The Left hates gays and wants them to be killed. The Left believes women should be the slaves of men. The Left wants a world-ruling totalitarian theocracy. The Left wants the Jewish state to be wiped off the face of the earth, and all Jews ditto unless they humbly pay the theocrats protection money. The Left wants to forbid free speech. 

Of course the Left does not SAY it wants all that. It SAYS it really likes gays. It SAYS it believes in women’s equality and self-determination. It SAYS it wants religion kept out of politics. It SAYS – sometimes? occasionally? okay very occasionally – that it is against anti-Semitism. It SAYS it is for free speech.

Yet it protects, cossets, excuses, adulates, fawns upon, grovels to, and promotes Islam which wants all that.

Present proof:

The leader of the so-called Conservative Party of Britain hastened to recruit the 10 members of the Northern Irish Democratic Unionist Party to her side in order to have a (barely) working majority in Parliament after she lost many seats in a recent unnecessary general election. But no sooner did she think she had secured a life-saver, than furious protestors, including some Scottish members of her own party, tried to snatched it away. Hundreds took to the streets to demand that the DUP be kept out of government.

Mark Steyn writes about this new maelstrom set swirling in the ever more turbulent waters of the government in which Prime Minister Theresa May is flailing.

According to the slogans, the Democratic Unionist Party is a “hate” group because it is “anti-gay, anti-green, anti-women”. That’s to say, they’re opposed to same-sex marriage, abortion, and take a relaxed view of the impending climate apocalypse.

Oh, my.

Even worse, such views have made them Ulster’s most popular political party … Still, you can understand why the mob has briefly roused itself from Google to take to the streets to protest this week’s designated haters. It’s certainly unfortunate that Theresa May’s grip on power depends on such “anti-gay” and “anti-women” types, isn’t it?

But surely it’s also unfortunate that Jeremy Corbyn’s grip on power in the resurgent Labour Party depends on “anti-gay” and “anti-women” types, too. As Brendan O’Neill points out:

And all the while we have Labourites like Jeremy Corbyn mixing with Islamist groups that share all these same social views, except in an even more extreme form. Yet the people beating the streets over the DUP say nothing.

That’s true. Theresa May’s more recalcitrant friends in the DUP think gays are godless sodomites who’ll be spending eternity on a roasting spit in hell. Jeremy Corbyn’s more recalcitrant friends are disinclined to wait that long and would rather light them up now – or hurl them off the roof. Hamas, which Mr Corbyn supports, is fairly typical. Sample headline from Newsweek:

Hamas Executes Prominent Commander After Accusations Of Gay Sex

Doesn’t that make Hamas an anti-gay “hate group”? Well, no. You can bet that 90 per cent of the Google activists in the street protesting Theresa May’s ties to people who think men who love men shouldn’t be permitted to marry are entirely relaxed about Jeremy Corbyn’s ties to people who think men who love men should be burned alive or tossed off tall buildings.

This contradiction exists all over the western world. Today’s progressives cling to the most cobwebbed cliches: Polygamy? That’s something Mormons do in Utah, not Muslims in Canada, France, Britain, Sweden, with the not so tacit connivance of the state welfare systems. First-cousin marriage? That’s something stump-toothed Appalachians do after a bunk-up with Cindy Mae and a jigger of moonshine, not 75 per cent of Pakistani Britons in Bradford, and some 58 per cent throughout the rest of the country.

As for gays, forget Hamas and consider Jeremy Corbyn’s supporters in the United Kingdom: Fifty-two per cent of Muslims told Channel 4 they believed homosexuality should be illegal. Yet Mr Corbyn’s Labour Party has so assiduously courted these “haters” that it’s now electorally dependent on them. Mrs May didn’t court her haters in Ulster, and she’s wound up depending on them merely as an unintended consequence of her own ineptitude on the hustings.

Just to spell it out even more plainly, last year YouGov polled Britons in general on their attitudes to the aforementioned sodomites. Seventeen per cent thought homosexuality was “morally wrong”. If that sounds unnervingly high to you, what’s the reason? Over-sampling in East Belfast? A few rural backwaters not quite up to speed on the new gayer-than-thou Britain? No. In most parts of the country about 15 per cent declined to get with the beat. But in diverse, multicultural London, 29 per cent of the population regarded homosexuality as “morally wrong”.

So all those ninnies in the streets of London protesting 300,000 haters they’d never heard of twenty minutes earlier are surrounded by two-and-a-half million haters every day of their lives – in the Tube, in the restaurants, in the shops and offices of their supposedly vibrant, progressive metropolis.

Now why do you think that is? Could it possibly be connected to the fact that London is more “diverse”? As Douglas Murray points out in his soberly provocative new book The Strange Death of Europe, by the 2011 census in 23 of the capital’s 33 boroughs so-called “white British” people were in a minority. (You can bet it’s even more boroughs now.) And you can’t help noticing, sauntering around, say, Tower Hamlets, that the more “diverse” the community gets the fewer gays you see, and uncovered women, at least after dusk and walking about unaccompanied. It’s not quite the “Gay-Free Zone” promised by the posters of the Sharia Patrols, but it’s getting there.

So, if you think Ulster’s homophobic now, wait till its population is as multicultural as London’s. Boy, that’ll be a vote bonanza for the DUP haters, right? Except that, by then, Jeremy Corbyn will be posing in Fermanagh and Tyrone villages beaming next to body-bagged crones and full-bearded imams.

Thirteen years ago in The Spectator I wrote the following:

A few weeks back I was strolling along the Boulevard de Maisonneuve in Montreal when I saw a Muslim woman across the street, all in black, covered head to toe, the full hejab. She was passing a condom boutique, its window filled with various revolting novelty prophylactics, ‘cum rags’, etc. It was a perfect snapshot of the internal contradictions of multicultural diversity. In 30 years’ time, either the Arab lady will still be there, or the condom store, but not both. Which would you bet on?

We are not yet halfway through that thirty years, but the condom boutique has gone. And in Canadian citizenship ceremonies the Muslim woman can now take her oath of allegiance wearing the full body-bag – while Justin Trudeau marches in the LGBTQWERTY Pride Parade. Like I said: In the medium run, which would you bet on? Forty per cent of five-year-olds in Germany are of “non-European” extraction: What do you think their attitudes to gays and women will be in twenty years’ time? Or are you hoping you can hold the line on the “anti-green” thing and they’ll still support the Paris Accords? …

The fools prancing in the London streets denouncing a benign and harmless Democratic Unionist Party are auditioning to be Islam’s prison bitches. But they’ll be obsessing about the last socially conservative right-wing redneck on earth even as the haters all around consume them.

Tommy Robinson leads the protest against Muslim terrorism and the Islamization of Britain, Sunday June 11, 2017.

(Hat-tip to our British associate, Chauncey Tinker)

Paul Weston states precisely what needs to be done to put an end to Muslim terrorism in Britain:

(Hat-tip to our indispensable commenter, liz)

Theresa May, Prime Minister of Britain by some facetious quirk of fate, stupidly called a very early general election, and lost the support of millions of voters. Her wild action resuscitated the Labour Party, which was almost defunct under the leadership of the Member for Hamas, Jeremy Corbyn.

She must form a government to keep Britain from prematurely becoming the Islamic land it is destined to be. She can only do so now by entering into a coalition with a smaller party.

Then she needs to be replaced. By a man, we hope. There are far too many women – of both biological sexes – in European governments. (Margaret Thatcher was one of the very rare exceptions among biological women who could think politically like a man.  She was often and rightly called “the best man in the Conservative Party”.)

(We also except the two women on the four-member editorial board of The Atheist Conservative.)

Which brings us back to our deliberately provocative statement, made from time to time on these pages, that “the human race consists of adults and women”.

What Britain needs is a true conservative, an adult in the patriarchal tradition. He should also be fiercely anti-Islam. (But would a militantly anti-Islam politician be allowed to live?)

Raheem Kassam writes at Breitbart:

There may be a silver lining for small-c conservative voters following the shock results of the UK General Election. The Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) — whom the Conservatives will seek a coalition government with — is far closer to conservative philosophy than Britain’s Tories have been for decades.

Formed in 1971 by Dr. Rev. Ian Paisley, now deceased, the party grew out of the Protestant Unionist Party.

Built upon the resistance to Irish Republican terrorism and a pro-UK, unionist mindset, the DUP also represents staunchly social conservative values.

Well, on the plus side for small-c conservatives, the DUP may remind the Tories what they are supposed to believe, philosophically.

The DUP forms the largest bloc in the Northern Ireland Assembly and has a far stronger socially conservative record on matters such as same sex marriage and access to abortion.

So to us the DUP is not the ideal modifying force on the British Tories. We ourselves have nothing against same-sex marriage, and though we are against abortion in general we know there are times when it is a necessary recourse.

We also regret that the leader of the DUP is yet another woman. But many of their policies are sound:

Now led by mother of three Arlene Foster, the DUP were staunchly pro-Brexit at the UK referendum on membership of the European Union, with some of their activists and leaders joining UKIP leader Nigel Farage on his Brexit tour ahead of the vote. …

During the referendum, the DUP allied with the Leave.EU and Grassroots Out campaigns, and their manifesto states:

The DUP sees no value in the attempts by some to keep re-running the referendum. Instead, we want to get on with the work to make it a success; to write our own laws; to deliver on the vision of a Global UK with new free trade deals; to control immigration; to deliver policies for farming and fishing shaped to our needs; to lift the burden of unnecessary regulation.

… The party’s MPs hold an array of views on climate change, though many believe the DUP to be “climate change sceptics”.

The former finance minister Sammy Wilson has said: “…we are already paying through the nose for electricity because we go down the route of the dearest electricity possible through renewable energy” and are “putting our agricultural industry in jeopardy because there is no greater producer of greenhouse gases than cows”.

He has referred to climate change legislation as a “con”.

So of course the Left hates them:

Hard leftist groups like OpenDemocracy have already begun sharing articles packed with fake news about the DUP.

The Soros-funded group, which claims to represent “independent” media, claims the DUP had some sort of definitive links to a post-“fascist turn” Enoch Powell, the former Conservative Member of Parliament who warned over mass migration into the United Kingdom.

Such a “fascist turn” is a myth in itself, and Powell’s only link to the DUP was via his campaign manager who was in a different party at the time. …

The Soros site refers to the DUP as “Irish terrorists”, though the campaign of terrorism was waged by the DUP’s opponents, with the Ulster Resistance usually being referred to as a paramilitary group. The IRA, which targeted civilians, infrastructure, the British Army, and British unionists, are commonly regarded as the most influential terrorist outfit, and believed to be linked to DUP opponents Sinn Fein. The IRA killed around 1,700 people during the Troubles.

The Resistance was never implicated in a major incident that took place, with most civilian deaths attributable to the IRA — perhaps the only group alongside its political partners who would refer to the Ulster Resistance as “terrorists”. …

The DUP has said: “The party’s stance is consistent, that anyone involved in illegal activity should be investigated and face the full weight of the law.”

Sources close to the DUP have suggested to Breitbart London that “all they’ll want is cash”, but between Arlene Foster’s need to form a new executive in Northern Ireland, and the socially conservative views of its members, the DUP will likely be thinking carefully about what they can get the Conservative Party to compromise upon from the centre-left manifesto issued by Theresa May.

A “centre-left” conservative party! If the DUP can make it genuinely conservative, and further enrage George Soros the earthly Satan – then this election has not been a disaster after all but the means to better government and more victories over the evil Left.

But under new, male leadership, we hope.

The best thing that could happen tomorrow in Britain would be that nobody turns out to vote in the general election, as voters have no real choice between the two pusillanimous parties, both of which are intent on enabling the Islamization of Britain. But such a clear signal to the ruling class that the people won’t stand for the slow destruction of their nation a moment longer, will not be given. The amazingly leftist Conservative Party led by clueless Theresa May will be returned to government. And the slow suicide of Britain will continue. 

There is a resistance movement forming, under the courageous leadership of working-class Tommy Robinson. He is organizing a protest demo in Manchester on this coming Sunday June 11, 2017. Can he save Britain?

With or without resistance, because British governments have let Islam in and given it power, there will be blood.

Giulio Meotti writes at Gatestone:

In the four European countries most targeted by terror attacks – Britain, France, Belgium and Germany – the number of official extremists  has reached 66,000. That sounds like a real army, on active duty.

That is to say, 66,000 Muslims known to be involved with terrorism.

Throughout this article, wherever “extremist” and “Islamist” occur, “Muslim terrorist” or “jihadist” must be understood.

Intelligence officers have identified 23,000 Islamic extremists living in Britain as potential terrorists. The number reveals the real extent of the jihadist threat in the UK. The scale of the Islamist challenge facing the security services was disclosed after intense criticism that many opportunities to stop the Manchester suicide bomber had been overlooked.

French authorities are monitoring 15,000 Islamists, according a database created in March 2015 and managed by France’s Counter-Terrorism Coordination Unit. Different surveys estimate up to 20,000 French radical Islamists.

The number on Belgium’s anti-terror watch-list surged from 1,875 in 2010 to 18,884 in 2017. In Molenbeek, the well-known jihadist nest in the EU capital, Brussels, intelligence services are monitoring 6,168 Islamists. Think about that: 18,884 Belgian jihadists compared to 30,174 Belgian soldiers on active duty.

The number of potential jihadists in Germany has exploded from 3,800 in 2011 to 10,000, according to Hans-Georg Maassen, head of the Office for the Protection of the Constitution (Germany’s domestic intelligence service).

These Islamists have built a powerful infrastructure of terror inside Europe’s cities. These terror bases are self-segregated, multicultural enclaves in which extremist Muslims promote Islamic fundamentalism and implement Islamic law, Sharia – with the Tower Hamlets Taliban of East London; in the French banlieues [suburbs], and in The Hague’s “sharia triangle”, known as “the mini-caliphate”  in the Netherlands. These extremist Muslims can comfortably get their weapons from the Balkans, where, thanks to Europe’s open borders, they can travel with ease. They can also get their money from abroad, thanks to countries such as Qatar and Saudi Arabia. These Islamists can self-finance through the mosques they run, as well as get “human resources,” donated by unvetted mass migration coming through the Mediterranean.

23,000 potential jihadists in the UK, 18,000 in Belgium, 10,000 in Germany, 15,000 in France. What do these numbers tell us? There might be a war in Europe “within a few years”, as the chief of the Swedish army, General Anders Brännström, told the men under his command that they must expect.

Take what happened in Europe with the terror attacks from 1970 to 2015:

4,724 people died from bombings. 2,588 from assassinations. 2,365 from assaults. 548 from hostage situations. 159 from hijackings. 114 from building attacks. Thousands were wounded or missing.

Terrorism across Europe has killed 10,537 people in 18,803 reported attacks. And it is getting worse:

Attacks in 2014 and 2015 have seen the highest number of fatalities, which includes terrorists targeting civilians, government officials, businesses and the media, across Europe since 2004.

A jihadist takeover of Europe is no longer unthinkable. Islamic extremists are already reaping what they sowed: they successfully defeated Geert Wilders and Marine Le Pen, the only two European candidates who really wanted to fight radical Islam. What if tomorrow these armed Islamists assault the Parliament in Rome, election polls in Paris, army bases in Germany or schools in London, in a Beslan-type attack?

The terrorists’ ransom is already visible: they have destabilized the democratic process in many European countries and are drafting the terms of freedom of expression. They have been able to pressure Europe into moving the battle-front from the Middle East to Europe itself. Of all the French soldiers engaged in military operations, half are deployed inside France; in Italy, more than half of Italian soldiers are used in “Safe Streets,” the operation keeping Italy’s cities safe.

After 9/11, the United States decided to fight the Islamists in Afghanistan and Iraq, not to have to fight them in Manhattan. Europe chose the opposite direction: it as if Europe had accepted to turn its own cities into a new Mosul.

If Europe’s leaders do not act now to destroy the enemy within, the outcome may well come to be an “Afghan scenario”, in which Islamists control part of the territory from where they launch attacks against cities. Europe could be taken over the same way Islamic State took over much of Iraq: with just one-third of Iraqi territory.

In any case Europe will be mainly Muslim soon, because the Muslim immigrants have many children and the indigenous peoples have few.

And because there is no real difference between “Islamism” and “Islam”.

So yes, the jihadist takeover of Europe is not unthinkable. It is Europe’s future.

Caolan Robertson speaks for hundreds of millions of us in the Western world AGAINST OUR ENEMY – ISLAM:

What’s new about the Islamization of Europe; atrocious acts of terrorism carried out by Muslims in the name of Islam; the importing by European governments of millions of Muslims; and the failure of those government to save their people from rape, sudden death, the sexual enslavement of their young daughters, and gradual political dominance by this alien savage enemy?

Nothing new. The suicide of the European nations goes on. And the lies the governments tell themselves and their people are repeated.

Yesterday, on Fox  News, Steve Hilton interviewed British Conservative MP Michael Gove in connection with the recent Muslim attacks in London.

In summary, Mr. Gove said that Islam is a religion of peace; that the billion and a half Muslims spread over the world are dedicated to … charity.

Sure, the giving of alms – zakat – is one of the five pillars of Islam. What Mr. Gove hadn’t bothered to find out is that the alms go only to Muslims, and much of it goes to funding terrorism. He also hadn’t chosen to notice that Muhammad was a warlord and Islam decrees that “holy war” – jihad – is every Muslim’s sacred duty. It must be waged against all who are not Muslim until everyone on earth has either submitted to Islam by converting to it or is paying it a mighty fine for daring to live on unconverted, or is dead. The entire history of Islam is an uninterrupted record of war and conquest, persecution and massacre. Never a peaceful moment in it. Oh, Mr. Gove mentions that there “had been strands of violence” in Islam’s past, but nothing like the violent movement there is now, he avers.

This violent movement, he tell us, is something called “Islamism” which is entirely different from Islam. [To find our numerous posts debunking this nonsense, put “Islam is Islam” into our search slot.] He traces it back to  … the twentieth century.

“Islamism”, he says very emphatically and authoritatively, “turns that generosity” – all that charity giving – “into resentment”. And what do “Islamists” resent? That Islam is in decline.

Thus the indiscriminate murder of dozens and the agonizing injury of many more in London in the last few days, by these “Islamists”. You see?

No, we don’t either.

Robert Spencer, who really does know what the history of Islam is, writes at Jihad Watch:

[The British Prime Minister] Theresa May says [there is] “far too much tolerance of extremism in our country,” and that “when it comes to taking on extremism and terrorism things need to change”. Then she repeats the same false and failed analysis, that the jihad “is a perversion of Islam”. Her refusal to identify the motivating ideology behind these jihad attacks means that she will never confront this enemy properly, and never deal with the real source of the incitement to violence. 

And the international Left, which has promoted the advance of Islam in the West – and to which all the ruling parties of Europe belong, even those that call themselves “conservative” – is happy to accept that Muslim terrorists will strike at any time in any public place, and advises us simply to accept that this is the new norm. (See here and here and here.) President Macron of France says we “should learn to live with terrorism”. And to die from it.

So there actually is something everyone acknowledges to be new: that it is normal in Western countries to live under the perpetual threat of sudden violent death at the hands of the charitable progeny of the peaceful warlord, Muhammad.  

Western Europe, a large part of the First World, is transforming itself into part of the Third World, a deliberate regression.

What are the rulers of western Europe thinking as they continue to insist on bringing hordes of hostile barbarians into their countries, eventually to rule over them? The demographic transformation costs an enormous chunk of each nation’s economy. The indigenous citizens suffer a huge increase of criminal attacks, rape, robbery, murder and terrorism. Yet the governments continue to invite vast numbers of aliens in; aliens whose culture, customs, morals, values, law, religion, ideology, and standards of everything from hygiene to education, are wholly incompatible with their own?

The indigenous populations are shrinking? They need more workers to maintain the welfare state? And if immigrants are parasites and not workers that’s still okay so there must some other reason? You’re sorry for them, they come from war-torn countries, you want to give them asylum because you want to show brotherly love to fellow-human-beings-in-distress? But aren’t these the very people who have made the wars? Aren’t these the same ones who are torturing and burning to death and drowning in boiling oil their fellow-human-beings-in-distress? Can’t they improve their own countries rather than wrecking yours by making yours quite as nasty as the ones they’ve left behind them?

Millions of Europeans don’t like losing their country, their property, and their lives to the barbarians, and they could stop it by changing their governments, but they don’t. They vote the same destroyers of their heritage back into power over and over again. Why?   

You say the answers to all these questions are in the mail? Or are they blowing in the wind?

Heather Mac Donald writes at Front Page:

Liberal ideology conceives of “safe spaces” in the context of alleged white patriarchy, but there was a real need for a “safe space” in Britain’s Manchester Arena on May 22, when 22-year-old terrorist Salman Abedi detonated his nail- and screw-filled suicide bomb after a concert by teen idol Ariana Grande. What was the “progressive” answer to yet another instance of Islamic terrorism in the West? Feckless calls for resisting hate, pledges of renewed diversity, and little else.

A rethinking of immigration policies is off the table. Nothing that an Islamic terrorist can do will ever shake the left-wing commitment to open borders—not mass sexual assaults, not the deliberate slaughter of gays, and not, as in Manchester last week, the killing of young girls. The real threat that radical Islam poses to feminism and gay rights must be disregarded in order to transform the West by Third World immigration. Defenders of the open-borders status quo inevitably claim that if a terrorist is a second-generation immigrant, like Abedi, immigration policy has nothing to do with his attack. (Abedi’s parents emigrated to Britain from Libya; his immediate family in Manchester lived in the world’s largest Libyan enclave outside Africa itself.) Media Matters ridiculed a comment about the Manchester bombing by Fox News host Ainsley Earhardt with the following headline: fox news host suggests ‘open borders’ are to blame for manchester attack carried out by british native.

Earhardt had asked how to prevent “what’s happening in Europe, with all these open borders, they’re not vetting, they’re opening their borders to families like this, and this is how they’re paid back in return”. Pace Media Matters, a second-generation Muslim immigrant with a zeal for suicide bombing is as much of an immigration issue as a first-generation immigrant with a terrorist bent. The fact that second-generation immigrants are not assimilating into Western culture makes immigration policy more, not less, of a pressing matter. It is absurd to suggest that Abedi picked up his terrorist leanings from reading William Shakespeare and William Wordsworth, rather than from the ideology of radical Islam that has been imported into Britain by mass immigration.

The Washington Post, too, editorialized that “defenders of vulnerable immigrants and asylum seekers, who in Britain as elsewhere in the West remain the targets of populist demagogues, could take some comfort from the fact that the assault apparently did not originate with those communities.” Well, where did the assault originate from — Buckingham Palace?

Since liberals and progressives will not allow a rethinking of open borders policy, perhaps they would support improved intelligence capacity so as to detect terror attacks in the planning stages? Nope. The Left still decries the modest expansions of surveillance power under the 2001 Patriot Act as the work of totalitarianism. Former New York Police Commissioner Ray Kelly sought to gather publicly available information about dense Muslim neighborhoods in New York in order to monitor potential radicalization; his discontinued initiative is still denounced as anti-Muslim oppression. Internet companies protect encrypted communications from government access, to the applause of civil libertarians and the mainstream media. The National Security Agency’s mass data analysis, done by unconscious computer algorithms, is still being challenged in court. …

So what does the progressive and liberal bloc offer? Treacly bromides, combined with fatalism about the necessity of adjusting to future attacks.

A day after Manchester, the Washington Post admonished: 

As nations across the West have learned, it is not possible to prevent all such terrorist attacks, especially when they are staged by homegrown militants. What is possible is a response that focuses on uniting rather than dividing a diverse society. That’s what was happening in Manchester on Tuesday, as thousands of people of all races and faiths gathered for a vigil in the city’s Albert Square. “I’m not here as a person with brown skin or someone born Muslim,” a man named Amir Shah told a Guardian reporter. “I’m here as a Mancunian.” If that spirit prevails, the terrorists will have failed.

No, the terrorists will have failed if they can no longer slaughter children. They don’t care if a terror attack is met with candlelight vigils; they care if border restrictions and law enforcement make it impossible to destroy lives.

The flip side of the Post’s “terrorists will have failed if we light candles” conceit is the ubiquitous meme that the “terrorists will have won” if we modify our intelligence strategies or immigration policies in any way. The New York Times editorialized after the Manchester bombing: “It is important to recognize this attack for what it is: an attempt to shake Britain — and, by extension, the rest of Europe and the West — to its core, and to provoke a thirst for vengeance and a desire for absolute safety so intense, it will sweep away the most cherished democratic values and the inclusiveness of diverse societies.” This response is narcissistic. The attack was an effort to kill British girls and their parents, period. The terrorists win every time they pull off such massacres. They are not monitoring the legislative process and plotting how to move the needle on Western security protections in a way contrary to their own self-interest. If a society were exclusively Christian, Jewish, or even Muslim, it would be just as much the target of attack by ISIS or al-Qaida as a more “diverse” society.

Besides which, diversity per se is NOT a cherished value of the West. It is a suicidal policy of the Left. Western nations could and did accept newcomers of diverse origins if the immigrants were ready to live under the law of their hosts and were eager to be assimilated. But diversity in itself was not seen as a supremely good thing until the Left became obsessed with race and racism.

Moreover, how would the New York Times distinguish a terror attack that seeks to “sweep away . . . the inclusiveness of diverse societies” from one that was merely intended to kill? Any terror attack carries some chance (albeit an increasingly de minimis one) that it will result in a tightening of immigration or security policies, but that does not mean that such tightening is the goal of the attack.

Perhaps aware that the “candlelight vigil” strategy for fighting terrorism may seem a little wan, progressives make passing reference to actual security measures, but couched in such broad terms as to be almost meaningless. And they are only faking it, because those security measures would violate core tenets of progressive ideology. …

The [New York] Times says .. it is … “critical that immigrants, especially Muslims, are not stigmatized” … “understanding is critical” and [it] inveighs against “whipping up divisive ethnic, racist and religious hatreds”.

Here’s painful irony. The bien pensants of the Left, whose organ is the New York Times, are themselves passionately dedicated, heart-mind-hand-and-voice, to “whipping up divisive ethnic, racist and religious hatreds”.   

When it comes to terrorism … a country is apparently not allowed to say: “Enough is enough, the status quo is not working, we need to rethink the policies that have allowed this mayhem to flourish.” …

The writer asks why the emotions triggered by the attack, “horror, anger, sadness, fear, revulsion”, should not be politicized. We agree with her that they should be. Why should we pretend not to be afraid of Muslim terrorism? We are terrorized. Political action needs to be taken against those who are terrorizing us. 

Islamic terrorism in the West is an immigration problem. Until we have the law enforcement and intelligence capacity to detect terror plots, immigration policy has to change, both in Europe and in the U.S. …

The immigration of Third World barbarians – in particular Muslim barbarians – needs to be STOPPED.

The United States must not end up in the same situation. We need lower immigration levels and much tighter screening. The Manchester bombing vindicated President Donald Trump’s March 2017 executive order briefly limiting travel to the U.S. from half a dozen ISIS- and al-Qaida-riven countries, including Libya, while the administration reviews security screening in those countries. Yet three days after Manchester, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down that order, claiming that it “drips with religious intolerance, animus and discrimination”. This judicial crusade against Trump’s travel pause cripples the executive’s ability to protect the country from attack, by exporting phantom constitutional rights to the world.  Progressives’ passivity in the face of Islamic terrorism is not a consistent philosophy. It is rather the outcome of their commitment to open borders at any cost. That ideology has taken too many lives and must be overcome.

Yes, it must be overcome. But how?

The mailed answers never arrive. Or the wind blows them away.

This video was published on May 26, 2017, at the start of Ramadan, the Muslim “month of fasting”.

Whether those who observe it fast or feast – David Wood says they feast – doesn’t matter to us. The figures he gives do matter. They show that Ramadan is a month of intensified killing by devout Muslims.

David Wood, it needs to be noted, is a Christian. Obviously, we do not agree with him when he defends Christianity in others of his YouTube videos. But he is reliably knowledgeable about Islam and the Koran.

We’ll post the final tally of Ramadan deaths at the end of the “holy” month.

One of the villainous deceptions that the Left has gotten away with is its labelling of Nazism as “right-wing”.

In fact the Nazis were what they said they were: National Socialists.

For a year and ten months (August 23, 1939 t0 June 22, 1941), the period during which Stalin’s Russia worked with Hitler’s Germany to carve up Poland between them, the International Socialists refrained from criticizing the Nazis. For that period, Communism was not the “opposite” of Nazism – as the Left had claimed before the iniquitous Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was signed, and has claimed ever since it was broken by Germany’s suddenly attacking the Russians’ stolen piece of Poland before invading the Soviet Union itself.

The real political Right in the Western world is conservative. It is essentially individualist and forever profoundly, immovably against collectivism. That is why real conservatism is the real opposite of both Communism and Nazism.

But as we said, the Left has brought off its lie. Nazism is commonly regarded as being a “far-right” ideology. The mass media in general, all over the Western world, habitually label politicians who oppose the Islamization of the West “right-wing”. (See for example here and here and here.) They seldom say that a politician on the Left is “left-wing”. Whenever they say “right-wing” they know, and surely intend, the connotation of “Nazi” to hover round the label.

And when they say “far-right” they certainly mean “Nazi”.

This aura, this spell, put upon the Right has worked wonders for the Left everywhere, and especially now for the left-wing governments of western Europe. (All the governments of Europe, and the Dictatorship of the European Union, are actually left-wing, even though some ruling parties call themselves “conservative”.) Any organized opposition to their nihilistic policy of handing over their countries and the continent to the ruthless Mohammedan invaders who are slowly and steadily seizing power, has only to be called “right-wing” or “far-right” for millions of their voters to reject that party, that movement, that campaign, that leader. Because Nazism.

Yet the Mohammedan invaders – invited in, richly rewarded, protected by the state and the law courts from any penalty for crimes and even from criticism –  are in fact like the Nazis. Islam preaches and practices the same authoritarianism, the same intolerance, the same genocidal intention against the Jews, the same ambition to conquer and subjugate the rest of the world.

Islam enslaves women; punishes the victims of rape and acts of private consensual sexual freedom with death; kills gays (while many Islamic leaders and imams habitually practice homosexuality); treats Blacks – even Muslim Blacks – as inferiors; routinely tortures prisoners; denies evolution; imposes theocracy; hates liberty and dreads free speech.

Yet the international Left passionately supports it, promotes it, helps its accelerating advance.

And lies about it even to itself.

Even such atrocities as the bombing of spectators at a concert in Manchester, England, on May 22, 2027 –  which killed 22 and maimed at least 59, mostly young girls – do not move the hearts of the European, and at least nominally Christian, leaders.

Here’s one who is actually a devout Christian, talking through his hat. We quote German Finance Minister Responds to Manchester Attack: Christians Can Learn from Muslim Migrants,  by Virginia Hale, at (British) Breitbart:

The growing number of Muslims in Germany represents not a threat but a learning opportunity, said Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble, discussing Islam in the wake of the Manchester attack.

 “It is fanaticism, not only in Islam, that leads to terrible crimes,” he said, speaking on German public radio station Deutschlandfunk … when asked about the Islamist attack in which 22 mostly young people, including an eight-year-old girl, lost their lives.

“It is certainly a misunderstanding of religion when belief slips into fanaticism or, at worst, violence. The world’s great religions all preach the message that one must look upon others as their sisters and brothers, and that one must live with the other because man cannot live alone,” Schäuble told presenter Christiane Florin.

Wrong! Islam does not “preach the message that one must look upon others as their sisters and brothers”. It preaches that the infidel must be forced to convert to Islam, or else be killed, or – if spared – pay tribute to Muslim overlords. Schäuble had simply not troubled to inform himself about Islam at all. Deliberate ignorance of what Islam preaches is common to the members of the ruling class of western Europe.

On top of choosing ignorance, Herr Schäuble has the cheek to assert this:

“‘Islam is part of Germany’ is a sober, factual statement,” the minister remarked, commenting on sentiments voiced by Chancellor Angela Merkel on more than one occasion – which are not shared by the majority of Germans. “Anyone who denies this denies reality and is therefore not suited to being a politician, because politics begins with the confrontation of reality,” he added.

The country’s rapidly growing Muslim demographic presents an “opportunity” for “Christians, and all who live in Germany”, Schäuble stated, adding: “We can learn from them. Many human values are very strongly realised in Islam. Think of hospitality, and other things like, what is there … And also tolerance, I believe, for example.”

He hesitated. He didn’t know what “human values are very strongly realised in Islam”. He had heard of the stereotyped Arab’s hospitality, but he was hard put to think of anything else. He opted for “tolerance”. Sucked it out of his thumb. In fact, no ideology could be more intolerant than Islam.

Discussing his recently published book, Protestantism and Politics, the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) minister said the church has no monopoly on truth and criticised voices within who “argue too much in secular matters from a point of religious conviction”.

So why does he believe what he purports to believe if he doesn’t believe it is the truth? Well, other “truths”, he implies, are no less true, even though they contradict the Christian Protestant “truths” that he believes in – sort of.

And here is comment on Schäuble’s bilge, from Jihad Watch, by Christine Douglass-Williams:

The German Finance Minister’s outrageous statements may be an attempt to absolve himself and his party of any responsibility for what Muslim migrants are bringing to his country. Germany spent more than $21,000,000,000 on refugees in 2016, as its Muslim migrant crisis outstripped state budgets. In addition, the number of migrant criminal suspects soared by more than 50% in 2016.

Germany has been brutalized by Muslim migrants, with an epidemic of sex assaults, attacks on churches, and a massive crime surge. 

Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble’s shameless propaganda in the face of this chaos is the all too common pose of leftist politicians as they continue to burden taxpayers, betray their own citizenry and tradition of democratic rule. They are astoundingly insensitive to victims of Muslim migrants.

In its insane passion for protecting the invited Mohammedan conquerors from the least criticism, the present government of Germany is acting like the Nazi and Communist regimes that ruled Germany in whole or in part in the last century.

An article by Chris Tomlinson at Breitbart illustrates this:

A computer scientist in Germany has been fined over 3,000 euros after he complained in 2015 that criminal asylum seekers were being let go by police after robbing supermarkets.

The 52-year-old German made his comments on August 22nd of 2015 at the height of the migrant crisis, Wochenblatt reports. He noted that asylum seekers were going into German supermarkets and helping themselves to items and instead of being arrested they were let go with warnings.

He wrote on Facebook: “I am in favour of the setting up of civil defences and the punishment of flogging, then they might feel at home when they get their skull smashed with a truncheon. Violence is probably the only thing that they understand, and we should try to make them understand us.”

After his post, the 52-year-old was arrested by police and taken to jail. He was then put on trial and accused of attacking asylum seekers’ human dignity, slandering them, and insulting them. He was eventually convicted and forced to pay a fine of 3,150 euros. …

The case is another in a series of convictions in Germany for either speaking out about the migrant crisis or against migrant crime. Last year German police raided 60 homes in an operation against “xenophobic” speech online.  Federal Criminal Police (BKA) president Holger Münch said the raids were to prevent “verbal radicalisation” online.

A couple in the German town of Vierkirchen were also sentenced for “hate speech” after they formed an anti-asylum seeker group on Facebook.

Peter M., one of the defendants, said after the conviction: “One can not even express a critical opinion of refugees without getting labelled as a Nazi. I wanted to create a discussion forum where you can speak your mind about refugees.”

More recently the German government has set its sights on the social media companies themselves. Last month the German government was slammed by social media giants after passing a law that would introduce heavy fines for sites who do not remove hate speech posts in a timely manner.

Why cannot the electorates of western Europe see that in trying to avoid a return to Nazism, they are inviting it to come back and rule them again?

This time for keeps.