The Corruptible Stench Going Up To Heaven

 

Our rot, our stench, our vileness is becoming too much to bear…

 

In This Edition:

Israel Helps Victims Of Earthquake In Nepal, Gets Vilified For It

If Only Christians In America Today Would Sing Louder! (VIDEO)

The Erosion of Free Speech

U.S. Lets American Pastor Saeed Abedini Rot in Iran’s Prison

Transhumanism: An Attempt To use Technology To Turn Men Into Gods

U.S. State Dept. Invites Muslim Leaders, Denies Christians

10 Pictures That Show How America Is Becoming A Lot Like Nazi Germany

“In the 1920’s the Nazi party in Germany started as the seed within one man’s evil mind. Through mesmerizing rhetoric, the ability to make a moving speech, the man gained some followers. They grew in a time of trouble, in a time of despair and confusion within Germany by staging regular marches through the streets of German cities and towns. Soon the movement gained more followers by merely being visible and on the streets, and more still as times grew tense and difficult until came the point the evil man who had the seed grow and take root and attract blind followers cast its darkness over all of Europe and threatened the world. What is coming soon  will make Adolf Hitler, Himler, Goebbels, and Nazi Germany appear as amateurs. Nazi Germany was a precursor, a sign to all of what is possible and it was merely a small creation of what is to come and to devour the world casting it into utter darkness and evil with the rise to power of the Antichrist and his false prophet which the world will serve gladly, openly, just as the German people embraced and worshipped Hitler who had brought them out of despair with his constant droning positive message refusing to permit the truth to enter he kept the people hypnotized pulling them out of their fear and despair to follow him wherever he led them and they blindly obediently followed. Evil has learned and only grown stronger since the 1930’s, 1940’s. Nazi Germany, Adolf Hitler, all that Nazi Germany represents will pale in comparison to what is coming to a nation near you soon, very, very soon.” ~ Ken Pullen (administrator of “A Crooked Path”).

Israel Helps Victims Of Earthquake In Nepal, Gets Vilified For It

One critic tweeted: “Easier to address a far-away humanitarian disaster than the nearby one of Israel’s making in Gaza. End the blockade!”

After a devastating earthquake struck Nepal at the beginning of May Israel sent a large delegation of 260 search and rescue experts to Kathmandu.

Israel’s delegation was the second-largest in Nepal, just behind India, which sent the world’s largest team to the quake-hit area. The next-largest delegation, from the United Kingdom, numbered 68 people, followed by China’s 62, the US’s 54 and South Korea’s 40. Taiwan sent 20 personnel, Italy 15 and France 11.

Among the things Israel sent was an advanced multi-department medical facility, equipped with approximately 95 tons of humanitarian and medical supplies and a medical staff of 122 doctors, nurses and paramedics that was rapidly established in the city of Kathmandu to provide medical care for disaster casualties.

The Israeli action inspired notorious Israel bashers such as Max Blumenthal and Electronic Intifada reporter Rania Khalek to write posts in which they maligned the effort. Blumenthal suggested that “the main purpose of Israel’s mission was to rescue newborn infants of Israelis who had used local surrogate mothers”,  to which Khalek responded:  “Israel maybe headed to Nepal to learn from the earthquake how to kill better”

Another critic of Israel’s humanitarian aid was Human Rights Watch director Kenneth Roth, who tweeted the following message:” Easier to address a far-away humanitarian disaster than the nearby one of Israel’s making in Gaza. End the blockade!”

It was another example of Roth’s bias against Israel and the double standards evident in HRW condemnations of Israel. The Israeli organization NGO Monitor has published numerous reports documenting HRW’s double standard and its obsession with Israel.

Roth’s comment drew immediately sharp condemnations from pro-Israel bloggers like Avi Taranto who wrote in his blog at The Times of Israel:

“ the 140 characters in Roth’s message give evidence a psychology so warped that many more characters are needed to address it. In plain English: the two have nothing to do with each other.  What is wrong with you that your hatred of Israel would have you call for others to go without assistance they desperately need? Because that’s what you said.”

Yesterday Dr. Giora Weiser, an Israeli doctor in the Pediatric Emergency Department at Shaare Tzedek Hospital in Jerusalem who was part of the Israeli medical delegation and the field hospital in Nepal decided to react. In an op-ed published by The Jerusalem Post, Weiser wrote about his horrific experiences in Nepal where he worked around the clock to save the lives of scores of Nepalese citizens.

He also had to say something about Roth’s Tweet:

“I saw and read the inflammatory reports and statements leveled against Israel for sending medical delegations to Nepal, especially the inhumane questioning of Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch (HRW). There we were, covered in blood, drenched in sweat, and sometimes tears, and exhausted, both mentally and physically after ending another 12-hour shift during which we saved multiple lives and mended broken bodies as best we could.

It is ironic that Roth can pontificate from the safety of a nice warm home thousands of miles away from the grief and devastation on his computer or smartphone about a nation he constantly maligns as non-caring and heartless.

Here in the depths of despair, when the Nepalese cried out for assistance, Israel sent its sons and daughters to their aid. This is how someone who is serious about human rights acts.

Less than a year ago I joined my Nachal Brigade as they entered Gaza to end the rocket barrages on our population centers. There too my task was to heal the sick and treat the wounded.

It mattered little whether it was my fellow soldier or a Gazan youth that required attention.

Regardless of headline-grabbing reports and anonymous sources pounced on by the international media like those from Breaking the Silence, we who serve in war and in peace know the truth.

We don’t seek acclaim or thanks, our sense of collective solidarity even with strangers across the world impels us to assist, to treat and heal.

This is Israel, Mr. Roth. Perhaps if you came out and saw us from behind your computer screens, you would understand what motivates us and what binds us to one of our founding doctrines of Tikkun Olam, fixing the world.

I am deeply proud to be part of a nation which does not hesitate for a moment to assist those in need wherever they may be.”

Dr. Weiser opened his article with the Jewish prayer for physicians written by the great sage Maimonides:

‘Grant me the physical and mental strength to be forever prepared to help the poor and the rich, the good and the bad, my love and my enemy, and may I always see the human in the infirm.”

This is a moral imperative and a duty as a Jew, Weiser wrote.

The same moral imperative is causing the IDF to treat scores of wounded Syrian rebels in a field hospital on the Golan Heights and drives IsraAID Israel’s disaster relief organization which provides humanitarian aid to regions that are traditionally hostile to the Jewish State.

When seven months ago Islamic State slaughtered the Yazidi people, and many of them tried to escape to Kurdistan but got trapped on Mount Sinjar in northern Iraq IsraAID provided them with blankets. Later in total 5,000 mattresses and blankets along with powdered milk for babies were distributed in a refugee camp for Yazidi’s and persecuted Christians in Dohuk in Iraqi Kurdistan. The IsraAID staff in Dohuk was careful not to disclose they came from Israel because of the fear that Islamic State supporters might have infiltrated the camp.

IsraAID also provided humanitarian aid to Jordan, Sudan and Sierra Leone and many other countries. Among them, the United States where IsraAID provided aid to residents of New York City after super storm Sandy and after hurricane Katharina struck New Orleans. The organization also helped with tornado recovery in Oklahoma.

 

If Only Christians In America Today Would Sing Louder! (VIDEO)

Together, we can turn this destruction around; but if you choose to remain silent, don’t be surprised when they come for you and there is no one left to speak out.

When the hypocrites and accomplices to Adolph Hitler (Matthew 7:21-23) would sing praises to Jesus in the protestant churches in Germany, they would sing louder to drown out the noise of the Jews, Gypsies, and dissidents who were crying out for help while they were being hauled off in cattle cars to concentration camps–or even worse, extermination camps (Psalm 78:9).

When church services were over, they would find their cars toppled with the ash of the bodies that were burned in the incinerators.

To further the atrocities of these traitors to Christ, they were the ones handing off their youth groups to do Hitler’s killing for them.

These professors loved Jesus so much that they simply disobeyed His commandments with every opportunity they had (1 John 2:4).

I am sure most of you have heard:

“First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.”

– Martin Niemöller

Martin Niemöller is perhaps best remembered for this quotation. I have heard this quote many times before, but it was just recently that I learned that the man who said it was a prominent protestant pastor during the time of Hitler and the Nazis. It was learning this fact that made all the difference in the world in understanding where this quote stemmed from.

This quotation stemmed from Niemöller’s lectures during the early postwar period. His point was that Germans and, in particular, the leaders of the Protestant churches had been complicit through their silence in the Nazi imprisonment, persecution, and murder of millions of people.

Martin Niemöller was one of the first Germans to talk publicly about the broader complicity in the Holocaust and guilt for what had happened to the Jews. In his book, published in English as “Of Guilt and Hope” in January of 1946, Niemöller wrote:

Thus, whenever I chance to meet a Jew known to me before, then, as a Christian, I cannot but tell him: ‘Dear Friend, I stand in front of you, but we cannot get together, for there is guilt between us. I have sinned and my people has sinned against thy people and against thyself.’

Although he did suffer, spending the last seven years of Nazi rule in concentration camps, he still recognized his own guilt for not speaking out against tyranny.

In fact, we could rewrite Niemöller’s quote quite well for today’s church leaders. It would probably go something like this:

First they came for prayer in school, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a student. Nor did I ever look into the fact that the Supreme Court is not above the law (Article 3, Sections 1 of The United States Constitution (Ephesians 6:18)).

Then they came to murder the unborn in their mother’s womb, and I did not speak out— Because I was not an unborn child. After all, I was told that the Supreme Court could sanction the murder of the innocent in the womb by simply calling it a woman’s choice (Proverbs 6:17).

Then they came for the legalization of two men or two woman getting “married” to upend America’s sovereignty and I did not speak out (as if to say the Supreme court injustices have a God given right to redefine what God Himself designed)— because I did not want to be called a hater or a bigot (Leviticus 18:22, 20:13, Romans 1:24)

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out for me, because I never spoke out for anyone else (let alone God) (Ezekiel 3).

It is disgraceful what we are not seeing from the pulpits in America today. Rather than seeing a thunderous barrage of righteous indignation against murder of the unborn, and zeal against tyranny, injustice, immorality, we are hearing virtually nothing from over 300,000 pulpits…silence (Zechariah 1:15).

“To sin by silence, when we should protest, makes cowards out of men.”

We hear Church leaders (1 Corinthians 12:28) say, “Well, I don’t speak out against anything political.” The murder of innocent children, political? Homosexual marriage, political? A corrupt, wicked, and lawless administration that means to destroy your country and religious freedom, political?

Here we see in Niemöller a man who could not change the destruction that took place in the lives of millions of people. Prevention would have been better than curing. He could not go back in time and right the wrongs, but America still can.

If not now, then when? If not you, then who?

Together, we can turn this destruction around; but if you choose to remain silent, don’t be surprised when they come for you and there is no one left to speak out. And at that point, you can rest assured that others may sing loud enough to drown out your cries.

 

 STUDY THE PAST —

The Erosion of Free Speech

 

 

  • “If PEN as a free speech organization can’t defend and celebrate people who have been murdered for drawing pictures, then frankly the organization is not worth the name.” — Salman Rushdie, former President of PEN.
  • Today, a genuine fear of retribution for a “blasphemous” statement has subdued the will to stand up for one’s own beliefs, values and the right to speak out. This fear has made most of the West submissive, just as Islam — in both its name [Islam means “submission”] and declarations — openly wants.
  • This time, the condemnation had not come in a fatwa from Iran’s Supreme leader, but from a Western academic. If we do not reverse this trend, censorship, blasphemy laws, and all the other encumbrances of totalitarians, will return to our lives. The bullies will win.
  • If Geert Wilders and others are being accused of hate speech, then why isn’t the Koran — with its calls for smiting necks and killing infidels — also being accused of hate speech?
  • The mere criticism of a religious belief shared by many people mainly in the Third World has been linked, with no justification, to their genuine prejudice against the inhabitants of the developed world.

Anyone who has had much to do with publishing, or anyone who cares about books and free speech, will be familiar with the American Library Association’s Office for Intellectual Freedom, an enduring champion of the First Amendment and the public’s right to read whatever they please — without the interference and censorship of self-appointed guardians of inoffensiveness and sexual purity.

Every year, the ALA mounts Banned Books Week, a nationwide celebration of our freedom to read. And every year it issues an unnerving list of Frequently Challenged Books. Unnerving because of the pettiness and obsession betrayed by the people who try to have books banned in local libraries, school boards, and even bookshops. For years, most of the attempts to ban books have come from fundamentalist Christian groups; the reasons have mainly been sex, offensive language, or “controversial issues,” whatever they are. God forbid that anyone in the United States be exposed to “controversial issues.”

This year a new note has entered Banned Books Week. Elizabeth McKinstry, a graduate student at Georgia’s Valdosta State University (which earlier in April witnessed students trampling on the American flag) launched a petition about ALA’s anti-censorship poster, calling it “Islamophobic.” There is nothing on the poster, however, that relates in the slightest way to Islam. The poster shows the top of a woman’s head, then her clothed chest and arms. She is not wearing Islamic dress on her head, and her arms and hands are bare. In front of her face, she holds what looks like a book bearing the text “Readstricted.” Her eyes can be seen looking through the cover where it bears the universal symbol for “Restricted” (a red circle with a white bar). That is all.

In her petition, McKinstry writes, “This poster uses undeniably Islamophobic imagery of a woman in a niqab, appears to equate Islam with censorship, and muslim (sic) women as victims.” She goes on to demand that the poster be “removed immediately from the ALA Graphics store, and the ALA Graphics Store and Office of Intellectual Freedom should apologize and explain how they will prevent using discriminatory imagery in the future.” To make matters worse, she goes on to write: “Whether the poster was intentionally or accidentally a racist design, it is still racist and alienating.”

Not only is this possibly an example of political correctness in overdrive, but the greater irony lies in that McKinstry is studying for an MA in library and information science; works as a library associate, and is a member of the ALA. Here we see a distortion of thinking that is grotesque: a person claiming to be “progressive,” trying to ban an anti-censorship poster in an organization that works to end censorship.

* * *

PEN International is known worldwide as an association of writers. Together they work tirelessly for the freedom of authors from imprisonment, torture, or other restrictions on their freedom to write honestly and controversially. This year, PEN’s American Center plans to present its annual Freedom of Expression Award during its May 5 gala to the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo. The award will be handed to Gerard Biart, the publication’s editor-in-chief, and to Jean-Baptiste Thorat, a staff member who arrived late on the day when Muslim radicals slaughtered twelve of his colleagues. This is the sort of thing PEN does well: upholding everyone’s right to speak out even when offence is taken.

This year, however, six PEN members, almost predictably, have already condemned the decision to give the award to Charlie Hebdo, and have refused to attend the gala. Peter Carey, Michael Ondaatje, Francine Prose, Teju Cole, Rachel Kushner and Taiye Selasi have exercised their right to double standards by blaming Charlie Hebdo for its offensiveness. Kushner expressed her discomfort with the magazine’s “cultural intolerance.” Does that mean that PEN should never have supported Salman Rushdie for having offended millions of Muslims just to express his feelings about Islam?

Peter Carey expressed his support, not for the satirists, but for the Muslim minority in France, speaking of “PEN’s seeming blindness to the cultural arrogance of the French nation, which does not recognize its moral obligation to a large and disempowered segment of their population.” We never heard him speaking out when Ilan Halimi was tortured to death for weeks, or when Jews in Toulouse were shot. He seems to be saying that the French government should shut up any writer or artist who offends the extreme sensitivities of a small percent of its population.

Teju Cole remarked, in the wake of the killings, that Charlie Hebdo claimed to offend all parties but had recently “gone specifically for racist and Islamophobic provocations.” But Islam is not a race, and the magazine has never been racist, so why charge that in response to the sort of free speech PEN has always worked hard to advance?

A sensible and nuanced rebuttal of these charges came from Salman Rushdie himself, a former president of PEN: “If PEN as a free speech organization can’t defend and celebrate people who have been murdered for drawing pictures, then frankly the organization is not worth the name. What I would say to both Peter and Michael and the others is, I hope nobody ever comes after them.”

Those six have now morphed into something like 145. By April 30, Carey and they were joined by another 139 members who signed a protest petition. Writers, some distinguished, some obscure, have taken up their pens to defy the principle of free speech in an organization dedicated to free speech, and many of whom live in a land that protects it precisely for their benefit with a First Amendment.

Another irony, at least as distasteful as the one just described, took place on April 22, when Northern Ireland’s leading academic institution, Queen’s University in Belfast, announced the cancellation of a conference planned for June. The conference, organized by the university’s Institute for Collaborative Research in the Humanities, was about free speech after the Charlie Hebdo attack in Paris. You could not make this up. The reason given was that the institute had not prepared a proper risk assessment. Risk? Risk to what? To free speech? What a silly thought! No, it turned out to be risk of an Islamist attack in Belfast, a city long weary from terrorism. Finally, on May 1, the university reversed its decision and announced that the event will go ahead.

The following day, the University of Maryland, many miles to the west, banned a showing of the film American Sniper after complaints from Muslim students. Whether the film was good or bad, free speech was snuffed.[1]

The oddity is that today, newspaper headlines, news websites, radio and television news bulletins are packed every day with stories about the chaos in the Middle East, the threat of Iranian access to nuclear weapons, the march of ISIS, Jabhat al-Nusra, Hezbollah, Hamas, the Taliban, al-Shabaab, and dozens of other terrorist groups across the region. This year’s Charlie Hebdo and kosher supermarket slayings, the rise of anti-Semitism across Europe (closely linked to Islamism), demonstrations filling the streets with chants such as “Hamas, Hamas Jews to the Gas,” and all the other atrocities and social disjunctions that arise from the revival of fundamentalist Islam.

America and Britain have fought, with allies, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and as of this writing, the United States is carrying out air strikes against ISIS in Syria.

Such news stories are not occasional, they are everyday. Stories of this kind are seldom crowded out by anything but the most important news items, such as a major airline crash or significant domestic political events. Such stories are even more visible than Cold War geopolitical new ever was, due to the immense proliferation of news outlets since the 1990s. The citizens of the U.S., Europe, Canada, Australia and (above all) Israel do not face a remote threat from a distant country, but daily threats of being blown up in their own streets almost every day. The British security services announce almost daily the likelihood of a terrorist event.

But where are the novels? Where are the Le Carrés and Ludlums, the Flemings and Clancys? The number of novels dealing with Islamist, terrorist, or state-sponsored threats to the world’s stability (and hence to our own stability and safety) are so few in number, I cannot remember even one. Back to the comfort zone.[2]

This bears thinking about. Is it just a matter of fashion, or are there deeper reasons for this apparent neglect of the most important political and military issues of the present day? Is the literary issue a canary in a coal mine of much greater extent?

The answer is yes. Western culture, once built in part on the principle of free speech — a principle enshrined in the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment and promoted in all liberal democracies — has been weakened by attacks on the right of everyone to right to speak openly about politics, religion, sexuality, and a host of other things.

The first blow to free speech came in 1989 with demonstrations and riots over British author Salman Rushdie’s controversial 1988 novel, The Satanic Verses; and fears grew when Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, issued a fatwa calling on Muslims to kill Rushdie.

Many people died in riots or were murdered because of association with the book. Bookshops were firebombed in the U.S. and UK; publishers were attacked; booksellers often refused to stock the novel; editors wrote to authors like myself, asking us to decide whether some forthcoming publications dealing with Islam could be safely published, and free speech was under attack.

The most harmful blow, however, came when some Western so-called intellectuals and religious leaders condemned Rushdie and supported a ban on his novel. Immanuel Jakobovits, Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth, opposed the book’s publication.[3] The Archbishop of Canterbury called for a law of blasphemy that would cover other religions than just Christianity, opening up the spectre that religions, even violent ones such as Islam, could be privileged above other societal actors in a democracy.[4] Sadly, this pattern of betrayal by Western thinkers has been repeated ever since.

What impact has this had? Here is a simple example: Early in 2012, a controversy stormed up in church circles in the United States. Three well-known Christian publishers, Wycliffe Bible Translators, the Summer Institute of Linguistics (SIL) and Frontiers were accused of having pandered to Muslims in their new Arabic and Turkish translations of the New Testament. The translators had replaced terms such as Father (for God) and Son to conform to the Koranic doctrine that God did not have a son and was not a father of anyone. In the Frontiers and SIL translation into Turkish, “guardian” replaces “Father” and “representative” or “proxy” is used for “Son.” Such considerations did not deter earlier Bible translators into Islamic language from an honest statement of a fundamental Christian doctrine. But today, a genuine fear of retribution for a “blasphemous” statement has subdued the will to stand up for one’s own beliefs, values and the right to speak out. This fear has made much of the West submissive, just as Islam — in both its name [Islam means “submission”] and declarations — openly wants.

Since then, the attacks from Islamists on this most basic of Western principles — the central plank in the platform of true democracy and the feature that most distinguishes it from totalitarianism of all forms — have multiplied, culminating in the slaughter carried out by Muslims extremists at the offices of Charlie Hebdo in Paris on January 7, 2015.

Beneath the sporadic physical assaults lies a deeper layer of coercion: the fear lest anyone commit that apparently most unforgiveable crime of all, “Islamophobia!” It now seems that almost anything non-Muslims do may result in such accusations — a bigotry that has also become conflated with racism. The mere criticism of a religious belief shared by people mainly in the Third World has been linked, with no justification, to their genuine prejudice against the inhabitants of the developed world. But since it is Muslims who have been allowed to define “Islamophobia,” often at whim, even the mildest remarks can lead to serious accusations, lawsuits, and criminal attacks.[5]

In the case of Sherry Jones’s novel The Jewel of Medina, historically “revised” to be sympathetic to Islam, Random House in 1988 cancelled the novel’s publication. Its spokesperson stated that the publishing house had been given “cautionary advice not only that the publication of this book might be offensive to some in the Muslim community, but also that it could incite acts of violence by a small, radical segment.”[6]

This time, the condemnation had not come in a fatwa from Iran’s Supreme Leader, but from a Western academic, whose identity is not known to me. On September 28, 2008, British extremist Ali Beheshti and two accomplices set fire to the house of the owner of the UK publishing company that had bought The Jewel of Medina. Fortunately, nobody was killed. But the vise of subjugation to Islamic dictats was tightening round the neck of the free world.

* * *

Rushdie knew he was being controversial; for those who protested, the attacks on him, however reprehensible, had a bizarre justification. Condemnation from Western academics, journalists, interfaith clerics, and politicians shows not how successful intimidation has become, but how timid and craven we have become. To surrender with such spinelessness can only mean that we have entered the first stages of the decline of the Enlightenment values that made the modern West the greatest upholder of human rights and freedoms in history.

Criticism of Islam and everything else will — and should — continue, produced by courageous writers and journalists. Certainly, we know how many times politicians in the United States and Europe have delusionally tried to persuade us that Islamist violence “has nothing to do with Islam.”

There have been many attacks and murders already. Perhaps the best known of these — until the Charlie Hebdo murders — was the murder of Dutch film-maker, Theo van Gogh, on November 2, 2004. Van Gogh had directed a short film called Submission, written by Muslim dissident Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who had worked extensively in women’s shelters in the Netherlands, where she had observed that most of the women were Muslim. Van Gogh’s killer, a 26-year-old Dutch-Moroccan named Mohammed Bouyeri, now serving a life sentence, has described democracy as utterly abhorrent to Islam. (This view, for anyone who cares about the continuation of the West, is held by many Muslims. For them, democracy, made by man, is illegitimate, compared to shari’a law, made by Allah, and therefore the only form of government that is legitimate.) In court, Bouyeri said that ‘the law [shari’a law] compels me to chop off the head of anyone who insults Allah and the prophet.”

The threat of murder has become ever more real. It is no longer possible to dismiss death threats from Muslims as the work of “lone wolves,” “deviant personalities,” or attention seekers. It is the use of death threats that has given radical Muslims the power to deter most writers, film-makers, TV producers, and politicians from tackling Islamic issues. The threat of calling people “racist” as a tool for suppressing critical voices has cast a dark shadow over normal democratic life. Some have died for free speech about Islam; others have faced ostracism, imprisonment, flogging and the loss of a normal life. [7]

Salman Rushdie lives under constant guard. Molly Norris, an American artist who drew a cartoon of Mohammed and proposed an “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day,” has lived in hiding since 2010. On advice from the FBI, she changed her identity and cut off all links with family and friends. The Dutch politician Geert Wilders has been tried for “hate speech,” barely acquitted, and is now being tried for “hate speech” again.

These are just a few of the casualties who have paid a heavy price for their willingness to treat Islam as any of us might treat other subjects or other faiths. No Christian scholar will be tried for arguing that the Gospels contain contradictions, no Reform Jew will be arraigned for criticism of ultra-Orthodox beliefs, no politician will be brought before the law for denouncing the ideologies of Communism or Fascism. You can say that Karl Marx was misguided or that a U.S. president is terrible, and on and on, without dreading for a moment an assassin’s footfall or being locked up for your remarks.

Theo van Gogh (left) was murdered by an Islamist because he made a film critical of Islam. Salman Rushdie (right) was lucky to stay alive, spending many years in hiding, under police protection, after Iran’s Supreme Leader ordered his murder because he considered Rushdie’s novel The Satanic Verses “blasphemous.”

Incidents such as these or UK Labour Party Leader Ed Miliband’s promise to make Islamophobia a hate crime (without even defining Islamophobia) illustrate the most dangerous result of Islamic agitation and asserted victimhood: it has caused us to turn on ourselves, to abandon our commitment to free speech, open academic enquiry, and the readiness to question everything — the very qualities that have made us strong in the past. When Western so-called intellectuals such as Ian Buruma and Timothy Garton Ash condemn a Muslim apostate such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali for her criticisms of radical Islamism, or when Brandeis University withdraws its offer of an honorary degree for Ms. Ali when Muslim students object, we see our intellectual foundations shake. [8]

It is also necessary to ask, if Geert Wilders and others are being accused of hate speech, then why isn’t the Koran — with its calls for smiting necks and killing infidels — also being accused of hate speech?

If we do not reverse this trend of submission, censorship, blasphemy laws and all the other encumbrances of totalitarianism will return to our lives. The bullies will win, and the Enlightenment will fade and pass away from mankind. Political correctness and shari’a law will rule. How tragic if a senseless fear causes us to do this to ourselves.

Denis MacEoin is a lecturer in Arabic and Islamic Studies. He has an MA in Persian, Arabic and Islamic Studies from Edinburgh University, a PhD in Persian Studies from Cambridge (King’s College) and an MA in English Language and Literature from Trinity College, Dublin.


[1] If you are old enough to remember the Cold War, you will also recall the remarkable outpouring of literary engagement with the issues it provoked. Not just dissident narratives like Alexander Solzhenitsyn‘s Gulag Archipelago or novels such as his One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovitch, but the many spy thrillers by mainly British authors like John Le Carré, Len Deighton, Ian Fleming (the creator of James Bond), and many others, Trevor Dudley-Smith (‘Adam Hall’), and Jack Higgins. Later, several Americans came to match the popularity of their British counterparts: Tom Clancy, Robert Ludlum, Nelson DeMille, and others. But with the collapse of the Soviet Union as a threat, Cold War themes rapidly died out.

[2] There have been several films such as The Siege or the more recent American Sniper, and TV shows such as Homeland and the BBC’s award-winning drama The Honourable Woman. In 2014, a new drama appeared on BBC America and is due to play in the UK this April: The Game is set in the 1970s and tells a story of spies fighting the Cold War.

[3]The Times, 4 March 1989.

[4] Michael Walzer, “The Sins of Salman,” The New Republic, 10 April 1989.

[5] The most notorious of the many cases involving perceptions of blasphemy started November 25, 2007, when an English kindergarten teacher at a school in Sudan, Gillian Gibbons, was arrested, interrogated and finally put in a cell at a local police station. Her crime? She had allowed her class of six-year-olds to name their teddy bear “Muhammad.” From this innocent mistake, matters got worse for Gibbons. On November 26, 2007, she was formally charged under Section 125 of the Sudanese Criminal Act, for “insulting religion, inciting hatred, sexual harassment, racism, prostitution and showing contempt for religious beliefs.” Sudan’s top clerics called for the full measure of the law [death] to be used against Mrs. Gibbons; and labeled her actions part of a Western plot against Islam.

On November 29, she was found guilty of “insulting religion” and was sentenced to 15 days’ imprisonment and deportation. The next day, approximately 10,000 protesters, some of them waving swords and machetes, took to the streets in Khartoum, demanding Gibbons’s execution.

In the end, Gibbons was released from jail and allowed to return to Britain. But her case put the fear of savagery in many people’s hearts, as they recognized that it take nothing more than a slip of tongue to bring down death on oneself.

In yet another irony, Sherry Jones, an American writer who said she wanted to bring people together, wrote a novel entitled The Jewel of Medina, a story of the romance (if that is the word) between the Prophet Muhammad and his child bride A’isha, who came to be his most beloved wife. This was a noble project designed to show that Westerners are not all “Islamophobes,” and written in sentimental prose to reassure Muslims of Jones’s warm feelings towards their prophet. Random House bought the story for a large fee. Influenced by the leading apologist for Muhammad, the anti-historian, Karen Armstrong, Jones even bowdlerizes the tale, delaying consummation of the marriage until A’isha had fully attained puberty (despite what the Islamic historians tell us, which is that marriage was apparently consummated when A’isha was nine).

A publication date in 2008 was set and a nationwide tour planned – a promotion few new authors get. But neither Jones nor one of America’s oldest and biggest publishing houses had reckoned with the fallout from The Satanic Verses.

[6] Cited Nick Cohen, You Can’t Read this Book, rev. ed., London, 2013, p. 72.

[7] Danish author Lars Hedegaard has suffered an attack on his life and lives in a secret location. Kurt Westergaard, a Danish cartoonist, has suffered an axe attack that failed, and is under permanent protection the of intelligence services. In 2009, Austrian, a politician, Susanne Winter, was found guilty of “anti-Muslim incitement,” for saying, “In today’s system, the Prophet Mohammad would be considered child-molester,” and that Islam “should be thrown back where it came from, behind the Mediterranean.” She was fined 24,000 euros ($31,000) and given a three-month suspended sentence. In 2011, Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, a former Austrian diplomat and teacher, was put on trial for “denigration of religious beliefs of a legally recognized religion,” found guilty twice, and ordered to pay a fine or face 60 days in prison. Some of her comments may have seemed extreme and fit for criticism, but the court’s failure to engage with her historically accurate charge that Muhammad had sex with a nine-year-old girl and continued to have sex with her until she turned eighteen, regarding her criticism of it as somehow defamatory, and the judge’s decision to punish her for saying something that can be found in Islamic sources, illustrates the betrayal of Western values of free speech in defense of something we would normally penalize.

[8] This backing away from our Enlightenment values has been documented and criticized by many writers, notably Paul Berman in his 2010 The Flight of the Intellectuals, Britain’s Douglas Murray in Islamophilia (2013), or Nick Cohen in You can’t read this book (2012

 

U.S. Lets American Pastor Saeed Abedini Rot in Iran’s Prison

 

Translations of this item:

  • “Recently, prison guards have threatened that even if he serves the full eight years, he will not be released, and that they will find new grounds to continue to hold him indefinitely.” — Naghmeh Abedini, wife of Pastor Saeed Abedini.
  • Shamefully, the U.S. government has said that the four Americans being held by Iran are not even part of the current negotiations with Iran.
  • No wonder the great historian Bernard Lewis says that “America is harmless as an enemy and treacherous as a friend.”

This week, on May 7, Saeed Abedini, an American pastor, will “celebrate” his 35th birthday behind bars in a prison for “violent offenders” in Iran, simply for being a Christian.

He has already been held in two of Iran’s most brutal prisons — first in Evin, and now in Rajai-Shahr — for three years, out of an eight-year sentence.

According to his official website, “On 28 July 2012, during a visit to Tehran to visit family and to finalize the board members for an orphanage he was building in Iran, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard detained Abedini, asserting that he must face criminal charges for his Christian faith.”

American Pastor Saeed Abedini with his family, before his imprisonment in Iran. (Image source: American Center for Law and Justice)

In an interview with Gatestone Institute, Abedini’s wife, Naghmeh Abedini, said that her husband is still exposed to pressures and mistreatment both from the guards and also from different Islamic militant groups within the prison:

“The hardliners and prison guards continue to harass Saeed and threaten him with long prison sentences if he does not deny Christ and return to Islam. Recently, prison guards have threatened that even if he serves the full eight years, he will not be released and that they will find new grounds to continue to hold him indefinitely.”

Mrs. Abedini said that his parents visit him in prison every Wednesday — this was how she learned about his continued harassment by guards and fellow prisoners. “He also does not get clean water or protein,” she reported,

“and this lack of nutrition is causing his health to deteriorate. We have been able to communicate through letters. Unfortunately, any letters sent to him by the regular post have been undelivered and guards have lied and told him that he has not received any of the thousands of letters people have sent to the prison. These letters, even if never delivered to Saeed, are important to his cause. The Iranian government, when they review every letter sent to the prison, sees concern growing all over the world. Despite the government’s attempt to discourage him, he is aware of the hundreds of thousands of people who continually advocate for his release.”

Mrs. Abedini added that their two children last saw him in June of 2012. “They miss him and struggle daily,” she said. “We watch videos and look at albums of him with them to keep his memory alive. It comforts the kids. It is difficult for them emotionally, as anyone might expect. But they are learning to trust God and have the patience to wait.”

Other Iranian converts from Islam — including the Protestant pastor, Youcef Nadarkhani — were also imprisoned for sharing their Christian faith. Hossein Soodmand, who opened a house church in his basement after converting to Christianity, was executed on December 3, 1990 “for remaining steadfast in Christianity.”

The Iran Human Rights Documentation Center (IHRDC) reports:

Under Iranian law, a Muslim who leaves his or her faith or converts to another religion can be charged with apostasy.

In addition, any person, Muslim or non-Muslim, may be charged with the crime of “swearing at the Prophet” if he or she makes utterances that are deemed derogatory towards the Prophet Mohammad, other Shi’a holy figures, or other divine prophets.

Both apostasy and swearing at the Prophet are capital offenses. While the latter has been specifically criminalized in the Islamic Penal Code, the former has not been explicitly mentioned as a crime.

“It is for his faith – no other reason,” said the Reverend Franklin Graham. “If Islam truly is a religion of peace, then why are they holding a man, beating him and torturing him because of his faith in Jesus Christ? If Islam is a religion of peace, then I call on the Iranian President to let Saeed come home to his wife and children and quit torturing him, quit beating him and trying to get him to renounce his Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.”

As Pastor Abedini is held hostage in an Iranian prison, the negotiations regarding Iran’s nuclear program continue. Mrs. Abedini said that she is hoping the U.S. government is pressuring Iran for the release of her husband. Shamefully, though, the U.S. government has apparently said that the four Americans held in Iranian prisons — former U.S. Marine Amir Hekmati; Washington Post journalist Jason Rezaian and retired DEA agent, Robert Levinson, in addition to Abedini — are not even a part of any of the current negotiations with Iran. Said Mrs. Abedini:

“I am expecting that the U.S. government would not walk away from the negotiation table with Iran without having had secured the release of my husband. Saeed is a U.S. citizen. He is a proud American. He has broken no law and the Iranian government has admitted that his only “crime” was peaceful gathering with fellow Christian believers in private homes – and that in their eyes, this act is a threat to the security of Iran. Our government was founded on religious freedom – we must take a strong stand to ensure that this right is protected.”

“By releasing Pastor Saeed, Iran would make an international gesture of goodwill,” noted Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice. “Why doesn’t Iran send a powerful message to the world by sending this husband and father of two young children home?”

No wonder the great historian Bernard Lewis says that “America is harmless as an enemy but treacherous as a friend.” Even to its own citizens.

Uzay Bulut is a Turkish journalist based in Ankara.

 

 

Transhumanism: An Attempt To use Technology To Turn Men Into Gods

By Michael Snyder

Reprinted from The End of the American Dream

04 May 2015

Transhumanism Turning Men Into Gods - Public DomainDid you know that the word “transhuman” literally means “beyond human”?  All over the world, scientists and intellectuals are joining the transhumanism movement.  Those that adhere to this philosophy believe that the time has come for us to use technology to take control of our own evolution.  By doing so, they believe that we can give ourselves superhuman powers and radically extend our lifespans.  Right now, the most popular movie in America is “Avengers: Age of Ultron“, and in recent years we have watched films about “mutants” and “superheroes” become some of Hollywood’s biggest moneymakers.  But transhumanists believe that we will soon be able to literally turn ourselves into such superheroes as technology continues to increase at an exponential rate.  And once we have superhuman powers and superhuman intelligence, they are convinced that we will eradicate all sickness, disease, poverty and war.  Many of them actually believe that we will be able to achieve immortality and establish a utopia on Earth just a few decades from now.  In other words, we won’t need a “God” because we will have become our own gods.

At the core of the transhumanist movement is an unshakable faith in the inevitable technological progress of humanity.  Yes, there are some transhumanists that have doubts, but for most transhumanists the solution to all of our problems is more technology.  If you are not familiar with transhumanism, the following is a really good definition that I recently came across

Transhumanism is a cultural and intellectual movement promoting the aim of transforming the human condition fundamentally by developing – and making available – technologies to enhance human intellectual, physical, and psychological capabilities. Transhumanist thinking studies the potential benefits and hazards of emerging technologies that could overcome basic human limitations. It also addresses ethical matters involved in developing and using such technologies. Some transhumanists predict that human beings may eventually transform themselves into beings with such greatly expanded abilities that they justify a state of being known as ‘posthuman’.

Transhumanists want to help humans live much longer, and they also want to dramatically increase the quality of those lives.  Ultimately, most transhumanists are fully convinced that they will be able to defeat death altogether.  The following is a short excerpt from an ExtremeTech article

One of the core concepts in transhumanist thinking is life extension: Through genetic engineering, nanotech, cloning, and other emerging technologies, eternal life may soon be possible. Likewise, transhumanists are interested in the ever-increasing number of technologies that can boost our physical, intellectual, and psychological capabilities beyond what humans are naturally capable of (thus the term transhuman). Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), for example, which speeds up reaction times and learning speed by running a very weak electric current through your brain, has already been used by the U.S. military to train snipers. On the more extreme side, transhumanism deals with the concepts of mind uploading (to a computer), and what happens when we finally craft a computer with greater-than-human intelligence (the technological singularity).

The above symbol is called the transhumanism barnstar — you may be seeing it appear more frequently in the very near future.

 

So would you like to live forever armed with superhuman powers?

The most famous transhumanist in the world, Ray Kurzweil, actually believes that he is going to be able to do that.  But first he has to stay alive long enough for the technologies that he believes are coming to be developed.  So Kurzweil takes 150 supplements a day in an attempt to keep his body in peak condition…

The youthful 65-year-old currently takes 150 supplements a day, which he argues is the first bridge.

The idea is to build enough bridges to ensure the body holds out long enough for life-lengthening technology to come into its own.

He has likened the biology of the body to computer software and believes we are all ‘out of date’.

Kurzweil is absolutely convinced that if he can just stretch his life out long enough that technologies that will enable him to achieve immortality are right around the corner.  In fact, in a piece that he wrote for CNN he expressed his belief that our medical technologies will be “a million times more powerful” than they are today just two decades from now…

Health and medicine is now an information technology and is therefore subject to what I call the “law of accelerating returns,” which is a doubling of capability (for the same cost) about each year that applies to any information technology.

As a result, technologies to reprogram the “software” that underlie human biology are already a thousand times more powerful than they were when the genome project was completed in 2003, and will again be a thousand times more powerful than they are today in a decade, and a million times more powerful in two decades.

So will he be right?

We will just have to wait and see.

For a long time, many in the transhumanist movement (including Kurzweil) have been pointing to a time period between 2030 and 2050 during which they believe something remarkable will happen.  They believe that during that time period something known as “the singularity” will occur.  As technology increases at an exponential rate, they believe that artificial intelligence will begin to greatly surpass human intelligence at some point, and that humanity will merge with this new super intelligence.  Once that happens, they believe that the world will change in ways that we cannot even comprehend today

Kurzweil and his followers believe that a crucial turning point will be reached around the year 2030, when information technology achieves ‘genuine’ intelligence, at the same time as biotechnology enables a seamless union between us and this super-smart new technological environment. Ultimately the human-machine mind will become free to roam a universe of its own creation, uploading itself at will on to a “suitably powerful computational substrate”. We will become essentially god-like in our powers.

Does that sound good to you, or does it sound frightening?

Other transhumanists are not quite as optimistic as Kurzweil and his followers.  Just consider what Max Tegmark, the author of Our Mathematical Universe: My Quest for the Ultimate Nature of Reality, had to say about what life will be like after “the singularity”…

After this, life on Earth would never be the same. Whoever or whatever controls this technology would rapidly become the world’s wealthiest and most powerful, outsmarting all financial markets, out-inventing and out-patenting all human researchers, and out-manipulating all human leaders. Even if we humans nominally merge with such machines, we might have no guarantees whatsoever about the ultimate outcome, making it feel less like a merger and more like a hostile corporate takeover.

Even some of the most prominent scientists in the world are skeptical of what an ultra-powerful artificial intelligence would mean for the future of humanity.  The following is an excerpt from an article co-authored by Stephen Hawking

Looking further ahead, there are no fundamental limits to what can be achieved: there is no physical law precluding particles from being organized in ways that perform even more advanced computations than the arrangements of particles in human brains. An explosive transition is possible, although it may play out differently than in the movie: as Irving Good realized in 1965, machines with superhuman intelligence could repeatedly improve their design even further, triggering what Vernor Vinge called a “singularity” and Johnny Depp’s movie character calls “transcendence.” One can imagine such technology outsmarting financial markets, out-inventing human researchers, out-manipulating human leaders, and developing weapons we cannot even understand. Whereas the short-term impact of AI depends on who controls it, the long-term impact depends on whether it can be controlled at all.

But despite these reservations from many in the scientific community, many transhumanists are pushing ahead as hard as they can.  Many of them are absolutely convinced that what they are doing will bring a new golden age to this planet.  Just consider the words of transhumanist Zoltan Istvan

Despite this, people continue to worry that technology and science that make our species more transhuman will be used to create a deeper divide in society for the haves and have-nots. Those worries are unfounded. A close examination of the issues show that transhumanist technology and science liberates us, brings us better health, and has improved the living standards of all people around the world. If you value liberty, equality and progress, it makes sense to embrace the coming age of transhumanism.

Doesn’t that sound wonderful?

And there are even some transhumanists that couch their hopes and dreams for the future in religious terminology.  For example, transhumanist Mark Pesce is fully convinced that transhumanism will allow ordinary humans “to become as gods”

“Men die, planets die, even stars die. We know all this. Because we know it, we seek something more—a transcendence of transience, translation to incorruptible form. An escape if you will, a stop to the wheel. We seek, therefore, to bless ourselves with perfect knowledge and perfect will; To become as gods, take the universe in hand, and transform it in our image—for our own delight. As it is on Earth, so it shall be in the heavens. The inevitable result of incredible improbability, the arrow of evolution is lipping us into the transhuman – an apotheosis to reason, salvation – attained by good works.”

That is some pretty strong stuff.

 

U.S. State Dept. Invites Muslim Leaders, Denies Christians

 

Translations of this item:

  • “After the [Christian governor] told them [U.S. authorities] that they were ignoring the 12 Shariah states who (sic) institutionalized persecution … he suddenly developed visa problems. … The question remains — why is the U.S. downplaying or denying the attacks against Christians?” — Emmanuel Ogebe, Nigerian human rights lawyer based in Washington D.C.
  • “In the same week that the State Dept says it will take the engagement of religious leaders seriously … it refuses a visa to a persecuted Christian nun who has fled ISIS, Sister Diana.” — Chris Seiple, President, Institute for Global Engagement.

Late on the evening of May 8, Newsmax TV announced that pressure from Americans acquainted with Sister Diana Momeka’s visa rejection has just caused the State Department to reverse its decision and permit her entry into the United States. Until then, however, she and others were barred

After inviting a number of foreign religious leaders, mostly Muslim, the U.S. State Department, for the second time in a row, denied the sole Christian representative a visa — despite (or perhaps because of) the fact that Christians are the ones being persecuted by Muslims.

Sister Diana, an influential Iraqi Christian leader and spokeswoman who was scheduled to visit the U.S. to advocate for persecuted Christians in the Mideast, earlier this month was denied a visa by the U.S. State Department, even though she had visited the U.S. before, most recently in 2012.

Sister Diana was to be one of a delegation of religious leaders from Iraq — including Shia and Yazidi — to visit Washington, D.C., to describe the situation of their people. Every single religious leader from this delegation was granted a visa — except for the only Christian representative, Sister Diana.

Similarly, in March 2014, after the United States Institute for Peace (USIP) brought together the governors of Nigeria’s mostly Muslim northern states for a conference in the U.S., the State Department had also blocked the visa of the region’s only Christian governor, Jonah David Jang, an ordained minister, citing “administrative” problems. The USIP confirmed that all 19 northern governors were invited, but the organization did not respond to requests for comments on why they would hold talks without the region’s only Christian governor.

According to Emmanuel Ogebe, a Nigerian human rights lawyer based in Washington D.C., the Christian governor’s “visa problems” are due to anti-Christian bias in the U.S. government:

The U.S. insists that Muslims are the primary victims of Boko Haram. It also claims that Christians discriminate against Muslims in Plateau, which is one of the few Christian majority states in the north. After the [Christian governor] told them [U.S. authorities] that they were ignoring the 12 Shariah states who (sic) institutionalized persecution … he suddenly developed visa problems. … The question remains — why is the U.S. downplaying or denying the attacks against Christians?

Regarding Sister Diana, determined Christian and human rights activists in the U.S. called on the State Department to reverse its decision. According to Johnnie Moore, an activist who met her in Iraq: “Sister Momeka is a gift to the world and a humanitarian whose work reminded me — when I met her in Iraq — of Mother Teresa. It is incomprehensible to me that the State Department would not be inviting Momeka on an official visit to the United States, as opposed to barring her from entry.”

The Iraqi Christian nun, Sister Diana Momeka (left), this month received a visa to visit the U.S. as part of a delegation of foreign religious leaders. The State Dept. had originally denied her visa request, only allowing in non-Christian delegates. Last year, the United States Institute for Peace invited to the U.S. the Muslim governors of Nigeria’s northern states, but the sole Christian governor, Plateau State Gov. Jonah David Jang (right), was denied a visa.

Chris Seiple, President of the Institute for Global Engagement, wrote in a post, “In the same week that the State Dept says it will take the engagement of religious leaders seriously (as announced in its quadrennial review two days ago), it refuses a visa to a persecuted Christian nun who has fled ISIS, Sister Diana.”

Similarly, discussing the nun’s visa denial, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said: “This is an administration which never seems to find a good enough excuse to help Christians, but always finds an excuse to apologize for terrorists … I hope that as it gets attention that Secretary [of State John] Kerry will reverse it. If he doesn’t, Congress has to investigate, and the person who made this decision ought to be fired.”

In an interview on Newsmax TV with host J.D. Hayworth, Johnnie Moore credited Newsmax TV viewers with helping to put enormous pressure on the Obama administration to allow Sister Diana Momeka to come to Washington to talk about the persecution of Christians in her war-torn nation: “It worked — people raised their voices. They wrote their congressmen and senators, they put pressure on everybody, everywhere. … She has been approved. … It’s exhibit A of what happens when people in this country start raising their voices.”

But Ogebe’s question remains: Why is the U.S. downplaying or denying attacks against Christians?

 

 

10 Pictures That Show How America Is Becoming A Lot Like Nazi Germany

By Michael Snyder

Reprinted from The End of the American Dream

14 May 2015

Prison Fence - Public DomainThe history books tell us about how evil and wicked the Nazis were, so why aren’t we more alarmed that the United States is becoming more like Nazi Germany with each passing day?  More than three years ago, I wrote an article entitled “25 Signs That America Is Rapidly Becoming More Like Nazi Germany” which got a ton of attention.  Unfortunately, nothing has gotten better since I first published that piece.  Government control freaks are still watching us, tracking us, recording our phone calls and monitoring our emails.  TSA thugs at our airports are still fondling the private parts of our women and children and laughing while they do it.  Our police and our military are still training for civil unrest and martial law in America.  And even though our politicians are socializing our economy and destroying our constitutional freedoms, the American people keep sending most of them back to Washington time after time.  It is an incredibly sad thing to watch the country that you love slowly die right in front of your eyes.

“In the 1920’s the Nazi party in Germany started as the seed within one man’s evil mind. Through mesmerizing rhetoric, the ability to make a moving speech, the man gained some followers. They grew in a time of trouble, in a time of despair and confusion within Germany by staging regular marches through the streets of German cities and towns. Soon the movement gained more followers by merely being visible and on the streets, and more still as times grew tense and difficult until came the point the evil man who had the seed grow and take root and attract blind followers cast its darkness over all of Europe and threatened the world. What is coming soon  will make Adolf Hitler, Himler, Goebbels, and Nazi Germany appear as amateurs. Nazi Germany was a precursor, a sign to all of what is possible and it was merely a small creation of what is to come and to devour the world casting it into utter darkness and evil with the rise to power of the Antichrist and his false prophet which the world will serve gladly, openly, just as the German people embraced and worshipped Hitler who had brought them out of despair with his constant droning positive message refusing to permit the truth to enter he kept the people hypnotized pulling them out of their fear and despair to follow him wherever he led them and they blindly obediently followed. Evil has learned and only grown stronger since the 1930’s, 1940’s.  Nazi Germany, Adolf Hitler, all that Nazi Germany represents will pale in comparison to what is coming to a nation near you soon, very, very soon.” ~ Ken Pullen (administrator of “A Crooked Path”).

 

At the heart of Nazism was a desire to control everyone and everything, and that is exactly what we are seeing in America today.  Most of our “leaders” are psychotic control freaks that want to micromanage every aspect of our lives.  For example, a bill that was just introduced in Congress would force all children in public schools nationwide to be vaccinated with no exceptions whatsoever.  Other new legislation that was just introduced would ban all sales of ammunition over the Internet and require ammo dealers to report all bulk sales to individuals to the government.  Our founders intended for this nation to be a place where individual freedom and liberty were maximized, but today we literally have millions of laws, rules and regulations that wrap us so tightly in red tape that we can hardly breathe.

To say that we are becoming just like the Nazis is a very strong statement, but I think that after reviewing the evidence you will agree with me.  The following are 10 pictures that show how America is becoming just like Nazi Germany…

#1 It surprises most people to learn that the Nazis were actually radical leftists that had great animosity for free market capitalism.  For example, National Socialist theologian Gregor Strasser once made the following statement

We National Socialists are enemies, deadly enemies, of the present capitalist system with its exploitation of the economically weak … and we are resolved under all circumstances to destroy this system.

With that in mind, I want you to check out the following political cartoon from 1934.  The same kinds of things that helped the communists rise to power in Russia and the Nazis rise to power in Germany are happening in the United States today…

Chicago Tribune Cartoon 1934

#2 Just like in Nazi Germany, political leaders in America tend to foster cult followings.  At this point, there are millions of Americans that would support Barack Obama and believe whatever he had to say even if he was sacrificing children on the White House lawn.  These kinds of followers are called “sheeple” for a reason…

Obama And His Sheep - from Facebook

#3 The Nazis were well known for their brutal police tactics, and that is definitely true of us today.  The following photo is a powerful commentary on the transformation of police in America over the past several decades…

Police State 2014

Just recently, representatives from 117 countries confronted the U.S. about all of this police brutality at the United Nations’ Human Rights Council.  Unfortunately, I don’t think that this is actually going to change anything…

The United States was slammed over its rights record Monday at the United Nations’ Human Rights Council, with member nations criticizing the country for police violence and racial discrimination, the Guantánamo Bay Detention Facility and the continued use of the death penalty.

The issue of racism and police brutality dominated the discussion on Monday during the country’s second universal periodic review (UPR). Country after country recommended that the U.S. strengthen legislation and expand training to eliminate racism and excessive use of force by law enforcement.

#4 Why do so many of our police insist on dressing up like Darth Vader these days?  Yes, I know that body armor is called for in certain situations, but many believe that the primary goal of these outfits is to intimidate.  The following photo was submitted to Flickr by Elvert Barnes…

Police Dressed Up Like Darth Vader - Photo from Elvert Barnes on Flickr

#5 In recent years, the American people have become conditioned to seeing troops in our streets.  This next picture is from the Ferguson protests.  The fact that sharpshooters were deployed on rooftops during the unrest there is more than a little disconcerting…

Police sharpshooter with weapon trained in the direction of the camera at protests in Ferguson - Photo by Jamelle Bouie

#6 Just like in Ferguson, when rioting started in Baltimore the police were initially ordered to stand down and allow it to spiral out of control.  Then after a few hours, National Guard troops were finally deployed to help restore order.  We are slowly getting used to the idea that martial law in our cities is a good thing…

Maryland_National_Guard - photo from Maryland National Guard

#7 Meanwhile, “progressives” continue to use our system of public education to launch a relentless attack on the values that this country was founded upon.  The Nazis were also big believers in “public education”, and they used it with shocking efficiency.  Today, our children are being brainwashed to accept “progressive values”, and most Americans don’t seem to be too concerned about what is happening…

Guns And Bible

#8 Yes, the Nazis loved gun control.  In fact, they eventually had everyone in the general population turn in their guns, and that is precisely what the “progressives” would love to see take place in the U.S. today.  But what would this country look like if that actually happened?  I think that this next photo which has been circulating on Facebook gives us a clue…

Turn In Your Arms

#9 Under the Nazis, the Germans were taught to salute a new flag and to adopt an entirely new set of values.  In America today, it is not “politically correct” to display the American flag publicly or to show honor for it.  Instead, we are being trained to think of ourselves as “global citizens” and to never question the growing power of international institutions such as the United Nations.  Fortunately, there are many Americans that never plan to accept the “global governance” that the elitists have planned…

I Never Pledged Allegiance To This Flag

#10 In the end, the reason why the Nazis were so successful in Germany was because the vast majority of the German population simply complied with their demands.  As Americans, we are going to be faced with our own choices in the years ahead…

Eagle Rising

So what do you think?

Is America becoming more like Nazi Germany?

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

No comments yet.

Leave a Reply, please --- thank you.

Powered by WordPress. Designed by WooThemes