“…Allman is a young woman who, although a student at one of the finest universities on earth, considers herself to be a multiply oppressed victim and who sees the world around her as swarming with oppressors. She has been so well-schooled in the idea that whites are always the oppressors and dark-skinned people always the victims that when she sees a fellow British subject rooting for his own nation’s side in a war against jihadists, her first and only thought is to brand him an “Islamophobe” — this, even though the enemy in that war are men who would force her into a burka or consider her, as an infidel, deserving of rape and/or death.“
At an Ontario writers’ group gathering last Saturday, many issues were raised by members of the audience on the rights of women in Islam, how women are treated within the different strains of Islam and how Western women can help not only in alleviating the lot of Muslim women, but also making sure that Muslim women themselves recognize that there is indeed a problem in the way orthodoxy treats them.
Out of that discussion arose a consensus on many points, and some polite disagreement.
Soros in the Balkans – The makings of a “humanitarian challenge.’
By now, we recognize fake news, dragging citizens down endless rabbit holes.
What about “deviously misleading” news, especially coverage of far away problems?
The American public has been subjected to international reporting grievously one sided — namely, left sided — forcing us to wrong-headed conclusions based on false assumptions.
An excellent case in point is the European migration crisis of 2015-2016.
A new book by Christopher Deliso, Migration, Terrorism, and the Future of a Divided Europe (Praeger, 2017), piles fact upon fact to show the massive movement of Middle Eastern and African people into Europe was no cataclysmic wartime event.
It was a deliberate and avoidable phenomenon facilitated by the Turkish government, globalists — including, prominently, George Soros and European Union (EU) leadership — and criminals. The result is a perilous ongoing security threat to the West.
If there was a buzzword from last summer then it was surely ‘burkini’. The media got its swimsuit in a twist over France’s decision to ban the Islamic garment from its beaches. Slow-witted Anglophone columnists – many of whom have a curious predilection for insulting the French – lapped it up and enthusiastically portrayed Islam as the victim of Gallic oppression.
Those trusty custodians of liberal values, the Guardian and the New York Times, got particularly worked up, the former declaring in an editorial that ‘women’s right to dress as they feel comfortable and fitting should be defended against those coercing them into either covering or uncovering.’ The New York Times quoted Marwan Muhammad, executive director of the Collective Against Islamophobia (an organisation which Gilles Kepel, France’s foremost expert on Islamism, has claimed is intended to create a ‘strategy of conquest’ within France). He said the appearance of the burkini was ‘good news’. ‘It means Muslim women who didn’t use to enjoy that day at the beach or at the pool are now taking part, they are socialising.’
Imagine: a major, highly trafficked West-Coast American web site publishes a lengthy, glowing account of how an educated, successful professional woman converts to fundamentalist Christianity, despite the objections of her family, to say nothing of the faith’s foundational texts, which reek of misogyny and homophobia, condone slavery, and preach an End Times worldview antithetical to the approach we so urgently need to adopt to safeguard the future of life on our fragile planet.
Richard Dawkins is no friend to conservatives. The atheist author has spent much of his life deriding Judaism and Christianity. He once stated, “An atheist is just somebody who feels about Yahweh the way any decent Christian feels about Thor or Baal or the golden calf.” Dawkins says that even moderate religious people “make the world safe for extremists.” He’s far to the left on politics: He’s pro-abortion rights, and a supporter of the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats in Britain.
But he’s also smart enough to recognize that radical Islam is a greater threat to human life than Christianity or Judaism. He explains: “I have criticised the appalling misogyny and homophobia of Islam, I have criticised the murdering of apostates for no crime other than their disbelief. … Muslims themselves are the prime victims of the oppressive cruelties of Islamism.”
Such language makes him a pariah among leftists.
Last week marked the one year anniversary of the Pulse nightclub shooting in Orlando. The last month and a half has brought multiple terrorist attacks to the UK alone. The last few years have seen a dramatic rise in the frequency of these attacks both abroad and on our soil. On Tuesday there was an attempted suicide-bombing in Brussels.
Sadly, many of us are adjusting to the idea that this is becoming just part of our day-to-day life, and we just need to get used to it. It is unfortunate that we have no way of identifying the threat and preventing the attacks. It’s too bad there is no common factor that links these attacks together. It’s too bad these murderers pledge allegiance to only themselves, showing their devotion to being a lone wolf. It is good, however, that we can rule out one possible cause. Not only have we heard it from the left and their media, but before each violent slaughter, the attackers usually shout “This has nothing to do with Islam.”
THIS week, leftists finally got animated and angry about an act of terrorism.
They did not just say “Keep calm and carry on”, as they did after the Manchester and London Bridge attacks.
Welcome to the new world order where murderous retaliation begins to settle in as the norm.
All it needs now is a catchphrase. The Summer of the Counterattack Crazies, for example.
Or the Summer of Tit-for-Tat Terrorism.
On Monday, Metropolitan London Police finally put a name to the previously-described “white man” who was the alleged perpetrator in what was ultimately called a “terror attack” by police when a van was used to murder “as many Muslims” as possible near a mosque and a Muslim community centre in North London.
One has been confirmed dead thus far, and at least 10 injured.
I attended the Gays Against Sharia, Unite Against Hate march in Manchester on June 11th. As the crowds assembled, some passers-by watched from a pedestrian bridge overhead, and I strolled among them to listen. The usual shouts of ‘Nazi scum’, and ‘racist scum’ rang out, which those who protest against Islam have come to expect, elaborated with helpful hints such as ‘Your daughter’s going to marry a black man’. Then a young couple shook their heads at each other and said, ‘Look at them. Just exactly what you’d expect the EDL to look like. White trash.’
And there, in a nutshell, you have it.
The core strategic problem we face is two conflicts with two ideologies that operate subversively until they are in power. That is, instead of stating their agenda openly, Islam and the left operate as false fronts maintaining a friendly moderate image while pursuing a far more radical agenda.
Why do so many liberals praise a religion that, at its root, is quite conservative, if not fundamentalist? Why do they defend a faith that would not defend them? Worse still, why do they defend a faith that, in some cases, would do violence to them?
“You thought you could buy social peace with your communalism,” he says, “allowing sharia councils to generally manage Muslim affairs in some parts of the UK. The Westminster and Manchester attacks are the death knell for that illusion.”
Gilles Kepel is waiting for a taxi on a London street corner. The roads are gridlocked, the cab is late and France’s foremost expert on Islam is starting to look nervous. He has every reason to be. Isis has placed this polished, polyglot professor on a death list, calling on its followers to kill him without delay. In France he has round-the-clock police protection.
Yet here he is, alone and unprotected in the British capital – “Londonistan” was the term he coined for it years ago – barely two days after a suicide bomber killed 22 people at a Manchester concert.
I have just interviewed him and he has ordered a cab to get to another meeting. But it is nowhere to be seen. Ushering him into the Underground, I ask him what it feels like to be threatened by a group that specialises in beheading its victims in front of a camera.
“It’s not very pleasant, but you get used to it,” he says, buying a ticket to Oxford Circus. As we go down the stairs, he continues: “It feels as if the subject I have spent 35 years studying has turned round to strike at me.”
He was at home in Paris brushing his teeth last summer when his mobile phone lit up. It was a journalist friend contacting him to say that he had been put on the hitlist.
The murder of 28 Coptic Christians in Egypt’s Minya province on Friday is the latest in a string of attacks on Egypt’s Coptic community. Earlier this month, a Christian man was shot to death by ISIS members in Arish, Egypt. In April, more than 45 people were killed and over 130 injured when bombs exploded at two Coptic churches in Egypt. This past December, another church bombing killed nearly 30 people and injured nearly 50 others.
Once again, we find ourselves aghast at a terrorist atrocity. Once again, we seek to console, rebuild and carry on. And once again, we wonder what it can all mean.
Consolation is the first task. And we must carry on, seeking better security without shrinking into lives of fear. But we must also recognize, again, that these people hate us not for what we do but for who we are.