The Enemy Speaks His Mind

Sometimes our Adversary hurls his mask on the ground and dances on it screaming with rage. In the video below you may see embodied the term toward which we ultimately tend, as things now stand, and so long as our current ideological tyrants continue to have their way. He’s Abubakar Shekau, the leader of Boko Haram, responding to the risible hashtag campaign against his gang’s kidnapping of 276 Christian girls.

To clear up any confusion about his plan, our Enemy makes it clear at 0.24 on the video: Kill Christians.

Here he candidly explains his plan to join in the renewed Mohammedan slave trade, selling the girls into the market.

The honesty is refreshing.

21 thoughts on “The Enemy Speaks His Mind

  1. If I may, Abubakar Shekau is not our enemy. He is a deceived prisoner of our Enemy; a prisoner who is caught in the lies of false religion (Islam), hatred, violence, and lust for power (among who knows how many other vices). Let us certainly seek to stop the evil acts he is committing, let call them out for the wickedness they are, but let us also pray that God may shine in his heart and give Shekau “the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ” and “[rescue him] from the power of darkness and [transfer him] into the kingdom of His beloved Son”.

    • Sorry, but he is our/my enemy, and I shall pray for him as I should pray for all my enemies. If “Kill Christians” isn’t a declaration of enemy status, I don’t know what is. As a homeschooling family, I do find it ironic that I entirely agree with him when he says “Boko Haram” which I’ve been told means “Western Education is a sin.”

  2. Wait, why do I care about what Africans say about their relationships with other Africans? The Christians that were left behind when the British left made their choice, within living memory.

    • Why do you care what anyone else at all says about anyone else at all?

      If for no other reason, you are on Boko Haram’s list; you are on the Enemy’s list. Boko Haram, or something like it, could start up in North America or Europe at any time.

    • @ Peppermint

      “The Christians that were left behind when the British left made their choice, within living memory.”

      What do you mean by this?

      Also, you may not care because you are not a Christian and therefore have no tie of any sort to them, but we do and we do care.

      @ Kristor

      “If for no other reason, you are on Boko Haram’s list; you are on the Enemy’s list. Boko Haram, or something like it, could start up in North America or Europe at any time.”

      Yes, that is true, but that problem only exists because we allow anyone to enter Europe or North America. People like Lee Rigby’s murderers bring no value to places like England and yet they pour in bringing in the same dysfunction they fled from to begin with.

      On top of that, we have Somalis in Minnesota who are turning their neighborhoods into charming Little Somalias.

      Islamic immigration is not ideal and neither is African immigration but the two mixed together is a nightmare.

      • No argument with any of that, Svar. But, I wasn’t suggesting that the Enemy might engender something *just* like Boko Haram – a black, Moslem insurgent army – in North America, but rather that he seeks some other solution more suited to undermine our society, as Boko Haram undermines Nigerian society. He is even now already employing the Left and atheists to portray Christians as untermenschen, worthy of extermination. You will see that this language is all over the place, once you start looking for it. Dawkins is spewing horrible stuff about how Christian parents are criminal child abusers – in the politest, most orotund Oxbridge tones, of course.

        It’s interesting. This time, Old Scratch is starting with the Christians, rather than the Jews. Almost none of the Christians see it yet; the Jews are oblivious to their danger, once the Christians have been dealt with.

      • “Islamic immigration is not ideal and neither is African immigration but the two mixed together is a nightmare.”

        Now this is a very important topic, the biggest failure of Christianity IMHO is that we are unable to defend that neither african nor islamic immigration should occur. OK, a tiny amount of Christians like we here in the orthosphere might defend that, but seriously, speak to 95% of Christians, even those very orthodox ones. Even those that are personally are against black & muslim immigration cannot come up with a Christian argument that they should not happen. And a lot of Christians are enthusiastically pro-open borders, with that ingenuous “love everyone” illusion, specially about africans. And AFAIK they are being faithful to Christianity, I don’t know anything in the Bible which would say we should prevent a massive african immigration into Europe.

        But a massive african immigration into Europe will destroy whites completely. My conclusion: So Christianism is unable to defend us, since it cannot defend that we should stop this trend which will destroy us.

        Even the previous Pope, the conservative one, was all happy and dancing about muslim immigrants in Italy, which is ironic considering that this trend will surely lead to muslim hordes assaulting the Vatican in the future.

        Which leads us to a wierd situation, since I’m pretty sure that a 15th century Christian Spain would have no problem deporting african and muslim immigrants, but even if there was a hardcore Christian country in the 21-st century, I’m pretty sure this country would not deport african and muslim immigrants. A 21st century Israel does deport them, however. Crap, I wish I was born jew.

      • @ Felipe

        “Even those that are personally are against black & muslim immigration cannot come up with a Christian argument that they should not happen.”

        Count me as one of them. I can justify no-Muslim immigration with Christianity but not no-black immigration.

        The bigger problem is the fact that contemporary Christianity is actually being used as a justification for flooding America with the Central American immigrants. Imaginative Conservative does have a response to that though:

      • Yet there is something in the Bible that argues against African immigration, as well as against Central American immigration: the story of Abram (Abraham) & Lot, and the story of the Tower of Babel. In the former, Abram & Lot agreed to what Lawrence Auster called separationism, that is, the policy of keeping peoples with conflicting needs & desires separate from each other (Genesis 13). In the latter, we get God’s will that there be separate peoples with separate languages living in separate places (Genesis 11).*

        Part of why we have such a problem with Mexican and other illegal immigration is that we lack the good fence between us that would make for good neighbors. Another part is that there are so many of them (tens of millions, but no one really knows how many). Another part is that they differ from us greatly, and that the most important differences (ethnic, civilizational, mental) cannot ever be bridged.

        I do not deny blacks, Mestizos, and others their humanity, but neither do I deny their Otherness.

        *Disclaimer: massively cribbed from View From the Right.

      • @ Wm. Lewis

        That works from a Kinist Protestant perspective which is a perspective not shared by most orthodox Christians. The Catholic and Orthodox and the various conservative Confessional Protestant churches do not support such a view.

        A small number of others in a country is fine, but not in massive floods like with Hispanics and of course the less we have of dangerous groups like muslims and blacks the better (we have more than enough of blacks and they have proven basically impossible to assimilate). However, even if the Other is harmless like some Hispanic groups or Asians or Indians, that does not mean the country should be completely inundated with them. I mean, look at how America’s demographic makeup and culture changed after the immigration of non-Anglo-Saxon Europeans in the late 1800’s. Even if some of the new groups who are immigrating are less harmful and violent than the Irish or Italians were (like the Asians and Indians) that doesn’t mean they must flood in and change the culture. A few Irish and a few Italians wouldn’t have changed the Anglo-Saxon nature of America and a few, minute number of non-Europeans wouldn’t change the European nature of America but too many do and will.

      • I neither advocate nor oppose Kinism; I merely offer a possible Biblical justification for restrictions on immigration.

        We are in full agreement on what degree of immigration of Others is acceptable: minute (e.g., Asians) to nil (e.g., Moslems). However, I would not call Hispanics “harmless.” In addition to their insular clannishness, in addition to their non-assimilation and nonassimilability, they bring with them certain attitudes and behaviors that are positively harmful. Beyond the significant number of gang members, there are also problems such as their higher utilization of welfare than the white population; their propensity for drinking and driving; and their fecundity (greater in the US than in their home countries), to say nothing of their support for leftist social policy and politicians. As a group, they are incapable of creating or sustaining a society and culture such as our own, which is another way that they inflict harm: by dragging us down to their level.

        Again, I fully acknowledge their humanity, and wish them no ill. I simply would like them to go about their lives in their own countries, so that we may go about our lives in our country.

    • “The Christians that were left behind when the British left made their choice, within living memory.”

      What choice? This makes no sense, we are not talking about a handful of Christians in a muslim Nigeria … Nigeria is half Christian, so that’s like 75 million people. Also Nigeria is their homeland, why should they be moved anywhere else?

      For me the only thing the British should have done when they left was to split Nigeria into a Christian south and a muslim north. The same should have been done in Lebanon too.

  3. Pingback: The Enemy Speaks His Mind | Reaction Times

    • Anybody + Islam = Hell on Earth

      The members of ISIS are not predominantly Negro, but it is difficult to imagine anything worse. Similar comparisons can be made with adherents of this “religion” in the Middle East and North Africa, Afghanistan, Russia, the former Soviet republics that have degenerated into various ‘stans’, Pakistan, India (which has provoked a nationalist Hindu response), the Philippines, Indonesia and anywhere it has managed to inveigle itself. Throats are cut no matter what the skin-colour of he who bears the knife. It is truly a universal religion, equally corrupting all.

      • I get the impression that Africans add that extra special touch of nastiness. E.g. lots of sexual violence. But maybe I’m just bigoted.

      • Africans engage in rape regardless of being Mahometan on not. For example, anti-brazilian attacks in Surinami where africans went on to do their favorite business, rape:

        This and countless other events, statistics, etc. Only the western liberal madness can deny that africans are by far the people most prone to rape in the world.

        So no, I wouldn’t say you are just being bigoted.

      • I wrote this to be deliberately un-PC, which isn’t a very good motivation for writing a comment. If phrased a different way, it might be defensible but maybe I shouldn’t have written it as is.


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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.