Forced Vaccinations Are an Abomination to the American Way

BY SARAH CORRIHER-I'm The Crusader Gal, a conservative, writer, political commentator, video producer, and author.

Sarah Corriher on Gab: 'Despite being in the midst of a ...

Both government and corporations have begun exalting mandatory injections as a kind of moral good, in a perverse ritual that they refer to as “science”, but which cannot be, for science does not fear investigation or criticism. As someone who provides political commentary regularly, I now receive messages from people who are genuinely afraid. Many have been given an impossible choice: lose their jobs and thus their ability to provide for their families, or accept a medical procedure that they do not trust, and risk their ability to provide permanently.

Of course, the majority of people who have thus far accepted COVID ‘vaccinations’ (a word which was recently redefined) have survived the injections, but that isn’t true for everyone. It’s impossible to get a clear picture of how many people have died from the COVID injections at a time when thousands of deaths sometimes disappear from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting database (VAERS). The raw number of how many people have been left with life-altering disabilities will likewise be muddied, because for all of the screeching about “following the science”, the data that should inform scientific opinion has itself been politicized. We don’t know the long-term impacts of the various injections, all of which were rushed to market with minimal testing, and many of which are still being tested by the very government that assures us of their safety.

The unparalleled politicization of this vaccination program leads us to have reason to question how many side effects and deaths are reported to VAERS at all. Even in a normal year, with a normal vaccine, it’s relatively uncommon for side effects to be reported, according to the U.S. Department of Health:

Adverse events from drugs and vaccines are common, but underreported. Although 25% of ambulatory patients experience an adverse drug event, less than 0.3% of all adverse drug events and 1-13% of serious events are reported to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Likewise, fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported. Low reporting rates preclude or slow the identification of “problem” drugs and vaccines that endanger public health.

— Report commissioned by the US Department of Health (before COVID)

Elitists in government tell us without irony that we cannot have an exact number of deaths from these vaccines, because those causalities are complex, yet it’s verboten to ask about the validity of official COVID deaths. Those deaths somehow lack complexity.

There’s Something More Than Science

The unprecedented edict of mandatory vaccination for the bulk of America’s workforce and her children is clearly unrelated to science and health. However, missing from the collective conversation is a recognition that even if the science were clear, a policy of forced medical treatment would still be wrong.

Imagine that a virus existed which was wildly more dangerous than the one we actually face. Let’s presume that 20% of the people who became infected would die, and that a vaccine was available that was reasonably safe. One could, from a public health perspective, more readily justify the decision to erode the rights of the populace in order to protect them. One could justify sacrificing their freedoms for their safety. Of course, there would not be a need in such a scenario, for mandates only serve to force the public to do that which they are unwilling.

It’s always a dangerous game when we explore the limits of what we can justify — freedom, rights, and Christian morality be damned. That’s because we can justify almost anything, given enough time. That’s especially true of large bodies of people who hold no individual accountability (governments). The more power they have, the more they exert.

The governments of the Twentieth Century mustered a combined death toll that ought to shock the conscience, as their policies led tens of millions to untimely deaths, whether by famine or genocide (with some overlap), both of which were justified as being for the good of some collective. Supervillains don’t exist in comic book form in the real world. Nobody wants to face the mirror and see a villain in the reflection. It’s part of the human condition to justify our most malevolent actions under the facade of altruism. When the mentally ill were forcibly sterilized, and that was deemed legal by the U.S. Supreme Court, the justification was always the good of society. When America and Europe engaged in eugenics in the early Twentieth Century, its most ardent supporters saw themselves not as villains but as heroes, protecting society from the inferior individual, to produce a better tomorrow.

At some point, a moral people must pause for long enough to recognize the smallest minority, who can most easily be extinguished by the unscrupulous who hide behind the veneer of a collective good: the individual. It is the individual who suffers now as he seeks to take care of his family in an environment that forces him to make an impossible choice, one that may have grave consequences. For some like him, the vaccine will have permanent, life-destroying consequences. This is true of even the safest drugs. If he were to die as a result of this imposition, his family would be forced to try to survive without him thereafter.

In the West, not too long ago, we recognized the dignity of the individual and his right to make decisions that would impact his body. We held this to be a sacred right, regardless of whether we agreed with the wisdom of the individual choice. Adults regularly engage in high-risk recreational activities that an objective observer would recommend against. None of us are free if we do not have the freedom to do what others will not, or to refuse to do what has become the norm.

Hitherto recently, an American employer would be reticent to even ask about the medical decisions of his employees, but that norm was quickly replaced with an audacious sense of obligation to mandate those medical decisions under threat of destitution. Previously, the same employer would have feared running afoul of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which attempts to maintain the dignity of encumbered peoples by ensuring that employers and businesses cannot harass them about their unique difficulties (or their medical choices).

Now, the employer is not simply paying his employee for a service well done, in a simple exchange of time for funds. The employer is much more. Through the consent and even encouragement of government, he has become the enforcer; a tyrant in his own right, exerting his will and the will of the state against the employee. We barely have need for the jack-booted thugs of the despotic regimes of old, when those contractual relationships that previously undergirded a free society have been transformed into the instruments of our own enslavement.

If military force were to be used to inject the populace, most Americans would find resistance to be acceptable and even dutiful. The elitists in government know this. Instead, the individual must battle against his own employer or supervisor, who is likely the person that previously gave him the very employment that is now dangled before him, if only he should surrender his autonomy, dignity, and freedom.

There is a time when resistance becomes duty. Almost all believe that to be true. We simply draw lines in different places. Surely, however, if there is a line to be drawn somewhere, it must be drawn at forcible medical experimentation under threat of man’s starvation, along with his family. If we are a moral people at all, surely that horror is worth resisting.

In what might seem to be a stroke of irony, the easiest way to defend the individual is for the masses to rise, and to refuse to comply. It’s for employers to refuse to enforce evil edicts en mass, and for employees to band together and refuse to accept medical experimentation. In a resounding voice, people must be willing to say “No”, before the camps are built.

Trump paid visits and respects to New York City first responders on the 20th anniversary of 9/11 and received rousing applause after his talks. Biden was a no-show.

Biden, still reeling from a tragically handled evacuation of Afghanistan in which 13 troops were killed by a suicide bomber, was recently heckled and mocked as he toured parts of New Jersey and New York, typically Democrat strongholds, in the aftermath of Hurricane Ida. People greeted him with “F Biden” signs. Some Americans shouted their obscenity-laced opinions about the job Biden is doing. One yelled, “Resign, you tyrant!”

Trump Embraced by Cops, Firemen, and Sports Fans as 'F Biden' Sweeps the Nation



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

Election audits are gaining ground in swing states, Biden’s popularity is plummeting, “F Biden” is trending on Twitter, and Trump is lauded and applauded everywhere he goes. Take the hint, Joe: No one wants you around.

On his ride to visit  Shanksville, Penn., as part of the 20th anniversary of 9/11, poor Joe passed a sign that said, “F— Joe Biden.” He then used that to make the Sept. 11 memorial all about his battered ego.

Meanwhile, at the Holyfield-Belfort bout, boxing fans go crazy for a tanned and relaxed President Trump.

Gropey Joe isn’t nearly as popular with sports fans.

“F Biden” was even trending on Twitter for a while. It might still be trending, I wouldn’t put it past Twitter to take it down to hide the fact that people are growing sick of groggy Joe.

Trump paid visits and respects to New York City first responders on the 20th anniversary of 9/11 and received rousing applause after his talks. Biden was a no-show.

Biden, still reeling from a tragically handled evacuation of Afghanistan in which 13 troops were killed by a suicide bomber, was recently heckled and mocked as he toured parts of New Jersey and New York, typically Democrat strongholds, in the aftermath of Hurricane Ida. People greeted him with “F Biden” signs. Some Americans shouted their obscenity-laced opinions about the job Biden is doing. One yelled, “Resign, you tyrant!”

Related: Biden Lies His Head off and Attacks Americans Who Yelled at Him About Afghanistan

This was the same tour during which Biden said the word “tornado” is outdated.

“Looks like a tornado — they don’t call them that anymore — that hit the crops and wetlands in the middle of the country.”

This marks the second weekend in a row in which sports fans, particularly college-aged young adults, have lashed out at Biden. Let’s see if we can’t make this last for the entire football season.

6 Problems With Biden’s Vaccine Mandate Address

"Military response teams." Really?

I am perplexed by Biden’s statement that he has authorized the deployment of “Surge Response Teams”made up of “experts” in part from the Defense Department.  He will also double the number of “Military Health Teams.”



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

I found Biden’s six-point Covid-19 Vaccine Mandate address to be highly concerning in six respects:
 1) He completely ignores the science demonstrating that natural immunity gained by having recovered from Covid is far superior to the immunity gained from the vaccines.  How many of the 80 million unvaccinated Americans have already recovered from Covid?  

2)  His analysis makes no sense.  He says, “We need to protect the vaccinated from the unvaccinated.” If the vaccine works, if it provides protection, then why do the vaccinated need to be protected from the unvaccinated?

3)  His address employs the language of vaccine shaming: “I am frustrated with the 80 million Americans who refuse to be vaccinated . . . those blocking public health . . . We’ve been patient, but our patience is wearing thin . . .”  Many people have valid reasons not to be vaccinated and do not deserve to be demonized in this way.  

4)  I am perplexed by Biden’s statement that he has authorized the deployment of “Surge Response Teams”made up of “experts” in part from the Defense Department.  He will also double the number of “Military Health Teams.” What exactly are “Surge Response Teams” and “Military Response Teams”?  I thought “surge” strategies were supposed to be deployed by our military against our enemies, not against Americans who have chosen not to be vaccinated.  Why does the Defense Department and the military have to be deployed on U.S. soil to “help” people with a virus?  Why do “Surge Response Teams” and “Military Response Teams” remind me of the Chinese Communist Party’s “Strike Hard” campaigns and “Family Planning Police”?  Biden needs to define clearly the powers and limitations of these “Teams.”

5)  Biden says nothing about exemptions.  What about people who have legitimate religious or medical reasons for not taking the vaccine? 

6)  Finally, Biden completely sidesteps the critical issue of how these sweeping vaccine mandates will be enforced.  What will his next step be:  mandating digital vaccine passports?   These passports can incorporate the same functionality as China’s Social Credit System, and in the wrong hands, can be used as tools of mass surveillance and totalitarian control.  

Please sign our petition to stop vaccine passports at

Reggie Littlejohn is President of Women's Rights Without Frontiers.


See this week’s top interviews with Zach Vorhies, Dr. Christiane Northrup, Mark Grenon, Brad Harris and more



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

(Natural News) All my interviews run first on Brighteon.TV, so be sure to check there for new interview content each day (along with dozens of other amazing hosts and guests). This past week, I posted interviews with Dr. Christiane Northrup, Zach Vorhies (the “Google whistleblower”), Mark Grenon (advocate for chlorine dioxide) and Brad Harris (Full Spectrum Survival).

These interviews will help keep you fully informed as America descends into a medical police state, complete with outrageous levels of medical censorship and media lies. Those who watch the mainstream media are misinformed, as the media is deliberately lying to people on a daily basis. But those who tune into alternative media are getting the truth like never before:

  • is the free-speech alternative to YouTube. Join and post your videos there, then share them with others or embed the videos on your own website.
  • Brighteon.TV is a free speech broadcast platform featuring pro-America, pro-liberty shows, and hosts who bring their own analysis and views to the platform. It broadcasts Mon – Fri, 9 am to 10 pm eastern.

Brad Harris from Full Spectrum Survival discusses pointers for affordable prepping and survival for those who don’t have a ton of excess cash:

Dr. Christiane Northrup joins me to cover spirituality, mass obedience, and why so many “new age” thinkers are failing to address the reality of the current situation:

Mark Grenon joins me from a prison in Bogota, Colombia, where he has been held captive by orders of the FDA (via the US State Dept) for daring to promote chlorine dioxide as a treatment:

Zach Vorhies, the “Google whistleblower,” offers an urgent warning for humanity, revealing how Google plans to decimate the human race and dominate everything. ‘Whatever you think Google is doing,” Zach told me during the interview, “it’s far worse.”

Also don’t miss my interview with Alex Jones when I joined him this week as a guest on InfoWars:

How to share all these videos on Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, etc.

As you might expect, Big Tech bans the sharing of all links, but you can use a URL guard service called which allows you to share these links by posting a custom xoomato link.

You can also use alternative social media services such as Gab, GETTR, Parlor, etc. It’s best to get off the mainstream tech sites and move to the free ecosystems anyway, where the truth isn’t banned.

The ACLU Goes To War Against Pandemic Civil Rights

After fighting for civil rights, it discovered that fighting against civil rights pays better.



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.

Six years ago, the ACLU challenged a school vaccine mandate bill in California.

COVID-19 was only a gleam in the eye of some Wuhan University of Virology lab workers, if even that, and the vaccines in question were the more ordinary kind most children have.

Even so, the ACLU argued that children have a right to a public education and can't be barred from school based on whether they're vaccinated or not. The civil rights groups also questioned the idea that the state has a "compelling interest" in requiring vaccinations.

America has changed since and so has the ACLU.

In a New York Times op-ed, the ACLU's national legal director and the director of its religious freedom program falsely claim that, "far from compromising civil liberties, vaccine mandates actually further civil liberties".

Arguing that taking away some people’s civil liberties protects everyone’s rights isn’t a new argument. It’s just the argument that the ACLU spent its entire history militantly opposing.

The ACLU tries to disguise its radical shift by wrapping it in identity politics and contending that forcing people to get vaccinated protects "the most vulnerable among us, including people with disabilities and fragile immune systems, children too young to be vaccinated and communities of color hit hard by the disease."

But young black men, the group that the ACLU had claimed to be advocating for last year, are the most likely to be fired or segregated due to vaccine mandates.

The ACLU wants to protect black people by taking away their civil rights.

But the ACLU isn’t just turning civil liberties on its head, it’s contradicting its own positions.

In 2002, the ACLU had opposed mandatory smallpox vaccinations of first responders during a pandemic. It further warned that employees who refuse to be vaccinated should be protected from retaliation. 

"Smallpox vaccine has risks and getting vaccinated is not a choice to be made lightly -- but in America, it should certainly be a choice," the ACLU's Technology and Liberty director had argued.

Choice. In America. Go figure.

The ACLU had even produced an entire Pandemic Preparedness pamphlet which warned against a public health model that “assumes that we must trade liberty for security” resulting in “pandemic prevention” that takes “aggressive, coercive actions against those who are sick.”

The pamphlet further warned that “the CDC’s plan would have set us back even further. It applied its penalties to people who did not have any contagious disease and to people who would never expose anyone else to disease. Moreover, it included provisions to make all public health personnel, and those acting under their orders, immune from liability for any injury—even if forced vaccination or other mandated treatments killed the patient.” Who would have thought?

After a long history of opposing forced treatment and coercive medical measures, including mandatory swine flu vaccines for health care workers in New York, and flu shots and HPV vaccines for children in Rhode Island,  the ACLU is completely on board with vaccine mandates.

Having turned civil liberties on its head, the ACLU now argues that, “The real threat to civil liberties comes from states banning vaccine and mask mandates.”

And, indeed, the ACLU is suing states who ban schools from forcing children to wear masks.

The real threat from civil liberties now comes from championing civil liberties. The old ACLU is a threat to the new ACLU which redefines civil liberties as the deprivation of civil liberties.

There is a surreal hypocrisy in the ACLU abandoning all its old beliefs to argue that "rights are not absolute" and that there are "justifiable intrusion(s) on autonomy and bodily integrity" for the public good.

The ACLU hasn’t discovered some exciting new legal principle to justify its switch.

It was fighting the threat of possible smallpox vaccine mandates under the Bush administration because, as everyone at the ACLU understood at the time, Bush was the new Hitler. It fought childhood vaccine mandates because many of the concerned mothers were ACLU liberals.

But beyond the political shifts, the ACLU has largely discarded any interest in civil rights as a legal theory to become another interchangeable leftist pressure group with lawyers. The New York Times op-ed is the work of people who can’t even be bothered to define civil rights, but who understand that their donor base is currently agitated about pandemic identity politics.

And the ACLU has to show that it’s fighting their cultural enemies and destroying them.

The old ACLU won respect because it stuck to its principles, defending Nazis and other evil people to show that a free society could work as long as civil liberties were protected. All of that has long since gone out the window and the ACLU’s endorsement of vaccine mandates is long overdue as part of its shift from principled liberalism to unprincipled lawfare culture wars.

If it doesn’t fundraise off forcing children to wear masks and young black men to get vaccinated, the ACLU’s leadership understands that some other leftist organization will beat it to the punch.

It’s hard to have legal principles when you have no principles of any other kind.

And yet the old ACLU’s arguments about the dangers of criminalizing disease made a good deal of sense. That was the same organization that wisely warned against making people, instead of the disease, into the enemy.

That is exactly what leftists have done, dividing Americans, instead of uniting them.

But the ACLU knows quite well that there’s a lot more money to be made on division than there is on arguing for general principles and rights that apply to everyone across the board.

President Trump’s victory led to a massive surge in online donations to the former civil rights group. In the weeks after he won, over $15 million in online donations rolled in. In one weekend after he took office, the ACLU gasped as $24 million in cash showered into its coffers.

That was six times its annual donation total.

The ACLU looked at that river of resistance cash, dived in like a petty criminal who suddenly realizes that he could be raking in millions instead of thousands, and never looked back.

“To some degree, civil rights and civil liberties is a cyclical business,” the ACLU’s national legal director who authored the pro-vaccine mandate op-ed, argued. “We need to convince people that is a long-term business.”

There was a time when the ACLU wasn’t any kind of business. Now, like the Southern Poverty Law Center, it’s in the civil rights business and that’s the business of selling out rights for cash.

The ACLU didn’t just abandon its opposition to vaccine mandates. It’s largely jettisoned its interest in civil rights. Instead, it’s reinventing opposition to civil rights as the new civil rights.

Before it defended vaccine mandates as taking away civil liberties from some to protect others, it was defending speech bans that would protect “marginalized groups”.

Within a few years, the ACLU had gone from championing free speech to balancing the “impact of the proposed speech and the impact of its suppression.”

After an entire history of arguing that larger problems don’t justify the abolition of individual civil liberties, the ACLU now contends that abolishing the liberties of individuals actually protects collective welfare when there is some sort of general crisis like a pandemic or hurt feelings.

These days the ACLU argues that not only must liberty be traded for security, but that security is liberty. And that depriving people of liberty for security is actually a defense of liberty.

Except it doesn’t like the word, “liberty”, it prefers the ambiguity of “rights” which can be things that the government and corporations seek to protect you from for your own good.

Orwellian arguments are on point for a civil rights organization co-founded by a Communist sympathizer who had argued that "If I aid the reactionaries to get free speech" it was only to create a Communist dictatorship and when that dictatorship is "achieved, as it has been only in the Soviet Union, I am for maintaining it by any means whatever." And after a long career of civil liberties, the ACLU has come around to the position of “maintaining it by any means whatever."

And it also gets to pig out on the much larger sums of money from the “maintainers” of tyranny.

But there isn’t even the pretense anymore that the resistance is to President Trump or to some authority. Even the ACLU’s mask mandates were disguised as attacks on Republican governors. But arguing for a vaccine mandate isn’t a resistance to authority, it’s authority.

The ACLU has become the authoritarians it always claimed to be fighting against. After generations of fighting for civil rights, it discovered that fighting against civil rights pays better.

Stop Hiding the September 11 Terrorists’ Motivation: ISLAM




“Allahu Akbar! Allahu Akbar! Allahu Akbar!” – Last words from the cockpit of hijacked Flight 93.

The Muslim terrorists who carried out the September 11, 2001 attacks were forthright in explaining and reiterating, at length, that both their inspirations and their aspirations were, first and foremost, done in the name of Allah and for the cause of Islam and Islamic law worldwide. 

While many Western Muslims and their prominent left-wing sympathizers have pretended that Islam had nothing to do with the 9-11, the Muslim terrorists’ own words suggest otherwise.

Furthermore, despite mainstream claims that Osama bin Laden and those involved in the 9-11 attacks had little understanding of their own religion, they all attended mosques religiously and were educated highly versed in Islam. In addition, the terrorists quoted chapters and verses of Islamic scripture, and many made martyrdom videos also quoting their Islamic motivations and aspirations.

Below are the statements by the Islamic terrorists who planned and carried out the September 11, 2001 attacks that claimed the lives of thousands of innocent Americans. While the west refuses to name our enemy, the terrorists clearly credit their motivation, actions, and success to their religion.

September 11th Attacks – Islamic Motives Revealed

9-11 Terrorists “Martyrdom Videos”


Europe Under Siege


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

The ruling elites in some European countries barely try to maintain their borders, but actively promote the gradual ethnic displacement of the native population.

by Fjordman –  Article reposted with permission

As I write these words, Europe is under siege. An invasion is taking place by land, by sea, and sometimes by air. Nearly every day, migrants show up uninvited in European waters. Sometimes in southern Italian islands such as Lampedusa,[1] other times in Lesbos or other Greek islands near the coast of Turkey, occasionally in Malta or Cyprus, and increasingly in the Canary Islands.

The migrants are sometimes called “refugees” in Western media. Yet many of them are not refugees in any meaningful sense of the word. They come from different countries, including Pakistan, Bangladesh, Morocco, or Ghana, where there is no war. The majority are young men of fighting age. When groups of men of military age systematically force their way into another country’s territory, this is an invasion. Not all invasions happen by tanks.

Europe has a turbulent history and has experienced many sieges of castles or cities before. Yet what we are witnessing now is different. This is the siege of an entire continent, one that could last for generations. Many Trojan horses are already inside the gates, and the walls are crumbling.

The global population reached one billion people for the first time around the year 1800, during the early stages of the Industrial Revolution.[2] By then, all major habitable land masses on this planet had been settled by humans. It took all nations and tribes hundreds of thousands of years, from archaic humans such as Homo erectus and the Neanderthals, to reach one billion people. Now, a single continent, Africa, grows by a billion people in a few decades.

Some technologically sophisticated societies such as South Korea or Japan have low birth rates. Meanwhile, backward societies such as Niger or Yemen have high birth rates. Ethiopia will surpass Japan in population within this decade. Meanwhile, Ethiopia experiences tensions with Egypt over the use of water from the Nile River .[3] Egypt, too, has surpassed 100 million inhabitants, mostly crammed into a narrow strip along the Nile.[4]

Overpopulation in parts of Asia and Africa could potentially cause wars over water and other resources in the future. Some of these countries have problems feeding themselves even now.

If we state that 220-230 million people lived on the entire African continent in 1950, this is a reasonably realistic estimate. A single African country, Nigeria, now has a population of nearly 220 million people.[5] And it keeps growing fast. If this population growth continues, Nigeria alone could end up with a population larger than that of the entire European Union.[6] Africa is projected to have a population of perhaps 2.5 billion people by the year 2050.[7] The poorest and least technologically developed continent on this planet will thus have expanded its population ten to eleven times in less than a century. This is clearly not sustainable.

The global population is fast approaching 8 billion people. How many humans will live on this planet by the end of this century? 9 billion people? 10? 11? Or perhaps 12 billion people or more? The estimates vary. Diseases and other disasters may strike, and birth rates fluctuate. Yet countries such as Pakistan, Afghanistan, Egypt, Ethiopia and Nigeria will almost certainly have a growing population for many years to come.

Meanwhile, Europe looks like the sick man of the world. Nearly every single European nation has birth rates below replacement level. Europe seems old and tired. The ruling elites in some European countries barely try to maintain their borders, but actively promote the gradual ethnic displacement of the native population. To outsiders, Europe looks wealthy and weak. That is an extremely dangerous combination. It tempts predators who come to plunder. If the European whale is dying, better feast on its carcass now before others do so.

Europe is surrounded on its southern and eastern flanks by societies that fail in almost everything, except producing babies. Even countries that were once considered somewhat sophisticated, such as Lebanon or Tunisia, currently experience economic problems and send migrants to Europe.

A survey from 2020 indicated that nearly half of the young people in North Africa and the Middle East say they are either actively trying to migrate or are considering migrating to another country.[8] In 2018, a Pew Research Center study revealed that two-thirds of sub-Saharan Africa’s 1.1 billion people wanted to migrate to Europe or the USA within a five-year period.[9] These regions can send millions of migrants abroad every single year and still grow in population.

The number of people on the move in the world today is far greater than the number of people who moved during what Europeans call the Migration Period in the Early Middle Ages. It is unprecedented in all of human history, aided by modern technology for rapid transportation and communication.

A quick look at these numbers leads to an inescapable conclusion: Europe will probably be under siege for the rest of this century by an endless stream of migrants from dysfunctional countries throughout the global South, especially from the Islamic world and Africa.

Some say we should simply let these migrants in and “integrate” them into our societies. This is totally unrealistic.

First of all, Europe currently suffers from cultural self-loathing and does not have the self-confidence to absorb anybody. Secondly, many of the immigrants have no desire to become like us. And third, many of them have mentalities that differ so much from our own that we may never be able to successfully absorb them. Not even generations or centuries from now. They come from failed societies, and far too many of them recreate these failures in our cities.

This leaves only two possible outcomes to the current invasion and colonization of Europe. Either this invasion continues until Europe has become just as poor and backward as the lands these recent migrants come from. Or Europeans decide to send the invaders back, by force when necessary. Europe must choose to live or die. This choice must be made soon, before it is too late.

Europeans must set aside past grievances among Germans, Poles, French or Italians, among Slavic, Germanic and Celtic peoples, among Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant or atheist. Our common challenge in the coming century will be to preserve Europe as the ancestral homeland of European peoples.

It would have been great if the European Union had led these efforts. Unfortunately, the opposite seems to be the case. The EU often behaves as the anti-European Union: It leaves Europe open to invasion by intruding migrants, and tries to harass or silence native Europeans who oppose this invasion.


  1. Europe migrant crisis: More than 500 people rescued off Italian island. August 28, 2021.
  2. How many people are in the world? January 25, 2021
  3. Egypt accuses Ethiopia of violating law over controversial dam. July 6, 2021
  4. Egypt’s population boom is no boon February 17, 2020.
  5. Nigeria, estimated population mid-2021 was 219,463 million
  6. Nigeria: Larger Population Than All of Europe? September 18, 2015
  7. August 2021: Africa population estimate for the year 2050.
  8. Nearly Half of Young People in North Africa and Middle East Want to Migrate. 9 Oct 2020
  9. Up to Two-Thirds of Sub-Saharan Africa’s 1.1 Billion People Want to Migrate to the EU, U.S. 23 Mar 2018


For a complete archive of Fjordman’s writings, see the multi-index listing in the Fjordman Files.

TREASON: 124,000+ Afghans Not Known, Vetted or Tested for Covid Before Coming to America



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

“Our masters tell us that we must save ‘allies’ and ‘translators’—and then in the next breath admit that they’re indiscriminately taking anyone.” – Michael Anton

The State Department literally does not know who the tens of thousands of alleged Afghanistan citizens are that they are pushing into the United States, much less whether they have illnesses such as the coronavirus.

To repeat, not only are the supposed Afghan refugees unvetted for radical ideology or criminal backgrounds, the Biden Administration does not know who they are.

As Michael Anton of the American Mind writes:

Our masters tell us that we must save ‘allies’ and ‘translators’—and then in the next breath admit that they’re indiscriminately taking anyone.

Evacuees Not Tested for Diseases Such as the Coronavirus

Further, the State Department confirmed to the Washington Free Beacon that the “pre-departure” coronavirus testing requirement was waived:

…a blanket humanitarian exemption was issued for the requirement of pre-departure COVID testing for all individuals the U.S. government transported by aircraft from Afghanistan.

The “blanket humanitarian exemption” does not apply to Americans who will be confronted by these unknown individuals.

The Biden Administration claims that the Afghans received coronavirus tests after arriving in Philadelphia and Washington, D.C., but did not state how many tested positive and further “declined to elaborate on the quarantine procedures.”

Last year, Reuters reported that Afghan men were ignoring the coronavirus pandemic:

Herat, the country’s third largest city and a bustling province in eastern Afghanistan, has reported a high number of coronavirus cases…

The medical and security crisis has worsened in the province as thousands of men continue to ignore social distancing rules and attended a mass religious gathering at the start of the holy month of Ramadan.

It is highly unlikely that the individuals on the planes from Kabul wore masks or were social distancing. Consider, if only one of the evacuees has the coronavirus, shouldn’t ALL of the people from that plane be quarantined? Were they let out into the airport before being tested? What is the procedure?

As an important aside, to illustrate the lack of social distancing among Afghans, the Reuters article featured a photo of men gathered without masks or social distancing to listen to “imam Mawlana Mujiburahman Ansari,” who urges his followers to “punish” women who do not wear Islamic garb.

Afghan men listen to Radical Imam in Guzargah, Herat, Afghanistan April 24, 2020 

How many of the men in the above photo have come to America?

Last year it was reported that the Imam preaching to the men shown in the above photo put out “dozens of billboards and signboards” instructing women to wear the hijab.

Billboard message by Malawvi Ansari: “A man is a coward whose woman disregard Hijab. Women with hijab are the guardians of men’s honor.”

Another observation: How many people did Biden’s “security partner” Taliban get on the planes?

In a vomit-inducing, glowing piece about the Taliban, NBC News gushed:

The Defense Department has said the U.S. military worked with the Taliban to help Americans and Afghan nationals leave. But the level of coordination and assistance went well beyond what Pentagon leaders have said in public, three senior U.S. defense officials said.

Journalist Lara Logan has been highly critical of the Afghanistan exit. On Saturday, she observed on social media that the Secretary of State Antony Blinken and the Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin are giving the Taliban “legitimacy & unprecedented power” as they are “scheduled to meet with the Taliban in Doha this week.” The State Department denies that Blinken is scheduled to meet with the Taliban, but MSN reported that Blinken would “speak with the Taliban” if it “is appropriate.”

This, as Americans continue to be stranded in the country.

Read more of RAIR Foundation USA’s coverage on the Afghanistan Disaster:

Muslim Afghan ‘Refugee’ Stabs Female Gardener Several Times in Neck – Angry She Was Allowed Work



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

Why is Germany welcoming Islamic migrants who believe women are not allowed to work and should be punished or even killed for doing so?

In Berlin, Germany, on Sunday, September 5, 2021, a 29-year-old Afghan refugee repeatedly stabbed a 58-year-old landscape gardener in the neck because he was angry that a woman was allowed to have a job. A 66-year-old who came to her aid was also seriously injured and stabbed in the throat by the self-appointed enforcer of sharia.

The Muslim Afghan who came to Germany in 2016 as a refugee approached the landscape gardener at around 1.30 p.m. He first tried to engage her in conversation and then suddenly pulled out a knife and stabbed her over and over again in the neck. The Muslim also seriously injured a man trying to rescue the critically injured woman by stabbing him several times in his neck. Both victims of the attack were rushed to the hospital and had to be operated on.

Police officers arrested the Afghan at the scene. The refugee was charged with attempted murder and aggravated assault. 

Motivation: Islamic Terror or Mental Illness

The Berlin Public Prosecutor, and the State Security Service of the State Criminal Police, are reportedly investigating the reasons for the violent attack. However, both departments and the media quickly led the public to believe mental illness probably played a role in the attacks.

The media downplayed the police announcement that they would be investigating the stabbings “from the perspective of a possible Islamist-motivated attack.” Also that the refugee tried to convince his neighbors to follow Islam and proselytized from his balcony and on the street. The terrorist repeatedly tried to convert his roommates and lectured them that they “should learn Arabic, the true language of the prophet.”

Islamic attacks in Germany are part of a new normal in a country struggling with mass illegal migration since 2015. Germany has the second-largest Muslim population of any European Union country, following France. Muslims make up more than 6.1 percent of the population. Islam has become the country’s fastest-growing religion as Church memberships, and church tax revenues have decreased significantly.

As reported at RAIR Foundation USA, this is part of the United Nations (UN) and European Union’s (EU) “Great replacement” scheme. EU elites, along with the UN, are using mass migration to replace the Western population. The illegal migrants are helping the left in their fight to dilute host cultures, ensure more votes, and consolidate their power.

Media Deplays Formula For Protecting Muslim Supremacists

German left-wing media quickly deployed their formula for protecting Islamic supremacists. First, they reported that the attack: “was most likely not terror-related,” despite police announcing they do not yet know the migrant’s motives. Next, they suggested the migrant could be suffering from “psychological issues.” And finally, they paint the terrorist as a poor, exhausted migrant suffering from discrimination and stress from his racist host country.

This dangerous media narrative doesn’t allow any healthy discussion or reasonable policy concerning mass Islamic immigration to Europe or the West. Instead, the media consistently acts as an attorney to defend jihadis and, Islamic ideology that motivates these attacks.

As reported several times at RAIR Foundation USA, those who question Islamic doctrine, Muhammad, their holy books, or even the nature of sharia law will be harmed by Muslim supremacists and the left.

Throughout Europe, accusations of alleged Islamophobia by the left and from Muslims have resulted in citizens being slaughtered, living in hiding, losing their careers, and living every day of their lives with targets on their backs.

Western Women Under Threat By Islamic Migrants

The driving impulse of the Islamic migrant to harm a woman who is employed outside the home is religious in nature and not the act of an “extremist.” His behavior and actions are part of and encouraged by his Islamic belief system, allowing him to slaughter unbelievers and punish women he may see as violating the Sharia.

Refugee workers in Europe have continuously reported that Muslim Afghans commit more crimes than other refugees. Moreover, the crimes are often extremely violent and sexual towards women.

According to the Pew Research Center: In 2013, 99% of Afghans were for the establishment of sharia, 85% of them for the stoning of unfaithful women.



Now that the Taliban has seized control of Afghanistan and implemented Sharia, women are not allowed to work again. Men are in charge of women, according to the words of Muhammad and the Quran.

For years in Afghanistan, women have lived under Sharia. They were not allowed out of the home without a male chaperone. They could not enter a taxi without a chaperone, and bus services were segregated male and female only. Women were required full burqas (covering everything, including a mesh for the eyes)

Any women who disobeyed the rules in Afghanistan, even if they did not have a male relative to go outside with them, were flogged in the street or stadiums and town halls. There is also no due process for women. Often, accusations were enough to warrant a death sentence.

Despite the potential dangers Afghan refugees pose to citizens and especially women in the West, German Chancellor Angela Merkel continues to flood her country with Afghans. Why is Germany welcoming Islamic migrants who believe women are not allowed to work and should be punished or even killed for doing so? At what point with Merkel’s left-wing government be held accountable for importing threats to women?


FOLLOWING THE POPE’S MANDATES: On 9/11, Biden decries ‘resentment against Muslim-Americans — true and faithful followers of a peaceful religion’



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

“We also witnessed the dark forces of human nature. Fear and anger. Resentment and violence against Muslim-Americans — true and faithful followers of a peaceful religion.”

There is no justification whatsoever under any circumstances for violence against innocent Muslims or any innocent people. But this idea that Islam is a “peaceful religion” is nothing more than a dogma of the Leftist faith. It has no basis in reality.

Islam is not actually a religion of peace, and it is not a matter of bigotry or hatred to point this out. Are the authoritative schools of Sunni jurisprudence “Islamophobic”?

Shafi’i school: A Shafi’i manual of Islamic law that was certified in 1991 by the clerics at Al-Azhar University, one of the leading authorities in the Islamic world, as a reliable guide to Sunni orthodoxy, stipulates about jihad that “the caliph makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians…until they become Muslim or pay the non-Muslim poll tax.” It adds a comment by Sheikh Nuh Ali Salman, a Jordanian expert on Islamic jurisprudence: the caliph wages this war only “provided that he has first invited [Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians] to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya)…while remaining in their ancestral religions.” (‘Umdat al-Salik, o9.8).

Of course, there is no caliph today, and hence the oft-repeated claim that Osama et al are waging jihad illegitimately, as no state authority has authorized their jihad. But they explain their actions in terms of defensive jihad, which needs no state authority to call it, and becomes “obligatory for everyone” (‘Umdat al-Salik, o9.3) if a Muslim land is attacked. The end of the defensive jihad, however, is not peaceful coexistence with non-Muslims as equals: ‘Umdat al-Salik specifies that the warfare against non-Muslims must continue until “the final descent of Jesus.” After that, “nothing but Islam will be accepted from them, for taking the poll tax is only effective until Jesus’ descent” (o9.8).

Hanafi school: A Hanafi manual of Islamic law repeats the same injunctions. It insists that people must be called to embrace Islam before being fought, “because the Prophet so instructed his commanders, directing them to call the infidels to the faith.” It emphasizes that jihad must not be waged for economic gain, but solely for religious reasons: from the call to Islam “the people will hence perceive that they are attacked for the sake of religion, and not for the sake of taking their property or making slaves of their children, and on this consideration, it is possible that they may be induced to agree to the call, in order to save themselves from the troubles of war.”

However, “if the infidels, upon receiving the call, neither consent to it nor agree to pay capitation tax [jizya], it is then incumbent on the Muslims to call upon God for assistance, and to make war upon them, because God is the assistant of those who serve Him, and the destroyer of His enemies, the infidels, and it is necessary to implore His aid upon every occasion; the Prophet, moreover, commands us so to do.” (Al-Hidayah, II.140)

Maliki school: Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406), a pioneering historian and philosopher, was also a Maliki legal theorist. In his renowned Muqaddimah, the first work of historical theory, he notes that “in the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force.” In Islam, the person in charge of religious affairs is concerned with “power politics,” because Islam is “under obligation to gain power over other nations.”

Hanbali school: The great medieval theorist of what is commonly known today as radical or fundamentalist Islam, Ibn Taymiyya (Taqi al-Din Ahmad Ibn Taymiyya, 1263-1328), was a Hanbali jurist. He directed that “since lawful warfare is essentially jihad and since its aim is that the religion is God’s entirely and God’s word is uppermost, therefore according to all Muslims, those who stand in the way of this aim must be fought.”

This is also taught by modern-day scholars of Islam. Majid Khadduri was an Iraqi scholar of Islamic law of international renown. In his book War and Peace in the Law of Islam, which was published in 1955 and remains one of the most lucid and illuminating works on the subject, Khadduri says this about jihad:

The state which is regarded as the instrument for universalizing a certain religion must perforce be an ever expanding state. The Islamic state, whose principal function was to put God’s law into practice, sought to establish Islam as the dominant reigning ideology over the entire world….The jihad was therefore employed as an instrument for both the universalization of religion and the establishment of an imperial world state. (P. 51)

Imran Ahsan Khan Nyazee, Assistant Professor on the Faculty of Shari’ah and Law of the International Islamic University in Islamabad. In his 1994 book The Methodology of Ijtihad, he quotes the twelfth century Maliki jurist Ibn Rushd: “Muslim jurists agreed that the purpose of fighting with the People of the Book…is one of two things: it is either their conversion to Islam or the payment of jizyah.” Nyazee concludes: “This leaves no doubt that the primary goal of the Muslim community, in the eyes of its jurists, is to spread the word of Allah through jihad, and the option of poll-tax [jizya] is to be exercised only after subjugation” of non-Muslims.

“Joe Biden Marks 20th Anniversary of 9/11 Criticizing ‘Dark Forces’ in America Against ‘Peaceful Religion’ of Islam,” by Charlie Spiering, Breitbart, September 10, 2021:

President Joe Biden marked the 20th anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks by criticizing Americans for the anti-Muslim anger that occurred in the United States after the attacks took place.

“We also witnessed the dark forces of human nature. Fear and anger. Resentment and violence against Muslim-Americans — true and faithful followers of a peaceful religion,” Biden said in a prerecorded video published for the occasion.

The president said that the principle of “unity” in the country was endangered by the attacks but ultimately prevailed.

“We also saw something all too rare, a true sense of national unity,” he recalled. “Unity and resilience  – the capacity to recover and repair in the face of trauma, unity in service.”

Biden released his pre-recorded video, as the White House confirmed Friday he had no plans to address the nation on the 20th anniversary of the attacks.

He began by recalling a friend of his who lost their son in the attacks in New York City and sympathized with the families who lost loved ones in the attacks….

Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib Mark 9/11 With Resolution Claiming Muslims Were the Real Victims



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

If there was one day of the year where the most loathsome members of the Squad should summon up some lingering decency and shut up, it would be this one. But of course, the terror caucus can never rest and so it had a plan for defiling the September 11 anniversary.

And so Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib, along with Pramila Jayapal, introduced a resolution claiming that Muslims were the real victims of September 11 and suffered persecution due to counterterrorism.

The hateful resolution reads in part…

“Whereas there was a climate of hate in which Arab, Muslim, Middle Eastern, South Asian, and Sikh communities experienced bullying and violence in their everyday lives and in their workplaces, businesses, community centers and houses of worship;

Whereas the government targeted Arab, Muslim, Middle Eastern, South Asian and Sikh communities with overreaching policing, surveillance, and criminalization policies that resulted in wrongful interrogation, coercion, detention, deportation, arrest, and incarceration;

Whereas core principles like due process, presumption of innocence, and evidence of wrongdoing were replaced with mob mentality and guilt by association; Whereas the fearmongering and hateful rhetoric witnessed in the aftermath of the attacks remain commonplace today;

Whereas border officials and government authorities cast aside constitutional rights and engaged in discriminatory searches and seizures of Arab, Muslim, Middle Eastern, South Asian, and Sikh community members;

Whereas false narratives about Arabs, Islam and American Muslims abound, and are encouraged and justified by a network of closely connected and well-funded organizations and activists that seek to propagate misinformation about these communities and provide support for policies that curtail their rights;

Whereas the conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere, as well as human rights violations ranging from torture at Guantanamo Bay to extrajudicial drone strikes, also contributed to this climate of hate and the government targeting of these communities;”

The resolution “acknowledges the climate of hate that Arab, Muslim, Middle Eastern, South Asian and Sikh communities have experienced since September 11, 2001” and “) Calls the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the National Institute of Health, and the National
Science Foundation to work together to study the impact of hate, government targeting, and profiling on physical and mental health.”

Maybe this is why Muslim apologists keep claiming that every Muslim terrorist is suffering from mental illness.