Just thinking about opposing jihad terror will be crime enough. My latest in FrontPage:
Philip K. Dick’s story “The Minority Report,” made into a movie in 2002 directed by Steven Spielberg and starring Tom Cruise, takes us to a nightmarish Washington, DC, in the year 2054, where police arrest people based on crimes that psychics say they’re going to commit in the future. That dystopia could come to Britain 35 years early if the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change gets its way. According to the Guardian, the Institute has recommended that “a new law allowing for hate groups to be designated and punished before they turn to violence is needed in order to tackle far-right extremists.”
“Before they turn to violence” — that is, even if there is no indication that they will ever be violent.
The Guardian notes that the authors of Narratives of Hate: The Spectrum of Far-Right Worldviews in the UK, the Tony Blair Institute report calling for this, “acknowledge that the issue of linking violent and nonviolent extremism is contentious and steps would need to be taken to protect free speech.”
That’s window dressing meant to deceive the public into complacency. There is no way to criminalize certain opinions while protecting the freedom of speech.
The Guardian continues: “The law…would designate hate groups as organisations that spread intolerance and antipathy towards people of a different race, religion, gender or nationality, the report said.”
The danger of this is that it is universally taken for granted among the political and media elites that honest analysis of how jihadis use the texts and teachings of Islam to justify their actions and make recruits among peaceful Muslims constitutes spreading “intolerance and antipathy towards people of a different race, religion, gender or nationality.” Such analysis is consistently lumped together with racist groups, as if race hatred were the same thing as opposition to jihad mass murder and Sharia oppression of women, gays, and others.
The report focuses on genuinely racist and hateful groups that people will be reluctant to defend, but that’s just the camel’s nose under the tent. According to the Guardian, “the recommendations and conclusions are based on analysis of the overlap between four ‘nonviolent’ far-right groups – Britain First, For Britain, the British National party (BNP) and Generation Identity England – and the ideology of the terrorist Anders Breivik, who murdered 77 people in Norway in 2011.”
The “ideology of the terrorist Anders Breivik” is generally conflated with those who inspired him, according to media myth: critics of jihad violence and Sharia oppression of women and others. The fact that Breivik was hardly a counter-jihadi, and actually called for Europeans to ally with Hamas and al-Qaeda, is altogether forgotten, as it does not fit the narrative. So if the “ideology of the terrorist Anders Breivik” is actually criminalized, opposing jihad terror, mass Muslim migration into Europe, and the introduction of oppressive Sharia norms into the West will become a criminal act, even if the opponent of these things never calls for or condones any violence.
If the “ideology of the terrorist Anders Breivik” is going to be criminalized, will socialism and communism be outlawed also, since Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and others murdered tens of millions in their names? Of course not. This proposed new law is designed solely to muzzle those who call for resistance to jihad violence and Islamization. Those who speak out against this proposal will inevitably be stigmatized as “racists” and “Islamophobes,” vehemently suspected of themselves being part of this “far-right fringe.”
And so there is likely to be no opposition to the Tony Blair Institute’s recommendation, and so very soon, even the tiny and embattled groups that are trying to resist jihad terror and Islamization in Britain today will be shut down, without anyone daring to speak out for them. What will happen then? What will this new Britain of “The Minority Report” look like when the real 2054 comes around? Probably it will be much more nightmarish than anything Philip K. Dick ever imagined.
Steve says
Now we know WHY our Founders gave us the Second Amendment. They remembered King George’s tyranny and now here it is again soon coming to the U.S.
Or Else! says
Agree, Steve. Irony writ large. A “thought crime” disguised as virtue.
The leftist, socialist power bloc THINK the Second Amendment should be systematically amended to the point of repeal. Then what?
THEY’LL have all the guns.
THINK again.
CRUSADER says
“The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms:
The Common Law Tradition”
by Joyce Lee Malcolm
https://www.constitution.org/mil/maltrad.htm
Every generation suffers to some degree from historic amnesia. However, when the history of a major political tradition, along with the assumptions and passions that forged it, are forgotten, it becomes extraordinarily difficult to understand or evaluate its legacy.
This is particularly unfortunate when that legacy has been written into the enduring fabric of government. The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is such a relic, a fossil of a lost tradition. Even a century ago its purpose would have been clearly appreciated. To nineteenth century exponents of limited government, the checks and balances that preserved individual liberty were ultimately guaranteed by the right of the people to be armed.
The preeminent Whig historian, Thomas Macaulay, labelled this “the security without which every other is insufficient,” [1] and a century earlier the great jurist, William Blackstone, regarded private arms as the means by which a people might vindicate their other rights if these were suppressed. [2] Earlier generations of political philosophers clearly had less confidence in written constitutions, no matter how wisely drafted. J.L. De Lolme, an eighteenth century author much read at the time of the American Revolution [3] pointed out:
But all those privileges of the People, considered in themselves, are but feeble defences against the real strength of those who govern. All those provisions, all those reciprocal Rights, necessarily suppose that things remain in their legal and settled course: what would then be the recourse of the People, if ever the Prince, suddenly freeing himself from all restraint, and throwing himself as it were out of the Constitution, should no longer respect either the person, or the property of the subject, and either should make no account of his conversation with the Parliament, or attempt to force it implicitly to submit to his will?–It would be resistance . . . the question has been decided in favour of this doctrine by the Laws of England, and that resistance is looked upon by them as the ultimate and lawful resource against the violences of Power. [4]
This belief in the virtues of an armed citizenry had a profound influence upon the development of the English, and in consequence the American, system of government. However, the many years in which both the British and American governments have remained “in their legal and settled course[s],” have helped bring us to the point where the history of the individual’s right to keep and bear arms is now obscure. British historians, no longer interested in the issue, have tended to ignore it, while American legal and constitutional scholars, ill-equipped to investigate the English origins of this troublesome liberty, have made a few cursory and imperfect attempts to research the subject. [5] As a result, Englishmen are uncertain of the circumstances surrounding the establishment of a right to bear arms and the Second Amendment to the Constitution remains this country’s most hotly debated but least understood liberty.
In a report on the legal basis for firearms controls, a committee of the American Bar Association observed:
There is probably less agreement, more misinformation, and less understanding of the right of citizens to keep and bear arms than on any other current controversial constitutional issue. The crux of the controversy is the construction of the Second Amendment to the Constitution, which reads:
“A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” [6]
Few would disagree that the crux of this controversy is the construction of the Second Amendment, but, as those writing on the subject have demonstrated, that single sentence is capable of an extraordinary number of interpretations. [7] The main source of confusion has been the meaning and purpose of the initial clause. Was it a qualifying or an amplifying clause? That is, was the right to arms guaranteed only to members of “a well-regulated militia” or was the militia merely the most pressing reason for maintenance of an armed community? The meaning of “militia” itself is by no means clear. It has been argued that only a small, highly trained citizen army was intended, [8] and, alternatively, that all able-bodied men constituted the militia. [9] Finally, emphasis on the militia has been proffered as evidence that the right to arms was only a “collective right” to defend the state, not an individual right to defend oneself. [10]
Our pressing need to understand the Second Amendment has served to define areas of disagreement but has brought us no closer to a consensus on its original meaning.
………..
RonaldB says
There is a logical contradiction in the current conservative interpretation of the 2nd amendment.
Guns are defended as the means of the individual to fight against excessive government power. And yet, by asking the government to refrain from collecting guns, people are conceding the ability and power of the government to collect guns. In other words, the government abuse of power that guns are supposedly moderating: that abusive government power already exists. It seems futile to talk about rising up against the government, when all the government has to do is send police around to pick up your weapons.
And, I don’t believe people will be able to bury their guns and dig them up later for a rebellion. It has never worked that way. A government in the early stage of tyranny conficates weapons, and that is that.
I think the paradox is resolved when one considers that the original bill of rights, including the 2nd amendment, was intended as a limitation on federal power over the states and not on the power of the state governments. In other words, the states had the right to organize the arming of the state citizens and organize the militia as they saw fit. The state existed to protect its citizens from the power of the federal government.
One consequence of this is that if the original intent of the 2nd amendment is followed, a state government would be within its constitutional rights to ban the possession of handguns or any guns. On the other hand, the communists in Congress would not have the constitutional prerogative of controlling the possession of arms by citizens of states which actually protected their citizens. The real question is the centralization of power versus diffuse, separate, mostly-sovereign states competing with each other for the most productive citizens.
CRUSADER says
Ergo, the Oathkeepers…….
CRUSADER says
* see further below….
RonaldB says
I have to confess I don’t know what you’re talking about in reference to the Oathkeepers.
CRUSADER says
“….when all the government has to do is send police around to pick up your weapons.”
Ragdoll says
“The Tony Blair Institute” – kind of says it all, really……
CRUSADER says
Carlyle Group picks up a lot of pols and pays for play with arming the world….
Globalist agenda.
From 2008…
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/3276585/Tony-Blair-earns-12m-since-leaving-Downing-Street.html
The former Prime Minister travels around the world on speaking engagements, and can command up to $250,000 (£157,000) for a 90 minute speech. He works exclusively through the blue-chip Washington Speakers Bureau.
Mr Blair has made £4.6 million from his memoirs, around £2 million from his role with investment bank JP Morgan, £500,000 from Zurich Financial Services asw ell as £84,000 of taxpayers money to run a private office and an annual pension of £63,468.
He has earned more money from speeches than Bill Clinton, the former US president, did in his first year after leaving office, The Times reported.
The paper said there is fear at the United Nations that Mr Blair’s focus on commercial interests is jeopardising his unpaid role as Middle East envoy.
Such is the demand for Mr Blair, that he has a two-year waiting list for bookings, with clients prepared to pay $250,000 (£157,000) for a typical speech of roughly 90 minutes.
“He is one of the biggest stars in the world. Who else is there?” said Max Markson, the public relations organiser who has taken Mr Clinton, Cherie Blair and Nelson Mandela to Australia.
Mr Blair has become a particular favourite with the Washington-based Carlyle Group. Next month he will address a conference of its European investors in Paris about “geopolitics”. He addressed a similar conference for Carlyle in Dubai in February.
Carlyle Group is a leading private equity investor in the military. Its board has been graced by both Presidents Bush and its former European chairman was Sir John Major.
Yokel says
Sorry I haven’t the links at the moment, but “Q” has been warning about bribes disguised as “book deals” for a while. His targets have been US politicians, but I see no reason to think that UK ex-politicians are any different!
Shirley Ann says
Tony Blair has a Lot of Little Tony Blair’s,in America, with the same idea, of Isolating Conservative groups, then punishing them for what they might want to do, AGAINST ISLAMIST IDEOLOGY.
We were supposed to live in a Country, that could only arrest you After You Committed A Crime, not for thinking about it. But America adopted the “HATE CRIME BILL” which punishes people for just thinking about it.
A whole new Group of Spies is being trained in our GOV RUN Schools, To spy on their families, especially Older Adults. PLEASE BE WARY, this has been tried in all other Dictatorial Countries, & has turned Child Against Parent!
CRUSADER says
“Minority Report” was a movie I deemed too scary for me to watch, as it was a psychological cluster-f**k. But, now…. it’s ever more frighteningly real enough!
mortimer says
Tony Blair is widely seen as an agent of influence for the United Arab Emirates from whom he has received millions. He is working to put UK under de facto Sharia blasphemy laws.
Tony Blair’s work is traitorous. Blair is selling out his country and destroying its heritage of free speech along with others.
Despicable.
mortimer says
Under this proposed legislation, ISLAM ITSELF, the KORAN, the SIRA and the HADITHS would be considered hate speech and MUSLIMS could be prosecuted for INTENDING TO DO HARM.
Example:
There are over 400 references in the Koran to hate, over 300 references in the Koran to Allah and FEAR, but there are only 49 references to love. Of these love references, 39 are negative such as the 14 negative references to love of money, power, other gods and status.
Three verses command humanity to love Allah and only 2 verses are about how Allah loves a believer. There are 25 verses about how Allah does NOT love kafirs (disbelievers).
This leaves 5 verses about love. Of these 5 verses, 3 are about loving kin or a Muslim brother. One verse commands a Muslim to give money for the love of Allah. This leaves only one quasi-universal verse about love: give what you love to zakat-charity and even this is contaminated by dualism since Muslim zakat-charity only goes to other Muslims. There are OVER 400 teachings of HATE directed against all disbelievers: Jews, Christians, Idolaters and Kafirs.
So much for love. HATE and FEAR are what Allah demands in the Koran, so the Koran itself could eventually be banned as HATE SPEECH under the proposed bill.
Diane Harvey says
Dead on. And left to Muslims we all will be just that, Dead. Their Qur’an tells them expressly to use violence to achieve their aims. 1400 years of evidence.
James Lincoln says
Yes mortimer, it will be interesting to see how the Muslim imams intend to show how this does not apply to their “holy” Islamic texts…
Yokel says
The Muslim Imams won’t need to do it, they’ll delegate the job to the Dhimmi Parliament. They’ll be falling over themselves to show how Islam is a Religion of Peace. [Thank you George Bush for that lie that went round the world before Truth got its boots on!]
Yokel says
Except of course, the law will be selectively applied so as not to inconvenience the followers of Islam.
Kepha says
Stop talking about how Communists and Muslims could also be punished under this kind of law. It is time to recognize it as the end of the Marxists’ Gramsican “March through the Insitutions”, whereby they use law to create a lawless state. The only people who will be penalized will be those to the right of Tony Blair.
gravenimage says
Grimly likely, Kepha.
CRUSADER says
“Historical Bases of the Right To Keep and Bear Arms”
by David T. Hardy
In analyzing the right to keep and bear arms, we must constantly keep in mind that it is one of the few rights in the Constitution which can claim any considerable antiquity. Freedom of the press, for instance, had little ancestry at common law: statutes requiring a government license to publish any works on political or religious matters were in effect in England until 1695, when they were allowed to expire for economic, not libertarian, reasons.[1] Long after that date, prosecutions after-the-fact for seditious libel were common. In the Colonies, these and similar statutes were likewise enforced and offending religious material was burned in Massachusetts as late as 1723.[2] Protests against general search warrants did not become common until after 1760, and the invalidity of such warrants at common law was not recognized until the eve of the American Revolution.[3]
In contrast to these rights, the right to keep and bear arms can claim an ancestry stretching for well over a millennium. The antiquity of the right is so great that it is all but impossible to document its actual beginning. It is fairly clear that its origin lay in the customs of Germanic tribes, under which arms bearing was a right and a duty of free men; in fact, the ceremony for giving freedom to a slave required that the former slave be presented with the armament of a free man.[4] He then acquired the duty to serve in an equivalent of a citizen army. These customs were brought into England by the earliest Saxons. The first mention of the citizen army, or the “fyrd” is found in documents dating to 690 A.D., but scholars have concluded that the duty to serve in such with personal armament “is older than our oldest records.” (Not knowing of the earlier records, 18th century legal historians including the great Blackstone attributed the origin of the English system to Alfred the Great, who ruled in the late 9th century A.D.)[5]
This viewpoint of individual armament and duty differed greatly from the feudal system which were coming into existence in Europe. The feudal system presupposed that the vast bulk of fighting duties would fall to a small warrior caste, composed primarily of the mounted knight. These individuals held the primary political and military power. Thus peasant armament was a threat to the political status quo.
In England, on the other hand, a system evolved whereby peasant armament became the great underpinning of the status quo and individual armament became viewed as a right rather than a threat.
https://guncite.com/journals/senrpt/senhardy.html
……..
mccode says
Thank you for the link. It’s a great read.
CRUSADER says
Who is to protect citizens from the state government?
Witness CA lately?
Also, US vs CS battled it out in Civil War, concluding that
Feds have a role after all… despite laboratories of democracy
which states can play as.
RonaldB says
“Who is to protect citizens from the state government?”
And who is to protect citizens from the federal government?
As I mentioned above, the original intent of the Constitution was to provide a firmer foundation for the individual states to act in unison on matters like defense, than the Articles of Confederation provided. But, except for a few “nationalists” like Hamilton, the Constitutional framers thought of the states as sovereign and independent. The Bill of Rights was drafted because of objections that the national government had too much power and would overrun the sovereignty of the states. Hence, the Bill of Rights specifically applied to limit the power of the federal government over the states, ending with the 10th amendment: all powers not specifically granted to the federal government would be retained by the states.
Seen in this context, there is no contradiction in the 2nd amendment. A well-regulated (state) militia being necessary, the right of the people (of the state, as represented by the state government) to keep and bear arm shall not be abridged. In other words, the federal government had absolutely no power over the state regulation of arms, and each state could regulate its own defense and the arming of its citizens as it saw fit.
Of course, the obverse of this is that the crazy states like Illinois or California could forbid its citizens the right to keep arms altogether. Like it or not, that is the original intent of the Constitution, although I’m sure no one then would conceive of the possibility that the state government would forbid arms. Like I said, the state governments viewed themselves as the protectors of their citizens from an all-powerful federal government.
My own view is that the state governments are far more responsive to the people than the federal government. Once you tip the Supreme Court, there will be no place in the US where the right to bear arms is recognized. If you devolve the decision to the states, the worst that can happen is you migrate from a crazy state if you’re unlucky enough to live there in the first place; but, you’ll have that choice.
I would suggest the Civil War “settled” the debate only through the force of arms, which provides no real reasoning one way or another.
CRUSADER says
Foreign powers would’ve picked off the separate states of America …
It was reasonable to create a Federal system which bound the states together more, which is what occurred in the first place with the Declaration of Independence in bringing focus from separate distinct colonies.
Inevitable for certain centralization and uniformity to take place for proper modern existence as a power in league with the big wigs of the 19th and 20th centuries on a competitive world stage.
Civil War was forceful, but it also focused the attention of Americans to take on serious matters of national consideration and concern. Can’t see how the current USA would’ve existed without it. America would’ve become Balkanized.
CRUSADER says
2ndAmendment – a national mandate – wasn’t solely about state militias.
The protections had to do with individual rights.
Commas make a difference, as does the contemporary understanding of bearing arms for those framers and founders and farmers alike.
RonaldB says
Great. I look forward to debating the issues. The Civil War resolved the question of sovereign states and secession through force, not through logic and historical precedent.
Contention: the separate states would have been picked off by other powers.
Reality: Canada was composed of separate provinces, but always fought as a unit. The Confederate States were not separate, but formed a unified government very much in accord with the original conception of Jefferson, in which state and regional governments maintained sovereignty within a confederation. Granted, once the North massively invaded the Confederacy, the Confederate government had trouble getting the Confederate states to act in unison. That was a consequence of the freedoms enshrined in the Confederate constitution. But, in the end, it was the massive advantages in industrialization and population that won the Civil War for the North.
In other words, there was no chance at all that a foreign power, Mexico, France, or Britain, could successfully invade a state, northern or southern
The Federalist Papers made the same arguments that you did: Phillip of Macedon was able to divide and conquer the independent Greek states. The original Constitutional Convention was called for the reason that the Articles of Confederation needed to be modified to strengthen the defense provisions. The delegates instead constructed an entirely new Constitution. It’s like going to the doctor for a vaccination, and ending up with a colostomy.
There is absolutely no evidence or precedent that allowing the South to exist as a separate country would put any country or state in North America at risk.
Contention:
Reality: the Declaration of Independence recognized separate and independent states:
Contention:
Reality: the Civil War cost probably a million military and civilian lives and devastated the South for at least a generation. Such a massive costly war needs more rationale than “It focused the attention of Americans to take on serious matters…”
Contention:
Reality: as I stated, the bill of rights was fully intended as a guarantee of states rights as opposed to the central power of the federal government. After the Civil War, the Supreme Court, with no legislative foundation, began the process of “incorporation”, whereby the rights granted to the states were taken to apply to individual citizens not only against the federal government, but against state government. Like it or not, the 2nd amendment was not originally drafted as protection for individuals against their own states.
Jim Austin says
Since leftists regard outfits opposed to Moslem terrorism as hate groups, this references an attempt to criminalize opposition to terrorism.
infidel says
Have U ever noticed… Muslim will very cleverly and sweetly call U for inter-faith dialogue and mutual understanding. The invitation will be so slick and sweet and smooth that U will be bowled over. But actually all that will happen in such a dialogue is that Muslim will only talk of superiority of Islam and how Ur religion is inferior…If not done outright, it will be done very subtly. At no point, the Muslim will be interested to hear Ur POV…It will be totally 1-sided one way or the other and in all ways U will lose. And U can never discuss Islamic jehaad and the regular mass murders of Khafir going on for the past 1400 years… NEVER.. The moment U bring up this topic..Muslim will get very defensive and mad and accuse U of Islamophobia and may even halt this sham dialogue .It is also possible that Muslim will get mad and even physically attack U as is very possible with these fellows.. And certainly, U can be rest assured of no more future invitations for such interfaith dialogues…At the same time, if U speak anything against other religions, the Muslim will happily discuss with U and project Islamic victim-hood
RonaldB says
The book “Catastrophic Failure” by an expert in Islam and Islamic penetration has a complete section devoted to the Muslim use of “inter-faith dialog” to advance Islam.
catastrophic failure blindfolding america in the face of jihad
Rufolino says
Tell the Pope !
RonaldB says
The Pope didn’t accept my last phone call.
infidel says
It goes to show how deeply animal Muslims have wormed into the corridors of power in the UK
Anonymous says
I pray that someone brings all Islam’s texts, oral traditions and beliefs, including Sharia, to be judged in the highest courts and expurgated of all the dangerosity they contain which would then be considered criminal offense in all their forms: printed, audio, video, oral, non-verbal.
CRUSADER says
PRAY AWAY !
No Muzzies Here says
Well then, there is a group that believes its training manual is the revealed word of a deity, and that every word in it is sacred and must be carried out. That book tells them to go out and commit acts of violence against Jews and Christians.
According to this proposed law, then, every member of that group would have to be thrown into prison.
jayell says
‘When they turn to violence’….when WHO turns to violence exactly? Because we know full well that we’ve already had quite a bit of violence in the UK and it’s hardly ever been from the so-called ‘far right’. It seems to me that when the sort of violence comes into the equation that we’re talking about here the situation’s already past the point of no return. We don’t have a ‘society’ anymore and we’re heading towards ‘dominance’ turf warfare scenario between the parallel societies that now attempt to co-exist in the ‘United'(??) Kingdom. The future violence that these people are talking about will the reaction from the hitherto silent majority in response to the catalogue of outrages that are already in recent history (strange that they don’t recognise this!). If they seriously think Police State tactics are going to provide a remedy they need to re-read their history books, because they’ll just succeed in negating any real value of the police still have and push the situation over the edge sooner. Just look at that ‘bastion of Britishness’ – Hong Kong.
Infidel says
To be honest, I have no problems w/ people being arrested for crimes if it can be accurately demonstrated that they were going to commit them. But this seems to be a move at legitimizing thought crimes, where if one shares the opinions of people who act on their beliefs w/ violence, they can be
persecuted… erprosecutedsomehistory says
God created man with all of the freedoms anyone anywhere has today or has ever had in the past.
When satan approached Eve, he lied in order to change her thinking. Ever since that time, satan has been working on changing the thinking of men and women everywhere. Many millions have listened to satan.
However, many have resisted satan. Those who resisted have caused satan to work on taking away the freedoms that God gave. One of the most important is freedom to speak. The freedom to speak what we think.
As long as there are people resisting satan, he will work on taking away their freedom to speak their minds and this include to tell the truth about him. He is using islam to push hard for this. islam is a huge threat to the safety and to the lives of everyone, so he pushed the violence, the rage, the rapes and the murders. The rest of us want these to cease and there is much talk about what can and should be done…using the freedom to think and the freedom to speak…and satan is desperate to put an end to that.
The freedom to speak what they think and to act on what they think, will not be taken from those who are helping satan.
somehistory says
To see this is true, just look at the U.K. and Germany, where already the authorities go after those telling the truth about islam, but they allow moslims to break all kinds and manner of laws and give them **excuses** to keep doing so.
Aussie Infidel says
somehistory,
I agree with your sentiments on this issue, but I disagree completely with your religious argument to justify your claim.
Satan is simply a mythical concept dreamed up by our ancient ancestors to explain the existence of evil. These people lived in tribal societies and were scientifically illiterate with little or no understanding of biology, chemistry, physics or cosmology, or the world about them. And they could only imagine that evil was caused by some malevolent supernatural deity – so it had to be personified by an ‘evil being’ like Satan.
But the capacity for evil is innate in all of us as a consequence of our survival mechanisms. If the only way for us to survive, is to take whatever food or other opportunities that might prevail, then take them we will – despite the fact that others might starve or be killed. Watch how animals behave in the wild, and you will begin to understand human nature. Our primordial instincts work to guarantee our survival, because if we don’t survive, we can no longer help ourselves – or others we might also care about. I could go on about altruism and the effects of civilization on our behavior, but I won’t – it’s far too complex.
I totally agree with your statement, “One of the most important is freedom to speak. The freedom to speak what we think.” But to say, “God created man with all of the freedoms anyone anywhere has today or has ever had in the past”, is simply wishful thinking.
I’m an atheist, and it makes no sense to me to talk about God-given freedoms, when the concept of God is also simply a figment of the imagination. Humans have NO innate freedoms or God-given rights, only those rights which they themselves deem to be important – and are prepared to defend.
It’s not Satan who “is using Islam to push hard for this”, but the Islamists themselves – and their enablers in our midst. And unfortunately, many of them are also Christians. Islam certainly is “a huge threat to the safety and to the lives of everyone”, but the reason why “there is much talk about what can and should be done…using the freedom to think and the freedom to speak”, and not much action, is because people are either too ignorant, too lazy, too cowardly, or too afraid of being branded “racists” or “Islamophobes” to get off their arses and become activists in their communities.
Many of us of course are actively working to defeat Islam, and the wheel of progress is starting to turn, albeit ever so slowly. Never expect anything to change rapidly in politics unless there is a catastrophe which hurts everyone – especially those at the top – and that rarely happens. Otherwise policies simply evolve over time.
On your follow-up post about the situation in the UK and Germany, to understand that mess please read Bat Ye’or’s book Eurabia. This book is a condemnation of European leaders and the Euro-Arab Dialogue going all the way back to President De Gaulle who wanted a ‘United States of Europe’ after WW II to compete against the US, which he hated with a vengeance. These European leaders were not just interested in creating an EU to prevent future wars, but to exploit cheap labor for their industries; and foolishly they chose to ally themselves with the Islamic world – their ‘Mediterranean partners’ – to achieve it. But now that their countries have been swamped by Muslim immigrants – with more arriving every day – they are virtually hostage to the ‘demographic jihad’ which will likely be their downfall.
Satan has nothing to do with anything. It is simply a matter of human greed, and as Shakespeare said in his play ‘Julius Ceasar’ (Act 3, Scene 2), “The evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones.”
somehistory says
You don’t have to agree with me that satan exists. The simple fact is, we are all people and as people, we each must make our own choices in what to believe and what to discount. You have made yours, I have made mine.
Another simple fact is: moslims and their speech are being protected just about everywhere…China being one exception…and in the U.K. where they wish to punish thought, they are being given the freedom to say whatever hateful thing, whatever violent thing, they wish, whereas others are being arrested for their speech. If this goes forward, there will be more arrests just based on whatever those deciding want them to be, but it won’t turn out to be moslims being arrested. The members of the barracks gatherers who make a it weekly habit to stand up and shout despicable, violent, hateful things about Christians and Jews will be allowed to keep right on doing that.
I believe the **reason** I gave is the only sound one that makes any sense. But, I recognize your right to disagree. I even recognize the moslims’s right to disagree, as long as they aren’t trying to have me arrested or killed for thinking or saying it.
libertyORdeath says
Great points Aussie. Regardless of if there is a god or satan nobody has the right to take basic rights away from others. Our past and present is filled with those who think they know better and therefore should dictate how others should live. This is tyranny in its purest form.
CRUSADER says
Western notions of wisdom and inventiveness and liberty came from….
“The Book that Made Your World: How the Bible Created the Soul of Western Civilization”
by
Vishal Mangalwadi
Understand where we came from.
Whether you’re an avid student of the Bible or a skeptic of its relevance, The Book That Made Your World will transform your perception of its influence on virtually every facet of Western civilization.
Indian philosopher Vishal Mangalwadi reveals the personal motivation that fueled his own study of the Bible and systematically illustrates how its precepts became the framework for societal structure throughout the last millennium. From politics and science, to academia and technology, the Bible’s sacred copy became the key that unlocked the Western mind.
Through Mangalwadi’s wide-ranging and fascinating investigation, you’ll discover:
What triggered the West’s passion for scientific, medical, and technological advancement
How the biblical notion of human dignity informs the West’s social structure and how it intersects with other world-views
How the Bible created a fertile ground for women to find social and economic empowerment
How the Bible has uniquely equipped the West to cultivate compassion, human rights, prosperity, and strong families
The role of the Bible in the transformation of education
How the modern literary notion of a hero has been shaped by the Bible’s archetypal protagonist
Journey with Mangalwadi as he examines the origins of a civilization’s greatness and the misguided beliefs that threaten to unravel its progress. Learn how the Bible transformed the social, political, and religious institutions that have sustained Western culture for the past millennium, and discover how secular corruption endangers the stability and longevity of Western civilization.
Endorsements:
“This is an extremely significant piece of work with huge global implications. Vishal brings a timely message.”
(Ravi Zacharias, author, Walking from East to West and Beyond Opinion)
“In polite society, the mere mention of the Bible often introduces a certain measure of anxiety. A serious discussion on the Bible can bring outright contempt. Therefore, it is most refreshing to encounter this engaging and informed assessment of the Bible’s profound impact on the modern world. Where Bloom laments the closing of the American mind, Mangalwadi brings a refreshing optimism.”
(Stanley Mattson, founder and president, C. S. Lewis Foundation)
“Vishal Mangalwadi recounts history in very broad strokes, always using his cross-cultural perspectives for highlighting the many benefits of biblical principles in shaping civilization.”
(George Marsden, professor, University of Notre Dame; author, Fundamentalism and American Culture)
CRUSADER says
Look ? deeper, Aussie Infidel, deeper than you’ve probably ever looked.
Ancient wisdom isn’t useless in modern times, it is what we need most !
Biblical wisdom makes so much sense today, you have to break out of thst stuck mound you are in however to grasp that!
Humanism and science aren’t the be all and end all.
Life is much deeper than just that.
Bless you for putting aside your self certainly ty just long enough to experiment here.
Please read the Gospel, and do so for a few months.
With an openness to it, then see what Greg Laurie says, for instance….
that’s an insightful teacher to start with….particularly his radio podcasts….
CRUSADER says
Darned small screens and large fingers typing this….
(See that? Satan and his demonic influences at work! ? LOL)
Here is corrected version:
Sorry about that…
====================
Look ? deeper, Aussie Infidel, deeper than you’ve probably ever looked.
Ancient wisdom isn’t useless in modern times, it is what we need most !
Biblical wisdom makes so much sense today, you have to break out of that stuck mould you are in, however, to grasp that!
Humanism and science aren’t the “be all and end all.”
Life is much deeper than just that.
Bless you for putting aside your self certainty just long enough to experiment here with this really important matter. (What else have you to look forward to at the end of your life?)
Please read the Gospel, and do so for a few months, at least.
With an openness to it, then see what Greg Laurie says, for instance….
He is an insightful teacher to start with….particularly his radio podcasts….
Cheers, mate !
CRUSADER says
As for Eurabia, part of the deal in agreeing to terms with Mediterranean Moslem nations had to do with oil !
CRUSADER says
———————————————————————
“I believe !” — Spiritual scene in movie “The Alamo”:
https://youtu.be/JjJGVkChtOk
Aussie Infidel says
somehistory, In reply to your response, what you say is true. We are all different, having come from vastly different backgrounds, but I’m sure that we can agree to disagree. Most religions are relatively benign, and while it might seem strange, I also believe in freedom of religion – but not for Islam, because it is more a violent political ideology than religious. The thing that unites people on this blog, despite our wide range of beliefs, is our complete and utter disdain for Islam – the most evil theocratic ideology to ever be imposed on mankind. It truly is a virus of the mind. But what else could we expect from a psychopathic warlord who wanted to conquer the world?
It’s true that “moslims and their speech are being protected.” All the useful idiots in the West who can’t see past their noses – and they’re not all leftists or atheists. I came from the Left, so I understand their motivation, and I must honestly say that many of my atheist friends also disgust me. In reality, they are mostly Leftists, and I have often been labelled a “racist” and an “Islamophobe”, by people who are utterly ignorant of Islam, but unconsciously follow a Marxist agenda.
It’s not just in the UK where they “punish thought”. Here in Australia, we have Human Rights Acts at both Federal and State levels, under which people can be indicted for the ‘crime’ of “offending others” (Section 18C). I know of one man who has had to sell his house to pay his legal expenses, while the complainant has not had to spend a penny of his own money to have the State do his dirty work for him.
somehistory says
islam is a scourge on mankind. It is evil through and through, without virtue, without value and I look forward to the day when it is no more. The only thing that moslims have in the way of rights for their belief is to believe…not to exercise their belief because it means nothing but bad for everyone.
right now, moslims are feeling their oats…feeling powerful and getting their way in many parts of planet Earth. But, I know in my heart and mind that this will be short-lived.
We are in agreement on the evils of islam and the more people that agree on this, the better.
CRUSADER says
Indeed, Satan is the master underminer behind all the schemes to take liberty away from us who are given reason by God as we are in God’s image.
If we can become deluded by Satan’s wiles, he wins over us.
If we can be made to lose our liberty, he wins over us as well.
More is at play in the invisible realm, which is why St Paul cautioned us to put on the FULL Armor of God, in the spiritual and mental battle in which we fight against adversarial forces pit against us!
Deus Vult !
somehistory says
+100
CRUSADER says
somehistory, I just can’t understand why Aussie Infidel would announce in a proud manner that he is an atheist. How is that something to be proud of ? It means he has given up !
somehistory says
CRUSADER
I recall hearing Carl Sagan proudly talking about his unbelief. I don’t understand the thinking. If I did not believe in God and His Son, I would be as the Bible says, “having no hope and without God in the world.”
One of my brothers died a couple of weeks ago. Without having my faith, losing hims would be beyond bearable as I would have no hope of seeing him again.
gravenimage says
Not all Atheists feel hopeless.
Angemon says
Something like this, I’d imagine:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnI66WiQOQI
Barb says
So the Tony Blair Institute are perfect – no sin – above every-one else – The Institute should be immediately shut down as undemocratic and wicked!
They are well funded left wing globalist bureaucrats that live in a bubble!
There should be a rule in Britain that Ex Prime Ministers cannot fund propaganda Institutes or participate in Politics after having been a PM!
Tony Blair wings his way round the world being paid a huge fee is shameful – all that money should go towards helping the victims of Muslim gang rapes and all those who have been victims of Jihadi attacks in Britain!
libertyORdeath says
It’s always funny to me how those who are most distant from reality believe that they have the knowledge and authority to dictate how others should deal with issues they face in daily life.
Lydia Church says
They are laying the groundwork to come after us.
I’m not going to sugar coat it, that’s what it is.
gravenimage says
Grimly spot on, Lydia.
Kenek says
Will these progressives monitor the standard islamic hate speech as expressed in the koran and all the hadith. Every Friday the death and subjugation of infidels (Jews, Christians and polytheists) is preached to all moslems in the UK and everywhere else the infection of islam has spread. The cult of islam needs to be exterminated with extreme prejudice (it has NEVER been a religion!). There is an old islamic saying “first comes Saturday and then comes Sunday” obviously referring to the extermination first of Jews, and then Christians. The filthy (homosexual) islamic terrorist cowards (yes they often bum-fuck each other before their murder sprees) are treated like heros by the brain-dead islamic masses.
CRUSADER says
It’s been witnessed in alleyways of Baghdad….
Brian Scott says
Just so you know, the “Sex after 60 ad displays when you share it to Facebook. That could be troubling somewhere down the line.
gravenimage says
In the UK, You Could Soon Be Arrested for Crimes You Haven’t Yet Committed
…………….
Yes–terrifying threat to crush freedom.