Saturday, July 30, 2016

Daniel Pipes is a Muslim

Here's his own confession, in his own words:

"Counter"-Terrorism is TREASON!

From here:

Nice attack: Why the terrorists are winning the intelligence war — Spengler

"Yet another criminal known to security services has perpetrated a mass killing, the Tunisian Mohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel. Why did the French police allow a foreign national with a criminal record of violence to reside in France? Apart from utter incompetence, the explanation is that he was a snitch for the French authorities. Blackmailing Muslim criminals to inform on prospective terrorists is the principal activity of European counter-terrorism agencies, as I noted in 2015. Every Muslim in Europe knows this.
The terrorists, though, have succeeded in turning the police agents sent to spy on them and forcing them to commit suicide attacks to expiate their sins. This has become depressingly familiar; as Ryan Gallagher reported recently, perpetrators already known to the authorities committed ten of the highest-profile attacks between 2013 and 2015.
The terrorists, in other words, are adding insult to injury. By deploying police snitches as suicide attackers, terrorists assert their moral superiority and power over western governments. The message may be lost on the western public, whose security agencies and media do their best to obscure it, but it is well understood among the core constituencies of the terrorist groups: the superiority of Islam turns around the depraved criminals whom the western police send to spy on us, and persuades them to become martyrs for the cause of Islam.

These attacks, in other words, are designed to impress the Muslim public as much as they are intended to horrify the western public. In so many words, the terrorists tell Muslims that western police agencies cannot protect them. If they cooperate with the police they will be found out and punished.  The West fears the power of Islam: it evinces such fear by praising Islam as a religion of peace, by squelching dissent in the name of fighting supposed Islamophobia, and by offering concessions and apologies to Muslims. Ordinary Muslims live in fear of the terror networks, which have infiltrated their communities and proven their ability to turn the efforts of western security services against them. They are less likely to inform on prospective terrorists and more likely to aid them by inaction.

The terrorists, in short, are winning the intelligence war, because they have shaped the environment in which intelligence is gathered and traded. But that is how intelligence wars always proceed: spies switch sides and tell their stories because they want to be with the winner. ISIS and al-Qaeda look like winners in the eyes of western Muslim populations after humiliating the security services of the West.

As a result, western European Muslims fear the terrorists more than they fear the police. The West will remain vulnerable to mass terror attacks until the balance of fear shifts in the other direction."


Canadian Fascism Has Arrived!

Coupled with Turdeau's intention to let StatsCan demand any and all info it wants from you, on pain of jail-time, comes the latest Supreme Court "ruling" proving Justices don't understand the Law at all!

In the Ottawa Citizen (via The Canadian Press) Saturday, July 30, 2016, P.#NP5:

From here and here:

Circumstantial evidence can be enough in child porn cases: top court

Joanna Smith

The Supreme Court of Canada says circumstantial evidence can be enough to convict someone of possessing child pornography.

In a decision Friday, the high court ruled unanimously that the Crown does not have to disprove any other possible explanation for how child pornography ends up on a computer owned by an accused.

Right at the same time Turdeau is approving Harper's Bill C-51 which gives cops and spies full warrantless access to your emails! How convenient!

“‘Other plausible theories’ or ‘other reasonable possibilities’ must be based on logic and experience applied to the evidence or the absence of evidence, not on speculation,” Supreme Court Justice Thomas Cromwell wrote in the 32-page decision.

“Of course, the line between a ‘plausible theory’ and ’speculation’ is not always easy to draw.

That's because there is no line between these two synonyms for subjective "opinions," you assholes!

But the basic question is whether the circumstantial evidence, viewed logically and in light of human experience, is reasonably capable of supporting an inference other than that the accused is guilty.”

The decision concerned the case of Oswald Villaroman, who took his laptop to a Calgary computer shop for repairs in December 2009, and a service technician contacted the police after discovering child pornography downloaded through a file-sharing program.

A judge convicted Villaroman of child pornography possession following a prosecution based on circumstantial evidence such as the fact that he owned the computer, which had only one user account labelled with his name.

The Alberta Court of Appeal overturned the conviction last year, ruling the trial judge had erred excluding other possibilities as to how the pornography ended up on his computer.

Which made perfect sense, since "file-sharing programs" like TOR have their own Folders and switch and swap files in and out of users' computers all the time without their specific knowledge or assent!

The Supreme Court disagreed with the appeal judgment Friday, setting aside the acquittal.

The high court also handed a separate Charter of Rights issue related to the search and seizure of the laptop back to the Alberta Court of Appeal, which means Villaroman will have another chance to argue his case in the appeal court.

In asking the Supreme Court to consider the case, the Crown argued requiring prosecutors to disprove all other possible conclusions concerning the presence of pornography would increase the burden of proof to an impossible degree.

Like, say, cops or spies having unlimited email access without warrants, planting same on your PC?

The Crown said this could have a devastating impact on the ability to prosecute child pornography cases and others that rely on circumstantial evidence.

i.e: "Think Of The Children!" This emotive appeal trick was last tried by Vic Toewes under Harper!

The lawyers representing Villaroman, however, said the trial judge had simply erred in finding the defendant guilty beyond reasonable doubt in a case where the prosecution had brought virtually no evidence of possession.

(Like, if there was evidence he had created his own kiddie-porn Folder, separate from the TOR one).

The Supreme Court affirmed Friday that a judge or jury should consider other plausible theories and reasonable possibilities that point to innocence, and this might sometimes require the Crown to show why they would not apply.

But the high court agreed with the trial judge that this need not extend into the realm of make-believe.

Extending their own make-believe insistence that one must prove a negative (prove one is innocent)!

“The Court of Appeal, my respectful view, erred by focusing on hypothetical alternative theories and, at times, engaging in speculation rather than on the question of whether the inferences drawn by the trial judge, having regard to the standard of proof, were reasonably open to him,” Cromwell wrote.

The Supreme Court acknowledged there were “gaps” in the evidence the Crown presented at trial, but the appeal court went too far in analyzing those gaps, effectively retrying the case.

Did he transfer the kiddie-porn files from the TOR folder to one of his own making, or not, tards?!

“In my view, while not every trier of fact would inevitably have reached the same conclusion as did the trial judge, that conclusion was a reasonable one,” Cromwell wrote.

How's it "reasonable" if cold hard reason and logic (aka scary "facts," to you libtards) weren't used?!

The Supreme Court did not set any new rules for instructing juries on how to deal with circumstantial evidence, but did suggest that in cases that rely only, or largely, on circumstantial evidence, it might be “helpful” for a judge to caution the jury about its limits.

The example Cromwell gave was looking out the window, seeing the road is wet and assuming it had been raining.

A closer look, however, might reveal that the sidewalks are dry, or that a sound that could be coming from a street-cleaning truck can be heard in the distance.

“The inferences that may be drawn from this observation must be considered in light of all of the evidence and the absence of evidence, assessed logically, and in light of human experience and common sense.”


With Justin Trudeau’s approval, Statistics Canada is looking to expand their powers on a massive scale in Canada.

They want to be able to force you to hand over any data file they deem relevant, under punishment of law.

Here, let me explain:
In the policy paper that Statistics Canada has put out, they ask for the power over "any organization" to obtain "any data file" at any time. Here's the quote:
that the Agency can require any organization to provide any data file in its possession, that originates with that organization, to Statistics Canada for statistical purposes.
They want all of your files, a classic "Big Brother" move.
If you don't want a government organization to have this much power, then please sign our petition at
This is a privacy invasion of law-abiding citizens on par with the worst excesses of the NSA in the United States, and it needs to be stopped.
So please sign our petition and send the Trudeau government a loud and clear message that you don’t support these invasive measures.
Statistics Canada is asking the government for these powers, and Trudeau surely wants them. But no decision has been made yet. So now is the time to act.
Remember, I'm on your side,
Brian Lilley
P.S. Please help spread the word. Type into your status on Facebook and forward this email to your friends and family.

Saudis and Clinton Bribing Russia to Help ISIS!

From here:

Assad to Netanyahu: Help Me Keep my Seat and I Guarantee You a Calm Golan

"Assad sends a message to Netanyahu: 'Help me to control my region and I guarantee you a calm Golan.'"
"Assad sends a message to Netanyahu: 'Help me to control my region and I guarantee you a calm Golan.'"
A Kuwaiti news website on Friday cited a source saying Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has received a message from Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, in which Assad vowed to keep the Golan as a demilitarized zone, and the rest of Syria committed to a cease-fire with Israel, if Netanyahu commits to not engaging Israel in an effort to topple Assad.
The source commented that Assad was saying to Netanyahu, in effect: “Help me to control my region and I guarantee calm for Israel in the Golan Heights.”
Commenting on rumors that former US ambassador to Israel Martin Indyk is slated to be President Hillary Clinton’s special envoy on the peace process between Israel and its neighbors, the source told the news website that Israel is very concerned over a report that was prepared by Indyk for President Bill Clinton about the Golan Heights. Israel is anxious to point US attention to the fact that the situation on south Syria and south Lebanon has been altered by the five-year civil war, and American notions about returning the Golan to Syria are absurd under these circumstances. Assad apparently wishes to take advantage of an opportunity to strike a deal with the Israelis to secure their neutrality in the war.
Meanwhile, reported Saturday that Saudi Arabia’s Foreign Minister Adel Al-Jubeir said his country is offering Russia access to the Gulf Cooperation Council Market and regional investment funds in return for pulling its support for the Assad regime.
“We are ready to give Russia a stake in the Middle East that will make Russia a force stronger than the Soviet Union, greater than China’s,” the Saudi minister said, adding, “It would be reasonable for Russia to say, that’s where our relations will advance our interests, not with Assad. We don’t disagree on the end game in Syria but on how to get there. Assad’s days are numbered,” he urged, “so make a deal while you can.”

Friday, July 29, 2016

Media Conventions BIAS Report!

From here:

CyberAlert Special Edition

Friday, July 29, 2016 at 4:05 PM EDT

Tracking Liberal Media Bias Since 1996

Media Reality Check: “Condemning Republicans, Cheering Democrats: The Media’s Biased 2016 Convention Coverage”
    Below is the text of a Media Reality Check study compiled by Rich Noyes, the MRC’s Research Director, which was posted this afternoon with documentation of convention coverage bias by ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC and NBC.
    Key findings:
    # Double standard on convention videos: The total airtime for Democratic videos shown during CNN’s primetime coverage: 62 minutes, or more than four times the 14 minutes of airtime given to Republican videos during the same time slot the prior week.
    # Double standard on giving free airtime to the opposition: MSNBC’s primetime coverage (8pm to midnight ET) of the GOP convention included five interviews with elected Democrats.
During all four nights of the Democratic convention, MSNBC’s coverage included absolutely no interviews with any Republicans.
    # Double standard on complaining about negative rhetoric: While the media routinely attacked the Republicans during the GOP convention for negative attacks on Hillary Clinton, the Democrats’ attacks on Trump were given a pass. During the GOP convention, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC and NBC journalists scolded the Republicans for negativity 63 times; for the same time period during the Democratic convention, viewers heard only five such comments from reporters, a more than 12-to-1 disparity.
    # Double standard on giving free airtime to the opposition: CNN devoted more than an hour of airtime during the Democratic convention to airing 18 party-produced videos, but only included three such videos during the GOP convention.
    The text of the July 29 Media Reality Check:
Condemning Republicans, Cheering Democrats: The Media’s Biased 2016 Convention Coverage
With both the Republican and Democratic conventions now concluded, it’s time to judge the news media on how fairly they covered the two parties. Media Research Center analysts looked at various aspects of coverage, all of which demonstrate that journalists obviously favored the Democratic gathering.
By a 12-to-1 margin, journalists spent far more time deriding the Republican convention for its negativity, even as their reactions to Democratic speakers were consistently positive and often enthusiastic. Cable news had its own unique biases: MSNBC carved out time on each night of the GOP convention for interviews with top Democratic officials, but — despite promises to the contrary — aired no such interviews with Republicans during the Democratic convention. Meanwhile, CNN devoted more than an hour of airtime during the Democratic convention to airing 18 party-produced videos, but only included three such videos during the GOP convention.
Here are details of our research evaluating the convention coverage, with special thanks to MRC analysts Matthew Balan, Mike Ciandella, Nicholas Fondacaro, Curtis Houck and Scott Whitlock.
■ Double standard on convention videos: During the Republican convention, CNN’s primetime (8pm to midnight, ET) coverage included just three RNC-produced videos totalling a bit more than 14 minutes of airtime: a non-partisan tribute to the Apollo 11 mission; a video narrated by Lynne Patton telling how she was helped by the Trump family; and the six-minute Thursday night biography of Donald Trump shown in advance of his acceptance speech. CNN skipped videos on important topics such as the Benghazi attack and the Obama administration’s Fast and Furious scandal, instead airing journalist panel discussions.
But during the Democratic convention, CNN chose to air 18 of the Democrats’ videos, six times more party videos than they aired during the GOP convention. Included in those that made the cut on CNN: two “Funny or Die” videos mocking Donald Trump’s policies, and several “Trump In His Own Words” videos criticizing the GOP candidate’s controversial statements. In addition, CNN showed the party-produced videos introducing speakers including Michelle Obama, Bernie Sanders, Bill Clinton, Joe Biden, Tim Kaine, President Obama, and the nearly 12-minute video for Hillary Clinton that aired on the final night of the convention.
The total airtime for Democratic videos shown during CNN’s primetime coverage: 62 minutes, or more than four times the 14 minutes of airtime given to Republican videos during the same time slot the prior week.

■ Double standard on giving free airtime to the opposition: During the first night of the Republican convention, CBS’s 10pm ET primetime coverage included a four-minute long segment of an interview of Hillary Clinton, during which Rose invited Clinton to bash her Republican opponent, asking if Donald Trump was “the most dangerous man ever to run for President of the United States?”
But during their primetime coverage of the Democratic convention, CBS included no interviews with Republicans so they could bash Hillary Clinton.
Similarly, MSNBC’s primetime coverage (8pm to midnight ET) of the GOP convention included five interviews with elected Democrats: Representatives Adam Schiff (D-CA) and Tim Ryan (D-OH) on Monday, July 18; Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) on Tuesday, July 19; Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO) on Wednesday, July 20; and Senator Al Franken (D-MN) on Thursday, July 21.
None of the Democratic interlopers missed a chance to take shots at the GOP. Schiff was brought on board a few minutes after Pat Smith spoke about the loss of her son in Benghazi. “We’ve never politicized a tragedy like this,” Schiff claimed, “and I just think it really is unfortunate to bring a grieving woman before the convention this way.”
Later in the week, Senator McCaskill condemned the GOP program as “very dark and angry, and mostly fact-free,” points echoed the next day by Senator Franken, who blasted the convention as “very ugly.”
Setting up his interview with Representative Ryan, anchor Brian Williams explained that “we like to bring in the other side, as in fairness we’ll be doing when it’s the Democrats’ turn.” But that wasn’t true: during all four nights of the Democratic convention, MSNBC’s 8pm to midnight coverage included absolutely no interviews with any Republicans.

■ Double standard on complaining about negative rhetoric: During the first two days of the Democratic convention, various speakers called Donald Trump a con man, a fraud, a bigot, and a racist; someone who “cheats students, cheats investors, cheats workers,” who “rejects science” and would take America “back to the dark days when women died in back alleys.” Trump’s policies and rhetoric was described as “cruel,” “frightening,” “deceitful,” “deeply disturbing” and “ugly.” He was someone who promoted “racial hatred,” who had “hate in their heart,” and was “making America hate again.”
But while the media routinely attacked the Republicans during the GOP convention for negative attacks on Hillary Clinton, the Democrats’ attacks on Trump were given a pass. MRC studied ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC and NBC’s coverage from 9pm to midnight during the first two nights of each convention. During the GOP convention, journalists scolded the Republicans for negativity 63 times; for the same time period during the Democratic convention, viewers heard only five such comments from reporters, a more than 12-to-1 disparity.
A few examples: CBS’s Bob Schieffer on July 19 said Clinton had been “accused of everything from a ‘who’d a thought it’ to the diphtheria epidemic.” On NBC, Tom Brokaw said the convention was trying to “work up a big hate for Hillary.” On MSNBC, Chris Matthews called the convention a “festival of hating Hillary tonight, this brewing up of almost a witch-like ritual tonight,” adding the words “bloodthirsty” and “blood curdling” to describe the delegates’ reaction to Chris Christie’s speech. [See video compilation below for many more examples.]
During the Democratic convention, the references to negativity were far fewer and much milder. CNN’s Gloria Borger on July 25 pointed out that speakers were “belittling and making fun of Donald Trump a lot tonight.” On MSNBC the next night, regular panelist Steve Schmidt, a former GOP campaign consultant, said there had been “real tough blows tonight on Donald Trump,” for the purpose of “the destruction of Donald Trump’s character.”

■ Gushing over Democratic speeches while panning the GOP: In addition to the supposed negativity of the overall program, journalists scorned the individual speeches delivered at the GOP convention, especially nominee Donald Trump. CBS’s Scott Pelley said Trump was “more vengeful than hopeful,” while ABC’s Terry Moran called it “more of a harangue than a speech.” NBC’s Tom Brokaw thought some viewers “are going to see someone they will only think of as a demagogue of some kind.”
Thursday’s reactions to Hillary Clinton’s address, while unenthusiastic, included none of the criticism aimed at Trump. NBC’s Savannah Guthrie said Clinton’s was “a do-no harm speech,” while her colleague Chuck Todd thought it “was a grinder” of an address. CNN’s Gloria Borger admitted “it was not an oratorical masterpiece” but called Clinton’s speech “sturdy” and “steely.” Over on CBS, co-anchor Norah O’Donnell touted Clinton for “stressing her steadiness, her readiness, her experience and her empathy.”
Up until Clinton’s speech, the media had been positively swooning over the Democratic speakers. On Monday, CNN’s Jake Tapper was excited by New Jersey Senator Cory Booker, calling his speech “a crowd pleaser like no speech I’ve seen at a convention since a young state senator Barack Obama in 2004.”
Minutes later on ABC, anchor George Stephanopoulos gushed over First Lady Michelle Obama: “Polished, passionate and personal,” while on MSNBC, Joy Reid called the First Lady’s speech “magnificent, exquisite...[and] splendid.”
Hardball host Chris Matthews loved all of it: “I just thought the whole night was a slugger’s row of wonderful sentiments.”
As the week wore on, none of the major Democrats earned a bad review. On Tuesday night, CBS’s Gayle King found Bill Clinton’s speech on behalf of Hillary “heartwarming.” The next night, correspondents for NBC, CBS and ABC praised vice presidential candidate Tim Kaine for his “suburban dad” personality, whose “extraordinary” Spanish-speaking skills made for “a Spanish lesson down here.”
And, of course, President Obama sent thrills up journalists’ legs. “I don’t think we’ve ever had a President, save Lincoln, who is as great a speechwriter as this man,” NBC’s Andrea Mitchell oozed. “It was magnificent,” MSNBC’s Matthews tingled, “a wonderful farewell address.”

Every four years, the party conventions give the establishment news media a chance to provide even-handed coverage of the two parties. Once again, unfortunately, the networks have shown their obvious bias in favor of the liberals that rule the Democratic Party.
    END Reprint of the July 29 Media Reality Check
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Comments/subscription problems, e-mail:
CyberAlert is free to you, but it takes a research and monitoring operation to produce. Support the Media Research Center:

Sunday, July 24, 2016


Angela Merkel is on the the exact same page as Adolf Hitler, who loved both Muhammad and islam!

As racists, without daring to read the Qur'an, most leftists blindly and quite proudly support islam and its muslims as to them they seem to be swarthy "victims." They presume that, as mental inferiors, they just can't help but be at the mercy of their violent animal instincts, prone to explode into a noble savage rage whenever the mentally superior whites confuse and "oppress" them.

I don't think leftists understand how much the Nazis copied directly from islam - the yellow armbands for the Jews, for one.

“The only religion I respect is Islam. The only prophet I admire is the Prophet Muhammad.”

– Adolf Hitler (quoted by Ahmed Huber in Kevin Coogan's book, “The mysterious Achmed Huber: Friend to Hitler”)

“Had Charles Martel not been victorious at Poitiers … then we should in all probability have been converted to Mohammedanism, that cult which glorifies the heroism and which opens up the seventh Heaven to the bold warrior alone. Then the Germanic races would have conquered the world. Christianity alone prevented them from doing so”

– Adolf Hitler

Mein Kampf was written in 1923. In 1926, the Indian Muslim activist al-Mashriqi met with Hitler in Germany and reported that:

“I was astounded when he [Hitler] told me that he knew about my Tazkirah. The news flabbergasted me. . . I found him very congenial and piercing. He discussed Islamic Jihad with me in details.”
And Mashriqi would continue to have important communications with Hitler after that time:

“In 1930 I sent him my Isharat concerning the Khaksar movement with a picture of a spade-bearer Khaksar at the end of that book. In 1933 he started his Spade Movement.”


“The Islam is very similar to our worldview.”

– Heinrich Himmler –


Haj-Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of “palestine” (and Yasser Arafat’s uncle) was one of Hitler’s best friends, for whom (because he was a blonde Arab with blue eyes) Adolf had incorrectly revised his racist notions to include Arabs as the descendants of the Romans, rather than the cousins of the Jews.

There has always been a warm relationship between muslims and Germans ... at least a dozen muslim volunteer groups fought in various SS divisions in ww2 ... the Handschar division, the Skanderbeg division, Freies Arabien legion, various Azerbaijan (azeri) and Turkmenistani regiments ...

Today’s PLO Fatah and Hamas all swear allegiance to the Nazi flag and ideals, regularly using the Nazi salute… a fact which is invariably ignored by the MSM’s lying slanderous and subjective group-rights victimology extortion “narrative”, as usual to the detriment of the objectively universal Truth.


In speeches, Hitler made apparently warm references towards Muslim culture such as: “The peoples of Islam will always be closer to us than, for example, France”.[1]

A famous anecdote about Adolf Hitler’s perspectives towards Islam and the Arabs is recounted by Albert Speer in his best-selling memoir, Inside the Third Reich. Speer reports that “Hitler had been much impressed by a scrap of history he had learned from a delegation of distinguished Arabs.”[2] The delegation had speculated that the world would have become “Mohammedan” if the Berbers and Arabs had won the Battle of Tours in the 8th Century AD, and that the Germans would have become heirs to “a religion that believed in spreading the faith by the sword and in subjugating all nations to that faith. Such a creed was perfectly suited to the German temperament.”[3] Speer then presents Hitler’s claims on this subject:

Hitler said that the conquering Arabs, because of their racial inferiority, would in the long run have been unable to contend with the harsher climate of the country. They could not have kept down the more vigorous natives, so that ultimately not Arabs but Islamized Germans could have stood at the head of this Mohammedan Empire.[4]

This “exchange” occurred when Hitler received Saudi Arabian ruler Ibn Saud’s special envoy, Khalid al-Hud al-Gargani.[5] Earlier in this meeting Hitler noted that one of the three reasons why Germany had warm sympathies for the Arabs was:

… because we were jointly fighting the Jews. This led him to discuss Palestine and conditions there, and he then stated that he himself would not rest until the last Jew had left Germany. Kalid al Hud observed that the Prophet Mohammed … had acted the same way. He had driven the Jews out of Arabia ….[6]

Erwin Rommel was almost as popular as Hitler. Some Arabs used “Heil Rommel” as a common greeting in Arab countries. Arabs thought the Germans would free them from the rule of the old colonial powers France and Britain. After France’s defeat by Nazi Germany in 1940, some Arabs were chanting against the French and British around the streets of Damascus: “No more Monsieur, no more Mister, Allah’s in Heaven and Hitler’s on earth.”[21] Posters in Arabic stating “In heaven God is your ruler, on earth Hitler” were frequently displayed in shops in the towns of Syria.[22]

Some wealthy Arabs who traveled to Germany in the 1930s brought back fascist ideals and incorporated them into Arab Nationalism.[23] One of the principal founders of Ba’athist thought and the Ba’ath Party, Zaki al-Arsuzi, stated that Fascism and Nazism had greatly influenced Ba’athist ideology. An associate of al-Arsuzi, Sami al-Jundi, wrote:

“We were racists. We admired the Nazis. We were immersed in reading Nazi literature and books that were the source of the Nazi spirit. We were the first who thought of a translation of Mein Kampf. Anyone who lived in Damascus at that time was witness to the Arab inclination toward Nazism. Michel Aflaq a founder of the Ba’athist philosophy admired Hitler and the Nazis for standing up to Britain and America. This admiration would combine aspects of Nazism into Ba’athism.”

Saturday, July 16, 2016

To Elites, the Enemy is only an Abstraction: "Terrorism" or "Fanatics".

From here:

France: The Coming Civil War

  • For French President François Hollande, the enemy is an abstraction: "terrorism" or "fanatics".
  • Instead, the French president reaffirms his determination to military actionsabroad: "We are going to reinforce our actions in Syria and Iraq," the president said after the Nice attack.
  • So confronted with this failure of our elite who were elected to guide the country across nationals and internationals dangers, how astonishing is it if paramilitary groups are organizing themselves to retaliate?
  • In France, the global elites made a choice. They decided that the "bad" voters in France were unreasonable people too stupid to see the beauties of a society open to people who often who do not want to assimilate, who want you to assimilate to them, and who threaten to kill you if you do not. The elite took the side against their own old and poor because those people did not want to vote for them any longer. They also made a choice not to fight Islamism because Muslims vote collectively for this global elite.
"We are on the verge of a civil war." That quote did not come from a fanatic or a lunatic. No, it came from head of France's homeland security, the DGSI (Direction générale de la sécurité intérieure), Patrick Calvar. He has, in fact, spoken of the risk of a civil war many times. On July 12th, he warned a commission of members of parliament, in charge of a survey about the terrorist attacks of 2015, about it.

French police shoot dead a Tunisian-born Islamist terrorist who murdered 84 people in Nice, France, July 14, 2016. (Image source: Sky News video screenshot)

In May 2016, he delivered almost the same message to another commission of members of parliament, this time in charge of national defense. "Europe," he said, "is in danger. Extremism is on the rise everywhere, and we are now turning our attention to some far-right movements who are preparing a confrontation".

What kind of confrontation? "Intercommunity confrontations," he said -- polite for "a war against Muslims." "One or two more terrorist attacks," he added, "and we may well see a civil war."

In February 2016, in front of a senate commission in charge of intelligence information, he saidagain: " We are looking now at far-right extremists who are just waiting for more terrorist attacks to engage in violent confrontation".

No one knows if the truck terrorist, who plowed into the July 14th Bastille Day crowd in Nice and killed more than 80 people, will be the trigger for a French civil war, but it might help to look at what creates the risk of one in France and other countries, such as Germany or Sweden.
The main reason is the failure of the state.

1. France is at War but the Enemy is Never Named.

France is the main target of repeated Islamist attacks; the more important Islamist terrorist bloodbaths took place at the magazine Charlie Hebdo and the Hypercacher supermarket of Vincennes (2015); the Bataclan Theater, its nearby restaurants and the Stade de France stadium, (2015); the failed attack on the Thalys train; the beheading of Hervé Cornara (2015); the assassination of two policemen in Magnanville in June (2016), and now the truck-ramming in Nice, on the day commemorating the French Revolution of 1789.

Most of those attacks were committed by French Muslims: citizens on their way back from Syria (the Kouachi brothers at Charlie Hebdo), or by French Islamists (Larossi Abballa who killed a police family in Magnanville in June 2016) who later claimed their allegiance to Islamic State (ISIS). The truck killer in Nice was Tunisian but married to a French woman, whith whom he had three children together, and lived quietly in Nice until he decided to murder more than 80 people and wound dozens more.

After each of these tragic episodes President François Hollande refused to name the enemy, refused to name Islamism -- and especially refused to name French Islamists -- as the enemy of French citizens.

For Hollande, the enemy is an abstraction: "terrorism" or "fanatics". Even when the president does dare to name "Islamism" the enemy, he refuses to say he will close all Salafist mosques, prohibit the Muslim Brotherhood and Salafist organizations in France, or ban veils for women in the street and at university. No, instead, the French president reaffirms his determination for military actions abroad: "We are going to reinforce our actions in Syria and Iraq," the president said after the Nice attack.

For France's president, the deployment of soldiers in the homeland is for defensive actions only: a deterrent policy, not an offensive rearmament of the Republic against an internal enemy.

So confronted with this failure by our elite -- who were elected to guide the country through national and international dangers -- how astonishing is it if paramilitary groups are organizing themselves to retaliate?

As Mathieu Bock-Côté, a sociologist in France and Canada, says in Le Figaro:
"Western elites, with a suicidal obstinacy, oppose naming the enemy. Confronted by attacks in Brussels or Paris, they prefer to imagine a philosophical fight between democracy and terrorism, between an open society and fanaticism, between civilization and barbarism".
2. The Civil War Has Already Begun and Nobody Wants to Name It.

The civil war began sixteen years ago, with the second Intifada. When Palestinians executed suicide attacks in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, French Muslims began to terrorize Jews living peacefully in France. For sixteen years, Jews -- in France -- were slaughtered, attacked, tortured and stabbed by French Muslim citizens, supposedly to avenge Palestinian people in the West Bank.

When a group of French citizens who are Muslims declares war on another group of French citizens who are Jews, what do you call it? For the French establishment, it is not a civil war, just a regrettable misunderstanding between two "ethnic" communities.

Until now, no one wanted to establish a connection between these attacks and the murderous attack in Nice against people who were not necessarily Jews -- and name it as it should be named: a civil war.
For the very politically correct French establishment, the danger of a civil war will begin only if anyone retaliates against French Muslims; if everyone just submits to their demands, everything is all right. Until now, no one thought that the terrorist attacks against Jews by French Muslims; against Charlie Hebdo's journalists by French Muslims; against an entrepreneur who was beheaded a year ago by a French Muslim; against young Ilan Halimi by a group of Muslims; against schoolchildren in Toulouse by a French Muslim; against the passengers on the Thalys train by a French Muslim, against the innocent people in Nice by an almost French Muslim were the symptoms of a civil war. These bloodbaths remain seen, to this day, as something like a tragic misunderstanding.

3. The French Establishment Considers the Enemy the Poor, the Old and the Disappointed

In France, who most complains about Muslim immigration? Who most suffers from local Islamism? Who most likes to drink a glass of wine or eat a ham-and-butter sandwich? The poor and the old who live close to Muslim communities, because they do not have the money to move someplace else.

Today, as a result, millions of the poor and the old in France are ready to elect Marine Le Pen, president of the right-wing Front National, as the next president of the Republic, for the simple reason that the only party that wants to fight illegal immigration is the Front National.

Because, however, these French old and poor want to vote for the Front National, they have become the enemy of the French establishment, right and left. What is the Front National saying to these people? "We are going to restore France as a nation of French people". And the poor and the old believe it -- because they have no choice.

Similarly, the poor and the old in Britain had no choice but to vote for Brexit. They took the first tool given them to express their disappointment at living in a society they did not like anymore. They did not vote to say, "Kill these Muslims who are transforming my country, stealing my job and soaking up my taxes". They were just protesting a society that a global elite had begun to transform without their consent.

In France, the global elites made a choice. They decided that the "bad" voters in France were unreasonable people too stupid, too racist to see the beauties of a society open to people who often do not want to assimilate, who want you to assimilate to them, and who threaten to kill you if you do not.

The global elites made another choice: they took the side against their own old and poor because those people did not want to vote for them any longer. The global elites also chose not to fight Islamism, because Muslims vote globally for the global elite.

Muslims in Europe also offer a big "carrot" to the global elite: they vote collectively.

In France, 93% of Muslims voted for the current president, François Hollande, in 2012. In Sweden, the Social Democrats reported that 75% of Swedish Muslims voted for them in the general election of 2006; and studies show that the "red-green" bloc gets 80-90% of the Muslim vote.

4. Is the Civil War Inevitable? Yes!

If the establishment does not want to see that civil war was already declared by extremist Muslims first -- if they do not want to see that the enemy is not the Front National in France, the AfD in Germany, or the Sweden Democrats -- but Islamism in France, in Belgium, in Great Britain, in Sweden -- then a civil war will happen.

France, like Germany and Sweden, has a military and police strong enough to fight against an internal Islamist enemy. But first, they have to name it and take measures against it. If they do not -- if they leave their native citizens in despair, with no other means than to arm themselves and retaliate -- yes, civil war is inevitable.
Yves Mamou, based in France, worked for two decades as a journalist for Le Monde.