Egyptian armed forces chanting “Allahu akbar” storm Christian monastery with tanks, open fire, injuring 19

Christians incite more interfaith tension by not thanking the Egyptian Muslim military officers for the gunfire, and compensating them for the cost of the bullets. “Egyptian Armed Forces Fire At Christian Monasteries, 19 Injured,” by Mary Abdelmassih for AINA, February 24 (thanks to Mackie):

(AINA) — For the second time in as many days, Egyptian armed force stormed the 5th century old St. Bishoy monastery in Wadi el-Natroun, 110 kilometers from Cairo. Live ammunition was fired, wounding two monks and six Coptic monastery workers. Several sources confirmed the army’s use of RPG ammunition. Four people have been arrested including three monks and a Coptic lawyer who was at the monastery investigating yesterday’s army attack.

Monk Aksios Ava Bishoy told activist Nader Shoukry of Freecopts the armed forces stormed the main entrance gate to the monastery in the morning using five tanks, armored vehicles and a bulldozer to demolish the fence built by the monastery last month to protect themselves and the monastery from the lawlessness which prevailed in Egypt during the January 25 Uprising.

“When we tried to address them, the army fired live bullets, wounding Father Feltaows in the leg and Father Barnabas in the abdomen,” said Monk Ava Bishoy. “Six Coptic workers in the monastery were also injured, some with serious injuries to the chest.” […]

Father Hemanot Ava Bishoy said the army fired live ammunition and RPGs continuously for 30 minutes, which hit part of the ancient fence inside the monastery. “The army was shocked to see the monks standing there praying ‘Lord have mercy’ without running away. This is what really upset them,” he said. “As the soldiers were demolishing the gate and the fence they were chanting ‘Allahu Akbar’ and ‘Victory, Victory’.”

He also added that the army prevented the monastery’s car from taking the injured to hospital.

The army also attacked the Monastery of St. Makarios of Alexandria in Wady el-Rayan, Fayoum, 100 km from Cairo. It stormed the monastery and fired live ammunition on the monks. Father Mina said that one monk was shot and more than ten have injuries caused by being beaten with batons. The army demolished the newly erected fence and one room from the actual monastery and confiscated building materials. The monastery had also built a fence to protect itself after January 25 and after being attacked by armed Arabs and robbers leading to the injury of six monks, including one monk in critical condition who is still hospitalized. […]

The Egyptian Armed Forces issued a statement on their Facebook page denying that any attack took place on St. Bishoy Monastery in Wady el-Natroun, “Reflecting our belief in the freedom and chastity of places of worship of all Egyptians.” The statement went on to say that the army just demolished some fences built on State property and that it has no intention of demolishing the monastery itself…

Father Hedra Ava Bishoy said they are in possession of whole carton of empty bullet shells besides the people who are presently in hospital to prove otherwise….

We contacted state security and they said there was no police available for protection,” said Father Bemwa,” So we called the Egyptian TV dozens of times to appeal for help and then we were put in touch with the military personnel who told us to protect ourselves until they reach us.” He added that the monks have built a low fence on the borders of one side of the monastery which is vulnerable to attacks, on land which belongs to the monastery, with the monks and monastery laborers keeping watch over it 24 hours a day….

Sudan: "You must convert to Islam if you want your daughter back"
Al-Qaeda second banana blames Christians for inciting interfaith tensions in Egypt
FacebookTwitterLinkedInDiggBlogger PostDeliciousEmailPinterestRedditStumbleUponPrint

Comments

  1. says

    Here we go again. What’s the excuse this time?

    “As the soldiers were demolishing the gate and the fence they were chanting ‘Allahu Akbar’ and ‘Victory, Victory’.”

    Sure, victory, victory. What kind of victory is that when armed soldiers with tanks tear down a protective fence and attack unarmed monks and a small defenseless crowd of compatriots for absolutely nothing but their religion?

  2. says

    O.T. Daisy Khan in a dutch newspaper 24/02/11, 07:25 (google translation) http://www.trouw.nl/tr/nl/5091/Religie/article/detail/1851460/2011/02/24/Westerse-media-staren-zich-blind-op-extreme-variant-sharia.dhtml

    “Western media are staring blindly at extreme variant Sharia”

    INTERVIEW – Western and Islamic values are consistent with each other, says the American Daisy Khan. A conversation with the initiator of Park51, Islamic community center near Ground Zero to come.
    Suddenly silenced the protest, said Daisy Khan. She is one of the initiators behind Park51, a Muslim ‘community’ in the heart of downtown Manhattan in New York to rise, two blocks away from where the Twin Towers once stood. It led to controversy last autumn, many Americans said the planned center, where they saw a mosque in disguise, to experience it as a slap in the face of the victims of 9 / 11.

    But after the Senate elections in November the storm are surprisingly quickly, says Khan. “It was politics. The opposition used us to gain votes.”

    And no, the plan is not the job, she says fiercely. She took the initiative committed with her husband, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf. Earlier, in 1997, the couple has founded the American Society for Muslim Advancement ‘on, to build bridges between Muslims living in the U.S. and the rest of Americans. That goal is also to serve Park51. Inspired by the Jewish Community Center, also in Manhattan is, the one place where non-Muslims are welcome, with gyms, a restaurant, art galleries. And a prayer room for Muslims.

    Daisy Khan (52) is in the library of the debate center recently opened The New Love in Amsterdam. She gave this weekend to kick off a series of lectures on Islam, “talked about Islam, but different.” Khan was stopped in its contribution to the question whether Islam is compatible with Western ideals of democracy and freedom.

    That question was this week in the Netherlands resurfaced when Roel Kuiper party leader on behalf of the Christian Union at the forthcoming First elections, said “if necessary in the Constitution” to make a claim that there is legislation that Islamic law is based have no place in the Netherlands, because the basic principles of Western culture that go against the Islamic culture, and which also exceed them.

    With that logic, it is pertinent Khan disagrees. According to its Islamic and Western values are just ‘complete match. ”

    Many people believe that there is a clash of civilizations, each with a different value system. For them, 9 / 11 of the symbol.
    “Therefore we Park51 build too, to show that it is not. The atrocity of 9 / 11 is in complete contradiction to the Islamic ethos. Extremists have a political agenda that they are in religious terms cloak. But Islam is clearly : you can not kill innocent people. Most Muslims know that. ”

    She jumps up. “Therefore what happened in Egypt is so exciting. Everybody went into the streets and cried: We’re this good, Islamic manner. With peaceful resistance. And in two weeks they managed to achieve more than the jihadists in thirty years .

    What about the passages in the Koran that speak of killing infidels?
    “That I read in their context. With an” infidel “is not just the first best provided. The conditions are strict: you must first truly complete non-religious. Furthermore you Muslims have to use physical force to restrain their faith exercise. Nobody, to my knowledge, is now a disbeliever in the Quranic sense.

    Really? Nobody?
    “Nobody. The Quranic passages are not the core of Islam. Islam is a pluralistic religion. Everyone is space: men, women, dissenters. The Quran says that God created different tribes and nations willed that they” each other know ‘. Multiculturalism, which is the fundamental mission of Islam. ”

    This is not just a nice theory, says Khan. “Historically, Muslims everywhere pluralistic been. The notion of a monocultural Islam did not exist. That’s something of the past sixty years. Take the Ottoman Empire. This was not only the Turks but gave room for different cultures and beliefs. Then, with the collapse of the empire, the Muslim communities were reclassified by powers from outside. They created nation-states, which had to be monocultural. ”

    But from the first caliphs were people of another religion is treated as dhimmis. They did not count as full citizens.
    “You see that is wrong. Dhimmis were exempted from military service. That was to protect them. Because if they would die on the battlefield, there would be no one of their group left. In exchange for this protection they paid extra taxes.”
    And the position of women? To western standards, they are suppressed in many Muslim countries.
    Khan thinks. “I have so often heard. And you are right, since women are indeed oppressed.” Decisively: “But that goes against the Koran. If you do well, you see that equality between men and women to being part of Islamic ethics. Unequal gender relations come from the culture, not religion.”

    You state that Western media distorted a picture of sharia, Islamic law.
    “They do it off as inferior to the western legal system. But them stare themselves blind to the criminal provisions in the course of time have been devised, particularly in the most extreme variants. While you should look at the principles on which penalties are based. These principles are the most important: the promotion of life, religious freedom, a good family life, prosperity, intellectual independence and human dignity. ”

    These are fine principles. But in practice, women are oppressed, the thieves hands cut off, adulterers stoned and.
    “Unfortunately, yes, but they are twisted, corrupted form of Sharia, which run counter to the principles I just mentioned. Regimens in countries with a Muslim majority authoritarianism and abuses their power to enforce Sharia.”

    You always make a distinction between culture and religion. What Muslims fail to comply with Western values that they do from a cultural or political reasons, not because their religion says you This distinction is not artificial? Is your pure Islam is not a construction of a thinking, that nowhere on earth really be prevented?
    “No. I think this all by yourself. More than a thousand years of history proves it …” She starts talking fast, agitated. “Look, there are always elements in a culture that does not correspond to its core values. America stands for equality and freedom, but it was many years slave trading. That does not mean you need to specify the ideal.”

    According to inter-religious dialogue is the solution to growing fundamentalism and religious violence. But such inter-religious debates are conducted by a benevolent elite, not by the mass of ordinary believers. Let alone terrorists.
    “I agree with you that much in a vacuum will be discussed at such meetings.”
    She laughs. “But it may help. Example. On March 8, the Republican Senator Peter King Congress talk about the” Islamization of America. “This is a painful moment for Muslims in America. And why? They’ve done nothing wrong.”

    The intention of the Senator put Khan thinking, she says.
    “During an interfaith meeting a while back I talked to a rabbi who said that we also happen to Jews, you may not be the same thing happen. I am willing myself to one day be called Muslim.”

    An initiative was born, Khan says enthusiastically. “On March 6th we masse on the streets of Washington: Muslims, Jews, Christians, Hindus, atheists. And everyone will hold up a sign that read:” Today I am a Muslim. “That will send a strong signal. It will show that Americans will not put up as a minority should be messed with. ”

  3. says

    “The army was shocked to see the monks standing there praying ‘Lord have mercy’ without running away. This is what really upset them,”

    I bet it did…Christians showing no fear is not allowed…
    How arrogant of them to pray rather than run…

  4. says

    This is a very sad situation with very ominous foreboding. It certainly has been predicted in numerous posts over time, but it is significant to see such events so quickly into the process. It does though accelerate the understanding of what the “truth is on the ground”. It is more than a worry about what the future has in store. I will forward this information to my Congressman and Senator to alert their awareness of how we move forward.

    Respectfully, Ts

  5. says

    In what other religion other than Islam is it encouraged to beat wives when they do not obey their twice-as-smart husbands? You do not even have to worry if she is beaten too hard and she is disfigured; it is licit to divorce and marry as many times as desired. You only have to say “I divorce you” three times consecutively.
    It is even permissible to marry for an hour just for sex. Even when divorced, women do not keep your children with her nor receive anything from their ex-husbands, except grief.
    Another advantage is that a man can divorce his wife for any or no reason and does not have to tell her. She will know when she is kicked out the house. Women we do this for your protection, because men are smarter and Allah has made us your protector.
    Allah is so fair and merciful that he allows women to get half of what men get in heritance. After all women are only half of intelligent as men. Allahu Akbar!
    If young girls are more to your liking it is fine to marry nine year old girls and have all the sex in any position you like, as our Prophet Mohammed did. Who needs sinful pornography when sex slaves are available as right hand possessions?
    Oh yes, slaves! Though the rest of the world has banned the practice long ago it is still legal with us Muslims. Imagine having your own slaves! Slaves will be cheap and plentiful after Jihad has victory over Kaffur (infidels) nations. Allahu Akbar!
    The Qur’an has all the science the Kaffur (infidels) have discovered. Revealed to Mohammed centuries before modern scientist in such diverse fields as medicine, embryology, geology, astronomy – all was spelled out in the Qur’an.
    As a Muslim, thinking is not necessary; Mohammed was giving the Holy Qur’an. Memorize it, follow it blindly and forget about thinking. All the questions are answered in Qur’an, or Hadith. No need to either look any further or think any deeper. Allah knows thinking is not good, it can give you a headache and make you stray from Islam’s righteous ways. So thinking is not good. Allahu Akbar!
    Do not want to wait to die and go to Paradise? Allah has an express route. Be a Martyr. Kill as many people possible by killing yourself and Allah will be meeting you with 72 black eyed virgins, to have sex and all the wine you can drink.
    Allah doesn’t allow us to drink alcohol while we live, but dead, we can drink all we want. Allah loves wild orgies, with mutilated, drunk and violent warriors; that’s what the virgins are for. Allahu Akbar!
    For a Muslim, health is very important and much better and less expensive than western medicine. To keep healthy seven dates with black seeds will do.
    Occasionally it might be necessary to take ´camel urine with milk. If a fly falls in the urine-mixed milk just dip the fly in, make sure that both wings get soaked and Hey Presto! Milk is sanitized. Allahu Akbar!
    Have you noticed Islamic countries have no crazy people? In the Qur’an madness is caused by jinns. The good news is that jinns will come out with beatings. No need for psychologist or psychiatrist – a cricket bat will do. Allahu Akbar!
    Being always correct is another perk of being Muslim. Debates with Kaffur (infidels) are always won by Muslims because Kaffur (infidels) are all liars.
    Truth cannot contradict the Qur’an and when it does we have Taqiyya. Taqiyya is a dissimulation strategy that works wonders. It keeps Islam’s many enemies from knowing our real intentions, from knowing our truths. With Taqiyya, Muslims do not need to tell the truth to Kaffur (infidels). As Muslims we will always know the truth regardless of what we tell the Kaffur (infidels). Allahu Akbar!
    Join the best and only true religion. Join now because in Islam there is no compulsion in religion. Don’t wait because we would cut your heads off. Islam is a Faith of peace, and no peace is more profound than that of the grave. Don’t you agree?

    peterarzai@gmail.com

  6. says

    In core Islamic texts, Muhammad says your “lives and property” are not safe from him unless you become a Muslim

    In Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim, the two most canonical hadith collections:

    Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 2, Number 25:

    Narrated Ibn ‘Umar:

    Allah’s Apostle said: “I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah’s Apostle, and offer the prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity, so if they perform all that, then they save their lives and property from me except for Islamic laws and then their reckoning (accounts) will be done by Allah.”

    Sahih Muslim, Book 031, Number 5917:

    …Ali went a bit and then halted and did not look about and then said in a loud voice: Allah’s Messenger, on what issue should I fight with the people? Thereupon he (the Prophet) said: Fight with them until they bear testimony to the fact that there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his Messenger, and when they do that then their blood and their riches are inviolable from your hands but what is justified by law and their reckoning is with Allah.

  7. says

    Egyptian armed forces chanting “Allahu akbar” storm Christian monastery with tanks, open fire, injuring 19
    ………………………………

    *Oh, crap*. This is *exactly* the sort of thing I have been fearing.

    More:

    “The army was shocked to see the monks standing there praying ‘Lord have mercy’ without running away. This is what really upset them,” he said.
    ………………………………

    The monks weren’t terrified enough? This would upset any good Muslims!

    More:

    “As the soldiers were demolishing the gate and the fence they were chanting ‘Allahu Akbar’ and ‘Victory, Victory’.”
    ………………………………

    If this was really about *an illegally constructed fence*, why would they be chanting “Allahu Akbar” and “Victory, Victory”?

    In any civilized country, you would send the monastery a notice’so that they could either secure a permit, pay a fine, or take down their own fence. You wouldn’t send in the *military with tanks*.

    But Egypt is not a civilized country”and by that, I don’t just mean the usual”that it is a Muslim-majority mess. I mean that it is a nation without a functioning government.

    If a country in the West were *without a functioning government*, wouldn’t you assume the military would have better things to do than go after a peaceful minority place of worship”an ashram, maybe, or a Buddhist temple”that had put up a fence without the proper permits because they had been afraid of violence during the unrest?

    Well, duh.

    More:

    He also added that the army prevented the monastery’s car from taking the injured to hospital.
    ………………………………

    Thank God no one was killed.

    More:

    The Egyptian Armed Forces issued a statement on their Facebook page denying that any attack took place on St. Bishoy Monastery in Wady el-Natroun, “Reflecting our belief in the freedom and chastity of places of worship of all Egyptians.”
    ………………………………

    Oh, look! See, Facebook and other “social media” really are an integral part of the peaceful revolution for freedom and peace! sarc/off

    More:

    “We contacted state security and they said there was no police available for protection,” said Father Bemwa,” So we called the Egyptian TV dozens of times to appeal for help and then we were put in touch with the military personnel who told us to protect ourselves until they reach us.”
    ………………………………

    They were put back in touch with the military”the *very people who had attacked them in the first place*. Unless this was some sort of “rogue unit””unlikely since there were attacks on *two separate monasteries*, then this is calling in the fox to guard the henhouse it has already previously attacked.

    More:

    He added that the monks have built a low fence on the borders of one side of the monastery which is vulnerable to attacks…
    ………………………………

    That might offer the pretext for *another* military attack…

    The St. Bishoy monastery dates to the *5th century*”it predates Islam. Will the monastery continue to survive Islam now?

  8. says

    That’s the same Egyptian army that thinks if its brave soldiers can shoot defenseless monks dead, they can defeat the Israelis.

    Not a chance! Cowardice is written all the way up their spineless backs.

  9. says

    I am ill.

    Richard Gere, your office is calling.

    The other problem is that we read this article, and we know the reason the Muslims, no matter whether they are “government” or “homegrown radicals” are firing on the monestary and shooting the Copts.

    Like many Western media stories, we scorn when we see “uprising” and “protesters” and “against the government” mentioned but the so-called reporter never actually says what they are truly protesting, who they are, and what they would rather have in place. That’s because they don’t know.

    We know that it is because they dared put a hammer to nail on their own property, and they are not Muslims. We know that it is because Abu Yusuf, an early Hanafi, gave us a really nice treatise for a local caliph summing up the neat list of dhimmi rules he could pick from as he decided how best to subjugate the Jews, Christians and others he had the misfortunate of not being able to convert or kill.

    But note that the author assumes that everyone knows why the conflict exists in the first place. It is common knowledge to everyone but Westerners with their attention divided between American Idol and The Daily Show that those uppity Christians aren’t allowed to build or repair their houses of worship. This includes the fence that they built to protect themselves from the murderous bands of Muslims who look to punish them for just being Christian, de facto blasphemers of Islam and Mohammed.

    No equivalency, no comparison to other faiths, just outrage. Muslims in Egypt are as outraged by these monks as they would be if someone showed Mohammed getting shat upon by a pig in the local newspaper. Their very nerve, after all the dhimmi status those Muslims have conferred upon those Christians, when they could have just as easily killed them, they can even think about building dividing walls between their concrete walls so each monk has a different place to sleep. They were making monastic cells within their own walls. And for this, they deserve death.

    Are you listening, President Obama? Hillary Clinton? Do you have any sympathy for these people? Or just “generic” protesters? Obama, you Marxist, Stalinist revolutionary…just slink away in the night and let the grownups keep the world in some semblance of peace. You God-awful, stupid, evil man.

    This footage should be on every major news outlet, pointing out that the civilians are Coptic Christians or Coptic monks.

  10. says

    The Middle East is melting down before our eyes, the potential for real threat to our oil sources escalates by the day, and our President sees fit to hold a Motown Dance Party at the White House.
    Everytime such clearly targeted sectarian violence occurs, and the POTUS says nothing, the Jihadists grow stronger and bolder by the day. As you have explained time and again, an ideology based on force and subjugation respects nothing else: not diplomacy, not bribery, not kneeling, groveling apologizing to the Ummah, as Obama proudly has done.
    I fear that things are much closer than people realize, to spinning out of control. And this ‘Leader of the Free World’ doesn’t really appear to give much of a flying damn.

  11. says

    The way things are always portrayed and reported we are supposed to think of the military in Muslim countries as the bastion of secularism in constant low-intensity opposition to the religious factions who are the pious ones. I have my doubts about that, but I don’t know for sure what the reality is. I do know, however, it’s always a mistake to assume this or that feature of Islam is the same as, or similar to, what we have in Western society. In the West when we picture the military it’s the farthest thing away from a religious organization. But is that true in Islamic countries? Should we give preference to the muslim Army as the antidote to piously fanatic jihadi religious elements in Muslim countries? The histories of early Islam say the muslim Army was always the preponderant part of what was the state apparatus of Islam, and it was the Army which waged Jihad, and it was the vanguard of Islamic religiosity.

  12. says

    Don’t the Copts have a new friend in Imam Qaradawi? Didn’t he praise them for their role in deposing Mubarak? Didn’t he declare the end of sectarianism? Will he condemn these attacks? I’m not holding my breath.

  13. says

    Will FoxNews bring Spencer how he and his colleagues knew this would be the outcome? No, probably not. The media seem to wheel between palimpsest episodes and long duration selective amnesia.

    If it is anything, Islam is deterministic. And they are determined to take all Dar al-Islam nations into open, combative Islamic Republics.

    *** 52:38 ***

    Or have they a ladder, by which they can climb up to heaven and listen to its secrets? Then let such a listener of theirs produce a warrant manifesting proof.

    Meanwhile, we get to watch Katie Couric, Christina Amanpour, Joy Behar and other deep thinkers in our ruling elites drivel on with their nonsensical doggerel about how the last month we’ve all been witnessing the sudden budding Jeffersonian democracies among the Moslems …

  14. says

    “when they do that then their blood and their riches are inviolable from your hands but what is justified by law”

    “But what is justified by law” is a loophole large enough to ram a Saturn 5 rocket through.

  15. says

    Does anyone suppose that this story from Egypt will be on the network news tonight? I wonder how Charlie Sheen and Justin Bieber are doing?

  16. says

    I can only guess that CAIR-Canada and Dr.Sheema Khan and Muhammad Elmasry will hold a Protest march in Toronto’s downtown area to declare these people as not being true Muslims, They will have 1000’s of Peaceful moderate Muslims with strollers and banners condemning Egypt and asserting that Jesus is a Prophet in the Quran and Christians are not the enemies of islam.
    Fellow Canadian’s should check the MSM and Muslim leaders to get the Islamic stance on the murdering of noon-Muslims, the CBC should have a 1 Hour special to expose these murders and violence in Islamic Nations.
    And, Imam Steve Rockwell (who loves shariah law and wants it in canada) in Toronto will assure us that the misunderstanders of the peaceful Islam must have been prevoked by the centuries of islamophobia and attacks by those filthy evil Christians that are friends of the Jews.

    No doubt Obama will call for calm and not to rush to judgement to blame a faith or culture that motivated
    the attacks, Islam id a faith of Peace and had nothing to do with this slaughter by alleged Muslims.
    It must have been the Massad and George Bush to justify
    attacking Lybia for the Oil.

  17. says

    “The statement went on to say that the army just demolished some fences built on State property and that it has no intention of demolishing the monastery itself…”

    And in the new Muslim Brotherhood Theocracy aka Egypt **all** land is State property. Especially that occupied by the infidels.

  18. says

    it has no intention of demolishing the monastery itself.

    No, that will be conveniently performed by the civilian mobs who no longer have a fence in the way.

  19. says

    The tanks in the Egyptian army are paid for by the American taxpayer to the tune of $1.5 billion every year. Yes you read that correctly, $1.5 billion per year. Stop the aid and stop all spare parts and ammo for the tanks.

  20. says

    We must always have good arguments to show Muslims that Islam is false.

    You can do it using the Koran

    It says Muhammad was not able to do miracles….. time after time after time,read:

    http://www.antisharia.com/2011/01/29/in-the-koran-muhammad-can-not-do-miracles-but-jesus-can/

    Also read:

    answering-islam.org

    answeringmuslims.com

    faithfreedom.org (by ex-Muslim Ali Sina)

    avraidire.com

    (French and English).You can translate the French using Google Translate,you copy and paste:

    http://translate.google.com/#

  21. says

    Islamic thought processes are filled with hatred for Jews, Christians, infidels, or anyone else they choose to designate. Muslims hear hatred in their Mosques, they hear hatred from their neighbors, and their hear hatred from their family at an early age, from the time they are old enough to understand. They are taught to enjoy hatred as a major part of their lives. There is no surprise here to see hatred get out of control as hatred often does.

    The monks belong to a religion of faith in love. If they had the right weapons, they could have fought back and killed their attackers in self defense but they chose to accept their martyrdom in the name of love for Jesus Christ. They were not provoking an attack. They were mercilessly attacked by a bunch of ruthless Muslim haters who were taught that Christians are to be hated.

    Here in the USA we have things so much better than in the Middle East. With the Middle East built on a faith in hate, there will never be any change and possibly some day off into the future if the USA changes to a faith based on hatred, we will see in the USA what we now see in the Middle East.

  22. says

    Pretty soon the Egyptians will be able to kill Christians much more efficiently with British made weapons as UK Prime Minister David Cameron recently visited Cairo with representatives from several arms companies.

    However, Killing Christians is something the Muslims excel at, they are nearly as good at that as they are at their primary raison d’être, killing each other.

  23. says

    Muslims beware. IF or WHEN you start shooting Christians over here in America, WE WILL RETURN FIRE and DESTROY YOU. THIS I PROMISE.

  24. says

    I’ve always believed that one cannot read too much about Churchill or Lincoln. Having read much on Churchill I have, also, never seen anything that said he believed The Elders was true.

  25. says

    Churchill and THe Elders of Zion…..here is what Chuchill offered:

    “This movement among the Jews is not new. From the days of Spartacus Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States), this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and for the reconstitution [reconstruction] of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing.”

    -Winston Churchill in Illustrated Sunday Herald, 8th February, 1920.

  26. says

    These Christians need to pack their bags and buy a plane ticket to somewhere…almost anywhere would be preferable.

    Prov 22:3 A prudent man foreseeth the evil, and hideth himself:

  27. says

    Mr. Spencer, I read BareNakedIslam’s blog, and found some very disturbing news there. I don’t know if this is sensationalism (which BNI doesn’t indulge in – at least not that I have ever seen) but I have never read any unverifyable information there before. This has me climbing the walls:

    According to Arabic language broadcasts, “The Muslim world is saying that President Obama wants amnesty for the current Hispanic 12 million illegal immigrants in the US in order to pave the way for the next wave of tens of millions of illegals from the Middle East to the United States, leading to 50 to 100 million Muslims living in the US. before the end of Obama’s second term.
    “Is Barack Obama Really A Saudi/Muslim “Plant’ in the White House?” The answer is obvious. The video claims that “for years before” the 2008 election, Lipkin’s wife, who worked for the Israeli government monitoring Arabic radio broadcasts, picked up broadcasts of Saudis saying, “We will have a a Muslim in the White House in 2008.”

    Special Guests – While the world fixates on the Middle East upheaval, there is a quiet undertow building toward likely impending mass protests and terrorism in the United States; according to author/translator in the Israeli Prime Minister’s office, Avi Lipkin, who has been reporting on Islamic population and terrorist concentrations in Latin America and Canada now for about twenty years, wrote about it extensively in his first book, “Is Fanatic Islam a Global Threat?” (published in 1998).

    Avi Lipkin has a source with a senior United Nations official that the U.S. will be a Muslim country by the end of Obama’s second term. It is now easy to see who that can happen, and quickly, since the economies of Egypt and other Mid East nations will likely fall apart under impending rigid Islamic rule with the new regimes. Lipkin outlines Obama’s three prong plan in the Middle East:

    1) Obama fomenting unrest in each Middle Eastern country so that each regime can be taken over by fanatic Muslim Brotherhood Sunni Regime in order to use them as proxies to overthrow the competing Shiite regime in Iran without involving American troops.

    2) As a result of the takeover of the regimes in the Middle East there will be a massive exodus of Sunni Muslims and Christians from Egypt to America and to Europe in order to bring about Muslim majorities in European countries, U.S., Canada and Latin America.

    3) The Muslim Brotherhood nations will then march on Israel in an effort to destroy it and thus Obama keeps his promise to show the Muslim world what he’s going to do to destroy Israel.

    It sounds like this is entirely possible.
    Can you tell us if this something which you have heard before, or whethor or not you think this is possible?
    I don’t think I will be able to sleep again, ever, until I get the feedback of someone like yourself.
    Please say it isn’t so!

    Here is the link:

    http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/2011/02/26/is-barack-obama-planning-to-bring-50-100-million-muslim-refugees-into-america/

  28. says

    Several years back I tried to alert the RCMP and CSIS in canada to a local “Refugee” centre that was enabling the human smuggling of Muslim from Pakistan that paid up to $10’000.00 to go to Saudi Arabia,the U.K., and to the USA or Mexico to get into the USA and stay in Texas at a safe-house. Some wer shuttled up the eastern seabord States for a fake Driver License and then cross into canada and make a Refugee claim.
    But the Politicians and Security forced blamed each other Department for the Huam Smuggling ring,Police said it was a Provincial Issue, province said it was a RCMP Immigration problem,CSIS said they only look at current and valid Terrorsim threats being planned.But they all agreed it was a Border-Security issue prior to a smuggled person entering canada,but since anyone can make a Refugee Claim on canadian soil,I was told that there is no such thing as Refugee-smuggling crimes because even a Tourist can make a claim at any inland Federal Office for the welfare and Housing to stay here.
    The American Security forces cared because Humans paid to be taken across State lines and that’s a Commerce violation
    to make money transporting people or shipping Illegals for money and not declaring it. Once they paid the $10’000.00
    and came from mexico to Texas and then were aided to be shuttled North, that became a compounded crime.
    But now canada has hundreds of Anchor-babies born in canada and even females from mexico with American born babies prior to being smuggled into canada as a Refugee.

    I doubt the freedom loving people that start to get attacked by illegals will just stand by and see North American go to the fascist thugs trying to spread Communism or the Shariah law Whahhabi islam under a Caliphate run by old beared men with yellow teeth and bad breathe.

  29. says

    Greetings Wellington, Doom-and-Gloom, Gravenimage and Co.s,

    There has been an array of discussion in this thread and others about the inappropriateness of various ideologies, call it socialism, communism, Nazism, Islamism, etc., but could it be that we all “have to have an ideological framework to work from”? Something that integrates the several elements that make for a coherent culture, civilization, governing process. The success of the US has been its level of “improving coherence over time”. Our disjointed thinking after the Revolutionary War was not an easy time. The reconstruction after the Civil War was horrendous and took 100+ years to shuck off? But the US has weathered these abysses of thought and grown stronger accordingly. It could be argued that the events in Tunisia, Libya and Egypt are not all that dissimilar in thinking (though {at the moment?} quite different in degree)? That all are struggling with how we collectively govern and develop here on the planet?

    I am very respectful at how much the Israelis have accomplished in the last 60+ years, a testimony of what focused thought, combined with sound science, ingenuity and “mauxi” can accomplish? In this vein I appreciated the comments of a Catholic priest from Italy who spoke of a time ~800 years ago when city states or clans had been warring with each other for a very long time over what they felt, and with great argument justify, to be correct positions. One day someone suggested that the town or towns come together to build a clock which they did. They then found that when they started to combine their creative energy together all of the conflict became quite secondary.

    It would seem that the “World’s Environmental Clock” as well as many other complex systems are badly broken? How can we come together to develop “new blueprints” and build a better world? What ideological elements should we keep? What should appropriately be discarded?

  30. says

    Good evening Wellington,

    Your suggestions are all quite reasonable to me, in fact I would say there are at least 6 million of my friends who would agree. Of particular importance is a “decent legal system” as this will enable individuals and businesses to be protected a process of “continuous improvement” to be put in motion. I am guessing that Muslim countries have little experience in such organizational development so progress will be slow? We just need to find more like minded people to work with? Could be more than we think, particularly when the alternatives are clearly laid out as you have done above?

    It could also be helpful to analyze the several people’s revolutions that have occurred recently to learn what has worked and and what has not: Poland, The Chezch Republic, East Germany, Albania, the Philippines, and most recently the move towards democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan. Successes have been checkered, and democracy has not been an immediate “panecea” but over time democracy has certainly prevailed in the face the likes of Tudor kings.

    (Great time to be alive if one is a student of history and social process?)

  31. says

    I like the prospects North American/British/European based systems to create an enduring peace on the planet. Thoughtful people will be attracted to what works the best?

  32. says

    “Multiculturalism, which is the fundamental mission of Islam”….WHAT??
    sorry dude…..thats enough taqiya for one day 😀
    it appears shes now peddling, the same tired deceitful BS
    to the dutch then…..wheres geert :-)

    truly the gaul of that woman…
    the real problem with that “crock”, is that multiculturalism is a unilateral phenom,
    you can t be multicultural in Saudi Arabia, & like this report goes, it appears the Egyptian Copts, are waking to the wonderful er “new”?? democracy in Egypt as well.

    a real truth….that woman,(or her husband), “couldn t lie straight in bed”, an old english phrase to descibe someone so crooked 😀

  33. says

    Last year sometime you mentioned that before bed every night you tore a page out of the Koran to assist you in a certain pre-bedtime task.

    Can you remind the counter-jihad and any Mahoundians lurking what that is?

  34. says

    Got that right, Saleem. I no longer in my own mind and with those I know who correctly understand Mo’s warped creed make any real distinction bewteen Nazism and Islam. Of ocurse, with those who are still largely or completely ignorant of Islam, I refrain from the Nazi comparison, even though it’s valid, because you’ll lose your audience if you do. One step at a time and all that. But Islam is essentially just a spiritual version of Nazism. Churchill was quite correct to compare the Koran to Mein Kampf. Hope you’re doing well, my friend.

  35. says

    ha! too funny. I am out running errands for a few hours but should try to think of another ‘dirty’ joke indeed…lol

    Wells- Cheers to you too mate. I’m good. Hope you’re keeping well as well.

  36. says

    Winocerous- you have very rightly stated above: “Are you listening, President Obama? Hillary Clinton? Do you have any sympathy for these people? Or just “generic” protesters? Obama, you Marxist, Stalinist revolutionary…just slink away in the night and let the grownups keep the world in some semblance of peace. You God-awful, stupid, evil man.

    This footage should be on every major news outlet, pointing out that the civilians are Coptic Christians or Coptic monks.”

    Even the American media like CNN turn away to publish this news of brutality towards Copt Christians. This year free dole of billions of dollars to Egypt by the tax payers of America should be sanctioned only if the Egyptian undertake to protect the Coptic Christians. Obama should be pressed to give a warning to Egypt about these Coptic Christian baiting by the Egyptian Islamists.

    Obama… are you listening…

    Yahoo..Obama…are you listening?

  37. says

    dear margaritha,

    the reason hussein is not listening is because he is tuned to the motherstation al-jazeera.
    you must keep up with what’s going on in the ummah, you know…

  38. says

    “Churchill was quite correct to compare the Koran to Mein Kampf.”

    He didn’t compare the Koran to Mein Kampf, but Mein Kampf to the Koran. In Churchill’s days, it seems, the violence of the Koran and Muslim history were well known enough that when he wanted to make clear just how dangerous Mein Kampf was he said it was “the new Koran of faith and war”.

    Of course, today his opinions are attributed to bigotry and to Christian hostility toward Islam, and some even say he held a similarly negative or worse opinion of Jews, but that isn’t 100% correct. Churchill, like many of his contemporaries, believed “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” was an authentic document. At the time many decent people believed that because the person signed on the “discovery” of the alleged “document” was a respectable member of Russian society, a minister and a scholar, and so some in the MSM of the time fell for it too. Back then, just like today, most people trusted the academia, the media and pious clergymen. It was also a British journalist who discovered it was a hoax, but what I’ve read from Churchill on the matter was written before this refutation. I have no idea what he thought about the matter after that. But even before that, when he wrote about the alleged “Jewish conspiracy to rule the world” and “destroy civilization” through a global Bolshevik state that would be ruled by the “international Jews”, the more humane and progressive side of him would still show since he believed the majority of Jews are not into this “international conspiracy”, but are either Zionists or nationalists in the countries where they lived (both of which he saw positively), and that the alleged “conspiracy” itself was a result of grievance brought about by persecution.

    As for the Jewish religion, he held the basic ethical system founded in the Jewish bible, which he saw also as the basis of Christian ethics and much of the basis of the values of western civilization, in very high regard. So Churcill’s view of the Jews was mixed – he made a distinction between “good Jews” (most Jews) and “bad Jews” (Bolsheviks, communists) – and if it wasn’t for his belief in “The Protocols” it wouldn’t have been mixed, but generally positive. Of course, he would still loath Trotsky and other Jewish communists, but there’s a difference between loathing communism and communists, whether Jewish or not, and seeing communism as part of a Jewish conspiracy to rule the world.

    So equating Churcill’s opinions on Islam and the Muslim society with his relatively “mild” antisemitism is misleading since the latter was based on a hoax believed by many of his contemporaries and not on Christian hostility to other faiths or hostility to the Jewish “race” (like his contemporaries, he saw the Jews as a distinct race, but not as an inferior race – merely seeing the Jews as a race is not racist in itself, but just a classification error), while the former was based on the Koran, which isn’t a hoax, and on Muslim history and how he saw the Muslim society.

  39. says

    What exactly is your proof for your contention that Churchill believed the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” to be an authentic document? Pointing to general criticism by Churchill of some Jews won’t do. Odd too, if what you assert is the case, that Martin Gilbert, Churchill’s official biographer and himself a practicing Jew, contends that Churchill was a Zionist. And Roy Jenkins in his exhaustive biography of Churchill doesn’t mention this. Nor does William Manchester in his biography of Churchill down to 1940, The Last Lion.

    One last thing, OK, you’re technically correct that Churchill compared Mein Kampf to the Koran rather than the Koran to Mein Kampf, but does this technicality really add up to much? Equally damning either way, no? After all, 1=1.

  40. says

    Anti-semitism has always been endemic in Western European civilisation. From the Christian church, who condemned the Jews as ‘Christ killers’, to the sniffy, class based casual anti-semitism of the European upper classes. (Please note I’m not saying the WC and MC of Europe haven’t also been anti-semitic, just that the UC have tended to set the tone, in literature, films etc.) Churchill was a product of his class, and his times.

    However, whilst I am not by any means trying to exculpate British anti-semitism, please also note that during the Second World War, Britain accepted the Jewish children of the KinderTransport, and there was never any significant anti-semitism throughout the war years. As for the behaviour of the government towards the Jews and Palestine, yes, it was disgusting and indefensible. I can’t begin to explain the cognitive dissonance here.

    A thought. I don’t understand anti-semitism. Jesus was a Jew. His crucifixion was a choice by the Jews (according to the Bible), and the Christian Church has based its anti-semitism ever since on the basis that the Jews crucified Christ. Along with usury, refusing to intermarry etc, etc. So presumably European anti-semitism is based on the idea that the Jews killed God.

    How can anyone kill God ? On reading the Bible, it is clear that the crucifixion was foreordained, so how can the Jews be blamed for what was an event that God had already planned ? If they didn’t do it, someone else, presumably the Romans, would have had to ?

    Apologies for this total sidetracking. It’s getting late, (in the UK !) and I’m meandering. So, up to a point, I can understand European anti-semitism, but I don’t understand islamic anti-semitism. All those erudite JW posters – can you explain ?

  41. says

    Respectfully, pulsar182, I know about this quote by Churchill and this, in and of itself, does not constitute proof of acceptance by Churchill of the Protocols. Far from it in fact. That’s in part why I conditionalized my response to Doom-and-gloom by maintaining that criticism of some Jews by Churchill is not proof of the acceptance by him of the Protocols. Pope Pius XII also noted that many Jews were in the forefront of pushing Marxist ideology (e.g., Trotsky or Luxembourg) and this has also been used by anti-Pius folks as evidence of Pius’s anti-Semtitism. But it doesn’t add up to this—-for Churchill, for Pius and many others who have noted that many Jews have adopted radical ideas. Besides, what a person like Pius said was simply true.

    I count myself as a great supporter of Israel and consider myself a Zionist even though I am not Jewish. Nonetheless, I cannot allow myself to conclude that virtually all criticism of some Jews is evidence of antipathy towards most or all of them. Here I’m reminded of what Michael Medved, himself a devout Jew, has said and that is that the stereotype that Jews in the aggregate are highly intelligent is belied by the fact that so many of them to this day remain so liberal. This comment was, of course, meant somewhat humorously but underneath it had a serious purpose.

    Just about the best friend I have in the world is a highly educated (possessing a PhD) Jewish woman who, on many occasions, has indicated her ire about so many of her fellow Jews by saying something like, “so many Jews are so damn ignorant.” She cherishes her Jewishness, as does her equally impressive Jewish husband (who shares her sentiments here), but I hardly think it would be accurate to label her anti-Semitic. In fact, it would be ludicrous to do so. Ditto for Churchill, Pius and a lot of others who have unfairly been labeled anti-Semitic simply because they dared to criticize many Jews.

    Hope you and yours are dong well. Take care.

  42. says

    There’s one point of yours in particular, Jan, that I would like to address and that is your contention that the Christian Church is anti-Semitic and bases this on the fact that some Jews were involved in Jesus’ crucifixion. Actually, Christian doctrine is not anti-Semitic though, unfortunately, many think this is the case and, equally unfortunate, many uninformed Christians have acted upon this error in very ugly ways at times.

    The Christian theological blueprint maintains that all of mankind killed Christ, not just Jews and Romans. The Jews and Romans were simply the people at the time who represented the entire human race, all of which is guilty in the death of Christ. In effect, the Jews and Romans were Everymen, not Jews and Romans. This has been lost on many people, including many Christians. And I write this as one who is not religious in the least but as one who strives for the ascertainment of the truth to the extent that I am able to grasp it. After all, one of the most important quests that people, with all their defects, should aspire to is to pursue the truth at all costs, even ruthlessly at times if necessary. My best to you and yours.

  43. says

    If we go back to the time of WWII and evaluate the various discriminatory inclinations of that period, we can draw no conclusions that apply today. There is no question that anti-semitism was common in Europe during WWII. It may well have been partially a result of a misunderstanding of Christian scripture but I think there is something else in human nature at work here. Those anti-semitic Christians of that time somehow conveniently forgot that Jesus Christ’s Mother, Father, and other relatives whom Jesus obviously loved very much, were all Jews. Discriminatory conduct in general was common among dfferent people in those days and it was a not considered societal problem at the time. Discriminatory jokes were everywhere and accepted by everyone. People of different ethnicity joked with each other about their different ethnicity. I can’t count how many loving well intentioned people people called me a “Flat Headed Dutchman” or a “Kraut Head” in jest when I was a young lad. Somewhere along the line, not too many years ago, those innocent well meaning expressions turned sour and people became more antagonistic in their actions. All this change has happened without much notice, so much so, that it now impossible to compare “then” with “now”.

    Today in Europe, there is not all that many true Christians around to blame for anti-semitism anymore. Goddless socialism is now the new home of anti-semitism. Goddless socialism has joined forces with Muslims and both take a negative view of Jews, with Muslims assuming the lead in that regard. We all know why Muslims would be that way but for Godless socialists to be anti-semitic is still a question-mark in my mind.

    The point that I make is that Islam teaches hatred of Jews in particular and all non-Muslims in particular. Under Islam, we are all slated for annhilation one way or another. Socialists have now joined with the Muslims, I presume, in a bid for power. As a life long Catholic, I despise anti-semitism. I totally sympathicize with the Jewish people in Israel and their hugh disadvantage with the hoards of irrational Jew hating Muslims all around them.

  44. says

    Julietsm wrote:

    “Is Barack Obama Really A Saudi/Muslim “Plant’ in the White House?” The answer is obvious. The video claims that “for years before” the 2008 election, Lipkin’s wife, who worked for the Israeli government monitoring Arabic radio broadcasts, picked up broadcasts of Saudis saying, “We will have a a Muslim in the White House in 2008.”
    ……………………….

    Juliet, I know you directed your questions toward Mr. Spencer, but I hope you don’t mind if I chime in here.

    I agree with you that Bare Naked Islam, from everything I have seen, is an excellent site.

    Re: the quote about “having a Muslim in the White House by 2008″”I don’t doubt this. Muslims are famous for these sort of pronouncements: that within fifty years, the “black flag of Islam will fly over 10 Downing Street”, and “Israel will be driven into the sea by 2050″, and that France will be Muslim-majority within twenty-five years, etc.

    Recall the Muslim love of hyperbole”i.e. Saddam Hussein’s pathetic stand against US troops in 2003, which he nonetheless dubbed “The Mother of All Battles”.

    I imagine you could have found similar pronouncements about “having a Muslim in the White House””or a Muslim Prime Minister of Britain”by 2012, or 2016, or what have you.

    That being said, there are some *very* disturbing trends”such as the mushrooming Muslim populations in Europe and”especially”Israel, which I in no way discount.

    Do I believe that Muslims were able to throw the electoral system of the United States in order to elect a stealth Muslim “Manchurian Candidate”? No, I don’t.

    But I also think they didn’t have to. Neville Chamberlain was not a creature of the National Socialists”but again, he did not have to be. He was a weak, appeasing fool”and that was enough for Hitler and the Nazis to use him.

    That a majority of Americans would elect a man with both a radical Communist and a Muslim background”*seven years after 9/11*”is the height of suicidal foolishness.

    I know a number of people”including many who are quite intelligent, well-educated people”who happily voted for Obama. They told themselves that he was a forward-looking progressive and patted themselves on the back for voting for a “person of color”. Many specifically considered themselves “enlightened” for bravely voting for a man with a Muslim background, rather than being scared of doing so after so much Islamic terrorism.

    They discounted any qualms they might have had about his disquieting background, or simply paid no attention to it.

    That he was elected largely out of well-meaning naivite, though, makes him no less dangerous.

  45. says

    First of all I’ve written my comment in defense of Churchill because the usual leftist response to his “Mein Kampf=Koran” is that it represents his anti-Islam bigotry, and that he was also antisemitic. So I noted the difference that Churchill had a misguided opinions on some of the Jews (he himself made a distinction between different ideologies prevalent among Jews) because of a hoax, while his opinion on the Koran was based on, well, the Koran, and not a hoax.

    You wrote:

    “That’s in part why I conditionalized my response to Doom-and-gloom by maintaining that criticism of some Jews by Churchill is not proof of the acceptance by him of the Protocols.”

    Note the distinction, very valid today too, between criticism of real ideologies, policies, motivations or actions of this or that Jew or group of Jews (or Israel these days) and something entirely different – untruths about ideologies, policies, motivations or actions of Jews (or Israel these days) – the former is legitimate criticism (with which you can agree or not), and the latter are libels and lies, not valid criticism. One can certainly criticize the ideology and/or actions of Jews in the Bolshevik party and of communist Jews providing these are based in facts. However, ascribing to them the motivation of Jewish conspiracy to rule the world is a lie promoted by antisemites and particularly by The Protocols, and therefore not a valid criticism. Many people who were NOT antisemitic to begin with – and as I noted, Churchill WASN’T antisemitic in his views of the Jewish “race” and religion, but rather a progressive – innocently fell for the hoaxes and propaganda that were widespread. Like people innocently fall for the “Jenin Massacre” and the likes today.

    The Protocols was not a simple visceral antisemitic tract, but it was a seemingly intelectual cynical hoax by the czarist secret police designed to discredit the various reformist and revolutionary movements in Russia and their reformist and revolutionary ideas (including capitalism IIRC, but also equality and human rights) as part of a Jewish conspiracy to replace the current order and current rulers with Jewish world rule, so as to deter the Russian masses from supporting the reforms and revoltionary movements and so preserve the status and power of the czar and the aristocracy. It was meant to prevent a revolution. You know, just like today Qaddafi tried to blame the revolution on the Zionists to prevent it and save his skin, except it was far more sophisticated and signed by a scholar and minister, rather than just pathetic exclamations by the endangered dictator himself. The Protocols gained massive worldwide popularity AFTER the Russian revolution because the success of the revolution made it appear like The Protocols accurately predicted the event.

    So the question is not if Churchill condemned Bolshevik or communist or socialist Jews as he would condemn other Bolsheviks, comuunists or socialists, but what motives did he ascribe to them and if his “knowledge” was based in accurate facts. Here’s the full op-ed by Churchill:

    “It played, as a modern writer, Mrs. Webster, has so ably shown, a definitely recognisable part in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire.”

    This is indirect influence of The Protocols through another author. The Jews are behind every revolution and their aim is Jewish global rule – that idea came from The Protocols. This is, BTW, why the anti-Jihad movement is so discredited – because it sounds so similar to what was said about the Jews in the first half of the 20th century. It’s really ironic if you think of it.

    “The same phenomenon has been presented in Germany (especially in Bavaria), so far as this madness has been allowed to prey upon the temporary prostration of the German people.”

    See where the holocaust came from? It wasn’t some innate evil in the German people, but The Protocols and other similar materials had an enormous part in the Nazi belief that the Jews had an evil plot for world domination. Interestingly, it was exactly these countries who had REAL empires and/or imperialist designs – Russia, Britain, France, Nazi Germany, even Japan that will later innocently believe The Protocols were authentic. You have to understand they were presented as authentic documents. It wasn’t just “evil” people who believed it. Most people believe what the academia and media tell them. Today it’s mainstream in the Middle East, yet “liberals” “think” it’s inconsequential to the Arab-Muslim/Jewish conflict in the Middle East. History is no guide. Instead people believe the Germans are particularly evil or some such nonsense. If I was living then and wasn’t a Jew there’s a good chance I’d have believed it too.

    “Although in all these countries there are many non-Jews every whit as bad as the worst of the Jewish revolutionaries, the part played by the latter in proportion to their numbers in the population is astonishing.”

    So there were many non-Jews who were just as Bolshevik and just as communist and just as bad, but that was not enough to refute the theory that it is all a Jewish conspiracy. It’s no secret that Jews are over-represented in all movements that consider themselves “progressive”, but is that because of an evil intention to destroy civilization? Then why did the Jews chose socialism for the Jewish state? The majority of Zionists were socialists and Israel was founded as a socialist democracy, though staunchly anti-communist. There was, and still is, a small communist party in the Knesset. The right wing used to be a minority party until the mid 70s, and before Netanyahu even the Likud was not all that right wing in terms of the economy and society. The majority of Bolsheviks were NOT Jews. Yet all that was not enough to discredit the idea that socialism, communism and Bolshevism were Jewish conspiracy to rule the world. Why did all the Bolshevik gentiles sign up? Who knows? Maybe Lenin and Stalin were too gullible and fell prey to the Jews.

    I’ve noted myself Churchill was pro-Zionist – he saw it as and alternative to the grand world-domination plot:

    “Zionism has already become a factor in the political convulsions of Russia, as a powerful competing influence in Bolshevik circles with the international communistic system. Nothing could be more significant than the fury with which Trotsky has attacked the Zionists generally, and Dr. Weissmann in particular. The cruel penetration of his mind leaves him in no doubt that his schemes of a world-wide communistic State under Jewish domination are directly thwarted and hindered by this new ideal, which directs the energies and the hopes of Jews in every land towards a simpler, a truer, and a far more attainable goal. The struggle which is now beginning between the Zionist and Bolshevik Jews is little less than a struggle for the soul of the Jewish people.”

    A “schemes of a world-wide communistic State under Jewish domination” – that view was a result of The Protocols.

    That article was written in 1920. IIRC it was in 1921 that a British journalist proved The Protocols was a hoax.

  46. says

    ‘The Christian theological blueprint maintains that all of mankind killed Christ, not just Jews and Romans. The Jews and Romans were simply the people at the time who represented the entire human race, all of which is guilty in the death of Christ.’

    Thanks for your reply Wellington. With reference to the Christian Church, I take your point that actual Christian theology is not anti-semitic, albeit many Christians in the past (particularly in medieval times) have used the epithet ‘Christ Killers’ to justify their anti-semitism.

    Re Churchill, I certainly don’t think he was a full blown anti-semite like, for example, Mosley; just that he shared the attitudes of his class and time, in a sort of casual, general anti-semitism which portrayed Jews as pushy, vulgar, with terribly bad taste in dress etc.

    I find it rather hard to believe Churchill really thought the Protocols were true – in the quotation posted by pulsar, he was referring to communism, surely ?

    My best to you and yours, also.

  47. says

    Here’s from winstonchurchill.org:

    “Indeed, at some stage, Churchill was very near to speaking, like the German Nazis a few years later, of Judaeo-Bolshevism.”

    It refers to this article.

    It’s simple to connect the dots. The British edition of The Protocols was published in 1920, though it was probably known before that in certain circles (academic, journalistic and political circles). Later on in 1920 The Times called for an inquiry into the matter. In 1921 a Times journalist exposed the hoax. Churchill’s article was written in February 1920, before it was refuted. The Nazis, however, didn’t believe the refutation because according to The Protocols the Jews control the media.

  48. says

    Thank you for your extensive reply, Doom-and-gloom. I wonder about what kind of specific ideas were circulating about supposed Jewish influence before the Protocols were ever cooked up by the Czar’s secret police. Could Churchill, or more accurately someone like Churchill, say his father Lord Randolph, have written in 1870 or so what Churchill did in 1920, minus the Communist element? Just wondering.

    BTW, as you probably know, the Balfour Declaration is sometimes cynically assessed as an effort by the British government to rid Britain and, by extension, Europe of much of its Jewish population. I don’t believe this was the case but I am also wary of being guilty of naivety here.

  49. says

    ‘Today in Europe, there is not all that many true Christians around to blame for anti-semitism anymore. Goddless socialism is now the new home of anti-semitism. Goddless socialism has joined forces with Muslims and both take a negative view of Jews, with Muslims assuming the lead in that regard. We all know why Muslims would be that way but for Godless socialists to be anti-semitic is still a question-mark in my mind.’

    Especially as many socialists/leftists are also Jewish ! You can explain that by conflating the Jewish self-hating lefties with the Western chattering classes lefties, who also hate their own culture and civilization. I personally think Israel is a target of these people because Israel is a mostly ‘westernised’ democracy smack bang in the middle of the ME. (Yes, I know there is a powerful religious lobby, but let that pass for the moment).

    Socialism and islamists have a very similar mindset I think. They both want to control and interfere in everyone else’s lives – socialism through the power of the state, and islam through religion and the state combined. Israel is a tiny, incredibly brave and stalwart little country that spits in both their faces, and that’s why they hate her.

  50. says

    Here would be my ideological elements, Truthseeker: freedom, a true Golden Rule, democracy, capitalism, the rule of law based on a decent legal system and a proper moral order (I would favor the Judeo-Christian ethic even though I am not religious). I would severely caution against any system of thought which intends to either kill or reduce to second-class status any group of human beings. Nazism does this with ethnic groups, Marxism with socio-economic groups and Islam with non-believers. Therefore, by my way of thinking, these ideologies are evil. If my above ideological elements were implemented in every society on earth I think mankind would have a very decent chance of eliminating war and human destruction, both of which ordinarily stem from avarice, stupidity, intolerance and hate. Hope you’re doing well.

  51. says

    Yes, exactly!! The silliness of Western reporters who either ignorantly or willfully try to equate Muslim institutions with Western ones, extend the jihad and put the West at risk. This is why I harp (too) endlessly on never, ever lending any weight to a “Ph.D” or a “B.A.” or a “Masters” or a “Doctor” or a “Lawyer” or a “Judge” from a Muslim institution. There is no equivalent to the nomenclature assigned to rewarding those most adherent to shari’a. They steal our credentials, like they steal all other technology and credibility.