And Chrislam becomes official

Its a vestigial symbol of our rational past that the spell checker still underlines the word “Chrislam in the headline of this post.

In February of 2018, a British guest writer did an essay for us on her experience as a devout and determined Church-goer in the UK for her youth and adult life. It was about the secret plot to bring about a merger of Christianity and Islam and it would be called, “Chrislam”.

And now its official:

Vatican releases logo for Pope Francis’ visit to Morocco

The article itself is written to be fairly hollow. But add this to the Pope’s trajectory and something much bigger is clearly in the works.

Post Script:

As I was writing this post, I was by coincidence, watching another video in another monitor which as I was about to hit publish, started discussing this exact subject.

Most of this video is amateur eschatology and interpretation of nothing. But some if it substantial.

Thank you everyone who provided materials that found its way into this post.



A tale of two handshakes

I have often said, at least anytime I get the chance, that there is no such thing as ‘multiculturalism’, that no one actually believes there is, and the people who believe it the least are the ones who champion it the most.

Here is some minor evidence of these statements, although there are far more entertaining ones should the need arise.

But I like these because its the exact same issue, where a court was asked to decide exactly which culture was legally dominant, which no matter how you slice it, means there is no multiculturalism. Because its an oxymoron. In the same way as you cannot go back in time and kill your grandparents when they were kids.

Muslim Couple Denied Swiss Citizenship Over Refusing a Male-Female Handshake

According to the local officials, the bid was blocked due to the couple’s “lack of respect for gender equality.” In a similar episode two years ago, two Syrian brothers who refused to shake hands with female teachers sparked a national outrage in Switzerland.

The authorities of Lausanne, a city


in southwest Switzerland, have denied a Muslim couple’s citizenship bid over their refusal to shake hands with people of the opposite sex.


A three-member commission blocked the application, citing their “lack of respect for gender equality,” Lausanne mayor Gregoire Junod said, as quoted by AFP. The two have also struggled with answering questions asked by members of the opposite gender.

OK this is pretty straight forward. The muslims tried to shove their culture at the Swiss by not shaking hands with an opposite sex person. (At this late stage of the Marxist infection, we can at least be grateful both sides agree there are two sexes) The commission chose in favour of the very European notion of the importance of a handshake in new relationships of a professional nature.

So one culture won. The Swiss. Then you have this:

Sweden Muslim woman who refused handshake at job interview wins case

A Swedish Muslim woman has won compensation after her job interview was ended when she refused a handshake.

Farah Alhajeh, 24, was applying for a job as an interpreter when she declined to shake the hand of a male interviewer for religious reasons.


She placed her hand over her heart in greeting instead.

The Swedish labour court ruled the company had discriminated against her and ordered it to pay 40,000 kronor ($4,350; £3,420) in compensation.


Some Muslims avoid physical contact with members of the opposite sex, except for those in their immediate family.


However handshakes are traditional in Europe. Additionally, anti-discrimination legislation may forbid companies and public bodies from treating people differently because of their gender.

They should have added the exception to the physical contact thing that it doesn’t apply when muslims are raping Europeans. But what is interesting is that a court of law in Sweden has now made it clear that there is one culture, which is an Islamic one, while the Swedish one for the moment will be tolerated between Swedes only.

There are other groups that have similar no-contact rules for religious reasons, but typically they will not put themselves in a position where those kinds of choices have to be made. Much like the difference between Jews refusing to eat pork or pig products, and Muslims forcing you not to have pork or pig products, which is increasingly the case.

This isn’t really the most fun evidence of the initial assertion though.

I have started a list, and its growing by the day.

Should you know someone who claims to believe in multiculturalism, ask them a few questions.

Would they support a municipal arena to stone women who violated sharia in one of many ways?

Death for blasphemy?

Death for apostasy from Islam?

Would they donate to a bullfight arena downtown?

Is it OK to force burn the living widow of a man who recently passed away on his funeral pyre as the Hindus did till the British put an end to it?

A restaurant for Cannibals?

Would they support a ban on all representational art and all music that uses instruments or women’s voices?

Here is my personal favorite as a Canadian:

Can I open a bar where people can, if they choose to, come in and drink booze, smoke cigarettes and watch hockey while admiring women and maybe trying to meet one they don’t already know?

Since the answer to all these will be no, we learn that multiculturalism is a code word for one global culture of a mix of soft-islam, and primarily postmodern Marxism.







And apropos of nothing at all:

Prospective Canadian Interfaith Conversation “Our Whole Society” Conference Participants, Attendees, and Media Representatives,

The Lawfare Project (LP), a non-profit legal think-tank based in New York City, notes with dismay the apparent failure of ethical due diligence of the Canadian Interfaith Conversation (CIC) in the course of planning the CIC’s pending conference in Ottawa, Canada. Scheduled for Saint Paul University on May 8-9, 2017, and titled “Our Whole Society: Religion & Citizenship at Canada’s 150th,” the conference and its failings appear to be the shared responsibility of the CIC and its “Our Whole Society” partner organizations, the Canadian Race Relations Foundation, and Cardus, a Canadian Christian organization.
The LP’s concern stems from the announced presence, among conference presenters, of Dr. Ingrid Mattson, former head of the Islamic Society of North America, and Ms. Amira Elghawaby, a representative of the National Council of Canadian Muslims.  These individuals are, in the LP’s opinion, unsuitable candidates for prominent roles in an interfaith gathering purporting to emphasize solidarity and tolerance, and aspiring to achieve a more peaceful world.
Dr. Ingrid Mattson was a longtime leader of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) when it was designated an unindicted co-conspirator in the successful US Holy Land Foundation terror-fundraising prosecution.  Mattson’s current position at Huron University College was the result of an endowment built around money from radical-Islamic sources.  Any number of her associates have been problematic from the perspective of Islamist supremacism, as have some of her teachings and preferred theological sources.  For more information on Mattson, see the LP’s news release, “Collapse of Mattson Libel Suit Signals Victory for Free Speech and The Lawfare Project,” including its links to court papers.
The LP is unaware of any attempt by Dr. Mattson to repudiate, publicly and by name, the various troubling individuals and organizations with which she is, or has been, connected.
Ms. Amira Elghawaby has for years been communications chief for the Canadian Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR.CAN), now renamed – deceptively, according to some – the National Council of Canadian Muslims (NCCM). NCCM/CAIR.CAN was established as the Canadian chapter of the radical, US-based Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a Saudi-funded organization that was also designated an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trial.  CAIR derived from the Islamic Association of Palestine (founded by Hamas operative Mousa Abu Marzook, who is now a US Specially Designated Global Terrorist), is said to be a Hamas-supporting organization, and has seen several of its officials and affiliates convicted of terrorism-related offenses.  Like CAIR, NCCM/CAIR.CAN is known for its exaggerated claims of “Islamophobia”, claims that have unnecessarily alarmed Canadian Muslims and thereby risked pushing young Muslims into radical hands.  For more about NCCM/CAIR.CAN, see the LP’s statement, “Lawfare Project Concerned about National Council of Canadian Muslims Participation in Global Affairs Canada event.” To the best of the LP’s knowledge, neither Ms. Elghawaby nor her organization have ever condemned, publicly and by name, CAIR and those CAIR officials and affiliates who have been convicted of terrorist offenses. Nor are they known to have publicly condemned Dr. Jamal Badawi, a former, long-serving official of NCCM/CAIR.CAN who recommends light physical punishment for “misbehaving” Muslim wives and has been a high-level Islamic Society of North America official – and a US unindicted co-conspirator in his own right.
In the United Against Terrorism handbook jointly produced by NCCM/CAIR.CAN and the closely connected, controversial Islamic Social Services Association, many people of good faith were shocked to find the handbook’s authors apparently attempting to mainstream Dr. Mattson and other questionable individuals by recommending them as scholars to whom Muslims and broader civil society could defer in matters of Islamic theological interpretation, particularly in counter-radicalization contexts.  To no one’s surprise, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police publicly withdrew its support for the handbook project. NCCM/CAIR.CAN, however, continues misleadingly to distribute the document, with the RCMP name and logo on it.
Was the inclusion of Mattson and Elghawaby in the “Our Whole Society” event the result of incompetence within CIC, its planning committee, and CIC partner organizations?  Was it reflective of one or more planning insiders’ conscious efforts to “launder” the two Islamists in Canada’s national capital, the better to facilitate their access to interfaith, media, government and other influential circles?
Perhaps it was a combination of these things. But incompetence cannot be ruled out, given the fact that a Canadian Interfaith Conversation webpage announcing that CIC executive committee members Mr. Zul Kassamali and Dr. Aileen van Ginkel would become the CIC co-chairs, featured what the Interfaith Conversation seemed to regard as a spiritually uplifting quotation of industrialist Henry Ford.  An accomplished anti-Semite, Mr. Ford produced a notorious hate-book, The International Jew, and his Nazi sympathies helped the auto-builder win Hitler’s 1st Class Grand Cross Order of the German Eagle in Gold with Star.
CIC might find a certain resonance in Mr. Ford’s ability to dupe Christian, Jewish and other well-meaning clerics and others about his true inclinations – and then to use such people for endorsements.
Following a review of the material herein provided and linked, CIC organizers and their Canadian Race Relations Foundation and Cardus partners will face a moral-ethical choice.  On the one hand, they could honestly and forthrightly admit that errors have been made. On the other, they might be too embarrassed to be honest, and might further condemn themselves by doubling down on their invitations to Dr. Mattson and Ms. Elghawaby.  The former, honorable course would avoid opening the CIC, its partners, presenters and sponsors to being used to legitimize individuals and organizations unworthy of the influence that involvement in a high-profile, spiritually oriented gathering could avail them. The latter course would dishonor all concerned and facilitate further penetration by undesirables into influential Canadian circles.
The choice made by the Canadian Interfaith Conversation and its associates will give a revealing indication of the true commitment of those involved, to morals, ethics and the integrity of Canada’s interfaith movement.
There is no shortage of moderate, mainstream Canadian Muslims, and Canada is fortunate to be the home of reputable organizations such as the Council for Muslims Facing Tomorrow. Seen in this light, the due diligence failure of the Canadian Interfaith Conversation, the Canadian Race Relations Foundation and Cardus, is all the more regrettable.
Brooke Goldstein
[Published by third party request]

Once again, Muslims use ‘interfaith’ services to preach Islamic supremacy. This time at Trump.

On the morning after the inauguration, an interfaith service was held, with President Trump in attendance, featuring a wide variety of clerics from large religions.

But the Imam is the one that typically requires scrutiny at these kinds of things, as its Islam that views interfaith services as “A one way bridge to Islam” according to the IIIT who invented this nonsense in the first place.

Cut to service with Imam reading Chapter 1 Verse 1 of the koran:

To get a clear picture on why this verse matters, please read this article by Sonia Bailey at American Thinker.

Multi-faith prayer rooms…? Oh! you mean a mosque!

Great little video illustrating how ‘multi-faith’ prayer rooms in fact means a mosque, except one that gets more public funding than one called a mosque.

This video is as I found it except for two alterations I made. One is that I leveled the audio so you can hear each person a little better than in the original. I also tried to make the audio a little clearer for ease of listening. For some, this might seem grating and for others, a little better than the Facebook original. The second alteration was I added a freeze frame of the sign at the door, as the original video has them going by it so quickly that the fact that it says: “Multi-Faith prayer room” clearly on the entrance can be lost on the viewer. so I emphasized that aspect of it.

The original is from Facebook at this link.