About Me

My Photo
“Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.” Benjamin Franklin

Saturday, 7 March 2015

A case for female taxi drivers.

Islamic historian explains how women who travel alone in taxi’s are partially responsible for being raped by their driver.  He says this is the view of more than 70% of the Muslim world.


Perhaps this helps to explain the systematic rape of young girls in Rotherham, Sheffield, Oxford and may other parts of what was once known as England by Pakistani Muslim men.

Friday, 6 March 2015

Hate crimes and the politics of murder.

Douglas Murray, a contributor and editor to the British magazine the Spectator, has an excellent article at Gatestone Institute on the subject of hate crimes.  He outlines how legislation can be used to politicize the murder of some citizens, while minimizing the murders of others in order to support or to hide a particular ideology or worldview.


“It is probably not out of ignorance that the American administration tries not to focus on the religious dimension of the recent terrorist attacks [against Jews in Brussels, Paris and Copenhagen] -- which also include ISIS slitting the throats of 21 Egyptian Christians in Libya -- but rather for fear of what the general public might do with this information.

Because if you view your public as a lynch-mob-in-waiting, as so many Western leaders seem to do, then you assume you must do everything you can to restrain them from perpetrating constant acts of violence against Muslims.

If that is your view of your public, then talking about "random" folks being shot is the sort of circumlocution you will select.

Should you wish to address the problem, you might call together a summit aimed at tackling "violent extremism." But the whole exercise must continuously be directed away from identifying the problem. The Jews cannot have been targeted because they were Jews, because if they were, then you may find yourself having to explain the ideology that propels the killers.”

Murray goes on to say:

“However, in this era of motive-avoiding, sometimes a terrible crime is committed that the selfsame people who duck naming one set of victims and perpetrators seem eager -- even determined -- to identify a different set of victims and perpetrators. Take the brutal murder of three young Americans last month in Chapel Hill. To date, it appears that the neighbor who killed them, crazy though he must be, did this terrible deed because of a parking dispute. That is the basis on which the police were working, and it appears to be the view of those who were close to the perpetrator.

However, after the Chapel Hill shootings quite a different story arose -- similar to what happened after the shooting of Trayvon Martin by a "white hispanic," and the shooting of a back young man in Ferguson by a white policeman, both of which cases triggered their own potential lynch-mobs.

It is important to stress that the Chapel Hill case has not been concluded yet. But it is equally important to stress that, because the three victims were Muslim, within seconds of news of the shooting, social media erupted with claims that this was a "hate crime," and hashtags such as, "#MuslimLivesMatter" started to trend on Twitter.

Crowds, which gathered for rallies in Chapel Hill and later at the funeral of the victims, insisted that the police must treat these crimes as hate crimes motivated by religious hatred. The police are now under serious pressure to attribute the crime to causes other than those they may actually think to be the case.

And just to help pile on that pressure, and lead the mob spirit, the White House helpfully released a statement from the President saying:

"Yesterday, the FBI opened an inquiry into the brutal and outrageous murders of Yusor Mohammad Abu-Salha, Deah Shaddy Barakat, and Razan Mohammad Abu-Salha in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. In addition to the ongoing investigation by local authorities, the FBI is taking steps to determine whether federal laws were violated.

No one in the United States of America should ever be targeted because of who they are, what they look like, or how they worship."

Indeed. Nor should anyone be killed because of how or where they park their car.

The facts on Brussels, Paris and Copenhagen are largely in. The facts on Chapel Hill are not. While many people seem not to want to recognize when Jews are killed for being Jews, the truth is that a very great number of people appear to want Muslims or Blacks, when they are killed, to have been murdered because they were Muslims or Blacks.

If you cannot work out why that might be, then you cannot possibly crack why we are currently failing the ideological challenge of our time.”




Thursday, 5 March 2015

NYC Mayor de Blasio signals ‘game on’.

America has been at war against Islam in the Middle East continuously since 9/11, often fighting in more than one country at the same time. Not only have Jihadists struck on 9/11 and the Boston Bombings, but they have also attacked other American instillations in North Africa killing thousands of Americans over the last two decades.  Hardly a week goes by in the USA when a Muslim jihadist is not arrested for plotting murder and mayhem in that nation. 

On that basis, you would be hard pressed to suggest that Islam has been good for America.


All of that not withstanding, today the Mayor of New York City Bill de Blasio announced that the State schools in his jurisdiction will now be closed during the Muslim holidays of Eid al-Adha and al-Fitr.  So that children can mourn the attacks by Muslims on the twin towers during 9/11 where more than 3,000 citizens were murdered?

Ah, actually no, according to Mayor de Blasio ‘it’s a change that reflects the diversity of our city’.

The previous Mayor Bloomberg was no Islamophobe but even he resisted this change saying:

"The truth of the matter is we need more children in school. More, not less," and "When you have a city as diverse as we do, with virtually every religion known to man practiced, if we closed school for every single [religious] day there wouldn't be any school."

Multiculturalism isn’t a destination; it’s a transition point between competing ideologies.  The Judeo Christianity that first shaped the United States has fallen from favour.  While it now appears that everything is celebrated, diversity is insufficient of itself to provide the social glue to sustain civil society.

All that Mayor de Blasio has signaled today, is that it is ‘game on’. 

The siege of Tikrit.

Today as the Iranian backed Shia forces of Iraq advance upon the Sunni town of Tikrit to recapture it from the Islamic State, it is worth reflecting for a moment upon this town and its place in history. 


Established on the banks of the Tigris river, its first reference dates back to 615 BC when it provided refuge for the Babylonian king Nabopolassar.  However it was a predominantly Christian city up until the 6th century.  Muslims entered the town in 640, and from the 9th century under varying degrees of Muslim persecution the Christians began to leave and settle in Mosul and surrounding countryside.

The city was devastated by war in the 14 century by Timur, and was reduced to a small settlement that has grown again since that time.

During the 20th century in 1917 during WW1 British forces captured the city in a major advance against the Ottoman Empire.   It is the birth place of Saddam Hussein (1937).  In 2003 during the Iraq war the city was subject to intense US aerial bombardment in attempt to dislodge Saddam’s elite Republican Guard. American forces eventually occupied the city later that year.

Tikrit became subject to Muslim Sunni insurgent attacks and in 2005 the city was handed back to Iraqi Government for local rule. There were plans for Saddam’s palace and grounds to be turned into an exclusive and lush resort. However, within weeks of turning over the palace to Iraqi governance, it was ravaged, and its contents, (furniture, columns, even light switches), were stolen and sold on the streets.

The Islamic State occupied the city in June of 2014 slaughtering more than 1500 people, and today the city is once again under siege as the forces allied to the Iraqi government seek to regain control.

Tikrit is a city with more than 2000 years of history, much of it characterized by bloodshed, violence displacement and oppression.  It was once a predominantly Christian city, however today it is doubtful if any Christians still remain.

The British have occupied it and more recently the Americans, followed by the Islamic State, and now it is being liberated by Iraqi troops with assistance from Iran.

Tikrit is not a place to invest your retirement fund.

The present battle for the city is being fought between two Muslim armies, one predominantly Sunni (the Islamic State) and the other predominantly Shia (Iraq).  It is impossible to view this as anything other than a sectarian conflict that has seen Sunni Muslims from all over the world travel to join ISIS, and Shia Muslims join the Iraq army along with assistance from Iran.

The west it seems, although not invited to participate in this particular battle, cannot resist the call to be involved to the extent that even New Zealand is sending troops to train soldiers fighting on one side of the sectarian divide.

To what end?

The mainly Sunni tribes people living in and around Tikrit fear the Iraq Government backed Shia militia, and for good reason.  They have a track record of revenge and slaughter little different from that of ISIS.  Both sides view the other as apostates that deserve no mercy.

I’m not sure our politicians in Wellington fully grasp this reality. 

We in the west cannot help but view other people and cultures through the filter of western civilization.  We believe that given the right environment, democracy and economic opportunity, everyone regardless of their history would choose to live peacefully with their neighbours.

So, naively we send our troops into this hellhole of sectarian hatred and political corruption thinking that we are somehow a redemptive force for good?

Regardless of who wins the present battle for Tikrit, nothing of substance will have changed in the Middle East.  There is a deep longing on both sides, Sunni and Shia to destroy the other, and inserting western troops into that conflict achieves nothing except perhaps to determine a winner, or to delay the inevitable.

Perhaps in thirty or one hundred years when the Muslims of the Middle East have exhausted their blood lust and are done with fighting each other, have patched up their theological differences, and have also agreed to live peacefully alongside the infidels of the west, perhaps then we could provide some economic support, training and technology.

If the so-called ‘Arab Spring’ has taught us anything, it is that we cannot impose a western solution on the eastern mind.  However it appears that this is a lesson we are determined to learn all over again.



Wednesday, 4 March 2015

There is no left or right, only nationalists and globalists. - Marie Le Pen

France appears to be on the verge of major political change that could eventually see them opt out of the EU.  The Front Nationale led by Marie Le Pen obtained more votes than any other French party at recent EU parliamentary elections.  This result set of an earthquake within French’s political elite who are scrambling to match some of her ‘populist’ appeal.  There is talk that she could even win the Presidency at the next election.


Her appeal is due in part to her willingness to speak honestly to the electorate.  She has said that there are no longer any parties of the left or the right, there are only nationalists and globalists

She is an unashamed nationalist.  The founders of the EU viewed nationalism as the cause of wars, and have embarked upon a utopian vision of a borderless Europe united by a common currency, and the brotherhood of man.

It was bound to fail; mass Islamic immigration along with economic difficulty fractured the dream of EU’s political elite.

The BBC ran a documentary on Marie Le Pen that began prior to the Charlie Hebdo shootings, and was completed afterwards. It contains the mandatory BBC narrative of Islamophobia, and following the shooting at Charlie Hebdo it points out the need for security at Mosques.  What the program didn’t mention is that the Jews have had security for years to protect themselves from the Islamists, as did the staff of Charlie Hebdo, but sadly in the end that didn’t save them.

It also shamelessly interviews someone from Charlie Hebdo (a very left magazine) to suggest that the Front Nationale was a political party ordinary French citizens should reject.  However, they are not rejecting it, or Marie Le Pen.

The video allows her to effectively make the case for French nationalism and independence from the EU.  There are a number of anti-EU parties growing in strength throughout Europe and the UK.  

People love their country, and want to preserve is character, its culture and its customs.  You cannot do that if you have an open boarder policy.






What does defeat look like?

It was Joseph Stalin who reportedly said: “The death of one man is a tragedy, the death of millions is just a statistic.” This is true only because humanly speaking we are incapable of engaging emotionally with the scale of that loss.

To reprise Stalin, the sexual abuse of one child is a tragedy; the abuse of thousands is just a statistic.  At least that appears to be the case in Rotherham in Britian where 1400 young girls were systematically raped and abused by ‘Asian’ gangs.


Not to mention the recent discovery of 300 girls in Oxford suffering the same fate at the hands of the same ‘Asian’ demographic. And Sheffield, and well just about everywhere in Britain that has made itself home to ‘Asian’ immigrant communities.

In case you were not aware, ‘Asian’ is newspeak for Muslim. 

Some of you may recall the case of a BBC radio host who was sacked for requesting a ‘non-Asian’ taxi driver to take her 14 year old daughter home.  When challenged as to why she made this request, she suggested it was because her daughter would be ‘freeked’ by someone wearing a turban. 

I suspect that she, like many others knew of the grooming gangs and rapes being perpetrated by ‘Asian’ taxi drivers, but back in 2008 when this event took place she felt unable to state her real reasons for not wanting to place her 14 year old daughter into the care of an ‘Asian’ pedophile driver.

So why is it that these overwhelmingly Muslim men took to grooming, raping and pimping these young girls by the thousands in their host country?  An unusual way to express gratitude for the new opportunities afforded to them in their adopted country don’t you think?

Once again, we have to look at Islam to understand how it has shapped the thinking of these men.  Infidel girls and women are whores for the taking.  Or, as an Australian Imam once suggested they are ‘red meat’ waiting to be consumed.

What is really shocking is that Britain and other western nations including New Zealand has invited people who are infected with this dysfunctional worldview to live amongst us.  Our politicians thought that by simply transposing Muslims into the west, they would automatically become fish & chip loving, beer swilling, sport fanatics.  In other words, they would discard their cultural norms like an item of worn clothing, and embrace British culture.

Wrong.

They have been so wrong, and the scale of the abuse is such that David Cameron has now classified child sexual abuse as a ‘National Threat’.

In the past Britain would have brought out the armed forces to deal with a ‘national threat’ but Cameron is going to deal with this and other threats imposed by Muslim immigrant communities by (wait for it…) drafting more legislation.

That should do it.

We have some experience of this already here in Christchurch New Zealand, when a judge insisted that the sexual offender’s name, nationality and religion be suppressed.  The court was advised that the perpetrator was suffering from a new condition called ‘cultural ambiguity’.

That’s likely to be the problem in Britain as well.

As I reflected at the time, if the perpetrator had been a retired Catholic priest, do you think the courts would have suppressed name, nationality and religion?

Britain’s political leadership on both sides of the house has decided that their Muslim population is an internal problem that just needs to be managed.  In other words they just intend to live with the sexual abuse the train bombings, the beheadings and the security risks in the hope things improve over time.

That is what defeat looks like. 

Tuesday, 3 March 2015

Saudi King’s reluctance to support new Caliph in Iraq has ‘nothing to do with Islam’.

When it comes to the Middle East and Islam, the foreign policy of western nations is both schizophrenic and highly compromised.  Nowhere is this best exampled than by our friendship with Saudi Arabia.  This is a nation state whose legal and justice system bears a close resemblance to that implemented by the Islamic State, and whose understanding of Islam is even closer.

Recently President Obama traveled to Saudi Arabia to pay his respects to the late King Abdullah. Mr. Obama said the U.S. must balance its focus on human rights and equality with other vital issues, such as combating terrorism.

He also promised to continue to pressure the Saudis to correct human rights abuses and embrace a more modern worldview.

What I’ve found effective is to apply steady, consistent pressure, even as we are getting business done that needs to get done.

So how’s that ‘steady constant pressure’ working out?



Today the new king of Saudi Arabia, Salman bin Abdul Aziz has handed his country's most-prestigious prize for ‘Services to Islam’ to a preacher who agrees that the Koran allows Muslims to have sex with female slaves.

But surely, this behaviour has nothing to do with Islam!

To be fair to Zakir Naik, the Koran does say exactly that, and as founder of a TV channel reaching 100 million viewers he has been kind enough to explain this. It was during a broadcast on ‘Peace TV’ that Dr Naik suggested that Muslims men may rape their slaves.

'There are many verses in the Koran which say you can have sex with your wife and with whatever your right hand possesses,' he told a mass audience.

'Right hand possesses,' he went on to explain. 'Which means your slaves.'

That’s a helpful clarification and one that should prove useful as our troops are training soldiers in Iraq who will potentially be taking female captives.

For the sake of context, on the one hand we are training men to fight ISIS who believe it’s appropriate to rape female captives whom they have made sex slaves, while supporting the Saudi regime who present prizes in the services of Islam to men who agree that the rape of female slaves is permitted under Islam.

One would be tempted to ask why we are supporting one group and bombing the other, when essentially they both believe the same things, and for the most part have enacted similar versions of Islamic law?

This award also highlights the double speak that comes out of the Islamic world.  How often are we told that Muslim leaders have condemned the actions of the Islamic state, and no doubt they have.  However their condemnation rings hollow when the new King of Saudi Arabia has unapologetically confirmed with his prize for services to Islam, that ISIS is following the teaching of Islam to the letter. 

This is especially true when it comes to the treatment of female captives, homosexuals, Christians, apostates and infidels.

The new Saudi King may be reluctant to acknowledge the political legitimacy of the new Caliph in Iraq, however this truly has ‘nothing to do with Islam’. 

Socializing the cost of relationship breakdown.

Is it time for the Government to start implementing ‘user pays’ for some of the ‘core’ services it provides?  Take for example the recently reported costs for changes to the IT system relating to child support.  The Herald states the cost to implement IT changes to make the child support process fairer to all parties has risen from $30m to $168m.


That’s $100.00 for every household in New Zealand.

What’s more these are just the cost of IT changes, not the cost of running and implementation of the IT systems themselves, or the people in the various Government departments responsible for administering child support collections and transfers through PAYE, and other means.

What happened to the idea that parents are responsible for the children they bring into the world? If fathers abandon their children and their mother, or vice versa, why is this automatically considered to be the taxpayer’s responsibility?

If it costs $168m to fund the IT changes to support liable parent payments, shouldn’t these costs become the responsibility of the liable parents and not the general taxpayer?

Why are taxpayers subsidizing liable parents?  Do we believe that abandoning ones children is an activity worthy of promotion and support?  If not, why are the full costs of abandonment not born by those who incur them?

Are we concerned that this might cause economic hardship for the liable parent?  That it might remind them that bringing children into this world is a responsibility that has consequences?  Are we better off shielding people from the full cost of their actions, and socialising the impact across other taxpayers?

We live in a culture where the dead hand of the State reaches into every human relationship, every personal transaction, every social dysfunction and every waking activity.  Not only does the State seek to level incomes through progressive taxation, but it also seeks to normalize all forms of human behaviour by subsidizing poor life choices through the delivery of core services.

There is a general economic principal that states ‘you get more of what you reward’.  It makes no sense to lament poor parenting and relationship choices on the one hand, and to reward those choices through taxpayer funded subsidies on the other.

I take that back.  It makes great political sense for as long as the taxpayer is willing to fund it. 

Monday, 2 March 2015

Your tax dollars at work.

The NZ Herald reports that Worksafe, a Government agency has filed a charge against the Ministry of Social Development following the Ashburton Work and Income (WINZ) shootings last September.

The charge under Section 6 of the Health and Safety in Employment Act alleges the ministry failed to take all practicable steps to ensure the safety of its employees while at work.

To put this into context, we have one Government department taking proceedings against another Government department over a health and safety issue.  Yes friends, your tax dollars at work.

We know what the answer from any enquiry is going to be before it takes place.  Let me explain: 

“There was a systemic failure that allowed the (alleged) killer Russell Tully to enter the WINZ office and have access to staff while carrying a shotgun.  No one individual was responsible for this failure, and no one individual will be held to account for the deaths that resulted.”

Ok, now that we have that out of the way, what’s next? Well, I suppose that Worksafe could impose a fine on WINZ.  That makes sense, one Government department exchanging funds with another in a zero sum exercise.

Everyone knows that WINZ has completed a substantial review of it’s systems and processes following the shootings, that new procedures and security has been put in place for all of its offices and they have done everything possible to ensure the safety of staff.

With the benefit of hindsight could they have done more?  Of course, however even though we live in an increasingly violent society, no one imagined this kind of atrocity taking place here in New Zealand.

Now we do.

It’s a bit like John Key deciding that it’s best to keep a growing pool of Muslims who are ‘hot for jihad’ stewing in their juices here in New Zealand and not letting them travel overseas to join ISIS.

As soon as one of them shoots or beheads a New Zealander in Auckland or another major city, someone will suggest a review of procedures.  The only difference between his culpability and that of WINZ management is that everyone can see it coming and many people have been saying so for months in advance.




This is no longer your America.

What has happened to the good ole USA?  You know, the country that produced the Andy Griffith Show, My Three Sons, and I love Lucy that we once watched on those black and white television sets in the 1960’s?

Sure, there are just so many repeats you can stomach before you long for a change of diet, but what happened to the culture that produced those shows?   Note: you don’t need to watch all of the clip to get the flavour.



Heck, it was less than 30 years ago when the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), that “the Constitution does not protect the right of gay adults to engage in private, consensual sodomy”.

That was hardly an earth shattering opinion; it was the public consensus of the day.

Fast-forward to 2015 as Jeb Bush lines up for a run at the Presidency. Rod Dreher observes:

To an extent that would have been unthinkable in past elections, one of the leading candidates for the Republican presidential nomination has stocked his inner circle with advisers who are vocal proponents of gay rights. And while the Bush camp says his platform will not be shaped by his lieutenants’ personal beliefs, many in the monied, moderate, corporate wing of the GOP — including pragmatic donors, secular politicos, and other members of the establishment — are cheering the early hires as a sign that Bush will position himself as the gay-friendly Republican in the 2016 field.

The constitution may not have supported consensual sodomy in 1986, but if you are a presidential candidate for the ‘conservative’ Republican Party in 2016, then you better be pro gay-marriage or the party’s over before it begins.  It’s a politically ‘smart’ move by Bush as it takes gay marriage off the agenda before the campaign, and beyond.

Dreher again:

What Bush’s moves represent is the institutionalization within the Republican Party of the most radical aspect of the Sexual Revolution. I don’t think many GOP grassroots activists, especially in the churches, understand this. They will. This was inevitable, and now, it’s here. 

“Vote Republican: They May Be Politely Indifferent to Us, But At Least They Don’t Hate Us” is hardly a rallying cry.

What can you expect from a nation that has not once, but twice elected Barak Obama?  As commentator Mark Steyn has opined, culture trumps politics every time.

"Once every few years you can persuade the electorate to go out and vote for a conservative party. But if you want them to vote for conservative government you have to do the hard work of shifting the culture."

"Because if the culture's liberal, if the schools are liberal, if the churches are liberal, if the hip, fashionable business elite is liberal, if the guys who make the movies and the pop songs are liberal, then electing a conservative ministry isn't going to make a lot of difference."

This is exactly the New Zealand experience.  We elected a ‘conservative’ National Government more than six years ago, and during their term in office we end up legalizing gay marriage. 

What social conservatives in the western world must understand is that they have become a minority in a culture that has rejected their faith, and despises their values.  The time when you could vote for a conservative party and rely upon them to represent your social views has long passed.

This realization saw the introduction of Colin Craig’s ‘Conservative Party’ into politics at the last two elections.  It failed to gain a seat in our proportional representation parliament because it was unable to attract 5% of the popular vote.  This is a pathetically low threshold to cross when you consider the number of conservative voters, especially when the Greens can obtain 10%. 

However it seems that changing the culture is easier than changing an individual’s voting preference.

American’s don’t have the luxury of proportional representation, or the opportunity to support a third party that might realistically reflect their views.  Perhaps this, along with a deep political cynicism accounts for the very low presidential election turnouts with only 54% of the citizens bothering to vote.

What has happened to the good ole USA? The culture that once provided support for the Andy Griffith Show has long since evaporated.  If it was produced today, Andy would have to ‘come out’, and deputy Fife would be the bumbling Christian – somewhat irrational and completely hopeless.

The Barney Fife’s of this world were considered mainstream in the 60’s, tolerated in the 80’s, but viewed as dangerous in the beginning of the 21st century. 

They hold opinions on same sex marriage that are deemed bigoted and discriminatory.  If you are Brendan Elk former CEO of Mozilla, it will cost you your job, if you are the former Arch Bishop of Canterbury, Lord Cary, it will mean that your image is removed from the hall of honour at your former University, Kings College of London.

Forget electing a conservative Government in the hope they will reflect your views, you need to focus on how best to navigate your way through your career.  Failure to embrace authorized groupthink, regardless of how tolerant you may be personally of the LGBT individuals in your workplace, will identify you as someone who is culturally unsafe.

Speaking of Deputy Fife, fact trumps fiction in Salt Lake City where police officer Eric Moutsos recently lost his job because he declined to march in a gay pride parade. Note well: he did not refuse to provide police security for the parade; he simply declined to march in it.

Moutsos said he had no problem performing his duty to protect and serve. The officer had previously provided security as same-sex couples flocked to the Salt Lake City-County Building to be married following a federal court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage. But in this case, Moutsos felt that what he was being asked to do was more for entertainment.

"I felt that by being an actual participant in the parade, I would be perceived to be supporting certain messages that were contrary to who I am," he said. "I will protect their parade. But I just don't want to be in the parade."

"Two days later I was brought into one of the commander's offices. They took my badge and my gun for discrimination. My sergeant then drove me home and took all of my equipment, said I could not perform as a police officer. I thought I was in a dream. I was devastated," he said.

Officer Moutsos was ‘willing to serve and protect’ but it wasn’t enough.  The Mullah’s of the Salt Lake City Police demanded nothing less than total submission to the LGBT agenda.

The loveable Barney Fife might have been fired for incompetence, but never for failing to support LGBT orthodoxy, it didn’t exist 50 years ago. 

As much as we might have hoped for mercy from the cultural victors, it is clear that those who fall short of expectations may not even be offered ‘redemption through re-education’.  Perhaps it appeared too draconian, too Orwellian, and besides it’s easier to continue with the present strategy of sitcoms and dismissals. 

The message will eventually get through - this is no longer your America.

Sunday, 1 March 2015

An extreme start to your Monday morning.

If you are the kind of person who likes something more bracing than espresso to start your day, it would be difficult to go past Mullah Krekar, an influential Muslim leader, an Iraqi Kurd who has been living in Norway for the past 24 years.  Some of those years he has spent in prison for threatening ‘prominent people’, but for some reason the Government of Norway cannot rouse themselves to throw this man out of their country.

Do we have any ‘Mullah Krekar’s’ on the New Zealand security service watch list? Probably, they wouldn’t tell us if they did.


Ok, maybe will you need that espresso before watching.  It’s subtitled, so feel free to turn down the sound, and get an insight into what it is we are facing in the west.  ‘Jihad John’ is only the beginning.

Note:  the sound bar will disappear in a few seconds after you press the 'start' arrow and you can then view the text.


Saturday, 28 February 2015

The BBC reports ISIS treatment of Christians is supported by Islam

The BBC has written about the Islamic States genocide of Christians starting with their forced evacuation from Mosul, through to the beheading of 21 Coptic Christians in Iraq, and now with the capture of over 200 Christians in Syria that has resulted in the death of 15 so far.


There is a general consensus among Islamic scholars that both Christians and Jews enjoy special status under an Islamic state which guarantees them safety in exchange for paying a special tax and other conditions.”

Yes, that so called ‘special status’ is known as ‘dhimmitude’ and has been the general experience of Christians and Jews living amongst majority Muslim populations since the 7th century.

The BBC article makes a good deal of reference to the ‘protected status’ of Christians and Jews living amongst the Muslims as if this were some form of special privilege; but just who are the Muslims protecting the Christians from?  Why themselves of course.  Should any one of the Christians step out of line and offend a Muslim, it becomes ‘open season’ on the entire Christian community, including rape slaughter and pillage, until such time as they are ‘fully subdued’ once again.

So much for ‘guaranteed safety’.

“In 2014, IS offered similar protection to Christians in its stronghold of Raqqa in Syria and possibly in other areas under the group's control in both Syria and Iraq.

IS gave Christians three options: to convert to Islam; to remain Christian but pay taxes and conform to strict Islamic rules; or to reject the first two options and face war from the group.”

Perhaps the only positive aspect of this article is the BBC’s admission that there is ‘general consensus among Islamic scholars that both Christians and Jews enjoy special status under an Islamic state which guarantees them safety in exchange for paying a special tax and other conditions’.

In other words, ISIS is behaving towards Christians in ways that Islamic scholars agree is entirely consistent with the teaching of Islam.  I very much doubt that the BBC intended to communicate this message, but it is true none the less.

More of Islam means less of everything else, be it Christianity, Atheism, art, liberty, democracy, pluralism, and western civilisation in general.

Friday, 27 February 2015

Could the West’s next religious revival be Islamic?

The public profile of Islam in the west has risen dramatically over the last decade.  While the narrative has not always been positive, that has not deterred the many thousands who are converting to Islam in Western countries.

The Huffington Post ran an article in 2011 suggesting that 20,000 Americans are converting to Islam every year, and while that number is not large in numerical terms, it is striking that this is taking place in the wake of 9/11 and America’s much touted (Islamic) ‘war on terror’.


Here in New Zealand just last week, the New Zealand herald ran an article featuring two New Zealand converts.  It states that more than 5,000 Pakeha and Maori now identify as Muslim.  Again the numbers are not large but significant for what many people still consider a ‘foreign religion’ and at worst, a ‘death cult’.

In the Herald article, new Maori convert Debbie says she felt a bit lost before she became Muslim. "It put things into perspective. I saw massive changes in my husband, and thought, 'Wow, this can only be good for the kids'." Since she converted, Debbie says she has met at least one New Zealander, often Maori, once a week who has also converted.

It would not surprise me if New Zealand were the most secular country in the Western world.  While no American President could get elected without expressing their personal faith in God, in New Zealand that would be considered a sign of personal weakness, and a political death wish.  Our most recent Christian Prime Minister was Jim Bolger, and being a Catholic it hardly counts.  That’s not intended as a slight on Catholics, but being a Catholic in New Zealand is usually considered to be an accident of birth, rather than a personal choice.

Christian revivals during the last 400 years.

Our present day secularism not withstanding, there have been at least four significant religious revivals in the short history of the United States of America, some of which have impacted the entire western world.  Wikipedia lists the first one taking place in the 1730 – 1743 through the preaching of evangelist Jonathan Edwards grandfather Solomon Stoddard.  The second started in the late 18th century and continued through to the middle of the 19th century.  The third took place from 1861 through 1900’s.

The forth revival started in the late 1960’s and became known as the ‘Jesus movement’.  It overflowed around the world eventually reaching the UK, Australia and New Zealand. It had a profound influence on my own life along with hundreds of thousands of other Kiwis at the time; it still echoes in our family and more faintly in our nation today.

It is impossible to measure the social and economic impact of these revivals in the lives of the people and the nations affected.  Restored families, the breaking of addictions and reduction in crime, are just some of the obvious benefits.  In the great Welsh revival of 1904 the police department formed barbershop quartets and sang in the churches, they had so little to occupy their time.  Production in the coalmines initially decreased until the horses pulling the coal carts out of the mines learned the new language of the men driving the teams.

Despite the predictions of the ‘God is dead’ atheists, religion is not about to die out anytime soon.  The human heart is hard wired to seek meaning and transcendence beyond the call of atheistic secular materialism.

It would be impossible to end this section without reference to the ‘Wesley Revival’ of 1703 that ran for the best part of 100 years in England. 

Wesley and the Methodist movement are credited with avoiding the bloodshed of the French Revolution that could just as easily have taken place in England.  It transformed London’s poorer suburbs that were blighted by gin, prostitution, desperation and squalor and brought hope and transformation to an entire generation throughout England.

Not that you would expect to learn any of this in a history class taught in the western world today.

Christianity or Islam?

While Christianity is prospering in China, Africa and parts of South America, it is presently at a low ebb in the Western world.  Some of this is a result of its own doing; sexual abuse scandals have plagued the church, and television evangelists have developed a reputation for making money their primary focus. Is it any wonder that young people who are interested in developing their spiritual quest often consider the Church the last place to look?

In addition, Christianity has suffered its share of Bishops who are only too willing to cast doubt upon the miracles performed by Jesus, his virgin birth, and his resurrection from the dead.  If Church leaders don’t believe this stuff themselves, what would entice others to go there?

However, it is not all doom and gloom for Christianity in the west.  Here in New Zealand with it’s population of just 4.5 Million, there are still many people coming to faith in Christ every week.  Just a few days ago one young man was baptized in our swimming pool, and hundreds of thousands of others are experiencing a vibrant faith supported by functional Churches up and down the country.

Christian converts are not considered newsworthy by our mainstream media, so unless it’s a scandal, what happens in the church is mostly below the radar.

What does Islam offer?

Where Christianity may appear somewhat opaque to the outsider, the claims of Islam have become very clear:  Confess there is no god other than Allah, and that Mohammad is his messenger, perform complete obedience to Islam. pray five times a day, fast at Ramadan, and if possible make a journey to Mecca and you are done.

Simply put, the attraction of Islam is complete certainty surrounding all aspects of faith and practice.  There is a rule covering all aspects of life, from sex to shopping.

Christianity on the other hand is far less prescriptive and provides considerable leeway for personal interpretation and divine guidance.  It requires considered engagement with ones faith, whereas Islam seeks only total obedience to the proscribed life.

Additionally, Islam has a triumphalist eschatology.  That is to say it sees Islam conquering the world.  Historically this has been facilitated through military action (jihad) not unlike that which is taking place in Iraq with ISIS.

Christianity also has a triumphalist eschatology, culminating in Christ’s return, but it is based upon the power of the good news about Jesus to transform human lives, rather than the sword.

Both have a progressive view of history culminating in triumph of their faith over evil.

Could Islam be the source of our next religious revival?

While obviously I would consider this to be a devastating outcome for the free world, it is possible so how it could it happen?

First the west concedes to Islamic blasphemy laws and agrees that the vilification of any religion is forbidden.  It would be ‘any religion’ but the only religion that takes violent offence is Islam.  In reality this is an abdication of free speech in favour of Islam.

Most of the western world’s mainstream media has voluntarily accepted this code of practice today. Thus suitably constrained, it would be illegal for anyone to make any public criticism of Islam, or to critique it in any way that Muslims might find offensive.

Britain and France are almost there having implemented laws regarding hate speech, so very little additional change is required especially in those countries.  We effectively have Islamic blasphemy laws operational in most western countries today.

Next there will be the right of Muslims to pray and to have prayer rooms set aside for them at their place of employment.  This will come about based upon a narrative of victimhood, and indignation that Muslims need for daily prayer is being ignored by the secular State.  Government departments will be the first to make this concession, and ultimately it will be mandated upon all work places.

This will be followed by demands for concessions in the work place during the month of Ramadan while Muslims are fasting.  It is not reasonable to expect them to put in a full day at the office if they are fasting all day.

Once the initial prayer concessions are made, your average infidel watches some of his workmates heading off to pray while he sits at his desk.  Then during the month of Ramadan, he watches his Muslim colleagues leave work early as further concessions are made.

Then he begins to notice that more and more staff are joining the prayer times and finishing early at Ramadan.  He thinks to himself, who is the fool here?  I’m working flat out while these guys are taking a break and finishing early.  All I have to do is mumble those words about Allah and Mohammad, and I can shuffle out and join them.

He resists at first, because he’s not particularly keen on becoming religious, but eventually he is one of the few remaining at his desk, the social pressure builds, and eventually the pain of joining them becomes less than the pain of being left out and left behind.

Then his children are raised as Muslims, and finally the transformation is complete.

There are two other factors to consider.  When an infidel marries a Muslim, they must also become a Muslim, otherwise there is usually no marriage to be had.  Typically this is no big deal for the agnostic infidel, who is happy to ‘do what it takes’ to marry the one they love. Once again, their children are raised as Muslims.

The second factor is demographics.  Most of the west, particularly Europe has a declining birth rate that politicians are replacing with Muslim immigrants.  It’s quite possible that demographics alone will be enough to facilitate an Islamic revival in the west without the influence of workplace concessions, conversion at marriage, and the social pressure to conform.

Conclusion

I have suggested in the past that before long the only difference between London and Lahore will be the average daily temperature.  Culturally they will be identical, with Islam being the dominant narrative in daily life. Right now, I’d say it’s a close call, with the trend not exactly encouraging.

I have a greater sense of optimism for Australia and New Zealand.  While we are hamstrung with political correctness at a government and bureaucratic level, Aussies and Kiwis are much less wimpish than their British and European counterparts.  We are much less likely to roll with the kind of concessions Islam will be demanding in Europe and the UK, and much more likely to push back against its totalitarian demands.

I am also hopeful at a spiritual level.  God has overseen a number of spiritual awakenings in the West, and while our politicians have been busy removing all Christian influence from the public square, it would be premature to think that he can be so easily purged from our national consciousness.