Sola Koranica: 2
Daily headlines feature mass murders perpetrated abroad by Islamic terrorists: Muslims acting out violent dictates of the Koran to the tribal letter. Locally, 'lone wolf' jihadists bask in their own murderous ten minutes of fame within the relentless/rapacious 24-hour news cycle. Less sensational, and therefore of less interest to a complicit media, is the tribal violence introduced to local neighbourhoods by idolatrous Western governments worshipping at the twin altars of self-interest and liberal ideology.
On the one hand, hyperventilating like Robespierre about external 'threats' to 'public safety' (even where non-existent as with Iraq), Big Government instrumentalises Islamic terrorism to break international laws with impunity; to increase its reach into the minutiae of our private lives; to tighten its grip on what constitutes acceptable thoughts and acts. On the other, it joins with Big Media and Big Business in waging propagandistic and legal jihads against Christian conscience and the Catholic Church — always the last bulwark against arbitrary State Power.
Concurrently, masonic policies of uncontrolled mass immigration at the service of corrosive 'multiculturalism' have bred many local 'threats' to 'public safety', with official blessing. Occasionally, however, despite all the politically correct collusion and criminality among the governing class, these imported workaday horrors become so unbearably blatant they can no longer be covered over. Quite apart from the liberating oxygen of truth released by such periodic unveilings, the subsequent sincere outrage and indignation it elicits is always a sobering reminder that purely natural goodness and honesty can never correct the suicidal trajectory of secularisation; that human effort alone cannot save our nations from their irreligious selves, nor from the quasi-religious political force they have invited in to fill the post-Christian vacuum.
In August 2014, a report by Professor Alexis Jay identified the violation of more than 1,400 girls from 1997 to 2013, predominantly by members of the Rotherham (Pakistani) Muslim community. Children as young as nine were abducted, groomed, trafficked, raped, "doused in petrol and threatened with being set alight, threatened with guns, made to witness brutally violent rapes and threatened they would be next if they told anyone."
Agencies that spoke up during this period were seen by the borough's social care services as "something of a nuisance." Risky Business, an outreach programme for victims in the South Yorkshire town, reported nearly 1,700 cases of grooming or sexual exploitation to the council's children's services between 1999 and 2011 (considerably more cases in a shorter period than the number presented in the 153-page Jay report). For its trouble and concern, the programme was shut down.
Finally condemned for its "deep-rooted" culture of cover-ups and silencing of whistleblowers, Rotherham Council (controlled and dominated by Labour members) was recently deemed "not fit for purpose" by the Communities Secretary, who plans to transfer control of the council to a team of five commissioners.
Meantime, long after the Jay report, the abuse continues! Sky News reported on 29 January 2015 that "hundreds more cases were known to authorities prior to [the Jay report's] publication and that hundreds more are being reported." A victim told Sky that "It’s still going on if not worse, because now they’re having to hide it more. I’m still seeing my abusers driving young girls in their car. They’re untouchable." As for police efforts, she said that "all they care about is getting a statement. Six months on we’ve had no arrests, we’ve had no charges, evidence is still being lost."
So shocking was the depravity of the Rotherham perpetrators, so brazenly violent their intimidation of the families of the children they trafficked, and so contemptuous their attitude to police and the law of the land, that the supine press finally set aside its generic "Asian" descriptive to pin down the ethnicity of the perpetrators. The Telegraph, for one, lamented on 5 February:
"The Casey report [by Home Office official Louise Casey] refers to the perpetrators of the crimes in Rotherham as predominantly "Pakistani heritage men," The Jay report, which preceded it, stated: "They were described generically in the files as 'Asian males' without precise reference being made to their ethnicity." ... Jay was clear. "The majority of the perpetrators were from minority ethnic communities."
The victims weren’t. They were white. Jay again: "most of the victims in the cases we sampled were white British children." And they were targeted deliberately because they were white.
True enough — up to a superficial point. But it is only fair to insert here the understandable concerns about this argument on the part of dedicated and courageous folk who work with and for abused and exploited children. Though sadly ignoring the genocidal war against the unborn as a major cause of violence against women and children generally, they know it is not a problem confined to one group, as recently confirmed by Home Secretary Theresa May. After finalising the members and terms of reference of a Parliamentary inquiry into historic child sex abuse and cover-ups at the highest levels of society and government, she stated that such abuse is "woven, covertly, into the fabric of British society," also calling institutional abuse "the darkness in our midst." Similarly, a member of Parents Against Sexual Exploitation of Children lamented that "Rotherham is much more indicative of an attitude that exists across Britain."
Equally, a Muslim charity that supports Muslim women and children suffering domestic violence in Rotherham was quick to spread the blame to include white abusers. "I think this is about Islamophobia," said a spokeswoman. "People talk about the problem being Pakistani men and then this becomes Muslim men. It is said that they abuse white girls because they respect ‘their own’ girls. This is dangerous. It makes it harder for Asian victims to come forward. And it has allowed groups such as the racist English Defence League to jump on the bandwagon."
Though they do not address the overwhelming Muslim involvement in Rotherham, or the more general fear and silence within Muslim communities which protect their perpetrators at home and abroad, there is obviously much truth in these claims. The arrogance of men raised on Koranic claims of Muslim superiority explains much of the criminality. Yet it goes without saying that the cause is not solely down to ethnicity and religion. The collusion of corrupt police was (and remains) a significant additional factor: further reflecting the endemic Western rot, as Original Sin, unleashed from all Christian restraint, runs riot.
From the age of 14, Jessica (not her real name) suffered sexual, physical and mental abuse from her Muslim oppressor for more than two years while the police repeatedly refused to take action:
A lot of police officers were corrupt and they were working for my abuser. I know that because of things I’d seen when I’d been with him. One time I went missing. I was with my abuser and an officer came in a marked car. He told him, "I’ve come to give you a heads up that there could be a warrant out for your arrest." Another officer bought steroids from him. Once the police found me in bed with my abuser — but I was the one who got arrested. .... I remember police officers calling me a slag. I remember one saying, "I can’t wait to nail you."(1)[Socialist Worker, 17/2/15]
All that duly said: since networks of ultra-violent Catholics, Protestants, Sikhs, Hindus or Jews targeting children (especially children other than their own religious and racial kind) are unknown in these Isles, Muslims need to understand that the racist rape epidemic is well and truly their problem; that Rotherham was only one of more than a dozen British towns and cities experiencing similar Muslim mayhem.
Following a three month trial in 2013 where "nine Muslim men were found guilty of raping dozens of British children" in Greater Manchester, the Gatestone Institute, a non-partisan, not-for-profit international policy council and think tank dedicated to educating the public about what the mainstream media fails to report, identified a series of additional incidents, all of which included two common factors: Islam, and political correctness. According to Gatestone:
The list goes on and on. "Most of the men running the sex slave gangs in the north of England are Asians of Pakistani origin. But very few of the authorities will admit this," said one of the early victims of the Rotherham gangs. Understandably reluctant to utter the "M" or "I" words herself, she was then just 11 years of age but still lives in fear of her safety despite having left the town. It was not only white children who suffered, however. And not only white authorities who covered up.
Reading about the Jay Report from the safe distance of her new home in America, Ruzwana Bashir was moved to write about her own experience of being abused at the age of ten by a Muslim community leader in Skipton, less than 60 miles from Rotherham. "I felt sure that there were many victims from within the Pakistani community in Rotherham too, who we weren’t going to ever hear about, because of the incredible under-reporting of abuse that goes on within the Asian community," she said. "There’s a huge cultural taboo around the issue, and an enormous amount of shame involved. Victims are often shunned, even by their own families, if they do come forward. The perpetrators are protected, while the victims are blamed, so women and young girls don’t say anything and the abuse continues throughout generations."
Now a successful businesswoman, Miss Bashir is keen to see pressure put on Muslim communities to break ranks and point the finger. "In Rotherham, people knew this was happening and no one did anything about it. We need ... to start outing the perpetrators in our midst." In this regard, as in many areas, Islam mirrors Judaism. We have previously highlighted how 'tribal' Jewish communities led by abusive rabbis variously intimidate and attack victims and whistleblowers, using Talmudic codes of silence to foster non-cooperation with civil authorities. [See "Ultra-Orthodox Shun Their Own for Reporting Child Sex-Abuse," Aug/Sept 2012].
Only when sexual abuse scandals reach the magnitude of Rotherham or Brooklyn does the prejudicial media momentarily break off its saturation coverage of clerical wrongdoing to consider similar Muslim and Jewish criminality. Ever fearful of the 'racist' jibe, it then treats the issue with kid gloves while ignoring the far higher rate of abuse within those religions, as also in Protestant communities (cf. "Thank Allah for Little Girls," Jan. 2004; "Clergy Abuse: Protestants 24, Catholics 1," Aug/Sept 2014). Nor are Muslim and Jewish offenders and their complicit leaders relentlessly pursued like Catholic clerics and bishops.
No wonder minorities retreat to victimhood to duck responsibility and shift the blame. Even faced with the multiple horrors of Rotherham the 'racist' jibe worked a treat. Reflexively, Muslim community leaders responded to hard evidence by shouting "Islamophobia." But they should be less worried about white thugs who "jump on the bandwagon" (as they surely do), and far more concerned about facing Islamic reality: which first set the bandwagon rolling, and enables it to gather speed as Muslims close ranks before one outrage after another.
Comparing that defensive tribal attitude to the loud and righteous reaction of football fans to the nasty treatment recently meted out to a black man by some of their fellows, writer and broadcaster Nick Ferrari put it this way: "The Chelsea community has promptly stepped on that ugly racist incident by its supporters on the Paris Metro and helped shop the offenders. Now the Muslim community needs to do the same with people such as Brusthom Ziamani, found guilty last week of plotting to behead a soldier."
Likewise, the white commentariat needs to recognise that the racist element of Rotherham is only a by-product of the deeper cause-and-effect of such hellish crimes. For it is not ethnicity but sola Koranica that ultimately informs extreme attitudes and actions. Even moderate Muslims who denounce Islamic violence are themselves trapped by it — since unlike Christians, they are good not because of their scriptures, but despite them, and only for as long as they don't go over to its dark side.
After all, since the command of Christ to "Love your enemies: do good to them that hate you: and pray for them that persecute and calumniate you" [Matt 5:44] hardly instills such vicious contempt for bodies and souls, precisely which creed are we talking about here? Could it be the one that instills Islamic contempt for non-Muslims as the "worst of creatures" (Koran 89:6), whom Muslims are bound by Allah to treat with harshness (Koran 48:29; 9:123)? The one behind headlines like "Immigrants rape girl after Quran classes," and "British girls gang-raped as part of Eid Celebration"?
Cowardice and corruption
Make no mistake, the religion precedes and promotes the racism and the violence: both clearly enunciated in Koranic verses interpreted for good or ill by Muslims of every stripe. For politicians, functionaries, and (honest) police to have pointed out this religious dimension of Rotherham would have earned orchestrated opprobrium even greater than the 'Islamophobic bigots' label they desperately sought to avoid by turning a blind eye. Trumping every other consideration, this desperation fuelled the official complicity and cover-ups.
One former police officer said of his fellow officers: "They were running scared of the race issue... there is no doubt that in Rotherham, this has been a problem with Pakistani men for years and years. People were scared of being called racist."
Paralysed by political correctness ever since the entire British police force was unfairly accused of "institutional racism" in the 1999 McPherson report (arising from the murder of a young black man by white thugs), it is unsurprising Jay found that police "regarded many child victims with contempt." As also their parents. "In two of the cases," she says, "fathers tracked down their daughters and tried to remove them from houses where they were being abused, only to be arrested themselves when police were called to the scene." (This recalls the 2007 Channel 4 documentary that dutifully exposed violent preaching in British mosques, only for the radical preachers to be moddycoddled while the brave documentary producers were falsely accused by the West Midlands police and the Crown Prosecution Service: of misrepresentation and encouraging or inciting criminal activity!)
As for Rotherham council, one whistleblower branded it a "machine" which "simply exists to cover up and destroy." The Jay report duly recorded that "Several staff described their nervousness about identifying the ethnic origins of perpetrators for fear of being thought as racist; others remembered clear direction from their managers not to do so." While children and their families were being openly terrorised year after year, a female council officer sent the researcher who originally raised the alarm in 2002 on an "ethnicity and diversity course" to raise her awareness of "ethnic issues." The researcher told the BBC's Panorama: "She [the officer] said you must never refer to that again, you must never refer to Asian men. I was subjected to the most intense personal hostility. I've never seen back-covering like it and I still feel extremely angry about that." Professor Jay said the response of the authorities to the researcher's report was that "she was punished for speaking truth to power."
The heinous self-serving, cowardice, and corruption is compounded by the fact that this criminal failure by those charged with protecting children happened despite the 2002 report being followed by two more (i.e., three reports in total between 2002 and 2006): all of which, according to Professor Jay, "could not have been clearer in the description of the situation in Rotherham."
In yet another spurious response to Rotherham, columnist Sarah Vine (wife of Tory MP Michael Gove) wrote about the "undeniable fact that hardline exponents of the [Islamic] religion are becoming more common in this country, and that women are suffering as a result. This," she lamented, "is a truth that is hard to bear...". Yet not sufficiently hard, it seems, to risk presenting the "hardline exponents" as something much closer to the truth: as not just racists and bigots but common garden Muslims prey to the Koranic words before them, and/or the problematic private interpretation thereof. Not least those verses concerning women which lead always and everywhere to a woeful existence for untold numbers of them. This was frankly admitted in the findings of a 1985 Pakistani governmental commission investigating the status of the women in that country, which concluded:
The average woman is born into near slavery, leads a life of drudgery, and dies invariably in oblivion. This grim condition is the stark reality of half our population simply because they happen to be female.
As survivor Ruzwana Bashir frankly admitted, this "grim" Islamic "condition" is also the "stark reality" lived out by many British females. In August 2013, a desperate Derby-based charity even advised young Muslims who feared being taken abroad for a forced marriage to wear a spoon in their underwear to set off airport metal detectors! If aged 16 or over, they could then be taken to a safe place for a final chance to disclose if they were being forced to marry. It is estimated as many as 5,000 UK women a year are forced into marriage, more than a third of them under 16.
But it is not just marriage. "Force" looms large in all aspects of Western urban life for Muslim women. While they often claim to wear their hijab veils out of choice, for example, it seems the fear of physical punishment for not doing so is the determining factor for the majority. Consider this from The New Yorker magazine:
More often those girls were under orders from their fathers and uncles and brothers, and even their male classmates…. Girls who did not conform were excoriated, or chased, or beaten by fanatical young men meting out Islamic justice. Sometimes girls were gang-raped.
"That’s not a description of some tribal village in the hinterlands of Afghanistan," William Kilpatrick explains:
It’s an account of conditions in the Muslim suburbs surrounding Paris. According to Serge Trifkovic, "Many French-born Arab girls in the ghetto resort to wearing hijab as the only protection against face-slashing and gang-rapes." Is wearing the hijab a matter of personal choice? In some places, yes. But according to a survey conducted in 2003, 77 percent of French girls who wore the hijab said they did so because of physical threats (Global Post, March 2, 2010).
The threats and attacks are easily rationalised. In order to justify their unspeakable crimes, the Rotherham crew eagerly pointed to the Koran and young girls in some Pakistani tribes being married off when they hit puberty. They are doubtless aware, too, that Mohammed himself married a six-year-old and commenced carnal relations when she was only nine.
While 'Islamic scholars' turn predictable somersaults through all of this, one might expect greater candour from feminists, like Ms Vine, on behalf of their Muslim "sisters." Yet nobody — ever — wants to face the Koranic bottom line. It is deemed sufficient to trot out (thoroughly decent) imams and Muslim community leaders instead: to decry the latest criminal horror. Even as I write they are trying to extinguish fires of controversy involving halal abattoirs and FGM (— 500 reported cases of female genital mutilation each month being the tip of the iceberg, we are told). But the peaceful entreaties of moderate Muslims count for nothing when Muslim communities are tribally silenced and subjugated. Like Rotherham, the 'rotten borough' of Tower Hamlets, East London, is indicative.
In 2010, Lutfur Rahman became Britain's first Muslim mayor. Subsequently expelled by the Labour Party, he is alleged to have "subverted democracy" by masterminding a campaign of corruption and intimidation to rig his 2014 re-election in Tower Hamlets. During a rare electoral fraud trial, he was accused in court of running a "den of iniquity" and systematically stealing votes. "Muslim voters were left in tears at the ballot box after being warned it was a 'sin' not to back the controversial mayor, the High Court heard" [Daily Mail, 3/2/15]. Among much else, Lutfur's supporters sent death threats to the children of electoral rivals, branded opponents racist and anti-Islamic, and actually accompanied Muslims into polling booths to tell them who to vote for. An intimidating presence at polling booths in May 2014, they did not "give a damn about the law... as long as their man got elected." It was also claimed that there were numerous examples of men ordering women how to vote or voting for them.
Despite 131 complaints of electoral malpractice in relation to Tower Hamlets, police decided not to act. Four brave Muslim residents took Lutfur to court instead. They did not baulk at the £6,000 police charged them to obtain documents in support of their private case, or at having to bear the six-figure court costs. One of them said they were "just ordinary voters" fed up with fraud and intimidation in their borough.
Offsetting their courage and more typical, however, was the fate and (understandable) reaction of 100 witnesses they had lined up; many of whom, according to their barrister, had reported "threats of violence, threats to their families in Bangladesh, pressure from their employers and pressure from their communities." Some were so afraid, they would not take the witness stand even if ordered by the judge, he added.
So much for the 'peaceful majority.' Tribally-speaking, as noted last month, they are irrelevant. And in any event, as a certain pontiff might say, who are sola Koranica moderates to judge sola Koranica radicals who take Mohammed at his capricious word? After all, like Luther, the self-declared prophet changed his self-declared 'revelation' more than once to suit his sexual and vengeful purposes. Thus, in a tit-for-tat comparison of verses and interpretations, all factions and individuals (both law abiding and criminal) may claim to be "devout." Whether it be the Chief Editor of the Muslim Times —who recently compiled "Two Hundred Verses about Compassionate Living in the Quran" — or Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud — who pointed out that "Allah on 480 occasions in the Holy Koran extols Muslims to wage jihad."
For his fanatical part, as he brawled with up to eight court officials during his sentencing at the Old Bailey in February 2014, Michael Adebolajo, the Muslim convert who hacked to death Afghanistan war veteran Lee Rigby on a London street in May 2013, cried: "It's not a betrayal of Islam, you don't know anything about Islam." Granted, we don't know everything. But we do know that it's as infinitely elastic as Protestantism; allowing the likes of Mr Adebolajo to choose Taliban-Islam over Muslim Times-Islam and still remain a faithful Muslim. And we most certainly know, after fourteen rampaging centuries of Adebolajo-Islam, that it's bad for our health!
For all their objections to unhealthy Islamic fall out, however, secular commentators hoisted on their own 'tolerant'/'non-judgmental' petard are no more likely to finger sola Koranica chaos as the underlying and irresolvable problem, than they are to join up problematic Protestant and Jewish dots to sola scriptura and sola Talmudica.
By deeming halal slaughter an animal rights issue, for instance, the media can side-step the criminal stealth-jihad explained in last month's edition. Similarly, by accepting at face value the objections of some Muslim organisations that FGM is "non-Islamic and against the teachings of Islam" (per the Muslim Council of Britain) they can rationalise avoidance of objective scrutiny of the religion itself. Consequently, nothing is ever resolved. Superficial reactions and band-aid treatments are the order of the day — all predicated on the denial of Islam's essence and manifest history.
Kneeling before the tribe
This self-abasement should not surprise us. Even less religious than their irreligious readership, secular pundits bow to Islam because they themselves have nothing left to defend except their own reputations and livelihoods. Like the country at large, they have traded ultimate beliefs for vague and shifting "values" detached from the Christian Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount that once gave them meaning and purpose. Few British pundits will concede that immutable Christian benchmarks informed and anchored the worldview that painfully constructed the West. Yet they are quite happy to live off the spoiled legacy of that civilisation: all the while extolling and touting its rotten secular-democratic fruits as if they fell out of thin air (and not off the "true vine," Our Lord Jesus Christ, without Whom we "can do nothing" - Jn 15:1-5).
Indeed the very idea that one, true religion would even exist is a non-starter. Raised on Whig history and Protestant spin; entertained by spurious Monty Python skits about the Inquisition; blinded by materialism... to jaundiced media eyes the Catholic claim (to have fashioned Western order out of the disorder provoked by its own sinful adherents, barbarians, and false creeds like Islam) is risible. Instead, portraying Catholicism as one more religious opiate among all the rest, they paint false historical pictures of moral equivalence between warmongering Muslims and righteous Crusaders, while presenting the sadistic continuum of medieval Islam — Rotherham, honour killings, halal abattoirs, FGM, et. al. — as aberrations: merely, as Sarah Vine reassures her readers, "the worst of a culture that, arguably, represents one of the oldest civilised influences on the planet."
"Arguably"? What argument? What debate? When gentle Pope Benedict sought to open a polite dialogue about the nature of Islam and its civilising influence or otherwise, murderous hell broke loose all over the Muslim world. A typically uncivilised reaction embodied in the hundred protestors outside Westminster Cathedral on 18 September 2006, whose banners called for the Pope's execution, among other delightful declarations, such as: "Pope go to Hell"; "Jesus is the slave of Allah"; "May Allah curse the Pope"; and "Islam will conquer Rome" (— which specific conquest the IS, after beheading a further 21 Christians this month, has vowed to realise.)
Rather than rush to Benedict's defense and use his reflection as a platform for serious discussion, the liberal Establishment abandoned him to this violent response, apologising for his medieval attitude: a craven retreat that exemplified the Death of the West. Morally and mentally sapped by its psycho-sexual addictions, it is a moribund civilisation: an incoherent heap of sanctimonious atheists, preaching pseudo-"values" to a quasi-religious tribe it has invited in to tear up the shifting foundations of its tottering house. Truly, it's as if we are trapped in an espisode of the Simpsons, with Homer calling the shots!
At the very least, we are acting out The Dunciad, Alexander Pope's epic satire, which depicts the approaching end-times as an era of colossal stupidity, the antithesis of the Logos. "When we delve beneath the details and clever footnotes of the Dunciad," explains Dr. Anne Gardiner, "we find a Catholic perspective on the modern era":
In the Dunciad, Dulness [head of the false Trinity of Mother, Son and Spirit, and the "Daughter of Chaos and eternal Night"], is about to restore her mother’s "Mysteries" throughout the world by means of the English, who have renounced all metaphysical reality. For them, everything consists of superficial, transitory appearances. Even words have no substantial meaning but are only sounds that entertain them for a moment and then vanish.
A prophetic portrait of our atheistic times, the eighteenth century Catholic poet was in no doubt about the dire consequences:
Pope reveals that the daughter of Chaos has plenty of materialists in England among the booksellers, writers, theater managers, scientific virtuosi, politicians, heads of colleges, and clergy. They think nothing is real except the superficies of things which they perceive with their five senses. In so doing they invite Dulness to rule “in native Anarchy, the mind” and stretch her "boundless empire" across the globe. For to abandon metaphysical reality, the poet suggests, is the ultimate stupidity that will finally "blot out Order, and extinguish light."
["The Dunciad, or the Stupidity of Evil in the End-Times," The Latin Mass magazine, New Jersey, Winter/Spring 2015.]
Pope's prediction of endemic irreligion giving rise to universal idiocy and anarchy explains, in large part, the suicidal craving to flood Europe with an alien force, rather than strictly control and manage the intake of Muslims in commonsense fashion for the common good. It also speaks to the insane prostration before that latent tribal power, even as our godless governors hand it the socio-political clubs with which to beat us all into submission in time-honoured, Koranically-prescribed fashion.
This is not to say that there is no method in their madness.
Clearly, the Government/Media/Military-Industrial Dunciad has a vested interest in Western death by a thousand liberal cuts. The Christian demise is vital to their atheistic free-for-all, and balkanising nations through uncontrolled immigration is a major means to that end. The real 'madness' of the orchestrating Dunces lies not in their divide-and-conquer strategy, therefore, but in their delirious expectation. They foolishly believe that they will not, ultimately, like the rest of us, have to face the Islamic music: the choice of dhimmitude, exile, or death. They are badly advised.
Despite a febrile climate that precludes calm and reasoned debate, minimising self-harm by phasing out 'multiculturalism', the ideological motor behind mass immigration, is still possible. It will remain so until such time as Muslims reach the critical mass required to assume political power [see "Islamisation by Numbers," Jan. 2010]. Currently, there is widespread resentment over the devastating impact of having encouraged and rewarded people who resist assimilation and maintain a separatist, or at least separate culture. The Islamic consequences of maintaining this suite of destructive policies — which deny the manifest truth that not all immigrants are the same — are all about us. For while it goes without saying that the Rotherham gang does indeed constitute "the worst" of Islamic culture in Britain, the criminal refrain will strike a chord with CO-readers everywhere. Most certainly with Scandinavians.
"In Sweden," reports the Washington Times (29/12/14), "Muslim immigrants account for 5 percent of its population but commit 77 percent of its crime. Sweden’s 'rape crisis' is a direct result of an influx of Muslim 'asylum seekers'. Amnesty International reports that Sweden has the highest number of rapes in Europe and the lowest conviction rate. According to Swedish Public Radio, in Stockholm alone, over 1,000 Swedish women reported that a Muslim immigrant raped them; 300 were under age 15. (One third of those living in Stockholm are immigrants; 24 percent are Muslim). These numbers represent only 25 percent of all rapes in Stockholm because officials claim the majority are unreported. Despite this, the Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention and the European Commissioner for Home Affairs 'refuse to admit the assailants are Muslim'." The report continues:
... Crime has also spiked to unprecedented levels [in Norway], so much so that Norway’s jails can’t sustain their increasing overcapacity. Norway’s response: deport criminal Muslims back to where they came from: Nigeria, Afghanistan, Romania, and Morocco.
... In Amsterdam, Het Parool reported young male Moroccan second-generation immigrants and Dutch citizens are publicly murdering non-immigrant citizens with AK-47s to advance their "unstoppable march to become the largest group of violent criminals" in the country. These are not isolated incidents and continue despite decades of government efforts to "divert young Muslims away from crime."
One need only read Sharia4Holland’s website to understand attacks on film directors, politicians, and pedestrians are not isolated incidents. In fact, Dutch MP Macheil de Graaf is imploring his colleagues in the government to deport Muslims — who alone are costing the Dutch $7.2 billion per year in welfare and crime.
De Graaf claims, "The Netherlands must be de-Islamised, all mosques must be closed, jihadists must be expelled and never allowed back, and the borders must be closed to people from Islamic countries. The Dutch government must commit itself to repatriation of Muslims back to Muslim countries so we will not be plagued with honour killings, cousin marriages, anti-Semitism, homophobia, animal abuse, rampant crime, rape."
Denmark’s 10news.dk reports that eight out of the nine ethnic groups who commit the most crimes are Muslim "asylum" seekers who entered Denmark from Lebanon, Pakistan, Morocco, Turkey, Syria, Somalia, Iran, and Iraq. Seventy percent of inmates in youth prisons are immigrants; the majority are Muslims.
In Belgium, Sharia law is enforced in Muslim neighbourhoods, Christian and Jewish symbols are vandalised, and Belgian girls attacked for being part of what Imran, a young Shia, decries as "a dirty, perverted community." He looks forward to replacing Belgian law with Sharia law. Including amputation for theft, stoning for adultery, and death for homosexuality. After all, he says, "If you’re not a criminal why should you be afraid of Sharia." Asked by his interviewer if he thinks "it’s only a matter of time before the Muslims have a majority here," he responds:
Of course. Even the disbelievers themselves say that in 2030, or something like that, there will be a majority of Muslims in Belgium. In Antwerp, 40% of the children in the schools are Muslims. So it’s just a matter of time. No problem. We don’t have any problem.
Imran doesn't have a problem because Islam is the problem, as further underlined by Nonie Darwish in her book, Cruel and Usual Punishment: The Terrifying Global Implications of Islamic Law. A Christian convert from Islam, her family once held an elevated position in Muslim society (due to her father, a high-ranking Egyptian military officer stationed in Gaza, suffering 'martyrdom' for jihad). She confirms the plight of Muslim women thus:
In the Muslim faith a Muslim man can marry a child as young as 1 year old and have sexual intimacy with this child, consummating the marriage by 9. The dowry is given to the family in exchange for the woman (who becomes his slave) and for the purchase of the private parts of the woman, to use her as a toy. Even though a woman is abused she cannot obtain a divorce. To prove rape, the woman must have (4) male witnesses.
Often after a woman has been raped, she is returned to her family and the family must return the dowry. The family has the right to execute her (an honor killing) to restore the honor of the family. Husbands can beat their wives 'at will' and the man does not have to say why he has beaten her.
The husband is permitted to have 4 wives and a temporary wife for an hour (prostitute) at his discretion. The Shariah Muslim law controls the private as well as the public life of the woman.
In the Western World (UK) Muslim men are starting to demand Shariah Law so the wife cannot obtain a divorce and he can have full and complete control of her. It is amazing and alarming how many of our sisters and daughters attending American Universities are now marrying Muslim men and submitting themselves and their children unsuspectingly to the Shariah law.
That would doubtless include many "sisters and daughters" in Dearborn, Michigan. A western suburb of Detroit, Dearborn's population of around 100,000 is dominated by over 40,000 Muslims, the largest Muslim population of any city in the United States. "The Muslim influence is so strong in Dearborn," reports Don Jolly, "that the local high school held a girl’s only prom, since their religion does not allow girls and boys to dance or socialize together. If any other school in America did something similar based on Christian or Jewish beliefs, the ACLU [American Civil Liberties Union] and other groups would be circling the school waiting their turns to file lawsuits for violation of church and state. But these legal groups were nowhere to be seen in Dearborn" [Godfather Politics, 16/5/13].
Even worse than the double-standards is the cowardice of ultra-liberal civil rights 'watchdogs' like the ACLU, who turned a blind-eye to the accompanying (inevitable) Muslim violence. For handing out water bottles and tracts outside an Arab festival, reports Jolly, several Protestant pastors were pelted with garbage, rocks and other items:
[They] filed a lawsuit against Wayne County, the Wayne County Sheriff’s Department and two of deputies for refusing to protect them from the Muslims that were attacking them. The deputies not only refused to protect them, they threatened to arrest them for disorderly conduct if they continued talking about Jesus and the Bible in the presence of the Muslims. Such talk was deemed to be offensive to the Muslims who felt justified in responding with violence.
The American Freedom Law Center [AFLC] argued the case before a US District Court judge. They asked the court to bar the sheriff’s department from violating the Christians' First Amendment rights of free speech and religion by interfering with their right to gather on public property outside the festival. Instead, siding with Muslim mob rule, the judge ruled as follows:
The Court finds that the actual demonstration of violence here provided the requisite justification for [the Wayne County sheriffs’] intervention, even if the officials acted as they did because of the effect the speech had on the crowd.
"In other words," says Jolly, "the Christians were at fault, and the violent reaction of the Muslims was justified, and the cops acted appropriately in arresting the Christians." The AFLC subsequently pointed out the broader ramifications:
The First Amendment [protecting freedom of speech, peaceful assembly, etc.] was dealt a severe blow today as a result of this ruling. Indeed, this ruling effectively empowers Muslims to silence Christian speech that they deem offensive by engaging in violence. And pursuant to this ruling, the Christian speakers are now subject to arrest for engaging in disorderly conduct on account of the Muslim hecklers’ violent response to their speech. In short, this ruling turns the First Amendment on its head. ... This is the United States, not Benghazi.
Meanwhile, Down Under, there is so much Islamic criminality in Australia's largest state that "About 9 per cent of inmates in NSW are Muslim, even though only 3 per cent of the general population identifies as Islamic" [Sydney Morning Herald, 24/7/14]. Even then, not all their crimes are well known: the criminal takeover of Sydney's Central Business District by Lebanese Muslims, for instance. It was only through a jaw-dropping report circulated privately by a retired Sydney detective that the present writer was apprised of this astonishing fact, and associated Muslim criminality (to include a violent mob surrounding a suburban police station in broad daylight, forcing the release of a Muslim perpetrator from the cells!). It is very doubtful the press would have ignored similar blockbuster stories involving Eastern European or Triad gangs. Nonetheless, Australians know enough to recognise their own mini-Rotherham: the notorious Sydney Gang Rapes of 2000.
During August and September of that year, fourteen Lebanese Muslim youths aged between 13 and 18 brutalised and raped white women and girls with such ferocity that the judge who sentenced them described the rapes as events "you hear about or read about only in the context of wartime atrocities." (It goes without saying that with appeals, early release, etc., most of the offenders are now, frighteningly, back on Sydney's streets!)
Taught by their imams that Western women are promiscuous slabs of flesh ("uncovered meat," as the Grand Mufti of Australia himself once referred to them), the rapists were primed to use and abuse them. "You deserve it because you're an Australian," one of them told two 16-year-old girls as they were raped repeatedly over 5 hours. Authorities later released some of the material recovered from their mobile phones, which included text messages such as: "When you are feeling down ...bash a Christian or Catholic and lift up." Like their Rotherham counterparts, they and their families mocked and abused legal and court officials, and showed no respect or remorse whatsoever.
Aussies know about the closing of ranks to protect the tribe, too. Last February, academic Ameer Ali, a former chairman of the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils, called on Islamic leaders to voice their opposition to Islamic State. "I haven’t heard so far any single imam in this country that has named IS and condemned it," he said. "They should’ve done this very often in their sermons but I haven’t come across any of this."
The point is now thoroughly made: while terrorist massacres like Paris and Peshawar grab the headlines, the same ultra-violence and singular depravity also sets workaday Muslim perpetrators apart from most of their criminal Western counterparts. That much is crystal clear. But again, although aware of the internal threat, the West is disarmed by its moral, cultural and religious relativism — viz., their belief in nothing, except their vacillating, relativistic selves; the very essence of The Dunciad:
We nobly take the high Priori Road,
This leaves our What Is Truth?-generations impotent before all ideologies and false religions; especially those peddling totalitarian solutions to a rootless 'way of life.' Which is to say that Generations "X" and "Y" simply do not have the religious wherewithal to break the self-destructive cycle of complicity, handwringing, and paralysis that constitutes their non-response to Islamic immigration: even though periodic Rotherham explosions alert them to what's coming; even when, occasionally, they join and proclaim some underlying dots, as here:
Denmark, like other European countries, and the EU, has implemented entire agencies dedicated to "integration" programs for Muslim immigrants. One result from this effort is insight offered by Danish psychologist Nicolai Sennels who coined the term "Criminal Muslims." His assertion that Islam creates a "psychology of an unhealthy culture that spawns criminal minds," led to a national debate about freedom of speech and Denmark’s Integration program. Based on extensive research, interviews, and analysis, Mr. Sennels states, "Muslims are taught to be aggressive, insecure, irresponsible and intolerant."
Despite its secular limitations, the interview with Mr Sennels carried herein provides a rare and valuable insight into the Muslim psyche. Its value lies in what we have repeatedly emphasised: the fact that religion is only a part of Islam. As with Catholics, in many places relatively few Muslims actually practise their religion (only 20% in Italy, for example). As the late missionary bishop Mgr Cesar Mazzolari pointed out, however: "No one can erase their belonging to the umma, the community of Muslim believers. Their Islamic culture remains." And since the culture of the umma is embodied in the psychological make-up of its adherents, which is moulded in turn by the pressures of the tribe, Mr Sennels helps to explain why Muslim passions are so easily ignited; why their anger is so unhinged that it leaves Westerners (like the Australian judge) flabbergasted by its warlike intensity.
To be continually shocked by the behaviour of invited guests and still not act is to invite disaster. Yet there is only one country that openly resists the cultural jihad: somewhat ironically, a nation steeped in its own fatalistic brand of paganism, which also knows a thing or two about cruelty.
Although maintaining civil relations and trade with Muslim countries, and despite an influx of students and workers in recent years, the Muslim population in Japan is still barely 130,000: a tiny 0.1% or so of Japan's population (compared with a figure of 0.8% in America, 7.5% in France, and at least 5% in England). Admittedly, Japan is traditionally resistant to other ethnic groups. But according to Mr. Kumiko Yagi, Professor of Arab/Islamic Studies at Tokyo University of Foreign Studies, "There is a mind frame in Japan that Islam is a very narrow minded religion and one should stay away from it." Thus, no Sharia law, brutal 'customs,' or imported criminality in Nippon neighbourhoods. Sorted!
Having lived with and somehow survived Islam in the genocidal Sudan for more than a quarter of a century, Bishop Mazzolari would have found much to praise in the wary Japanese attitude and approach. Indeed, from his vast experience, related to Italian daily Il Giornale in May 2004, one can only conclude that there is no upside to welcoming Islam into Western countries, never mind en masse! Asked about his many Italian brethren who have loaned chapels to be used as mosques, he replied (my translations):
It will be the Muslims who convert us and not the reverse. Wherever they settle, they become, sooner or later, a hegemonic political force. The Italians want to welcome them as if "everyone is beautiful, everyone is nice." They’ll quickly notice that the Muslims have taken advantage of this easy-going kindness, while bringing in ten-times more people than what they were allowed. They are much slyer than us. They destroy my schools (in Sudan) and you open wide the church doors for them. If someone is a thief, you don’t give them a room in your apartment because sooner or later you’ll find all your furniture gone.
As for ecumenical dialogue, in 1999, during the 2nd Special Assembly for Europe of the Synod of Bishops, Archbishop Giuseppe Bernadini, who had lived in Turkey for over 40 years, recalled an Islamic-Christian meeting organised, as always, by Christians. A Christian participant publicly asked the Muslims present why they did not organise at least one such meeting. A Muslim authority present answered: "Why should we? You have nothing to teach us and we have nothing to learn."
"A dialogue between deaf persons?" queried the Archbishop rhetorically. Moreover, even if Muslim lips are actually moving, what hope is there for any meaningful discussion when lying for the holy cause of spreading Islam is sanctioned by the concept of taqiyya? "The greatest punishment the Arab knows how to inflict is oppression, the sense of falsity," explained Bishop Mazzolari to Il Giornale. "If he can deceive you, he does it with all his might. He boasts of his ability to trick you, to behave like a liar and compliment you. ... I’ll give you a concrete example. In the English language version of the Sudanese Constitution, they affirm that the State religion is Islam and that other cults are tolerated. In the Arabic version, there is no trace of this guarantee."
Imam Abu Hammid Al-Ghazali, one of the most famous and respected Muslim theologians of all time, said it himself:
"Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible." [Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri, The Reliance of the Traveller, Amana Publications, 1997, section r8.2, p. 745]
This duplicity takes a terrifying toll. "The Muslims frighten you, they hold you in a state of permanent insecurity. It’s a continual psychological affliction, worse than torture," said Bishop Mazzolari. "For my part, I prefer, rather than being derided and taken for an imbecile, to take a slap across the face."
Masochistic Western nations, on the other hand, prefer to slap and torment themselves; happy to be played for fools while helping Islam achieve its desired/demanded hegemony. "During an official meeting on Islamic-Christian dialogue," recalled Archbishop Bernadini, "an authoritative Muslim person, speaking to the Christians participating, at one point said very calmly and assuredly: 'Thanks to your democratic laws we will invade you; thanks to our religious laws we will dominate you'."
It is a question of Islamic supremacy — akin to Jewish supremacism of the Talmudic sort documented last month by Alison Weir. This concept is expressed not only in Islamic scripture but also occasionally by prominent American Muslims. Like Omar Ahmad, co-founder of the influential/conspiratorial CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations), who told a Muslim audience in California in 1998, "Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth."
They can hardly be blamed for their frankness. Democracy, after all, is a concept beyond tribal understanding. "Islamic people base their decisions only and exclusively on the umma," explained Bishop Mazzolari. "They don’t even know what individual rights are. It’s absurd to teach them the first amendment of the American Constitution, which says Congress can make no law to prohibit freedom of worship or to limit freedom of speech or the press. They have absolutely no comprehension of this." And yet before such dire warnings, US governments embrace Islamic lobbies like CAIR (risibly labelled "moderate" despite its renowned links to the Muslim Brotherhood) — while Europe has facilitated mass immigration, with a view to Turkey's eventual entry into the EU.
"We find ourselves in a world blind and deaf. We need a terrible shaking up. We no longer listen to prophets. The few that remained, we have eliminated from society," Bishop Mazzolari lamented. He himself, of course, was one of those ignored, even and especially by his cosseted brethren. Lost in ecumenical reverie, their interfaith delusions contrast starkly with his hard-earned realism. Asked if "the God of the Christians" is "the Allah of the Muslims," Bishop Mazzolari exclaimed: "No way! Where would the concept of the Trinity that we hold fit in? The greatest of their prophets is certainly not Christ!"
Disoriented by the smoke of satan swirling through its ranks and hell-bent on ecumenicide, our hierarchy has long eliminated Mazzolari-like faith, understanding, plain-speaking, and witness. A poster boy for this devilish grip on episcopal souls is retired Cardinal Theodore McCarrick: at once a notorious sexual deviant (see June/July 2006) and doughty defender of the false gods of false religions. Still in 'good standing,' His Priapic Eminence holds forth not from a jail cell, not even from the penitential cell of a remote Abbey, but from interfaith podiums. Such as the 2010 National Press Club conference sponsored by the Islamic Society of North America, where he blithely declared: "I cannot say, 'Don’t embrace the Koran' (if a person sees the Koran as the proof of God’s presence in the world)."
In this salvific stand-off, upon which the fate of souls, the world, and Catholic credibility depends, who should we believe? A debauched Cardinal? A disoriented Pope, who maintains that "[Muslims] together with us adore the One, merciful God," and that "True Islam and the proper interpretation of the Koran oppose all violence" [Evangelii Gaudium, 252-53]? Or a courageous Bishop, who barely survived the mental and physical torment promoted in those same Islamic scriptures McCarrick refuses to disavow, and Francis clearly hasn't read?
"In Evangelii Gaudium," writes William Kilpatrick, "Pope Francis cautioned against 'hateful generalizations about Islam'. By the same token, Catholics should avoid making overly optimistic generalizations about Islam. Catholics are not currently in danger of taking a too vigilant attitude toward Islam; they are in danger of taking a far too relaxed attitude about it." If Catholics are to work together with Muslims "they need to think carefully about what Muslim groups they will ally themselves with," says Kilpatrick, "and they need to find a more reliable principle to guide them than 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend'." In other words, he says, finding the proper Muslim allies requires a lot of discernment
— far more discernment than the Catholic leadership in America has thus far been able to muster. For example, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has designated representatives of three Muslim Brotherhood-linked groups (ISNA, ICNA, and the Fiqh Council of North America) as their main dialogue partners in their ongoing series of Catholic-Muslim dialogues. The Muslim Brotherhood, lest we forget, is the group most responsible for the recent widespread persecution of Christians in Egypt. So, before Catholics talk about Catholic-Muslim alliances, they ought to reflect on the American Church’s inability to distinguish friends from enemies. [Crisis, 20/2/14]
With the Apostolic Succession diabolically debilitated, we are left at the mercy of the mendacious Establishment Dunciad that descended on Paris in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo massacre. Jostling for visibility before the world media, they vowed to protect the Western "values" and "freedom" personified by Charlie's pornographic and blasphemous outpourings. No matter that genuine freedom — of Christian conscience and speech — is being daily crushed in their "democratic" fiefdoms.
While they pontificated and cavorted, a Christian magistrate in England for one was cooling his heels for thinking out loud: that it would be best for a child to be brought up by a traditional family. Suspended by a Minister, he was sent on an equality (read speech-and-behaviour modification) course. Moreover, the "free" press had been warned that investigating and reporting on the case, even asking questions about it, would break the law.
Compounding the naked hypocrisy was the sheer cynicism, exemplified by Mr Netanyahu. Having (literally) elbowed his way to the front of the emoting-mass of world 'leaders', he used the massacre to call on Jews to return to Israel for their own protection (not, you understand, to bulk up his demographically-challenged state). As if they weren't safe in tail-wagging-dog democracies now dominated by their minorities! So safe, in fact, that a play written, produced and acted by Jews, and praised as five-star entertainment by the London Jewish Chronicle, was recently branded "anti-semitic" and its advertising poster on the Tube barred by Transport for London! "It could not be less anti-semitic," sighed the Jewish producer. "This is a form of censorship which is so weird and ironic when in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo events, everyone marched against censorship."
There is nothing "weird" about it, of course. It is scarily normal. All of a piece with Orwellian headlines like "GCHQ able to hack 80m British mobiles"; associated judicial rulings about Britain's unlawful storing of US mass surveillance programmes; and government admissions that GCHQ acted unlawfully when it spied on communications between lawyers and their clients. Not to mention press editorials railing that "There has been a chilling assault on freedom of expression across the public services. NHS workers, military personnel, police and prison officers have all faced criminal charges for raising legitimate concerns about misconduct within their organisations, and their journalistic contacts have been similarly hounded. Such bully-boy tactics — more familiar in a police state — create a climate in which corruption flourishes" [Daily Mail, 20/3/15].
The same deap-seated corruption has taken root on both sides of the Atlantic. Freedom? As legal straightjackets tighten, there is less and less of it. Concurrently, totalitarian Islam is the bogeyman du jour for scaring us into giving up more and more of it. As Stalin said: "The easiest way to gain control of a population is to carry out acts of terror. [The public] will clamour for such laws if their personal security is threatened." Post-9/11 history in a nutshell!(2)
The WMD lie that led to millions of Muslims being killed, maimed, or displaced, without any American or European leader being held to account, is minor compared to what is at stake in rattling the cage of nuclear-armed Russia (for reasons of 'peace and security', not gain and greed, of course). Pope Francis says World War III is already being played out in bits and pieces. One false step, and those pieces will quickly coalesce into a nuclear strike from which there are no winners — not even the bankers!
And so, behind the faux gravitas of the faux leadership it was all deceit and delusion: as if the 'Islamism' of Paris was spun from a different cloth to workaday sola Koranica depredations; as if they weren't going to spin the massacre to their own oppressive advantage; as if the American Imperium would not use it to bully them into another unjust and unwinnable war.
Thankfully, as it so often does, London's satirical weekly Private Eye punctured the posturing with its cutting take on Je suis Charlie! (— the slogan that covered the earth in moronic 'solidarity' with pornography). Above its cover photo of the 'leaders' sashaying through the French capital arm-in-arm, the caption read: "Je suis Charlatan!"
The Final Solution
So much lethal idiocy. All eerily forecast in The Dunciad, where it is accurately portrayed as "the result not of illiteracy," reiterates Dr. Gardiner, "but of vanity, shamelessness, and the wilful abandonment of common sense":
It is a cultivated, much applauded stupidity. The Antichrist turns out to be the King of Dunces, and the universal imbecility over which he presides culminates in the restoration of moral anarchy and spiritual darkness. Has this not come to pass since the eighteenth century? Was not Alexander Pope a prophet?
He was indeed. And since stupid is as stupid does, the shameless, wilful, suicidal West continues to spiral downwards under the weight of its own atheistic momentum, even as calls to "reform" Islam are ratcheting up! Another fanciful secular band-aid like all the rest. For sola scriptura creeds are as irreformable as a Dunciad stripped of the ancient magisterial creed that gave it meaning, purpose, and coherence: namely, intelligence! The only lasting solution — the Final Solution — is to return to that one true Faith: to the Teaching Church of the one true Trinitarian God.
Let us pray that a Holy Father will soon be raised up to effect that global conversion through the consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary: precisely as Our Lady requested. A show of faith and conviction of that magnitude seems impossible for a Church bedevilled by churchmen who prefer to genuflect to the world, not convert it. And yet, as Jesus, beholding, said to them [Matt. 19:26], and so to us:
"With men this is impossible: but with God all things are possible."
(1) "Jessica's" testimony embodies the tragedy and horror of sexually exploited and abused and trafficked children generally. Obviously a 'problem child', she admits that "Days after I met him [the abuser, ten years her senior and just out of jail] my mum and dad reported the abuse to police and social services, but I wouldn’t make a statement. At the time I thought I was in love. ... I only realised about three years ago that I had been groomed. I’d thought he was my boyfriend who hit me and slept with other people. I thought that was normal. When I realised, I felt like my entire life had been a lie. I hit rock bottom and felt suicidal. I actually did try to end it. I don’t want anyone else to go through that."
Many other girls complained directly to the police of serious sexual assault without any result. In 2002, the group Parents Against Sexual Exploitation of Children produced a report into the Rotherham abuse which criticised the police and council. The police were furious and it was never published. The woman who produced the report said a police officer approached her outside her office. “He and a colleague said words along the lines of ‘Wouldn’t it be a shame if these perpetrators found out where you and your family lived.’ ... The message was very clear. ... It’s a very frightening situation to be in — and the people feared were meant to be on your side.”
(2) This requires brief elaboration, to separate conspiracy theories from conspiratorial facts.
Like many countries, America has a long history of false flag attacks to incite popular resentment against its enemies. To summarise just one: documents declassified in 1997 show that in 1962, the American Joint Chiefs of Staff signed off on a plan to blow up American aeroplanes (using an elaborate plan involving the switching of planes), and also to commit terrorist acts on American soil, bombing innocent citizens in Florida and Washington, and then to blame it all on the Cubans in order to justify an invasion of Cuba. In this dark light, unanswered questions, demonstrable lies, and cover-ups over 9/11 point to the real possibility of powerful rogue elements within the US government having carried out the Twin Towers attack: in order to ramp up the Islamic bogey to hysterical Japanese-Pearl Harbour levels, and thus trigger their long-planned and publicly touted trillion-dollar war on Iraq (— along with the equally lucrative, freedom-killing legislation/bureaucracy realised in the Patriot Act/Homeland Security monolith).
One thing is certain, and of itself shreds the credibility of America and its allies: bringing down the Twin Towers was falsely blamed on Iraq even though the government knew it had nothing to do with Iraq (a fact now admitted by many US officials).
(3) Evil Forces (2015, Good Counsel Publications, NY) provides the documentary and photographic evidence to put this claim beyond any reasonable doubt.