Sharia and Loathing in California

Cultural Suicide through “Progress”

Having missed the funeral of Charles Humphrey Keating, the Navy SEAL that was killed last year in Iraq, I felt compelled to drive 90-minutes north to an anti-Sharia protest near the memorial of the San Bernardino terror victims. I usually avoid demonstrations of any kind, but in the face of growing Islamic fundamentalism in the West and an increasing number of apologists that cover its advance, this seemed like a worthy cause.

Almost immediately after I had arrived, counter-protestors started a fight. Rocks were thrown and I heard one anti-Sharia protestor say he took a blow to the head. The police were quick to break up the fight and it was reported that four arrests were made. The counter-protestors were backed by Antifa degenerates wearing all black and waving their inane hyphenated communist flag.

Once the brawl had been quelled, I began talking with the anti-Sharia protestors. I came across a man named “Little Jacob”, a Lebanese immigrant, Ex-Muslim, and now an ordained Christian minister. He was handing out free copies of his book, “100 Facts About Islam”, a 110-page compendium that translated the Quran into English for the purpose of educating the infidel on why Islam wanted them and their Western culture annihilated. Little Jacob fumed at the counter-protestors because as a survivor, their defense of Islamic fundamentalism was incomprehensible to him. Neither he nor I could believe that these counter-protestors truly understood what they were vehemently defending.

To be clear, I don’t believe that either honor killings or the slaughter of apostates will become acceptable in America — but you never know, leftists can rationalize the inhumane in the name of The Narrative. That said, there is very real reason to be concerned about the proliferation of sharia and the apologist vanguard. Disturbing precedents exist all throughout Western Europe, where sharia has become accepted as a legitimate legal system, congruous and even superseding civilized European law. In August 2015, a Syrian couple arrived at a refugee shelter in Aschaffenburg, Germany; a 15-year old girl married to her 21-year old cousin. Naturally, when the couple sought to legitimize their marriage in Germany, the Youth Welfare Office (Jugendamt) refused to recognize their marriage and took action, separating the girl from her cousin-husband. The couple filed a lawsuit and was defeated in court by the Youth Welfare Office as they had become the girl’s legal guardians. In May 2016, a court in Bamberg overturned that ruling. The court ruled that the marriage was valid because it was contracted in Syria, where such marriages are allowed according to Islamic (sharia) law, which does not have an age-limit for marriage. This ruling by a German court effectively legitimized child marriage, so long as they are carried out under Sharia law. As of July 2016, the German Interior Ministry, responding to a Freedom of Information Act request, revealed that there are 1,475 married children known to be living in Germany — including 361 children who are under the age of 14. The bulk of child marriages are among Syrians (664), with Afghanis (157) and Iraqis (100) in second and third for child marriages. Nearly 80% — 1,152 — are little girls. The real number of child marriages in Germany is much higher than the official statistics suggest because many are being concealed. For non-Muslim Germans, the law allows those 16-years or over to be married if their partner is the legal age and the parents/guardians consent to the marriage. These abhorrent concessions to Sharia aren’t limited to Germany.

In a nearly identical case, the marriage between a 14-year-old Syrian girl and her 21-year old cousin was legalized by a Swedish court in Gothenburg, on the grounds of religious and cultural reasons. The Swedish Tax Board subsequently recognized the marriage and the couple have since received a residence permit.

This story has repeated itself elsewhere throughout Europe and its manifestations are taking on more disturbing forms. Back in Wuppertal, Germany, a group of Muslim fundamentalists have been acting as a so-called Sharia police. They roam the German streets wearing yellow reflector vests distributing pamphlets that detail the Islamist code of conduct in the city’s “Sharia zones”, sectors of German cities that have been culturally dominated by the Muslim population. This “Sharia police” implore Muslim and non-Muslims on the streets to not only attend Islamic sermons, but to abstain from alcohol, cigarettes, drugs, gambling, listening to music, pornography or prostitution. Local residents in Wuppertal alerted the German police, but the police were uncertain on how to approach the culturally sensitive situation. It was ruled in a German court that the Sharia police posed no real threat to Germans and that their uniforms didn’t violate the laws that would normally prevent a European from parading through the streets as a pseudo police officer, on the grounds of religious and cultural reasons, of course. But this isn’t the first time Muslims in Germany have attempted to impose Sharia law by force. The Gatestone Institute reports:

In June 2014, approximately 400 Salafists met for a barbecue “grill fest” in the Tannenbusch district of Bonn to listen to sermons by some of the most radical Salafist preachers in Germany. Police say the purpose of the gathering was to raise funds and recruit volunteers for the jihad in Syria. But after the event, groups of young Salafists began enforcing Sharia law in Bonn by forcing women to wear veils. In one instance, they beat a teenager for drinking alcohol at a party.

It’s important to note that Sharia and its application are not limited to Salafism. Syrians make up the bulk of child marriages in Germany and are predominantly Sunni, the tenants of Sharia are universal among fundamentalists and the only variance is in the degree to which it is applied and enforced.

But can Sharia really come to America? If Europe wasn’t close enough, the state of apologism in Canada may have a sobering effect on unbelievers. Innocuous in name, resolution M-103 has effectively criminalized criticism of Islam in Canada and compels government intervention to counter “Islamophobia.” Behind M-103 is a Pakistani-Canadian Liberal Party PM named Iqra Khalid. It should come as no surprise that Khalid was once the president of the York U Muslim Student Association, an organization that is frequently accused of harboring prejudice against non-Arabs and is linked to the Muslim Brotherhood.

So, Sharia has proliferated in the West under the cover of cultural and religious tolerance, this is a fact. Activists like Little Jacob who have survived Islamic fundamentalism are the key to defeating it, reformist Muslims who want real peace are the key to defeating fundamentalism — we should be elevating them, not squelching their voices out of misguided political correctness. How could anyone defend such a regressive, inhumane, and ultimately fascist ideology? Well, my opportunity to ask those questions came toward the end of the protest.

Meet the Leftists

These lovely ladies arrived at the tail-end of the protest carrying a homemade upside down American flag with “Let’s Get Free” and “#J20” printed in bold font. J20 is an extremist group that pushes a communist and anarchist agenda through violence — CNN, the New York Times, and the Guardian benignly refer to these types as part of the “resist Trump” movement. They immediately began shouting in what I can only describe as tongues, virtually incomprehensible babbling laced with obscenities and shrilling chants with catchy lyrics like “Tell us how you’re an occupying force.”

The “lady” on left side of the photograph, who I will refer to as Commie from now on, claimed to be a Palestinian, a Muslim, Native American, and an oppressed “person of color.” Yikes.

She insisted that white people are an “infection” that needs to be cured, she accused all of us — I am Mexican — of being “colonial oppressors.” I asked Commie how she could reconcile being a human rights activist while endorsing Sharia, a fundamentally inhumane ideology. She threw her head back and laughed, then began the “Islam is the religion of peace” spiel. I cut Commie off and reminded her of the not-so-nice aspects of Sharia, like child abuse, the killing of apostates and unbelievers. She started to laugh (she did this whenever I said something that conflicted her worldview) and resumed chanting — this was weirder than I can describe in writing. Once I got her to stop chanting, I asked her how she could reconcile being a human rights activist while supporting a government operated by Hamas. She claimed that the Jews had “stolen” Palestinian land and when I reminded her that there was never any such thing as a Palestinian state, her friend cut in. This is where things became especially interesting.

The girl on the right, who I will refer to as Curly, took my hand, closed her eyes and said a prayer to the “spirits”— no, really. She prayed that I would be blessed with the truth from her lips and that it would reflect upon my heart. It didn’t work.

Curly began the dialectical by informing me that all of the “facts” I cited were, in fact, racist. I asked her how she figured and her response was along the lines of, “Who wrote the books you’ve read?”, to which I responded, “Scholars? Scientists?”. “Exactly”, she said with a laugh and a smile. She went on to say — while holding my hand — that all of the knowledge I have in my little head is racist and can be chalked up to hate facts. Go figure.

This is something I have noticed among leftists: in order to have a debate with them, you must frame your argument within the parameters of their alternate reality. Ever wonder why these people burn books that they don’t like? Because anything that contradicts their version of reality is subject to obliteration or subversion.

I tried to get past the insanity of the pagan ritual I had just been subjected to. I asked her what her thoughts on Sharia were and she went on a tangent about white supremacy. I cut her off and asked her what her thoughts on Israel were, to which she and Commie both responded that the Jews should just “go away”, because they are essentially locust in their eyes— it’s interesting that these leftist human rights activists always seem to dehumanize the Jews.

Every question resulted in an insane, incoherent tangent, and we somehow got to talking about gang violence in LA. Commie laughed when I asked her if she would mourn a fallen police officer the way she would mourn a dead Palestinian, to which she flatly responded “Why would I do that?” I am the son of Mexican immigrants and I believe that gang culture among immigrants is just that, a cultural issue. Of course, Commie and Curly called me a racist (I was confused because again, I am Mexican) for believing that individuals — namely Latinos — should take responsibility for their actions.

It was right after Commie called me a racist that Curly proudly revealed to me that her brother is “gang affiliated”, which is a funny way of saying she’s related to a criminal. I asked her how she could reconcile being a human rights activist and supporting gang violence, to which she proudly informed me that she associates with members of MS-13, an El Salvadorian gang based out of LA that is infamous for beheading people as their go-to method of execution. When I pressed her to admit that, you know, gang culture is bad and it’s ultimately up to the communities they exist in — not the government — to put an end to the violence, she laughed at me.

It was around this time that a conservative Hispanic lady from “the bad parts of Chicago” called Commie and Curly out for being the poisonous, self-victimizing, degenerates that they are. Commie and Curly didn’t much like this, so Curly took off her shirt, while Commie went nuclear and screamed at the top of her lungs while flailing wildly, hurling unintelligible insults (called her a racist, of course) at the lady from Chicago who like me, dared to attack their narrative.

This display of leftist “activism” ended with Commie and Curly retrieving mirrors from their car and holding them up in front of their face, so that anyone who spoke to them would have to look at their own reflection. Yeah. That was when I called it a day.

The Takeaway

If nothing else, this was an insightful look into the mind of a radical.

  1. Every argument had to be framed within the parameters of their reality, or the debate would automatically be invalid.
  2. When referring to minorities, regardless of whether it was blacks, Mexicans, Asians, or Arabs; Commie and Curly would collectively refer to all non-whites as “We.” When I told them that I wasn’t part of their collective victimization, they insisted that I was brainwashed. They said (screamed) the same thing to the Hispanic lady from Chicago that challenged their narrative. The only people who seemed to be outside of the “We” were white people, minorities who didn’t identify as “We” were considered brainwashed or race traitors.
  3. Besides the utter annihilation of the establishment, philosophical opponents, and cultures they considered adversarial, they didn’t seem to have any other coherent objective.
  4. They conflated capitalism with white supremacy. The two were interchangeable.
  5. Everyone was “connected”, special, and beautiful. Except for white people, the Jews, law enforcement, Christians, and those with differing opinions.
  6. Any view that they did not agree with was pathologized. For example, when I brought up that Israel has agreed to a two-state solution while Palestine has said no, they didn’t concede the point to historical facts, they told me that I was brainwashed and sick; the facts themselves were racist. When I told them that I believe that gang culture is perpetuated by the communities in which it exists, they told me I was brainwashed and racist. Anything that I said that contradicted their narrative would be met with accusations that I was brainwashed or somehow mentally sick.

Curly literally told me that instead of a traditional debate, we needed to engage in what she called a “dynamic narrative.” They didn’t even hide the fact that they only want to have the conversation in a way that suits their agenda.

It is beyond me that outlets like National Public Radio, CNN, and the New York Times have the gall to call these people “activists.” From what I saw of Antifa and this J20 group, they are nothing short of extremists, unhinged radicals hellbent on destroying society and remaking it in their own twisted image. It is the duty of the reasonable, patriotic Americans — from all walks of life and backgrounds — to stand between the civilization that has given us so much and those who would subvert, and ultimately destroy it.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s