RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/12633/being-pro-muslim

No doubt those who ignore or cover up abuses such as beatings, female genital mutilation or general repression do so out of cultural sensitivity, deferring to traditionalist leaders and self-appointed representatives of various communities, including Muslim bodies. Their sensitivity, however, can end up gravely impairing the lives of literally hundreds of millions of Muslim women in allowing harmful practices to be perpetuated.

Genuine humanitarian concerns about injustice to Muslims, however, have been mingled with a political and religious attitude that condemns anyone who expresses even the mildest questioning of Islam — so much so, in fact, that many well-intentioned Western politicians, human rights advocates, church leaders and journalists have turned Islam into the one and only ideology that must never be criticized, and have called anyone who so much as comments on some of the precepts of Islam as “racist.”

The view that Islam should not be questioned, seems to have led to a lack of reciprocity: radical Islamic individuals and bodies are often permitted to preach hatred for the West in mosques, centres, and university campuses, but non-Muslims commenting on genuine concerns are frequently the objects of public abuse and even criminal prosecution.

What is needed are more organizations that stand out as pro-Muslim in support of bettering the lives of Muslims; many are often too fearful of retribution to speak out.

My, how the world changes. When, in late 1978, your humble correspondent presented the first translations into English of passages from Ayatollah Khomeini’s book, Velayat-e Faqih (“Governance of the Jurist”), bought in Tehran in 1977, I knew the religious extremists would challenge the shah’s rule, but I was certain they had no chance against his army, police, and security services.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/271029/death-france-stephen-brown

If radical Islamic clerics thought they were immune to terror threats themselves, then they have now been disabused of that notion. Last month in France, instead of the predictable pattern of arrests of Islamic jihadists plotting deadly terrorist attacks; this time, the jihadists were apparently the targets themselves. This turn of events signals France’s accelerated spiral into lawless violence.
The French newspaper Le Figaro reported that police in June took ten people into custody for allegedly targeting for attack “radical imams, veiled women and convicted jihadists released from prison.” (There are currently 512 people convicted on terrorism charges in French prisons.) The arrests were made in the Paris region, Corsica, and in Charante-Maritime.

“This group was aiming for ‘targets presumed in connection with radical Islam,’ ” a source told Le Figaro.

Raids on several homes turned up “rifles, pistols, and homemade grenades” and police reported this “groupuscule” (small group) “trained regularly at sport shooting clubs and had prepared arms caches and food supplies in case of a major crisis.” (Which makes one wonder whether they were “ultra-right” terrorists or simply survivalists.)

https://amgreatness.com/2018/08/16/the-genocidal-elite-part

Sarah Jeong and her defenders in the media truly have given America a gift. Where once it was only dark speculation that media elites, at best, are ambivalent toward openly genocidal and bigoted statements about white Americans, now we are certain that these sentiments exist.

We know, too, that the most common defense of these sentiments—that they cannot possibly lead to any sort of bad situation, because the privilege of whites is simply too impregnable for attacks on them to land—is deeply flawed. Anti-white rhetorical excesses can and do lead to terrible human rights abuses, and are often used to justify them, particularly in countries with weaker economies and non-white majorities such as South Africa.

For the New York Times, a paper with a global reach, to normalize such rhetoric by placing someone who spews it on their editorial board at the same time they blacklist people for much tamer statements about other races is cavalier and uninformed at best. Further, it suggests that our elite are already prepared to make excuses in case of third world style interracial violence against white citizens. As I noted at the end of my last piece in this series:

[W]hat South Africa shows us is something grimmer: namely, a society where elite status is such a blinder on the wealthiest people of one race that they willingly ignore policies and behaviors that approach genocidal character against what Dickens would have called “their hungry brothers in the dust.” A society where an arrogant elite assumes that its status is so impregnable that they can tolerate hate speech, violence, and persecutory policies explicitly directed at all people like them, just because they assume their own privilege is so great that tolerating that behavior is magnanimous. In other words, a society where Hannah Arendt’s notion of the “banality of evil” is inflicted not by one race against outsiders, but by one race against others like themselves out of sheer indifference, contempt, or desire to reinforce their own status.

This is not only an attitude that we have to fear here, but an attitude I believe already exists among today’s elite. In this piece, I will attempt to establish the existence of this attitude, to explain it, and to provide a warning about how it could become increasingly problematic in the face of future American demographic trends.