Black Racist Crime Is an American Epidemic

This is more shocking than anything I expected.

One of the many cases of racially-motivated violence of blacks on whites in the USA happened in June in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, where a black male attacked random white people, unprovoked, punching them several times with a glove containing shards of glass and throwing chairs at others. Witnesses say he made racially charged comments during the attack. One of the victims was a 7-month pregnant woman induced into labour due to the assault.

The African-American economist and socio-political theorist Thomas Sowell, referring to the book described in the article below, wrote: "Reading Colin Flaherty's book made painfully clear to me that the magnitude of this problem is even greater than I had discovered from my own research."

From the article "Black racism in Florida: “Polar bear hunting” is illegal" by Dr. Richard Swier (links are in the original):

Are you familiar with the Knockout Game? It is a racially motivated violent game that targets whites. In Florida it is called ”polar bear hunting” and it is illegal.

How is it played?

You start with a group of blacks that number anywhere from 3 to 30 people. As a group, they search for white people, preferably alone, elderly and somewhat defenseless. If they can’t find any, Asians are the next ethnic group targeted. When a target is selected, at least one of the blacks approaches the target and then suddenly sucker punches them in the face as hard as they can. If the victim is knocked out, the person that hit them wins. If the victim is not knocked out, then you continue to hit and kick them until you’re too tired to hit anymore or until the person is dead.

Knockout has become all too common in St. Louis, Missouri. In the past two years, there have been at least 100 Knockout victims, some of which have died. In 2011, one victim was Matt Quain, who was jumped by a group of black teens and beaten, suffered numerous abrasions to his face along with a broken jaw. One of the teens involved in the attack was Demetrius Murphy, a member of one of the most heinous groups in St. Louis known as the “Knockout Gang”...

Colin Flaherty has documented this epidemic of black mob violence in his new book “White Girl Bleed a Lot: The return of racial violence and how the media ignore it.” Flaherty documents, “The Midwest state fair with a ‘Beat Whitey Night?’ Or the Black Beach Week that turns a town into a ‘living hell?’ Or the school principal who blamed Asian students for being racist after suffering years of abuse? The eleven episodes of racial violence on the Fourth of July 2012? Some involving more than 1000 black people?”

Knockout is a racial hate crime that is being ignored and swept under the rug by black social leaders like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson Sr. and the media. If a group of whites played Knockout and targeted blacks, Sharpton, the media and the national press would be giving it the coverage of the George Zimmerman trial, but since it’s blacks targeting whites, everyone just turns their heads and says nothing.

According to US and World Report, “A poll released Wednesday [July 3, 2013] by Rasmussen found African-Americans are more likely to be viewed as racist than whites. Thirty-seven percent of poll respondents said “most black Americans” are racist, compared to just 15 percent who said most whites are racist and 18 percent who said most Hispanics are racist.”

Hunting “polar bears” adds fuel to the black racist fire.

Is Egypt Turning the 2011 Uprisings into a Real “Arab Spring”?

First published on Raymond Ibrahim site.

By Enza Ferreri



When one thinks of the events and processes that developed during Morsi's one-year presidency of Egypt, it's difficult to see how a person who loves democracy, human rights, freedom of speech and of religion cannot but welcome his ousting.

In that time, for example, the Egyptian Minister of Religious Endowments Ali Afifi, in an interview aired on Sada Al-Balad TV on March 14, 2013 said: "[W]e hope that the words of the Prophet Muhammad will be fulfilled: 'Judgment Day will not come before the Muslims fight the Jews, and the Jews will hide behind the rocks and the trees, but the rocks and the trees will say: Oh Muslim , oh servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him – except for the gharqad tree, which is one of the trees of the Jews.' We fully believe that the future of this land lies with Islam and the Muslims." He was accused of appointing in leading positions in his ministry figures with ties with the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafi movement.

In the year 2012, under the Islamist rule of the Muslim Brotherhood's political arm, the fatwas, Sharia-based legal decrees issued by learned Muslims, differed considerably from the previous Egyptian fatwas. The more power the Brotherhood has, the more rooted in the worst authoritarian and violent elements of Sharia law the fatwas are.

Raymond Ibrahim translated a summary of them. Among others, they include calling for the destruction of the Sphinx and the Great Pyramids; opposing setting a minimum age in the new constitution concerning the marriage of minor girls, saying “they can get married at any time”; ruling that the peace treaty with Israel contradicts the teachings of Sharia and should be annulled, quoting the Koran; denouncing all Muslims opposed to President Morsi, explaining that the Koran declares it to be forbidden to disobey those in authority; banning congratulating Christian Copts on their religious holidays, and forbidding Muslim cab and bus drivers from transporting Christian priests to their churches; forbidding all Muslim women from marrying any of the sons of the “remnants” of the old regimes, portraying them as non-pious Muslims; banning people from joining Muhammad al-Baradei’s “Dustor” political party, claiming him to be a secularist and opposed to the implementation of Allah’s laws.

Morsi may have been democratically elected - although there are suspicions of rigged elections - but so were Hitler and Mussolini. And, just like them, once elected he assumed dictatorial powers. His new constitution was intended to establishd a Sharia state in Egypt.

Until now, counterjihad analysts have been practically the only ones to make the correct predictions about the "Arab Spring" being an Islamist takeover, even though the underlying people's rebellion may have been sustained by genuine economic and political concerns.

In Egypt, we are now witnessing perhaps the first sign of a process that upsets those neat predictions and complicates matters. For the good.

The figures speak volumes: "Obama probably hates it that the 30 million souls who took to the streets in Cairo and throughout Egypt for the largest protests in human history dare to call it a ‘revolution’, says Canada Free Press.

So, how to interpret the new developments? Since I live in London, let's look at what the UK media make of them.

Is it a coup or is it not a coup? This seems to be one of the dominant questions about the ousting of Egypt's Morsi in the British media.

The answer to that question depends very much on the respondent's opinion on whether the ousting's outcome is positive or negative, which in turn rests on his/her view of the Muslim Brotherhood.

As can be expected, left-wing media outlets like The Guardian tend to have a favourable view, even sympathetic, of this "democratically elected" Islamist presidency, so they, taking their cue from the Muslim Brotherhood, call Morsi's deposition a coup and consider .

Generally speaking, right-wing papers like The Telegraph take the view that what counts as democracy is not just the elections but the will of the population however expressed. Morsi acted like an autocrat, did not give people what he had promised them, betrayed the spirit of the revolution and, in the face of mounting popular opposition, refused to concede early elections. So, rather than using force to impose its will, the military deployed its might to implement the will of the people. Ergo, they say, it's not a coup.

These two factions do not even agree about numbers: for the former "hundreds of thousands more took to the street in support of Morsi" (BBC); for the latter "The protesters' superiority in numbers to anything the Brotherhood could muster was self-evident" (Telegraph).

Bu things are never so simple and black-and-white. The Telegraph's chief political commentator, Peter Oborne, thinks that the Islamist regime, like that of Algeria in 1991, has not been given a chance. To do what, I'd like to ask, cut off more hands? Massacre more Christians? Talking of whom, that's what he says: "Mohammed el Baradei (and the Coptic Church) have done himself great damage by backing the military intervention. Whatever form of government comes next will lack legitimacy because of the methods used today."

Morsi has committed no crime and doesn't deserve to be in custody, he claims, and current events are disastrous for the relationship between the West and the Muslim world.

A noteworthy thing is that when some of Britain's militant atheists, for whom this country is rightly famous - or infamous -, like Pat Condell, criticises Morsi's Egypt, in the list of atrocities, along with the usual hanging of homosexuals and stoning of women, he includes "treatment of minorities", sometimes with the helpful addition of "religious", but is never quite capable of bringing himself to utter the word "Christian".

Some antijihadists consider visceral atheists allies because they can be strong critics of Islam. But they don't seem to be aware that atheist commentators who also profoundly dislike and ruthlessly attack Christianity are, whether they realize it or not, giving a helping hand to Islam's penetration into Western society.

Whether the ousting of Morsi is viewed favourably or not, although dependent on the commentator's political ideas, also rests on the division "between those who emphasize process and those who emphasize substance", as New York Times columnist David Brooks put it.

It's an exceptional circumstance if I find myself in agreement with the NYT, so you'll forgive me if I expand on that. He sums up the two camps as, in the former, those for whom following the correct democratic electoral procedure is more important, thinking that ruling in a democracy will reform the Brotherhood and make it moderate. And in the latter those who don't think that democracy lies in "counting heads" but in what you intend to do once you're in power, and in that respect Morsi can be elected till kingdom come he'll never be democratic and he'll never renounce radical Islamism.

Brooks adds:

World events of the past few months have vindicated those who take the substance side of the argument. It has become clear — in Egypt, Turkey, Iran, Gaza and elsewhere — that radical Islamists are incapable of running a modern government.

The only thing that remains to be seen is whether the other elements of the anti-Mubarak, anti-old-regime opposition can do that.

The Islamist Wind in Britain

First published on FrontPage Magazine.

By Enza Ferreri

Over the last weekend there have been two more street attacks on soldiers in Britain, one of which was fatal.

On Saturday, the Yorkshire town of Barnsley in northern England honored soldiers with parades and celebrations for its Armed Forces Day. One of the soldiers, who had returned from the Falkland Islands just hours before, was brutally assaulted at around midnight when he was getting home. He was jumped from behind, knocked unconscious and then repeatedly stamped and kicked in the head and face, and left with a concussion, injuries and bruises.

He is a 28-year-old corporal who has served in Afghanistan and Iraq.

In the early hours of Sunday morning, 26-year-old newlywed ex-soldier David Ryding was attacked in the Warwickshire town of Rugby, in central England, suffering head injuries. He died in hospital almost 24 hours later. Three men have been arrested.

What is missing from these reports? Any information about the suspects, except their ages. The word “Muslim,” which, in view of the beheading of Drummer Lee Rigby by self-confessed jihadists, may spring to mind, is notably absent, and can only be found in the comments to the articles. Also noteworthy is that these incidents were only reported in local news.

Readers, judging by their comments, are suspicious of the media’s suppression of information: “If this were an attack by whites on a muslim it would be on BBC news, lead story – fact.” Another: “I bet it was Muslims who attacked him, but the media have left this part out because of community tensions.”

And:

It might be a random attack but the total lack of info in the rest of the media is pretty weird. After Drummer Rigby you’d think any incident with a soldier attacked the media would want to make sure everybody knew it wasn’t a jihadist attack if it wasn’t but this – total silence.

The media may or may not know more about the identities and religious affiliations of the suspects. But it is their reluctance to even mention the elephant in the room, the self-evident similarity with the previous, recent street killing of a soldier, that makes such coverage suspicious and, frankly, surreal.
The common excuse for this kind of censorship is the wish to avoid indirectly inciting anti-Muslim attacks, that have increased since Lee Rigby’s murder.

A noble intention, I’m sure. It’s a pity that these same media outlets don’t take the same prudential attitude when it comes to trumpeting, say, how “Islamophobic” the British government has allegedly been in its unjust wars against Islam in Iraq and Afghanistan, or how racist the UK police and public allegedly are. In those cases the media don’t seem to be so concerned about possible “backlashes” against non-Muslims or whites.

Nor is the mainstream media worried about having in the UK such a large, non-assimilated immigrant population from alien cultures (one of which, Islamic culture, could hardly be more antithetical to British and, indeed, Western civilization), which may at any moment instigate serious, even lethal, conflicts.

There is an increasing polarization between Britons and Muslims. A recent opinion poll compared answers given by respondents in November 2012 with late May 2013.

In 2012, 50 percent agreed that “There will be a ‘clash of civilizations’ between British Muslims and native white Britons”; in 2013, 59 percent did.

The number of those who agreed with “British Muslims pose a serious threat to democracy” rose from 30 to 34 percent.

In short, it’s not just the “far-right”  that is “Islamophobic” now in the UK.

Terrorism is not the only problem by any stretch of the imagination. The Brits are not too impressed by the Muslim pedophile rings which have become an epidemic, or the way mosques disrupt their own neighbourhoods — through parking jihad, general harassment, vandalism, etc. — and drive them to move out, or the de facto imposition of sharia law on them by the selling and serving of halal meat to unsuspecting non-Muslims.

The response of the Establishment to this rise in anti-Muslim feelings has been more of the same with a vengeance, intensifying, if anything, repression of the politically incorrect.

Following the Woolwich beheading, there has been a crackdown on several social network users who have been warned, charged, arrested and released on bail for making “inflammatory” and anti-Muslim comments on Twitter and Facebook. The police said people should be careful about what they write on Twitter as the “consequences could be serious.”

Two of the men detained were organising an anti-Islam protest in Bristol and made racist and “anti-religious” remarks. Anti-religious: I wonder if they would have been arrested for insulting Christianity?

Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller are now considered by the British Home Secretary to be public enemies, holders of opinions that are “not conducive to the public good,” and banned from even entering the country.

The English Defence League (EDL), an organization demonized under normal circumstances for daring to fight against the Islamization of Britain, has been more than ever targeted by authorities.
Two of its leaders, Tommy Robinson and Kevin Carroll, have been arrested practically for attempting to walk too close to a mosque, although the official excuse was “for obstructing the police.”

The media, predictably, are doing their bit. The usual suspects, like The Guardian, RT and Sky News, are doing their best to create an association in the mind of the public between EDL peaceful demonstrations, a lawful expression of free speech, and attacks on mosques or Muslims, which are criminal acts.

Channel 4, one of the UK’s major TV networks, has gone even further. It has announced that it’s going to broadcast the Islamic call to prayer throughout Ramadan, which began Tuesday, 9 July.
Channel 4’s head of factual programming, Ralph Lee, has excellent reasons for doing so. He said:

And let’s not forget that Islam is one of the few religions that’s flourishing, actually increasing in the UK. Like Channel 4’s target audience, its followers are young. It’s recently been reported that half of British Muslims are under 25.

That nice bit of demographic information will cheer us all up, Ralph. He added that the broadcasting is “a deliberate ‘provocation’ to all our viewers in the very real sense of the word.” We are all grateful for that.

Unsurprisingly, Islamist preachers like Anjem Choudary and Abu Zakariyya applaud his decision as a step towards the implementation of sharia law in the UK.

Choudary ventured a prediction: “[B]y some accounts Britain could be a Muslim country by 2015.”
Not so fast. Hubris could be your downfall, Anjem. We may still have something to say on the matter.

Why There Are No Christian Terrorists

Ralph Sidway on Raymond Ibrahim's site explains the difference between Islamic fundamentalists and Christian fundamentalists. These are some excerpts from The Religious Equivalency Fallacy:

I personally know many fundamentalist Christians who exemplify qualities of charity, generosity, kindness, peacefulness, and with their lives refute the various caricatures that have become attached to the word fundamentalist. That they base their faith on the fundamentals of the Christian kerygma is to their credit, when so many “nuancey” Christians seem to get it all muddled up and one can’t tell if they really stand for something, or if they’re liable to fall for anything.

Interestingly, in Orthodox Christianity, one does not really see fundamentalism so much as what the New Testament calls “zeal not according to knowledge” (Romans 10:2). That is to say, that Orthodoxy is so rich and varied with its many sources of tradition — Scripture, oral tradition, early church writers, worship, liturgical texts, Church councils, canon law, iconography — that the term fundamentalist does not comprehensively describe the phenomenon of one who is somehow getting worked up over issues of observance and correctness.

Thus, in the Orthodox Church we sometimes speak of the “crazy convert” syndrome, or the “correctness disease,” where strictness of observance and proper fulfillment of the externals of Christian life become the focus, to the point of judging others, and ultimately to the exclusion of basic Christian virtues of warmth of heart, forgiveness, and charity towards one’s neighbor. In Biblical terms, this can also be termed Pharisaism, holding to the letter of the law while denying the heart of it. (This is much of what Jesus Christ warned against, and to this day this wrong-headed attitude turns people off to Christianity.)...

For a Christian, “zeal not according to knowledge” is a passion, a sickness of the soul to be rooted out...

As visually hinted in the comparison photo at top, the most “extreme” form of Orthodox Christian “fundamentalism” — both interior and in rejection of the world — is monasticism. The most common form of Christian monasticism is cenobitic, in which monks or nuns live in a community, under vows of poverty, chastity and obedience, in order to live out the Gospel teachings of Christ as fully as possible, and to strive to know God through unceasing prayer. Stillness, even in the midst of activity (and monastics work hard, with daily chores, or “obediences” assigned for the upkeep and provision of the monastery’s needs) is foundational; one will often see at a monastery little signs reminding one of the rule: “Prayer — Work — Silence.”...

Muslim apologists in the United States seek to convince non-Muslims that jihad merely means an interior struggle, and that the term has been hijacked by Al Qaeda and other Islamic terrorist groups. They often cite a hadith in which Muhammad, after returning from battle, said “We have returned from the lesser jihad to the greater jihad.” When his followers asked him “What is the greater jihad?” he replied “The jihad of the heart, the jihad against one’s ego.”

Yet, in Islamic jurisprudence, the hadith supporting this statement is not considered a sound hadith and is rejected by such authorities as the 14th century classical Muslim scholar Ibn Taymiyya, and significantly also by Hassan al-Banna, founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, and by Abdullah Azzam, co-founder of Al Qaeda and mentor of Osama bin Laden. The understanding of warfare against infidels as the “higher jihad” is codified in The Reliance of the Traveller, the Shafi’i manual certified by the highest authority in Sunni Islam, Al Azhar University in Cairo, which states:

Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada signifying warfare to establish the religion.

The scriptural basis for jihad, prior to scholarly consensus (def: b7) is such Koranic verses as:

“Fighting is prescribed for you” (Koran 2:216); “Slay them wherever you find them” (Koran 4:89); “Fight the idolators utterly” (Koran 9:36);

and such hadiths as the one related by Bukhari and Muslim that the Prophet said:

“I have been commanded to fight people until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and perform the prayer, and pay zakat. If they say it, they have saved their blood and possessions from me, except for the rights of Islam over them. And their final reckoning is with Allah”;

and the hadith reported by Muslim,

“To go forth in the morning or evening to fight in the path of Allah is better than the whole world and everything in it.” (Reliance of the Traveller, o9.0, o9.1, o9.8, o9.9)

Indeed, seen in the light of traditional, mainstream Islamic teaching, and understood in the context of Islam’s history of jihad warfare against non-Muslims, the inner jihad is a devout Muslim’s pious preparation for the external jihad of war against non-Muslims.

Regarding this pious preparation, Nicolai Sennels writes:

Both the Quran and Muhammed… mentions several times how important it is for Muslims to be willing to give up everything, even their lives, in order to wage jihad for Allah…

Greater jihad is thus an inner psychological process of removing emotional obstacles, such as the survival instinct and the natural biological attachment to offspring, spouses and a safe and comfortable dwelling, making the believer ready and willing to submit and give up every personal desire and attachment to spread Islam.

The greater jihad, the mental replacement of personal desires with an absolute loyalty towards Allah and his prophet and laws, is aided by what could be called the cultural psychological spine of Islamic culture: the recitation of the Islamic scriptures (some even learn the whole Quran by heart), expressions of loyalty through prayer five times a day by repeating the salah (“O Allah, how perfect You are and praise be to You. Blessed is Your name, and exalted is Your majesty. There is no god but You.”), and the well-known and severe religious and social control that ensure the rule of Sharia in Muslim societies…

Seen from a psychological perspective, the greater jihad is nothing but self-radicalisation — an inner holy war of brainwashing oneself that is deeply ingrained in Islamic tradition — to go against human nature, which includes basic survival instincts and the natural aversion — also among animals — to the killing of members of one’s own species.

Thus, according to canonical, legitimate Islamic sources, the inner jihad is meant to prepare the true Muslim for the external jihad of warfare against non-Muslims. This is the whole purpose of devotion, piety, zeal and the interior struggle, as the Muslim follows the teachings and example of Muhammad. Muslim terrorists are revered in the Islamic world as Mujahideen, “strugglers,” or more literally, “people doing jihad.”


Peaceful Jihad?

Before concluding, we must address the notion that the Sufi tradition is an example of a more mystical, peaceful form of Islam, the better to be compared with Orthodox Christian monasticism. For many Western writers, the Sufi strain seems like a ray of hope, holding potential for reform within Islam. Is Sufism mystical? Yes, but peaceful? Not so much. In fact, as Andrew Bostom shows in his exhaustively researched 2005 article Sufi Jihad?, Sufism is just as committed to Islamic supremacism and jihad as the most extreme Wahhabist or Salafist sects:

Throughout the 20th century, and at present, Sufi ideologues and mass movements (especially the Naqshbandiya) have been engaged in defensive—offensive jihad campaigns designed not only to expel real (or perceived) ‘colonial powers’, but also to create supra—national (regional) shari’a states, or even a frank Caliphate (i.e., a single unified global shari’a state). The restored Shi’ite theocracy in Iran, whose contemporary shari’a—based system of dhimmitude was drafted by a leading Sufi—Sultanhussein Tabandeh—provides a sobering example of what ‘Sufi ecumenism’ towards non—Muslims means in practice.

Why No Podvig Terror Attacks?

So, turning back to Orthodoxy, which has a lively and vigorous tradition of interior struggle, why is it we never once hear of a podvig [“ascetic spiritual struggle” in Orthodox Christian theology] terror attack? This is an especially relevant question, as the demographics are so similar; there are almost exactly the same number of Orthodox Christians in the United States as Muslims, and many of each group consider themselves members of a “diaspora”: Russian, Greek, Serbian, Lebanese, Syrian, Coptic Orthodox —Somali, Syrian, Egyptian, Iraqi, Iranian, Saudi Arabian, Indonesian Muslims.

Even when bishops of the Orthodox Church call for “podvig” against the corrupting influences of the contemporary world, we never see that manifested in attacks against people or property. We see it through increased prayer, fasting, charity, kindness, as Christian strugglers internalize the teachings and example of Jesus.

Nor out of geo-political motivations do we see podvig terrorist attacks.

Even though President Bill Clinton led the United States into war against the Serbians (an Orthodox Christian people), siding with the Bosnian Muslims during the Yugoslav war, we do not see Serbs or other Slavic sympathizers waging podvig on American streets with suicide vests, cleavers and guns. And we certainly do not see sedition being preached against the United States in Serbian Orthodox Churches in America (compared to four separate studies over the last decade which reveal that 80% of mosques in America preach violent jihad and Islamic supremacism).

Instead, it is axiomatic that as an Orthodox Christian grows in piety and zeal according to knowledge, the more peace-filled they should become. One of the most beloved saints of the Church, Seraphim of Sarov, condensed this teaching down to the following saying:

“Acquire the Spirit of Peace, and a thousand will be saved around you.”

It should be clear that in Orthodox Christianity, the 2,000 year tradition of inner ascetical struggle — podvig in Russian — has as its goal deliverance and purification from the passions, so that one can ascend to illumination, and eventually to union (theosis) with God. There is no double-speak in Christianity, beguiling outsiders with platitudes about “inner struggle” while preparing believers through that very inner struggle to wage harsh warfare against the unsuspecting infidels. Individual Christian believers may have challenges due to “zeal not according to knowledge,” but the goal is to be healed of such ailments.

Conversely, as a devout Muslim grows in knowledge of his faith, the more he realizes he is called to wage jihad. Proper zeal, and worship pleasing to Allah —“Zeal according to knowledge” — for a Muslim means joining the ranks of the Mujahideen. In contrast to the saying of St Seraphim of Sarov, a zealous Muslim might use these words cited above from The Reliance of the Traveller:

"To go forth in the morning or evening to fight in the path of Allah is better than the whole world and everything in it." (Hadith from Sahih Muslim)

“Fight the idolators utterly.” (Koran 9:36)


Defilement or Honor?

Now, let’s look again at the one line refutation of the “religious equivalency fallacy”:

They [Christian and Muslim fundamentalists] certainly both defile their religion, but one group becomes intolerant and arrogant, the other intolerant and violent.

Although this is a clever spontaneous rejoinder to purveyors of the religious equivalency myth, I think we have seen that zealous Muslims, the Mujahideen, do not defile their religion at all. Rather, by waging jihad they honor the teachings of their religion and their prophet in the most fervent, traditional, way.

We ought never hear of a Podvig Terror Attack, whereas, tragically, we will continue to see multiplied before our eyes ever more Jihad Terror Attacks, especially as Islam’s Rule of Numbers is borne out in Europe, the U.K and the United States, and zealous Muslims feel ever more emboldened and compelled to openly honor the actual teachings and commands of their prophet and their religion.

Christians in Syria: Separating Grim Reality from Islamist Propaganda

First published on FrontPage Magazine.

By Enza Ferreri

A recently released video of an interview with a Syrian rebel — and would-be-martyr – gives extraordinary insight into the mentality of the Syrian opposition. Believing that he’s speaking to European jihadist volunteers, the rebel says that Christians must be killed to impose a Sharia state in Syria, after which they will be given the classic choice: pay the jizya, convert or die. He also says that the rebels intend to move on from Syria to attack Europe and America.

Similarly, another rebel clearly explains that Islam must be the sole source of authority of the future Syrian state.  In the meantime, Syrian militants just massacred a Christian village’s population. Many Syrian Christians have been kidnapped and killed or never seen again.

Targeting Syrian Christians for kidnapping and attacks on churches is condemned by Human Rights Watch.  An U.N. Independent Inquiry on Syria concludes: “Entire communities are at risk of being forced out of the country or of being killed inside the country”—two cautiously worded reminders of the reality of Christian suffering in Syria at the hands of Islamist militants.  During a recent Congressional hearing on Syria’s minorities, witnesses rightly testified that Christians are more fearful for their lives than other group, because they are targeted for religious cleansing.

Despite the overwhelming amount of evidence concerning the plight of Syria’s Christians, there are those who are not convinced that Syrian Christians are being deliberately targeted in a religious purification campaign.

One of them is Muslim college student, Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi, who lives in the UK and authored the report Christians in Syria: Separating Fact from Fiction, published by The Henry Jackson Society, a UK neoconservative think tank.

Through psychological tactics, like his title Fact and Fiction, and the questioning of absolute figures, percentages and details, Al-Tamimi tries to use the conflicting reports regarding some specific events in order to generate doubts about the veracity of Syrian Christians’ persecution.

Among other things, by claiming that the narrative of those concerned about the Christians’ fate is not the only possible one, he subtly and surreptitiously creates suspicions that those people lie or distort the evidence.

The main problem with his report isn’t so much that it disputes specific details of events. Initially the Western media was rehashing the stories created by the insurgents’ anti-Assad propaganda. Later it became clear that these reports were one-sided and adjustments were made:

For nearly two years, SOHR [Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, an organization of Syrian rebels in exile] has reported only acts of violence by the regime against the rebels. Mainstream international media like the BBC, al-Jazeera and al-Arabya, have relied on it as their sole source of news.

In recent months, several experts and Syrians interviewed by AsiaNews accused Western and Gulf State media of selective reporting. More recently, coverage has become more impartial, but SOHR continues to defend Islamic extremists to avoid losing support among rebel forces.

The jihadists are particularly ruthless in their hide-and-seek mind games, reminiscent of Hamas in its conflict with Israel.

In these conflicts many media reporters on the ground aren’t dispassionate observers but have a stake in the matter. As in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, in which several freelancers supplying news materials are under Hamas’ control, Western media’s flirtation with the Syrian rebels is well-documented.

For example, from Biased War Photography in Western Media:

[T]he portrayal of the “Syrian revolution” is decidedly one-sided… the images taken to supply Western Media all portrayed the Syrian rebels in a way to render sympathy and support.

Here are some other examples.

The Vatican’s news-gathering facilities are a welcome counterbalance to mainstream Western media’s bias.  Of course, there can be a margin of error or doubt concerning the details of some events. Yet what is problematic with the Henry Jackson Report is the arbitrariness with which its author, Al-Tamimi, cherry-picks his favorite sources and rejects those he doesn’t like, without giving reasons or criteria.

This is his account about Qusayr:

Modeled on the story of the ethnic cleansing of 90 per cent of Homs’ Christian population, stories began to circulate that 9,000 out-of-a-supposed population of 10,000 Christians had left the city of Qusayr on the basis of an ultimatum issued by a rebel battalion. However, the rebels in Qusayr denied this story. The truth about what happened, most likely, lies in the account given by a couple of reports in the Wall Street Journal.

So, reports from Jihad Watch and from the Vatican news agency Fides, Vatican Insider, and Barnabas Fund, aren’t to be trusted, but the rebels, who are, for all intents and purposes, the suspects of heinous crimes and so naturally deny it, are more trustworthy?

Or the truth, he moderately suggests, is “in the middle”—that is, in places like The Wall Street Journal, that supports Obama’s decision to arm the Syrian rebels and he only regrets Obama didn’t make this decision sooner, and in The Independent, whose senior Middle East correspondent Robert Fisk had the honor of a personal recommendation from Osama Bin Laden and demonizes Christians for supporting Assad.

Al-Tamimi offers no reason for adopting those two pro-Arab-Spring newspapers’ version of the events.

“The rebels deny it,” Al-Tamimi pronounces. Here’s what the rebels also say:

Syrian opposition spokesmen have repeatedly said that Syrian rebels do not target Christians or other minorities and believe in creating a democratic society once Assad is ousted.

To which we can add: and pigs might fly. To believe that al-Qaeda-linked Islamists want a democratic society—in the Western sense of giving everyone equal rights, and not in the Muslim Brotherhood’s interpretation of it as a means to impose an Islamic state—is, at best, naïve. That part of the Syrian opposition’s statement should throw doubt on the other part, that rebels don’t target Christians.

But Al-Tamimi, who must surely know about taqiyya—lying to non-believers to advance the cause of Islam—behaves as if he didn’t.

The conclusion of Al-Tamimi’s report looks like a highly precarious assembling of statements counterbalancing, if not contradicting, each other to produce a very confused and confusing result.
He writes:

The evidence surveyed here does not, as of yet, suggest the existence of an organized campaign of militant Islamic persecution of Christians throughout Syria… Have there been incidents of anti-Christian violence in Syria? Undoubtedly, but one should always be alert to those pro-Assad propaganda outlets which are willing to exploit, for their own ends, what they see as Western concerns about the status of Christians in the country. In addition, analysts should be more nuanced… At the same time, one must avoid complacency: the ever-growing infiltration of Syria by foreign jihadists (e.g. from Jordan to the south) poses an increasing threat to the survival of the various Christian communities of Syria.

First, that the evidence doesn’t suggest “an organized campaign” is puzzling. What evidence of an “organized” campaign would Al-Tamimi accept?

The Syrian opposition has no effective centralized political or military leadership, so how could there be an organized campaign of any sort?

Muslim persecution of Christians doesn’t require central, bureaucratic coordination. Its organization derives from Islamic law and the hostility it breeds for Christians.

Al-Tamimi warns that we should be alert to pro-Assad propaganda exploiting Western concerns about Christians—without bothering to mention that the propaganda war is fought on both fronts. So why should we be more alert to one side of it than the other?

Apparently simply because one source confirms what Al-Tamimi wants to believe and validates his agenda.

In the end, however, after another series of self-limiting statements, his final conclusion is that there’s an increasing threat to the survival of the various Christian communities of Syria.

Isn’t that enough reason for concern? Why nitpick—why write this convoluted report trying to minimize the persecution of Syrian Christians in the first place—if in the end you must, perhaps begrudgingly, admit that there is “an increasing threat to the survival of the various Christian communities of Syria.”

This research doesn’t lead to a new interpretation of the events. Its conclusion is remarkably similar to that of most counterjihad analysts.

What’s its point then? It’s not immediately clear until one remembers that it was published by the neoconservative think tank The Henry Jackson Society, calling for Western intervention to assist Syrian rebels. Hence the “nuances” that Al-Tamimi mentions, which would help erase any black and white contrast and paint the rebels a uniform, unintelligible gray.

Hate, Racism, Family: the Left's Power Is in Its Changes to the Meaning of Words

About the recent Birmingham mosque stabbings of 4, including a policeman, the TV said that it is not considered as a hate crime.

This simply means that the suspect, a man of Somali appearance, was not a non-Muslim, making him a Muslim (sounds a bit circumvoluted but this is what circumvoluted ways of thinking result in).

But why? If you look at the way Muslims kill and massacre each other all over the world, especially those of rival sects, it looks like fellow Muslims are very much capable of hating a Muslim.

On the other hand, a non-Muslim could very well kill a Muslim without hating him, for whatever practical reason.

It derives from all this that the word "hate" has now acquired a new meaning, it no longer means a sustained emotion of profound aversion and distaste for someone, a sin in Christian theology. Instead it denotes a political sin that, unlike the Christian one, cannot be forgiven, the crime of thinking differently from what the ideological orthodoxy prescribes, the secular heresy par excellence, in short the guilt, more serious than murder, of having politically incorrect thoughts.

Atheists are not doing away with religion. Even they, despite all the hatred that they (at least in the case of militant, fundamentalist atheists) have for religion, cannot help confirming for the umpteenth time that humanity cannot avoid thinking in a religious way.

Atheists are simply replacing a religion, Christianity, where at least the principles, precepts, rules and values are clear and have required several centuries of rational thought to arrive at, with another, which we may call 'cultural Marxism' or 'political correctness', in which the principles are half-baked, the precepts are fluid, the rules are self-contradictory and the values have no solid foundation but change with the ideological fashion.

Religion is a way of thinking embedded in the human mind. That is why all societies of all places and times have always had a religion.

And religion does not even need to be theistic, namely include a belief in God, but it can also be atheistic.

And we cannot do away with faith. Everything requires faith, from the hope that the train will eventually arrive to the trust in your spouse when s/he declares to you absolute faithfulness, from the belief that political change for the better is possible to the credence that everything, the whole universe, was born out of chance or, alternatively, design.

Going back, the Left has highjacked the use of certain words or completely changed their meaning.

It has revolutionised the English vocabulary and, as in all revolutions, it has dispossessed someone, all of us, of it. It has self-appropriated, stolen the English dictionary, become its self-appointed master.

We cannot use the word "gay" any more, except in the particular sense that the Left has dictated. And incidentally it has appropriated for itself the rainbow as a symbol.

It has made the use of certain words (nigger, faggot, poofter, Paki etc) impossible, while at the same time made perfectly acceptable the use of others, swear words and expletives especially of a sexual or bodily nature, which were not allowed before.

It has utterly transformed the meanings of "hate", "racism" and "family".

This is where the power of the Left lies, these are its culture war victories.

The power of the Left is in its theft of the language for its own purposes: by controlling what words people utter and with what meaning, it controls what people think.

In the USA Blacks Can Get Away with Murder

In the trial of George Zimmerman the prosecution has finished and the defence has begun its case.

George Zimmerman was a white-Hispanic (with an Afro-Peruvian great-grandfather) neighbourhood watch volunteer patrolling a white gated community where there had been a spat of recent break-ins and burglaries committed by blacks.

He shot dead, claiming in self-defence, Trayvon Martin, a black 17-year-old who had entered the area and was acting in a way that arose Zimmerman's suspicions. There was an altercation seen by a witness, who said he saw Martin on top of Zimmerman bashing his head, confirming the latter's testimony, also confirmed by his injuries.

In addition, Martin had injuries to his knuckles, in conformity with the idea that he had hit someone's head hard.

There seems to be at the very least reasonable doubt for acquittal. But the black community is asking for blood, and there are fears that, in case of discharge, black riots may erupt.

In the meantime, African Americans have already taken their "revenge" on European Americans but very few people take any notice. From FrontPage Magazine:

The trial of George Zimmerman is winding down with a meltdown of the prosecution’s case and lurid predictions of riots if a “politically correct” decision is not reached. Why is it in America today that racial issues like this one so resemble the Wonderland world where, as the Red Queen famously says, “first the sentence, then the evidence”? Why is it that Americans consider blacks to be much more racist on the whole than whites, yet the latter is exclusively singled out for scorn? David Horowitz and John Perazzo provide answers in their pamphlet Black Skin Privilege, written not long after Zimmerman was arrested in connection with the Trayvon Martin death. Here’s what Horowitz and Perazzo say:

In America today, blacks generally can conduct racist assaults on whites and count on “civil rights” activists and the media not to notice. In the two months following Trayvon Martin’s death, black assailants carried out at least 14 fourteen known attacks against white victims with the idea of “avenging” the fallen youth. In East Toledo, six juveniles beat a 78-year-old white man, shouting: “This is for Trayvon … Trayvon lives, white [man]. Kill that white [man]!” In Gainesville, five blacks shouting “Trayvon!” beat a 27-year-old white man, leaving his face permanently disfigured. In another Gainesville incident, a black crowd shouting “Trayvon!” assaulted and stomped on a white man who was trying to recover his female companion’s purse from the hands of a black thief. In Chicago, two black teenagers beat and robbed a 19-year-old white man because, as one of the attackers explained, they were angry about Trayvon Martin. In Baltimore, a group of blacks beat and robbed a white man, stripping him naked, then posted a video of the assault online with the caption: “me an my boys helped get justice fore trayvon.” In Mobile, a white man named Matthew Owens was brutalized by twenty African Americans armed with brass knuckles, bricks, chairs, bats and steel pipes after he asked them to stop playing basketball in the street directly in front of his home. As the assailants left the scene, one of them looked back at the victim, who was bleeding profusely, and shouted,: “Now that’s justice for Trayvon!” It is unlikely that many Americans have heard of these racial attacks, because the perpetrators are protected by a media that does not want to notice that the racists are black, and their victims are white.

The same as in Britain, actually.

Within weeks of the Trayvon Martin shooting, a parallel killing occurred with the skin colors reversed at a Taco Bell restaurant in Phoenix, Arizona. A 22-year-old black motorist got into an altercation with Daniel Adkins, a 29-year-old, mentally disabled “white Hispanic” who was walking by. When the argument grew heated, the motorist drew a gun and killed Adkins. When police arrived at the scene, the black shooter claimed that Adkins had swung a bat or metal pipe at him, although no such items were found at the scene. Arizona, like Florida, has a “Stand Your Ground” law that allows a person to use deadly force to protect himself when faced with a life-or-death confrontation. A protective media withheld the shooter’s name, and there was no racial mob calling for his head. Unlike George Zimmerman, the gunman was not arrested nor charged with a crime. Call that black skin privilege.

If you’re black and possibly guilty but a white person is involved, the media will actively volunteer to be your advocate…. In the Trayvon Martin case, the media withheld details of the crime that were damaging to Trayvon in order to protect him and indict Zimmerman — that the mainly white community he had entered at night had been the target of a rash of recent break-ins and burglaries by young African -American men; that the hoodie Trayvon was [sic] wore was a uniform for burglars; and that Trayvon had been suspended from school after burglary tools were discovered on his person along with unaccounted-for jewelry.

There were several other media "mistakes" and convenient omissions. One was this: the TV channel ABC News obtained a surveillance video of Zimmerman and said that no abrasions or blood could be seen in the video. The conservative media outlet The Daily Caller disputed this claim, and posted a still from the same ABC video showing the injury on the back of Zimmerman's head.

At the same time, the press flooded the airwaves and front pages with sentimental photos of Trayvon as an innocent adolescent, while withholding others of the six-foot-two, 17-year-old who beat the smaller Zimmerman to the ground, smashing his head on the concrete and causing him to scream repeatedly for his life before he fired his gun in self-defense.

Looking at the Martin case, black skin privilege means you can form a lynch mob if the target is a “white” man and the press will overlook it; you can demand a judgment in advance of the facts, and can conclude his guilt in advance of a trial. You can even take “justice” into your own hands by threatening his life as the Black Panthers did to George Zimmerman or twittering his home address like vigilante filmmaker Spike Lee and comedienne Roseanne Barr did in the hope that someone might go after him. If this isn’t a rebirth of the cracker mentality of the segregated South, it is hard to know what would be…

The pamphlet Black Skin Privilege by David Horowitz and John Perazzo derives its name from the expression "white skin privilege", first made popular during the 1960s by the Weatherman terrorists as they launched their bombing run against America. The rest of the Weatherman's ideas were rejected by the dominant culture, but their views on race were not.
From the introduction to the pamphlet:

Black skin privilege means the press will fail to report an epidemic of race riots targeting whites for beatings, shooting and other violence in major American cities over the last several years. Black sin privilege has created an optical illusion in the liberal culture that white on black attack are commonplace events when in fact there are five times as many black attacks on whites as the reverse. As Horowitz and Perazzo note, in 2010, blacks committed more than 25 times the number of acts of interracvial [sic] violence than whites did.