Prager U has published a good five-minute explanation of radical Islam, currently the world’s most poisonous ideology, comparable to the extremist beliefs that roiled the 20th century. The speaker is Raymond Ibrahim, a researcher and author focused on the Middle East and Islam.
There’s no more dangerous, hostile ideology on earth. Why then do western nations admit believers as immigrants inside the gates?
RAYMOND IBRAHIM: What is the world’s most dangerous ideology?
In the first part of the 20th century, the answer was Fascism; first manifest in Italy in the 1920’s, and then in Nazi Germany and in Imperial Japan. It took a world war and 50 million dead to stamp it out. In the second half of the 20th century, the answer was Communism. Between the Soviet Union, Mao’s China and their client states, at least 100 million people were killed in its wake.
Today, the answer is Islamism, a radical, and often violent, form of Islam. Like Fascism and Communism, Islamism is totalitarian in nature: the state controls everything. Also like Fascism and Communism, Islamism is inherently expansionist. It always seeks to get bigger, cross borders, and bring as many peoples as possible under its control. And, like Fascism and communism, many of Islamism’s adherents are prepared to kill to achieve its aims.
Those aims are antithetical to everything Western and other free societies stand for: free speech, free enterprise, freedom to practice, or not to practice, any religion, freedom of assembly, a free press and, of course, fundamental human and civil rights for all their citizens.
Islamism completely rejects the Western principle of separating religion from government. In its view, governments are legitimate only if they rule according to religious law — in Islamism’s case, Sharia, Islam’s extensive body of sacred laws. Sharia is based on the teachings of the Quran and the Sunnah. The Quran is believed to be the literal words of Allah, as revealed to his prophet Muhammad in the 7th century. And the Sunna consists of the words and deeds attributed to Muhammad. Continue reading this article
People in the business of adding automation and subtracting humans from the workplace claim to be concerned about whether the remaining humans are happy with the arrangement. Certainly companies want customers to be comfortable when in direct contact with smart machines, but the opinion of average workers probably counts for sub-zero in the big offices.
Below, Kiva robots operate from a computer system that tracks and moves everything in the warehouse. They scoot under mobile racks of merchandise and move needed items to packing stations run by humans.
Automation, software and robots are improving at breakneck speed, increasing in capabilities that would have been thought to be science-fiction a few years ago.
Experts see even more jobs lost, such as the 2013 Oxford University study that predicted nearly half of US employment was vulnerable to machine replacement in 20 years. During a Labor Day interview on CBS News, NYU Professor Gary Marcus remarked, “Eventually I think most jobs will be replaced, like 75 or 80 percent of the people are not going to work for a living.”
Nevertheless, automatic immigration continues along as if the workplace weren’t fundamentally changing. Washington is snoozing through this sea change, with no debate about the shrinking need for workers. Given the increasingly automated future, the correct number of immigrant workers is ZERO.
Robots are moving into new areas of work, and it isn’t entirely clear how staff and customers will react.
Those who work in professions from warehouse staff to hotel concierges may soon count a robot among their colleagues.
While Amazon has pioneered the use of robots in its fulfillment centers, its robots are still largely separated from human workers (see “Inside Amazon”). The next generation of workplace bots will work in much closer proximity to regular employees. Some will replace workers entirely, but most will simply take on the more mundane tasks of a human’s job. Continue reading this article
This year of 2015 has been a very bad one for free speech, starting with the Charlie Hebdo slaughter in January by jihadists, as Mark Steyn declared in his Copenhagen speech Saturday. In fact, Steyn observed that it has been “a disastrous 10 years” since the original Danish cartoon controversy that began when the newspaper Jyllands-Posten published 12 editorial cartoons of Mohammed that infuriated Muslims around the world.
Steyn was one of the speakers at a Copenhagen meeting of the Danish Free Press Society considering the state of freedom over the last decade.
Steyn’s speech covered a lot of important territory in 49 minutes, including the disappearance of Seattle cartoonist Molly Norris into a witness-protection-style existence because she suggested Everyone Draw Mohammed Day. The idea created an event that put her on the Must Kill list of energetic jihadists. It was a moment in 2010 that demonstrated how much freedom America had lost because of Muslim immigration.
Steyn observed that in all the Paris demonstrations for free speech and against the murders of the Charlie Hebdo artists, no political figures held signs showing the offending art, even as they claimed to be one with the artists, as in “Je Suis Charlie Hebdo.” Everybody wanted to feel good about free speech, but self-censorship increased after the Paris jihad murders.
Steyn ended with a rousing call to live as free people in defiance of the jihad murderers: “Live as free people and don’t let the hate speech fairies and the Islamic enforcers — the good cop bad cop of totalitarianism — tell you you are not free.”
Wouldn’t ending Muslim immigration be the most effective strategy to preserve freedom? Muslim immigration has been entirely negative and threatens our entire civilization, yet many of the toughest critics won’t admit that stopping the infusion of poison is vital to saving the body politic.
Other than that important omission, I liked the speech.
Here’s a report about the meeting where Steyn spoke:
This has been a terrible year for free speech. In January, after the atrocities in Paris, the whole world was ‘Charlie’, for about an hour. Then the violence and intimidation did the job they usually do (though we like to pretend otherwise) and by July even Charlie wasn’t Charlie anymore.
So I was delighted earlier this year when the Free Press Society of Denmark asked me if I would be willing to come to Copenhagen this September to take part in a conference to commemorate the 10th anniversary of the original ‘cartoon crisis’. I have spoken for this excellent group of doughty Danes before, and they have certainly shown more courage than the rest of the European media class combined. Not that they don’t pay a price for their bravery. The person who introduced me the last time I spoke for the organisation was the historian and journalist Lars Hedegaard. A while later a Muslim assassin arrived at his front door and tried to fire two shots at his head. Lars – who despite being in his 70s is as tough as anything – thankfully survived the attack. Continue reading this article
Haven’t western elites noticed yet that the natural state of Muslims is strife? The newbies in Germany haven’t even learned the route from the “refugee” center to the welfare office and they are already stirring up trouble.
. . . Mrs Merkel’s offer last month to accept all refugees from war-ravaged Syria opened the floodgates. More than a million migrants are expected this year alone, the bulk of them far from genuine asylum seekers. There is now deepening disquiet in this Christian country, dotted with churches, that it is being overwhelmed by people of a different religion and culture.
Yesterday, the Mail reported how social workers and women’s groups in Giessen wrote a letter to the local state parliament claiming that rape and child abuse were rife in the refugee camp. The allegations were corroborated by Atif over his curry. ‘The camp is dangerous,’ he agreed. ‘Men of different nationalities fight and women are attacked.’
The letter says the camp, far from being a peaceful haven for those fleeing war, is a dangerous melting-pot, where there have been ‘numerous rapes and sexual assaults, and forced prostitution’.
There are even reports of children being raped and subjected to sexual assault, it adds.
‘Many women have felt the need to sleep in their clothes… they won’t go to the toilet at night because rapes and assaults have taken place on their way to, or from, there. Even in daylight, a walk through the camp is fraught with fear.’
Deutsche Welle had a rare critical piece about diversity, although it had to reassure liberal readers that “Islam is a part of Germany.” Perhaps, but only because Turkish temp workers were stupidly admitted starting in the sixties and they never left. Millions more have piled in since then and they continue to come today.
Hitler tried to destroy Germany but failed. Merkel may succeed because Islam can’t be fixed, only quarantined. Muslim immigration should be stopped altogether, not encouraged.
Following reports of aggressive incidents in German refugee shelters, authorities are looking for ways to calm the situation. Suggestions include separate housing for Muslim and Christian asylum-seekers.
There are no official statistics, but aid organizations, social workers and volunteers note that ethnic, social, cultural and religious tensions are on the rise in Germany’s overcrowded refugee shelters.
Separating refugees according to religion is now being mentioned as an interim solution to help alleviate the problems.
Up to one million migrants are expected to arrive in the country before the end of the year. The sudden surge in asylum demands this year has authorities scrambling for housing for refugees from war zones such as Syria, but also migrants from Albania and Kosovo. Often converted hotels, gyms, schools and tents are used as makeshift shelters.
Tempers flare easily at close quarters. In Leipzig last week, about 200 refugees wielding table legs and bed frames started a fight after they couldn’t agree who got to use one of the few toilets first. It took a large police contingent to calm the situation.
Tip of the iceberg
Other recent incidents include a riot at a refugee shelter in central Germany over a torn Koran and Muslim Chechens beating up Syrian Christians in a Berlin shelter.
Islam is a part of Germany, but Islamism clearly isn’t, said opposition Greens party leader Cem Özdemir, adding that tolerance must not be misinterpreted and exploited as weakness.
But insults, threats, discrimination and blackmail against Christian asylum-seekers in particular are a regular occurrence, according to the Munich-based Central Council for Oriental Christians (ZOCD).
“I’ve heard so many reports from Christian refugees who were attacked by conservative Muslims,” said Simon Jacob, of the Central Council for Oriental Christians (ZOCD).
The retired basketball star Kareem Abdul Jabbar appeared with Maria Bartiromo on Sunday to flack his new book and also to deny the obvious truth that Islam is a religion of conquest that tortures and kills anyone who resists its rule.
Here’s a clip of Kareem spinning his taqiyya, rather clumsily I thought.
BARTIROMO: Electing a new President of the United States — attack ads and messages isolating certain races and cultures are often overtaking talk about policies to move the country forward. My next guest says it is getting in the way of getting the real messages out there. Kareem abdul-Jabbar is with us today, the Basketball Hall of Famer, author of the new book Mycroft Holmes, a modern take on Sherlock Holmes, and Kareem, it is wonderful to have you on the show today.
JABBAR: Nice to be here.
BARTIROMO: Thank you so much for joining us. I’m going to get to the book in a moment because I am know you are a prolific writer. We’ve talked years ago about your children’s books; we’ll get to that in a moment, but first I want to talk about what’s going on in this election cycle and that is the most recent comments from Dr. Ben Carson. He has backpedaled a bit, basically saying he would accept a Muslim in the White House so long as that person rejected Shariah law. We know that Shariah law means killing homosexuals; women are subservient to men. Tell me about Shariah law. You converted to Islam how many years ago?
JABBAR: In 1967, a long time ago, but Islam does not okay the things that you just mentioned: killing people, rape, all of these things that have been associated now with Shariah law — that’s crazy. None of the people that had that criticism of Shariah law have checked out the law because it’s not even for non-Nuslims. Sharia law is for the ruling of an Islamic state, so Shariah could never apply here in America because America is a very diverse place. So they’ve got it all wrong. They don’t know what the law states actually, and they want to distort it in order to make Muslims the villain and there’s enough real villainy going on without people inventing it.
Finally, don’t forget to phone your Congress human to express your objection to the Muslim refugee tsunami that diversity crazies would like. Plus NumbersUSA has some polite faxes that can be easily sent.
Saturday’s New York Times had another of its predictable open-borders items on the front page, where it bashed Americans for being fearful of potentially dangerous foreigners being dumped in their communities by Washington.
But the paper did include a surprising fragment of truth in the second paragraph — a mention of hijrah by a local citizen in a South Carolina audience. Was it meant to suggest that Americans out in the sticks are paranoid hicks? The reporter did note the presence of the John Birch Society in the first paragraph in order to set the desired tone of liberal dismay to be felt by the reader.
For a timely definition of hijrah, Spencer lays it down in his afore-mentioned article:
Hijrah, or jihad by emigration, is, according to Islamic tradition, the migration or journey of Muhammad and his followers from Mecca to Yathrib, later renamed by him to Medina, in the year 622 CE. It was after the hijrah that Muhammad for the first time became not just a preacher of religious ideas, but a political and military leader. That was what occasioned his new “revelations” exhorting his followers to commit violence against unbelievers. Significantly, the Islamic calendar counts the hijrah, not Muhammad’s birth or the occasion of his first “revelation,” as the beginning of Islam, implying that Islam is not fully itself without a political and military component.
To emigrate in the cause of Allah – that is, to move to a new land in order to bring Islam there, is considered in Islam to be a highly meritorious act. “And whoever emigrates for the cause of Allah will find on the earth many locations and abundance,” says the Qur’an. “And whoever leaves his home as an emigrant to Allah and His Messenger and then death overtakes him, his reward has already become incumbent upon Allah. And Allah is ever Forgiving and Merciful.” (4:100) The exalted status of such emigrants led a British jihad group that won notoriety (and a shutdown by the government) a few years ago for celebrating 9/11 to call itself Al-Muhajiroun: The Emigrants.
It is clear that immigration and the refugee program are being used as weapons against the United States and the West generally. Change the population and you’ve changed the culture: it’s not the same country any more. Democrats want more Mexicans because they agree with the liberals’ philosophy of big government and less freedom. Look at what’s happened to California in a few decades: it’s gone from dependably Republican to totally Democrat. That’s the D-plan for all of America.
Here’s the text of the Times piece with its curious mention of hijrah that might have provided more edification than was intended.
DUNCAN, S.C. — The worried citizens gathered in the high school cafeteria, about 200 strong. Patriotic songs played on the stereo, a man in a blue blazer from the John Birch Society hovered by a well-stocked literature table, and Lauren L. Martel, a lawyer from Hilton Head, told the crowd that 25 Syrian refugees were already living among them.
“The U.N. calls it ‘refugee resettlement’ — the Muslims call it hijra, migration,” said another speaker, Jim McMillan, a local businessman. “They don’t plan to assimilate, they don’t plan to take on our culture. They plan to change the way of American life.”
The United States government has pledged to increase the number of worldwide refugees allowed in the country each year from 70,000 to 100,000 by the year 2017; earlier this month, the Obama administration said it would take in at least 10,000 Syrian refugees over the next year. But the anger and anxiety here show just how hard this might be in some parts of the country.
None of Syria’s four million refugees have been resettled in this part of South Carolina in the last year, according to the State Department. Since May, a Christian nonprofit group, World Relief, has placed 32 refugees in the region, but most of them were Christians fleeing troubled countries like Myanmar and the Democratic Republic of Congo.
Even so, in South Carolina’s Upstate region, as its conservative northwest corner is known, the crisis has divided those who want to welcome new waves of huddled masses from those who question the federal government’s ability to weed out Muslim extremists. Some critics, echoing concerns in towns across the country, fear the newcomers will burden local government agencies or alter the character of their communities. Continue reading this article
There are millions who want to come, and hundreds of thousands from Africa, the Middle East and Asia are flocking to Europe in a tsunami of mostly Muslim third-worlders who want a first-world life with lots of free stuff.
Washington, DC – U.S. Rep. Brian Babin (TX-36) yesterday introduced the Resettlement Accountability National Security Act (H.R. 3314), which places an immediate suspension on allowing immigrants into the United States under the refugee resettlement program, until the Government Accountability Office (GAO) completes a thorough examination of its costs on federal, state and local governments. According to the U.S. refugee admissions database, nearly 500,000 new immigrants have come to the U.S. under the resettlement program since President Obama first took office – with the state of Texas and its taxpayers being asked to take in more than any other state.
“It is extremely unsettling that the Obama Administration would continue to expand the U.S. resettlement program at such an irresponsible pace in light of our economic and national security challenges,” said Rep. Babin. “While this program may be warranted in certain situations, it is continuing at an unchecked pace. For the past decade the U.S. has been admitting roughly 70,000 new refugees a year, with little understanding of the economic and social costs on our communities. . . .
In addition, a September 22 Rasmussen poll noted: Few Support Bringing More Syrian Refugees To U.S.. The survey found 49 percent of voters wanted no Syrian or Middle East refugees, and only 20 percent supported Obama’s original ploy of allowing 10,000 additional refugees to resettle here.
Here’s the Hannity clip with Congressman Babin:
HANNITY: Politicians are now calling on Americans to help by allowing an increased number of migrants right here into the US, but amid security concerns a US Congressman has introduced legislation that would halt the intake of new refugees until America’s migrant resettlement program is fully audited and the security risks have been assessed.
Here now to discuss his new legislation, Texas Congressman Brian Babin is with us. While James Clapper, the head of the National Intelligence, and our State Department have both said the same thing, that ISIS and al Qaida will infiltrate the refugee population. So doesn’t that mean that the risk is there and we can’t ascertain whether they’re genuine refugee or an ISIS fighter?
BABIN: That’s exactly right, Sean. There is no way to vet or screen these people coming out of the Middle East, and all we have to do is look at Western Europe, the failures of their refugee program and then we’ll look at ours — we’ve already taken five hundred thousand refugees in the last six years of President Obama’s administration, and less than five percent of those have been the most persecuted group of all and that’s Christians. Continue reading this article
The United States used to have separation of church and state as an important principle, but now it’s more convenient for big Washington government to fund alleged do-gooder projects through the Catholic church, which is happy to receive the easy money.
In fact, the cassock brigade has amassed more than $1.6 billion since 2012 from federal coffers, a stunning figure. Did we citizens vote for that? Many Americans don’t appreciate Catholic meddling, like the millions of dollars they have spent to promote amnesty for illegal aliens. Elite Catholics undermine American law and sovereignty, yet their snouts have free range in the federal trough.
Catholic Charities gets around two-thirds of its budget from American tax dollars, so big government is very agreeable to the church.
Not to be lost in the pomp and circumstance of Pope Francis’ first visit to Washington is the reality that the Catholic Church he oversees has become one of the largest recipients of federal largesse in America.
The Church and related Catholic charities and schools have collected more than $1.6 billion since 2012 in U.S. contracts and grants in a far-reaching relationship that spans from school lunches for grammar school students to contracts across the globe to care for the poor and needy at the expense of Uncle Sam, a Washington Times review of federal spending records shows.
Former Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York once famously noted in 1980 that the government funded 50 percent of Catholic Charities’ budget, commenting “private institutions really aren’t private anymore.” Today, those estimates remain about the same, according to Leslie Lenkowsky, who served as the chief executive officer of the Corporation for National and Community Service under George W. Bush.
Catholic Charities USA, the largest charitable organization run by the church, receives about 65 percent of its annual budget from state and federal governments, making it an arm of the federal welfare state, said Brian Anderson, a researcher with the Manhattan Institute.
The federal government came to increasingly rely on the church to help it with Lyndon B. Johnson’s “War on Poverty,” and the charities “imbued with their new faith in the government’s potential to solve social problems, eagerly accepted government money,” Mr. Anderson wrote in an essay for the Manhattan Institute.
Catholic Charities received nearly a quarter of its funding from government by the end of the 1960s, more than half by the late 1970s and more than 60 percent by the mid-1980s, the level where it has remained ever since, Mr. Anderson said. Continue reading this article
Muslims immigration has been the worst public policy ever. But liberals think we Americans should ignore the facts and vote for some idealized imaginary Allah worshipper for President, as shown by the recent bashing of candidate Ben Carson.
Finally, would the pro-diversity 28 percent still consider a Muslim candidate if they knew Islam permits lying to infidels (taqiyya) if it will further Islamic conquest?
Republican presidential hopeful Ben Carson has been criticized by other candidates and the media for saying he could not support a Muslim for president of the United States. But guess what? Over half of U.S. voters agree.
Fifty-one percent (51%) of Likely U.S. Voters say they would not personally be willing to vote for a Muslim president. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 28% say they would be willing to support a Muslim in the White House. A sizable 20% are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
Fifty-two percent (52%) say most of their family, friends and co-workers also would not be willing to vote for a Muslim president. Only 15% say they would. Thirty-two percent (32%) are not sure.
Republicans are more than twice as likely as Democrats – 73% to 35% – to say they would not personally vote for a Muslim to be U.S. president. A plurality (48%) of voters not affiliated with either major party agrees.
The large number of undecideds suggests that many voters are unwilling to reveal their opinion on what is seen as a controversial topic. Continue reading this article
When Islam arrives via immigration, free speech leaves. Marine Le Pen, leader of the National Front party, will face trial for comparing Muslims to Nazis.
Specifically, in 2010 she said that Muslims praying en masse in the streets were an unwelcome occupation of public space not unlike the bitter years of WWII when Hitler’s army ruled Paris and other regions of France.
The French people were irate about the mass jihad slaughter of the Charlie Hebdo staff earlier this year, but they seem to be snoozing through this more subtle assault on free speech. Nevertheless, both attacks have totalitarian Islam as the cause.
French far-right party leader Marine Le Pen will go on trial for comparing Muslim street prayers to wartime Nazi occupation, party officials and the prosecutor’s office said on Tuesday.
Le Pen, whom polls see likely to win a regional election in northern France in December, has widened the National Front’s appeal since she took its helm in 2011 by expelling extremists and cracking down on anti-Semitism.
But the party also thrives on concerns over immigration and radical Islam. In a meeting in 2010, Le Pen criticised Muslims praying in the streets when mosques are full.
She will be judged on Oct. 20 over charges of “incitement to discrimination over people’s religious beliefs,” the prosecutor’s office in Lyon said.
Le Pen had told the 2010 rally in Lyon: “I’m sorry, but for those who really like to talk about World War Two, if we’re talking about occupation, we could talk about that (street prayers), because that is clearly an occupation of the territory.”
“It is an occupation of sections of the territory, of neighborhoods in which religious law applies, it is an occupation. There are no tanks, there are no soldiers, but it is an occupation anyhow, and it weighs on people,” she added. Continue reading this article
Futurist forecasts are generally fun to read, and are even better when the crystal ball gazers are experts in the field. That’s the case with the paper Technological Tipping Points and Societal Impact, which polled 800 tech execs for their opinions of what’s ahead.
. . . Today, technological advances are rapidly making it possible to automate much of the work currently carried out by humans. This applies to both blue-collar jobs, through robotics and the Internet of Things, and white-collar work, through artificial intelligence. The wide applicability of these technologies has led to broad concern about the destruction of jobs. Indeed, according to a 2014 Oxford study, 47% of jobs in the US could be replaced by automated processes in the next two decades. . . .
The view seems to be lessening that automation will sort itself out by creating new jobs. Yes, clearly there will be new kinds of occupations coming, but they won’t replace the millions of jobs lost. Why would businesses spend large sums of money to install robots if the machines weren’t seen as being cheaper over the long run? Plus, smart machines are becoming less expensive so even small manufacturers can afford them — a basic Baxter robot costs $22,000. And most of the new future jobs will be for tech-savvy folks, not blue-collar workers.
The general upshot is that the jobless recovery (caused by automation as well as by excessive regulation) will become the new normal as more and more jobs are performed by automation, robots and computers.
Given a future of hugely decreased employment, there is ZERO need for worker immigration. Plus double zero for increased numbers of Muslim refugees, for whom there will be no jobs. The latter group may well grow angry with the lack of opportunity, which they will hear at the local mosque is due to islamophobia rather than advances in production techniques.
Why is technological unemployment not being discussed by the Presidential candidates? The Washington bubble of ignorance encompasses them too. Even those who talk about jobs don’t see the approaching employment train wreck of massive automation.
Within 10 years, the U.S. will see the first robotic pharmacist. Driverless cars will equal 10% of all cars on the road, and the first implantable mobile phone will be available commercially.
These predictions, and many others, were included in a World Economic Forum report, released this month. The “Technological Tipping Points Survey” is based on responses from 800 IT executives and other experts.
A tipping point is the moment when specific technological shifts go mainstream. In 10 years, many technologies will be widely used that today are in pilot or are still new to the market.
Fair Use: This site contains copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of issues related to culture and mass immigration. We believe this constitutes a "fair use" of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information, see: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000107----000-.html. In order to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond "fair use", you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.