The fix is in. In the wake of the New Zealand attack on a mosque by a white supremacist, that country’s government is doing exactly what he wanted. In fact, what his manifesto explicitly asked for. It’s banning semi-automatic guns. He hoped it would do just that, since he thinks it likely to radicalize “resistance” and lead to a race war. (The kind Charles Manson hoped to start with his Los Angeles “Helter Skelter” massacre.)

I won’t suggest that the killer is actually an agent provocateur, someone chosen by Islamists to further their agenda. Though I wouldn’t put that past them. Al Qaeda justified killing fellow Muslims on 9/11 to further its war on America. ISIS killed Muslims routinely, if they didn’t back the Caliphate.

And here’s an interesting historical footnote: Student riots in West Germany in 1968 profoundly changed the country. They advanced the agenda of the radical left on many fronts, and handed control of universities to leftist activists. Those riots began when a West German cop shot and killed a peaceful student protester. It came out decades later that the shooter was an agent of the East German Stasi. He might well have been acting under orders — by men who wanted a Marxist revolution in the West. They almost got one.

Groveling in Dhimmitude

Now the prime minister of New Zealand has donned a sharia hijab, and is broadcasting the Islamic call to prayer over national radio. German Catholic bishops are calling on Catholics to skip Lenten services on Friday and visit … mosques. Perhaps they would go even further, and call on their flock to check the “Muslim” box instead of “Catholic” on their tax forms. The mostly heterodox bishops of rich, empty churches in Germany don’t deserve all that money. But of course, they’ll never do that. Unchecking the “Catholic” box on your tax form is almost the only way to get excommunicated in Germany.

Media figures worldwide have blamed President Trump, any critic of Islam, and random conservatives and Christians for the massacre. Even though its author is a neopagan who favors the seizure of guns, socialist controls on the economy, and ecological limits on childbearing. None of which, I’ll note, was part of Trump’s 2016 platform.

Don’t Talk About the Jihad

Still worse, there’s a comparative media blackout on recent attacks on Christians, in most cases by actual, self-styled Muslims:

• As Breitbart reports: “Fulani jihadists racked up a death toll of over 120 Christians over the past three weeks in central Nigeria, employing machetes and gunfire to slaughter men, women, and children, burning down over 140 houses, destroying property, and spreading terror.”
• The Turkish-born terrorist who opened fire on a tram in Utrecht, Holland, on March 18, killing three and wounding several more.
• The Senegalese migrant in Italy who hijacked a bus with 51 schoolchildren and tried to burn them alive. His motive? To protest Italy’s restrictions on still more Muslim refugees from Senegal.

A few days ago I argued that none of the left’s enabling of Islam flows from ignorance. Or even stupidity. Instead, I think that leftists have a civilizational death wish, and they want to use Muslims as their euthanasia doctors.

Banning Christians for Their “Violent” Religion

More evidence for this theory appeared this week. The Daily Caller reports:

An Iranian man applying for asylum to the U.K. had his application denied because he converted from Islam to Christianity.

According to a report from The Times, U.K. immigration officials wrote back to the man after he sent in his applications, explaining why they were discriminating against him. Immigration officials cited biblical passages from the books of Revelation and Leviticus.

The Times reports: “Immigration officials wrote to the man citing violent passages from the Bible to prove their point. They said that the Book of Revelation was ‘filled with imagery of revenge, destruction, death and violence.’”

According to the report, the immigration officials were condemned by the Church of England for their “lack of religious literacy.”

How very English, even Anglican to pretend that. “Terribly sorry, old chum, but I believe you must have misread those Old and New Testament books….”

Intentional and Malicious

No. Absolutely not. It impossible that anyone educated in the West could look at the accounts of the conquest of Israel by Joshua and conclude that Christians feel called to imitate it. The last people who might have claimed such a motivation? The North American Puritans fighting the Indians. And they were misreading the scripture, because they identified themselves too closely with the Israelites. Even the U.S. government’s vicious Indian wars didn’t cite that scripture as a precedent. Nor do Israeli Zionists cite it now.

As for the Book of Revelation: In every passage the scripture makes abundantly clear that Christians don’t commit the violence in the book. It’s aimed at them. They’re persecuted by the Antichrist, along with the Jews. There is no call whatsoever for them to defend themselves. In fact, the book makes clear that their only hope is direct divine intervention. Which when it comes will use no human agents, and bring an end to the world as we know it.

No honest person could confuse any of that with the hundreds of calls for violence by human beings (Muslims) against other human beings (unbelievers) in the Quran. And no honest person did.

Whoever made the decision to send back that helpless, harmless Iranian Christian to a regime that executes apostates from Islam? He did it out of malice, and spite. He did it to make a political point. To mock the legitimate worries of Westerners at the influx of Islamists. I’m sure when he signed the order, he snickered to himself all the way home. He’s lucky there was no jihadist on his tram.