Thursday, September 29, 2016

Austria: Muslim screaming “Allahu akbar” tries to run down pedestrians, officials investigating motive

How long is this absurdity going to continue? Any official in Vienna who is trying to figure out this jihadi’s motive should be fired, but won’t be, because the people in charge are just as willfully ignorant and blinkered.
You want motive? Here it is. This is a war. A jihad. It is global. It is in Vienna. The Islamic State issued this call in September 2014:
So O muwahhid, do not let this battle pass you by wherever you may be. You must strike the soldiers, patrons, and troops of the tawaghit. Strike their police, security, and intelligence members, as well as their treacherous agents. Destroy their beds. Embitter their lives for them and busy them with themselves. If you can kill a disbelieving American or European — especially the spiteful and filthy French — or an Australian, or a Canadian, or any other disbeliever from the disbelievers waging war, including the citizens of the countries that entered into a coalition against the Islamic State, then rely upon Allah, and kill him in any manner or way however it may be….If you are not able to find an IED or a bullet, then single out the disbelieving American, Frenchman, or any of their allies. Smash his head with a rock, or slaughter him with a knife, or run him over with your car, or throw him down from a high place, or choke him, or poison him….
“Driver shouting ‘Allahu Akbar’ tried to run over pedestrians in Vienna – media citing police,” RT, September 29, 2016:
Police detained a 21-year old man in Vienna after he deliberately tried to run over pedestrians while shouting “Allahu Akbar” out of his car. No one has been injured and officials are now investigating the motivation behind the man’s behavior.
The incident happened at around 11:00am local time in the district of Favoriten on Thursday.
“He aimed and drove directly at the passers-by,” Vienna police spokesperson Thomas Keiblinger said in an interview with Radio Wien as cited by national public proadcaster
“According to the statements of the eyewitnesses the 21-year-old shouted ‘Allahu Akbar’ out of the opened window of his car,” Keiblinger added.
No one was injured in the attack, however one of the pedestrians had to jump from the crossing to save his life, WIEN.ORF says, citing eyewitnesses.
According to the Austrian media the driver is Vienna resident with a Turkish background. The man was detained by law enforcement officials shortly after the incident.
Authorities are now investigating whether the man might have had religious or political motives. According to police the 21-year-old has not yet made any statements….

Non-Citizen Muslim Mall Terrorist Illegally Voted 3 Times

But remember, Voter ID is racist. It discriminates against illegal voters.
But first a step back. We're talking about the Turkish Muslim mall terrorist in Washington, not the Somali Muslim mall shooter in Minnesota. We're getting so much Muslim terror these days that it takes work to keep it all straight.
The Cascade Mall shooting suspect, Arcan Cetin, may face an additional investigation related to his voting record and citizenship status.
Federal sources confirm to KING 5 that Cetin was not a U.S. citizen, meaning legally he cannot vote. However, state records show Cetin registered to vote in 2014 and participated in three election cycles, including the May presidential primary.
Just the sort of fellow we want deciding the next president.

While voters must attest to citizenship upon registering online or registering to vote at the Department of Licensing Office, Washington state doesn't require proof of citizenship. Therefore elections officials say the state's elections system operates, more or less, under an honor system.
An honor system. Of course. Actually verifying citizenship would be discriminatory. It would, in Obama's words, not be who we are. And who we are, apparently, is a bunch of suckers who let Muslim terrorists illegally vote.
"We don’t have a provision in state law that allows us either county elections officials or the Secretary of State's office to verify someone’s citizenship," explained Secretary of State Kim Wyman. "So, we’re in this place where we want to make sure we’re maintaining people’s confidence in the elections and the integrity of the process, but also that we’re giving this individual, like we would any voter, his due process."
Actual due process would involve verifying the right to vote. But that would be bad for Democrats.

Newly Arrived Syrian Migrant Molested Woman, Headbutted Police At Notting Hill Carnival

A Syrian “refugee” is in court after molesting a woman and attacking a police officer at this year’s Notting Hill Carnival — crimes committed only shortly after arriving in the United Kingdom. Westminster Magistrate’s court heard how 23-year-old Mohammed Al-Youssfi — a freshly arrived immigrant claiming to be a refugee — committed an alleged sex assault against a reveller at the annual carnival, and headbutted the arresting officer.
The prosecutor told the court a group of three women — including one carrying a baby — were stalked by the Syrian male as they walked away from the carnival. When they stood aside to let him pass them by on the street, he grabbed one of the women.
Speaking to the court, prosecutor Edward Aydin laid out the events as they occurred: “‘He grabs the lady there, the complainant, who is 46.
“She’s wearing a jumpsuit and he grabs her in a bear hug, then grabs her breasts. He’s wearing a white t-shirt and pink shorts. Al-Youssfi then pressed up against her bottom”.
After police officers were called to the scene, the Syrian migrant then allegedly headbutted a police officer. The case will come before Hammersmith Magistrates’ Court on the 5th of October.
Among the most numerous of so-called refugees who have flooded Europe over the past two years, Syrians are frequently finding their way into national newspapers for negative reasons — often quite soon after their arrival in a new host country. In another UK case, four Syrians were seen in court this week for allegedly sexually assaulting two 14-year-old girls in Newcastle.
The men, aged 20, 18, and 16 are accused of having attacked the girls in a city park — just weeks after one of them had arrived in the UK for the first time.
Breitbart London reported last week on a Syrian migrant in Germany who was adjusting to Western life very poorly — and reacted to his wife’s desire to enjoy Western-style freedom by throwing his three young children out of an upper story window before beating her with a frying pan. The man has been charged with three counts of attempted murder, and one of grievous bodily harm.
European festivals appear to be a significant draw for newly arrived migrants, who apparently take advantage of the high concentrations of young, inebriated women. Victims as young as 12 have been recorded at Swedish music festivals, with one reporting sex attacks by migrant males doubling.

Austria: Migrant Influx Will See Welfare Spending Leap 35 Per Cent

The wave of newcomers who entered Austria during the migrant crisis will cause social benefits spending to soar by 35 per cent, a report has revealed. The latest research shows that the majority of people receiving welfare in Austria never progress to permanent jobs. With particularly bad employment prospects for migrants, local authorities say the system should be reformed after last year’s influx.
The study by the Institute of Economic Research found that two thirds of people on welfare had depended on it for more than 13 months. Forty-five per cent of the welfare recipients who made the jump into work ended up back on benefits just two to three months later.
Commissioned by the city of Vienna, the report discovered that just nine per cent of the group made it into sustainable employment. As a result of receiving 90,000 asylum applications last year Austria, with a population of just eight and a half million, is set to increase social welfare spending by 35 per cent from its 2015 figure.
The research also noted that the prospects of employment for migrants are “particularly unfavourable”. Responding to the study Sonja Wehsely, the Vienna councillor for Health and Social Affairs, suggested reforms be made to the welfare system.
She said: “One can ask the question of what integration services must be adopted in order to receive the full guaranteed income. For the special situation with the [guaranteed income] of the refugees, new answers must be found.”
Krone recently reported a whistleblower’s account of how Austria’s welfare system is abused by migrants. Telling the paper he wants to “show how carelessly taxpayers’ money is handled”, the anonymous state employee revealed authorities rarely check whether benefits claimants have as many children as they say.
Outlining the large amounts of money being doled out, he pointed to how two unemployed migrants who claim to have 11 children are receiving €5,200 a month from the guaranteed income system.
Tensions in Austria over mass migration have run high since Chancellor Angela Merkel of neighbouring Germany last year invited millions of migrants to Europe.
In May, victory was snatched from populist, anti-mass migration candidate Norbert Hofer by just 0.6 per cent of the vote in the second round of Austria’s presidential election. The result was annulled, owing to “serious” postal vote fraud and so a rerun is to take place later this year.

France's New Sharia Police

The Council of State, the highest administrative court in France, decided that, to allow freedom of religion, the burkini must not be banned. At first the ruling looked sound: why should people not be able to wear what they wish when they wish? What is not visible, however, is that the harm comes later.
If someone still does not realize that the Islamic dress code is the Trojan horse of Islamist jihad, he will learn it fast.
A few recent incidents include:
September 7. In Guingamp, Brittany, a 17-year-old girl in shorts was beaten by a man who considered her outfit "too provocative". Although the attacker escaped, so that the police have no idea who he is or what his background might be, it is a taste of things to come.
September 7. In Toulon, southern France, two families were on a bicycle path when they were insulted by a gang of 10 "youths" (the French press uses "jeunes" [youths] in order not to say Arabs or Muslims). According to the local prosecutor, the "youths" shouted at the women, "whores!" and "strip naked!" When the women's husbands protested, the "youths" approached and a fight began. One of the husbands was found unconscious with multiple facial fractures.
At first, the motive of the attack was reported to be linked to the women wearing shorts, but in fact the women were not wearing shorts; they were wearing leggings.
July 19. In a resort in Garde-Colombe (Alps), a Moroccan man stabbed a woman and her three daughters, apparently because they were scantily dressed. One of the girls was seriously injured. The attacker, Mohamed, says that he was the "victim," because he claims the husband of the woman he stabbed scratched his own crotch in front of Mohamed's wife. According to the prosecutor, "the husband of the victim does not remember having made such a gesture."
July 7. A day-camp center in Reims, eastern France, circulated a note asking parents to avoid dressing their daughters in skirts because of the improper conduct of boys aged 10 to 12. A mother published the document on Twitter and commented on Facebook: "Obviously the idea did not occur to them that it is not for little girls to adapt their dress to big creeps, but for big creeps to get educated? "
In early June, 18-year-old Maude Vallet was threatened and spat on by a group of girls on a bus in Toulon because she was wearing shorts. She posted a photo of herself on Facebook with the caption, "Hello, I'm a slut." The posting was shared by more than 80,000 people. The attackers were Muslim girls, but Maude, according the "politically correct" who believe "thntdwi" (this has nothing to do with Islam), did not want to reveal their ethnic origin.
April 22. Nadia, a 16-year-old girl wearing a skirt, was severely beaten in Gennevilliers, a suburb of Paris, by three girls who were apparently Muslims.
These cases were dramatically publicized in all media, both official and social. Ironically, however, none of these incidents triggered the international attention and outrage that greeted a Burkini incident in Nice: A woman, apparently Muslim, was lying alone on a beach with no towel, no book, no parasol, no sunglasses, no husband (or brother, or father) to "protect" her, in the full glare of the midday sun near a police post -- with a photographer nearby ready and waiting to take pictures of her surrounded by four policemen. Who alerted them? The woman was issued a fine and possibly ordered to remove some of her clothes on the beach. Pictures of the incident were first published on August 23 by the Daily Mail and within minutes went viral, provoking international indignation against these seemingly racist French people discriminating against innocent Arab women. A week later, however, the Daily Mail suggested that this incident may well have been "staged" and the "pictures may be SET UP."
So the real question is: Are Islamists in France now using photos and videos, the way the Palestinians are doing against Israel: to film and disseminate fake and staged situations in order to provoke global indignation about supposedly poor Muslim "victims" -- especially women who are allegedly "discriminated against" in France?
If fabricated propaganda is allowed to persist, the defrauders will win a big war.
"In the war that Islamism is leading with determination against civilization, women are becoming a real issue," said Berenice Levet, author and professor of philosophy at the École Polytechnique to the daily Le Figaro.
She added:
"Rather than produce figures that say everything and nothing, I want it recognized once and for all that if today the roles of the genders are forced to regress in France, if domination and patriarchy are spreading in our country, this fact is related exclusively to our having imported Muslim values."
Ironically, at the same moment, France's Minister for Family, Children and Women's Rights, Laurence Rossignol, decided to spend public money on an ad campaign against "ordinary sexism" -- the supposed sexism by all French men against supposedly eternally victimized women. But there was not a word in this campaign about the possible victimization or potential outcome from the increasing proliferation of the burqa, veil or burkinis on Muslim women.
Commenting the ad campaign, Berenice Levet added:
"Laurence Rossignol should read Géraldine Smith's book, Rue Jean-Pierre Timbaud. Une vie de famille entre barbus et bobos ("Jean-Pierre Timbaud Street: The life of a family among bearded men [Islamists] and Bohemians"). She would learn -- among other things -- that in some stores or bakeries, men are served first, before women."
In this book, we can learn also that in the heart of Paris, a Muslim can insult a woman for drinking a cola in the street. But for many, including Rossignol, it seems the only enemy is the white Frenchman.
Two serious questions are at stake:
  • Are sharia police emerging in France?
  • Are French institutions sacrificing one freedom for another? Is the principle of equality between men and women being sacrificed to freedom of religion (Islam) to impose its diktats on French society?

Sharia Police

In France, no organized Islamist brigades patrol the streets (as in Germany or Britain) to fight alcohol consumption or to beat women for the way they are dressed. Yet gangs of "youths", again, both men and women, are increasingly doing just that in practice. For years now, "big brothers" have been obliging their mothers and sisters to wear a veil when they go out. And now that this job is done, they have begun to fight non-Muslim women who wear shorts and skirts -- no longer just in the sensitive Muslim enclaves, the "no-go zones" of the suburbs, where women no longer dare to wear skirts -- but now also in the heart of big cities.
More and more, the equivalent of "Islamist Virtue Police" try to impose those standards by violence. As Celine Pina, former regional councilor of Île-de-France, said in Le Figaro:
"In the last recorded attack [on the families in Toulon], with cries of "whores" and "strip naked", the young men were behaving as a "virtue police" that we had thought impossible here in our parts...
"It cannot be expressed more clearly: it is a command to modesty as a social norm and self-censorship as a behavioral norm... [it]... illustrates the rejection of the female body, seen as inherently impure and dirty...
"The question of the burkini, the proliferation of full veils, assaults against women in shorts and the beating of their companions, share the same logic. Making body of the woman a social and political issue, a marker of the progress of an ideology within society."
Laurent Bouvet, a professor of political science, noticed on his Facebook page that after the men were beaten in Toulon, so-called human rights organizations -- supposedly "professionals" of "anti-racism" -- remained silent in the debate.
The prosecutor of #Toulon said: "the fight was trigger by a women's dress code. These women were not wearing shorts... Sexism is undeniable. Where are the professionals of public indignation?"
Laurence Rossignol, Minister for Women's Rights, remained silent too. So a new rule has emerged in France: the more politicians and institutions do not want to criticize Islamists norms, the more violent the debate on social networks.

Equality between Men and Women or Freedom of (Islamic) Religion?

The silence of politicians and human rights organizations, when non-Muslim women are violently assaulted because they wear shorts that are not compatible with sharia -- as opposed to their thundering indignation against police for issuing a fine to a Muslim woman in a burkini -- signals an immensely important political and institutional move: A fundamental and constitutional principle, equality between men and women, is being sacrificed in the name of freedom of religion, thereby enabling one religion (Islam) to impose its diktats on the rest of society.
Studying the burkini case in Nice, Blandine Kriegel, philosopher and former président of Haut Conseil à l'intégration (High Council of Integration) published an analysis in which she establishes that in the burkini case, secularism or individual freedom were not even in danger in the first place. But "fundamentally an openly, the principle of equality between men and women" was surrendered:
In its remarkable ordinance, the Council of State refers to the jurisprudence of 1909 concerning the wearing of a cassock and does not pay attention to more recent laws voted on by sovereign people, prohibiting the veil at school (2004) and burqa in public places (2010).
The Council of state did not feel inspired either by the constitutional commitment towards women: "the law guarantees women, in all fields, same equal rights as men."
In the burkini affair, neither secularism nor individual freedom is at stake; but fundamentally and openly the principle of equality between men and women. ... This term "burkini" integrates intentionally the word "burqa"; this word does not express the desire to go swimming at the beach (nothing prohibits this); or the affirmation of a religious freedom (no mayor has ever prohibited the exercise of the Muslim religion); the word burkini express only the essential inequality of women.
Contrary to their husbands, who feel free to exhibit their nudity, some women must be covered from head to toe. Not only because they are impure, but mostly because of the legal status conferred to them: they are under the private law of the husband, the father or the community.
The Republic cannot accept something opposed to its laws and values. Inequality of women cannot be defended on the ground of religious freedom... of freedom of conscience. This issue was addressed three centuries ago by our European philosophers, who are founding fathers of the Republic. To those who were legitimating oppression, slavery and inequality were merely the expression of free will, explained the French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau, inspiring our 1789 Declaration [of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen], and that freedom and equality are inalienable possessions.
The France's socialists government and administrative judges have apparently found it politically useful to make concessions to Islamists. Perhaps they originally agreed to burkinis not only because they may think that people should wear what they like, but also in the vain hope of calming down the permanent pressure that increasingly appears to be a cultural jihad. It may not even have occurred to them that they were potentially sacrificing the principle of equality of women.
Many people evidently still do not know that Islam is a religion and a political movement at war with the West -- and openly intent on subjugating the West. It must be responded to as such. The problem is, every time it is responded to as such, Muslim extremists run for cover under the claim of freedom of religion.
It is high time for French and European politicians to draw a hard line between where one person's right to worship as they see fit ends, and where society's right to freedom and security begins. And it is time to outlaw, not necessarily the burkini, but the very real problem of aggressive supremacism.
The root problem is incitement to violence. It is crucial for Western societies to start making a distinction between freedom of speech and incitement to violence, and to begin seriously penalizing attacks on innocents, as well as calls to attack innocents.

Wednesday, September 28, 2016

Censorship: Facebook Deleted 100,000 ‘Hate Posts, Insults’ in Just One Month

Facebook revealed that within the last month it deleted 100,000 posts by German users for containing “hate”, but Justice Minister Heiko Maas has blasted the figure as too low. At a conference in Berlin, Maas said that to be accountable, social networks must publish the number of posts contested by users. The Justice Minister’s remarks implied that complainants on social media are valid judges of what constitutes criminal speech, something usually only determined by a court.
The number of deleted posts “with hate comments” was revealed this week by Facebook’s European policy director, Richard Allan. Maas criticised Facebook’s decision not to specify the number of comments users contested in the period and said that its response to complaints should be consistent across the board.
“We should consider whether to make social networks commit to disclose how many complaints for illegal hate comments they got and how they handled them,” the Social Democratic Party (SPD) politician argued.
Maas said that “too little” punishable content on the internet is being deleted and that posts are deleted too slowly.
Asserting that the biggest problem is that complaints from users are not taken seriously, he said: “Of the criminal content reported by users, Twitter deleted just one per cent, YouTube only ten, and Facebook 46 per cent. This is too little.”
In Germany’s fight against “hate speech” on the internet, a task force of several Internet companies including Facebook agreed to delete posts which are punishable under German law within 24 hours., an organisation whose stated aim is to make the internet safer for children, assessed Facebook and Youtube’s performance in deleting the criminal content they reported.
YouTube removed 96 per cent of posts flagged by the organisation and 84 per cent of Facebook posts. “With both websites, half were deleted within 24 hours. This is much faster than in the spring,” Maas said.
Describing the situation as “improved, but far from good”, Maas said that the websites must be more consistent in their approach and so every complaint should be treated as equal to those put forward by
The Justice Minister’s speech did not take into account the fact that the nonprofit may be less likely to make vexatious complaints than millions of social media users.
Since Angela Merkel’s decision to allow more than 1.6 million migrants into Germany, the government has taken an incredibly hard line on free speech on the internet. Police have conducted raids on the homes of people suspected to have made posts critical of migrants.
With the government piling ever more pressure on social media companies to monitor and police comments at regular intervals, many Germans unhappy with Merkel’s policies and the subsequent wave of crime perpetrated by the newcomers have fled to Facebook’s Russian competitor, VK.

Knife Attack Migrant Shot Dead by Police

Police in Berlin shot dead an asylum seeker as he attempted to stab another migrant who he claimed had sexually abused his eight-year-old daughter. Police opened fire on the 29-year-old as he attempted to stab the other migrant, who had been arrested and handcuffed, at an asylum home on Tuesday night, reports Kronen Zeitung.
According to witnesses, the attacker yelled “You will not survive!” as he approached the 27-year-old migrant. The police had initially been called to the asylum home in the Berlin district of Moabit over the sexual abuse claims.
Witnesses had told police that the 27 year old had tried to approach the eight-year-old girl in a nearby park earlier that evening and sexually molested her. The girl has not reportedly suffered any injuries but is now under observation by social workers for signs of abuse.
Authorities claim that the attack occurred as the arrested man was being put into a police car and that several officers opened fire on the attacker. The knifeman suffered multiple gunshot wounds and was transported to a nearby hospital where he later died of his injuries.
Sexual molestation cases in asylum homes in Europe have increased in recent months. Women with underage daughters in camps have married them off, some of the girls as young as 13. The migrants claim that they marry off their daughters, often to much older men, in order to “protect them” from molestation and sexual abuse by other migrants.
There have also been allegations of systematic sexual abuse of migrant women in asylum centres. Earlier this year a former asylum home worker accused the Red Cross of covering up sexual assaults in one of their camps in the German city of Potsdam.
While most migrants plead innocence or “cultural misunderstandings” regarding sexual abuse, some are brazen about their actions.
In Sweden, the victim of a migrant sex criminal told her he specifically came to Sweden in order to “f*ck Swedish girls”. The migrant followed his victims attempting to sexually harass them, exposing himself, and even spat on them for not accepting his advances.
The man was later arrested by Swedish police for indecent exposure. Swedish police have repeatedly denied that migrant sex assaults are epidemic, and some even blame the migrants’ actions on “Nordic alcohol culture”.

Canada discovers its first Muslim refugee to become a cabinet member faked her background

By Sierra Rayne 

When Maryam Monsef was installed as Canada’s Minister of Democratic Institutions last November, she was the poster-child for refugee advocates.
President Barack Obama even spoke of her in favorable terms during his address to the Canadian House of Commons in June of this year:
The girl who fled Afghanistan by donkey and camel and jet plane and who remembers being greeted in this country by helping hands and the sound of robins singing, and today, she serves in this chamber and in the cabinet because Canada is her home.
All was fine and dandy in this little fairy tale until Robert Fife of the Globe and Mail committed journalism on September 22 by publishing an earth-shaking article that revealed how Monsef’s story about being born in Afghanistan was inaccurate. She was actually born in Iran:
Democratic Reform Minister Maryam Monsef, whom the Liberals have championed as this country’s first Afghan-born MP, says she was actually born and lived most of her early life in Iran before arriving with her mother and two younger sisters in Canada as refugees.
This revelation contradicts a key narrative that Ms. Monsef has built ever since she entered public life as a local politician in Peterborough, Ont., and when she ran for Parliament in the 2015 election.
As if that wasn’t bad enough, “[t]he Prime Minister’s Office said it had no idea that such a fundamental feature of Ms. Monsef’s life story was wrong. Officials scrambled to put together a detailed timeline of her family’s life in Iran and Afghanistan and the journey to Canada.”
Scramble to put together a detailed timeline of a key governmental Minister? What could possible go wrong? The national security failure on the part of the Trudeau government was breathtaking:
When asked why security vetting for cabinet posts didn’t uncover this error, an official said “we learned of this information about Maryam Monsef’s place of birth when it was brought to us recently by the The Globe and Mail.”
In other words, the government of Canada’s leadership only learned that their “Minister of Democratic Institutions” was born in the Islamofascist authoritarian nation of Iran through reporting in a national newspaper nearly one year after Monsef’s appointment.
According to Monsef, the blame for this misrepresentation lies entirely with her mother: “For years, Ms. Monsef’s mother allowed her daughter to misrepresent her birthplace as she built a political base in Peterborough, including a failed run for mayor in 2014 and her successful win in last year’s general election.”
Except that as the days goes by, more and more questions about Monsef’s past arise, both for her and her family. At present, no national security investigations appear to have been publicly released on her and her family’s past, meaning that it is apparently unverified – potentially even unverifiable.
According to Monsef, it was apparently Fife’s recent reporting in the Globe and Mail that alerted Monsef to her own erroneous life story:
“In the last few days, my neat and tidy refugee story has proven to be a bit more complicated than I originally thought. [The Globe’s] inquiry led me to have a conversation with my mom and I have since found, while I am still an Afghan citizen, I was born in a hospital in Iran,” she said.
But in a June interview with the same journalist, Monsef said the following:
In June, Robert Fife, then host of CTV’s Question Period, asked Monsef in an interview if she was born in Afghanistan. “I believe I was,” Monsef replied.
I believe I was? Monsef was not sure at that time? When did her uncertainty as to her real birthplace arise? More questions, and even fewer answers. Nothing more than uncritical softballs lobbed at her from Canada’s “journalism” establishment.
According to Monsef, “she now knows she was born at a hospital in Mashhad, Iran, in an area with a large Afghan population. She says her mother never told her she was born in Iran because she didn't think it was important.”
Didn’t think it was important? Misrepresenting the place of birth on an immigration application is a very serious offense and renders the application false and subject to a variety of remedies, including citizenship revocation and deportation. Monsef herself went so far as to justify her mother’s apparently false statements to immigration authorities, which in itself renders her unfit for holding a ministerial position.
Follow-up reporting by Fife and Michelle Zilio on September 22 made the situation even more problematic:
Ms. Monsef also corrected her birthday on her parliamentary website, which had been listed as November, 1985, to a year earlier.
Other than Fife’s original investigations, the only journalist who has been seriously probing Monsef’s past is Lt. Col. (ret.) Jonathan Halevi, co-founder and editor of CIJnews and a senior researcher of the Middle East and radical Islam at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. On September 23, Halevi published two screencaptures from the Parliament of Canada website showing how Monsef’s birthplace and birth date had recently changed from November 1985 in Herat, Afghanistan to November 7, 1984 in Iran.
But here is the problem. This suggests that up until very recently, Monsef believed – based on the story her mother apparently told her – that she was born in November 1985. And yet, in her “maiden speech” to the House of Commons on January 25, 2016, Monsef states the following at about 1m:15s in reference to herself: “Where the concept of a 31 year old parliamentarian and cabinet minister was unthinkable.”
Thirty-one years old as of January 25, 2016? If Monsef believed she was born in November 1985 as of this date, she would be only 30 years and two months old, not 31. Leaving aside the utterly bizarre situation where we have a Minister of Democratic Institutions in a major Western nation changing both her birthplace and birth date well after holding office, the information at hand suggests Monsef may not have believed she was born in November 1985 much earlier than media reports otherwise suggest. Monsef’s Wikipedia page history also shows birth date changes going back and forth over the past year, which seems most odd.
Next we have the questions about Monsef’s memories. According to the Globe and Mail,
The Prime Minister’s Office also provided a detailed timeline of Ms. Monsef’s life that showed she was born and lived until age 9 in Iran. The family moved to her mother’s family home in Herat, Afghanistan in 1993 and then fled the Taliban in 1996, ending up in Canada where they claimed refugee status.
In interviews, Monsef has claimed that she has “very warm memories of growing up as an Afghan in an Afghani community.”
Monsef’s own Twitter feed, and that of others discussing her, adds to the questions surrounding national security. A tweet about Monsef in March 2016 refers to Monsef “speaking about how her (attempted) trip to Iran in 2004 fuelled her passion.” In June 2014, Monsef retweeted that she was “talking about her recent trip to Iran.” On June 15, 2013, she indicated that “the Nikah ceremony is a great symbol of that whole matrimonial practice/process. Sharia fascinates me :).”
According to separate media reports in the National Post, the Toronto Sun, and even the Los Angeles Times, knowledge that Monsef was actually born in Iran was widespread in her electoral district for at least several years, claims that contradict Monsef’s original and revised narrative.
Monsef’s supporters in the media and academic circles are working feverishly to protect her from what is most needed: a full, public national security investigation conducted by the RCMP (Canada’s national police force) and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, working in concert with security agencies in the USA, UK, and Israel as needed for additional resources and objectivity.
Aisha Ahmad, an assistant professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of Toronto and the director of the Islam and Politics Initiative at the Munk School of Global Affairs, wrote an article attempting to dismiss any concerns over Monsef’s apparently unverifiable and controversial history while claiming “there are a few ignorant people out there who are saying she's not a real Afghan,” also tweeting that she’s “[s]uper proud of @MaryamMonsef - got your back, girl.”
Got your back? Objective, critical investigations are needed, not a defense network that includes other academics incorrectly referring to those with concerns regarding Monsef’s background as an “unfortunate crop of Canadian birthers.”
The supposed “birther” claim, which seems to have originated from Toronto Star columnist Heather Mallick, that other academics are also spewing forth seems to conveniently overlook there is no “birther” controversy in this case: Monsef herself has admitted her original birthplace story was incorrect. At VICE Canada, serious questions about Monsef are potentially “just a racist witch hunt.”
On the contrary, if the backgrounds of elected officials cannot be verified, they should not be allowed to hold office. This applies to individuals born within the nation, as well as immigrants, and especially applies to immigrants with family ties back through problematic regimes, which includes not just Iran, but China, Russia, and so forth. Race is irrelevant, unless you are a race-baiter or members of the mainstream media attempting to dampen further investigations.
The Liberal Party of Canada will try to bury this scandal. The left-of-center New Democratic Party won’t touch it because it has long defended mass migration and its position on national security is non-existent (which helps explain why its public support is nearing single-digits). That leaves the Conservative Party of Canada, which has – unfortunately – been neutered on these types of issues after succumbing to the ceaseless bullying by liberals in the media and academia.
An objective and rigorous investigation is required. One that isn’t tainted by the “screamers” who have a hysterical fit every time basic questions of national security are raised. And once that investigation is complete, then Canada can decide what – if any – steps are needed. But sweeping an issue of this magnitude under the carpet is a non-starter.

Chinese Authorities Ban Muslims from Hotels

An interesting development likely undertaken for security reasons. China was just hit with a more serious terror attack and successful Islamic terrorism on its own soil against foreigners would be a major black eye for the secretive totalitarian state.
Authorities in China have reportedly instructed select hotels to reject guests from a handful of majority Muslim countries, according to Reuters.
While the country's foreign ministry denies that such a policy exists, workers at several budget hotels in Guangzhou said that they were ordered as far back as March to deny guests from Pakistan, Syria, Iraq, Turkey and Afghanistan.
One worker recently told the South China Morning Post that local authorities ordered the hotel to turn away guests from the aforementioned countries until Sept. 10.
"I'm not clear of the reason. We just can't take them," a hotel worker told Reuters over the telephone.

There may be good reason for the ban.
It's worth noting that the 11th Pan-Pearl River Delta Regional Cooperation and Development Forum was held in Guangzhou this past week. What's more, the G20 leaders' summit is scheduled to commence in Hangzhou Sept. 4.

Report: German Government Preparing Deutsche Bank Rescue Plan

The German government and financial authorities are preparing a rescue plan for Deutsche Bank in case the lender would be unable to raise capital itself to pay for costly litigation, German weekly Die Zeit reported. According to the draft plan, Deutsche Bank would be enabled to sell assets to other lenders at prices that would ease the strain on the lender and not put an additional burden on the bank, the paper said. In an extreme emergency, the German government would even offer to take a direct stake of 25 percent, the paper added without saying where it got the information. A Deutsche Bank spokesman referred to an interview Chief Executive John Cryan gave German daily Bild on Wednesday and denied the report. “At no point did I ask the chancellor for support. Neither did I suggest anything like that,” had told Cryan Bild in response to a different report that said he had asked German Chancellor Angela Merkel for her support with a $14 billion (10.77 billion pounds) U.S. demand to settle claims it mis-sold mortgage-backed securities. Such a request would be “out of the question for us,” Cryan said, adding that he could not understand how “anyone could claim that.” The German government is still hoping Deutsche Bank will not need state support and only scenarios for a potential rescue are being discussed so far, Die Zeit reported.

The New 'Muslim Hate Crimes Increase' Hoax: Islamophobia is all about faking it.

You may have seen the headlines claiming that “hate crimes” against Muslims have soared to levels not seen since 9/11. According to this controversial study, hate crimes had increased 78%. All the media had to do was fill in the boilerplate language blaming Trump and Islamophobic discourse by conservatives.
These numbers come from the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at California State University San Bernardino. It’s conveniently located around 11 miles from the site of the Muslim massacre in San Bernardino. One of its authors, Kevin Grisham, was the former director of the Center for Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies, and his writings reveal a certain degree of sympathy for Islamists.
The Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism’s board includes Hussein Ibish, who had described Hezbollah’s Islamic terrorists as a “liberation force”.
The Center’s study gets its big claims from small numbers. It compares supposed anti-Islamic hate crimes in 20 states from 2014 to 2015. These results were then handed to the media with scary quotes such as, “Anti-Muslim hate crimes for only those 20 states soared.”
Did they soar across twenty states? Not according to the Center’s own numbers.
There were increases in only 10 states; California, Idaho, Texas, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Tennessee and Virginia.
And the increases were occasionally significant only if you describe them in very specific ways.
That 66% increase in Tennessee meant that 6 cases went up to 10 and that 40% increase in Virginia was 5 cases rising to 7. And that shocking 250% increase in New Jersey? That’s 4 cases rising to 14.
Compare that to 113 cases in the Jewish community.
The statistical games go further. By only comparing two years, the report is able to manufacture shock headlines about a huge surge. But when we look deeper, the surge doesn’t hold up that well.
That dramatic increase in New York works only if you compare 24 incidents in 2014 with 33 incidents in 2015. But if you look back at the 31 incidents in 2011, the sudden spike is not all that newsworthy. Statistical card tricks like these offer rather obvious signs of bad faith.
The Center spends a great deal of time and effort trying to tie this “rise” to Donald Trump. Its methodology is almost childishly sloppy. Its list of “hate crimes” after the Muslim massacre in San Bernardino includes the vandalism of a Sikh Temple.
Sikhs are not Muslims. The vandal, a Latino man, had sprayed gang graffiti on a wall near the temple and had written, “F___ ISIS” on a nearby truck. There was no actual evidence of a hate crime.
But there is a little interest on the left in looking a gift narrative in the mouth.
The New York Times, which received an advance copy of the report, used it to try and revive the infamous Chapel Hill hoax in which the killing of three Muslims by an atheist over a parking dispute was denounced as a hate crime without a single actual piece of evidence. In another murder, discovered by the Times, authorities have “not determined a motive or whether it should be treated as a hate crime”.
But this doesn’t stop the paper or Obama’s DOJ from fussing about “apparent hate crimes”. What are apparent hate crimes? A crime that is claimed as such without any actual evidence to back it up.
In politically correct circles, Muslim fragility and victimization is deemed to be a fact. And it’s just a matter of finding the numbers to back up what everyone on the left knows to be true.
This is the worst possible way to conduct any kind of research. It almost demands sloppy methodology and statistical sleight of hand. The Center report massages the data to produce that sharp increase that is demanded by the media narrative about Muslim fragility. And the media, incestuously, reports on the report that backs up its narrative resulting in a tainted cycle of bias and bad faith.
But the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism’s report is heavier on implication and editorializing than on facts. After dozens of pages, it fails to do the elementary thing that the FBI’s own reports do, which is break down the various incidents into types of crimes instead of piling them all into one large and vague general category. It is this breakdown that enables us to determine danger levels.
Many of the state reports that the Center relies on don’t do this either making it impossible to determine the seriousness of this supposed spike. California, for example, has the largest number of incidents, yet no breakdowns whatsoever, making it impossible to come to any larger conclusions about them. The Illinois report, while lacking the flashy graphics is far more professional, and notes very little in the way of assaults on Muslims. But it’s the Michigan report which has a very thorough breakdown.
The majority of these incidents fall into the “intimidation/stalking” category which, particularly as it relates to hate crimes, is largely meaningless. There is one case of damage to property, a number of non-aggravated assaults and assorted more minor crimes.  There are two aggravated assaults. One of the perpetrators was a black woman. It’s a safe bet that her actions had nothing to do with Trump.
Stalking and intimidation remain a controversial aspect of hate crime laws. Michigan’s Ethnic Intimidation Act has a long controversial history of collisions with the Constitution.
Prosecutors, under pressure by politicians to fight Islamophobia, often tack on hate crimes charges that aren’t supported by the evidence and that are then stealthily withdrawn. A prominent case took place a few years ago in Michigan where a man was charged with “ethnic intimidation” for allegedly trying to pull off a Muslim woman’s veil. Then the charges were quietly pulled due to “issues with evidence” and a chat with the woman’s Imam.
Intimidation and stalking charges are the bread and butter of hate crime prosecutions. They are also often meaningless. A list full of them suggests that instead of a spike in events, political pressure has instead produced a spike in charges that don’t amount to anything. And it’s not much of a spike.
The Center’s spike relies largely on increases in a handful of states. The majority of these states are not particularly conservative making the attempt to tie these increases to Trump all the more hollow. The report is fueled by an unambiguous agenda. That agenda is as obvious as its numbers are bad.
The report frequently references Trump. It spends the bulk of its content on Muslims while sending Jews, African-Americans, Latinos and other groups who experience far more hate crimes to the back of the bus. Why emphasize Muslims at the expense of other groups? Because the report has an agenda.
And that agenda closely follows the narrative of Islamic fragility in which criticizing Islam causes anti-Muslim hate crimes. Each act of Muslim terror must be followed by an immediate whitewashing. And the failure to immediately launch a cover up after every attack leads to anti-Muslim hate crimes.
This is a dangerous, destructive and dishonest narrative. It is the reason that Islamic acts of terror continue to increase. The efforts to stigmatize counterterrorism serves an Islamist agenda.
There is no wave of anti-Islamic terror in America. There is a wave of Islamic terror. That simple truth cannot be silenced. The nation’s greatest hate crime was September 11. Every Islamic act of terror is a hate crime by the racist and supremacist ideology of Islam against America. The best way to prevent Islamic hate crimes against Americans is to limit the growth of the supremacist ideology.

Cameron Ran a ‘Sh*t’ Referendum Campaign, Says German EU Commissioner

Britain voted to leave the European Union thanks to former Prime Minister David Cameron’s “shit campaign” to persuade them to stay, Germany’s European Commissioner has said. Günther Oettinger, who serves as the EU’s Telecoms and IT Commissioner, said Brussels must accept Britain’s vote and live with the consequences.
“We have to accept the democratic decision and the shit campaign of Cameron,” he said, adding: “I’m sorry, that’s life and shit happens.”
Speaking to the European Telecommunications Network Operators’ Association, Mr Oettinger echoed the view of Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker, who has called on the EU accept that Brexit will happen and deal with the consequences.
His comments come as the UK’s International Trade Secretary Liam Fox gave the strongest indication yet that the British government will pursue a “hard Brexit” strategy and leave the EU’s single market.
Visiting the World Trade Organisation (WTO), Dr Fox said Britain would pursue a “more liberalised trade agenda” with the government “free to shape a more transparent, open and liberal trading environment”.
Although Dr Fox stopped short of calling for Britain to leave the single market, his comments appear incompatible with continued membership.
He was expected to go much further in his speech, but The Times reports his comments were heavily vetted by the Prime Minister’s office at 10 Downing Street as Theresa May tries to keep control of what ministers say before the government formally announces its Brexit strategy.
Meanwhile, former French President Nicolas Sarkozy has pledged to offer Britain a new treaty deal as a way of persuading it not the leave the EU.
Mr Sarkozy, who is trying to regain the presidency next year, said he would fly to London immediately upon retaking office.
“I would tell the British, you’ve gone out, but we have a new treaty on the table so you have an opportunity to vote again,” he said.
“But this time not on the old Europe, on the new Europe. Do you want to stay? If yes, so much the better. Because I can’t accept to lose Europe’s second-largest economy while we are negotiating with Turkey over its EU membership. And if it’s no, then it’s a real no. You’re in or you’re out.”

Brexit: A Matter of Principle

By Anthony Bright-Paul 

Brexit has always been a matter of principle. That is where David Cameron and his former chancellor, George Osborne, came unstuck.  They thought it was a matter of economy, of economics.  When I asked a friend of mine, who was a Remainiac, for three good reasons for staying with the EU, he replied: The economy, the economy, and the economy.  And there were legions that took this view, which was later christened "Project Fear."
On the other side were those who abided by a principle.  Who governs Great Britain? Are we to be governed by Brussels and Strasbourg, or are we to be ruled by our Parliament at Westminster in England?  All the emotive arguments around immigration are also about this principle of control.  Do we control immigration, or does Brussels?
Again, do we control our seaways, or does Brussels?  Do we control our agriculture, or does Brussels? Even now there are many people who cannot distinguish between the principles of Brexit and the economy of Brexit.
What has proved highly entertaining is the fact that since we declared Brexit by referendum, the economy has not suffered at all.  Indeed the contrary.  The FTSE is riding high.  The pound has floated down against the U.S. dollar and the Euro.  Has that been a bad thing?  Our tourist trade is sky-high, our hotels are full, and our American cousins are spending billions in our country.
What a lesson this is for Greece and Italy!  While the pound has floated down, the economy has floated up.  In Greece and Italy, precisely the opposite has occurred.  Why?  Because they are in the straitjacket of the Euro.  Herr Juncker tells the Italians to be grateful for Euro millions.  I guess the same mindset goes for Greece.  They should be grateful to be so heavily in debt.  What madness!  The Greeks had the chance to break free and return to the drachma.  Indeed, that is still their only hope, even at this late hour.
Of course, not everybody in Greece is poor.  There are fat cats everywhere who have benefited from the Euro, who have benefited from EU regulations.  We have them here even in Great Britain, squealing as rats do when caught by a fox.  But the lessons of Brexit are clear.  Diverse economies need to float against each other.  The straitjacket of the Euro is a disaster for all.
The federalists everywhere dream of world domination.  It is a throwback to Napoleon-ism and Attila the Hun.  It is echoed in all the fantasies and the rhetoric of the global warmers.  As long as people are supine and lethargic, they will swallow any old thing.
In reading France Soir online, in order to keep up with modern colloquial French, I am entertained to see that M. Sarkozy has thrown his hat into the presidential ring once again and declared that man is not entirely responsible for climate change.  Entirely?  It is only idiots who can imagine that the heat of the globe is governed by a trace gas, CO2, which is but 0.04% of the atmosphere.  Yet there are many who foam at the mouth if anyone dares to question this nonsense.  I was never a Sarkozy fan when he was president, but I am warming to him now!
So even in the august Facebook pages of The Bruges Group, there are still some who have not grasped that we as a nation have already morally and emotionally shaken free from Brussels, though Martin Schultz still imagines that he has Great Britain by the scruff of her neck and that he and his 27 commissioners will block entry to the Single Market.  Here he is, playing on the fears of the Remainiacs once again.  The Single Market is governed by traders, not by governmental institutions.  If our goods are of the right price and quality and meet the needs of our continental friends, then surely our friends will buy.  Should a tariff be imposed, why, the pound will float down again and circumvent any chicanery.
Trouble is, most politicians have never been in business, have never had to sell anything or present anything.  They simply do not understand the mechanics of business.
Now, here is a question.  Did our Parliament create Article 50?  Of course it didn't!  It is not something by which we have to abide.  We simply need to write a letter, as, indeed, Boris Johnson has said, and we declare what everybody knows already: that we have left the EU.  We have left behind their directives and regulations, we have left behind their courts of justice in favor of our own, and in fact we are just confirming that we have left.
To make that declaration crystal-clear, we must stop forthwith paying some £20 billion a year into a club that attempts to bully us into submission, with threats from such as Martin Schulz, one of the commissioners.
A long time ago we joined a Common Market.  It worked just as all markets do, whether in Paris or Farnborough.  The market trader has to agree with the local authority on a small fee to erect his stall in the middle of town, and he has to obey strict rules about when to take the stall down.  We all agreed to some small rules, as any market trader does.  But along comes Jacques Delors with a totally different vision of a federal state, which starts with European domination to lead to world domination.  What magic!  No armies were needed – only economic domination.  No wonder such a cause was espoused by Frau Merkel, who could see a Fourth Reich arising before her eyes in the guise of a European Union dominated by an unholy alliance of France and Germany.
This alliance looked so very innocent, so in keeping with the idea of preventing further European Wars at all costs, that many were taken in.  Indeed, many countries were seduced by the idea of German bankers handing out goodies that they forgot that every loan, every mortgage, requires paying back with interest within a set time.  This is the simplest economics that every householder, who buys a house or even takes out a loan to buy a car, knows.  How many bankers were culpable of ensnaring weak governments with this simple ploy?  Greece and Italy swallowed it, hook, line, and sinker.
Great Britain kept free, being a net contributor.  Of course, even in Britain there were those who were dazzled by the handouts from the EU, not realizing that they were but a small payback of our own massive contribution, so called.  So these beneficiaries squeal, hopefully to no avail.  The Remainiacs cling on, hoping Article 50 will delay everything for ever and a day.  So we all need one last shove, one great heave-ho to ensure that Brexit is Brexit totally, irrevocably, and irretrievably.
Brexit is a matter of principle, not of economics.  Pace Theresa May!

Claim: Turkey Ordered Murder of Dissident in London

Turkey’s spy agency ordered the assassination of a dissident in the middle of London, newly uncovered official documents suggest. Mehmet Kaygisiz, a Kurdish trade unionist, was shot dead at a café in Newington Green, north London in 1994. No one was ever charged for the murder, and police initially regarded it as a drug-related killing.
However, documents obtained by The Times suggest the killing was carried out by drug lord Nurettin Guven at the behest of Turkey’s National Intelligence Organisation (MIT).
The MIT documents list Mr Kaygisiz’s name on a hitlist of people with links to the Kurdish PKK militia that was passed to spies by Turkey’s national police chief.
The Times says that rivalry between feuding Turkish crime families in north London was used as cover for the killing, and for the attempt on the life of another dissident, Nafiz Bostanci.
The Turkish transcripts claim MIT agents took Mr Guven to Ankara, the Turkish capital, to meet national police chief Mehmet Agar, who encouraged him to carry out the killing with the words: “Come on my lion”.
Turkish agent Tarik Umit, who was acting as Mr Guven’s handler, later relayed to his superiors: “He [Guven] went to the Kurdish neighbourhood in England. I called him two or three hours after our first call. He said: ‘My brother, I did it.’ I asked if he [Kaygisiz] is injured or something, he said: ‘No way. No one can save him.’ ”
In a further twist, Mr Umit disappeared in March 1995, with a known state assassin later confessing to his murder.
Before his murder, Mr Kaygisiz had been involved in smuggling Turkish Kurds into Britain as illegal immigrants, a practice often linked to the heroin trade.
The issue of Turkish immigration became a major topic during the recent referendum on the UK’s European Union membership, with fears that EU leaders were about to grant visa-free access to country’s 80 million inhabitants.
Turkey has threatened to refuse to implement a deal that would combat the ongoing migrant crisis unless its citizens are granted visa-free access to the open-borders Schengen Zone.
Speaking back in May, Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan said: “The promise that was made was for the month of October this year. I hope they will keep the promise that they made and close this issue by October at the latest.”

Meet the Western Charlatans Justifying Jihad

After September 11, 2001, the cream of European intellectuals immediately started to find justifications for jihad. They evidently were fascinated by the Kalashnikov assault rifle, "the weapon of the poor". For them, what we had seen in New York was a chimera, an illusion. The mass killings were supposedly the suicide of the capitalist democracy, and terrorism was the wrath of the unemployed, the desperate weapon of a lumpenproletariat offended by the arrogance of Western globalization.
These intellectuals have sown seeds of despair in a large Western echo-chamber. From 9/11 to the recent massacres on European soil, the murdered Westerners are portrayed as just collateral victims in a war between "the system" and the damned of the earth, who are only claiming a place at the table.
One of these intellectuals is Michel Onfray. It has been a while since we heard the expression: "Useful idiot." The cynical expression is often attributed to Lenin, and was used to designate Western sympathizers who justified the horrors of Communism. The French magazine L'Express used it for Onfray: "the useful idiot of Islamism".
When his "Atheist Manifesto" was published in 2005, Onfray could never have imagined that ten years later, he would become the darling of the jihadist group, Islamic State (ISIS). Yet, on November 21, 2015, a week after the massacres in Paris, Onfray appeared in a propaganda video of the Islamic State. A few days later, Onfray, this idol of the reflexive European middle class, said that a "truce could be signed between ISIS and France".
Onfray just gave another interview to the magazine Famille Chrétienne, where he explained that there is no moral difference between "killing innocent lives of women, children and elderly" and "state terrorism" -- between ISIS and the Western war on terror.
Onfray is the most widely read French philosopher in the world and has dethroned Michel Serres, Michel Foucault and Jean-Paul Sartre. This philosopher, drunk with the Enlightenment, has written 80 books, translated into nearly 30 languages. He is not a Marxist, but a libertarian hedonist. According to Onfray, the entire Judeo-Christian heritage prevents free, loving enjoyment. Hence his insistence, ultimately, that the Western civilization is "dead."
How did this great hedonist, the theorist of materialism and atheism, become the darling of Islamist cutthroats? Prime Minister Manuel Valls accused him of having "lost his bearings."
When Onfray calls for a truce with the Islamic State, it is because he believes that France is responsible for what happened to itself. In his recent book Penser l'islam ("Thinking Islam"), Onfray wrote: "If we look at the historical facts and not at the emotions, the West attacked first." France is supposedly reaping what it has sown. Of course Islamists kill and massacre, but it is not their fault, as the West, in his view, previously attacked them.
Onfray also gave the impression of finding more excuses for ISIS by speaking a French "Islamophobia." Why has Onfray has become so popular among the French jihadists fighting in Syria and Iraq? Journalist David Thomson, a specialist in jihadi movements, explained that "Onfray is translated into Arabic and shared on all pro-ISIS sites." Talking to Jean-Jacques Bourdin in 2013, Onfray even defended the right of Islamists to apply Islamic sharia law in Mali.
Onfray recognizes that we are at war. But this war, to him, was started by George W. Bush. He "forgets" that 3,000 Americans were killed on September 11, 2001. If you remind him that "ISIS kills innocent people", Onfray will reply: "We have also killed innocent people." It is the perfect moral equivalence between ISIS and the West. Barbarians against barbarians! The 130 French people killed on November 13, 2015 are just puppets of the West. With his moral relativism, Onfray opens the door to Islamist cutthroats.
Onfray belongs to a long list of charlatans who abound among Europe's intellectuals. Writing for Le Monde, the most famous living German philosopher, Jürgen Habermas, claimed that "jihadism is a modern form of reaction to the living conditions characterized by uprooting." Someone should have explained to him that all the terrorists were well integrated into the French and Belgian democracies, and living with welfare subsidies.
Another celebrity-philosopher, the Slovenian neo-Marxist guru Slavoj Zizek, argued that Islamism may seem reactionary, but "in a curious inversion religion is one of the possible places from which one can deploy critical doubts about today's society. It has become one of the sites of resistance." Zizek also claimed that "Islamo-Fascists" and "European anti-immigrant racists" are "the two sides of the same coin."
The French intellectual Thomas Piketty, after the massacres in Paris, pointed at "inequality" as the root of ISIS's success. Another well-known German philosopher, Peter Sloterdijk, claimed that the September 11 attacks were attacks were just "small incidents".
José Saramago, a Nobel laureate for literature, claimed that flying two planes into the Twin Towers was "revenge against the humiliation".
There were also those, like the French thinker Jean Baudrillard, who said that the attacks on the Twin Towers were actually desired by the United States. In short, Islamic terrorists did it, but we had really wanted it. Or to quote from the famous German composer Karlheinz Stockhausen, the attack on the World Trade Center was "the greatest work of art that is possible in the whole cosmos."
The peak of cynicism was reached by Dario Fo, the winner of the 1997 Nobel Prize for literature, who said after 9/11:
"The great speculators wallow in an economy that every year kills tens of millions of people with poverty — so what is 20,000 dead in New York? Regardless of who carried out the massacre [of 9-11], this violence is the legitimate daughter of the culture of violence, hunger and inhumane exploitation".
It has happened before. Philosophers such as Martin Heidegger and Carl Schmitt, writers such as Knut Hamsun and Louis Ferdinand Céline, musicians such as Wilhelm Furtwangler and Ernst von Karajan, are just some of the most famous representatives of European culture who embraced Adolf Hitler's dream. Their heirs now justify jihad as the ultimate punishment for the Western freedoms and democracy.

Terror Through Asylum: European nations offer open arms to ticking time bombs.

The police in the German city of Cologne recently arrested Mohammad J., a 16-year-old Syrian asylum seeker. He and his parents arrived in Germany in January 2016 and applied for asylum there – along with more than one million other aslyum seekers, most of whom were from the Middle East and North Africa. In Internet chats Mohammad J. expressed his “unmistakable willingness” to carry out a bombing attack, Klaus-Stephan Becker from Cologne’s Criminal Police claimed.
A chat partner from abroad gave him “clear hints” on how to make a bomb, Becker said. Yet no further preparations had been made by the arrested terror suspect.  The Cologne police discovered that the suspect’s cell phone showed that he received instructions from “a person with links to ISIS who is living abroad.” This person succeeded in recruiting the 16-year-old Syrian asylum seeker.
Mohammad J. was not the only Syrian asylum seeker who was arrested quite recently. The well-informed German newspaper Bild reported on September 13, 2014, that the German anti-terror unit “GSG9” arrested three Syrian “refugees” in North Rhine-Westphalia and Lower Saxony (near Hamburg). They were 26-year-old Mohammed A., 18-year-old Ibrahim M. and 17-year-old Mahir al-H. The German federal prosecutor said that these three young Syrians arrived in Germany in November 2015, either with a pre-planned mission or waiting for further instructions.
Bild also quoted Bavaria’s Interior Minister Joachim Hermann who said: “Meanwhile, we know now that ISIS deliberately profited from lapses in our security system and smuggled terrorists disguised as asylum seekers into Europe.” And German Interior Minister Thomas de Mazière said, according to Bild, that the three arrested Syrian asylum seekers were linked both to ISIS and to the ISIS terror cell that struck in Paris in November 2015. “They could have been a sleeper cell,” De  Mazière said. He referred to so-called “Hit-Teams” smuggled into Europe by ISIS. “This is what happened when ISIS struck in Brussels and Paris.”
Mohammed A.,  Ibrahim M. and Mahir al-H. had first left Turkey on a boat loaded with refugees bound for Greece and subsequently followed the so-called “Balkan route” entering Germany in November 2015, Bild writes. They were assisted by exactly the same migrant trafficking organization that assisted the ISIS terrorists who struck in Paris last November. Their forged Syrian passports were also from the same forger in the Middle East.
Bild refers to security sources who claim that the German Federal Crime Agency (BKA) is now checking information about more than 400 ISIS or Al-Nusra extremists among the refugees in Germany. Lothar de Mazière said that preliminary proceedings have been initiated against 60 persons.
CNN reported on September 5, 2016, that “the sophisticated ISIS network that plots foreign strikes had planned for the carnage in the November 2015 attacks in Paris to be far worse, to occur in other European countries as well and, investigators believe, had planned to follow them up with strikes in various locations.” “CNN has obtained thousands of pages of documents from internal European investigations.”
There were “two ISIS attackers who never reached France,” CNN reported. They were Algerian born Adel Haddadi and Muhammad Usman from Pakistan. Both of them set out from Raqqa, the so-called “capital” of ISIS in Syria, in early October 2015. “They were part of a team, investigators concluded. The two others, Ahmad Al-Mohammad and Mohammad Al-Mahmod, would later blow themselves up outside the national stadium.” They entered Europe on refugee boats, but the Greeks detained Haddadi and Usman after they had discovered that their Syrian passports were fake. They were released at the end of October and continued their journey, passing through the Balkans and arriving in Austria on November 14, 2015, where they applied for asylum. On December 10, however, they were arrested at a refugee center near Salzburg.
“The documents show that their journey was directed by a shadowy ISIS leader in Syria, known only as Abu Ahmad,” CNN claims. “Operating like a puppet-master from afar, Abu Ahmad handled their logistics: connecting them with smugglers and cars for transport, providing pre-programmed cell phones and getting them fake Syrian passports.” “Both men’s phones have given European officials rich sources to mine, revealing dozens of contacts accros Europe and the Middle East.”
It is only the tip of the iceberg. Over 300,000 asylum seekers crossed the Mediterranean Sea and entered Italy and Greece between January and mid-September 2016. Many of them traveled to Germany where the authorities simply cannot cope with another massive influx of Muslim asylum seekers. Bild reported on September 22, 2016, that there are now nearly 550,000 rejected asylum seekers in Germany alone. Some 400,000 of them have lived in that country for more than six years. Only 13,134 illegal immigrants have been deported in the first seven months of 2016.
There is a long history of Muslim extremists applying for asylum in Europe. There have been at least two Syrian asylum seekers who led Al-Qaeda terror cells: Imad Eddin Barakat Yarkas, who operated from Madrid, and Omar Bakri Mohammad, a hate cleric who operated from London. London is also known as “Londonistan” because lots of radical Muslims found refuge in that city. Some of them even plotted terror attacks.
Even Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden applied for asylum in Britain in December 1995. He had also established a media organization and a printing house in London. Bin Laden was in Sudan at the time, but the Sudanese wanted to kick him out. They were under increasing American pressure to do so. Therefore, Bin Laden and his dangerous Al-Qaeda organization had to look for another safe haven.
Michael Howard, a Conservative politician and former British Home Secretary, told London The Times in September 2005: “In truth, I knew little about him, but we picked up information that Bin Laden was very interested in coming to Britain. It was apparently a serious request.”
“British Home Office officials investigated him and Howard issued an immediate banning order under Britain’s immigration laws,” The Times reported. It was known also in April 1996 that Bin Laden was interested in finding a new safe-haven in London.
Although there may be humanitarian considerations to “welcome” Syrian or Iraqi refugees, there are also huge security risks. Too many of these “refugees” are radical Muslims and anti-Semites and the West is importing the conflicts and cultural backwardness from the Muslim world. This is why Hungary, Macedonia, Slovakia and Poland refuse to accept more Muslim refugees. The rest of Europe is failing to follow their lead, and at their own peril.