Category Archives: Jihad

Perfidious Albion (AKA The Crap Country Of Britain) Prefers Creedal Jihadis To Peaceful, Right-Wing Girls

Affirmative Action, Britain, Free Speech, Homeland Security, Islam, Jihad, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim

The crap country of Britain is the embodiment of the Perfidious Albion. The archaic phrase denotes the predictably treacherous nature of successive British governments. Britain’s Home Office regularly welcomes back returning Jihadis, but has turned away two girls, detaining them no less, for their hard-right activism.

Home of the Magna Carta, in 1225. The crap country of Britain, in 2018.

Moreover, the Home Office letter informing rightist activists Brittany Pettibone, Martin Sellner, and Lauren Southern of their status as untouchables is the work of an illiterate. Britain’s institutions have been hollowed out by positive discrimination/affirmative action.

Truly despicable specter.

“Delingpole: Britain Says ‘Yes’ to Jihadists, ‘No’ to Free Speech“:

… It’s illiterate (“Your boyfriend have in his possession” and “insight” where it means “incite”), it’s at once pompously officious and sloppily amateurish, and it’s written by someone who clearly has no grasp of basic details like when and when not to use capital letters (“London Hyde park” and “the Leaflets”).
Yet on this barely educated jobsworth’s say-so, author and activist Brittany Pettibone has – with her boyfriend, Austrian Identarian Martin Sellner, and, subsequently, Canadian citizen journalist Lauren Southern – been declared persona non grata in the U.K. …

MUST READ: “A Modest Libertarian Proposal: Keep Jihadis OUT, Not IN.”

Comments Off on Perfidious Albion (AKA The Crap Country Of Britain) Prefers Creedal Jihadis To Peaceful, Right-Wing Girls

Written by on

NEW COLUMN: A Muslim Ban Is Logical, Moral, Even Libertarian

IMMIGRATION, Islam, Jihad, Terrorism

THE NEW COLUMN, currently on The Daily Caller, makes the case that, “a Muslim ban is neither illogical, immoral, or un-libertarian:

” … Violent Jihad is not an ideology, as our Moderate Muslim friends keep calling it. Jihad is a pillar of a faith. That faith is Islam.

Christianity has just commemorated 500 years since its Reformation. Islam has yet to undergo a reformation; it’s still radical. Yes, there are many moderate Muslims. Perhaps a majority of them. But their existence and their moderate beliefs do not belie Islam’s radicalness.

The fact that there are moderate Muslims doesn’t mean there is a moderate Islam—or that these moderates won’t sire sons who’ll embrace the unreformed Islam. The data show that young, second-generation Muslims are well-represented among terrorists acting out almost weekly across the West.

Vetting will do nothing to stop second-generation Muslim Americans. These are American citizens or legal residents, as Saipov is, who’re more prone to act out on their faith than their parents.

Religion is The Risk Factor, not chaotic countries-of-origin. It’s impossible to vet migrants not because of ISIS infiltration, or countries in disarray, but because Islam is a risk factor. Their Muslim faith puts Muslims in a security risk group.

Being Muslim is a predisposing characteristic, a risk factor, if you will, for eruptions associated with this religion. By “a risk factor,” I mean that Islam predisposes its believers to aggression against The Other. For in Islam we have a religion that doubles up as a political system that counsels conquest, not co-existence. (“Islam’s borders are bloody,” cautioned Samuel Huntington.)

A preponderance of Muslims will remain dormant. But, as we see almost daily in the West or in the Muslim world (where Muslim factions vie for religious dominance), a Muslim individual could be “triggered” at any time to act on his radical religion.

So what if Moderate Muslims assure us Saipov was acting out-of-faith. That’s irrelevant to the irreversible outcomes.

It’s a distraction to claim, as The Moderates do, that the Jihadi is misinterpreting Islam, and that we must all do battle for the real Islam, a thing as elusive as Bigfoot or the unicorn. Fact: A Muslim’s actions, be they in accordance with the real Islam or not—sanctioned theologically or not—could be deadly.

Consider:

Proposition 1: The faith of all Muslims is Islam.
Proposition 2: Islam teaches and sanctions some disturbing things like Jihad against the infidel.
Proposition 3: Some Muslims, practitioners of Islam, will be prone to act on teachings that are indisputably part of Islam.

While most Muslims are not terrorists, an unusually large number is willing to dabble in the lifestyle.

Policy is meant as a declaration of the common good. On average, a bunch of people that commits more faith-based murders than another group (say non-Muslim Chinese) is unsuitable as a source of immigration to the US. … ”

… READ THE REST. THE NEW COLUMN is “A Muslim Ban Is Logical, Moral, And Even Libertarian.” It’s on The Daily Caller,

You can read the Mercer Column weekly on the Daily Caller, Unz Review, WND.com, occasionally on Townhall.com, and certainly on the other fine outlets listed here. It’s always posted, eventually, on IlanaMercer.com, under Articles. Please share.

Of Course You Can Vet Immigrants. Ask What Faith They Practice.

Homeland Security, Islam, Jihad, Media, Terrorism

On Fox News, broadcaster Mark Levin ranted cliches. You can’t bring certain individuals into the US, he yelled, because there is no way to check them out, or vet them. People come from countries with ineffective governments. Sayfullo Habibullaevic Saipov was likely a good little Uzbeki before America reached out and recruited him to come to the US.

That’s plain silly. Most Muslim arrivals likely don’t have criminal records on arrival. Enough of these Muslim immigrants devolve—or is it evolve?—from passive practitioners of Islam to a more “proactive” practice of the religion of peace in their host countries.

Jake Tapper:


Treason:

UPDATE IV (1/5/020): Who Set The Sonoma County Fires? If Intentional; It’s Mass Murder

Crime, Environmentalism & Animal Rights, Jihad, Labor, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, Multiculturalism

UPDATE IV (1/5/020):

Yes, as William B. Scott argued and showed, fires are, in large part, arson.

***

In Washington State, all I ever hear is that practically all our devastating fires are “caused by lightening.” I seldom see lightening here. I know what it looks like (thunder follows, so if you hear it, you know lightening preceded it). I saw plenty lightening in my native South Africa, especially on the highveld. I’ve seldom seen lightening in my state.

Says Ken Pimlott, director of the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection:

“These are all fires that were in areas that are populated, and 95% of the fires in our state are started by people” in some way, he said, downplaying the chances that lightning may have played a role.

Are the Powers looking the other way? Investigate. If these fires are intentional; this is mass murder.

UPDATE II (7/31/018):

Yes, the heat. But can no “journalist” investigate arson? Nobody evens asks. It’s quite a common cause of this kind of catastrophe. Death penalty is the proportional punishment.

UPDATE III (8/15/018): Mendocino Complex Blaze

UPDATE IV (12/11/019):

Nobody is smart enough or sufficiently aware to forcefully argue that evidence shows fires wiping out parts of certain states is arson, often Jihad. My best friend, talented William B. Scott
of Aviation Week, says so in spades:

Comments Off on UPDATE IV (1/5/020): Who Set The Sonoma County Fires? If Intentional; It’s Mass Murder

Written by on