Category Archives: The Narrative

Sarkozy (and media): “The Muslim faith has nothing to do with the insane acts of this man”

Posted on by

This graphic by Bosch Fawstin beautifully sums up the French President's cowardice. See more of Bosch's work at fawstin.blogspot.com

From the time the perpetrator of the Toulouse massacre turned out to be a jihadist, there’s been a concerted effort by the Lamestream media to shove the entire incident under the carpet – noticed it?

Whereas before, when they happily concluded a “right-winger” must be responsible, every effort was made to tar Marine Le Pen with responsibility so that the media’s Left wing chums in French politics could benefit from these deaths; now it’s an irrelevant aberation by a diseffected and alienated “French citizen” – and of course, “nothing to do with Islam.”

Where are the press flow charts, the impressive graphics, the fine-tooth-comb examinations of the killer’s “manifesto”, the weeks of lengthy essays by “extremism specialists” pointing to malevolent “worldwide networks” that followed the Breivik slaughter?

There’s been none of it! Just a silent attempt to shoosh everything away and return the populace back to more important matters like reality television and celebrity bra sizes. We’ve been doing our best over here at Vlad Tepes to counter this, and the good folk over at JihadWatch have been putting up a valiant fight too.

Here for example, is an absolute tour de force from Dr Spencer:

from JihadWatch

Imam Sarkozy on Toulouse jihadist: “The Muslim faith has nothing to do with the insane acts of this man”

Muhammad Merah’s murders had everything to do with Islam: he claimed affiliation with al-Qaeda and may have trained with the Taliban, both of which are explicitly and ostentatiously Muslim groups that justify all their actions by reference to the Qur’an and Sunnah. He claimed to be a mujahid, which is a warrior of jihad, which is an Islamic theological and legal concept.

He killed Muslim soldiers who fought in the infidel military — something that only someone who considered one’s loyalty to the umma to trump all other loyalties would have done. So grounded is Merah’s massacre in Islam that it is virtually inconceivable that he would have carried it out had he not been a Muslim.

And so Sarkozy is, like every other leader in the West, whistling in the dark, trying to pretend that there is no problem when there is a huge problem, and basing the future of his nation on the fantasy that the overwhelming majority of Muslims in France do not believe the same things Muhammad Merah believed…

click through for the rest

Ezra Levant on earth hour

Posted on by

Personally I think the way to beat these anti-civilization commies is to change nothing for earth hour. Ignore it. If you actually turn stuff on for that hour you are still letting them effect you in a way which is no different than actually turning the lights out and obeying these morons and hypocrites. But I understand Ezra’s point.

Pamela Geller on the double standards of the New York Times

Posted on by

We all owe Ms. Geller a debt of thanks for exposing this brutal hypocrisy by the times along with the other events she has held showing the duplicitous nature of aspects of the US political and media class.

Jury at Isleworth Crown Court decide that Muslims bashing up white girls is perfectly fine

Posted on by

From Casuals United:

Watch the video below. The two Muslim brothers Mohamed El Togby and Abdul El Togby, who BOTH punched little Vicky in the face, leaving her needing stitches, were cleared by a jury, of which half the people on it shared the attackers religion, and the others were old people. In the video at around 6:39, one of them walks over and while he could have punched anyone he wanted, he is seen to deliberately target Vicky, who is about 6 stone soaking wet. They claimed they were provoked, and this video was not allowed to be seen by the jury, only the official CCTV. No doubt the Muslims on the jury were of the opinion that she was only a “Kuffar bitch” anyway and shouldnt have been out in public not covered up, so deserved it, and the others on the jury took into account that fact that this sort of violence against women is an acceptable part of their culture. Every time there have been incidents involving EDL and Muslims at or near demos, they have shown time and time again that they will happily assault women. I was nearly attacked at Hyde. These people have zero respect for women, especially not white ones. Ive seen Commies laughing about this on Twitter. Nice. Just goes to show the sort of scum they are.

Watch the video and judge for yourself whether he deliberately hits a woman. Those non muslims on the jury should hang their heads in shame.

Note from Vladtepesblog:

The person who uploaded the video disabled embedding. However here is a link that should take you to 6 minutes into the video where a lot of mutual provocation occurs. None of it justifies what happens to the young woman however.

The two links in the article itself above should take you to the start of the video.

Eeyore

Christians have no right to wear cross at work, says Government

Posted on by

The Telegraph:

 Christians do not have a right to wear a cross or crucifix openly at work, the Government is to argue in a landmark court case.

Christians have no right to wear cross at work, says Government

The Government has refused to say that Christians have a right to display the symbol of their faith at work Photo: PA

By , Home Affairs Correspondent

9:00PM GMT 10 Mar 2012

In a highly significant move, ministers will fight a case at the European Court of Human Rights in which two British women will seek to establish their right to display the cross.

It is the first time that the Government has been forced to state whether it backs the right of Christians to wear the symbol at work.

A document seen by The Sunday Telegraph discloses that ministers will argue that because it is not a “requirement” of the Christian faith, employers can ban the wearing of the cross and sack workers who insist on doing so.

The Government’s position received an angry response last night from prominent figures including Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury.

He accused ministers and the courts of “dictating” to Christians and said it was another example of Christianity becoming sidelined in official life.

The Government’s refusal to say that Christians have a right to display the symbol of their faith at work emerged after its plans to legalise same-sex marriages were attacked by the leaders of the Roman Catholic Church in Britain.

A poll commissioned by The Sunday Telegraph shows that the country is split on the issue.

Overall, 45 per cent of voters support moves to allow gay marriage, with 36 per cent against, while 19 per cent say they do not know.

However, the Prime Minister is out of step with his own party.

Exactly half of Conservative voters oppose same-sex marriage in principle and only 35 per cent back it.

There is no public appetite to change the law urgently, with more than three quarters of people polled saying it was wrong to fast-track the plan before 2015 and only 14 per cent saying it was right.

The Strasbourg case hinges on whether human rights laws protect the right to wear a cross or crucifix at work under Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

It states: “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.”

The Christian women bringing the case, Nadia Eweida and Shirley Chaplin, claim that they were discriminated against when their employers barred them from wearing the symbols.

They want the European Court to rule that this breached their human right to manifest their religion. Continue Reading →

England, totalitarianism, freedom of speech, selective enforcement and relative sentencing

Posted on by

This article is already published here on Vlad but the comments are what is really interesting. Please click down to the comments and read, and if you have not yet read the article here it is again.

The Moral Confusion of Sir Peter Bottomley MP

Posted on by

By Paul Weston

A planned British Freedom Party event was cancelled last week after the venue’s manager was threatened by an organisation called Unite Against Fascism ( UAF ).

The UAF is a deeply unpleasant organisation, which quite astonishingly has been publicly endorsed by our Prime Minister and various MPs – including Conservative MP Sir Peter Bottomley.

The Daily Telegraph exposed some horrific facts about the UAF last week, so I wrote to Sir Peter Bottomley via email, to ask why both he and Cameron publicly endorsed such an extremist, anti-British and hateful organisation. His response was chilling.

******

Dear Sir Peter…

Please click to continue:

Mass. Cops Accuse Lesbian Sisters of Hate Crime on Gay Man

Posted on by

Rockland Country Times:

Mar. 7, 2012

Outside Boston, Massachusetts another strange hate crime has been filed by authorities. Two lesbians have been charged with a hate crime for an assault against a homosexual man. Apparently they used negative slurs about his sexual orientation during the fight, although the two African-American women said the gay man first used racial insults toward them.

Bottom line is in 2012 America you can go to jail for saying naughty names even if they are names that apply to your own “people.” God bless the Nanny State!

The two girls are sisters Erika Stroud, 21, of Dorchester and Felicia Stroud, 18, West Roxbury, Massachusetts, both of whom are lesbians according to their mother. Apparently the scuffle started when they bumped into the victim in a stairwell. They’ve been charged with assault and battery with the intent to intimidate, a hate crime punishable by up to 10 years in jail.

Click to continue:

Toronto Star changes headline to be less critical of Islam

Posted on by

Once upon a time, the left was the most hysterical about women’s rights, both real ones and as often, synthetic rights which were impossible to address but are part and parcel of critical theory. Now, the left is throwing real rights, women’s and minorities and frankly everyones, under the bus as fast as possible to avoid telling the truth about Islam.

First picture, yesterdays headline of the Toronto star stating a factual aspect of the deal the Afghan ‘president’ made.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The above picture from Google cache grabbed by Tundra Tablods.

Below, todays headline for the exact same article:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How very shameful. The Toronto Star enjoyed a brief moment of the former glory of supporting real human rights. Of exposing tyranny and speaking truth to power and more typically, truth to ultra-conservative religious tyranny. Now, like the rest of the media (SUN NEWS NETWORK excepted) The Star has weakened its headline to avoid offending the greatest threat to women, minority, and for that matter all human rights and beneficiaries of the Enlightenment, Islam.

EDL documentary I – My Hometown Fanatics (Stacey Dooley Investigates)

Posted on by

February saw the broadcast in the UK of two separate in-depth documentaries taking the English Defence League (EDL) as their theme.

Long overdue, these programs both shared two particular characteristics. First, an almost allergic unwillingness to square up to or cite the easily-verifiable realities of Islamic doctrine, in any way. Second, an attempt by the respective filmmakers to use both editorializing and film-editing to present a slanted picture often at considerabe odds with the facts.

The first program was a childish, bordering on the infantile, effort by the BBC which purported to cover the subject of extremism in Britain in general, and Luton in Bedfordshire in particular; which is the hotbed of Islamic radicalism that gave birth to the EDL.

BBC3’s Stacey Dooley, a young lady clearly not recruited into documentary making because of her brains, failed to draw any evidence-based conclusions in her “examination” of both Islamism, and the English Defence League (EDL); which originated in her home town.

Dooley has considerable experience as a documentary maker and the format of her “investigations” are identical. They consist of the naive and ditsy Stacey being confronted with very serious issues indeed, in order to do little more than present her shallow emotional responses to the matter in question. That’s it. Simply, she doesn’t make films about issues, she uses issues to make films about herself.

However, no matter how hard the program-makers might have tried, in typical BBC fashion, to obscure the truth: much of the footage speaks volumes about the reality of life in Luton; and will prove eye-opening to many international viewers about what many working-class areas in England are like.

But some of the more laughable scenes include:

  • Stacey putting on a niqab to “understand” how Muslim women feel… While ignoring the issues of choice, force and consent; let alone honour killings and gender segregation; which are inherent in Islam.
  • Trying for the entire program to get an interview with the leader of the EDL, Tommy Robinson. Then, having succeeded in doing so spending all their time telling him about her views on a subject she knows nothing about (rather than asking him any questions and listening to his answers).
  • Not covering the question of the demographic replacement of native Britons in Luton by South Asians, as anything other than (a) completely normal, or (b) absolutely wonderful.
  • Taking at face value the pronouncements on Islam from individuals who clearly have a very strong vested interest in presenting a particular and distorted picture. And the usual crop of Muslims who do not even know the content of their own religion. (e.g. Islam “condemns the killing of the innocent”. Yes it does, but it also defines the unbeliever as necessarily guilty.)
  • Not confronting preposterous statements and situations. A particularly breathtaking segment is where a community leader says that none of the remaining native residents have complained about the call to prayer being broadcast through loudhailers in their former neighborhoods. Hmmm… what always happens to people who complain about Islam?
  • To say nothing of the young Muslim lad chatting up Stacey being presented as indicative of the community’s normalcy. I wonder what response a male non-Muslim program maker trying to pick up a Muslim girl would have elicited?
  • Dooley also chides Tommy Robinson as unreasonable for wanting to end any discussion premised on accepting the imposition of Sharia in his country (!): this while he and Dooley are being physically intimidated by “youths” because they are talking publicly and critically about Islam; and despite this, she insistently repeats the assertion that only a “tiny, tiny” minority of Muslims are extremists. (For the record, repeated surveys have pegged support for Sharia amongst Britain’s Muslims at 60%.)

Dooley’s final conclusion suggests that what is at fault in Luton, is “ignorance” as ignorance causes extreme feelings…

Sure Stacey, because people only hate Nazism until they find out more about it.

Though “My Home Town Fanatics” inadvertently reveals much about modern Britain there is an enormous amount that it deliberately conceals. Here’s footage from Leicester for example, a town slightly further down the Islamic demographic path than Luton, to give you an idea of what I mean.

 

Harvard’s shameful and biased “one state” conference joins the call to destroy Israel

Posted on by

The Commentator:

Feb 29, 2012

In the intellectuals’ war against Israel, there is no truth in labelling. To paraphrase Orwell, War is Peace, Ignorance is Enrichment, and Genocide is Liberal Democracy

Palestinian and Israeli cultures are, at present, fundamentally irreconcilable

Palestinian and Israeli cultures are, at present, fundamentally irreconcilable
Henry Kopel

By Henry Kopel

on 28 February 2012 at 10am

The campaign among western intellectuals to delegitimize Israel’s existence scored a major symbolic victory this month, with the announcement that Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government will host on March 3-4, a conference advocating a “One State Solution” for Israel and the Palestinians.

“One State Solution” is the latest fashion among Israel’s enemies. If implemented, Israel would be merged into a single country with the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, and both Jews and Palestinians living elsewhere would have a “right of return.”

Conveniently unmentioned in the Harvard conference brochure is that an influx of millions of Palestinians would create a majority vote for dismantling Israel and replacing it with a Palestinian-Arab state.

Palestinians may call this “One State,” but for Israeli Jews, the more accurate caption for this “solution” would seem to be “Final.”

That Harvard’s conferees have no intention of presenting a fair and honest debate on the implications of “One State” is made clear by the speakers list, which consists mostly of militant Palestinian advocates, plus a few left-wing Jewish extremists who question the validity of Israel’s existence. Such as:

Click to continue: