Islamists. Some facebook accounts are repeatedly closed down because they speak of Islam - not 'hate speech,'  nothing that actually threatens Muslims for being Muslims, but merely for explaining the facts of the religion. 

Each time that schools bow to pressure and make special concessions to Muslims, it is a win for Islam and a defeat of Western values of civilisation. Some schools are now making their students learn about Islam, except that they only learn the dressed up version, not the facts. There was one school that had a 'Hijab Day.'  Hijabs are a sign of the subjugation of women. They have no place in schools or anywhere else.

Islam wins every time some asinine popstar says something like all we need is love and understanding and terrorists will no longer be terrorists. Such blatant idealism, such willful blindness, only delays the day we see the enemy and finally start to fight. 

Islam wins when those who calls themselves 'feminist' refuse to call them out on their misogyny.  Some have worn hijabs and called it feminist!  Anne Aly, Labor MP and former ABC personality, called it 'the most feminist religion.'  (March, 2017)  It states in the Koran that  a woman is worth half of a man, and that a husband should beat a wife from whom he fears disobedience. In the most Islamic of states they cover her in a black shroud as if she was not a person at all. Feminist? Baloney.

Islam wins when eyes are deliberately turned away from Islamic practices such as the forced marriage of underage girls.  It especially wins when a truly awful Islamic practice, female genital mutilation, is defended.  Germaine Greer!  She was once a highly respected feminist.  Now she equates FGM with voluntary cosmetic surgery.  It is a very different thing, lady!  Ask Ayaan Hirsi Ali.  (http://triggeralert.blogspot.com.au/2011/01/germaine-greer-on-male-female-genital.html) 

Indonesia, once regarded as a 'moderate' Islamic nation. A Christian politician was charged with blasphemy because he ventured to say that it was not a Koranic command that Muslims could only vote for Muslims. That was a very big and very significant win for Islam.  Ahok (aka Basuki Tjahaja Purnama) is now serving a two year prison term for blasphemy.  (http://www.smh.com.au/world/jailing-of-jakarta-governor-ahok-puts-focus-back-on-indonesian-blasphemy-laws-20170512-gw3f40.html) 

Islam wins when European nations pass laws that outlaw criticism of Islam. That is a particularly sinister development. 

Islam wins when formerly modernising countries turn more and more to the severe form of Islam. Look at pictures of countries such as Iran and Afghanistan in the 1960s, and look at them now. Pity the poor women now enveloped in black. In Saudi Arabia, a woman is not permitted outside the house without the escort of a male guardian.

Islam wins when atheist bloggers are executed, and it wins when, in more and more areas, the brutality of Sharia Law is embraced.

Islam wins when Muslim communities succeed in making their area a 'No go'  area for others, including police. There are said to be more and more 'no go'  areas throughout Europe. There should be none.

And it wins when an occasional blogger - like myself - wonders about possible repercussions before pressing 'publish.'   

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

Learn about Islam. It is important.

Suggested books:

1.  Bill Warner, PHD, translation of the Koran and the Hadith, books about Islam. From Amazon: 'Bill Warner holds a PhD in physics and mathematics. He has been a university professor, businessman, and applied research physicist.

Warner had a life-long interest in religions, including Islam, and their effects on history and civilizations. After the 9/11 New York jihad attacks, he began working on making the Islamic political doctrine, which impacts non-Muslims, available to the average person. 

https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_2?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=bill+warner%2C+koran

2. Ayaan Hirsi Ali knows Islam as few others know it. She has written several books, every single one of them a learning experience for the reader.

3. 'The Story of Mohammad'   

            Harry Richardson.  

Based on the Hadith, one of the 'Holy' books of Islam, this is the story of Muhammad's life. Richardson puts it in order, and makes it easy to understand while never deviating from what is accepted as truth by Muslims.  

This book is truly an eye-opener.