I went to the vigil for the victims of the attack on Wednesday - thousands of people were there. It was gratifying. I met a Muslim lady whose face lit up when I told her I'd come and stand outside where the Muslims meet for their Friday prayers as an act of solidarity and to pray for them. Then on the Friday I met several Muslim men at the prayers - along with a couple of Police with sidearms - and was able to do a little bit more to love my neighbour as I prayed for them and showed them that they live among friends.

That was very worthwhile. But there's been a lot of very unworthwhile stuff happening out of my control...

The Crusaders Rugby team look like they're going to have to change their name based on a defensive war conducted a thousand years ago by some people on the other side of the planet. The name is perceived by some to offend Muslims. I might have missed it, but I haven't actually heard any Muslim individual or group ask for this - as I said, we've moved straight through shock & outrage and into hysteria which includes a very paternalistic and patronising attitude to Muslims. I mean I never hear any calls for the famous English Rugby club Saracens to have their name changed because of the offence of naming a team after invading hordes of Muslim slavers hundreds of years ago.

Yesterday all women (and men!) were encouraged to wear a head scarf in solidarity with our Muslim neighbours and to observe 2 minutes of silence which was introduced nation wide by the Islamic call to prayer, the Adhan. Never mind that women all around the Muslim world who don't want to wear a head covering are often persecuted, beaten and even imprisoned for taking their stand.

Read this informative article This is a symbol of oppression. Please don’t celebrate it for a healthy perspective. Here is a woman who seems to be of Islamic Middle Eastern background telling us the other side of the story. The side our media will not now pass on to New Zealanders because, despite her concern being the freedom and welfare of Muslim women, such a stance will henceforth be viewed as "Islamophobic". Yeah, what does she know right?

We were rarely exposed to such contrary ideas (are these "alternative facts"?) but now it's just not going to happen. Ever.

Major book outlet Whitcoulls seems to have removed Jordan Peterson's 12 Rules for Life, an Antidote to Chaos from its shelves. They are not being specific as to why, they just say there are concerns about "Disturbing material" circulating around the Christchurch attacks. Jordan Peterson? Name me one thing Dr Peterson has ever said anything that has been hateful of Muslims.

Similarly the leading atheist thinker Sam Harris has had people accuse him of being responsible for the Christchurch attack because he has dared to state in the past things like "Islam is the Mother lode of bad ideas". He attacked bad ideas, he never advocated attacking human beings. Tarrant had bad ideas yet everyone feels justified in attacking them.

Where's the difference?

The government has also moved precipitously in changing the gun laws. For a group of well educated people backed by huge numbers of lawyers our governments in the West sure seem unable to restrain themselves from acting on pure emotion when the public is upset (unless that doesn't align with their own agendas of course - see the Yellow Vest protests in France, the desperate plea for border security from Americans in the South-West or the Brexit fiasco currently unfolding).

Despite having the best intentions in the world, any law hastily put together in less than a week is going to be a poor. I met an ex-Army guy yesterday (in his 50's I'd say) who loves Three Gun competitions. These competitions are where people use a semi-auto pistol, an AR15 rifle and semi-auto shotgun to go through a combat course as quickly as possible while maintaining accuracy. This is his only sport. Not any more.

After all those years of service in the Army and after going through the extremely stringent approval needed to get an E category licence (in particular, to own a pistol requires a huge amount of work & expense: proof of safe storage, proof of character & the most rigorous background checks) he has now lost his only sport. He told me that overnight he's been made a criminal. He's completely lost faith in the government. As far as he's concerned, he said, they can all go to hell.

And despite the nonsense floating around in the media New Zealand has no "powerful gun lobby" like America's NRA. We have no second amendment upon which to base our right to own guns. We have no big money gun manufacturers here pushing for their own ends. We've just got some hunters and sportsmen. But go ahead and smear us all with the "gun nut" brush won't you.

Meanwhile we are all being encouraged to rigorously self-examine. "Aren't you actually pretty racist mate? Come on, look deeper. You'll find something. New Zealand has a terrible problem with you white people and your racism. Admit it, YOU are the real problem here."

Actually nah. Not going to buy it. New Zealand has had an enviable world-wide reputation for inter-racial harmony going back almost to our nation's founding in 1840. Just compare our record to those countries who are nearest in familial ties to ours: Australia and South Africa. These people are the ones most like us and our closest family yet we haven't had the problems they've had - not by a long shot.

I'm simply not going to allow myself to be made to feel guilty for something we've actually been world leaders in. Go away.

Speaking of going away, I'm finding all this last week extremely difficult. I'm not sleeping. I cry regularly. I have a permanent headache. I am like this because I can see a future in my country where normal people are going to try to articulate their genuinely held concerns only to be silenced as bigots because they lack the knowledge and are not capable of the precision and calm required to articulate & discuss the presenting subjects with people in influential positions. One way or another they will be silenced. Silencing will lead to marginalisation which will lead to increase radicalisation on the periphery which will lead to more violence.

​Exactly what Tarrant wanted.

And nobody around here seems to get that.

So I'm going to unplug for a couple of days before I get to the point of being bed-ridden once again. Meanwhile please do keep paying attention to people like Robert Spencer, Mark Durie, Raymond Ibrahim, Bill Warner and yes, "Tommy Robinson" (watch his latest interview here, he discusses Christchurch attacks near the end but the whole thing is just of such value I do encourage you to watch it).

As to the media coverage of the attack: Dr Wood has once again starkly highlighted the bigotry and hypocrisy at play, not just in America but everywhere including, and perhaps especially, New Zealand.

What he said...

This 2 minute video is from a group called "Ex-Muslims of North America". This kind of thing is why they left Islam, which was a major step for them. But how important is it to us?

​
>>>>>>>>>>>
Today, a professor at a Pakistani college was murdered by a student for blasphemy. When asked whether he was satisfied with his actions, the killer responded "Absolutely. Thanks be to god".

It's been a busy few days trying to help our church people deal with the terrorist attack in Christchurch. People are struggling with the utter brutality and, as Christians, with the reality of "how do I forgive this man for what he did?" A huge amount of indignation and love is quite rightly being poured out at the moment. People are shocked and emotions are raw. In the general public and in the blogosphere & Twittersphere people all over the world have passed quickly through shock & horror and into hysteria. A condition many seem determined to remain in for as long as is needed to somehow stop all evil people from being evil. Nevertheless decisions made in such a condition are not going to yield good long term answers.

Unfortunately, over the twenty-odd years I have been a student of Islam, Sharia Law and Jihad I have had to expose myself to a great many harrowing images, videos and accounts of those who suffered under the devout followers of the prophet. These have turned me into something of a grizzled veteran. In the days surrounding the Christchurch attack we've also seen 120 Nigerian Christians murdered with Guns and machetes. There's also been a Cathedral bombed in Jolo, the Philippines, killing 30. The perpetrators of these acts were Muslims. 

I've had to sit down with my wife and coolly discuss whether I really intend to go on discussing Political Islam because there is always a likelihood of something happening to us. It may have seemed unlikely to most people that something might happen to us in New Zealand, but now I hope those people have caught up with the game. You see attacks like these have been going on for a long, long time. 

I understand that as New Zealanders we are focused on the dreadful events here, but it seems to me that the continuation of what has been since 911 over 34,000 such acts perpetrated by those who call themselves Muslims and who rely solidly on sacred Islamic texts and have the blessing of Islamic clerics passes almost completely unnoticed by us. Why is that? One can only hope that a new era of sympathy in my country will arise as we become equally outraged over similar atrocities regardless of where in the world they are or who it is that undertakes them.

But honestly - that's just not going to happen.

Time to grow up
Over the years I've studied Islam and followed the unfolding jihad I've seen some harrowing sights.

• Beheadings;
• homosexuals killed by being thrown alive into a burning pit, others were thrown off tall buildings (these were Muslims);
• (Muslim) women stoned to death for adultery or blasphemy (these were particularly traumatic for me to watch);
• the hands of thieves being cut off (yep, Muslims);
• scores of Syrian soldiers with hands bound being them shot in the back of the head and their bodies dumped into the Euphrates by the Islamic State (again, Muslims);
• Ahmadi Muslims being beaten to death with Bamboo poles in Indonesia because they weren't "real Muslims";
• church shootings bombings, including suicide bombings, in Egypt, Pakistan and elsewhere - where the sanctuary was covered with blood from the shattered and dismembered bodies of the elderly, pretty young women and innocent children;
• the attack on the Westgate Mall in Nairobi which lasted several days and during which people were mutilated with knives and machetes, in addition to the women being brutalised in the usual fashion, their eyeballs, lips, ears, noses were removed. Little kiddies were split open with knives and thrown into walk-in freezers to die alone in the freezing dark or thrown off the top of the Mall roof onto the concrete below. A woman had her hand cut to a point to resemble a pen and she was ordered to write her name with her own blood. It was said that Kenyan security forces demolished the building over the heads of everyone inside - tormentors and tormented alike - because after several days of increasing torture they could no longer stand the deafening sounds of agony.

One experience that has made a great impact upon me was the Mumbai attack, which included a Jewish hospitality house where the terrorists tortured that poor young family to death and butchered the children in front of their parents before brutalising the woman in front of her husband and then slaughtering the husband. That woman, who was 5 months pregnant, had her baby cut out of her. The walls of the large room where they did this were literally covered with blood up to shoulder height as was every square inch of floor. The terrorists took a couple of hours to do all this. I've never seen anything so hellish.

I would often come to bed at night weeping like a small child and my wife would lay beside me and pray for me until I could close my eyes to sleep. So please, don't tell me that I don't care about this particular group of human beings in Christchurch. I do. The reason I'm going into all this unusual (for me) detail about the atrocities I've witnessed is that I think you have now grown up enough to be exposed to them. A man walks into a place of worship and murders as many people as he can in the name of his ideology. Friends, this is almost a daily occurrence in the rest of the world. This is what you must face up to. 

So I find myself assuming the role of the old soldier sitting the young fellas down in the middle of their first battle and giving them some even older advice: "Calm down. Pull yourselves together. For God's sake think! If you become emotional you will make mistakes, people will suffer. Your mates will suffer. Keep your head."

But the people I'm talking to won't listen to me. Emotions have taken over & even though they are making themselves and everyone else even more vulnerable to destruction it doesn't matter, I just can't get their attention.

What about those 120 Nigerian Christians killed by Muslims in the name of their prophet the last week? You didn't hear about it? Or maybe you did and it just didn't register. The media didn't spend much time on it, if they noticed it at all, and if the media don't think it's important well, it can't be important. People can't hear. They can't see.

In my country we haven't seen very much of this sort of brutality - there was the matter of a young Muslim convert in Christchurch last year who was narrowly prevented from driving a vehicle over people and stabbing them. Fortunately he was stopped before he could act. He was ordered to receive supervision from the Muslim community in Christchurch. At the time I wondered if the supervision had anything to do with the Al Noor Mosque and if so, how risky such supervision might be. The Al Noor mosque which, it was reported, was responsible for "radicalising" two male New Zealand converts to Islam subsequently linked to al Qaeda & killed in a drone strike in Yemen. The Al Noor mosque which was the scene of dozens of deaths last Friday.

This was not a religiously motivated attack
Despite suspicions or statements to the contrary this was not a religiously motivated attack. Tarrant was not a Christian and he didn't have any interest in Christian theology or the theology of the people he killed. All he could see was the colour of their skin and that Muslims had been responsible for many attacks & rapes in "White" lands. He viewed Muslims as part of a growing threatening demographic that would displace "White" people from their lands. But he changed his target from a Dunedin mosque to Al Noor mosque and its daughter mosque in Linwood because he suspected - with some reason - they were training grounds for jihadis. 

In fact, in his manifesto Tarrant states that one of the reasons he chose this particular mosque was because of its past radical associations. But this brings me to a major point: This was not a religiously motivated attack it was almost entirely racially motivated. In his Manifesto he answers the question "Are you a Christian?" by stating "That's a good question. When I know, I will tell you." He ended the document (as he started his video) by saying "See you in Valhalla." Valhalla is not a Christian concept. According to Nordic legend Valhalla was the place where the souls of the virtuous dead were transported by the Valkyrie after dying in battle. He only entertained the question of whether or not he was a Christian because that was the religion of his "White people" for hundreds of years not because he held any faith in it himself. He was a follower of Odin, not Jesus.

Though the NZ Police have quite rightly said anyone who distributes Tarrant's manifesto will be prosecuted, I have read the thing and it states he has no interest in Islam as a religion; he couldn't care less about Sharia law or Islamic theology. He chose that mosque because it had a large concentration of non-white people on what he considered white man's land and saw it as a centre for the civilisational attack he perceived on "white" people. It was overwhelmingly a racial attack. Similarly he intended to attack the Ashburton mosque - to which it seems he was travelling when he was arrested - because it was in a converted church which he took to be particularly symbolic of the capitulation of the "white" West before an invading force of non-whites.

I read that a survivor of the mosque attack said he lay there for a while waiting to be shoot, but thought "I'm not afraid, I will be a martyr." But no, he wouldn't be. Tarrant wasn't killing these people for the sake of Islam or Muhammad or Allah, his main motivation was the colour of their skins. 

His Manifesto outlines his concerns centre around demographics & the replacement of the Whites. Interestingly he constantly referred to non-whites as "Invaders". When I read that I was reminded of a film I recently saw, Black Panther. In that film a white man in the black hero's homeland was repeatedly referred to as "Coloniser" and told to keep silent. It concerned me at the time and it concerns me even more now that this attack has occurred. A bit of public outrage might not be amiss here: why is it OK to "other" and stigmatise all white people based on the worst possible skewed view of history but not at all OK to do the same to non-whites? This is a distinct blind spot.

What was he after?
And this brings us to the point of the attack. Tarrant's objective was to turn us against each other. Certainly in New Zealand the attack seems to have done the exact opposite. People are pulling together, donating money to the victims and getting alongside their Muslim neighbours to support them. When I've given public talks about the dangers of Islam in the past I've mentioned that there may well come a day when Christians like me will have to stand in front of ordinary Muslims to protect them if society turns evil. I have a couple of Christian friends who work overseas with the Persecuted Church. They've seen it all - terrible loss and brutality suffered by Christians simply because they are Christian. Overwhelmingly the suffering has occurred in Muslim majority contexts. If anyone should feel bitter and angry at every Muslim for this it should be them. But no, they live in Christchurch and visited some Muslim neighbours, taking food and flowers to comfort them. They all wept together. My friends followed Christ's core teaching to love God with all their hearts and love their neighbour as themselves.

Tonight I'll be going to a public prayer vigil in the Blenheim central square. On Friday I intend standing outside where the Muslims gather for their Friday meeting where I imagine others will also be in solidarity. These people are not the enemy. These people are our neighbours, they need our support. Many New Zealanders view them in this way. People are coming together to bring something good out of the tragedy.

Don't give the terrorist what he wants
However, in the longer term we are going we are going to get exactly what the terrorist wanted. He wants a large scale division between races, economic levels, religions - every possible fracture will be stressed. Do you really want him to win? Are you going to see him set a trap for you in plain sight and still insist on walking into the thing?

But if we're pulling together how can I say he's going to win? Here's how.

The mid-term effects are going to be exceedingly grim. Already I've heard Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch saying that he expects his website to be closed down in the next few months. Others will follow if this happens. The purge of "hateful bigotry" will begin. But this is to completely miss the point.

Look at this: In his manifesto Tarrant makes the same observations that many of us in the counter-jihad movement do (read that again, it's "counter-jihad" not "anti-Muslim"), for example:

• there is a large movement of people into the West who are not adequately vetted - violent & supremacist Muslims are among them;
• there are an increasing number of Islamic no-go zones appearing in Europe;
• the Muslim rape gangs in Rotherham and other areas in England were ignored if not protected by authorities, Police and politicians because of the worry of Islamophobia & racism while the victims were forgotten;
• There have been many egregious attacks by Muslims in the West: on New Years Eve of 2016 a large number of women were gang raped by largely Muslim immigrants, this event was covered up by Police and media until it was forced into the open by its sheer scale; the Manchester Ariana Grande concert attack was perpetrated by Muslims; a couple of main motivators for him was the murder of Ebba Akerlund by a Muslim and he used a photo of the body of a child with a doll next to her who was killed in the Nice truck attack which was conducted by a Muslim;
• he noted the history of Islamic aggression against the West, going back to the invasion of Spain and that the French leader Charles Martel drove out the jihad advance at the Battle of Tours/Poitiers in 732 and he was aware of the history of white slavery undertaken by Muslims over a period of several hundred years that took about one million white slaves out of Europe from as far away as Iceland & Norway.

All these are simple facts and not unsubstantiated racist slanders.

However he then made the cardinal error and did exactly what so many people accuse those in the counter-jihad movement of doing: he attributed the problems to race and missed the real issue which is the ideology. 

He named the popular Youtuber Pewdiepie in his video partly because he was using a common internet meme from a few weeks ago when Pewdiepie was competing for the top YT spot with an Indian channel: "subscribe to Pewdiepie." It's an esoteric reference intended for an "in" crowd. There is also though the intention to smear Pewdiepie with his actions and turn a large part of our culture against this perfectly ordinary - and innocent - person.

Same with the reference to Candace Owens in his Manifesto. He claims she's too extreme "even for my tastes". Is Candace Owens an altright white supremacist? Candace Owens is a young black American lady who came to some prominence because she is telling everyone in her black community to stop thinking like victims and take responsibility for improving their lives. She has the potential to do a lot of good in that community and even to reshape the political landscape in America by bringing people of all races together around commonly agreed principles. So in his mind, she has to be turned into the opposite of what she actually is. She is also a Black in a "White" land and so he hates everything about her.

The thing that those of us on the counter-jihad front have emphasised is that Political Islam, Sharia Law and the orthodox teachings of the prophet are the real enemy and they have no skin colour. I found the livestream of Tarrant's attack online and found myself muttering "What are you doing? What are you doing? They are not the enemy." Tarrant observed the same phenomena as those in the counter-jihad did yet arrived at a completely different conclusion: We see the ideology as the enemy, he sees all non-white people as the enemy.

In this he is diametrically opposed to everything that we stand for and have ever advocated. 

People need to think, to calm down and stop pointing the finger at people like us. Go to my blog or Jihad Watch or Mark Durie's website or Raymond Ibrahim's website or, yes, anything that Tommy Robinson has said or written and find a single instance of an incitement to violence against Muslims. You won't find any. That's because we don't see Muslims as the problem, we see them as the first victims of the real problem - the religion of orthodox, traditional, scriptural Islam.

Ignorance and backlash
I have a friend who was a missionary in Indonesia for several years. He predicts we will have some Muslims from there visiting us in the next few months. Some posts on social media have already appeared from jihadis promising retaliation. We should expect this and decide in advance if an attack on a church should occur - what shall we do about it?

Already there has been some disturbing misinformation coming out about the attack from those who are expected to provide the public with trustworthy information. Disappointingly, publicity has been given to some "experts" that is only going to push a jihadi retaliation. 

When I heard about the attack I thought "well, at least nobody can blame Trump for this one." But no - one of our New Zealand academics has indeed stated that Trump's rampant racism and the assistance he's wittingly or unwittingly given to the "alt-right" have contributed to this attack. Reference has been made in a article to President Trump's "Muslim ban." Although the wording is carefully crafted to note his intended was made when he was a candidate, the author neglects to note that when the ban was implemented it was modified to apply only to a handful of countries which were deemed, by former President Obama no less, to pose significant security threats to America. That the list of countries was predominantly Muslim majority simply reflects that - as the 34,000+ jihad attacks since 911 demonstrate - followers of the prophet pose a large threat to non-Muslim peoples.

So what are the "experts" saying about the attack?
Stuff carried this article: Warning signs of terror attack in New Zealand have been apparent, experts say. In it we read the opinions of three experts:~

"For a long time [New Zealand] has assumed that this extremism is not here, but it is," said Massey University Centre for Defence and Security Studies counter-terrorism expert Dr John Battersby. "The internet is causing this, the echo chambers of the internet where people with extremist views can get together and listen to each other and encourage each other. We have been warning about this for some time."

So far so good. I've been warning about it being here for a long time too. And the internet is providing opportunity for people to meet with like-minded people and stimulate their direction and involvement - whether that be in a healthy or unhealthy way.
 
Distance was no protection from from the rise of global extremism, with the flourishing of the right in Europe, and US President Donald Trump and the alt-right in America emboldening potential terrorists, he said.

Oops. What Dr Battersby takes as a rise in right wing ​extremism is viewed by ordinary Europeans, Brits and Americans - as well as this particular Kiwi - as a rise in frustration with dynasty political and media supported by academics who are detached from people's ordinary lived experiences. Ordinary people have observed the increasing number of no-go zones, the rapes, the Muslim rape gangs (up to one million girls in England alone according to one lady Labour MP, but such gangs perform as well in Holland and Finland), the treatment of gays, the territoriality and the terrorism.

After decades of totalitarian control ex-Eastern bloc countries have been particularly aware that their EU leaders in Brussells are telling them that there is no problem other than your refusal to embrace such Muslims when they themselves know that they've treated them just like any other immigrant and that this particular group of people seem to be a problem wherever they go. Politicians and the Police under their direction, academics and news media have all - with the best intentions we're sure - conspired to obfuscate and continue to endanger their own people. It is not necessary to be alt-right or neo-Nazi to notice this.

There are undeniable problems with Muslim populations wherever they are throughout the world. The root of these problems is in their religion.

Dr Battersby discusses guns and then this:
Battersby said New Zealand security services had always had an awareness the threat could be homegrown.

It's a small point, but this wasn't a home grown problem. Tarrant was an Aussie. I think he was speaking before Tarrant's nationality became known

Dr Paul Spoonley is the author of Politics of Nostalgia: Racism and the Extreme Right in New Zealand. He said Christchurch has long been a hotbed for white supremacists and the extreme nationalist movement...

I'm going to attribute the use of the word "hotbed" to the journalist here, I doubt Dr Spoonley would employ such an imprecise term. 

Far-right groups were particularly attractive to young, working-class males, he said. "They feel as though they are losing their place as the dominant group and their culture is under attack from multiculturalism. What's happened since 9/11 is there's been this big international conspiracy theory that Muslims are the major threat. "They think 'they're undermining our culture and identity and also physically attacking us so we've got to fight back.' The type of things these people think and write about ethnic and religious minorities are truly dreadful and hateful."

Dr Spoonley, 34,000+ jihad terror attacks world-wide since 9/11 is not a "conspiracy theory." The fact that people are noticing this sort of thing isn't because there's a problem with them. On the contrary, while our media, politicians and academics continue to say that "there's nothing to see here" the piles of corpses tend to distract us. As I said above, concert bombings, rape gangs and the political and media cover-ups excusing these things is what people are noticing. People are also noticing that anyone who raises their voice with these concerns are often targeted by Police and/or targeted by social media in order to be silenced. This is the cause of the monster that has been created.

This far-right extremism had noticeably grown in New Zealand in the past couple of years, Spoonley said. He pointed to the popularity of Islamaphobic commentators like Stefan Molyneux, who had planned to speak here in August last year. At a free speech rally in July, after mayor Phil Goff refused to let Molyneux speak at a council venue, protesters were holding "Free Tommy" placards, Spoonley said. This refers to Tommy Robinson, a violent anti-muslim activist in the United Kingdom. "It feels very counter to New Zealand political culture, but I've done enough work over enough years to know that there are some very extremist groups and individuals who are always capable of it. "

Stefan Molyneux is "far right"? Or perhaps merely "Islamophobic"? I'd better not read too much into this, but the statement as reported pushes us towards the conclusion that the "Islamophobic" Molyneux feeds the far right. Well most New Zealanders would like to comment on this, but they can't. Because they weren't allowed to hear what he had to say and have to take the word of people like Phil Goff who certainly can't quote anything "Islamophobic" that Molyneux has said because he's never attacked Muslims just the ideology.

The comments on Tommy Robinson are distressingly ill-informed. He has a violent past - which he readily admits - included in this violent past were the occasions where he beat up genuine far-right neo-Nazis for attending his rallies. He hates the ideology of these people. But we're not going to hear that from Dr Spoonley.

How we reacted will be a test of our culture, Spoonley said. "We have to accept there is an issue we need to work on in our communities, which is social cohesion and respect, and the rise of online hatred. This is us echoing what the rest of the world has been experiencing for some time."

By all means work on social cohesion and respect, however the real issue here is the threat of Sharia compliant, orthodox, historic, scripturally based Islam. If we insist on continuing to treat the symptoms we are going to end up like Bradford or Luton or Dearborn or Malmo. All the time wondering what more we can do to ensure the happiness of our Muslim neighbours while the many genuine Westernised Muslims among them are too afraid to speak up for fear of their more zealous brethren.

Now we get on to the most excruciatingly ill-informed of the three experts' opinions from the aptly named Dr Pratt.

University of Auckland Professor Douglas Pratt is an international expert in religious terrorism and the author of Religion and Extremism: Rejecting Diversity. He said the language, phrases and world-view of the suspected Dean Ave gunman's manifesto pointed to this being a form of Christian terrorism. "This is not simply political, it is a deeply-engrained religious extremism. These people act on the premise that Muslims are the people to be feared because they are seen to be extreme, and this would be considered a pre-emptive strike."

This is imprecise, sweeping, unprofessional and unscholarly. With it he stigmatises an entire religion with apparent ease. I wonder if he ever uses the term "Islamic terrorism"? Or would that be unjustified profiling and "othering" of hundreds of millions of people? But we can do this to Christians though eh? This statement will upset every single Christian that reads it. It is an abominable libel and it only serves to destroy any regard the followers of the world's largest religion might have had for anything Dr Pratt goes on to say. 

I mentioned above some Christian friends who showed love to Muslim neighbours based on Christian religious texts. That's what we Christians call "Christian Extremism" Dr Pratt. As I said, Tarrant does not identify himself as a Christian in any but the broadest strokes. He's some sort of "Christian" merely because Europe is, or used to be, some sort of "Christian" continent. He looks forward to Valhalla, not the Christian heaven.

Dr Pratt's statement here is categoric and unequivocal: This is not simply political, it is a deeply-engrained religious extremism. The man knows nothing of Tarrant. The best I can do is postulate that he has not seen the video as I have. But this makes his idiocy even more flagrant. How could a genuine academic expert offer intelligent commentary without seeing those things? The answer may be written before us.

Once again, according to Tarrant's own statements he hates non-whites in what he considers white land. He doesn't mind them is they're in their "own land" - he likes them just fine there - but not "over here". He didn't go to Syria to fight ISIS as he could have, and perhaps should have, done. He came to slaughter a peaceful people in a peaceful land in order to drive all non-whites out of the West. Dr Pratt embarrasses himself. Again, Tarrant observed the illness but mis-diagnosed the solution. He rejected the war of ideas he should have engaged in and followed the Devil down the road of hating people instead. 

"As we become more secular religion goes more underground, including extreme forms of it. I was expecting at some stage it would manifest in a violent act."

Again, who exactly is a "Christian extremist"? Mother Teresa? Billy Graham? The Vicar of the Anglican church down the street who has dedicated their life to studying the Faith, preaching about Jesus and helping everyone they can with the love of God? No. Some racist with a grudge and a gun. Amazingly unprofessional. Just stupefying.

We are all White supremacists now
So why are those concerned about the rise of Islam and the decision of many Muslims not to integrate into Western life being looked at as part of the problem? We can't stand what Tarrant did. We utterly disagree with his conclusion. And we are convinced that given the opportunity we can diffuse the bomb ticking away in our midst. The problem now is: we are running out of time. The response to Tarrant's actions are going to be ill-considered and self-defeating. I can see that in New Zealand there will be no middle ground, which is just what Tarrant wanted. I can see things gearing up for it now. Either you want uncontrolled immigration of unvetted Muslims & voice no criticism whatsoever of the perfectly observable & verifiable problems that will likely follow or you're the kind of person that Tarrant based his actions on. A fear-mongering xenophobe one step away from ripping the hijab off a Muslim woman on a bus.

The problem isn't white people any more than the problem is all non-white people. The problem is Tarrant's ideology. We know what his ideology was - we don't have to guess - he wrote a Manifesto explaining everything. It is this ideology and people who follow this ideology that are the problem. Not all White people, or White Australians. Similarly we know the ideology of Islam. It's written down and settled. All but peripheral issues have been totally uncontested by Islamic scholars for several hundred years. It's in the Qur'an, the Hadith, the Sira, in the Tafseer commentaries on sacred scripture and in the books of Sharia Law. All these are easily available for anyone to read.

For goodness sake read them. Get upset about them, get angry with them. Your local Muslims, most of whom - in my experience - are not at all familiar with their contents are not the problem. Tarrant wrote down his worldview and plan. So did Muhammad. Confront the ideas. Break the plans. Leave the people alone. The real enemy is in the realm of ideas.

As I said the other day and will keep saying: the reason this attack occurred was the refusal by politicians, academics, by the Police & other authorities and by the Social Media platforms to allow honest and informed discussion of the real issues. We have brought this down on our own heads, but if we don't get command of ourselves RIGHT NOW we risk losing it all.

Escape the Bird Box
Recently there was a TV film put out called Bird Box which showed the world being overrun by some sort of demonic beings able to force anyone who saw them commit suicide because of the terror of gazing upon them. People hid inside or covered their eyes if they ever ventured out because to see them meant death. However there were some people who were able to look at them and not die, but we found that these people were already insane murderers and so couldn't be driven made by the spectacle. The problem is they think the demons are wonderful and want everyone else to see them too. So instead of being friends and potential saviours they are the enemies of everyone else. I get the impression that this is where we have got to in the area of public discourse around Islam and Muslims.

People like me are now conflated with Tarrant - we're the madmen who can gaze on the horror and not be affected because we love it. Ordinary people are in the process of convincing themselves that they must not look into the problems surrounding Islam or they will be led astray and destroyed. They must not listen to people like me, perhaps we are the demons themselves who whisper to them in the familiar voices of loved ones to "take off the blindfolds" and look. But the reverse is true. Keeping on the ideological blindfold will not protect you. Having the courage to confront your fears and the dominant worldview will. Being informed and able to discern what the problem is will in fact protect you and yours, not destroy you.

Somebody said a long time ago that "you will know the truth and the truth will set you free."
Is that true or not?

If we persist in this infantile view of the world without nuance, without knowledge, without even the intention to discover then we will fall.

​Worse than that, we will deserve to fall.

The terror attack on two of our mosques yesterday has left many of us reeling. I myself have been busy fielding phone calls and visits from people asking my opinion so I haven't had time to put anything here about it. There is a lot to say, I'm making my way through all the information I can including Tarrant's manifesto but as I am still somewhat ill my thoughts aren't coming together very well.

On the other hand David Wood's thoughts come together extremely well and he says in the clip below exactly what I might have said, though far more articulately. He puts his finger on the key element. I really hope you've seen Tarrant's trap, but as I know you will get no inkling of it through the usual media, politicians and academic "experts" you MUST WATCH Dr Wood's analysis.


>>>>>>>>>>>
I Predicted the Christchurch Mosque Massacre
On March 15, 2019, a terrorist opened fire at two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand, killing at least 49 people. I have been predicting attacks like this for a decade. Unless we take steps to address the escalating tensions, we will continue seeing terrorist attacks.

A short 7 minute discussion with Dr Ravi Zacharias on how best to lead a Muslim out of their false religion and into a relationship with the real God. Very useful for those Christians among us who want to know how best to love a Muslim friend and discuss meaningful issues. 

Engaging, surprisingly simple and revealing.

You know - I'm actually a pretty positive person, but there are some sobering realities to be addressed if we can tear ourselves away from the gripping issue of whether Captain Marvel is any good as a film or not. Yes the day has come where a large number of grown-ups are not only watching films derived from comic books for kids but care enough to argue about possible discrimination surrounding them. Once again, would you rather be a little girl growing up in the West or a little girl growing up in Pakistan who is likely to spend 10-15 years in prison should she be the victim of rape.

This, we all agree,  is an outrage. Yet in the West we are still more concerned about "mansplaining" or "manspreading". I guess once these egregious wrongs are corrected we can then move on to the genuine brutality faced by women under the laws of some Islamic lands eh? Yeah, I know, I won't hold my breath,

And people with such beliefs are moving here. How will we integrate them? The discussion of the spreading dangers of Islam is not complete without evaluating our own context. As I've said in the past, the weakening of our own context has made the strengthening of Islam all the more of a threat - if we're already collapsing from within then what resistance can we offer to its advance? We're in a phase of radical doubt about what used to be considered some of the most elementary matters of life - the value of an unborn child's life; right and wrong; what is gender?; the defence of our own laws, culture and borders. Things that, even fifty years ago, were clearly understood.

So are these signs of the end of our culture? Well of course.
The only question is what are we going to do about it?

The very useful 13 minute video below has a lot of research in it (plus, regrettably, some foul language) - its creator references historians such as Arnold Toynbee and thinkers like Camille Paglia, Theodore Dalrymple, Eric Zemmour & Michel Houellebecq. He notes the demographic advance of Islam in the West and the very high level of confidence Muslims in general have in their religion & worldview.

He touches on the genuinely alarming level of drug & alcohol abuse and of depression & suicide rates in the West. He also singles out the Church for criticism - glad I'm not the only one - but thankfully provides us an example of at least one informed voice within it "crying in the wilderness" trying to attract attention. There are actually quite a few such voices, but their most immediate challenge is getting the Church itself to hear, never mind the larger population.

Facebook and other social media platforms have been doing their bit to discourage alternate opinions by banning people and groups (like Islam critic "Tommy Robinson") that have the wrong opinions. Recently Facebook has banned posts from an outfit called Zerohedge. Zerohedge started in the Global Financial Crisis, which is when I began reading it, and it offered an alternate view of economics & the world of finance. Seeing as the regular media had completely missed the signals leading to that Crash you might say there was definitely a niche in the market. More recently they've also commented on more general cultural trends. But, without an appropriate explanation, Facebook has decided that they do not comply with its increasingly nebulous, if not inscrutable, "community standards".

When only one opinion is allowed isn't that tyrannical? I thought diversity was our strength? Just not diversity of opinion though eh?

We aren't even being allowed to think.

Without a strong anchor for life and a strong sense of meaning we are, unsurprisingly, coming apart in every conceivable way. The creator of this video, though socially conservative, doesn't strike me as a particularly religious person, yet the problems he highlights and the questions asked have historically been handily addressed by the old Faith of the West: Christianity.

Not any more. What now?

Dr Wood's latest video on the astonishing double standards of British media when it has anything - anything at all - to do with Islam. Just imagine if a white person said some of the things that Muhammad has said...

And just between you and me: better have a look at this as soon as you can, You Tube will just as likely delete it the mood they're in.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Although they will never admit it, British journalists working for Great Britain's most prominent news platforms (e.g., The BBC, The Guardian, Daily Mirror, etc.) are white supremacists (i.e., total racists). They hold Arabs, Pakistanis, and Afghanis to lower standards than they hold other people to. Why? Because British journalists are convinced that white people are superior to non-white people.

We see a perfect example in Tommy Robinson's recent documentary "Panodrama: An Exposé of the Fake News BBC." In the documentary, Tommy exposes BBC Panorama's John Sweeney of blatant racism, homophobia, and elitism. Sweeney's bigotry goes unchecked by the media, because bigotry is widespread among British journalists.

Click here to watch Tommy Robinson's "Panodrama": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNd2b...
​
WEBSITE: http://www.acts17.net

One of the usual but generally unnoticed features of the contemporary West is the willingness to overlook offence, to let bygones be bygones and to bury the hatchet, because we know that we can't change the past, but we can easily let past bitterness taint our present & our future. I imagine there are many times we've chosen to forget past offences - even terribly egregious ones - for the sake of a peaceful future together. Yet when we have done our best to forget and have finally succeeded in doing so, sometimes many years later an accusation may arise pointing the finger at our own past failings to which our natural response - once our guilt is clearly established and no longer mere accusation - is most often a willingness to make restitution.

Yet our habit remains: we do not go back looking for offences to confront others with because we know it's best to let bygones be bygones. Perhaps the Judeo-Christian West may be the only place where this happens. But, some say, this is only because the West has been the victor, nay the oppressor all these years and so naturally we who have benefited most are keen to neglect our guilty past. Well that's an interesting thought. Here's a test for that thought.

If you look carefully at the picture above you will see that Aladdin is wearing a Fez on his head. Typically red these hats used to be common in many old films featuring Muslim areas of the Mediterranean - as in the classic Casablanca, named after a Moroccan town. There used to be small packets of cigarette tissue papers on sale featuring a bearded man wearing a Fez (these may still be available, I don't know as I only smoked as a child). But how many are aware of the origin of the Fez?

During the first 100 years of Islamic history after the death of its prophet the first great jihad swept out of Arabia and into the surrounding peoples. Within that first surge of conquest - which was undertaken entirely by warfare and involved no dialogue other than repeated appeals for its victims to repent and follow the prophet and his law in order to escape destruction or slavery - Islam spread right across almost entirely Christian North Africa, Spain and lunged briefly into central France. 

When the armies of the mujahideen got to modern day Morocco (derived from the earlier term Moor) they slaughtered 160,000 Christians in the city of Marrakesh and 100,000 Christians in the city of Fez - mostly civilians of course - with all the attendant rape, torture and slavery usually practised by the victorious Muslims. It was recorded that in the city of Fez there was so much blood running in the streets that the mujahideen rolled their turbans in it, turning them red.

That is the origin of the quaint and folksy little hat we see on Aladdin's head. It commemorates the destruction of an entire indigenous population, their faith, language and customs. Over the following centuries cruel slavery and second class subjugation as Dhimmis ensured that the descendants of the survivors of that unprovoked war mostly converted to Islam, learning the customs and also the Arabic language of their oppressors. Everything about them which was a result of their own choices and freedoms was destroyed.

Well, hooray for the Fez.

Today it is only a peculiar little cultural remnant that we hardly notice. But all that horror is exactly what it symbolises. As Westerners what should we do about this truth behind the artifact? Should we, on the one extreme, go in all guns blazing demanding the restoration of those lands to Christian peoples? Or should we forget the whole thing in order to build a better future with contemporary Muslims?

The latter has indeed been our attitude. But what if our Muslim friends refuse to even admit that their ancestors where the aggressors - and that they did so in the name of their prophet, their god and their religion? What if they absolutely reject any wrong on behalf of their ancestors and their beliefs? Mightn't such a willful blindness and ignorance be enough to provoke us to press them on the matter? If only for the sake of their own psychic well being? But more than that - not to honestly confront the past and reflect upon the collective actions of our people will most assuredly lead us to re-enact that past will it not?

We might say this especially in the case of Islam as the prophet, his Sharia and his god Allah are still used as the basis for warfare to this day (ISIS) with the same results.

Are we being a true friend to Muslim in allowing them to continue in their delusion? Even today the government of Turkey absolutely refuses to acknowledge the extremely well documented Armenian genocide of only 100 years ago. It is good neither for the victims nor the oppressors to engage in such fallacy. It will only bring further grief.

But much of today's "dialogue" between religions refuses to touch such issues. Largely, those in the Christian camp are eager to acknowledge and correct past wrongs. Yet those in the Muslim camp will not even entertain the idea that the behaviour of their forebears was ever anything less than exemplary. Raymond Ibrahim has written the following article on the tragedy interfaith dialogue these days and contrasts earlier dialogue and the fruit borne. I commend it to you.


>>>>>>>>>>>>
Sincere Dialogue with Islam: Its Wages and Benefits

​What is—or rather should be—the purpose of interfaith dialogue? 

When the Vatican and Pope Francis announce, as they recently did, that they are engaged in interfaith dialogue with leading Muslims, what exactly are they conveying to the world?  What are they accomplishing?

The answer to these questions is the difference between what true interfaith dialogue is—namely, an excellent thing that acknowledges and tries to overcome complications—and what most modern day interfaith dialogue amounts to: soothing but false panaceas that serve only to suppress, leaving complications to fester and metastasize beneath the surface. 

As an example of the latter, consider the “historical” document signed by Pope Francis and his Muslim counterpart, Sheikh Ahmed al-Tayeb of Al Azhar.  Far from even hinting that Islam has any connection to all the terror and havoc caused in its name, the document pins all the blame on “incorrect interpretations of religious [Muslim] texts and to policies linked to hunger, poverty, injustice, oppression and pride.”

Of course, one of the reasons such “interfaith dialogues” are common is because their reverse—honest and straightforward dialogues—make for rather awkward experiences.  They would go something like this: We—believers of this and that religion—acknowledge that we have differences and, rather than kill each other over them, we are here to lay them out in the open for discussion. 

That, after all, is precisely what dialogue among Western and Muslim peoples historically meant. 

For instance, around the year 718—less than a century after Islam’s prophet Muhammad had died—Caliph Omar II called on Byzantine Emperor Leo III to embrace Islam.  This led to a frank exchange in letters.  Rather than diplomatically praising though politely refusing Islam, Leo scrutinized its claims as heaven-sent.  Among other things, he openly criticized Islam for circumcising and treating women as chattel and for teaching that paradise will be little more than a brothel, where Muslim men copulate in perpetuity with supernatural women.

Leo further contrasted Christ’s peace with Muhammad’s jihad: “You call ‘the Way of God’ [sabil Allah, code for jihad] these devastating raids which bring death and captivity to all peoples. Behold your religion and its recompense [death and destruction]. Behold your glory ye who pretend to live an angelic life.”

Far from being a godsend, Islam was at war with God’s people, concluded the emperor: “I see you, even now … exercising such cruelties towards the faithful of God [Christians], with the purpose of converting them to apostasy, and putting to death all those who resist your designs, so that daily is accomplished the prediction of our Savior: ‘The time will come when everyone who puts you to death will believe he is serving God’ (Jn 16:2).” (Sword and Scimitar pp. 63-65 has the complete “dialogue”).

Or consider St. Francis of Assisi, whom Pope Francis so idolizes as to take on his name.  While St. Francis (b.1182) did meet and peacefully dialogue with Sultan al-Malik al-Kāmil of Egypt—as the Vatican often reminds in an effort to position Pope Francis as walking in the saint’s “bridge building” footsteps—he was no less forthright than Leo (as closely discussed here).   He did not ignore Islam’s violent reality nor apologize for Christian truths to accommodate Muslim sensibilities.  His was true dialogue—and, if the Muslim clerics he debated had their way, would have cost him his head.

The historical example most relevant for our times (to be explained in its proper place) concerns another Byzantine emperor, Manuel II (b. 1350).  As a man who spent his entire life defending against invading Turks, Manuel was well acquainted with Islam. He understood the three choices Islamic law (shari‘a) imposed on conquered non-Muslims: “[1] they must place themselves under this law [meaning become Muslims], or [2] pay tribute and, more, be reduced to slavery [an accurate depiction of jizya and dhimmi status], or, in the absence of wither, [3] be struck without hesitation with iron,” he once wrote (Sword and Scimitar, p. 217). 

In 1390, Manuel was a ward—more realistically, a hostage—of the Ottoman sultan Bayezid, whom contemporary Europeans described as “a persecutor of Christians as no other around him, and in the religion of the Arabs a most ardent disciple of Muhammad.”  At Bayezid’s courts, Muslim clerics regularly accosted Manuel to embrace the one “true” faith.   He responded with blunt honesty: “Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.”  He too was lucky not to lose his head, as he managed to abscond back to Constantinople.

Here are some lessons imparted from these historical anecdotes:
First and contrary to popular belief, dialoguing between Western and Islamic peoples is not some new endeavor created by “progressive” men of Pope Francis’ ilk.  Medieval and “backward” Europeans who supposedly were always more eager to fight than talk regularly and sincerely employed it. 

But whereas premodern Europeans saw it as an opportunity to highlight contentious differences that needed addressing before establishing a true peace, their modern day counterparts see it as an occasion to pretend there are no differences and nothing but “misunderstandings” in the way of peace.

Second, although contemporary champions of interfaith dialogue no doubt cringe at and find the blunt words of men like emperors Leo and Manuel completely counterproductive, the reverse is true.  Today, when any critical talk of Islam—especially its prophet—prompts “outraged” Muslims to riot and destroy, this may seem a counterintuitive claim.  Here is where Emperor Manuel II’s haunting words are relevant.  In 2006, Pope Benedict passingly quoted Manuel’s assertion that Muhammad had brought “things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.” Muslims around the world rioted, burned churches, and attacked Christians; an Italian nun who had devoted her life to serving the sick and needy of Somalia was murdered there.  

All Pope Benedict had to do was merely quote Manuel—in the context of the emperor’s greater point, that “to act unreasonably [by forcing people to convert by the sword] is foreign to God”—for Muslims to respond with unbridled madness and violence.

That is not dialogue; that is proof that men like Manuel were/are correct in their assessment of Islam.  This is especially the case when one understands that past and present non-Muslim critics say what they say about Islam, not to be “mean” to Muslims, but to say, “here is the problem; here is why we are at odds; here is what needs to be fixed.”

At any rate, Pope Francis learned the lesson: the only “interfaith dialogue” acceptable to Muslims is the sort that, instead of asking sincere but tough questions of Islam, covers for it.  Hence why Sheikh Ahmed al-Tayeb—who had severed all ties with the Vatican after Pope Benedict quoted Manuel in 2006—has embraced Pope Francis as a fellow “brother” (in whitewashing Islam).

This is a great pity.  Believe it or not, some Muslims actually need to hear the aforementioned criticisms and concerns to be shaken from their complacency and place themselves in the other’s shoes (as well explained by one Muslim and political activist in Egypt). 

Reasonable polemics against Islam, as captured by the words of Leo, St. Francis, Manuel, and many other historical personages, have caused not a few Muslims over the centuries to search their scriptures in order to respond to the charges, only to end in disappointment. Little wonder “blasphemy”—understood in Islam as any criticism of Muhammad/Islam—is punishable by death: it has led to the disaffection—that is, apostasy, also punishable by death—of many a Muslim.

This is well captured by yet another medieval era debate between a Christian monk and a Muslim cleric. As the former continued reciting the misdeeds of Muhammad, wondering how anyone could accept him as a man of God, the Muslim accused him of “blasphemy” against “our Prophet Muhammad,” whom “you mock with insolence!” The shocked monk replied: “Upon my life, we do not bring anything from ourselves but from your Book and your Koran”  (Sword and Scimitar, p. 51)

In other words, because non-Muslim criticism of Islam is often rooted in Islam’s own authoritative texts, honest Muslims have no choice but to reevaluate.

Indeed, if Christian chroniclers are to be believed, the frank and sincere words of Emperor Leo III and St. Francis to Caliph Omar II and Sultan al-Malik, respectively, caused the latter two Muslims to apostatize from Islam, if only in secret. 

Be that as it may, one thing is certain: sincere dialogue ultimately empowers that which is true, and thus good—even if it leads to temporary friction; insincere dialogue ultimately empowers that which is false, and thus evil—even if it leads to temporary but artificial cooperation in the now, as in the good show recently put on by Pope Francis and his Muslim wolf-in-sheep’s-clothing.  

So we've just seen prominent Islam critic Stephen Lennon (AKA Tommy Robinson) get banned from Instagram & Facebook for, ahem, "hate speech". Carl Benjamin has an excellent & revealing short piece on this HERE and guess what? A prominent Muslim journalist working for the BBC has taken a lot of credit for this. Because he has the right opinions and was listened to. Of course.

Now I've followed Stephen literally for years and I have never heard him promote violence against Muslims, yet mysteriously almost as soon as he releases a video highlighting the abysmal lack of professionalism of the BBC's premier documentary show Panorama he loses access to both these platforms (I must admit to a spectacular dose of schadenfreude over the Beeb being hoisted on their own petard by a mere "working class oik", but I don't feel the least bit guilty).

Could these events be mere coincidence? Maybe so. Maybe in the last few days he's suddenly gone completely out of character and started advocating the kind of things he's stood against his whole life. Maybe he has indeed said that "all Muslims who follow the Qur'an should be beheaded". But I find it highly unlikely. Rather this all smacks to me of a coordinated response by Establishment groups to silence embarrassing voices and dissenting opinions, especially popular ones. But then I'm a frightful conspiracy theorist as we all know.

So first they - "they" of course being the good & right-thinking people at Facebook, You Tube & co. who are our moral betters and can see more clearly than we - came for Alex Jones and most of us were OK with that because hey he's a looney. But things are progressing (is this the kind of thing meant by the term "Progressive"?) to the point where the same outfits are now making things up about people they just don't like in order to silence them.

​This really should concern everyone.

David Wood continues to have trouble with the good people at You Tube as another of his videos was removed for "hate speech". Just as Vlad Tepes lost his entire channel there, David genuinely faces the same thing for the same reasons: purely concocted balderdash. And there doesn't seem to be a thing anyone can do about this. There simply is nothing hateful about the content - to the contrary in fact - these are merely facts and opinions that are not liked. Yet the decisions have been made and people - along with the priceless information they offer - have been banished to outer darkness.

Are these the new Progressive freedoms? Are we supposed to be happy with this? In true 1984 fashion is freedom now slavery and has ignorance become strength? Because those with power tell us so eh? Well I don't know about you, but I've never found ignorance of any subject to be beneficial and I've never found refusing to take personal responsibility for understanding new or difficult topics to be a useful strategy.

But the way things are going pretty soon I - and you - will never get the chance to say anything that contradicts the official dogma on Twitter, You Tube, Facebook or Instagram.

Frankly guys I think we really need to get toey about this. Make some noise, complain, vote with your money and take it away from these people and give it to those who deserve support. Places like You Tube and Stuff have stopped me from commenting for a year or so, my name is on The List, but maybe your's isn't so make the most of your opportunity to criticise & inform while you can.

Because it's not paranoia if they really are out to silence you.


>>>>>>>>>>>
Earlier today, Tommy Robinson was banned from Facebook and Instagram. YouTube won't be far behind. YouTube is removing more and more content based on false flags. Videos that contain absolutely no hate speech are being removed as hate speech. YouTube's Community Guidelines strike system is pure garbage.
WEBSITE: http://www.acts17.net 

I am aware I have been off the scene for some time. Strangely the page views have escalated quite nicely, so obviously doing nothing can be a good thing as more people are reading my stuff. But I am in a spot of bother. Suffering from Chronic Fatigue Syndrome for 5 months is no fun and the fact is that I've had regular recurrences of this for many years which render me a burden to those around me rather than a blessing. It can become quite a downer. Seeing my GP tick the "Permanent Disability" box on the Social Welfare form didn't fill my heart with joy either. And after all the hassle of applying to Social Welfare (the government is here to help right?) for some aid I found I'm able to receive the princely sum of $2.60 a week - my eligibility for which will be reviewed regularly & could be revoked at any time of course. I declined their gracious offer.

What to do? I've got a problem and I need to ratchet back my work load while still being productive (because not feeling productive is the real killer). I will just have to learn to work within my limitations and cut back on a lot of stuff I like doing. It might not be much of a brain but I've found I miss it when it's gone. I don't enjoy life without it. In fact I achieve nothing without it. I'm faced with having to carefully measure where my energies are directed. It seems right now that means getting some more sunshine & fresh air and not staring into a computer screen 12 hours a day. I need some balance and I also need to be more thankful for the good times and the goodness of God, which never changes with my circumstances. 

The photo above (thanks to the fabulous Melanie Smyth) is taken from one of the best times of my life a couple of weeks ago at the Burt Munro Challenge in Invercargill . This is Australasia's largest motorcycle event and I had 3 whole days of sunshine, fanging my little motorbike around the best track I've yet been on with some of the best people you could wish to meet. It was a taste of heaven. All the more enjoyable because as I was driving down I still wasn't sure I'd be fit enough to ride - putting yourself at risk is one thing, but being a menace to fellow competitors is intolerable. I am grateful I was fit enough to participate. 

On the way home I dropped into Dr Jordan Peterson's Christchurch talk which was again a great encouragement. Firstly - and despite the incessant propaganda to the contrary - there was the eclectic mix of attendees, many women, various races and all had the air of intelligent people who took life seriously and wanted to take responsibility for improving it for themselves and for those around them.

Another encouragement was that my belief that Dr Peterson is one of Western Christianity's best evangelists (even if he'd never see himself as that) was borne out. He was quoting the Sermon on the Mount and musing on the teachings of the Saviour and mentioning things I'd heard in church for decades. Yet this simple instruction is no longer heard by many of us, resigned as we are to dismissing the whole Bible thing as old fashioned and irrelevant. But people looking for real-life wisdom are now actually going back to the New Testament and I am sure many of them will find its central figure - this astonishing Person crucial to the whole evolution of the West - to be as attractive, troubling and compelling as he has always been.

On the Islam front we are seeing You Tube removing videos or whole channels that do not conflict in the slightest with their guidelines simply because they don't like what they're saying. The valuable Vlad Tepes has had his channel removed apparently because his work providing simple translations of many European discussions around Islam is frowned upon by those wishing to keep the populace in the dark. David Wood has had a video removed which explained and condemned the prophet Muhammad's racism.

So highlighting from sacred Islamic scripture the very words of the prophet and holding him up to disagreeable opinions is now something You Tube will not permit. Why? What's so special about this particular person's racism that we can't condemn it?

Bill Warner has a video (I wonder how long it will be up?) explaining how a British Government all party working group has defined Islamophobia and what steps should be done to curb it. The problem is they want to make Islamophobia a crime (I'm still waiting for criticism of Christianity to be treated as a crime. No? Not a good idea for some reason eh?). Yet they ignorantly define Islam simply as whatever Muslims say it is, not as the Quran and Sunna say it is, and that "harm" caused by Islamophobia also depends entirely on the feelings of anyone who might take offence.

Can you imagine how easy it would be to silence all criticism of your religion or pet philosophy if this goes through? We've already had the Inquisition. In hindsight this was seen to have gotten out of hand and not generally been a good idea. But hey that's history which of course has nothing whatsoever to teach us so let's just give it another go. We mean well - what could possibly go wrong?

I sincerely believe in the triumph of truth IF we are allowed to communicate it. If we are allowed to debate and openly question - this method has worked for a very long time in the West. Today though we're increasingly being prohibited from discussing crucial matters. How can this suppression of truth and dialogue possibly do anything but end badly?

So the pursuit of knowledge & understanding is continuing to degenerate dear friends, while those who seek to do something about it are demonised and shut down. I have done about 1125 posts since I started this blog 3 years ago. Unfortunately I am simply going to have to pare back what I do here. My only consolation is that his may turn out for the greater good if it means that you who are reading this decide to get more involved yourself in the issues.

Sometimes we can convince ourselves that we're actually involved in the battle just because we're reading and listening to the right kind of people, such as those I hope to introduce you to through these pages. However we can't leave it up to them. Can I encourage you to keep listening to those who are talking sense but also to engage with ordinary people, just like us, who are still trying to make sense of things. So many of those in control of the media, big tech companies, the academy, politics and, alas, the church are determined not only to ignore reality but also to silence those who wish to point out reality.

Our ability to work through traditional avenues is closing just as the need to communicate is increasing. Get talking and get sharing the good stuff person to person. This includes the need to both love Muslims and ruthlessly critique the religion of Islam. People are still looking for things that make sense of the world and their place in it.

Though I can't do much, I'll do what I can if you do what you can.
​How's that for a deal?

According to the audio clip below laws affecting speech came through the UN post WWII and were first pushed by the Communist Bloc. There were quite a few voices in the West warning of such precedents but such treaties and agreements were pushed through by the UN nonetheless, for what I'm sure was considered the greater good at the time.

It seems to me that in the contemporary West the old complaint against "Fascists" and the accompanying epithets of far-right, Nazi, white supremacist etc. - once used to stigmatise anyone who disagreed with the Communist agenda - has morphed into calling someone in the West a fascist if they support traditional understandings of the nation or religion, or even of the two sexes. Being concise is fascist. Being traditional or slow to adapt is fascist. Being anything less than completely willing to ignore the nature of different people and of different belief systems is fascist.

All this sameness will at the very least make life quite uninteresting, however just one step beyond that & it will make life quite intolerable. 

The recent fiasco surrounding the Gillette advert (which I mentioned here) highlights the well-meaning but thoroughly disconnected attitudes and actions of so many of our leaders and elites. As Gillette states on its website: "​we pledge to actively challenge the stereotypes and expectations of what it means to be a man everywhere you see Gillette". In fact all they have done is turn reality on its head in an effort to help those who they see as members of minorities solely in the Western context. These being women - yeah I know they make up 1/2 the population; non-whites and people of non-Christian faiths (even though it seems correct to me to view the West's primary religion, Christianity, as the greatest anti-tribal force the world has ever seen). 

The struggle by such well meaning Believers in the new orthodoxy to "challenge stereotypes" only results in a denial of reality (that is, seeing things not as they are but as they wish them to be) and in the creation of a whole new bunch of stereotypes which have even less grounding in reality.

Here are a couple of uncomfortable stats from the American context for instance: African Americans carry out a hugely disproportionate number of crimes for their population size - only 2% of gun homicides in heavily Democrat New York city are conducted by whites for instance. In fact the safest places to live in America are places which permit carrying a firearm (these are usually Republican areas - not in line with the Redneck stereotype that one is it?) and America is waaay down at 111th on the list for per capita homicides internationally. I've mentioned this before HERE where there is a very informative video for you to see. But be warned: he uses statistics, facts and evidence so Gillette and the Southern Poverty Law Center wouldn't like it. 

Islam
Similarly, when some of us point out the civilisational threats posed by Islam we are told a) that we are the problem; b) that we are stereotyping Muslims (even though our focus isn't primarily on Muslims, it's on the historic, authoritative doctrines of Islam. Like all people Muslims vary from person to person); and c) that we are racist (the need to quickly assign some sort of classifications in order to combat "injustice" means no-one stops to question how a whole world wide religion could constitute just one race - or is it all non-white races I'm supposed to despise?).

The desire to protect traditional Western values, our own laws or even our sovereignty via secure borders has also morphed into manifestations of xenophobia, cruelty and rejection of the Other based on an irrational "cultural superiority". And what can this be if not a form of consuming self importance and horrific racism?

HERE is a very useful 15 minute audio chat about the history and trajectory of European hate speech laws which I'm sure you will find both interesting and troubling. Do give it the time it deserves because such laws and attitudes are already making us suffer, even here in Godzone.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions, but it still leads to hell.
And it could deliver us there very quickly.

Let's fact check this...

It seems to be that if you're a Muslim woman - any Muslim woman - that smiles and tells Western women what they really want to hear about Islam, Western women will simply believe you. But how are these dear ladies to know better if no-one tries to correct the record?

​David Wood clearly lays out some problems with that great feminist Muhammad and his fabulously egalitarian Sharia Law.


​>>>>>>>>>>
The Women's March for Islam (Why Feminists Love Muhammad!)
While the Women's March is supposed to be about women, the so-called "feminist" speakers openly promote Islam, Muhammad, and the Quran, which are history's greatest forces for misogyny and oppression. Since the event's organizers (Tamika Mallory and Linda Sarsour) are embroiled in controversy over antisemitic sentiments, the movement seems to be falling apart. David Wood discusses the issue.
WEBSITE: http://www.acts17.net

Actually, seeing the future isn't the hard bit. Getting people to listen is.

This German chap is an ex-Muslim who speaks with authority on Islam and its very clear differences from Christianity and the foundational principles of the West. He saw the rise of populist opposition and political parties in Europe and predicted 9 years ago a future violent unrest & even war because of the incompatibility of Islam with the West and the inability of our elites to deal with such realities.

Why such plain statements of fact were & are considered hateful by our leaders is a curiousity, to say the least. If I didn't know better I would say they were ideologically blinded, which is a worry as they, along with the equally out-of-touch news media & academics, are controlling the information we get, forming policy and making decisions concerning our future.

Similarly ideologically blinkered groups are deciding whether or not what you & I say is accurate & directing people away from ideas that they simply don't like, irrespective of veracity. This simply cannot end well.

Enjoy this 9 minute clip and rest assured - his predictions are coming closer to fruition every month and when they are fulfilled our elites will just be as utterly stunned as they can be and demand a crack down on the ordinary person who doesn't think the right way.

​Ah, but we already seeing that, aren't we?


>>>>>>>
'Muslims won't win against the West'​
Immigration tensions are rising in Germany following Chancellor Angela Merkel's statement that multiculturalism has failed in the country. Udo Ulfkotte, a noted German journalist and author, known for his severe criticism of Islam, shared with RT his view on what is behind the integration dispute and where it may lead.

"What I believe is there is a place for Muslim in this world and for their culture, they have a place to live in," Ulfkotte told RT. "And there is a place for European and Western culture to live in. What I don't believe is they will live peacefully together. We have a clash not only of civilizations and religions, we have a clash of ideologies, like we had a clash between communism and capitalism. Now we have a clash because Islam is also an ideology. I believe that Islam is not going to win a battle."

Here we have once again we have a couple of Muslim reformers airing their concerns about the advance of traditional, political, comprehensive, Sharia based Islam in the face of Western ignorance.

I pinched it directly from Jihad Watch as both the excerpts from MEMRI and the introduction by Mr Spencer are extremely valuable and delineate between Westernised or Folk Islam and Sharia based Islam - that which is erroneously called Islamism. In fact it is simply historical Islam full stop. This is the Islam based on the Qur'an and the Sunna of Muhammad that has been implemented throughout fourteen centuries while all attempts to "moderate" it have been dealt with as heresy. But this is the Islam that Western governments seem determined to encourage for their own peculiar reasons.

As I have mentioned often in the past, not to deal honestly with Islam as it is will only lead to huge problems and to the eventual stigmatising of all Muslims as Sharia supremacists. Plainly there are many who are, but equally there are many who are not, such people are not our enemies but they run the real risk of being treated as such if things continue on the current trajectory.

Enjoy the read and remember - the people discussing this are Muslims themselves (Hamed Abdel-Samad is the son of an Imam and an ex-member of the Muslim Brotherhood) who seek to form Islam into exactly the thing that so many in authority in the West claim it already is - peaceful & moderate. You'd think they would have overwhelming support for their work from authorities. But perhaps to do so would mean admitting that there is something disturbing about traditional Islam that needs reforming.

And that, apparently, would never do.

"Oh what a tangled web we weave when at first we start to deceive."

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Robert Spencer's introduction:~
​I don’t generally use the word “Islamist” myself, as it is too often used in order to establish some artificial distance between aggressive, violent, imperialist and supremacist political Islam and a supposedly benign ordinary Islam. But in every other respect, Said Shoaib and Hamed Abdel-Samad say in this important interview things that I have said for years: that Western politicians who make pronouncements about Islam are naive and ignorant, that charges of “Islamophobia” are used in order to mask an insidious agenda, and that Islamic supremacists and jihadis aim to destroy Western civilization, as the Muslim Brotherhood stated in a captured internal document.

Are Said Shoaib and Hamed Abdel-Samad “ignorant Islamophobes”? Are they “racist bigots”? Or do they speak unwelcome truths that are no less true for being unwelcome?


Egyptian writer: “The main plan of the Islamists is to destroy Western civilization. They said so themselves!”
“Egyptian-Canadian Writer Said Shoaib: Western Imams Who Praise Islamic Caliphate Are Terrorists; Western Politicians Don’t Know What is Really Being Taught in Western Mosques,” MEMRI, January 14, 2019:

"During an interview with German-Egyptian political scientist and author Hamed Abdel-Samad that was uploaded to Abdel-Samad’s YouTube channel on January 14, 2019, Egyptian-Canadian writer Said Shoaib said that imams in the West embrace colonialist Islam and deceive Westerners by talking about the “greatness of the Islamic caliphate”. He said that these things constitute a form of terrorism that might become armed terrorism should the opportunity present itself, and that the West has failed to realize this. Shoaib explained that this form of Islamism is being taught in mosques and in Islamic schools throughout the West, and that the natural course of such education is terrorism. Hamed Abdel-Samad added that the same Muslims who show enmity to other religions in their home countries come to the West and criticize Christians, Jews, the West, and secularism while demanding that nobody criticizes Islam.
        Abdel-Samad also said that the Canadian government is naïve, and he criticized Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s “romantic” fantasy that everybody should “hold hands and hug and kiss one another.” Abdel-Samad said that Trudeau doesn’t know what is really being taught in Canadian mosques and Shohaib said that Western politicians don’t know anything about Islam. Shohaib said that “a lot of blood will be shed here in the West”, and that if Western politicians fail to stop the terrorist “wave” in the West, ordinary citizens will become more inclined to elect increasingly “extreme” leaders. He added: “The main plan of the Islamists is to destroy Western civilization. They have said it themselves!”

Following are excerpts:

Said Shoaib: The imams here do something that deceives many people, especially in the West. They talk, for example, about the greatness of the Islamic caliphate. Does this constitute terrorism? It does. The [Westerners] do not realize that this is terrorism. When you embrace the notion of a colonialist Islam that raids nations, takes them over, and controls them – you are a terrorist. You are an unarmed terrorist, until the opportunity presents itself…
[…]
I sent my Arabic books that are against political Islam to a library here [in Canada]. I was happy to find here a book of mine, which had nothing to do with Islam. I wanted to donate my books to them because they had just opened up. So I gave them two books against political Islam, but that public library rejected them. They sent me formal mail…

Hamed Abdel-Samad: They probably cited “Islamophobia”…

Said Shoaib: They told me that my books are in violation of Canadian values.

Hamed Abdel-Samad: These values welcomes violent Islam but reject criticism of political Islam?

Said Shoaib: I take a stand against people who hate Canada and want to destroy it. These people have stated that this is their intention. They even said so in books that this library approved, can you believe that? A normal Muslim – whether he was born here or whether he immigrated – has no alternative form of Islam. You find this form of Islam in the mosques, in the sermons… This is the form of Islam that you see in the Islamic schools here. I did not send my daughters to Islamic schools here, out of fear. They conceal their curricula, force young girls to war the hijab, and so on… If a Muslim here does not become a terrorist, he must be a great man. We should thank him for being a good, peace-loving human being, because the natural course of events is for him to become a terrorist.

[…]

Hamed Abdel-Samad: A strange thing is that when these people lived in their countries of origin, they did not allow the Christians to build churches, they despised the Christians and the Baha’is, and they did not help people of other religions with their rights. But when they come to the West, they not only demand their right to worship, and their right to practice their religious rites freely, but they also demand that no one criticize their religion. Here in Canada, they audaciously criticize the Christians, the Jews, the West, and secularism… There is no such thing as “secular-phobia”… There is no “Christian-phobia”…

Said Shoaib: And no “Zoroastrian-phobia.” This was invented by the Islamists.

Hamed Abdel-Samad: The problem is that the Islamists are the people most contemptuous of other religions.

Said Shoaib: Yes, of course.

Hamed Abdel-Samad: But when they come here, they want a law to prevent criticism of their religion. Another strange things is that a naïve government like the Canadian one… I know I am a guest here, but I say what I think everywhere… The prime minister of this naïve government [Justin Trudeau] is very strange. According to his naïve and romantic fantasy, everybody should hold hands and hug and kiss one another. Yet he does not know what these people teach in their mosques.

Said Shoaib: I am baffled by the Canadian politicians who talk about Islam. They don’t know Islam. If you want to learn about Islam, you can ask us. Do not ask just people of one type. Another big mistake in Canada and the West is that representatives of the Muslim [community] are the Islamists.
[…]
A lot of blood will be shed here in the West, and the Muslims will pay the price. They will be number one… If the politicians in the West do not know how to stop this [terrorist] wave, the ordinary Westerners will choose the most extremist [leader]. There are indications for that. Trump has won in America. The Conservative party has won the government of Ontario. More extreme people are yet to come. If today’s politicians fail to provide security for the people in the West, they will take matters into their own hands. And who will be the victims? The normal Muslims who have nothing to do with this.
[…]
The main plan of the Islamists is to destroy Western civilization. They said so themselves!

I love the difference between what our governments say and what they do, don't you? Hypocrisy and wishful thinking have a masterful way of blinding our leaders to impending doom. Let's clasp that poor cold Adder to our warm breasts - it'll be so grateful, what could go wrong?

Both the British and the New Zealand governments are strident - strident I tell you - in stating that religious litmus tests play no part whatsoever in their decisions regarding which refugees will be accepted into their countries. Then by their actions they display that religion has everything to do with admissions when they take in almost no Syrian Christian refugees.

In the case of Britain in 2017 Christians (10% of Syria's population) amounted to 0.02% of Syrian refugees and in 2018 New Zealand received exactly none.

I have contacted the NZ Government in the past about this horror story and was calmly informed that the Government only takes in those vetted and processed by the United Nations. So relax! The UN is in charge. What could possibly go wrong?

Well there are a couple of things:

• the Christians are the most endangered minority in Syria but despite this it is the Sunnis the UN take in. These are include those with Jihadist sympathies (if not jihadis themselves);
• Syria is a failed state and fraudulent papers and passports are manufactured en masse for those wishing to become "refugees" (a surprising number of "refugees" share the same birth date of 1st January, the same passport photo & the same names);
• Christians cannot even stay in the UN Migrant Camps because of the physical danger they face from the Sunni "refugees" - the same ones the UN assures us have been carefully vetted and will fit into our societies no problem. Because the Christians can't stay in the Camps they can't be processed and they can't escape - but the Sunnis who threaten and attack them? Hey they're good to go. Come on in guys, you've been "vetted"!

When in my correspondence with NZ government officials I have pointed out those particular facts of course I stopped receiving responses. Well they must get busy writing deflective emails all day mustn't they?

Coincidentally - I mean it can only be pure coincidence right? - the Barnabas Fund reports that 15 churches in the UK have received hand written messages in the last two months stating similar things:~ “Stop all your services straight away”, said one letter sent to a church in Sheffield, South Yorkshire “if you don’t your church will be petrol bombed while in service. Continue behind closed doors and your congregation members will be stabbed one by one. Blood on your hands. You have been warned.”

Did you get the point that any deaths among the Christians will be the fault of the Christians? We hear this sort of thing a lot from so many followers of the Religion of Peace™ all over the world and of course the UK has done its level best to bring in as many Muslims as it can to show how open-minded & accepting it is. These 2 facts couldn't possibly be related could they? The threats simply couldn't be from ardent followers of the prophet eh? 

Here is the article from the Barnabas Fund on the NZ & UK governments' failure to launch regarding the refugee debacle:~

New Zealand fails to offer sanctuary to any Christian refugees from Syria, Afghanistan or Iraq 
Government figures released to Barnabas Fund show that no Christians from Syria, Afghanistan or Iraq were granted the right to resettle in New Zealand last year.

In the 12 months up to 31 October 2018, the country gave sanctuary to 1,019 refugees. Of these 277 were from Syria, 105 from Afghanistan and seven from Iraq ­– and all were Muslims.

Figures for previous years, obtained by Barnabas Fund under the Official Information Act, are equally bleak. In 2016, only six Christians were among the 377 Syrians granted sanctuary, and in the five weeks up to 10 February 2017 no Christians were among the 45 Syrians, all Muslims, who were allowed to settle. Christians made up 10% of the population of Syria before the war.

A spokesman for Jacinda Ardern’s Labour government said refugees were considered for resettlement in New Zealand on the basis of “their protection needs and not religious affiliation”.

The UK government is also facing “embarrassment” over the tiny minority of Christian Syrians offered sanctuary in Britain.

Figures obtained by Barnabas Fund under a Freedom of Information request show that out of 4,850 Syrian refugees accepted for resettlement by the Home Office in 2017, only eleven were Christian, representing just 0.2% of all Syrian refugees accepted by the UK.

An article in UK’s Sunday Times on 20 January said that the finding “appears to discriminate in favour of Muslims” and “risks embarrassing the government” at a time when the Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt has ordered a government review into the UK’s response to the global persecution of Christians.
<<<<<<<<<<

How long will our governments continue to turn a blind eye to reality? Will we keep bringing in Sunnis while denying sanctuary to Christians? Just how do we think that might turn out? Is anybody in our government doing any thinking at all?

Or are we just going to keep wishing really, really hard that exposure to the waters of New Zealand will be far more efficacious than exposure to the miraculous waters of Lourdes? It doesn't take a genius to see that importing these problems is not a smart move. But we are talking about the government here.

There's a bit of a fuss about Gillette's latest Ad, or at least I think that's what they'd call it. 

Gillette have taken the time to make the oh-so-difficult moral stand in encouraging men to do a better job being men and in raising their boys. Well OK, good show, nice effort. Trouble is they did a rather hamfisted job of it. This is not merely my feeling as they have felt the need to remove many thousand "dislikes" and negative comments flat out for the last 48 hours. So a lot of blokes have a few problems with how exactly the message was conveyed - the sometimes not terribly subtle misandry and even racism in the clip. We also have a problem with the identification of simple manly traits as being intrinsically harmful (or "toxic" as the current vernacular has it).

This is particularly so after the American Psychologists Association indicated just a few days ago that they now consider traditional masculinity - which involves stoicism, struggle, adventure and risk-taking - is problematic in itself. As Boston25News reports:~

         Traditional masculinity, as the APA defines it, refers to masculinity cognitions “that have held sway over large segments of the population, including: anti-femininity, achievement, eschewal of the appearance of weakness, and adventure, risk, and violence.” These behaviors are often influenced by social, cultural and contextual norms, whether that’s socialization by friends, imitating parent behavior or adopting media portrayals.

Very odd. I know we men have problems seeking medical help at appropriate times but isn't this all rather over-stating the case? Adventure, risk and achievement are now bad? I think you rather spectacularly fail to understand men here APA. That's a problem.

However my biggest problem with the Gillette ad is what it represents in the larger picture.

In taking this terribly principled moral stand they are deliberately ignoring the one group of men who are perhaps most in need of hearing this message today. That would be a large proportion of Muslim men. These men, and the women languishing under the influence of Islam, are in their sorry state because of the teachings of their prophet and because of Sharia law. FGM, rape gangs and the inequality of women before the (Sharia) Law are genuinely huge issues. But they remain unseen.

The wonderful Islamic reformer Imam Tawhidi has something pertinent to say on this topic, which David Wood has helpfully passed on to us. An avoidance of real issues and real oppression because we turn a blind eye to a minority is a problem. 

​This is the problem of so much thinking around most of the criticism of the doctrines & history of Islam. Actions follow beliefs. It would be beneficial to also focus on Islam's role in genuine oppression of women and minorities. If only so many of us weren't so one-eyed about it all...


>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Gillette recently posted a short film titled "We Believe: The Best Men Can Be."

This Gillette commercial promotes anti-bullying and anti-harassment movements and draws inspiration from the "Me Too" campaign. While social justice warriors (SJWs) and feminists are cheering Gillette's condemnation of "toxic masculinity," critics point out that the commercial is yet another attack on men and masculine traits. In an interesting tweet, Imam Tawhidi blasts the video for not targeting the most notorious source of toxic masculinity. David Wood discusses the issue.
WEBSITE: http://www.acts17.net 

Well here's an interesting exercise. An atheist ex-Muslim goes into Lakemba in Sydney. Lakemba is the "highly religious" suburb that Police stopped Lauren Southern from entering last July to ask people about Islam. That simple fact raises a few issues, first among them for me is why the Police feared that there would be a "breach of the peace" as they said, when someone begins asking Muslims to defend aspects of their Faith that are troubling to a non-Muslim.

We are constantly told Islam means "peace". However, as Dr Mark Durie explains it means something quite different:~ 
       While there is a link in Arabic between salam, a word often translated ‘peace’, and Islam, the real connection is found in the idea of safety. The word Islam is based upon a military metaphor. Derived from aslama ‘surrender’ its primary meaning is to make oneself safe (salama) through surrender. In its original meaning, a muslim was someone who surrendered in warfare. Thus Islam did not stand for the absence of war, but for one of its intended outcomes: surrender leading to the ‘safety’ of captivity. It was Muhammad himself who said to his non-Muslim neighbors aslim taslam ‘surrender (i.e. convert to Islam) and you will be safe’.


​
​The start of the entry for s-l-m from Lane's Arabic-English Lexicon



​
Nevertheless the authorities, disingenuously in my observation, maintain that Islam does indeed mean "peace" and is a peaceful religion. But if so why should the Police expect violence when difficult questions are asked of Muslims? I mean if Ms Southern were to go into a Christian part of town and challenge people on some aspects of Christianity that she found troubling nobody would expect any problems would they? Even from "highly religious" Christians - you know, the ones who have dedicated their whole lives to closely following God - like Nuns and Bible teachers and ordained ministers.

So there seems to be a serious level of self deception when the Police say that Islam is peaceful while they act on their real belief that these people should not be challenged or they will probably get violent. Despite the talk, by their actions the Police obviously believe the latter to be the truth.

So I like the following video for several reasons:

• it encourages respectful dialogue which can build relationships and diffuse tension & misunderstanding. The interviewer encounters problems both with a language barrier and with the varying intelligence of the Muslims he meets - everyday problems;
• It identifies the opportunity to identify genuinely open Muslims who are pretty happy to discuss contentious issues, but as Mr Navabi shows;
• it also helps us identify the Sharia compliant among our new friends and see for ourselves their closed minded intransigence;
• it also demonstrates someone reasoning about a better Idea and hopefully, use common ground which may lead eventually to gently challenging our new friend about the person of the prophet.

Note how one man believes completely in Sharia and that it is appropriate for Mr Navabi to be put to death for leaving Islam. Note how this man takes the opportunity to try to bring the apostate back into the fold (exactly as Dr Durie explained, he offers a way to have "peace") by shouting him lunch for a chat and even gets his brother the Sheikh to talk to him. In the end though, the Sharia instructions for death for the apostate remain supreme. 

Note also the excuses proffered for taking offence at criticism of the prophet or Sharia by comparing such to mocking one's mother. The point seems to be lost that while I may indeed be temporarily hurt when my mother is insulted, it is entirely up to me how I choose to respond and violence is by no means the unavoidable answer - at least for a thinking person.

This does not seem to weigh at all in these Muslims' calculations though. So for this I can't help but think much less of these men. They place themselves on the same level as a dumb dog that simply has to bite if its tail is stood on. This is demeaning to their dignity as men. Furthermore what may be justifiable criticism from my perspective could be taken as severe mocking by them. How do I know where the line is? I am aghast that Muslims would follow a prophet who had sex with a little girl. yet my Muslim friend is angry at my protestations and punches me in the mouth. Things have only gotten worse. This seems to be the major reason our governments are doing all they can to silence any criticism of Islam rather than encourage genuine, mature public discussion. 

Consider also if were we to change the object of severe criticism from the prophet to something such as "the Jews". A group which, based largely on religious superstition, is widely reviled and stigmatised in the Muslim community. Why is such bigotry & hatred acceptable to so many Muslims while genuine fact-based criticism of Islam is taken as an insult? Why the obvious double standard? If the authorities don't allow us to talk to them about such issues how can this help us all live together?

This isn't dialogue and the sooner some of us realise that some Muslims take seriously the teachings of their Faith to fight those who criticise the prophet & kill apostates then the sooner we'll be able to engage in meaningful communication. That would be really worthwhile dialogue.

If only our governments trusted their people and if only those religious leaders responsible for formal dialogue engaged in really meaningful dialogue on the real issues of substance.

​If only.

​
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Asking Muslims If We Can Criticize Islam - Sydney, Australia with Armin Navabi (18 minutes)
Armin Navabi - Director of Media at Pangburn Philosophy - goes to Lakemba in Sydney, Australia to ask Muslims if it's okay to criticize Islam.

It's a brand new year! Woo-hoo! Yeah!! Massive eh?!
Things are going to be awesome this year right?

I just love the naivety of children.

Meanwhile back on the Reality Ranch ... let's take a quick look at what sort of jihad attacks have been going on during the last few weeks of good ole twenty-eighteen. With 95% of these attacks being organised efforts by Al Qaeda or ISIS & only 5% being genuine "lone wolf" our media has no doubt been working flat out to keep everybody accurately informed surely?

Oh you didn't hear about them all? And you weren't aware that only a couple were really lone wolf attacks?  I wonder why the news media hasn't keep us all up to speed on this eh? Here's a 14 minute clip to catch you up.

As usual I find it regrettable that the video refers to "Leftists" refusing to cover genuine news. Overall I'm not sure this helps clarity in our context, but those dreadful right wing outfits do seem to be pretty much the ones simply passing on this information don't they? A bit of self-examination might not be amiss in the media as a whole (again, see my last post) but what do I know?

+++
Today's Boring health update:
A week ago I came down with a cellulitis in my bad leg - it still hasn't forgiven me for smashing it to bits 37 years ago and attempts to kill me every so often - which, on top of the ongoing Chronic Fatigue Syndrome is not improving my mood. Especially when I had planned to be doing Round 1 of the NZ Superbike champs this weekend. The course of antibiotics will be finished soon and I can get back to being sick with only the one ailment. Ah well, next year I shall go to the Ball...

No further comment from me.

​Just watch this and marvel.


>>>>>>>>>>>>
The woman being interviewed referred to the following song in the video:

The "Song of the Party" (German: das Lied der Partei), also known as "Die Partei hat immer recht" (English: The Party is always right) was the party song of the Socialist Unity Party of Germany, the ruling party of East Germany. It was written by composer Louis Fürnberg. It is best known by the first line of its chorus: Die Partei, die Partei, die hat immer recht (English: The Party, the Party, is always right). 

Justin Trudeau and Jacinda Ardern have a great deal in common. This should worry us, especially when it comes to matters surrounding Islam, unwise immigration and the multi-culturalist worldview. Can you really "have it all" and maintain the very things that make your country a place people want to live in?

Prime Minister Trudeau is keen to move his country into a more evolved understanding of its national identity. The problem with his vision is that it virtually deconstructs Canada's historic self-understanding, which is in no way an insignificant matter. This recent 6 minute video clip features several people - including two Westernised Muslims - who are strident critics of this new phase of Canada's evolution.

​There may be a lesson for us in this.

Most people haven't heard of Pallywood, but it is important as this deceptive industry plays a major part in how we in the West view the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

A glaring example comes to mind for me. A couple of years ago I saw a TV news item by Orla Guerin of the BBC. She did a voice-over of a scene where a nice young Palestinian bloke was showing an Arab camera & sound crew around a damaged area after a battle during Operation Cast Lead, when the Israeli Defence Force entered Palestinian areas to fight Hamas.

The nice young man was filmed showing the crew some damage when we are told a shot from an Israeli sniper rang out. The young man is then shown lying on the ground and waving weakly for help. We do not hear the shot, we do not see him go down, nor see any blood. The crew withdraws and another piece of footage shows the now dead body of the nice young fella lying still. We are told he was shot again, fatally this time, by the same Israeli sniper. Despite the camera being apparently trained on him we do not see him get shot, we do not hear the shot, we do not see any blood. 

Ms Guerin simply trusted her Palestinian crew to provide reliable footage and information. I'm sorry but I simply don't believe this story. What kind of sniper would carefully shoot an unarmed civilian with a camera crew only feet away? Would we expect a new Zealand soldier to commit such a crime? There are plenty of ex-IDF Israelis travelling around our country this time of year. Having got to know a few I find it no more likely that they would perform such an act than one of our fellas would. So why do we so easily swallow this story?

Remember Mohammed Al Dura, the little boy who was "shot" by "Israeli soldiers" in 2000 as he hid behind a barrel with his father? That whole episode may not be at all as it was portrayed to us. This 14 minute video will present some unsettling information for you.

Watch the Palestinian cameraman's explanations surrounding the infamous  affair - because this may very well be how a Palestinian looks when he performs taqiyya.

Have you noticed how often men become quiet when they hear another man talk about his difficult relationship with his father? I watched the recent film on Winston Churchill, The Darkest Hour, the other day. In it Churchill was asked about what his father was like. His answer may strike a nerve with some, especially of the older generation: "My father," he said "was like God. Occupied elsewhere."

How commonly the distant, disinterested father somehow unconsciously imprints upon us a similar picture of God. How distressing for us. How distressing for God. Especially in this broken world where pain and loss of meaning seem to compose so much of our lot. He knows that we need to know that we matter.

Yesterday I also watched a chat by Rev Andrew White, the "Vicar of Baghdad". He mentioned a time when ISIS came to one of his Arab Christian congregants and told him they would kill his children if he did not renounce Christ and repeat the Shahada. To the man's grief he felt he had to do so in order to save his children (alas study of the bitter realities of such situations leads me to the conclusion that doing such a thing is never a useful expedient or the lesser of two evils) - he thought they were all free.

However the next day ISIS found his 5 children and directed them to renounce Christ or die. But the children said that they loved Jesus, that they talked to him and he talked to them and that they would not renounce him. So the jihadis did what they have so often done throughout history. Based on the Sunna of the prophet, they killed the children and cut off their heads. Knowing they were about to die the children sang one of the only English language songs they'd been taught, Jesus loves me this I know, for the Bible tells me so. Then they were cut down.

Was God occupied elsewhere?

A short time later Rev White states that two of the other children he had pastoral care for both had a dream the same night where they saw the children dancing with Jesus in heaven. Dancing! No, God was not occupied elsewhere.

One of the daily emails that lands in my inbox is from a group started by the late Chuck Colson, one of President Nixon's corrupt cohorts in the Watergate affair who famously came to Christ before being sentenced to prison for his part in the scandal. Recently they wrote:

         Chuck Colson and his friend Richard John Neuhaus used to remind people that despair is a sin. Now if you define “despair” as extreme sorrow or grief, then calling it a sin seems cruel and unfeeling.

But that’s not really what despair is. In the Christian view, despair is the opposite of hope. Thomas Aquinas wrote that despair “is due to a man’s failure to hope that he will share in the goodness of God.” For Aquinas, despair was more dangerous than even unbelief or hatred of God because “by hope we are called back from evils and induced to strive for what is good, and if hope is lost, men fall headlong into vices, and are taken away from good works.”

For Aquinas, “nothing is more execrable than despair. For he who despairs loses his constancy in the daily labours of this life, and what is worse, loses his constancy in the endeavour of faith.” As the sixth-century theologian Isidore of Seville put it, “to commit a crime is death to the soul; but to despair is to descend into hell.”

There is one Christmas carol that always touches me. It is God Rest ye Merry, Gentlemen, and it is because of these lines:

God rest ye merry gentlemen
Let nothing you dismay
Remember Christ our Saviour
Was born on Christmas Day
To save us all from Satan's pow'r
When we were gone astray
Oh tidings of comfort and joy
Comfort and joy
Oh tidings of comfort and joy

There are some Christian songs the words of which I cannot sing because they are too raw for me and the words above always have this affect on me. I can't repeat them as I sing the carol, neither can I read them without tearing up. Because I remember too well going astray and being in Satan's power - the horror of it, the agony of it, the despair of it. I also remember receiving the Word of Life into the centre of my being and finding him to be true and powerful. How he fought for me and freed me from that wretched state.

And now I have these "tidings of comfort and joy" for everyone who, as I was, is held fast in the merciless fist of an enemy too strong for them. There is real hope in the living God. ​So remember the five children, hold fast, there's a bright morning ahead. Do not give in to dismay or despair.  Our God is with us and he is keenly interested in our predicament. Talk to him about it. He is not occupied elsewhere. 

To modify the the words of King Theoden at his death, where he had looked forward to joining his fathers, we can now say: 
I go to my five small brothers and sisters from Baghdad,
in whose mighty company
I shall not now feel ashamed.

​We will yet dance.

Merry Christmas.

Jewish American academic Dr Daniel Pipes offers some comments on the resistance in Europe and the rise of nationalism, which so many of our media, academics & politicians tell us is most definitely a very bad thing. Once again we find ourselves asking, "are you sure about that?"

Dr Pipes coins the phrase "civilisationist" to describe the response many Western Europeans have to seeing their nations transformed without their permission. He has had quite a bit to do with the "far right" European parties so often singled out for criticism and has useful insights for us including the role of Antisemitism and of Mr Putin in such countries; whether such parties are fascist; the inability of Europe in its current state to assimilate this large Islamic influx; the fetters of political correctness; and his opinion of somebody named George Soros.

Via the Middle East Forum this article will I hope help bring some balance and perspective to the issue.


>>>>>>>>>>>
Europe Wake Up!
Controverso Quotidiano (Italy)
December 15, 2018

Interview conducted by Niram Feretti. Original Italian title: "Europa svegliati."

Controverso Quotidiano: You have written much recently about Europe's nativist-nationalist-populist-far-right parties, which you call civilizationist. Why do you use this term?
Daniel Pipes: Because none of the other words you used describes these parties precisely; their focus is on preserving Western civilization, making civilizationist most accurate.

CQ: Some important civilizationist parties – the National Rally in France, Freedom Party in Austria, Fidesz in Hungary, and the Alternative for Germany – retain an antisemitic element. Is this permanent or transitory, growing or decreasing?


Doris von Sayn-Wittgenstein, expelled from the Alternative für Deutschland.

DP: That element is undeniably present but most civilizationist parties are making an effort to expunge it. For example, the Alternative for Germany just expelled Doris von Sayn-Wittgenstein due to her connections to Verein Gedächtnisstätte, a Holocaust-denying organization. It's a constant battle but, over time, the parties appear to be less antisemitic. One cannot expect too much, however, for what political party in Europe is not to some extent Europe antisemitic?

​CQ: Clear ties exist between Putin's Russia and such civilizationist parties as the National Rally, Fidesz, and Italy's League: how much should this worry us?
DP: Plenty. Putin is taking advantage of the civilizationists' isolation and financial neediness to win influence over them. The solution lies not in further marginalizing them but in bringing them into legitimate politics, so they don't feel the need to turn toward an external dictator.
​
CQ: What do you think of Hungarian-born George Soros, an outspoken advocate for immigration into Europe, who last year bestowed $18 billion on his Open Society Foundation to build an "open society" without borders?
DP: Given that Soros funds personal attacks on me, I naturally have a very dim opinion of him. The anonymous website dcleaks.com in August 2016 released a confidential file from Soros' Open Society Foundations (OSF) that included an internal 2011 memo, "Extreme Polarization and Breakdown in Civic Discourse," which discussed a $200,000 OSF grant to the Center for American Progress (CAP) to "research and track the activities" of the Middle East Forum and other NGOs combating Islamism. Later in 2011, CAP published a 138-page report, Fear, Inc.: The Roots of the Islamophobia Network in America, which characterized me as a "misinformation expert" whose "alarmist rhetoric" encourages anti-Muslim stereotyping, charges that a follow-up report repeated in 2015. ​Beyond this personal reason, I see Soros' goal of a borderless society, via what is humorously known as his "Open Borders Foundation," as a perfect vehicle for the destruction of Western civilization.

CQ: Please comment on this statement by Peter Sutherland, UN Special Representative for International Migration: "Sovereignty is an absolute illusion that has to be put behind us. The days of hiding behind borders and fences are long gone. We have to work together and cooperate together to make a better world. And that means taking on some of the old shibboleths, taking on some of the old historic memories and images of our own country and recognizing that we're part of humankind."
DP: Peter Sutherland should work for Soros. It's a match made in heaven.

CQ: And comment on this statement by Douglas Murray in The Strange Death of Europe: "The world is coming into Europe at precisely the moment that Europe has lost sight of what it is. And ... while the movement of millions of people from other cultures into a strong and assertive culture might have worked, the movement of millions of people into a guilty, jaded and dying culture cannot."
DP: I emphatically agree. I have pursued this same angle in a blog (which quotes Murray) begun in 2005, "British Culture – Worth Saving?"

CQ: Outspokenness takes a toll. For example, Thilo Sarrazin, a Social Democrat, published Deutschland schafft sich ab ("Germany Abolishes Itself") in which he argued that low German birth rates and high levels of Muslim immigration are fundamentally transforming German society; for this, he had to resign from the Bundesbank's executive board. Renowned French historian Georges Bensoussan said that antisemitism is a permanent cultural feature of Islamic culture and was dragged into court on charges of racism. These and many other instances raise the question: How much does political correctness serve the Islamist agenda?
DP: A lot. The Rushdie Rules, the Islamist crackdown on the open discussion in the West of Islam and related topics, began with Khomeini's notorious edict on Salman Rushdie in 1989. At that time, the Left stood quite robustly with Rushdie. (Norman Mailer, the American novelist: "It is our duty to form ranks behind him, and our duty to state to the world that if he is ever assassinated, it will become our obligation to stand in his place. If he is ever killed for a folly, we must be killed for the same folly.") Thirty years later, the Left would not offer this solidarity. Its rejection of the open discussion of Islam neatly complements that of the Islamists.

CQ: How are we to fight political correctness?
DP: By encouraging more conservatives to become intellectuals.

CQ: The Left regularly accuses the leaders of civilizationist parties of fascism. For example, Matteo Salvini, the leader of Italy's League and the interior minister who has made it his priority to stop uncontrolled immigration, is depicted as heir to Benito Mussolini. Is there any truth to this charge or is it ridiculous?
DP: It's ridiculous. With its emphasis on state power as a living faith, fascism destroys Western civilization while Salvini and other civilizationists want to save it. Clever, those leftists: they accuse someone of wanting the opposite of what he actually wants. I too have experienced this; a recent example was my being characterized as far-right by, of all people, the descendants of Nazis in the German and Austrian media.
​
CQ: How serious is the risk of Islamization in Europe?
DP: Very serious. It is inevitable unless civilizationists manage to control the borders and integrate Muslims.

CQ: What are the remedies for Islamization?
DP: Europeans waking up and voting to take the necessary steps.

A spokesperson for the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation has stated that Europe needs Muslim migrants to prop up its dwindling population and provide for elderly Europeans in the years to come. This despite the fact that migrants have proven to be an overall drain on the economies of their host countries in recent years. As Christine Douglass-Williams notes:~

     What is missing from the OIC’s argument is the common-sense measure of differentiating between immigrants. Europe needs immigrants who will work and pay taxes. Out of the 1.2 million migrants who flooded into Germany in 2016, only “34,000 or 2.8% have found a job,” while only one-third of 1% found jobs in Sweden. In Britain, migrants were found to be “a net drain…on the order of between £115 and £160 billion.” Still, Akeel makes a broad sweep and accuses “right wing parties” of lying about immigration “from the third world.”

      Europe needs immigrants who are skilled, law-abiding, loyal to its countries, and respectful of its constitutions, under which human rights for all and equal rights for all are protected. This includes gays, women, apostates, infidels and anyone else, regardless of creed or race. Unfortunately, Islamic supremacism and jihad attacks have played a central role in increasing opposition to Muslim mass immigration into Europe. This opposition has nothing at all to do with being anti-immigrant or anti-Third World. It has everything to do with preserving Western civilization.

Europe’s new "far-right" should admit that Muslim migrants can benefit the continent eh? Hmm... here we have once again those who have legitimate concerns over Islamic migration being automatically stigmatised as "far-right" but we should be well used to this tactic of mis-labeling and guilt by association by now shouldn't we?

Meanwhile, there are some voices of rationality.

Lord Pearson is interviewed below by Carl Benjamin (he who was recently kicked off Patreon) and covers some extremely urgent considerations for all countries that have a growing Islamic population. The first (very interesting) 10 minutes is on Brexit and the EU but from 10:20 on focuses on the Islamic issue, which covers 26 minutes or so. It also covers the part education has played in preparing much of the population to accepting sub-optimal (as Jordan Peterson might say) outcomes in our larger society.

So what about the concerns of those who have problems with observable realities and the continuation of historic trends and doctrines in our own Western sphere? What about the quarter of a million Sikh, Hindu and white girls raped by predominantly Muslim gangs in Britain in the last 15 years? What about the very real plans Lord Pearson mentions of many Muslims, we could also go back for example to 2006 by Colonel Qaddafi, to dominate and change European countries by having more kids and dominating the ballot box?

​This is an encouraging and informative discussion.

BTW, the clip mentions Muhammad's marriage to Aisha when she was 6 but neglects the larger issue around this. Even if Muhammad was following common practise of his day by doing so, the bigger issue is that because Muhammad is the example in this - as he is for everything else - Islam as it stands will forever defend and copy his behaviour which is at odds with our own very dim view of paedophilia. That's the big problem here.

Boring bit: first a word on my health (and my ongoing inactivity). I had a CAT scan and consulted a specialist and we now know that there's nothing terribly amiss with the brain (contrary to popular opinion!) but we still don't know what the problem really is. Chronic Fatigue Syndrome is a blanket term for things doctors can't diagnose and I was advised to watch my diet and given a couple of options for medication. 

While I think I am slowly improving my health fluctuates a lot. Yesterday after what was for me a great night's sleep (7 hours) I got up, had breakfast and felt like going back to bed by 9AM. The day was pretty much a write-off. Today I feel a bit better and thought I'd do a post while I could. Tomorrow who knows? After nearly 4 months of sitting and watching life go on without me it is beginning to become a little tedious - I have things I want to accomplish, contributions I hope to make. But I take comfort in the fact that no suffering (or death) is meaningless in our Lord's sight.

Jesus had three disciples that were closer to him than the others, Peter, John and John's brother James. I'm encouraged when I read that James - who had spent 3 years living closely with the Saviour & knew him well - was the first apostle to be martyred and this only a matter of weeks after Jesus' ascension (Acts 12.2). When I read that I wonder at the apparent waste of such a great man - what an amazing influence he could have had on history had he lived. Yet God had other ideas. (It is common at such moments to quote Isaiah 55.8 "for my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are my ways your ways" declares the Lord. However this is to rip the verse from its context, which is God reprimanding his people and demanding that they live their lives in a way that reflects his nature). So I simply rest in the knowledge of God's love for me and that he sees things I don't. It's not over 'til it's over and I can't see the end from here.

Now onto today's brilliant short video from Dr Wood on the motivation of the Strasbourg jihadi...

Let's look at one of those hadith that jihadis so frequently base their actions on:~
Sahih al-Bukhari 2796: "The prophet said, 'A single endeavour (of fighting) in Allah's Cause in the afternoon or in the forenoon is better than all the world and whatever is in it.'"

If you try really hard & squint your eyes just right & use lots of imagination you might be able to see how someone could just possibly misunderstand this peaceful verse to mean that it is better to engage in killing Allah's enemies than to possess the whole world can't you?

Of course your average reader would never manage to twist this perfectly irenic hadith into such a malformed and hateful thing, but there seem to be a large number of people - lone wolves and often with mental problems to be sure, millions of them in fact - who for some reason manage to totally misunderstand the peaceful nature of this statement attributed to Islam's "perfect man".

I mean you'd have to suffer from mental problems or take this out of context or contort it well beyond its natural reading to get a commendation from Allah to be violent from this verse wouldn't you? Wouldn't you?

Good grief. It's so simple a child can understand it, but counter-terrorism chiefs just find the whole thing impenetrably dense. The problem isn't "radicalisation" the problem is the sacred scriptures of Islam. The problem is the central person in Islam: Muhammad.

​If you refuse to look there you simply have no idea what is going on or how to respond. None.


>>>>>>>>>>>>
On December 11, 2018, a young Muslim named Chérif Chekatt shouted "Allahu Akbar" as he opened fire at a Christmas market in Strasbourg, France, killing three, leaving one brain-dead, and wounding many more. On the evening of December 13, Chekatt was killed by French police. David Wood discusses the issue.
WEBSITE: http://www.acts17.net