New Zealand’s 9/11 – Winners and Losers

It’s little exaggeration to call the mosque massacre New Zealand’s 9/11.  The loss of life is proportional to populations at about one in 100,000.  The acts were carried out on the one hand by Muslim fanatics punishing Americans for being non-Muslim and on the other a Right-wing fanatic punishing Muslims for being Muslim.  The spectacular scale and repercussions of 9/11 were vastly greater, of course, but the impact of the mosque massacre on New Zealand is likely to reverberate for decades, and represent a step change for our move towards joining the Islamic world.

The cost of this attack is incalculable.  The killer’s fantasies clearly did not extend to real-life consequences, and those he expressed will never come about.  It was a ‘lone-wolf’ attack, made commonplace by the promptings of Islamic State.  Yet Western clerisy and Muslim clerics hasten to tell us that attacks by Muslim terrorists have nothing to do with Islam.  Bush 43 infamously said, “The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. That's not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace.”  The Big Lie. 

Note also that Muslim terrorists tend to be regarded as having mental problems (just like the USSR putting its critics into mental hospitals).  Not this lad, though, he serves the Left’s agenda too neatly.  Incidentally, recanting disbelief or pleading insanity are the only ways of avoiding the death penalty for apostasy in the Islamic world.

The Losers

Exonerating Islam for jihadis that follow its dictates is routine, but that policy won’t wash when a Right-wing extremist does it.  All blame goes on their ideology.  From the politically neutral and through the centre to the extreme Right, all now suffer the consequences.  Hoaxes such as the ‘OK’ sign[1] caused Hosking to withdraw a tee-shirt he was promoting.[2]  Shooters lose access to certain types of arms.  A Fabian supporter with some knowledge of Islam such as this writer finds himself associated with strange bedfellows such as genuine bigots and racists, and set against those with no knowledge of Islam, its scriptures, doctrines, teachings, history, world view, or an inclination to learn.   The Crusaders sports team have their name vilified with its reference to the Crusades, launched to defend Christian lands from the barbarous predations of Islam, but with the Left’s crass historical revisionism now regarded as barbarians themselves.  Websites promoting non-violent if extreme racist views are banned, curtailing the freedom of speech so valued in the West, and also a means of the security services keeping an eye on attitudes.  Not that extremist Islamic websites suffer from banning, in part because they will be in foreign languages known only to immigrants.[3] 

Mainstream media in the United States makes much of Right-wing and anti-government extremists being responsible for more attacks and deaths that jihadis, conveniently making the time period after 9/11.  Well, not according to Wikipedia[4], and even its article fails to mention that the pool of potential Right-wing extremists is 100 times bigger than the jihadi pool, making the case against Islam greater still.

The Winners

The New Zealand Muslim community, obviously.  Personal tragedies aside, they have an absolute certainty that those killed, described[5] as martyrs[6], will have instant access to Paradise and intercede for seventy of their relatives.[7]   And Paradise is great for male victims.  Women, not so much.[8]  Given Islam’s ineluctable determinism, it was Allah who chose their time of death.  Islamic casuistry on this could be interesting, if not downright dangerous. 

More than the material support amounting to millions of dollars, the spiritual support could have strongly negative results for New Zealand.  Increased ‘reversion’, interfaith liaison, costly civic and governmental support, and a reassertion of Muslim identity reducing individuals’ willingness or need to assimilate.  Preachers Australia's Sheikh Shady [sic] Alsuleiman, who has extremist (read: mainstream Islamic) views[9], received permission to visit New Zealand despite being initially banned. The publicity will be invaluable for Islam’s normalisation in New Zealand, and a major step for the country’s integration with Islamic doctrines.

The ‘Islamophobia’ industry will be boosted.  Created from an ‘imaginary’ of Muslims and academia, it is a boo-word for the masses and a thought-terminating cliché[10] which will gain mainstream currency and increased denunciation.  The search, hindered by conflation with anti-Muslim sentiment, is likely to be expanded to cover any critical examination of Islam.

Islamo-Leftists[11] have the stated and shared purpose of “the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions.”[12]  Islam can run a country – tyrannically, it has to be said – but Marxism has a proven record of failure.  So the Left’s facilitation of Islamic conquest is a necessary precursor to its own revolution, and the mosque massacre is New Zealand’s first blooding in the civil war the Islamo-Leftists have created.

The killer has given NZ’s Islamic conquest its biggest victory for the foreseeable future.  Given the public attitude, it seems likely that New Zealand’s defeat is a foregone conclusion, however long it takes. 

There are signs of that already with the IS victory symbol[13] on display by one of the victims:[14] 

---

[1] https://www.adl.org/blog/how-the-ok-symbol-became-a-popular-trolling-gesture

[2] https://thespinoff.co.nz/media/19-03-2019/the-quiet-deletion-of-the-islamophobic-archives/

[3] https://www.memri.org/tv

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States

[5] https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12213608

[6] The Hans Wehr Arabic-English Dictionary translates shahid (martyr) as “one killed in battle with infidels.” This makes it possible to consider the victims as part of Islam’s war on the non-Islamic world and worthy of vengeance.  IS spokesman Abu Hassan al-Muhajir has already done so.

[7] https://wikiislam.net/wiki/72_Virgins

[8] http://www.albatrus.org/english/religions/islam/72virgins_and_boys.htm and http://saudigazette.com.sa/article/529534

[9] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shady_Alsuleiman

[10] https://ricochet.com/210065/archives/moderate-muslim-watch-how-the-term-islamophobia-got-shoved-down-your-throat/

[11] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamo-leftism

[12] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Communist_Manifesto

[13] https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/middle-east/2014-09-03/isis-sends-message

[14] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/16/opinion/sunday/muslims-mosque-shooting-new-zealand.html

The Mosque Attacks and the Unasked Question

The attack on the Christchurch mosques has gained global attention, being one of the worst anti-Muslim atrocities in the Western world.  Having said that, Muslims have killed many, many more Christians and members of their own religion in their attacks on the West, and hundreds of thousands in their own states.

It’s worth parsing the moral positions on this attack to observe the ironies.  This incident is New Zealand’s first shot in Islam’s war on the West, and it’s a matter of intense regret to me that it was fired by Westerners.  As with Norway’s Anders Breivik, the gunman used jihadi-style tactics, those that Muslim terrorists use several times every day throughout the world.[1] It is a direct copy of commonplace attacks on Christian churches in Egypt.[2]  If Islamic State wasn’t on the back foot, they’d be suing this creature for cultural appropriation.

Such an attack by Westerners on Muslims results in an acutely negative outcome for the attacker’s likely motive.  Muslims claim victimhood and invoke sympathy.  The country comes together in their defence.  The Prime Minister encourages Muslims to feel at home here.  Global reaction is one of horror.  How can Westerners do to Muslims what Muslims routinely try to do to Westerners?  The Muslim Brotherhood strategists themselves could not have planned it better to achieve favourable results for New Zealand’s Muslim community.

Yet New Zealanders are unlikely to understand the motivation of this terrorist.  A cocooned naivety about Islam renders the attacker’s purpose incomprehensible.  It will be dismissed as Islamophobia, bigotry and Right-wing extremism.  The more likely reason, understanding the danger that Islam represents to Western civilisation, values and virtues, will be overwhelmed by the disgust that this counter-productive action caused.  No commentator, at least that I have heard, has questioned why Muslims were targeted.  It wasn’t Hindus that were attacked, even with twice the population and an overlapping racial profile. 

Laying it on the line, Islam is the most egregious manifestation of evil in the 21^st century, notwithstanding this particular act.  Its three arms of conquest, jihad, preaching and migration, are actively supported by the extreme Left.  There are other issues stopping Westerners’ awareness of Islam’s hegemonic conquest, even as its blatant progress is a matter of daily news, but it goes beyond the scope of this essay. Nonetheless, the Left’s actions have marginalised a significant portion of the populace, and their only defenders damage the situation further by resorting to this hideous act. 

The claim that Islam is a religion of peace is demonstrably false just as Christianity being a religion of peace is demonstrably true.[3] Jihadi violence is an Islamic prerogative[4] and while a warranted response is one of jus bellum justum, just war, its complexity means that Western reaction is limited to the barely adequate responses of defend, deter and prevent.  Given Max Weber’s dictum that “the state…lays claim to the monopoly on the legitimated use of physical force”, the action by these attackers is impermissible in terms of Western morality and legality.  Not so for Muslims.  With Islam’s policy of retributive subsidiarity, it is the responsibility of every Muslim to bring the non-Islamic world, dar al-harb or the land of war, into submission to the will of Allah by all means necessary.    

FIANZ spokesman Dr Mustafa Farouk said that many Muslims migrated to New Zealand because of its safety.  Given the threat that Islam presents to the West, the lesson that Muslims might not be so safe here might be of benefit to New Zealand.  The greater loss, however, is New Zealand’s sense of peace and security.

---

[1] 34,720 attacks by Islamic terrorists since 9/11.  This is an average of about 5.5 attacks every day.  https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

[2] http://articles.latimes.com/1997-02-15/news/mn-28909_1_islamic-extremist; https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-42511813; http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8444851.stm.

[3] …since 1946, the more Christian a nation is, the less likely it is to initiate an international conflict.  Islam, on the other hand, shows the opposite trend, with more Islamic nations being more likely to start a war.  Professor Davis Brown, Baylor Institute for Studies of Religion, http://www.researchonreligion.org/religion-politics/davis-brown-on-religion-initiating-war-and-data

[4] Koran 8:12 - “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.”  There are another 108 Koranic verses and many hadiths calling for violence against non-believers.