Muslim Imperialism Reaches the United Nations

UNESCO last August planned to vote on the historical status of Jerusalem’s Temple Mount and its associated Western Wall. Back then, this author stated that UNESCO’s plan was to deny any Jewish link to this most central of all Jewish holy sites, to trash a history going back thousands of years, and to claim the Mount and the Wall as Islamic sites.

Islam believes that it is eternal and had therefore preceded the other two great monotheisms, Judaism and Christianity, even though it was only to become visible to the world through Mohammad in the seventh century AD, but entitled to elbow out the two older religions.

Lies by UNESCO to rewrite history, erasing all traces of Judaism and Christianity to favour a jihadist Islamic fancy, were already under way in 2015. UNESCO fraudulently renamed two ancient Biblical Jewish sites, Rachel’s Tomb and the Cave of the Patriarchs — abracadabra — Islamic sites.

Historically, Islam did not even exist until the seventh century.

This is the history of Islam, how it takes over — with both hard jihad (violence) and soft jihad (usurping history, migration [hijrah], political and cultural infiltration), and intimidation (soft jihad with the threat of hard jihad underneath it). What is even more saddening is that often, as with this vote, it is done with the West’s cooperation and voluntary submission.

The Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron is now, according to this deeply compromised body, supposedly the “Ibrahimi Mosque,” and Rachel’s Tomb in Bethlehem is supposedly the “Bilal ibn Rabah Mosque,” even though it never could have been a mosque. As the saying goes, “calling a cat a pig does not make it one.”

Source: for MORE

Red Pill for Catholics

Interreligious Dialogue

Beneficial Catholic-Muslim dialogue requires a firm grasp of history and the other parties’ language. Participants have a duty to truth, not political correctness, as well as a duty of diligence and conscientious care for their own flock.

Moreover, since the discovery of The Muslim Brotherhood’s 1991 Explanatory Memorandum: On the General Strategic Goal for the Group, which details its strategy of penetration of Western organizations for the ultimate goal of establishing a global Islamic state (their words), dialogue necessitates prudence. According to Vatican II’s Nostra Aetate: “The Church, therefore, urges her sons to enter with prudence and charity into discussion and collaboration with members of other religions.”

Analysis of the Explanatory Memorandum led former Pentagon analyst Stephen Coughlin to give this advice: “When conducting [interfaith] outreach with organizations identified as being a party to the ‘strategic goals’ identified in the Memorandum, the gain/loss assessment of associating with them should be undertaken in light of their clearly stated hostile intent…To undertake outreach…without knowledge of their objectives is to run the extreme risk of strategic manipulation….”

The Brotherhood’s goal is “a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers.” The Muslim Brotherhood was founded in Egypt in 1928 by Hasan al-Banna, who coined the term “Industry of Death,” claiming that for a nation that perfects death and knows how to die, Allah gives rewards in both this world and the next.

Interreligious dialogue has been built on the rotting sands of cultural Marxism. In fact, a case could be made that cultural Marxism with its political correctness is the first stage in dhimmitude. The path to shariah in the U.S. is being built on these same sands, using Gramsci as a model, as Lafif Lakhdar, an Islamic scholar, acknowledged:

MORE…

No Justice in the Netherlands

out the charges as inadmissible in a court of law on the grounds that these are political issues and that a trial would in fact amount to a political process. The criminal trial against Wilders will begin on Monday, October 31.

While campaigning in The Hague in March 2014, Wilders argued the need for fewer Moroccans in the Netherlands. At an election meeting in The Hague, he asked those present a number of questions, one of which was “Do you want more or fewer Moroccans?” After the crowd responded “fewer” Wilders said, “We’re going to organize that.”

Because of the “fewer Moroccans” statements, repeated again in an interview a few days later, Wilders will be prosecuted on two counts: First for “deliberately insulting a group of people because of their race.” Second, for “inciting hatred or discrimination against these people.”

Wilders’ defense attorney, Geert Jan Knoops, has argued that the trial amounts to a political trial against Wilders and his party, the PVV: “Sensitive issues must be judged by public opinion or through the ballot box,”, Knoops said “The Prosecutor is indirectly asking for a ruling over the functioning of the PVV and its political program. The court must not interfere with this.”

As a politician, Wilders can say more than an ordinary citizen, Knoops said, arguing that Wilders used his statements to point out shortcomings in the Dutch state. “It is his duty to name shortcomings. He takes that responsibility and proposes solutions.” Knoops argued that the prosecutor is limiting Wilders’ freedom of speech by prosecuting him for his statements.

The court’s response was that although politicians are entitled to freedom of expression, they should “avoid public statements that feed intolerance” and that the trial would determine where the border lies between politicians’ freedom of expression and their obligation, as the court sees it, to avoid public statements that feed intolerance.

Source: for MORE

Erasing the West

Last week, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) voted Christian and Jewish heritage off of the Temple Mount in Jerusalem; Tuesday they ratified their perfidy. The vote seems clearly a response to the expansionist, jihadist aspirations of members of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) that sponsored it: Algeria, Egypt, Lebanon, Morocco, Oman, Qatar and Sudan. The vote, and the behind the scenes machinations, deserve evaluation.

Upfront:

  • Group 1: The “in favor” voters are a nasty collection of corrupt, dictatorial, largely Islamist (traditional Islamic theology gives Jews their place on the Temple Mount; these Islamists appear intent on removing all traces of Christian and Jewish presence from the Middle East) or Marxist, and unanimously frightening places. They are, in the immortal words French diplomat Daniel Bernard applied to Israel, “shitty little countries.” Even the big ones. But see below for a caveat.
  • Group 2: The US, UK, the Netherlands, Estonia Germany and Lithuania had nothing to be ashamed of in the first round; they voted “against.” But see below for a caveat.
  • Group 3: Some analysts consider a vote to abstain to be a victory for Israel, but for Spain, Greece, France, Sweden, Slovenia and Italy it was blatant appeasement of Group 1 and fear of their own often-violent Muslim minorities: “Please, please, don’t blow up our capital cities. We will reject Jewish and Christian history and pretend Jesus chased the money changers from the steps of Montmartre.”

If the West had stood for its own history, it would have mattered. Democratic Japan and South Korea should have voted “against” as well. There might be a narrow exception for India, which had never before failed to vote in favor of an Arab-led anti-Israel resolution.

 

Source: for MORE

CNN’s Alisyn Camerota: Americans should wear headscarves in solidarity with Muslims

Where is Alisyn Camerota’s concern for Aqsa Parvez, whose Muslim father choked her to death with her hijab after she refused to wear it? Or Aqsa and Amina Muse Ali, a Christian woman in Somalia whom Muslims murdered because she wasn’t wearing a hijab? Or the 40 women who were murdered in Iraq in 2007 for not wearing the hijab; or Alya Al-Safar, whose Muslim cousin threatened to kill her and harm her family because she stopped wearing the hijab in Britain; or Amira Osman Hamid, who faced whipping in Sudan for refusing to wear the hijab; or the Egyptian girl, also named Amira, who committed suicide after being brutalized for her family for refusing to wear the hijab; or the Muslim and non-Muslim teachers at the Islamic College of South Australia who were told that they had to wear the hijab or be fired; or the women in Chechnya whom police shot with paintballs because they weren’t wearing hijab; or the women also in Chechnya who were threatened by men with automatic rifles for not wearing hijab; or the elementary school teachers in Tunisia who were threatened with death for not wearing hijab; or the Syrian schoolgirls who were forbidden to go to school unless they wore hijab; or the women in Gaza whom Hamas has forced to wear hijab; or the women in Iran who protested against the regime by daring to take off their legally-required hijab; or the women in London whom Muslim thugs threatened to murder if they didn’t wear hijab; or the anonymous young Muslim woman who doffed her hijab outside her home and started living a double life in fear of her parents, or all the other women and girls who have been killed or threatened, or who live in fear for daring not to wear the hijab?

MORE…

German Santa Fired for Standing Firm Against Child Marriages

“The Bavarian town of Mühldorf has fired the man who has dressed up as Father Christmas for over 30 years because of the social media post he shared on his Facebook page. Peter Mück has been a staple of the annual Christkindlmarkt, or Christmas market, in the town for over a generation, handing out sweets to local children, The Telegraph reports.

“Mr. Mück was fired because he supported the action of the anti-mass migration hipster-right Identitarian youth movement who were campaigning against the growing trend of child marriages among migrants in Germany. The post which he shared had the slogan, ‘Child marriage = child abuse’ of which he commented, ‘the core message of which is correct and justifiable for me.’”

“Mayor of Mühldorf, and Socialist party member, Marianne Zollner explained the reasoning behind getting rid of Mr. Mück, saying: ‘I explained to him that this movement, in my view, does not respect the equality and dignity of all people, or our democratic values, and that this attitude was not compatible with the work of portraying Santa Claus.’”

Source: for MORE