Faith Goldy and Laura Loomer vs. ICNA and Sharia in Toronto

Laura Loomer is an investigative reporter, and Faith Goldy is a former reporter for Rebel Media who is now running for mayor of Toronto.

In the following video (which was recorded yesterday) we see Ms. Loomer and Ms. Goldy having a close encounter with the luminaries of ICNA, the Islamic Circle of North America. ICNA had announced an event for October 7 called the “Carry the Light Convention” featuring Linda Sarsour. The event was billed as free and open to the public — specifically to “anyone seeking the knowledge”.

It turns out that “the public” in this particular case meant “the Muslim public” — i.e. it was using sharia terminology.

Here’s what happened when the two infidel ladies tried to get in:

As it happens, ICNA is included in the Muslim Brotherhood’s 1991 Explanatory Memorandum [pdf] as one of the groups in the “list of our organizations and the organizations of our friends”. In other words, ICNA was an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation Trial in 2008.

These are the beloved friends of Prime Minister Justin “Baby Doc” Trudeau. Since all of this is happening in Canada, I presume these earnest folks receive funding from the federal government.

Wait! What!? Quebec Trumps Trudeau?

This is good news!

One commenter left some thoughts and information:

Canadian here… I can attest to the accuracy of your analyses of the political situation in Canada. I just wanted to add a couple of things…
On the Federal level, we have two main parties – Trudeau’s Liberal Party, and the Conservative Party of Canada. Of course, under normal circumstances, we would hope that the latter takes over from Trudeau’s Liberals in the next election, but increasingly, many of us Canadians have become disillusioned with the federal Conservative Party, calling them “Liberal-light” because there seems to be little difference between their platform and the Liberals.

Now a new party has been formed to challenge the two dominant parties, led by a politician from Quebec who was formerly a Conservative Party member but left. His name is Max Bernier. He is a libertarian who wants to reduce government and has made some stunning criticisms of Trudeau’s immigration policies and “extreme diversity”. He just formed a new party he is calling “The People’s Party of Canada”, and many of us are very excited about his platform. He seems to be starting out with a significant popularity measured at between 6% and 10% before the party has even been formally accredited. Keep your eyes on this!

Some commenters expressed concern over this new party as it might split the vote.

In reading the comments I learned more about Trudeau. I knew he was a teacher of some sort, but one person said he was a substitute teacher and another said he was a drama teacher. In American schools, a substitute drama teacher is a warm body.

In Navy parlance, a “warm body” was some room-temperature-IQ swabbie who could tell the difference between something that was on fire and something that wasn’t on fire. This was necessary when hulls were being stripped of old paint and the friction caused by high-speed electric metal tools used to remove the old the paint could reach high temperatures, potentially causing those metal hulls to ignite. Whether modern navies still do this is questionable, but if they do, it’s another vocation for Trudeau to consider. He’d definitely look cute in a sailor suit.

Canada’s prospects are looking up. But what will they do for laughs in the frozen north without Trudeau’s socks and outlandish ethnic costumes for amusement??

By the way, Dr. Turley says that YouTube has demonetized his channel. Quelle surprise! I think he has PayPal donations set up, in addition to his Patreon subscriptions.

Christine Douglass-Williams on the Suppression of Free Speech in Canada

During last week’s OSCE/ODIHR conference in Warsaw, the Counterjihad Collective organized a side event entitled “Why Does Europe Hate Speech?” The following video from the event shows a talk given by Christine Douglass-Williams about the suppression of “hate speech” in Canada — which has grown increasingly totalitarian, especially under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

Many thanks to Vlad Tepes for editing and uploading this video:

For links to previous articles about the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, see the OSCE Archives.

New Information About the Danforth Shooting in Toronto

Back in July we reported on a mass shooting at a café in the Greektown district of Toronto by an allegedly mentally disturbed young man named Faisal Hussain. Mr. Hussain killed two people and wounded thirteen more before killing himself.

At the time there wasn’t much publicly available information about the gunman except for the usual sanitized boilerplate put out by the authorities and dutifully passed on by the Canadian MSM. It was obvious that information was being suppressed, and we were not being told everything the authorities knew about Faisal Hussain.

However, an official police document has now been made public, albeit in redacted form. In the following video Ezra Levant of Rebel Media analyzes this document in detail:

Hat tip: Vlad Tepes.

“Killing Canada” Now Available Free on YouTube

The following article was published earlier at Vlad Tepes in a slightly different form.

Killing Canada (Was Oh Canada!) now available free on YouTube

Michael Hansen, the maker of the important documentary Killing Europe, released his second project just this past weekend in Ottawa and Toronto called Oh Canada!, now renamed to Killing Canada.

The film in its simplest terms was about how various lawyers who champion the phoney human right not to be offended, at the expense of the genuine human right to freedom of speech, and certain government officials broke rules and used deception to cancel the showing of Killing Europe, as well as even cancelling his planned talk at the Ottawa Public Library on why and how they cancelled the film some months earlier.

Both Ottawa and Toronto audiences felt this needed to be seen by everyone, and most certainly in Canada.

And so Michael has now made it available on YouTube for free and for all.

Please send the link to all you can if you feel as strongly as we do that this movie exposes some of the truly pernicious machinery within Canada for the purposes of shutting down all discussion on certain transformational subjects. As a nation, Canada does not have a lot of chances left. One more term of Trudeau and its anyone’s guess what sort of culture and legal system Canada will have by the end. I suspect only the Swedes know for sure.

For all who appreciate Hansen’s work, please consider contributing to it here. I speak for many of us when I say that we would like him to continue making films like this one and Killing Europe. So if you feel it was worth your time, please consider donating to Michael, at least the cost of a movie ticket or two weeks subscription to the nearly fully Postmodern Netflix.

For those who have not seen Killing Europe and wish a greater contextual understanding of the documentary above, Killing Europe can be seen below in full.

Anyone who wishes to arrange a showing of either or both of these films at a local theatre, community centre or library or classroom, may download these videos from YouTube (please make sure you get at least 1080p version) and show them.

If you would like to arrange to have Michael speak to your audience after the showing, you may arrange this with him at the website www.killingfreespeech.com.

Islamophilic Billboards Defaced by Islamophobic Vandal in Quebec

I assume the propaganda posters shown in this video were put up by the municipal government in Quebec City, or by the provincial government, or perhaps by the Federal government. In any case, the vandal who defaced them is obviously not on board with the State’s multiculti program, and needs to get his mind right. When the government catches up with him, it will be re-education time…

Many thanks to Ava Lon for the translation, and to Vlad Tepes for the subtitling:

Video transcript:

Continue reading

The Five Choices


Sweden — The Partition of India

Update from the Baron:I was using Dymphna’s computer, and forgot to log in as the Baron before posting. But this really is one of my posts.

Ten years ago, El Inglés wrote his ground-breaking essay about the dilemma that Western Europe is currently facing, “Surrender, Genocide… or What?”. It made heads explode even among certain of our supposedly “conservative” allies.

Last week we discussed partition, which is a third option.

Now our long-time commenter RonaldB has added two more options in remarks about the fall of Uppsala. He was specifically addressing the situation in Sweden, but his descriptions are equally applicable to all of Western Europe and the UK, with Canada and Australia moving along right behind them. Even the USA will face the same dilemma, at least in some of our major metropolitan areas, within fifteen or twenty years, so this is something we should all be thinking about carefully.

Option #5 is “Genocide”, but I would assume it includes ethnic cleansing, which might be called “Genocide Lite”.

Remember: The most important thing about these options is not whether one or another of them is the one you prefer. There are two important questions to consider (besides the morality of the chosen solution):

1.   Is the choice politically possible? For instance, I often hear statements to the effect that “All seditious Muslims must be immediately deported, all the mosques must be closed, and all the globalist elite traitors must be tried and executed.” OK, I hear the suggestion. But it is not politically possible, neither now nor for the foreseeable future. So why bother discussing it?
2.   Is the choice viable? That is, even if it is politically possible, would it work? Can it accomplish its goals, or is it almost certain to fail? It’s my contention that partition might be just barely possible in political terms (after all, it was implemented in India in 1947), but it is not viable — it would fail, and fail quickly. Western Europe and India are very different cases.
 

Dymphna and I will shortly be going out for a little while. Y’all can start the discussion, and when we get back, we’ll moderate the comments.

Here’s what RonaldB had to say:

1.   Surrender
    This is indistinguishable from what they’re doing now. Withdraw the police, allow sharia law, sharia enforcement police, sharia courts to do as they wish, and continue sending in welfare and public assistance, including housing and medical care, for any Muslim from the area who applies for it.
2.   Partition
    Build a wall or impenetrable fence around the area, move any Muslims or immigrants in the surrounding area into the partitioned territory, and leave it alone. The main difference between this and surrender is that people from inside the area will not be allowed into Sweden, and no assistance will be given. They can apply to the EU, Saudi Arabia, or anyone else who wants to give them money. Whether they starve will no longer be a concern.
3.   Mass expulsions
    This will take some real planning, as a place must be found to expel the immigrants to. The Israelis had the right idea: pay a head tax to some local despot for every head he accepts, and don’t concern yourself too much with what happens to them after they get there.
4.   A horrific crackdown, completely discarding individual rights
    A simple military movement will not have much effect, because the organized Muslims can simply assassinate anyone who gets in their way. You would have to have a security apparatus akin to Saddam Hussein’s secret police, or Savak or the British Tans who controlled Ireland. The city would be treated as occupied territory. Unfortunately, the welfare and aid would probably continue under this scenario.
5.   Genocide
    There are so many other ways of handling this that genocide would be profoundly immoral.
    Afterword
    Those are all the possibilities I can think of. I don’t think there is a possibility of putting a lid on the situation and pretending it’s been settled. The Muslims feel its time to assert their control, so they’re now in the last stages of jihad and aren’t about to pull back for bribes or appeals to reason or civic pride.
 

Woman Heckles Trudeau; RCMP Tries to Arrest Her

During a talk at a recent rally in Quebec, Prime Minister Justin “Baby Doc” Trudeau was interrupted by a woman who repeatedly demanded answers to questions about reimbursement for the cost of illegal immigrants. She was loud enough to get Mr. Trudeau’s attention and divert him from his prepared remarks.

The first half of the following video shows the interruptions by the impertinent woman, with English subtitles. The second half (untranslated) shows her being approached by an undercover cop for the RCMP, who takes hold of her by the arm and tells her that she will have to come with him. She resists, and eventually manages to get her arm loose. She’s a very spirited woman, and upbraids the cop vigorously for bruising her arm.

Apparently he tells her that she was threatening the prime minister, which she derisively denies. When asked for her ID, she says she’s doesn’t have any with her, and no, she’s not going to tell him her name.

If more Westerners were like this woman, it would be a lot harder for our mendacious leaders to foist off millions of third-world immigrants on us and still get re-elected.

For a version of the second half with a close-captioned translation, see this YouTube video.

Many thanks to the anonymous translator, and to Vlad Tepes for the subtitling:

Video transcript:

Continue reading

O Canada!

This mosque in Ottawa lost its status as a charity for hate speech against Jews, gays, and women.

As the narrator, Alexandra Belaire, points out, they have many verified incidents of hate speech plus one member who tried to join ISIS (who is now sitting in prison), and yet they haven’t been brought before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal?? Hey, if it was good enough for Mark Steyn, why isn’t it suitable to stitch up these guys?

You’ll notice some wind interference, but it was shot by Vlad Tepes, so blame him, eh? Turning on the caption feature eliminates any problems with comprehension. That’s why it’s here…for your edification.

What Really Happened on Danforth Avenue in Toronto?

Last Monday a mentally disturbed young man named Faisal Hussain went on a shooting rampage at a café in the Greektown district of Toronto. Two people were killed in the unfortunate incident and thirteen more wounded.

The gunman’s motives remain mysterious. It is thought that he frequented extremist websites, and in the past had traveled to Afghanistan and Pakistan, but Toronto police said that he had no apparent connection to terrorism. One thing is certain: the incident had nothing to do with Islam.

A few days ago Vlad Tepes interviewed the former CIA station chief Brad Johnson about last week’s events in Toronto. In their discussion Vlad and Mr. Johnson speculated about some possible angles to the Faisal Hussein case that the Toronto police might have missed:

Faisal Hussain: A Nut Case With No Connection to Terrorism

It’s official: the Toronto shooter was a culture-enricher named Faisal Hussain. I’m a WAYCIST, so all I can say is: “What did you expect?”

Now it’s time to dust off the media mantra. Everybody repeat after me: “A lone wolf with a history of psychological problems who was radicalized online, with no connection to terrorism.” Keep repeating that until your eyes glaze over and your brain’s higher functions shut down.

Then you will be well-equipped to add, without further prompting: “The incident had nothing to do with Islam.”

The shooter’s bereaved family has already started the ball rolling by issuing a press release about their late son’s psychological difficulties. Here’s the latest CBC report:

Faisal Hussain ID’d as Gunman in Deadly Danforth Shooting Attack

Faisal Hussain has been identified as the gunman in the deadly Danforth Avenue shooting rampage. He was 29 and lived in the Thorncliffe Park neighbhourhood of Toronto.

Family of 29-year-old shooter says he had severe mental health issues

Ontario’s Special Investigations Unit (SIU) released Hussain’s identity on Monday evening, hours after he opened fire on a number of Danforth Avenue restaurants, killing two people and injuring 13 more.

Hussain, 29, then died of a gunshot wound after exchanging fire with Toronto police. The SIU is looking into whether Hussain was shot by police, or if he shot himself.

Earlier Monday, police executed a search warrant at Hussain’s residence, in the city’s Thorncliffe Park neighbourhood.

Hussain’s family issued an email statement to CBC Toronto saying they are devastated by what happened and suggested that their son was struggling with severe mental health challenges, including psychosis and depression.

“We are at a terrible loss for words but we must speak out to express our deepest condolences to the families who are now suffering on account of our son’s horrific actions,” the family’s statement said.

Hat tip: Vlad Tepes.

Mr. Smith Goes to Toronto

There was a mass shooting last night in Toronto. The incident may not merit the term massacre, since “only” two people were killed, with twelve others wounded.

I don’t know how the perp acquired his weapon, since Canada has such strict gun control. You’re not supposed to be able to buy a handgun up there in the Frozen North. The law obviously needs to be tightened…

Anyway, the incident has all the hallmarks of an Islamic terrorist attack, although it could also be the work of a common-or-garden psycho. However, early indicators are that the guy is at least a dark-complected culture-enricher, since the media are fastidiously avoiding giving out a name or description.

I’ll give a larger excerpt below, but here’s the relevant snip from CTV News:

Saunders said it’s too early to say what motivated the shooting.

“I’m looking at absolutely every single possible motive,” Saunders said.

[…]

Chris Lewis, CTV’s public safety analyst and a former commissioner of the OPP, said investigators would be looking into whether the man was working alone or had accomplices in planning or carrying out the shooting, what he may have been reading or talking about online, and how he obtained his gun.

“Was he inspired by some terrorist group? Was this a specific vendetta to kill a specific person and then he shot everybody else in his path?” he said.

When we eventually learn his “motive”, it will in all probability be that of a “lone wolf” who was “radicalized online”, with “no connection to terrorism”. In other words, unless a membership card for the Islamic State (or Al Qaeda, or Boko Haram, or Al Shabaab) was found in the pocket of the corpse, the perpetrator can’t have been a “terrorist”.

When I got up this morning I hailed Vlad on skype, hoping a card-carrying Canadian could give me more information, but he didn’t know any more than I did:

Baron:   Any word on the Toronto massacre? The article I read was very cagey about “motive”. No perp name, natch.
Vlad:   Yep. And the video link I sent you edits out where they seem about to give descriptions.
Baron:   So no name yet? The name will tell us, unless he’s a revert.
Vlad:   No, I think they are looking for any piece of paper he ever signed in his life where he didn’t use “Mohammed”.
Baron:   Lol
Baron:   Too true to be funny, actually.
Vlad:   So we will hear his name is “gimme ya numba”, as he left that on a napkin at a bar.
Baron:   Or he got a fake driver’s license using “John Smith”. All the media reports can then refer to him as “Smith, a Canadian citizen”.
Vlad:   Yes.
 

This is a screen cap from one of the videos showing the shooter in action:

I can’t tell anything about the fellow from this photo. He could easily be one of those new Martian immigrants brought into Canada under Justin Trudeau’s Interplanetary Refugee Resettlement Initiative.

Here’s a larger excerpt from the CTV News report:

Continue reading

Social Justice: An Analysis (Part 1)

Below is the first part of a four-part guest essay by Richard Cocks about Social Justice (and also, of course, Social Justice Warriors).

Social Justice: An Analysis

by Richard Cocks

Part 1

Cosmic justice: infantile and nihilistic

Social class, home environment, genetics and other factors all contribute to differences between individuals. People differ in looks, height, income, social status, morality, various kinds of intelligence and athleticism, musical ability, industriousness, discipline, and every other human characteristic. Differences in culture, history, and geography generate differences between groups. Being born into a culture that emphasizes hard work, education, conscientiousness, and thrift is a tremendous advantage.

“Social justice” advocates describe the resulting disparate achievements as “inequalities” with the suggestion that these represent some kind of injustice. Unequal achievement is treated as though it must be the result of discrimination, “privilege” or some other unfairness, while it is in fact the inevitable consequence of differences between individuals and groups. These differences will exist no matter how a society is organized, barring a race to the bottom where the laziest, least talented individual set the bar and every achievement that surpasses that pitiful measure gets confiscated and distributed — removing any incentive to do anything much at all.

Very young children and even some animals[1] have a sense of justice or fairness. In humans this starts out with an intuitive perception, later gets modified by reflection and culture, which in turn influences what gets perceived as just or unjust. Iain McGilchrist describes this as right hemisphere perception, left hemisphere mid-level processing, returning once more to the right hemisphere.[2]

An egocentric child, without prompting, can perceive that receiving a small ice cream while his brother gets a large one is unfair and unjust.[3] However, he is also likely to think that the fact that his older brother has fewer restrictions on what he can do than he does is unfair. Both cases generate resentment. However, only one is justified.

In the second case, being older and thus a little wiser, the older brother does not need as much supervision. He is more capable, self-sufficient and responsible, and therefore has more privileges. These privileges might seem unfair and unjust in some “cosmic” sense, but they are in fact perfectly reasonable.[4] His parents are not being unjust at all. It is merely that age and experience are on the side of the older brother. To harbor resentment at the parents is unreasonable, unfair and unjust. They are blameless. To resent the brother is also ridiculous. There will always be an older sibling as long as siblings exist. The protest is misguided.

Part of the maturation process is learning to distinguish between events that are due to favoritism, attempts to solicit elicit sexual favors, or some other inequity and occurrences that are the result of relevant differences between people. To feel resentful towards someone merely because he is better in some way, such as in looks, status, wealth, or popularity, is in some sense natural. It is also puerile and undeserved. It is a sin in the literal sense of missing the mark. Certainly the envied person is not at fault simply for being superior. The defect is in the heart of the malicious resentful one.

It is true that even a relatively happy, mature person will almost inevitably suffer occasionally from this kind of inappropriate resentment, but he recognizes that the fault lies in his own breast, not in the other person.

By failing to distinguish between deserved resentment and inappropriate hatred towards someone or some group simply for being superior in some way, “social justice” returns people to an infantile inability to differentiate between resentment based on actual unjust treatment, and resentment that is generated simply by the desire to have or be what someone else has or is.

If the universe itself can be considered unjust in some way, due to the unequal distribution of admirable characteristics, it is not the fault or responsibility of man and it is not in man’s power to fix. It is certainly not the fault of “society,” which the phrase “social justice” implies. Justice and fairness appropriately considered enter the picture only with regard to human institutions and rules.

To reject inequalities is to rebel against reality itself. All people bar two are superior to some and inferior to others in any conceivable characteristic. To reject that fact is to renounce the character of existing at all.

One response to existence and Being is to reject it; to decide that it is better never to have lived and then, having lived, to end it as soon as possible. Mass shooters act out the intention not just to end their own lives, but to kill as many as they can in a rejection of Life itself.[5] Social justice warriors are engaged in a similar kind of nihilism. Scapegoating and killing the “kulaks”[6] in the manner of Stalin has no logical end. Since differences of achievement are unavoidable, the logic of social justice is the complete destruction of the human race. By encouraging undeserved resentment against individuals and whole sectors of society, “social justice” activists ramp up intergroup hatreds that promote internecine conflict and, if unchecked, will lead to more horrible violence than simply one individual picking up a gun. Once the scapegoated group is murdered, differing levels of success within the persecuting group remain, and the process will continue.

To reward merit or productivity?

In thinking about economic success, Thomas Sowell recommends simply jettisoning the notion of merit. He argues that “the concept of merit brings an insult to misfortune and arrogance to achievement.”[7] It is impossible to separate how much achievement is the result of talent, for which a person can take no credit, and how much is the result of industriousness. On the face of it, hard work seems meritorious. However, even industriousness tends to be highly affected by familial and cultural influences; an unearned advantage. This means that it is not possible to assess merit. What can be rewarded — what is known how to reward — is productivity.

Rewarding productivity creates an incentive to be productive, and all tend to benefit. They benefit because rewarding productivity encourages using the latest technology and most effective methods, raising the quality of products while reducing their cost. Simply rewarding effort would not be optimal for that reason.

Continue reading