When shit hits the fan

I did not plan to write something like this right now, and I am still supposed to working on my next post about Satanism and all that, but something happened recently that hit somewhat close to home, and I have reflected on it, as well as the reaction and possible ramifications.

As I’m sure you know, there was a terrorist attack on an Ariana Grande concert in Manchester in which 22 people were killed, including children who have been subject to horrific injuries. It was a suicide attack carried out by a 22 year old man named Salman Abedi, and the possibility that he was operating as part of a wider terror plot rather than as a lone wolf is seriously being considered. I have two people who I work with who are from Manchester who have been talking about it yesterday, and I’m sure have contacted their relatives to see if everything is OK. As of today, the terror threat level in the UK has been raised to Critical, meaning that more terrorist attacks are expected to occur very soon. The country is putting itself on high alert, and there’s talk of troops being sent to patrol the streets as though this country has turned into fucking Israel!

And what did we do immediately following the Manchester attack? The usual. We cry, we mourn, we change our Facebook profiles and whatnot, pretend that they will not divide us, preach about diversity and inclusion, and then Muslims come out and pretend that they are the real victims, not the people that Islamic radicals blew to smithereens. Oh and don’t forget the Sadiq Khan message: terrorism is just like the weather now, “part and parcel of living in a big city”, just the bread and butter of the modern world. I can’t be the only one who’s had enough here.

Oh, and the Metropolitan Police have decided that any rabble-rousers who aren’t going on about peace and unity and all that bullshit and instead speak against Islam can be investigated for “Islamophobic hate speech”. Isn’t that just the cherry on top of the shit sundae?

Lots of terrorist attacks have happened in my day, not just in the UK but also the Western world, Europe in particular, and in my opinion too many. And every time it feels like the same cycle. For over 20 years, we in the West have tried dealing with this shit by either creating borderline police/surveillance states to diminish the civil liberties of their own people, we go to wars with Middle Eastern countries and then we try playing nice and needlessly shielding all Muslims and their shitty religion from criticism when most of us are mad at the terrorists rather than all Muslims, going so far as to discuss race where the issue does not belong (and both extremes seem to forget that Islam is not a race). None of this changes the problem. We strip away liberty, we cause destruction and then we bend over backwards to a force that wants us dead and our values defiled, all for nothing. And one someone comes up with a different solution, any at all. They are dismissed as xenophobic. The simple idea of controlled immigration is automatically deemed racist, because they believe that opposing immigration can only be based on hate. The idea that we should be tackling Islamist ideology is seen as “Islamophobic”, and racist, because people stupidly confuse Islam to be a racial group, rather than a religious one. The idea of promoting integration, promoting your own societal values and looking out for the interests of your own country is automatically, without context, denounced as fascistic, funny enough by people who don’t seem to know what actual fascism is.

And this whole spell that we should all just live with it is odious. Terrorism is treated like it’s a natural disaster, something that always has been and always will be with us. But that is madness! Terrorism isn’t something that occurs normally as part of civilized society. It is the product of the will to kill innocents on the part of violent individuals, in many cases an ideology that demands the radical and violent overthrow of a given social structure in favor of a typically authoritarian or totalitarian worldview and an array of societal ills that contribute to the growth of terrorism. You can’t just say this is a normal thing and an inevitable course of modern life that we can’t hope to solve. Sure, we will never be able to *completely* eliminate all terrorism from society at large, but to suggest that we shouldn’t even try and instead just live with it as though you would live with heavy rain and thunderstorms is not just defeatist, it’s also callous. We’ve tried carrying on as things were before, and I don’t think things are getting better. Not that such a thing ever happens when you decide to ignore a problem. And don’t give me any bullshit that this is some kind of blowback to the West, when terrorists kill lots of people in the Middle East just that no one notices, and right now the Philippines is in a state of martial law because of an Islamic terror group taking over a city in the country. What the hell did the Philippines do to deserve getting attacked by Islamists I wonder!

I think we need to come up with far better solutions than the kind we have offered for the problem, and we need to figure something out soon. Because the longer people keep seeing nothing change, and being told that nothing ought to change, eventually we’ll reach a point where they’ll say “we’re not gonna take it anymore”.

Je suis sick of this shit

So I imagine you might already know what happened recently, but yesterday a terrorist killed four people outside of Parliament before being shot by police officers, after which Westminster went into lock-down for the day. At first the attacker was identified as a radical Islamic preacher named Abu Izzadeen by the likes of Channel 4 and The Independent, but it emerged that he is currently in prison serving a two year sentence for attempting to illegally leave the UK, contravening the Terrorism Act of 2006. Today, however, the attacker has been identified as Khalid Masood, who apparently had a string of convictions for non-terrorism related offences and had been under investigation by the state over concerns of violent extremism, and eight more people have been arrested after the attack. It was a small attack, but it does seem to be a case of terrorism that may be tied to radical Islam.

Oh, and just today someone tried to run over a crowd of people in Antwerp, Belgium, with his car. The suspect has apparently been identified as a man named Mohammad R, a Tunisian national. And as both these things happen, we are only a year removed from the bombing that occurred in Brussels.

I am so tired of this. I’m so tired of seeing more terrorism happen and it seems there’s a Muslim radical or radicals behind it. And every time it happens I’m fed up with the tiresome virtue signal that comes in the form of the prayers from those who think that’s supposed to make it all better. People have prayed for Paris, for San Bernandino, Brussels, Orlando, Nice, Munich, Ansbach and Berlin and what in nebulous fuck did it accomplish? Nothing. They’ve changed theirr icons on Facebook or whatever to those flag overlays in solidarity with the country where the attack happened, and nothing happened. And now they’re all praying for London like nothing happened over the last two years. And no matter what, the response we need to see does not manifest itself. There is no conversation about the threat of radical Islam, there is only apologizing for Islam. There is no action taken against terrorist networks, and no rebuking of those who fund terrorism in the Middle East. The powers and that be and the media class sing the same tune, seemingly without end. I know it may sound like a cliche, but it seems to me that madness is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result each time.

That’s it. That’s all I have to say on this, for there is not much else to say on the matter.

Haram Month #15 – The rise of the prison terror cult

According to the Telegraph, a disturbing new report reveals that there is a culture of cultural sensitivity towards Muslim prisoners in British prisons, which is leading to a rise in extremism in those prisons. In other words, the police are looking the other way when people are doing something wrong because they happen to be Muslims.

This is exactly how the Rotherham grooming gangs were allowed to continue abusing children for 16 years. This is the kind of thing Tommy Robinson talks about and has warned people about.

And since Anjem Choudary is in prison I have no doubt that, unless he spends his time in solitary confinement, he may yet be one of the self-styled emirs that act like basically cult leaders. Imagine it: a man like Choudary, with a proven history of radicalizing and indoctrinating people in order to get them to commit terrorist acts, prison staff not being able to stop them because of religious sensitivity and then one day the terrorists he radicalizes get released from jail only to commit atrocities guided by the influence of their self-styled emir.

Unless the culture of police being bound to the irrational fear of being labelled a racist simply for exercising their duty changes, we may look forward to significant loss of innocent life. One of these days, we will be unable to escape the price we pay for political correctness.

Haram Month #9 – The convicting of Anjem Choudary

When I heard that Anjem Choudary had been convicted yesterday (or rather it was revealed that he had been convicted last month, it struck me at first as an issue that I have actually had to wrestle with and needed some clarification on.

For those who don’t know who Anjem Choudarey is, he is a notorious British Salafist Muslim preacher and activist known for his advocacy of the implementation of sharia law in the UK and his demonstrations against Western civilization. He, along with Islamist cleric Omar Bakri Muhammad, founded such radical Islamic organizations as Al-Muhajiroun, Al Ghurabaa and Islam4UK, and was a prominent and divisive figure in the Islamic world who made many TV appearances. He was known to have spoken out in support of jihad as an obligation for Muslims to fulfill, and in 2014 he went so far as to pledge allegiance to ISIL and encourage others to do so – the latter of which to lead to him being arrested. He is seen as a hate preacher, and I don’t doubt that many people (especially people who are of a socially conservative disposition) wanted him banned. I also have no doubt there were and still are a lot of Muslims who distance themselves from Choudary and claim this man is an enemy of Islam – to which Choudary would probably respond by saying that it is in fact they who are the enemies of Islam.

What annoyed me was how the much of the mainstream media and Ella Whelan from Spiked looked at Choudary’s conviction and seemed to paint this as a free speech issue – that the man was arrested solely because of inciting and preaching “hate”. Him being a hate preacher, one who spews “bile and hate”, and the prospect of him being “gagged” and “shut up” is the primary focus of it for much of the media, to the point that is makes me think that the man was being convicted solely for hate speech. Don’t get me started on The Independent, which their “free speech has its limits” shit. That mantra almost had me defending Choudary. Ella Whelan from Spiked was just as bad, because on the day Choudary was convicted she talked about how censoring Choudary’s views was a bad thing, and the next day she appeared on a Sky News debate to talk about this from a pro-free speech lens.

But let me tell you what I have come to understand: this is not a free speech issue. Both the people who support freedom of speech and the people who thinking it should be curtailed are looking at the issue the wrong way. From what I have read, Choudary actually has a history of recruiting people and indoctrinating them. He recruited people to fight for Osama bin Laden. Al-Muhajiroun, one of his organizations, had been known to actually radicalize individuals who would then go out to commit, or attempt to commit, terrorist attacks. Examples include the shoe bomber Richard Reid, the dirty bomber Dhiren Barot, the 7/7 bombers, the Transatlantic Bomb plotter and the men who murdered Lee Rigby. Choudary also taught six of the nine men who planned to send mail bombs to various targets, radicalized a young man named Brustroth Ziamani  and he had been in contact with a teenager in Australia who was planning to carry out an attack on Anzac Day last year. To my mind, him protesting and talking about Islamism wasn’t the only thing he was doing. He had indeed been in contact with individuals who would then go on to carry out attacks, and he had been recruiting and helping to radicalize individuals so that they can carry out terrorist attacks and murders in the name of Allah. There isn’t a doubt in my mind that when he contacts potential radicals he is teaching, instructing and radicalizing them giving that he actually supports the spread of Islamism by force. Really, the term “hate preacher” simply doesn’t do him justice, for he was more than that – he was a recruiter. I wish the media would use the term “terror recruiter” or “jihad recruiter” more often than they use the term “hate preacher”.

Put simply, this is not a free speech issue. It’s a terrorism issue. If all Choudary had been doing was organizing protests and appearing on TV to preach his views, I would have no major issue other than with his views. But it’s not as simple as that. He was actively recruiting, radicalizing and training people to fight and wage jihad. So anyone who thinks this is about freedom of speech, whether from a pro or anti perspective, is simply in the wrong. While I do feel that Choudary’s conviction should not be used to justify an increase in censorship no matter how abhorrent your views are, there can be no doubt that Choudary crossed the line by directing people to commit violence let alone encourage support for ISIL. Not to mention the fact that the organization he founded is a jihadist organization with the intent of spreading sharia law through, well, encouraging jihad.

Haram Month #1 – Islamic terrorism is Islamic terrorism

Recently a man named Khizr Khan, the father of a soldier named Humayun Khan who was killed in Iraq by a suicide bomber driving a taxi, has spoken against Donald Trump in a speech held at the Democratic National Convention alongside his wife Ghazala over his rhetoric on radical Islam. This weekend, he also told CNN this:

In addition to this, there was in the speech that my good wife asked me to refrain from saying, I wanted to say we reject all violence. We are faithful, patriotic, undivided loyalty to this country. We reject all terrorism. She asked me not to say that because that was not the occasion for such a statement. We say to his ignorance, I address his ignorance, that the dirt effect, the most effect of the menace of terrorism have been Muslims in the world, Muslims hate this menace of terrorism as much as any other place. It is our duty to keep this country, our country, beautiful country, safe. We have always thought of [it] that way, we will continue to do our part to keep it safe and beautiful. What he cites in the name of Islam, and all that — that is not Islam at all! I wish he would have, somebody would have put something in his head that these are terrorists, these are criminals, these folks have nothing to do with Islam.

Khizr is thus reiterating the whole “Islam dindu nuffin” narrative that is constantly pushed by the mainstream media these days. We also saw this narrative in play in the aftermath of the massacre in Nice. The perpetrator, Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel, was described as having drank alcohol and beat his wife (as if the latter is somehow un-Islamic), and to them that meant that he wasn’t really Muslim. Indeed, he was referred to not as Muslim, but as “shit”. Never did it occur to them that in the process of his radicalization, he decided that killing non-believers was a way of redeeming his soul and going to Jannah (the Islamic heaven). And when ISIL attacked Medina, people thought this somehow proved that ISIL had nothing to do with Islam – something I already wrote about last month.

What about the gunmen in Mali who in November last year took over a hotel and released hostages who could quote the Quran and executed those who couldn’t? Or Al-Shabab, who took over a university in Kenya earlier that year and shot people on the spot if they weren’t Muslims? What about the gunmen who shot and killed cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo specifically in order to “avenge” the prophet Muhammad? What about Boko Haram, who want to take over the Nigerian government because they believe it to be run by non-believers and want to replace its current government with an Islamist state?

Let me explain something to Mr. Khan about Islamism and Jihadism – the ideological forces that seem to be driving Islamic terrorism. Islamism is literally an ideology which advocates for the implementing of Islam in all spheres of life. This means that, under Islamism, society would be structured specifically around the teachings of Islam or the guidance of Sharia law. And there isn’t a doubt in my mind that the people who subscribe to Islamist ideology view it as an expression of their Islamic faith. Islamism is not simply a political ideology, but also a religious one, one where the implementation of religious belief into all spheres of secular life is the goal. At the center of this, logically, is the Islamic faith. It is impossible to separate the religion of Islam from the ideology of Islamism. Jihadism is our word for Islamists who want to achieve their goals through bloodshed – by literally waging jihad. They believe that jihad is and obligation and duty that must be fulfilled by every Muslim who can do so, and they also believe that violence is a necessary means of removing the obstacles to the Islamist goal of ordering society around Sharia law. To that end, they believe murdering non-believers, even children, is justified. And let’s not forget that, as ISIL is more than willing to demonstrate, even non-Muslims can be considered non-believers if they don’t subscribe to a specific branch of Islam (in ISIL’s case, that would be Wahhabism). For jihadists, the ends justify the means. To them, the world is divided into those who believe – typically those who believe in a specific branch of Islam or those who support Islamism – and those who don’t. It doesn’t matter how seemingly immoral their actions are to them because they believe they are allowed to do this to non-believers, and to them this sometimes includes other Muslims.

The whole idea that Islam has nothing to do with jihadist terrorism, that it is in no way Islamic, is a farce. It is a delusional attitude held by those who believe that they are shielding Muslims from bigotry by perpetuating it.

And the thing is, ISIL actually knows this. They know all about the narrative that Islamic terrorism has nothing to do with Islam, and they find it laughable. In an article of their most recent issue of their magazine Dabiq, ISIL makes this explicitly clear, along with the reasons they hate the West and why they fight us. Here’s an excerpt for you from that article, which is found in pages 30-33 of the issue itself:

Many Westerners, however, are already aware that claiming the attacks of the mujahidin to be senseless and questioning incessantly as to why we hate the West and why we fight them is nothing more than a political act and a propaganda tool. The politicians will say it regardless of how much it stands in opposition to facts and common sense just to garner as many votes as they can for the next election cycle. The analysts and journalists will say it in order to keep themselves from becoming a target from saying something that the masses deem to be “politically incorrect”. The apostate “imams” will repeat the same tired cliché in order to avoid a backlash from the disbelieving societies in which they’ve chosen to reside. The point is, people know that it’s foolish, but they keep repeating it because they’re afraid of the consequences of deviating from the script. There are exceptions among the disbelievers, no doubt, people who will unabashedly declare that jihad and the laws of the Shari’ah – as well as everything else deemed taboo by the Islam-is-a-religion-of-peace crowd – are in fact completely Islamic, but they tend to be people with far less credibility who are painted as a social fringe, so their voices are dismissed and a large segment of the ignorant masses continue believing the false narrative.

They know how the West is responding to jihadist terrorism, or at least how the political class and the media are choosing to deal with it. In my opinion, it surely can’t have escaped them that the French prime minister Manuel Valls told his people that their country should get used to terrorism in response to the Nice attack. They know that the West is weak and divided, and it may only be a matter of time before they manage to exploit it further.

In the same article they list six reasons why they hate the West. I’ll summarize them for you (you can read the article itself for more information):

  1. They hate us because most Westerners don’t believe in Allah and don’t practice Islam, especially Christians.
  2. They hate us because we are a liberal society whose laws and customs are different from Islamic law and whose social structure is based on the will of the people rather than the will of Allah.
  3. They hate atheists because they don’t believe in any God, which means they don’t believe in Allah.
  4. They hate Westerners for transgressing Islam.
  5. They hate the West for the deaths of Muslims at the hands of military action in the Middle East.
  6. They hate the West for “invading” Middle Eastern territory.

They don’t hate us solely because of foreign policy, unlike what left-wing commentators might claim. The West’s actions in the Middle East are not as important to them as the fact that our values, our laws and our very society itself is diametrically opposed to their religious values and their idea of how the world should work. Even if we weren’t in the Middle East, they’d still hate us and wish us dead solely for the fact that we do not embrace Islam, let alone as the core belief system of our society.

That we still have a media and a political class denying the reality of the explicit religious motivation driving the jihadist terrorists is, then, a painful farce. The deluded imbeciles influencing public opinion actually believe that by denying the reality of jihad they will protect Muslims from increased discrimination and bigotry and stop the far-right from taking advantage of it, which makes them nothing more than useful idiots! How many more people are going to die in the name of Allah before we discard that narrative for good?

Islam, the San Bernandino shootings, and blanket judgements

Surprise surprise, another mass shooting occurs somewhere in the United States of America. Only this time, the attack was carried out by people who are identified as Muslims. Generally, this means that not only are people talking about gun rights vs gun control again, but they’re also going on about how either Islam is a religion of peace and that the attacks being carried out have nothing to do with Islam, or how it’s another “proof” that Islam is an inherently violent belief system and how they feel they have the right to categorize all Muslims as violent people. Think about it: in the post-9/11 world any attack carried out by individuals who are Muslim use their Islamic faith to justify violence mysteriously compels people to stop seeing Muslims as individuals, and instead as some kind of collective whole. And when that happens I see two sides of how that whole is treated: on one side, you have the conservative right going out of their way to denounce that whole as vicious, evil, and inherently violent regardless of the fact that there are Muslims who are just decent people, and they act as though we’re at war with Islam as a religion rather than simply at war with Islamic terrorists; and before anyone gets on their high-horses on how this is typical of Christian conservatism, I’ve seen this among atheism (I’m looking at Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris) and even in LHP-related circles. One the other side, the “liberal” left go out of their way to not account for any radical or violent individuals as relevant to the Muslim world by trying to say they aren’t actually Muslims and represent nothing about Islam (but never do the same with Christian fanatics).

To be honest, when I hear about this, I feel fed up with the way Muslims are treated by the world around them just because most people are bombarded with stories of Islamic/jihadist fanatics and militias and assume all Muslims are like that. Even though I’m diametrically opposed to Islam as a belief system, I find something wrong with the way we treat Islam, or rather the Muslim community. I think that Islam isn’t a religion of peace anymore than Christianity claims to be a religion based on love, but equally I feel that Islam isn’t a religion based purely on hate or violence, at least anymore than the other monotheistic religions are (frankly I think it’s more about submission to “God” ultimately than peace or hatred, but that’s besides the point), and I think we ought to develop a more nuanced view not just of Muslims I kind of wish Muslims didn’t have to put up with the kind of crap we give them, telling them they have to conform to Western standards of liberalism (which in modern times are proving hypocritical) and that their religion has to change to a more “modern” form. I swear we don’t treat even Christians the way we treat Muslims. With Christians, most of the time we just mock them, although we seem to pay lip service to their religion at the same time. But with Muslims, we always place them under constant suspicion, or outwardly try to paint them as all sunshines and rainbows. I may not be very familiar with the Muslim community, and in my life I’ve only known one, maybe two people who identify as Muslims, but I just can’t help but ask hasn’t it ever occurred to people that most Muslims, for all they know, are a lot like most Christians: they’re raised into a religion established by their peers and family, they just go with it because that’s what they’re taught, but they’re not necessarily devout in the strict sense, and most certainly don’t practice their faith in a way that is as life-destroying to large numbers of people in the same way that the fanatics, the fundamentalists, and the terrorists do.

And there are some people have the nerve to go on about how their religion needs to be changed and reformed in order to suit the audience of modern “society”, or that Muslims should all unite behind a figure of reform, a Martin Luther equivalent. Funny how it’s usually non-Muslims who think they have any claim over the soul of a religion that isn’t theirs to reform! We don’t do this with Christianity. When we accuse Christians of following an outdated set of beliefs, we usually pressure them to convert to atheism instead. But with Muslims, we ask them to get together and reform Islam to suit everyone who isn’t Muslim but assumes all Muslims are fanatics.

It’s this climate that I’m really annoyed with: the climate that seems to follow every violent incident committed by Muslims who use their faith to feed their actions, and all the while we don’t do this with Christianity when Christians attack planned parenthood because they hate abortion, or any other religion when its followers commit violent acts. I am tired of blanket judgement being applied to people who follow a religious identity, even if it pertains to a religion that I would stand opposed to. Why not focus on dealing with violent individuals and leave everyone else to live and practice their religious beliefs in peace and liberty? You know, that thing the West acts like it’s fighting for in the first place.