I have featured the wonderful Guy Milliere here before regarding problems in France (here on Islamic Antisemitism; here on general "Islamist" influences in France; and here on the decline of France over the last 10 years due to the rise of Islam - astonishingly, the video is still available on Youtube - an obvious oversight which should be rectified shortly I imagine).

Here Dr Milliere discusses in greater depth many facts around the fire and the emblematic aspects of the whole event. For one thing, you will see why I have such serious doubts that the French regime will actually be honest if it should discover that the fire was the result of an attack by one or more Muslims.

Well worth the few minutes required to grasp the larger picture of what is occurring.
Via the Gatestone Institute.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The Burning of Notre Dame and the Destruction of Christian Europe
​The fire that destroyed much of the Notre Dame Cathedral in the heart of Paris is a tragedy that is irreparable. Even if the cathedral is rebuilt, it will never be what it was before. Stained glass windows and major architectural elements have been severely damaged and the oak frame totally destroyed. The spire that rose from the cathedral was a unique piece of art. It was drawn by the architect who restored the edifice in the nineteenth century, Eugène Viollet-le-Duc, who had based his work on 12th century documents.

In addition to the fire, the water needed to extinguish the flames penetrated the limestone of the walls and façade, and weakened them, making them brittle. The roof is non-existent: the nave, the transept and the choir now lie in open air, vulnerable to bad weather. They cannot even be protected until the structure has been examined thoroughly, a task that will take weeks. Three major elements of the structure (the north transept pinion, the pinion located between the two towers and the vault) are also on the verge of collapse.

Notre Dame is more than 800 years old. It survived the turbulence of the Middle Ages, the Reign of Terror of the French Revolution, two World Wars and the Nazi occupation of Paris. It did not survive what France is becoming in the 21st century.

The cause of the fire has so far been attributed to "an accident," "a short circuit," and most recently "a computer glitch."

If the fire really was an accident, it is almost impossible to explain how it started. Benjamin Mouton, Notre Dame's former chief architect, explained that the rules were exceptionally strict and that no electric cable or appliance, and no source of heat, could be placed in the attic. He added that an extremely sophisticated alarm system was in place. The company that installed the scaffolding did not use any welding and specialized in this type of work. The fire broke out more than an hour after the workers' departure and none of them was present. It spread so quickly that the firefighters who rushed to the spot as soon as they could get there were shocked. Remi Fromont, the chief architect of the French Historical Monuments said: "The fire could not start from any element present where it started. A real calorific load is necessary to launch such a disaster".

A long, difficult and complex investigation will be conducted.

The possibility that the fire was the result of arson cannot be dismissed. Barely an hour after the flames began to rise above Notre Dame -- at a time when no explanation could be provided by anyone -- the French authorities rushed to say that the fire was an "accident" and that "arson has been ruled out." The remarks sounded like all the official statements made by the French government after attacks in France during the last decade.

In November 2015, on the night of the massacre at the Bataclan Theater in Paris, in which jihadists murdered 90 people, the French Department of the Interior said that the government did not know anything, except that a gunfight had occurred. The truth came out only after ISIS claimed responsibility for the slaughter.

In Nice, after the truck-attack in July 2016, the French government insisted for several days that the terrorist who crushed 86 people to death was a "man with a nervous breakdown".

In 2018, Sarah Halimi's murderer, who recited verses from the Quran while torturing his victim, was declared "mentally disturbed" and held in a psychiatric institution immediately after his arrest. He will most likely never face a court. On April 8, Alain Finkielkraut and 38 other intellectuals published a text saying that her murderer must not escape justice. The text had no effect.

The fire at Notre Dame took place less than three years after a "commando unit" of jihadi women, later arrested, tried to destroy the cathedral by detonating cylinders of natural gas. Three days before last week's fire, on April 12, the leader of the jihadis, Ines Madani, a young French convert to Islam, was sentenced to eight years in prison for creating a terrorist group affiliated with the Islamic State.

The Notre Dame fire also occurred at a time when attacks against churches in France and Europe have been multiplying. More than 800 churches were attacked in France during the year 2018 alone. Many suffered serious damage: broken, beheaded statues, smashed tabernacles, feces thrown on the walls. In several churches, fires were lit. On March 5, the Basilica of St. Denis, where all but three of the Kings of France are buried, was vandalized by a Pakistani refugee. Several stained-glass windows were broken, and the basilica's organ, a national treasure built between 1834 and 1841, was nearly wrecked. Twelve days later, on March 17, a fire broke out at Saint Sulpice, the largest church in Paris, causing serious damage. After days of silence, the police finally admitted that the cause had been arson.

For months, jihadist organizations have been issuing statements calling for the destruction of churches and Christian monuments in Europe. Notre Dame was repeatedly named as a primary target. Despite all that, the Cathedral was not adequately protected. A couple of young men, who entered the Cathedral at night, climbed on the roof last November and shot a video that they then put on YouTube.

Many messages were posted by people with Muslim names on social media -- Twitter, Facebook, the website of Al Jazeera -- expressing a joy to see an important Christian symbol destroyed. Hafsa Askar, a migrant from Morocco and the vice president of the National Union of Students of France (UNEF), the main student organization in France, published a tweet saying, "People are crying on little pieces of wood... it's a delusion of white trash".

French President Emmanuel Macron, who had never even mentioned the attacks on Saint Denis or Saint Sulpice, quickly went to Notre Dame and declared, "Notre Dame is our history, our literature, our imagination". He totally left out cathedral's religious dimension.
...
Macron's attitude is not surprising. From the moment he became president, he has kept himself away from any Christian ceremony. Most of the presidents who preceded him did the same. France is a country where a dogmatic secularism reigns supreme. A political leader who dares to call himself a Christian is immediately criticized in the media and can only harm a budding political career. Nathalie Loiseau -- the former director of France's National School of Administration and the leading candidate on the electoral list of Macron's party, "Republic on the Move," for the May 2019 European Parliament elections -- was recently photographed exiting a church after mass, which led to a media debate on whether her church attendance is a "problem."

The results of French secularism are visible. Christianity has been almost completely wiped out from public life. Churches are empty. The number of priests is decreasing and the priests that are active in France are either very old or come from Africa or Latin America. The dominant religion in France is now Islam. Every year, churches are demolished to make way for parking lots or shopping centers. Mosques are being built all over, and they are full. Radical imams proselytize. The murder, three years ago, of Jacques Hamel, an 85-year-old priest who was slaughtered by two Islamists while he was saying mass in a church where only five people (three of them old nuns) were present, is telling.

In 1905, the French parliament passed a law decreeing that all the properties of the Catholic Church in France were confiscated. Churches and cathedrals became property of the State. Since then, successive governments have spent little money to maintain them. Those churches that have not been vandalized are in poor condition, and most cathedrals are in poor condition, too. Even before the devastating fire, the Archdiocese of Paris stated that "it can't afford all the repairs" that Notre Dame needed, "estimated at $185 million."
...
For the foreseeable future, the heart of Paris will bear the terrible scars of a fire that devastated far more than a cathedral. The fire destroyed an essential part of what is left of the almost-lost soul of France and what France could accomplish when the French believed in something higher than their own day-to-day existence.

Some hope that the sight of the destroyed cathedral will inspire many French people to follow the example of those who prayed on the night of the disaster. Michel Aupetit, Archbishop of Paris, said on April 17, two days after the fire, that he was sure France would know a "spiritual awakening".

Others, not as optimistic, see in the ashes of the cathedral a symbol of the destruction of Christianity in France. The art historian Jean Clair said that he sees in the destruction of Notre Dame an additional sign of an "irreversible decadence" of France, and of the final collapse of the Judeo-Christian roots of Europe.

An American columnist, Dennis Prager, wrote:
"The symbolism of the burning of Notre Dame Cathedral, the most renowned building in Western civilization, the iconic symbol of Western Christendom, is hard to miss. It is as if God Himself wanted to warn us in the most unmistakable way that Western Christianity is burning -- and with it, Western civilization."

Another American author, Rod Dreher, noted:
"This catastrophe in Paris today is a sign to all of us Christians, and a sign to all people in the West, especially those who despise the civilization that built this great temple to its God on an island in the Seine where religious rites have been celebrated since the days of pagan Rome. It is a sign of what we are losing, and what we will not recover, if we don't change course now."

For the moment, nothing indicates that France and Western Europe will change course.

Dr. Guy Millière, a professor at the University of Paris, is the author of 27 books on France and Europe.

Our PM said the above in response to the Easter attacks on Sri Lankan Christians and symbols of Western influence. I hope she does mean it, but I tend to think that she will be too afraid of what she might find. 

We read in Stuff that there has been a recent history of violence between the Muslims of Sri Lanka and its Buddhist majority, "After the civil war ended, a religious divide quickly took hold, with hardline Buddhist monks rallying Sri Lankans against what they argue is a pernicious threat: Muslims, who make up roughly 10 per cent of the country's population. Buddhist nationalist leaders accuse Muslims of recruiting children, trying to grow their ranks by marrying Buddhist women and attacking Buddhist shrines." 

What!? Muslims are suffering from unaccountable Islamophobia in Sri Lanka too? You mean as well as all throughout the West and in Myanmar and the Philippines and China and Thailand and Jammu & Kashmir and Chechnya and Israel and Tanzania and Nigeria and so many other spots?

Now stop for a second and consider this: either it is true that, for some totally inexplicable reason, Muslims in each of the above contexts have been forced to resort to violence because they're being terribly persecuted by the majority peoples - be they atheist, Buddhist, Christian, Hindu or Jewish - or they have an understanding of their Faith and of themselves that inexorably leads to conflict.

To check this have a look at those parts of the world where Muslims are the majority and evaluate how well other religious minorities are treated there. 

Starting to get the picture?

One of the suicide mass murderers was even a well known Muslim preacher who said that "Allah created [Sri Lanka] for Muslims". How could a preacher so misconstrue the peaceful teachings of Islam? And why do so many Muslim scholars and religious leaders do the same? Do have a look through my archives, I have so many examples...

I asked a while ago what we would do if there was a retaliatory attack on one of our churches in New Zealand following the Christchurch attack. It seems I forgot that we live in a much smaller world today. Many Muslims think collectively and regard all westerners as Christians - a little like many of our politicians, academics and media in the West view Christians as always being in power, because, as The Apostate Prophet pointed out: Christian=Western=White=Powerful - and therefore any Christian/Western target is viable for retaliation.

So as it seems as the Islamic State may have been behind the attack they have helpfully clarified for us that these Sri Lankan attacks were part of that response,

           The Islamic State supporters have indicated that the Colombo bombings were in retaliation for strikes on Mosques. SITE Intel group said that the ISIS supporters portrayed the attack as revenge for strikes on mosques and Muslims in general. It may be recalled that in 2016 there were reports that 32 elite Muslims had joined the Islamic State.

The ISIS had warned that it would target the Buddhists in Sri Lanka. Further looking at the pattern of the blast and also the fact that the attack was targeted only at the Catholics and foreigners, it suggests that the outfit has a hand behind this attack.

Unfortunately, news coverage here (or elsewhere in the West) hasn't always been helpful. For example, an item showed "Pakistanis hold[ing] a vigil for the victims of the terror attacks across Sri Lanka." What the article declined to point out was that these weren't just "Pakistanis" these were members of the CPA, the Christian Peoples Alliance of Pakistan which has an enormously hard time standing up for its own Christian minority under state and private persecution in Muslim majority Pakistan . Yet the impression given is of a general solidarity among all Pakistanis for the attacks, which may not at all be the case.

Since Sri Lanka's National Thowheeth Jama'ath (National Tauwhid Organisation, Tauhid is Islam’s absolute monotheism that sees virtually every other religion as idolatrous) has now also attacked Christians there, the CPA really understands the issues.

On the the other hand I have yet to see any Pakistani or Sri Lankan Muslims - despite some words from their leaders, ah yes, words, don't we all love words - holding a vigil as New Zealanders of all beliefs did following the Christchurch attack. Neither have I read a statement of sympathy from the New Zealand Islamic association FIANZ, which might be something of a surprise given the recent attacks here and their renewed sensitivity to such things.

​Might this be indicative of a particularly exclusivist mindset that arises out of Islamic scripture where Muslims are told they are superior, “the best of people” (Qur’an 3:110), and that non-Muslims are inferior, “the most vile of created beings” (Qur’an 98:6)?

But as I opened with, despite our PM's supposed determination to "find the will and the answers to end such violence" I'm afraid that is very unlikely to happen. Those jihad mass murderers did what they did for the same reason that Brunei and 10 other Muslim countries and states put homosexuals to death: it is the Sharia of Allah. It is the revealed Divine Law. Suicide attacks are encouraged in holy scripture as this Pakistani declares. Scriptures such as: “Indeed, Allah has purchased from the believers their lives and their properties for that they will have Paradise. They fight in the cause of Allah , so they kill and are killed.” ( Qur'an 9:111) 

With these sacred scriptures of Islam no man - and certainly no woman - can argue. It's going to take more than temporary shock and fleeting compassion, it's going to take some real determination on the part of our leaders to honestly confront the real threat.

But have they got it in them?

Years ago I had a job lined up in Sri Lanka. I was to supervise construction of part of a telephone cable network around the city of Kandy, in the interior. In the end I happened to turn down the job as I would have to leave my wife and young family back in Colombo and only see them once a month. That wasn't what I had kids for and as the firm wouldn't allow them to move to Kandy with me, that was the end of that. However I managed to do some research on the beautiful island of Sri Lanka - previously known as Ceylon and before that Serendip, from which came our name for the idea of Serendipity - and would loved to have moved there to experience something of the place. It sticks in my mind that if today I had taken up the job it may have been my family involved in these attacks.

Much of the Western news media seems to be reluctant to point out that the attackers were Muslims (see the Washington Post's coverage here or the Guardian's here - scarcely one mention of Islam between them). Indeed there are some "experts" who persist in highlighting the danger to Muslims after this attack (​UK: “Crisis analyst” says Sri Lanka jihad massacres could lead to violence against Muslims). This is in keeping with the very notable blind spot and double standard of our own "experts". Why are we afraid to speak as adults about the realities.  Why can't we identify the cause of such jihad attacks - the basis of much subsequent "Islamophobia"?

These people say they are following the commands of their god. Why don't we believe what they say? Why don't we confirm for ourselves that their religious texts indeed give them all the encouragement they need to perform such acts? And why don't we then discuss the implications of having large numbers of people who believe such things living in our midst? The answers will not be hatred and violence in return - that's not how we do things here. But we have to have some response - don't we?

Over 300 dead and over 400 injured and maimed. All in the name of Islam.
​But still, nothing to see here.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Robert Spencer in FrontPage: The Sri Lanka Jihad Massacre and the Decline of the West
How many times is the charade of denial going to play out? (Note that this article was written before the BBC carried a report saying that Sri Lankan authorities were identifying the attackers as part of a “radical Islamist extremist group.”)
My latest in FrontPage:

Well over two hundred people are dead, and hundreds more injured, in jihad massacres in churches and hotels in Sri Lanka on Easter Sunday morning, and now the usual denial and obfuscation are in full swing. I’m often asked, when I speak around the country, what it will take to wake people up to the nature and gravity of the jihad threat. For all too many people, the answer, as the Sri Lanka attacks abundantly show, is nothing.

The facts were clear enough, at least if one checked the Indian media. India’s News18.com reported that “two of the six attacks that rocked Sri Lanka this morning are reportedly to be have been carried out by suicide bombers,” that telltale sign that this was a jihad attack, with the bombers hoping to claim the Qur’an’s promise of Paradise for those who “kill and are killed” for Allah (9:111). “The attack at Shangri La hotel,” News18 continued, “was carried out by suicide bomber Zahran Hashim, while Abu Mohammad has been identified as the attacker at the Batticalao church.”

The Hindu, meanwhile, reported on another jihad suicide bomber, Mohamed Azzam Mohamed, who “waited patiently in a queue for the Easter Sunday breakfast buffet at Sri Lanka’s Cinnamon Grand hotel before setting off explosives strapped to his back.” Mohamed was “just about to be served when he set off his devastating strike in the packed restaurant, a manager at the Sri Lankan hotel said.”

What’s more, there was advance warning: AFP reported that “Sri Lanka’s police chief Pujuth Jayasundara issued an intelligence alert to top officers 10 days ago, warning that suicide bombers planned to hit ‘prominent churches’. ‘A foreign intelligence agency has reported that the NTJ (National Thowheeth Jama’ath) is planning to carry out suicide attacks targeting prominent churches as well as the Indian high commission in Colombo,’ the alert said. The NTJ is a radical Muslim group in Sri Lanka that was linked last year to the vandalisation of Buddhist statues.”

Nevertheless, the Roman Catholic Cardinal Archbishop of Colombo, Malcolm Ranjith, said: “It’s a very difficult and a very sad situation for all of us because we never expected such a thing to happen and especially on Easter Sunday.”

Did Jayasundara alert the “prominent churches,” or just the intelligence officers? If he did alert the churches, did Ranjith disregard the warning? We may never know the answers to those questions, but in a larger sense it is easy to see, despite escalating Muslim persecution of Christians worldwide, why Ranjith “never expected such a thing to happen,” and so had no guards at the churches for Easter Sunday: all those who have been for years calling attention to this threat have been branded as “racist,” “bigoted” and “Islamophobic,” and dismissed as “fearmongering.” Everyone in the Catholic Church knows that Islam is a religion of peace; dissenters are shunned and ostracized. Would it have been “Islamophobic” to have Sri Lankan churches guarded for Easter?

The establishment media in the West seemed determined to keep people as much in the dark as Ranjith was. The New York Times mentioned the jihad group that Jayasundara had warned about, but didn’t mention any of the names of the jihadis who had been identified in the Indian media. CNN didn’t mention either, and even claimed that “it’s not clear who’s behind the eight explosions that forced the country of 21 million people to go on lockdown.” Buzzfeed was completely mum about who might be behind the attacks. CBS noted a Sri Lankan official’s acknowledgment that “religious extremists,” of unidentified affiliation, were responsible. The BBC insisted that “it remains unclear who carried out the attacks.”

That coverage was representative of how the attacks were reported all over the West, and indicative of how all jihad attacks are covered. The identity and motive of the perpetrator are glossed over, downplayed, or ignored altogether. If that cannot be done, then the focus shifts to Muslims as victims, bracing for an “Islamophobic backlash” that seldom, actually materializes. In this case, the worst take came from Britain’s egregious Prime Minister Theresa May, whose initial response to the massacre was to tweet: “The acts of violence against churches and hotels in Sri Lanka are truly appalling.”

Yes, Ms. May, this was the work of anti-hotel and anti-church building zealots.

Britain’s Prime Minister can’t name the victims — Christians — for fear of offending the Muslim communities in the UK whose votes she desperately needs. For the same reason, she most certainly cannot mention the fact that many of the victims were celebrating Easter, or name the attackers, or explain the basis upon which they chose their targets.

Theresa May epitomizes the cowardice and pusillanimity of modern Western leaders. And that is why her country, and other nations of the West, are in such a precarious state. But it isn’t her fault. The overall response to the Sri Lanka jihad massacre shows why the West’s response to the global jihad is so wholly and comprehensively inadequate.

Ah yes. The game has changed. The goalposts have been moved. We have to abide by the New Rules.

Let's apply them to the Easter jihad mass murders in Sri Lanka shall we?
​After all, we have to be consistent.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On Easter Sunday of 2019, Christians in Sri Lanka gathered to celebrate the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Muslim suicide bombers from the terrorist group National Thowheeth Jama'ath saw this as an opportunity to kill as many Christians as possible, so they bombed St. Anthony's Shrine in Colombo, St. Sebastian's Church in Negombo, and Zion Church in Batticaloa. In an effort to disrupt the island nation's tourist industry, jihadis also targeted three hotels.
​In the past, we've been told not to associate terrorist attacks with the ideology of the terrorists. However, following the New Zealand mosque shootings, we saw leftists and Muslims using the attacks to smear anyone who has ever criticized Islam. Given the rule changes after the Christchurch Mosque Massacre, how should we respond to the church bombings in Sri Lanka? David Wood discusses the issue.

That fire had some interesting aspects to it and there's a lot of speculation about it, unfortunately the authorities stating before the fire seemed even to have been extinguished that is was most definitely an accident has got a lot of people scratching their heads. How could they be so categorical - one way or the other - in such a short time? 

French Catholic churches have suffered a great deal of vandalism and arson over the last couple of years. There's a great deal of talk about "Islamophobia" these days but anti-Christian acts in France outnumbered anti-Muslim acts ten to one in 2018 during which there was an average of 2 churches being profaned per day. Yet we haven't heard a lot about this have we?

I recommend this extremely useful article If churches keep getting vandalized in France, should American news outlets cover the story? by a seasoned journalist that is well worth a read. Interestingly the author notes that those responsible for many of these attacks seem to be anarchists and feminists.

Of course it should also be noted that the increase in the Islamic population is making its contribution. I've noted before that up until a couple of years ago Assyrian churches in Paris did not need armed guards outside their services (as Synagogues in Paris - and many throughout Europe - also require) but due to the influx of Muslim migrants after the Syrian crisis these are now permanent additions to any services. 

A spokesman for the Parisian Assyrian Christian community noted in 2015
       Assyrians are reminded on a daily basis of such feelings of insecurity by the increasingly visible presence of the military in the streets. “We have a very large Assyrian church here that meets for worship three times per day,” explained Mr Yabas. “There are soldiers placed in front of it for protection, as also occurs with the synagogues. For several years now we have not felt secure, because of the rising power of extremists here in France. ... The entire Assyrian community is hugely disappointed and angry with the French Government ... Government inaction has resulted in the problems in Syria and Iraq coming to France. The French authorities have been entirely reactive, not proactive. They have not anticipated, but waited until the problems were on their doorstep.

We haven't heard a terrific amount about that in our media either.

There's also this from the British Express which notes that there have been at least 10 attacks on French churches just in the month of February. A month ago there was an arson attack on St. Sulpice, the second-largest church in Paris. And few of us heard about that. 

The ever reliable (cough) Stuff reports that the head of the firm responsible for the renovations, Julien Le Bras, said, "All I can tell you is that at the moment the fire began none of my employees were on the site. We respected all procedures." And  Bernard Fonquernie, an architect who has worked on the building in the past stated, "In the years I worked here, we never had an accident because we followed the rules so tightly. There are extinguishers everywhere, you may not use flammable liquids."

I have read that the fire started after all staff  had left for the evening. I've also read that 50% of the staff used in the renovation work were of migrant background, but I've not been able to corroborate this. If true it may not be irrelevant.

To top it all off Robert Spencer at Jihad Watch notes the following three bits of interesting information:~

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Notre Dame fire: No workers were in the cathedral, no heat sources were near the timber frame​ Was it arson?

Maybe. Would French authorities admit the fact if it were? Possibly not. Is there any group in France responsible for the spate of fires and vandalism at churches? At least one has been the work of a Muslim migrant, and Islam does have a 1,400-year history of destroying churches in Europe and elsewhere.

Does that mean that it is Muslims who are attacking churches in France, and who destroyed Notre Dame? Of course not. It’s a possibility that should be investigated, as should other possibilities. To dismiss this possibility out of hand as “Islamophobic” is to be terminally naive and/or ideologically blinkered.

Notre-Dame: ‘The work had not started yet, only the scaffolding was being assembled,'” translated from “Notre-Dame: ‘Les travaux n’avaient pas encore débuté, seuls les échafaudages étaient en cours de montage,'” Fdesouche.com, April 16, 2019 (thanks to Maxime Lépante):

The frame, the roof and the spire of the cathedral are destroyed. It will now be necessary to evaluate the state of the structure. The fire came on Monday as major renovations were underway.

(…) “The hotspots are the main obsession in a restoration work of this magnitude,” says the chief architect of historical monuments, François Chatillon, about Notre Dame. A simple weld on lead can heat the wood below. The chief architect of historical monuments responsible for the restoration of the spire of Notre Dame, Philippe Villeneuve, states: “the work had not started yet, only the scaffolding was being assembled.” From his point of view, “the hot spot hypothesis is therefore not the right one”.


Notre-Dame de Paris: ‘Nothing points in the direction of an intentional act’ at the beginning of the investigation, translated from “Notre-Dame de Paris: ‘Rien ne va dans le sens d’un acte volontaire’, selon les débuts de l’enquête,” Le Journal du Dimanche, April 16, 2019 (thanks to Maxime Lépante):

The safety procedures on the Notre-Dame de Paris construction site “have been respected,” said one of the leaders of the scaffolding of the cathedral on BFMTV Tuesday, the day after the fire that ravaged the building. “All I can tell you right now is that at the start of the fire, absolutely none of the employees of my company was present on site,” said Julien Le Bras, adding that all employees of his company, Europe Echafaudage, participated in the inquiry “without any reservation”.


An observer on the scene in France, Maxime Lépante, who sent these two links, also writes: 

One of my friends sent me an email concerning the security on the roof of Notre-Dame. She has a diploma in Art History and studied in the “Ecole du Louvre” (“Louvre School”, where students learn art history and restoration processes): “I visited the framing of Notre Dame with architects of the “Bâtiments de France” (“Buildings of France”, the highest rank for an architect in France), some years ago. This 13th century timber frame was extremely protected. Each intervention is always accompanied by historians, architects, experts; no work is envisaged without extreme caution; no source of heat, no torch, no electrical apparatus is allowed; a high-performance alarm system is in place; and very strict supervision of all people allowed there.

I think we will eventually learn that this was arson.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

As much as there are many who seem determined not to entertain the notion, it seems at least prudent not to immediately consign to the "conspiracy theory" bin the idea that this was not an accident but a religiously motivated act by a member of what seems to be a protected group (protected in the sense of being largely invisible to media and authorities): either Anarchist, Feminist or Muslim.

I'm happy to nail my colours to the mast and say that I find the immediate & indeed precipitous dismissal of arson to be all too familiar an occurrence. In my line over the last few years I have observed that there have been many attacks of various sorts perpetrated by Muslims that media and authorities throughout the West have been all too eager to bury for the sake of some sort of weird and transient "community cohesion". 

But if this is what community cohesion looks like then I think we need to move to another option please. Option B would involve somebody having the courage to nip all this in the bud by dealing squarely and openly with the real problems, no matter who comes out looking good or bad At the moment those who are responsible seem terrified of looking into matters lest things are shown to be unraveling.

And this is what bothers me most: my underlying belief that there is good reason to expect the French government not to be candid with its populace if the facts should show up a protected group in a poor light. That is really the most tragic thing about all this. We are already finding this out in many Western nations and we are definitely seeing the same thing in our own country. An increasingly tight straight-jacket of right-think that constrains enquiry and discussion for the sake of an ephemeral "community cohesion" that is never going to stand the inevitable strain. 

But who will be brave enough to take Option B?

A nifty 10 minute clip from David Wood (who I must admit is looking much younger, more intelligent & more handsome these days - whatever you're doing keep it up mate) on the central person in Islam and his amazing logical consistency.

He discusses several disturbing points raised by Muhammad such as the deficiency of intellect & morals of women; the wisdom of accepting food from a people you have just attacked, killed and enslaved; the efficacy of his sucking on the tongue of a boy (bleech!); how some Jews were changed into rats - really; and the prophecy of his that the rocks and trees will cry out(!) for Muslims to come and kill the Jews hiding behind them.

Now as these are referred to in Hasan and even Sahih ahadith they are not things that may merely be brushed off by Muslims.

What an excellent video for our Muslim friends to watch and mull over.


>>>>>>>>>>>
In Islam's most trusted sources, the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) offered many arguments, using his own version of logic. What happens if we use Muhammad's "logic" and "reasoning" against him? Will our Muslim friends accept our arguments, derived from the Quran and Sunnah? Or will they recognize the fallacy and spot the fallacies in their own prophet's claims? Find out as Islam Critiqued goes through the Hadith and exposes Muhammad over and over again.

I spoke at church on this topic the other day. I wasn't feeling my best so it's worse than it would otherwise have been. It may help you with your insomnia though! Even if it is only 14 minutes long...

A few thoughts:~

#1 Our government is busy trying to remove legal guns from the hands of law-abiding citizens even though over the last 20 years in New Zealand there were only 15 murders committed with guns by people with a firearms licence.

#2 Hands are being wrung about the name of a NZ football team because of some battles fought a thousand years ago on the other side of the planet. Never mind that, contrary to popular opinion, this was a long deferred counter-attack which involved only 16 major battles. Never mind that they came in direct response to hundreds of years of Islamic aggression. And never mind that those counter-attacks by European forces may have been the only thing that staved off what would have been by now the complete subjugation of Europe by Islam. Dr Warner has produced a very helpful explanatory 5 minute video HERE which compares the dreaded Crusades with the totally overlooked violent advance of the Muslim armies.

But please don't look at it if you've already made up your mind on the rights and wrongs of the whole thing. I'll leave you in peace. Go back to listening to Radio New Zealand.

#3 Academics are advising us to take it very gently with Muslims who may be drawn to "radicalism" (whatever that is, they don't say) while at the same time telling us that we need to crack down as hard as possible on White Supremacists in order to nip the problem in the bud. Our chief censor has made it illegal for anyone to have in their possession a copy of Brenton Tarrant's manifesto because, well it must be contagious or something.

I've had a number of German students stay in my house over the years and they have told me that, while the Germans won't allow Hitler's book to be sold, they must undergo instruction in school at least once a year on the ideology and history of the Hitler Movement in order to ensure everyone understands what brought on so much horror and to prevent it from happening again.

In Enzed we can still buy Mein Kampf from Whitcoulls (I have a copy) but we can't buy Jordan Peterson's book from them. We're not told exactly why but the inescapable conclusion must be that Dr Peterson is worse than Hitler. This NZ Herald writer somehow got the following past her editor concerning Tarrant:
        A senior researcher at Independent Research Solutions, Elley says strength is at the centre of this belief system, and typically that's masculine strength.
        In seeking to achieve that ideal, it also pushes a strong self-improvement component - the type of values system right-wing celebrity pop psychologist Jordan Peterson advocates - eating well, exercising, keeping tidy. The accused gunman, for example, was noted for his cleanliness by his landlords. He was fastidious about the gym.

It's no wonder I have a headache. People are actually paid to produce this kind of mindless pap. 

#4 Auckland ANZAC Day parades are being shut down because of the increased threat of terror. Terror? From whom? I don't think it's going to be from White Supremacists like Tarrant who were so moved by the sight of all the crosses of dead white men in French WWII cemeteries do you? But of course you would have to read his manifesto to know that and our government has decided we can't be trusted with the information. But keep referring to Mein Kampf won't you? 

No, I would think that our authorities are concerned about retaliatory attacks from followers of a certain religion which must henceforth forever remain un-named lest naming it leads to more attacks.

So ... what? - we're just going to keep speaking in code or with a wink every time there is any link between Islam and violence in the name of Islam? You do know, New Zealand government, that Al Qaeda, Al Nusra, the Islamic State, Boko Haram, Al Shabaab, Abu Sayyaf, the Muslim Brotherhood and every other single Islamic terrorist group claims to be completely Islamic don't you?

Well that would seem to depend on who the government is using for advisors on matters of "radicalisation" (whatever that is) doesn't it?

At the moment I wouldn't trust our government to find its way across the road.

So many intelligent and educated people.
So few clues.

​As has been said: Can we just start with the consistency? 


>>>>>>>>>>
​Rondell Henry, a "Maryland Man," was recently captured while attempting to drive a U-Haul truck into a crowd of infidels at the National Harbor waterfront. According to the New York Times, however, Henry's religion remains a mystery, and certainly played no role in his desire to wage jihad in the name of Allah.

Ok, so I fell for it hook, line & sinker. Even though it was April the 2nd down here mate, April Fool's Day was long gone... that's my story & I'm sticking to it.

I'm just glad it's not true :) 

David Wood stays on You Tube. In this video he explains why he does what he does, criticising Islam. He also discusses the ongoing & increasing threats for those who do so.


>>>>>>>>>>>
​Following the New Zealand mosque shootings, Muslim apologists are telling their fans and subscribers to flag videos critical of Islam as "hate speech." Since criticizing Muhammad and the Quran doesn't qualify as hate speech, these apologists are really calling for false flags. With sites like YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, and Patreon banning, censoring, or restricting popular creators such as Sargon of Akkad, the Apostate Prophet, Tommy Robinson, Al Fadi, and many others, social media censorship is becoming a dangerous game. David Wood discusses the issue of censoring and deplatforming critics of Islam.

This is emblematic of the struggle we are facing.

David Wood has a Youtube channel which has been such a source of excellent information and pertinent social commentary on all things Islamic for several years, but now he's decided to stop producing his brilliant videos. The reason is he has been receiving more and more opposition, not only from some Muslims but from the major social media platforms. Although he doesn't mention this, he could well conceivably face Patreon pronouncing him personae non gratae, cutting a major funding source. Several other people who politely share unpopular ideas have already suffered in this way.

This is his brief video explaining why he won't be making any more videos. He notes his family situation & says he really doesn't need the stress (I hear you brother!) and I'm sure he's doing the right thing.

Despite David's optimism I still think this is a real loss to us all. We can only hope others will step up to try to fill his shoes. I will look forward to his new book releases!

Ah, the African American intellectual Thomas Sowell has much of contemporary society pegged doesn't he?

A few years ago I watched the children's cartoon film Inside out. It supposedly dealt with the conflicting thoughts going through the mind of a young girl and her struggle to find meaning and connection. The film even showed the arena of the conflict as being her brain - inside her head. However, it struck me after a while that what was going in in there had nothing to do with thought or rationality. In fact everything depicted as a thought was actually an emotion: Joy, anger, sadness, fear or disgust.

I mentioned this to some friends and was surprised to find that they hadn't picked up on the distinction. But how much does this reflect our society's inability to separate feelings from thought? Can we discriminate between the two? Can we dislike distasteful intellectual positions - such as those currently afflicting our culture as Dr Durie pointed out in my last post - while still holding sacrosanct the value of people who may hold those positions?

It seems to me that quite a lot of us have lost this ability to discriminate. Some of my recent posts may be criticised as being to poignant, too direct in the wake of the recent suffering of our Muslim friends. However, when will be a good time to discuss these things? Additionally I have noticed over time the "power of first story". If all we are given to contemplate after the tragedy are comforting bromides regarding Islam we might start believing them. Feelings begin to take hold. In short order we may find ourselves unable - unwilling - to reason about the difficulties of Islam.

So I offer the following video from our friend The Apostate Prophet for consideration. As a Turkish Muslim raised in Germany and as someone who became quite a zealot before rejecting Islam for atheism he has a lot to offer us. He has an unusually sound grasp of Christianity compared to many atheists I've heard.

This is a useful clip for those who want to find out how many of our Muslim friends think and what Islam teaches about Jesus Christ. No, we don't worship the same God. No, we don't both love Jesus the same. 

It will clear up some confusion.
​And we really need that.
​At least I think so.

The Rev Dr Mark Durie gives offers the best analysis of Tarrant's beliefs & actions I have yet read. I hope you take the time to read it and better understand our problem. This is a long piece, but the subject certainly demands that we give it such attention.

See what you think.


>>>>>>>>>>>
The Christchurch Killer’s Anti-Humanist Ideology
In the wake of the horrific Christchurch shootings, we need to thoughtfully engage with the ideology which influenced it. Just before the massacre, the self-confessed killer, Brenton Tarrant, distributed what is being called a manifesto, in which he unashamedly describes what he was about to do as a “terrorist attack”, and gives and account of his ideology. We need to understand this ideology, not to give it a platform, but to learn and to equip ourselves to stand against such hatred.

Ideology and Evil
I have recently been re-reading Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s The Gulag Archipelago. The Christchurch massacre of people at prayer took place while I was making my way through Solzhenitsyn’s history of the Soviet annihilation of millions of their own. Countless lives were flushed down the vast sewer of the Gulag.  Solzhenitsyn traced the Soviets’ descent into darkness as communist ideology took over people’s souls and minds, making many even half-decent people into monsters.  He wrote:

        To do evil a human being must first of all believe that what he is doing is good, or else that it’s a well-considered act in conformity to natural law. Fortunately it is in the nature of the human being to seek a justification for his actions. Macbeth’s self-justifications were feeble – and his conscience devoured him. Yes, even Iago was a little lamb too. The imagination and the spiritual strength of Shakespeare’s evil-doers stopped short at a dozen corpses. Because they had no ideology.

Ideology — that is what gives evil-doing its long-sought justification and gives the evildoer the necessary steadfastness and determination. That is the social theory which helps to make his acts seem good instead of bad in his own and others’ eyes, so that he won’t hear reproaches and curses, but will receive praise and honors.

Thanks to ideology, the twentieth century was fated to experience evildoing on a scale calculated in the millions.

In The Gulag Archipelago Solzhenitsyn delves into and documents the outworking of a political ideology, Communism, which killed on an industrial scale.  As unpleasant as his task was, it was a necessary and honourable one. The Christchurch slaughter is a textbook example of what evil ideology can achieve in a person’s heart. Just as for the Soviet Gulag, it needs to be understood.  All terrorism needs to be treated this way: its controlling ideology should be carefully examined, considered, and where necessary, rejected.  This is something we owe to the victims, and to ourselves.

Will Silence Help?
Jacinda Ardern, the New Zealand Prime Minister, who has been widely praised for her handling of her country’s response to the massacre, has vowed to deny Brenton Tarrant, the accused killer, any platform for his views, not even speaking his name: “He may have sought notoriety, but we in New Zealand we will give him nothing.”  Taking his cue from the Prime Minister, the New Zealand Censor has banned the downloading or possession of the manifesto. Censorship of a document is permitted in New Zealand if its publication ‘is likely to be injurious to the public good’ and Tarrant’s manifesto could be injurious if someone read it and was radicalised by it, as was the author’s intent. On the other hand, rejecting the ideology of the manifesto is also in the public good, but to do that comprehensively, one must first understand it, and to understand it, one must read it.

In any case, Tarrant had already posted his manifesto to the web before the atrocity, ensuring its wide availability.  As galling as it is that a killer could gain a platform through a hate crime, it is necessary to pay attention to the ideology of Brenton Tarrant. Why should we do this? Because there are others like him, connected to each other on the internet, and because Tarrant’s ideology has the capacity to replicate itself. It is important to understand this ideology, not least so that it can be resisted and opposed with all the strength and skill we can muster. Silence won’t achieve this. This strategy would be like trying to combat Nazi ideology by refusing to ever speak the name Adolf Hitler: I do not begrudge Hitler his long Wikipedia article.

The Great Replacement
Tarrant’s ideology is laid out in his manifesto, The Great Replacement, the title for which he took from French, le grand remplacement, a phrase which has come to embody fear about the demographic future of France and a looming “white genocide”. His primary concern is the demographic decline of the “White race”, by which he means people of European stock.  The immediate cause of decline is the lack of will to reproduce, and the resulting low birthrates.  This needs to change, he says, but a more immediate threat to “Europeans”, among whom Tarrant counts himself , is immigration from non-white countries.  Tarrant calls immigrants “invaders”, and sees his violence as legitimate “partisan” resistance to this “invasion”.  His stated purpose in massacring innocent people in New Zealand was to set off a war between whites and other races.  There is more to it than just that – he lays out a model of how he expects this will play out – but this is the essence of his purpose.

Is Tarrant an Islamophobe?
Tarrant chose Muslims as a target, but his hatred is directed at all non-white immigrants. It is their “race” he objects to. He has nothing to say about Islam as a religion, making no mention of Muhammad, the Qur’an, or the Sharia. Although Tarrant nurtures a number of grudges against Muslims, for example for the history of jihad against Europe, he makes clear that his primary reason for targeting mosques is to incite white people to rise up against immigrants in general, not just Muslims. He would drive them all out if he could.

Is Tarrant Right-Wing?
Is Tarrant a right-wing extremist, as many have claimed? He mocks those who would try to pin him somewhere on the left-wing-right-wing spectrum. He does own that he is a fascist – to be precise, an eco-fascist green nationalist – and the list of what he despises is long, including conservatives, Marxists, the “cult of individualism”, urbanisation, industrialisation, drug addiction, capitalism, globalisation, democracy, exploitation of workers, free markets, multiculturalism, diversity and free trade. Several of his pet hates are characteristic of the Left. The nation whose philosophy is closest to his own is, he says, Communist China, presumably because of its unashamed will to use all available power to dominate.

Is Tarrant a Christian? 
Tarrant’s manifesto makes no mention of Jesus or the Bible, and his text includes no discernible Biblical allusions. In this respect it is very different from the propaganda of Islamic jihadists, which is chock-full of Qurʾanic references. Although Tarrant refers to Christianity a number of times, he equates it with white culture.  Churches he has little time for, describing them as “empty”.  He also considers Western religious leaders to be “corrupt”.

At one point Tarrant asks himself the question “Am I a Christian?”  His laconic answer is, “That is complicated. When I know, I will tell you.”  However, it is crystal clear from the manifesto that, although Tarrant identifies with Christianity as an aspect of cultural whiteness, apart from this he has no interest in the Christian faith, and his ideology has nothing recognisably Christian in it. The manifesto’s closing words are “I will see you in Valhalla”.

Worshipping Strength
In Tarrant’s fascist vision, the primary good, overriding all else, is the success and dominance of the race-nation. This is a law-of-the-jungle, survival-of-the-fittest view of morality, which considers it entirely legitimate for one tribe to dominate and destroy another to its own advantage. Those who think like him, in Nietzschian fashion, “worship strength”. For such as Tarrant, the will to dominate, exercised by any means, is necessary and noble. Tarrant’s solution to his crisis of white demographic decline is to incite conflict so that whites will be compelled to awaken, radicalise and grow strong. This is what his attack in Christchurch was all about.

The idea that one group could or should seek to replace another is not an innovation, but an ancient attitude to human life and reflected in patterns of warfare attested in many societies. In The Descent of Man, Darwin suggested that sympathy for the species developed out of concern for the welfare of the tribe, according to which “actions … are good or bad, solely as they obviously affect the welfare of the tribe – not that of the species, nor that of an individual member of the tribe.”

One hardly needs to look to ancient history to find examples. Five hundred miles east of New Zealand lie the Chatham Islands.  They used to be inhabited by the Moriori, a gentle and vulnerable tribe, who had abandoned the Maoris’ fiercely warlike ways. In 1835 the Moriori were brutally slaughtered and replaced by Maoris from the North Island. The conquerors banned the speaking of Moriori among the few survivors, and prevented them from marrying each other. One of the invading chiefs stated afterwards “We took possession … in accordance with our custom, and we caught all the people. Not one escaped. Some ran away from us, these we killed; and others also we killed — but what of that? It was in accordance with our custom.”

This is not just an old idea. Doctrines justifying replacement of whole groups have also been developed in modern times. Communist and Nazi regimes forged their own versions, directing their destructive impulses against “enemies of the people”, whom the organs of the state flushed away in their millions.

An Implacable Rejection of Christianity
Despite his claim to be a warrior for Europeans, Tarrant’s morality is implacably and utterly opposed to the humanitarian Biblical roots of Christianity, and, ironically, at odds with the spiritual and ethical foundations of European cultures he claims to appreciate.  In Tarrant’s moral universe there is nothing of “love your neighbour as yourself” (Luke 10:27), nor of care for the stranger and the alien in your midst (Exodus 23:9; Leviticus 19: 34 “you shall love the alien as yourself”). There is nothing of the insight that human beings are made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27) and thus of inherent worth, irrespective of their race.

Tarrant owes nothing to Paul’s warning not to take revenge but to live at peace with everyone (Romans 12:17-19). He would have nothing but contempt for such thinking. Tarrant has turned his back on the very core of Christian ethics and knows nothing of the historical influence of Christian ideas on ‘white’ Europe.  In reality, Christianity led Europe away from the violent, vengeful path Tarrant has chosen. For example, the Vikings had plundered and slaved their way across Europe serving Norse gods of war, until conversion to Christianity turned them into peaceful nations, eventually becoming the Icelanders, Danes, Swedes and Norwegians of today.

Anti-Humanitarian
The deeply anti-humanitarian features of Tarrant’s ideology are particularly troubling, not least because Western societies’ movement away from humanitarianism is a discernible long-term trend, and not just among violent extremists.  Reverence for human life is no longer as dominant a characteristic of Western people’s thinking as it used to be.  Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, recently reported in an interview that he left the organisation because it was turning its back on its humanitarian roots by repositioning humans as “enemies of the Earth”. Tarrant himself aligns with this trend in environmentalism, which regards people as a blight on the earth: one of the reasons he says he hates migrants is that they come, he says, from groups that are “overpopulating” the world, so, he rants, “kill the overpopulation and by doing so save the environment”.

A Chaotic View of Past and Present
Tarrant’s ideology is as chaotically self-contradictory as it is revolting. His theory of history and of nations is all over the place: a complete mess.  He has no awareness, for example, that Christianity is an Eastern religion as much as a Western one. He imagines that China “lacks diversity”. In response to his anxiety about our rapidly changing world – changing in a direction he hates – he has latched on to a worldview driven by hatred and worship of strength, which leads down a road to despair and death.

The Collective Rules
As chaotic and counter-factual as it is, Tarrant’s ideology nevertheless has structure. His hatred of individualism drives the whole show, and goes hand in hand with his tribal morality, which subjugates the worth of an individual human being to the dominion of race and nation. His identity politics flowers into bloody genocide.  He feels entitled, for example, to kill Muslim children praying in a New Zealand mosque as “revenge” for acts of Muslims done centuries ago, ten thousand miles away.  He also wants families of immigrants who commit sexual assault to be hanged.  This is the darkest, pointiest end of collectivism, a conviction that guilt and punishment are not individual, but cling to groups, even down the generations. It is a profoundly anti-Biblical view of guilt (cf Ezekiel 18 and Jeremiah 31).

Mad or Bad?
Is Tarrant a psychopath?  He may be. The vast majority of ordinary people could not kill in cold blood as he has done.  After the Battle of Gettysburg a cleanup operation found that the majority of rifles were still loaded, and some had been reloaded multiple times. One theory is that it is psychologically so difficult to kill another person, that the inexperienced soldiers just kept reloading their rifles, only giving the impression of killing.  Today professional armies help recruits to overcome their innate reluctance to kill through training, including shoot-em-up computer games, to make killing an automatic, repetitive action. We know that Tarrant had a long history of playing violent computer games – he refers to them in his manifesto and styles his video of the massacre to look like one – so this could have conditioned him to kill.

One reason secular Western people look to psychopathy to explain terrorist massacres is that many have come under the grip of utopian thinking.  This is grounded in the belief that people are not inherently bad, and can be perfected through social progress. By this view, the true location of evil is to be found in social structures, and sin, in so far as it exists at all, is collective, not individual. The abolition of evil structures ought then to usher in a better world: this is called ‘progress’.

From within this worldview, it would generate cognitive dissonance to admit that sane individuals could commit mass murder.  Yet there is overwhelming evidence that they can, and do.  Solzhenitsyn’s writings make it abundantly clear that ordinary, even pure people, can become agents of mass torture and murder.  He writes in the Gulag Archipelago of one young man, a “selfless, dedicated boy, as fresh as spring water”, who, at great risk to himself, even spoke up for Solzhenitsyn when he was arrested.  Years later Solzhenitsyn discovered that this same man had become an interrogator (i.e., a torturer) for the security services, and Solzhenitsyn reflected that he himself might well have ended up doing the same, if circumstances had directed his life differently. The “line separating good and evil”, he concluded, “passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either – but right through every human heart – and through all human hearts.”

Tarrant’s manifesto and actions are bad, not mad. Driven, cold and calculating, and fully responsible for his actions, he had been captured by an evil ideology, which made him a hero in his own eyes.

Capitalising on Terror
It is lamentable, but only to be expected, that some have recruited Tarrant’s terror to serve their own political ends:

# Erdogan, president of Turkey, while electioneering, incited religious hatred against ‘Christian’ New Zealanders and Australians for the Dardanelles campaign in the First World War.

# Australia’s left-wing opposition leader, Bill Shorten, declared, “Not all right wing extremist hate speech ends in right wing extremist violence. But all right wing extremist violence begins with right wing extremist hate speech.” If he has made the same statement about left winger or Islamic extremists, his political career would have been over.  The right, Shorten makes out, is uniquely evil.

# David Koch, an Australian television presenter, waxed lyrical on the dangers of right-wing extremism: “…most of the (Australian) terrorist attacks are right-wing white supremacist. We had Hilton bombings. We had IRAs.” In fact, the Australian Hilton bombings were the work of a left-wing extremist, and Australia has never had an IRA terror incident, and even if it had, the IRA were most influenced by Marxism, so also left-wing (see discussion here). 

# In a bizarre series of events, Chelsea Clinton was accused by students at a New York vigil for the victims of causing the massacre. “Forty-nine people died because of the rhetoric you put out there,” Clinton was told by Muslim student Leen Dweik. This was because Clinton had criticised an antisemitic tweet from Muslim House of Representatives member Ilhan Omar.

# At the other extreme, Australian politician Fraser Anning heaped guilt on the innocent Muslim victims: “… just because the followers of this savage belief were not the killers in this instance, does not make them blameless.” (Anning’s hateful comments have been heartily condemned by all sides of Australian politics.)

# Other distortions are more subtle. John Azumah, professor of World Christianity and Islam at Columbia Seminary voiced his fears that “radical Islam is now defining Christian witness and filling Christians with fear, hatred, and even violence”. It is true, as Azumah points out, that Christians are persecuted in Islamic contexts, so much so that Christians are many, many times more likely to be killed by radical Muslims in Islamic nations than Muslims are to be killed by Christians in the West. The recent decimation of Christian communities in Iraq and Syria is but one example among many. Yet Tarrant was no Christian, and his views do not reflect those of any Christian group. For Muslims who live as large and growing minorities in the West today, the rise of anti-Christian racist ideologies, like Tarrant’s, pose a danger far greater than resentment or fear about Islam among suffering Christians.

A shared theme of all these confused and distorting responses is that they perpetuate collectivism, by blame-shifting Tarrant’s pathology onto whole political or religious identities. Such ideological exploitations of Tarrant’s violence can rightly be seen as a victory for him.

How Tarrant was Radicalised
It is necessary to explore Tarrant’s passion over the “great replacement”.  He describes visiting France, and feeling grief-struck by the ebbing away of the French: “The french people were often in a minority themselves, and the french that were in the streets were often alone, childless or of advanced age. While the immigrants were young, energised and with large families and many children.”  In disgust and despair Tarrant pulled over by a military cemetery, overwhelmed, and wept at the sight of crosses from soldiers who were killed fighting in the two World Wars, stretching out to the horizon. He was weeping over their seemingly vain sacrifice.

By his own account, this was how Tarrant was radicalised. That was it. In front of those crosses he demanded of himself “Why don’t I do something?” Then and there he committed himself to violence in the belief that the radicalisation of other Western young men will be inevitable.

What is disturbing about this testimony is that there will indeed be many who lament what Douglas Murray has called the Strange Death of Europe. The demographic transition is real enough, and well advanced.  Many will find it traumatic, and as it progresses, there is potential for accelerating anxiety and distress. No group relishes the loss of its identity and sense of place in the world, and denial will not help. Attempts to forge a new multicultural identity for Europe, to replace the old national identities, have not been entirely successful. In the wake of violent terrorist attacks of 2016 in France, distinguished French social scientist, Pierre Manent, expressed the feelings of many when he wrote:

          The French are exhausted, but they are first of all perplexed, lost. Things were not supposed to happen this way … We had supposedly entered into the final stage of democracy where human rights would reign, ever more rights ever more rigorously observed. We had left behind the age of nations as well as that of religions, and we would henceforth be free individuals moving frictionlessly over the surface of the planet …  And now we see that religious affiliations and other collective attachments not only survive but return with a particular intensity.

If radicalisation is to be prevented, the crucial thing is to short-circuit the progression from lament and trauma to violence. A sense of loss is and will be unavoidable, but a descent into violence need not be. To prevent this outcome moral leadership is required.

The Threat of Tarrant’s Ideology
The core challenge Tarrant represents is not that some might be incited to copycat or revenge attacks by his example or his testimony – although that risk is not to be underestimated. The greatest threat is that the option of violence might become increasingly attractive to people who have turned their backs on love-thy-neighbour morality, despising it as weakness, and who also feel deeply challenged and uprooted, both emotionally and morally, by our rapidly changing world, not only by rapid demographic shifts, but also by cultural loss, environmental degradation and all of the other ills Tarrant rails against. The greater the sense of loss, the more attractive the worship of strength could appear.  What ethical alternatives will be made available to those who are tempted by this path?

The Real Battle We Must Face
Calls to suppress Tarrant’s views from being known and discussed are mistaken. As Solzhenitsyn stated, it is “ideology — that is what gives evil-doing its long-sought justification and gives the evildoer the necessary steadfastness and determination.”  The real struggle we face in the West is over moral worldviews which despise the value of human life. Put simply, it is the erosion of the ethic that we should treat others as we would ourselves want to be treated (Luke 6:31).

It was Tarrant’s rejection of the inherent value of each and every human life that opened the door to his raging collectivist hatred.  The challenge for us all is to discern and uproot the seedlings of his deadly ideological trend, and to plant something better in its place.  To do this we must understand and acknowledge such thinking, understand how such a worldview might germinate and grow, and be able to trace the paths of its influence, so that we can intervene and oppose it, lest it spread.  But to achieve all this we must take our heads out of the sand, not put them in it.

As I mentioned a couple of days ago Brunei has completed its 5 year plan to introduce Sharia Law. This includes the fact that homosexual or adulterous activities are now offences punishable by stoning to death. Stealing is now punishable by cutting off the hand. Our government has come out and condemned the new laws, even though they seem to have been most troubled by the homosexuality aspect.

Is this merely a cultural phenomenon in Brunei? Not a bit.

As may be seen in the map, Brunei is in the Shafi'i Madhab, or school of Islamic jurisprudence, in the majority Sunni stream of Islam (the other Sunni schools being Maliki, Hanbali and Hanafi). Below I have scanned for you the page from the Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law. This is the book of Sharia law for all Shafi'is and it has been approved as an accurate translation into English by al-Azhar University (coincidentally the same seat of learning that the Imam of the al-Noor Mosque in Christchurch attended). 

In the introduction it states:
"the authors of the present volume and their positions DO represent the orthodox Muslim intellectual and spiritual heritage that has been the strength of the Community for over a thousand years".
So this is an authoritative document for our nearest Muslim neighbours.

Please read what I've scanned below. Please note that such punishments are obligatory and that they apply to Muslims and non-Muslims alike. Please also note my important previous post on the struggle in Malaysia's Parliament over the matter of rapists marrying their victims. In that matter it was the learned Qadi who was pushing for harsh laws and the more Westernised Muslims who stood against it. Nevertheless the harsher laws were introduced. And that was Malaysia, which has a reputation of being a very "moderate" Muslim country.

In the wake of the Pulse nightclub attack in Orlando Stuff published an article 3 years ago entitled ​Here are the 10 countries where homosexuality may be punished by death. Would you like to guess the dominant religion of those countries? Apart from Nigeria which has a 50/50 split between Muslims on the one hand and Christians/followers of Primal religions and other religions on the other hand, where the Muslims are particularly vocal and where there has been a Muslim President since 2015, it is a list entirely composed of Islamic countries.

I hope now you will see why.

This is not a matter of culture, this is a matter of following the Divine Law. And as an opening quote at the front of Reliance from Seyyed Hossein Nasr states, "In accordance with the real nature of things it is the human that must conform to the Divine and not the Divine to the human". Any Muslim who tries to argue with "the Divine " law may put themselves into the position of being declared an apostate and face the punishment for that, which is also death.

​The photo below is also from Reliance​.

So you see, while there is certainly merit in trying to deal with racism or an unthinking rejection of Muslims just because they are Muslims (which seems to be the meaning implied in the term "Islamophobia" so frequently used) there is also some merit to the argument that while Islam holds such teachings as authoritative, there will always be people who adopt "Islamophobic" attitudes to the religion and, unfortunately, to its followers.

I hope our Muslim friends can see that the problem many of us have with Islam is not in the skin colour of most of its adherents, or the way they dress or eat or the way some of their ladies cover their heads. It is with the "Divine" law of Allah.

Until such teachings are openly renounced and taught against we will have no end of what appears to be "Islamophobia" among New Zealanders.

Our government has publicly stated grave misgivings about Brunei's new laws yet has avoided mentioning the source of those laws - Sharia. Let's hope they mature in their understanding and in their willingness to name the problem. Let's also hope that they take a strong & principled a stand whenever such "orthodox" and "Divine" teachings are propagated here in New Zealand.

In the wake of the recent terror attack here I bet a lot of people are finding themselves examining the religion of Islam. They will be drawn to it by the many lovely Muslims they meet (true, there are many lovely Muslims) and by the lovely things they have been told about Islam (utterly false, as Brunei shows us, Islam is Shariah).

So it behooves us to take a minute and look at all this.

Is Islam really beautiful and peaceful? Is there more than one Islam? Is there a true or "Western Islam" and an oppressive or "Distorted Islam"? Is true Islam nothing like the supposedly disfigured monstrosity presented by the jihadists and suicide bombers?

Are you serious?
If you really are serious and really want to find out then I suggest you listen to ex-Muslims, like the one in the following video and that you study the central sacred texts of the Faith. The man in the video speaks both from personal experience and from the most authoritative texts in the religion - Qur'an, Hadith, Sira, Tafseer and Shariah.

And surely, unless you were determined to live in the land of wishful thinking, you would want to investigate the facts of any given religion by studying its central texts and its central figures. 

​Wouldn't you?


>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Deceptive Dawah Strategies
​In the name of Dawah (inviting people to Islam), people and groups that seek to expand Islam tend to stick to certain approaches and strategies, and those strategies don't always present questionable Islamic matters the right way.

I hope this simple example will be worth all the screeds I could write when I try to warn about Sharia.

It reminds me of a recent discussion we had in our National Church about the contentious issue of blessing same-sex relationships. At that time those of us who had problems with this were advised to relax, as we weren't being asked to approve these actions, just to allow them. 

Brunei is using the same argument now.
But I don't know guys, I just keep finding this really judgmental place within me that is really uncomfortable that we as New Zealanders would just sit back & say nothing when a neighbouring government starts killing practising homosexuals.

I think I need help.
Obviously it must be my fault.
I can only be a bigoted, hate-filled white-supremacist to think like this eh?
Because it couldn't be anything to do with the historic & unchanging laws of Sharia could it?


>>>>>>>>>>>
​The tiny Islamic nation of Brunei is implementing full sharia punishments for adultery (death by stoning), homosexual sex (death by stoning), and theft (amputation of hands).
Hassanal Bolkiah, the Sultan of Brunei, is unapologetic for his countries adherence to Islamic law, and he demands that other nations respect his country's decision. Will American proponents of sharia law (such as Linda Sarsour) be pleased with Brunei's move towards Allah's punishments, or will they finally see a problem with the teachings of Muhammad? David Wood discusses the issue.

Unfortunately I find I am getting ill again. That means the long post I was going to write today is going to be put off until I can think clearly. In the meantime please view Dr Wood's latest video - he sure puts out a lot lately doesn't he? That's because the Christchurch murders, aside from being in themselves utter tragedies, will lead to some things even worse in the long run. Things like losing our freedom to discuss touchy subjects which, as I and others have said, will only lead to more violence. We could be on the brink.

Don't believe me? Then watch the clip.

What is left if people aren't allowed to talk to resolve difficulties? And who decides what subjects are off-limits?
People like Twitter employs?


>>>>>>>>>>>>
I woke up this morning, opened my laptop, and found out that I had been suspended by Twitter! Though the ban is only supposed to last twelve hours, the twelve-hour countdown only starts once I've taken down the offending tweet. Since there's no chance of me taking down my tweet, the ban is permanent! The social media purge continues! As if we hadn't learned enough about Twitter's bias in the discussion between Tim Pool, Vijaya Gadde, and Jack Dorsey (on the Joe Rogan Experience), we see censorship actually increasing!

Shutting people down and stifling legitimate criticism of Islam is a major aspect of what got us into the horror of the Christchurch massacre in the first place. So how is cracking down on such speech going to make things better?

The Austrian government is considering dissolving the Austrian Identitarian movement because of some alleged ties to Brenton Tarrant. I have featured an interview with the leader of that group, Martin Sellner on this blog. At the time I chose to try to listen to what Mr Sellner was saying, not to what others told me he was saying and what I heard seemed to have merit, so I passed it on. I never heard him advocate violence or second class status for Muslims or other migrants.

He didn't denigrate the humanity of anyone. But he is well known for his concerns over Sharia compliant Muslims.
Yet in Austria he is called "far-right". This though is the same country that convicted a woman for hate speech for stating that Muhammad was, in modern parlance, a paedophile because, according to Islam's own sacred scriptures, he married a 6 year old girl and consummated the marriage with her when she was 9. Pardon me if I have my doubts about the health of the Austrian State at the moment.

So, unlike so many of our governments, I trust individuals to be sensible enough to sort information out for themselves. Just because someone is very concerned about the direction of their country, its morality, its immigration policy and its perceived loss of freedoms doesn't make them an enemy of the State. Or at least that's the way things used to be.

Apparently Tarrant donated money to Sellner's group. We are not told how much or how long ago. We are also not told that his idol, Anders Breivik, went out of his way to discredit people in the counter-jihad movement by praising them in his manifesto (only to later admit that he was a neo-Nazi & hated what they stood for as they were fixated on information, rather than violence, as the solution). This seems to be the full extent of their association, if you can call it that.

I have a Donate button on the top of my page. No-one's used it yet, but it troubles me that someone might decide to and that one day in the future I will be held accountable for the actions of someone I didn't know who sent me some money for what may have been a deliberate set-up. But that seems to be the world we live in these days.

Due to heightened sensitivities after the NZ Mosque massacres criticism of Islam as a religion, as an ideology, as a historical movement, is being quashed. Even when that speech is being uttered by those who have a death penalty on their head due to the doctrines of Islam, such as the man discussed in the video below.

Shouldn't we all be concerned about this? 


>>>>>>>>>
Following the New Zealand mosque attacks in Christchurch, critics of Islam are being blocked, banned, and deplatformed. For instance, ex-Muslim Armin Navabi, founder of Atheist Republic, recently had his talk at Mount Royal University in Calgary cancelled due to complaints after the NZ shootings.

​Should universities be silencing critics of Islam? David Wood discusses the issue.

You know, the threat of legal action for "hate speech" that has reached my ears has caused me to go back to the start of my Blog and review all my posts - just in case someone should point to something troubling and try to make my life difficult. So there I was idling my afternoon away, trawling through old posts I've made when I found this one from May 2016 concerning two local Muslims who were found to have had ties to ISIS or similar groups. One of these men had previously held a knife to a man's throat and threatened to kill him.

There were also issues like intimidating a former leader of what sounds like the FIANZ and a possible split in the Avondale Mosque in Auckland. The Herald did a pretty fair job in its coverage. But Stuff ... well Stuff is Stuff and they live in a different world to the rest of us. Stuff did however include some very interesting input from a couple of academic experts.

Would you like to hear how the media covered what they said about Islamic extremism and what our response should be to it?
Thought you might.

Professor Richard Jackson, deputy director of the National Centre of Peace and Conflict Studies at the University of Otago, said overseas evidence suggested that a heavy-handed response to expressions of anti-Western sentiment or young people exploring radical ideas could be detrimental.

"There is evidence that that does contribute to further radicalisation. It creates the sense that Muslims are unfairly targeted, because there have been cases where right-wing extremists, or Christian extremists, don't get that same type of treatment, they're treated much more leniently. 

I gave the matter a thorough going over in my initial post but in the light of the Al Noor atrocity and they perceived threat from "right wing" extremists, it occurred to me that there may be a couple of lessons we can take from revisiting this.

Firstly, we are told that a heavy-handed response to expressions of anti-Western sentiment or young people exploring radical ideas could be detrimental. You don't say? It's strange that we've heard nothing in this vein from today's academics on stemming the rise of "far right" hatred and extremism isn't it? Here's one expert saying that we should deal gently with Muslims who are drawn towards extremism lest we drive them further towards extremism. Nowhere have I read that we should deal thusly with people with "far-right" tendencies. Why-ever might that be? This couldn't be a blatant double-standard could it? No?

Secondly, do note once again the use of the trendy but utterly dull-witted term "Christian extremist". Any so called academic that uses this term merely displays a complete lack of understanding of what Christianity actually is and, in Tarrant's case, who Tarrant actually is. Their opinion should be summarily disregarded. As I said before Tarrant does not consider himself a Christian. Neither does the Bible encourage any of Tarrant's actions or attitudes. How muddle-headed can you be? 

Then we're blessed with similar insights from another expert:~

Security expert Dr Paul Buchanan agreed locking up the two men in prison could be detrimental.

"There is fairly strong evidence throughout Europe, North America and to some extent here that people do, if not get radicalised in jail, certainly get more hardened. Whatever criminal propensity they have, a lot of people come back a lot more hardened than before and rehabilitation stories are few and far between."

However, authorities had to also protect the public and took threats like this seriously.

So perhaps there's lots of solid evidence for us not locking up any associates or accomplices of Tarrant's? I mean, after all, they might become further hardened in their perspectives if that were to occur right? Or is there a difference between Islamic extremists and "far-right" extremists that I'm not picking up on? What's the nuance? What am I failing to understand?

Because to me, it simply seems like the old "soft bigotry of lowered expectations" thing kicking in once again.

Do the learned academic experts mean to tell us in not so many words that because these two men have brown skins they are not capable of thinking things through as well as white people are? Isn't that extremely patronising? Isn't that in fact the very definition of racism? 

Jackson also warned it was important media took great care in reporting the case responsibly, as it could cause xenophobia and also add to radicalisation as Muslim fears that the West hated them seemed to be confirmed.

"It is a bit worrying, because to be honest the media has not been that responsible in reporting on these types of issues...and [it] contributes to that broader social anxiety.

"There is a strong well-spring of public opinion out there that Muslims, as a group of people, are inherently dangerous and this will confirm that and lead to more calls to restrict immigration and perhaps expel people from the country."

So I take it that media should similarly take great care in responsibly reporting anything to do with alleged "far-right" individuals or groups yes? The last thing we would want is for the media to start making baseless accusations that someone like, oh I don't know, Jordan Peterson, was somehow linked to the terror attack in Christchurch eh? How incredibly irresponsible would that be? It goes without saying that we must not ever feed into any strong well-spring of public opinion that white people, especially white men, especially Australian white men, are inherently racist or dangerous eh? That would only lead to anti-white bigotry and hatred and that's not who we are as a country eh?

The media would never be that irresponsible. Would they?

Well, that seems to depend entirely on what group is under discussion doesn't it?

Just some consistency guys.
That's all we're after.
Just some consistency.

The brilliant Imam Tawhidi speaks out about the Mosque attacks. From altnewsmedia.net. 

​
>>>>>>>>>>>>
10 DAYS LATER, 3 LESSONS THE NEW ZEALAND ATTACK TAUGHT US

The recent terrible events in New Zealand were traumatic for us all.

Those of you who have seen my videos and online statements posted that tragic day, may have recognised the depth of my sense of despair.

Having spent so long with the fear that someone somewhere would lash out indiscriminately against my co-religionists, the massacre had such a personal dimension for me. I had a loss of faith, feeling that my attempts to expose the risks from an extreme minority of my faith to the official lawmakers, and galvanize our politicians to action was naive.

I have always opposed extremists of any persuasion. As a Muslim imam, I was in a position to call attention to Islamic extremists in a manner that was not open to many within the West. Non-Muslims could be offensively and inaccurately called Islamophobic, to level such a charge at me would be ludicrous.
​
Indeed, there are valuable lessons that can be derived from the tragic NZ event:

1- There are a growing number of people who believe that their governments need to recognise that dislike of Islamic extremists is not a fringe issue but a widely held view by the political centre of the voting population. If governments wish to deny their populations desire for action against Muslim extremism in their societies, then the possible rise of extremist politicians will lie squarely with those who do not see their people want action.

2- Governments should not underestimate extremists: They are extremely calculated and may conduct their attacks in an intelligent way. The mystery as to how Brenton Tarrant remained under Police radar for two years, while piling weapons, ammunition and training to massacre civilians is yet to be solved. The manifesto he released to the public was not written in the language of a fanatic, if anything, it reflects the true thoughts of a talented criminal-to-be.

3- The last lesson we learnt was that most Western leaders have no pride in their own religion, culture or traditions. You can show solidarity with us Muslims by adopting better security procedures, not embracing our religious practices. News reporters, police officers and the Prime Minister herself were wearing veils. The call to our prayers was blasted out loud from London to New Zealand; basically, the entire Western world. All this to show that you Westerners are sorry for what happened to us Muslims.
​
Frankly, I think this is an insane way of showing solidarity. It is also confusing to me, and all thinking Muslims. Why can’t Western leaders show solidarity with us without completely sacrificing their religions, culture and traditions? You did not have to adopt our culture to show sympathy.

This proved on thing: the authorities in New Zealand did not believe treating Muslim New Zealanders as New Zealanders was enough, they had to put their religious identity ahead of their actual citizenship; that is if you believe that the attack was against New Zealand as a country – which it was.

I conclude by thanking you all for the support and kindness you extended to us during our pain, and while we share our messages of condolences to all who were affected by the Christchurch attacks.

I also wish that we all conveyed our sympathies and condolences to the friends and families of the 120 Christians recently killed in Nigeria; along with the destruction of 100 homes.

Terrorism is terrorism. Period.

I saw this and was going to do a post but the mercurial David Wood beat me to it with this video. 

I wonder if the Police will have a serious little sit-down chat with Mr Bhamji for inciting racial hate . . . at a rally called "Love Aotearoa, hate racism"? 

Like I said guys - we're just after consistency.
​That's all, just consistency.

A WORD TO THE SENSITIVE:
I have become aware that some people find Dr Wood's approach a little too caustic for their tastes. I understand, but there are a couple of things you need to know:

Firstly, David Wood regularly debates prominent Muslims in the USA and regularly receives death threats for daring to point out problems with Islam's prophet, Islam's scriptures and Islam's history. So I would take a moment to consider how well you might go with all that pressure on you. He has also learned that being acerbic and confrontational rather than solely focusing on verifiable and solid Islamic textual arguments yields the best results when dealing with the general Muslim populace. Strange as it may sound to us, in practise many Muslims respond better to forceful argumentation that even involves some triumphalism than they do to measured dialogue. He learnt in their school.

Secondly, this is a matter of life and death not mere talk. The fact is that truth matters and that real human beings suffer when truth is misrepresented. David Wood and I are just normal people in this regard - we care when other people get hurt and we care when untruths are propagated that lead to people getting hurt. Antisemitism leads to Jews getting hurt. This is wrong and the very last place we should hear this stuff is at a rally for love. He and I get very, very upset when people are needlessly hurt or killed.

Surely we aren't the only people who are left that care about hate speech?

But never mind, I'm sure that Mr Bhamji will indeed be having that little chat with the Police and, like anyone else who might say similar things about the great "Muslim conspiracy" to over-run the West, will be facing charges of inciting racial hatred in the next couple of days.

I mean, that goes without saying right?

We just want consistency guys.
That's all.
​Just consistency.


>>>>>>>>>>>
Following the New Zealand mosque attacks in Christchurch, mosque leader Ahmed Bhamji claimed at the "Love Aotearoa, Hate Racism" rally that Mossad (Israel's national intelligence agency) was behind the NZ shooting, and that local Jewish businesses were funding terrorist Brenton Tarrant.
​Since Ahmed Bhamji is a prominent Muslim leader, and even hosted Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern at his Masjid e Umar, shouldn't New Zealand Muslims and especially Prime Minister Ardern be publicly condemning Bhamji's statements? David Wood discusses the issue.

When two instances of such unimaginable bias occur you really have to start wondering if these are just anomalies based on widespread ignorance of, or hostility to, Christianity, or whether they are actually manifestations of a clear and accepted doctrine of the British government. Especially when we bear in mind the refusal by the British government to accept the acquitted "blasphemer" Asia Bibi into the country from Pakistan for what amounts to nothing more sophisticated than fear of upsetting British Muslims and the violence that would likely result.

I'm not going to editorialise here. I know it's old-fashioned, but I think you're big people who can make up your own minds. Do watch Dr Wood's brief  outlining the two most disturbing recent events.


>>>>>>>>>>>
In 2016, an Iranian ex-Muslim sent an application to Great Britain for asylum. The man said that he had converted to Christianity after studying the Bible and finding that Christianity is a religion of peace. The British Home Office rejected the application and insisted that the apostate was lying.

​The Home Office justified their rejection by quoting Bible verses from Exodus, Leviticus, and Revelation that were meant to prove that Christianity is not peaceful and that no one could ever conclude that it is peaceful by reading the Bible. Is there a problem in the British Government? Should Prime Minister Theresa May and Home Secretary Sajid Javid intervene? David Wood discusses the issue.

>>>>>>>>>>>
When an Iranian ex-Muslim Christian applied to Great Britain for asylum, the Home Office called her faith "half-hearted" and insisted that if she were a true Christian, she would simply trust Jesus to protect her from people who want to kill her.

​Can we even imagine the British Home Office responding to Muslim asylum seekers with such contempt and hostility? Why aren't Prime Minister Theresa May and Home Secretary Sajid Javid taking more action against this hostility towards apostates and Christian asylum seekers? David Wood discusses the issue. 

I present to you a 12 minute commentary on the massacre and the reactions to it. This chap is an ex-Muslim who has condensed many of the issues well and makes many useful clarifications.

​I think you will find it very useful as a starting point in understanding what just happened.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Since the Christchurch Mosque attack happened, many people and the media have been trying to blame and attack everyone they could think of. Many think that "Islamophobia" and anti-Islamic or anti-Muslim speech is responsible, but is it really?

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.