New Zealand Lashed by Constant Race Relations Propaganda

22/3/2017

By Olivia Pierson

Human Rights Commissioner, Dame Susan Devoy, shows she is devoid of any understanding of what her own culture has traditionally stood for. She is nothing but a shameless social engineer for the United Nations.

Doing her level best to create a problem here where none exists, she wrote a press release to mark Race Relations Day 2017, titled “Stand Up for Each Other.” Dame Susan writes, “When we see yet another racist attack on the news we need to ask ourselves: Is this us? Is this the kind of country we want to be? If the answer is No, then we need to do something. What we do today is our insurance policy for the future of our nation.”

The press release is part of a wider campaign launched by the Human Rights Commission back in September 2016 clunkily titled the “That’s Us” Anti racism Campaign. This is how the campaign describes itself on its website: the campaign is lead by the NZ Human Rights Commission and is an initiative in support of the New Zealand Migrant Settlement and Integration Strategy and is supported by the New Zealand National Commission for UNESCO (the United Nations Educational, Scientific & Cultural Organisation). On the Commission’s website Dame Susan impels people to “support, record & report” any incidences of perceived racial harassment or abuse in our communities. She also claims that “people from ethnic minorities report an increase in the number of personal racist attacks in recent times, this is in step with events taking place overseas.”

Of course there has been an increase in complaints from ethnic minorities about racism! In a grievance ridden ‘progressive’ multicultural climate, Dame Susan has created an enticing, victim oriented platform to impel complaints (anonymous or otherwise) and is counting them with glee as if they offer a clear insight into how nasty and racist Western nations are. This is the sort of contrived, flakey junk that the Human Rights Commission positively swoons over, and I hate that they get a dime of taxpayer money to pursue these divisive agendas.

Note her little jibe about this being “in step with events taking place overseas.”
What events might you be referring to, Ms. Devoy? Today’s Westminster Killings in and outside London’s Parliament? The Charlie Hebdo Massacre? The Bataclan Theatre Massacre? The Orlando Nightclub Massacre? The Brussels Airport Bombings? The Nice Attacks? The Lindt Cafe Killings? Just which events overseas have been so egregious in comparison to the list above, where hundreds of people in Western countries have lost their lives because of Islam’s racial/cultural hatred? Oh I know… the real trouble overseas is Islamophobia! As if Westerners are unceasingly running around slaying Muslims in the streets!
No, Ms. Devoy, it is the other way around and you damn well know it.
If there is going to be a rise in Islamophobia, then it's a rational response to a clear and prescient threat, and it's about time that it does finally rise!

Dame Susan and her precious Commission never mention the epic horrors, tortures, violence, rapes and deaths perpetrated overseas by an ethnic minority, i.e. Muslims (with Jihad cells now operating fulltime in almost every Western country). No - instead Dame Susan likes to zero her empty-headed focus in on petty incidents in a Western country, where any person with dark skin, a hijab, a burka or a turban might get called a rude name. If the name calling happens to come from a person with white skin, Dame Susan glows with self righteous pleasure. That’s a bull’s eye. Raaaaaaacist!! Her efforts at rampant social engineering a la the United Nations suddenly become justified in her own eyes – the trite twit.

This is why Susan Devoy is devoid of any understanding of what her own culture, Western culture, has traditionally stood for. We already are, and always have been, a pluralistic society with individual rights and religious tolerance built into our (English) laws; the Human Rights Commission is completely superfluous, and so is its Commissioner. Dame Susan would have you believe that Western culture is nothing but a breeding ground for racism and discrimination when it is actually the very opposite - tolerant. Far too tolerant. This is a disgustingly ignorant default position from those like Dame Susan who are spectacularly indifferent to the matchless gifts inherited from their own culture - a culture so impressive that people from around the world from every other culture go to great lengths to migrate to it. Westerners do not reciprocate by migrating to other cultures much, why? The answer is because nothing can compare to the West in terms of freedom, values and wealth creation. This widespread flourishing is the result of superior ideas, ideas which drive the daily character of the greatest civilisation ever to grace this charming planet.

Part of New Zealand’s political beauty is that we are a secular nation, even though we were once founded on White Anglo Saxon Protestant values. We do not require our elected officials or leaders to hold to any particular religion, not even Christianity. But I have noticed that the creed of multiculturalism has become a zealous religion in itself. It even has a central dogma: ‘all cultures are equal’.

Like hell they are.

As if a culture which promotes freedom for all women is equal to a culture which enslaves them and lops off their genitals, due to a religious mandate.

As if a culture which practices religious tolerance is equal to a culture which tortures or kills you if you don’t observe Allah's laws, due to a religious mandate.

As if a culture which allows for the freedom of homosexuals to love whomever they please is equal to a culture which hurls them to their deaths from tall buildings, due to a religious mandate.

As if a culture which punishes paedophilia is equal to a culture which regularly marries little girls off to be raped daily by dirty old men, due to a religious mandate.

Don’t be sucked in by Dame Susan’s multicultural propaganda, which she peddles on behalf of the United Nations, who are ever more desperate to push migrating Muslims into Western lands.

As part of the anti-racist campaign more than 30 events are being held around the country throughout the months of March & April 2017 – all of them are funded by the Federation of Multicultural Councils putting on festivals with food, music, crafts etc. But one of these events is accidentally telling about the Human Rights Commission’s real agenda. Upper Hutt Multicultural Council held an interschool debate in a local library in order to discuss multiculturalism in NZ by debating the concept of ‘integration vs cultural diversity.’

You see, cultural diversity does not require that migrants from other cultures integrate into our country; integration is considered a racist notion. The people of Western countries are required to not care about nor want to protect their own culture, but instead be open to cultural diversity/equality at all times, in all ways, in every single respect and in all walks of life. Always. If not, you’re a racist- and like a good little modern day totalitarian, Dame Susan is impelling people to “record & report” you for your "hatred." Now, what do you think the Commissioner is going to do with all that recorded and reported data?

This deceitful, fascist wench has to go. The whole Commission has to go. If, god forbid, Islamic terrorist attacks ever start to happen in NZ, they will be on her pig ignorant head, and the heads of all other multiculturalists who preach this anti Western doctrine, and I for one will be here to hold them accountable.

If you enjoyed this article, please buy my book "Western Values Defended: A Primer"

33 Comments

Mike Mapperson

23/3/2017 01:34:36 am

If a potentially fatal disease infects a country or continent, the usual reaction is to invent and distribute a vaccine. PC governments eschew the embarrassing onus of vaccinating freedom-loving populations from the disease of random Islamic terror attacks.
Is it any surprise that some people choose to vent their frustration. Hate speech? "sticks and stones...." comes to mind.

Juana Atkins

23/3/2017 05:39:04 pm

Fantastic piece that I agree with 100%

Chad

23/3/2017 06:13:03 pm

Excellent piece! Glad I have found your blog.

Gerry Walmisley link

23/3/2017 06:21:42 pm

Fantastic article and not before time. Dame Susan has reached her level of incompetence and is struggling for meaning. While it is great to live in a multi-cultural society, the proviso is that there is a common set of mores, ethics and responsibilities that transcend all cultures. Someone on another bog described Islam as 'alien' which is so true as its central tenets and beliefs are totally incompatible with Western culture. Not only will they never integrate, they never CAN integrate for if they follow the political dictates of their cult integration is about total dominance of western freedom as freedom of speech is antithetical to Allah. Great post.

Redbaiter link

23/3/2017 10:54:20 pm

The terrorist who committed the recent attack in London is reported to be born in Britain. If true, this emphasizes an important point.

Immigrants who do not assimilate and when they come to a country build enclaves that resemble their own country bring no advantage or benefit.

What use is any country divided within by race and culture? Its a sure recipe for division, weakness and eventual decline. Or even widespread bloodshed as the different cultures eventually fight for social hierarchy.

Its time Western culture started valuing and working to preserve its own social achievements, and stopped dissipating them in foolish subjugation to the ideas of Marxist scum like Devoy and her brainwashed Critical Theory acolytes.

Leo

23/3/2017 11:51:15 pm

Intelligently written.
We should never forget that our civilisation was built on Christianity by Christian people.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the unconscionability of slavery arose from Christian teaching of the Fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man.
Devoy calls herself a Catholic.
In his encyclical, Evangelii Nuntiandi, Pope Paul VI rejected multi-culturalism with these words: "what matters is to evangelise man's cultures in depth and right to their very roots ... every effort must be made to ensure a full evangelisation of cultures ... they have to be regenerated by an encounter with the Gospel".

Olivia

13/6/2017 01:18:22 am

Really, Enlightenment culture was Judeo-Christianity merged with Greek philosophy. Without Greek philosophy, Aristotle most especially, Christianity on its own was hardly disposed to individual freedom. History taught us this. I am reluctant to say that our freedoms are a result of Christian culture. That is only half true at best.

13/6/2017 02:30:10 am

What's this mumbo jumbo, Olivia ?

Bill

24/3/2017 01:51:41 am

Good article written with insight.

P J Hall

24/3/2017 02:25:05 pm

Like many I watched Dame Susan's courage on the squash court and are sad to see her failing because of lack of good leadership. Such harsh criticism of her, but the Olivia Pierson makes a sound case.

Our times, in the West anyway, are post God, not post truth. After all truth is about accuracy and relevance. In post God, what is there to believe in. We can look at history and see steady improvements in civilising of culture and usually with a faith in God, I am reminded of the great sacrifices to stop Hitler. But as is pointed out above our leaders don't even value the West's improvements. In the West we need to believe in the great privilege it is to have so much power. Words are flung around with such hatred. Yet it is words. Words where the power comes from. Until the West recognises a replacement for God, there will be no unity or discipline, and chaos and pain will be common. The old culture will not go quietly. Psychology shows us how and why we are, but it is culture that focuses our collective minds on what we should value. It gives a priority.

I have found peace and strength. But only after the discovery of the power of words, then after much respect to value them. They are our world. A new king is needed. The truth. Value that properly and the primitive cultures will not seem as threatening.

Graeme

24/3/2017 11:16:59 pm

Susan Devoy has proven to be a one woman anti democratic wrecking ball Surely the worst Race relations commissioner we have ever had
I agree 100% with this article I have no idea what Judith Collins was thinking in appointing her to this position A more biased untalented
person would be difficult to find

NSNZ

25/3/2017 01:01:38 pm

Peace between muslims and non-mus is absolutely impossible, and therefore there is only one solution and that's for all non-muslim infidels around the World to band together to systematically expel all the enemy muslim invaders from our respective countries. As Islamic totalitarian society is totally incompatible with our non-muslim infidel society and so must be separated from our society. Otherwise they will conquer us and force us to convert or die. Are you listening Susan !!!!!

Alison Sky

25/3/2017 09:10:21 pm

Thank you for this insightful well written article. The head-in-the-sand attitude of PC Islamic apologists is dangerous ignorance. I agree wholeheartedly with Olivia Pierson.

30/3/2017 01:46:14 am

Thanks for your enthusiasm for this piece, dear commenters. I'm so glad there are others who wish to see Devoy and the Human Rights Commission go.

Nick Waldon

12/6/2017 07:46:05 pm

Thank you Olivia. Spot on. My question is: How us ordinaries can combat this woman's bias & the ensuing chaos it is GOING to create. Possibly civil war but I would hate to see it go that far. If you could pm me please?

16/6/2017 09:57:51 pm

Hi Nick, sorry for giving you false info... it is the Governor General, Patsy Reddy, who appoints the HR Commissioner (I said the Attorney General, Finlayson). Her address is: When writing to the Governor-General, her full title is:

Her Excellency The Right Honourable Dame Patsy Reddy GNZM, QSO
Governor-General of New Zealand

The title of the Governor-General's spouse is:
His Excellency Sir David Gascoigne
If you are writing to the Governor-General, address the letter to:
Her Excellency The Right Honourable Dame Patsy Reddy
Governor-General of New Zealand
Government House
Private Bag 39995
Wellington Mail Centre
Lower Hutt 5045

You can write to His Excellency at the same address. In either case, start your letter with: Your Excellency.

That is all straight off their website. :-)

GerryW link

11/5/2017 10:59:06 pm

Would it not be prudent to lay a complaint with the Race Relations Commission about Dame Sue and accuse her of inciting racial hatred by her totally ineffectual management of her office and the encouragement of immigration of people who are totally incompatible with this country's way of life.

As such her approach and lack of support for the NZ way of life encourages a climate whereby racism thrives and, if anything, will escalate intolerance rather than reduce it.

13/6/2017 01:45:18 am

Yes, that sounds prudent to me.

Eddie Light

12/6/2017 04:49:22 am

susan devoid is creating racism. She is stirring hate for Europeans by trying to prentend there is some sort of inbred racial discrimination against Maori by Europeans. Im totally disgusted with Susan Devoid. I note when Maori leaders start using the racist slur redneck, there is always silence from Susan Devoid. One only has to look at her comments in regards to the innocent University Celtic Group to show how one sided she is.

We have a race based Maori party. We have many race based Maori groups. A Maori law firm for gods sake that caters for Maori. Maori schools. Yet one lousy European group starts up and she immediately speaks up. Yet zero about all the Maori groups. She is biased and there is no doubting that. SHE HAS TO GO.

Max Sky

12/6/2017 08:05:45 pm

Thank you Olivia, I concur wholeheartedly that the position of human rights commissioner along with the commission should be disbanded. A well written salient article.

Peter

13/6/2017 01:24:53 am

cally, we should also be one world politically. Once this has been achieved, the Socialist One-Worlders mean to run things. Along the way, they intend to rub everyone else’s noses in “diversity” as some kind of twisted atonement for our allegedly white racist past. All must be made to wear the hair shirt.

Recent years have seen mass-scale immigration to New Zealand from particular destinations over a short space of time. This is not a good thing. If manageable numbers of people from one place arrive slowly, the assimilative mechanisms of the community can embrace and draw them into the melting pot, allowing them over time to become Kiwis.

Deliberately or short-sightedly swamping those assimilative mechanisms removes any incentive to assimilate, allowing immigrant groups to ghettoise into self-sustaining outposts of foreign cultures within their host community.

There’s an old saying with which all Westerners are familiar. “When in Rome, do as Romans do.” This is an obvious truth. If you move somewhere, you must conform to the laws and customs of the land. No society can have more than one culture.

Of course minorities should be free to practise their religion; to eat Kosher, Halal or other foods; and to celebrate Passover, Ramadan, Diwali, or Chinese New Year. But in matters affecting their relationship with the society in which they live, immigrant groups must accept the rules and practices of their host culture.

Salad basket multiculturalism has undermined this rule of common sense and decency. The multicultural society tells newcomers who settle here: they are free to behave contrary to our norms and values. This is because their norms and values are just as good, perhaps even better, than ours. The evidence from other jurisdictions that are 30 years ahead of New Zealand in not requiring immigrant groups to integrate with their host culture shows just how wrong-headed this approach actually is.

It is clear that Muslims, in particular, have no long-term intention of integrating with the Judeo-Christian culture of the Western countries that have permitted them to take up residence. Recent events surrounding an Auckland mosque, sparked by the banning by so-called “moderates” of an “extremist” Muslim cleric and his adherents, highlight what is only going to be a growing problem this country will have with Islam. Those seeking to disbar the hardliners are actually fighting a losing rearguard action for tolerance and pluralism as we shall see.

When their numbers are few, Muslims tend to keep their heads down, other than establishing a visual presence by publicly wearing Islamic clothing. But once emboldened by increasing numbers of co-religionists, they will begin to assert what they regard as their rightful supremacy over non-Muslims, as set out in Islamic scripture.

Elsewhere in the world, it can be seen that Muslims are only “peaceful” and “tolerant” until there are enough of them for the more pious and observant to encourage everyone else into flexing their religious muscles.

This occurs because Islam is not a Judeo-Christian “guilt-based” culture in which morality is personal and universalist (everyone must be treated the same), but a “shame-based” culture in which morality is collectivist and particularist (people are to be treated differently based on whether they are Muslim or non-Muslim).

Once Muslims have attained critical mass in a non-Muslim society, those who formerly wanted to just get along are shamed by those who more closely follow the original (intended) message of the Koran to self-segregate and wage war on infidels to get in behind this agenda.

What of immigrants from Communist China?

As a recent Wall Street Journal Asia article by Andrew Browne on PRC-born migrants reminds us: “[W]herever they go, those who depart [from Communist China] will be shadowed by the organs of the Leninist state they've left behind. A sprawling bureaucracy—the Overseas Chinese Affairs Office of the State Council—exists to ensure that distance from the motherland doesn't dull their patriotism. Its goal is to safeguard loyalty to the Communist Party.”

PRC-born migrants grew up in a Communist country. They were indoctrinated into the belief that Communism would one day supplant Capitalism by hook or by crook. Despite having been welcomed here with open arms, salad basket multiculturalism ensures many of these people will remain committed to advancing the strategic interests of a foreign power. Even if they’re not, the safety of family at home is always a loaded gun to their heads.

Flooding New Zealand with inassimilable migrants, many of whom who can never accept our existing Judeo-Christian, free market culture is an undemocratic act. The electorate was never asked if it wanted New Zealand transformed into a multi-ethnic, multicultural country. Had it been asked

13/6/2017 01:27:13 am

in those terms, it would have voted overwhelmingly against.

New Zealand, like every other Western country, is now run by a deeply embedded leftist establishment using its cultural dominance as a bully pulpit against anyone daring to question its monolithic world view. We’re told repeatedly by these people that unrestrained multiculturalism is good for us. “Diversity” is an end in itself and not to be contested. To ask “How much diversity is enough?” is to invite public crucifixion.

But put simply, New Zealanders need to be far more assertive about valuing the cultural identity of English-speaking, Judeo-Christian New Zealand. Otherwise, a large influx of inassimilable migrants will eventually force the wholesale deconstruction of New Zealand’s sense of its own identity. If nobody is prepared to stand up and be counted, New Zealand as we know it will disappear into the dustbin of history in the not too distant future.

Then there’s biculturalism. Since our Leftist establishment has convinced itself that this is mandated by the Treaty of Waitangi, much of the emphasis of migrant orientation classes is towards an indoctrination in Treatyism.

Biculturalism’s socialist promoters recognise and support the multicultural model referred to above, but claim that the cultural values of New Zealanders of mixed European-Maori descent identifying monoculturally as Maori must trump all others on the basis of ancestral longevity of some ancestors in the land.

There is no reason for us to elevate Maori culture to an undeserved pre-eminence. By any objective standard, the sum total of its contribution to human felicity is an ugly, gesticulating, tongue-poking, eye-rolling, thigh-slapping war dance of limited curiosity value when deployed before a rugby match.

If anyone can show otherwise, let them step up to the plate.

Racism is often conflated by Leftists with simple prejudice, which it is not. Principled opposition to unearned racial privilege and the belief that newcomers should be welcomed but required to conform to Judeo-Christian cultural norms is not racism. Nor is it typically evidence of prejudice.

Racism occurs where a group of prejudiced individuals get together to create a system affording them separate, different, or superior rights to everyone else on the basis of group membership.

I will leave it to readers to decide if New Zealand is a racist country, and if so, which group benefits most from this racism.
ENDS

Dave

20/6/2017 06:13:52 am

You had right up to :- "judeo-Christian".

The most absurd conglomeration of nonsense spouted.

Who do think is sitting quietly in the background pulling the strings to engineer the destruction of Christendom?

I despair. I really do.

13/6/2017 01:28:28 am

SECOND GENERATION JIHADIS
Intuitively, one would expect the second- and third-generation offspring of Muslim immigrants to be more acculturated to living in the West, and thus less likely than their parents to be involved in terrorist activity. Naive liberals are constantly suprised that this is not the case.

There’s a simple explanation as to why most acts of domestic terrorism in the West are carried out by second- and third-generation Muslims.

Imagine Ahmad, a peace-loving "Muslim in name only" who thinks Islam means peace. He's a nice guy. He's never read the Koran, but his parents are Muslims, so he considers himself Muslim.

Ahmad’s parents moved to the West to get away from the strictures of living in an Islamic society and welcome the religious tolerance and pluralism that is an essential part of Western culture.

They don’t practice any of the five pillars of Islam, but identify themselves as Muslim, since in the Islamic Community, apostasy is difficult, uncomfortable, and even dangerous. So they go with the programme, and say things like, "the Koran is the perfect and final word of Allah," because they're supposed to.

Aged 18, Ahmad goes to a mosque to explore his roots a little. He meets someone there who has read the Koran, studied it and believes in it. He says to Ahmad, "Do you realise your parents are hypocrites?"

And what rebellious young man trying to find his own way in life is not willing to hear that? As Theodore Dalrymple postulates: “It [Islam] … successfully squares the adolescent circle: the need both to conform to a peer group and to rebel against society.

The recruiter gives Ahmad a copy of the Koran. He tells him to read it, and talks to Ahmad about what it really says: that he must follow its teachings or he has no chance of getting into Paradise and every chance of burning in Hell forever.

What does Ahmad learn once he starts reading the Koran, which he’s been told almost since birth is the direct word of Allah? He discovers that jihad is an essential element of Islam. It is a core tenet. This isn't some fringe teaching that nobody cares about. It is a central purpose of Islam. Jihad is obligatory for all Muslims until all non-Muslims have been subjugated to Islamic law.

This political goal is a Muslim's religious duty. Mohammad didn't approve of meditation or navel-gazing. He said the way to prove your devotion to Allah is by action. This is made clear at Koran 4: 95: “Allah prefers Jihadists who strive hard and fight above those who sit home. He has distinguished his fighters with a huge reward.”

And what is this reward?

Islam teaches that one can never be certain of his or her ultimate "salvation." It teaches that the only certain way to enter paradise is to die in an act of martyrdom for Allah. That's how you get a “home-grown” terrorist.

And that’s what makes Islam so dangerous. Any Muslim, particularly if he’s a disaffected, troubled young man, is one Imam away from becoming a terrorist. As Theodore Dalrymple reminds us: “Jihad is a concept perfectly suited to giving psychopaths the idea that their viciousness serves something other than their own gratification.”

13/6/2017 01:29:32 am

We must also be mindful that Islamic terrorists are only the visible face of Islamic jihad. Mainstream "moderate" Muslims are also active, constantly working toward the end-goal of worldwide Islamic dominance.

They do it by paying their zakat (or temple tax) to the mosque. This goes to supporting Muslim causes (which are almost entirely political causes).

They do it by having lots of children, to give Muslims a demographic advantage in democratic countries.

They do it by making every non-Muslim they meet think that Muslims are harmless and well-meaning.

They do it by crying "racism" and “Islamophobia” every time every time Islam is criticised, though they know full well Islam is not a race. They say this because it gets the desired result: It shuts people up.

Misleading the non-Muslims as to the true nature of Islam is jihad. This is known as “jihad of the tongue” or “jihad of the pen.” As Muhammad said, "War is deceit." Muslims are even permitted to disavow Islam and Muhammad if it is not a genuine heartfelt rejection. Muslims know that concealment of a truth is not an abandonment of that truth if it benefits Islam.

They may appear very sincere. In fact, they are sincere when they lie for their own protection or in the cause of Islam. They have permission to lie. Muslims have no hope for eternal salvation without their good works, so they must keep working to advance Islam. If a few lies will accomplish that goal, then lying is not bad but good. If they can get good publicity for Islam by lying, then lying is acceptable, even desirable. The Muslim is earning his way to Allah’s paradise by lying to non-Muslims.

As noted above, no Muslim can be certain that his works are good enough for Allah’s paradise. The only Muslim who knows for sure that his eternal destiny is secure and he will wake up to find himself in a delightful garden filled with 72 virgins on soft green cushions is the one who dies in an act of jihad against non-Muslims.

Most Muslims probably lack the inclination to become a jihadi martyr, but every true Muslim must be involved in making the nation in which he lives a Muslim nation. They do this by supporting terrorists with money, succour, and cover. Sure, they are aiding terror against the West that has short-sightedly welcomed them with open arms, but since they believe they are doing Allah’s will, any deception is acceptable.

Muslim criminals can even justify their criminal behaviour by reference to Islam, as long as their crimes are committed against kafirs.

Robbing kafirs is an act of jihad, since Islamic scripture says that their property is ulitimately forfeit to Muslims.

Selling drugs to kafirs is an act of jihad, since it saps the vitality of their youth, rendering them incapable of resisting the coming Muslim take-over.

Raping kafir women is an act of jihad, since the Koran and example of Muhammad teaches that non-Muslim women are destined to be Muslim sex slaves. Raping their women also demoralises the kafir menfolk, leaving them less able to resist the advance of Islam.

It’s all jihad.

And no question of it, right now Muslims are winning the war.

13/6/2017 01:31:16 am

They’re winning on the streets of the West, and they’re winning the “War of Position.”

Occasionally, the MSM will that maybe five percent of Muslims are radical fundamentalists to minimise the reality of -- and connection to -- mainstream Islam. Islam is thus protected, and its true nature concealed. The percentage of cheerleaders and enablers is not mentioned.

According to WorldPublicOpinion.org, more than 50 percent of Muslims polled in Indonesia, and 75 percent of Muslims polled in Egypt, Morocco and Pakistan believe in the strict application of Sharia, or Islamic law. Nearly two-thirds of all respondents wanted to see the Islamic world united in a Muslim Caliphate.

An extensive July 2008 poll conducted in Britain by online research company YouGov and commissioned by the conservative Centre for Social Cohesion found that significant minorities of Muslim students at some of Britain's better colleges and universities embrace the most threatening aspects of Islam.

These include the conviction that killing in the name of religion can be justified (32 percent), belief that men and women shouldn't mix freely (40 percent), support for Sharia law in Britain (40 percent), and support for a global caliphate (33 percent), among other repressive tenets.

With numbers like these, portraying Jihadist war goals (Sharia, Caliphate) as belonging to a "tiny band of extremists" are far from accurate.

In a crude amalgam of Islam and Marxism, one of Islam’s eminent 20th century scholars, Pakistan’s Sheikh Maolana Mawdudi, argues that “the aim of Islam is to bring about a universal revolution.” He advocates that Muslims begin by transforming the countries in which they live into “Islamic states.” Once those Islamic states have “power and resources,” their obligation is to “fight and destroy non-Islamic governments and establish Islamic states in their place … [T]heir ultimate objective is none other than world revolution.” It’s worth noting that while Mawdudi had no time for most infidels, he wrote admiringly of the “ingenious and mighty leadership of Hitler and his comrades.”

Mahdudi further stated:

"Islam wishes to destroy all states and governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and program of Islam regardless of the country or the nation which rules it. The purpose of Islam is to set up a state on the basis of its own ideology and program … the objective of Islamic jihad is to eliminate the rule of an un-Islamic system and establish instead an Islamic system of state rule. Islam does not intend to confine this revolution to a single state or a few countries; the aim of Islam is to bring about a universal revolution."

Islamist ideologue, Sayyid Qutb, the “intellectual godfather” of modern Islamism, proclaimed that “a Muslim has no nationality except his belief,” and that Islam is “not a ‘religion’ in the sense this term is commonly understood.” Instead, Islam is meant to encompass “all fields of living” including politics and economics. He opposed democratic systems of governance because they replace God’s laws with man’s laws, thereby blasphemously diminishing the former and elevating the latter. A member of the Muslim Brotherhood, Qutb was executed in Egypt in 1966.

The Ayahtollah Khomeini, one of Islam’s most respected clerics, wrote in his Little Green Book: “Jihad means the conquest of all non-Muslim territories … It will then be the duty of every able-bodied adult male to volunteer for this war of conquest, the final aim of which is to put Koranic law in power from one end of the earth to the other … [it is] the duty of all Muslims in the world, in all Muslim countries, to carry the Islamic political revolution to its final victory.”

Council of American Islamic Relations (CAIR) is a “mainstream” lobby group dedicated to sugarcoating Islam, misrepresenting it as a “religion of peace,” and stigmatising opponents as “bigots.” Its founder, Omar Ahmad, said this to a group of American Muslims in 1998:

“Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth.”

13/6/2017 01:32:26 am

Mohammed Akram, a leader of the Muslim Brotherhood in America, wrote a memorandum, later obtained by the FBI, asserting that Brothers “must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilisation from within and sabotaging its miserable house by their hands and by the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”

In the context of this discussion, a single example of deliberate Muslim misdirection will suffice: "[T]here is nothing in the Koran or the Islamic faith that encourages people to be cruel or to be vicious or to be criminal," said Nihad Awad, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations. "Muslims worldwide know that for sure."

Such statements are strictly for non-Muslim consumption. Egyptian-born Nonie Darwish, an ex-Muslim whose father founded the terrorist Fedayeen in Gaza, has her own rejoinder to deceivers like Awad: "In the Arab world we were only taught one meaning for Jihad, and that is: a religious holy war against infidels and armed struggle against anyone who is not a Muslim."

Another former Muslim, Dr Ergun Caner, expresses a similar view to Darwish: “If anyone says that Islam is a religion of peace, they either don't know their faith, don’t know the Koran, or they are lying.”

The late Ayatollah Khomeini, who spearheaded the radical Islamic revolution that toppled the Shah of Iran in the late 1970’s and which subsequently spread worldwide, wrote in his book, Key to the Secrets:

“Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless. Islam says: Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! … Islam says: Kill in the service of Allah those who may want to kill you! … Islam says: Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! … There are hundreds of other psalms [from the Koran] and Hadiths [sayings and acts of Muhammad] urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all that mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim.”

Saudi Arabian iman, Mohammed al-Arefe, in Britain recently on a lecture tour, told his followers:

“Devotion to jihad for the sake of Allah, and the desire to shed blood, to smash skulls, and to sever limbs for the sake of Allah and in defence of His religion, is, undoubtedly, an honour for the believer. Allah said that if a man fights the infidels, the infidels will be unable to prepare to fight.”

Comments made on video by the leader of the Boko Haram movement that kidnapped around 300 Christian schoolgirls in Nigeria, forcing them to take the head cover and accept Islam, are similarly revealing:

“Everybody knows that democracy and the [Nigerian] constitution is paganism. You Christians should know that Jesus is not the Son of God. This religion of Christianity you’re practicing is not the religion of God. It’s paganism. We are trying to coerce you to embrace Islam because that is what God instructed us to do.”

These are all people following the original (intended) message of the Koran and the recorded example of Muhammad. Islam today is exactly what it has been for fourteen centuries: violent, intolerant, and expansionist. While religious violence contradicts the fundamentals of Christianity, religious violence is written into Islam's DNA.

Norman Geisler, co-author of Answering Islam, writes: “What Islam engages in is consistent with the teachings of the [Koran] and Muhammad, while what some Christians did in the Crusades is contrary to the teachings of the Bible and Jesus Christ." Geisler says that although violence is the “illogical” result of Christianity, "Violence is the logical outworking of Islam."

Anyone getting it yet?

The establishment of Islam in the West is fundamentally inconsistent with Western institutions and values, and must be resisted with every means at our disposal. Our ongoing failure to grasp the nature of this doctrine that turns men into deceitful killers means such men could eventually destroy Western civilisation in the service of their totalitarian religion.

Accepting the presence of a snake and attempting to love it doesn't permanently change the character or intent of the snake. If you accommodate and love the snake long enough, eventually it will bite you because that is the nature of snakes. The longer you accommodate and feed the snake, the less fear it will have and the longer its fangs will grow.

If Western culture is not to fall to militant Islam, Islamic terrorism must be recognised as part of an undeclared war of religious ideology, one not of our own making. Any attempt to establish democracy in the Islamic world i

13/6/2017 01:34:10 am

s doomed to failure because we are dealing with people whose religion and religious leaders view democracy as an intolerable blasphemy against Allah, as well as a criminal act against Islam and Muhammad.

The words of Allah as revealed by Muhammad is, and will remain, perfect and not to be subjected to popular vote. This renders rule of man by man through democracy a blasphemous imperfection. Law and rule are to be the perfect word and law as revealed in the Koran through Muhammad and interpreted by an all-powerful religious leadership.

Since Islam cannot be reformed, we have essentially two choices: Either Islam must be quarantined, or it must be destroyed and replaced with a religious philosophy that is genuinely peaceful.

Both options involve hard choices, but quarantine must be regarded as the better and far more peaceable course. It would involve ending Muslim immigration, restricting travel to and from Muslim countries, outlawing Islam as a hate organisation in Western nations (just as most Muslim states outlaw Judaism and Christianity), the immediate repatriation of all resident Muslims to their country of origin, and ending our dependence on Middle Eastern oil.

The second option involves nuclear weapons and catastrophic consequences for hundreds of millions of people. If Iran gets the bomb and uses it, the second option may be in play. Muslim Jihadists who believe death in a war against infidels leads to martyrdom and heavenly rewards cannot be deterred. For them, as Middle East scholar Bernard Lewis has observed, “Mutually assured destruction is not a deterrent — it is an inducement.”

Here are the rules that apply in the serious, healthy adult world. If you hear such things as “Fight and kill the unbelievers wherever ye shall find them” and "Fight them till all opposition ends and the only religion is Islam," all pleasant discourse should cease at that point and no further smokescreens be listened to or accepted. There is no more to be said.

On the other hand, if you say such things, associate with people or religions that say or say and act out such things, you deserve to be killed as soon as possible to prevent such pronouncements from being acted upon. This is particularly so when your religion has a 1, 500 year history of terrorism and murder. That's the bargain you enter into. Don't expect any slack or to be treated as children. Muslims should be treated as wanton vicious killers because that is what they are regardless of what they think they are, wish they were, or claim to be.

Making peace signs, or holding hands and singing “Kumbaya” to people whose declared intent is to kill or enslave you will not make them go away or leave you alone. That’s the bottom line and nothing else counts. It's time to load your rifle.

ENDS

13/6/2017 01:35:30 am

Comparing Islam to Christianity is called a moral equivalence argument. It fails.

A moral equivalence argument holds that two unrelated wrongs make a right (or at least cancel one another out).

Muslims practising tacquieya (religiously sanctioned lying misrepresenting Islam as “peaceful”) and West-hating Socialist traitors running interference for Islam often deploy moral equivalence arguments, which attempt to conflate the historic acts of Christians or one-of acts of terrorism perpetrated by attention-seeking narcissists with the way Muslims have behaved (and continue to behave) for the last 1400 years since the time of Muhammad. The implication is that since Christians are just as bad as Muslims, we have no business pointing the finger at Muslims.

Moral equivalence arguments invariably arise when the point is made that Islam is not a “Religion of Peace” at all, but a “Religion of Violence.” These arguments are misleading or irrelevant and do not contest the actual evidence that violence is inherent in Islam. Nonetheless, they have proven rhetorically effective in shielding Islam from serious scrutiny.

Their point is to suggest that the world is made up of two "morally equivalent" religions and their resulting cultures. Both do nasty things (though somehow Islamic actions are always more "defensible") in a struggle for world domination meaning Westerners have no moral standing to object to the actions of Islamic Jihadists.

Moral equivalence arguments conflating Islam and Christianity are unsustainable. Christianity condemns violence while Islam promotes it. The simple fact is that Jesus was a man of peace, taught His disciples to be non-violent, and the New Testament does not have a single verse instructing violence in it.

The Bible records Jesus as acting violently just once. Against property, not persons, when He overturned the tables of the moneychangers in the Temple because they’d turned the House of God into a den of thieves. Jesus instructed His disciples to “turn the other cheek” to their enemies. When Peter cut off the ear of a man in the party sent to arrest Him, Jesus healed the man and restored his severed ear. The Disciples were told: “Those who live by the sword die by the sword.”

To be a Christian, one must strive to emulate Jesus and follow New Testament instruction. The fact that many who profess to be Christians do not follow the example of Jesus or adhere to biblical instruction does not make Christianity culpable. Christian hypocrites are not unknown.

Contrast this with Islam. At Koran 40: 35, we learn that kafirs (non-Muslims) are “despised by Allah.” The Koran explicitly commands Muslims to be violent to kafirs, to Muslims who are insufficiently pious according to Islamic law (hypocrites), and to those who abandon their Islamic religion (apostates).

Muslims are told at Koran 33: 21 that a Muslim who loves Allah and wishes to enter paradise must strive to emulate Muhammad: “Assuredly you have in the Messenger of Allah [Muhammad] an excellent example to follow for whoever looks forward to Allah and the Last Day, and remembers and mentions Allah much.

13/6/2017 01:36:39 am

And what is this example?

According to Islamic sources accepted by all Muslims, Muhammad was a man of violence. The Sira (Muhammad’s biography by Ibn Ishaq) and the various Ahadith collections (the authenticated sayings and actions of Muhammad) demonstrate that he taught his followers to be violent, to assassinate his critics, to bear false witness, and to enter into treaties one has no intention of keeping if these actions advance Islam. Kafirs who refuse to accept Islam can be lied to, deceived, robbed, raped, murdered, their children sold as slaves, and their womenfolk handed out to Muslims as sex slaves.

So violent Muslims are acting entirely in accordance with both the commandments of Allah and the example and instructions of Muhammad; while violent Christians are acting completely contrary to the teachings and example of Jesus. It should be noted at this point that the Christian doctrine of “just war” was developed in response to centuries of unprovoked jihadist aggression by Muslims against Christendom.

You cannot blame Christianity for violence when it teaches peace. Islam, on the other hand, can most certainly be blamed for violence because it teaches violence.

Simple as that.

When the topic of discussion is Islam, all the leftard shills running interference for it start pointing the finger at other religions, especially Christianity. Funny that.

When we’re talking about the Catholic Church and paedophile priests you don't see leftards jumping in with “And what about those Muslims?” even if Islamic scripture endorses greybearded old men taking child brides as young as nine years old.

No, they stick to the topic.

Unlike any discussion about Islam that is relentlessly converted into a comparison with Christianity. And always becomes a hate on Christianity.

Leftard "atheists” are actively and implacably anti-Christian (“Religion is the Opiate of the Masses”), but always stand up for Islam as “the enemy of my enemy.” A genuine atheist wouldn't give a monkey's crutch-piece whether someone had any religion or no religion, since they don't believe in it anyway.

Funny how leftard atheists constantly go on the defensive for Islam.

Curious behaviour.
ENDS

Dane

13/6/2017 03:43:10 am

There are two issues that people dont get. There are Muslims and there is islam. Are all Muslims bad? No, although they all do help perpetuate islam.

Is islam evil? Yes. In every sense of the word. Its the greatest killing machine ever invented and deaths and out right debauchery caused by islam makes Nazi Germany, Pol Pot, Stalin and any other evil regime combined, pale in comparison.

Why the west gives islam the time of day when the West is supposedly trying to stop human rights abuse, is beyond my understanding.

The west should refuse to recognize islam until it cleans up its act! Although i doubt islam ever will. The basis of islam is too evil.

We owe islam and Muslims nothing. Why is there this cry that we must submit to letting them in to our countries? Islam is not a race of people. It's not wrong to stop people believing in kkk from coming in to our country. If stopping muslims from coming in is biggoted then isnt it just as biggoted stopping KKK members from entering our country?

Again are all Muslims bad. No, but all Muslims do help perpetuate Islam and for that reason I believe we need a ban on Muslims entering our country. If that is a step to far for the snow flakes, then perhaps closing immigration to a crawl and very carefully vetting who we let in is the next best option.

Personally I want to see a a bann on islamic immigration. We owe lslam nothing. We do not owe them a place in our society. Remember, islam is just like fairy story. Just like the tooth fairy, its a made up cult. Why the hell should we bend to some one elses evil fantasies?

14/6/2017 08:50:48 pm

Great point - we owe Islam nothing.
Not all Germans were Nazis, but when they were running around Europe killing people with abandon, to be suspicious of Germans was a rational response. Interesting how the Nazis killed many Germans who were not Jews, the ones who were not supporters of Nazism or spoke out against it. Just like Jihadists kill other Muslims whom they deem to not be "Islamic" enough.

14/6/2017 09:59:02 pm

Yes, good point. We could remember that, during World War II, for example, German citizens and Japanese citizens were incarcerated just because it was very reasonable to question their alliances.

New Zealand Lashed by Constant Race Relations Propaganda

Leave a Reply.

Post Archives

Links to Other Blogs