June 26th, 2009 by admin

by D. L. Adams

The adherents of multiculturalism, the doyens of political correctness, are anti-intellectual. They reside in a self-referential world outside of reality and  devoid of common sense; they are the soldiers of anti-knowledge.

PC people are constantly mentally busy because they are always doing self-checks to be sure that they are adhering to their doctrine of wishful thinking.

There is a mental gymnastic that the followers of this modern religion perform often many times every day. It is a kind of self-check to make sure that they are within the orthodoxy, within the mainstream of wishful, positive thinking upon which their belief system is founded.

The ongoing jihad against the west (and against multiculturalists, of course) is a case in point. When critics, analysts, and historians of Islam speak negatively about Islam the mutliculturalists always are ready with a contrarian reply. Their response is not based on knowledge of the subject, nor historical understanding, appreciation of current events, understanding of Islamic doctrine, or even lending credence to terrorists who say they are doing terror and murder because of the doctrine of Islam. Rather,  multiculturalists perform a mental protocol which allows them to respond with a self-identified authority but without knowledge or understanding. This is anti-knowledge.

The politically correct response to an intellectual challenge is an anti-intellectual negation of the learning of those who hold opinions that are considered unpleasant and outside their orthodoxy.

Alan Bloom in “Closing of the American Mind” discussed this phenomenon during the 1980s in the elite universities of the United States, but he did not go far enough. The adherents of Political correctness are the vanguard of an anti-intellectualism that negates knowledge and learning and fundamentally undermines the purpose of the academy itself. If only Bloom could have seen further along into the future than he did, perhaps his book would have been titled something like “The Failure of the American Intellectual Elite and its Discontents”.

When a critic of Islam says, “Islam is a cruel political system masquerading as a religion” the multiculturalists are deeply offended. They are not upset because Islam is so cruel but rather that Islam is being criticized.

Criticism of any belief system is contrary to the concepts of total acceptance, total tolerance that multiculturalists espouse but  most importantly criticism of Islam is considered entirely outre. Perhaps this is because Islam is now under scrutiny because of 9/11, Beslan, Mumbai, London, Madrid, Bali, Pakistan, Iraq, Israel, etc. Islam must not be scrutinized because something unpleasant might be found. Unpleasantness anywhere, especially in Islam is not part of this world view of multiculturalists.

This is their foundation because they believe that every belief system is of inherent value (particularly Islam) and is of equal import. This is why President Obama said in Cairo recently to  the so-called “Muslim World” that Islam was important in the development of the United States. The truth is this: Islam was not important in the development of the United States except in the development of American military (naval) power.

American naval power was developed specifically to fight jihadist Barbary Coast Islamic piracy in the early 1800s. This is not an issue open for debate it is simply an historical fact supported by the policies and writings of President Jefferson and the historical record.

Multiculturalists will not acknowledge this fact, but it is truth nonetheless. Political correctness is not an orthodoxy of truth, it is one of hope and ignorance. It is founded upon hope that extreme tolerance will make enemies into friends and upon the denial of knowledge .

In the mental worldview of the mutliculturalist there is no good and no bad, only differences. To these shallow analysts “differences” whatever they may be are fundamentally good.

The foundation of political correctness is the acceptance of differences, extreme tolerance of core differences- even for those ideologies that instruct their followers to commit murder of those who are not part of the group – you know, like uber-tolerant multiculturalists.

This extreme tolerance is fundamentally what multiculturalists claim is the best part of their orthodoxy. They suggest that when we as a society are tolerant, we can “all just get along”. But this is moral relativism because there are some individuals and some philosophies that we cannot get along with who have no interest in getting along with us.

In order to be intellectually valid the political correctness theory requires both sides of the moral equation to be equally tolerant; they rarely are.

In the case of Islam, the tolerance of American multiculturalists for Islam’s intolerance is a sign to Islam of western societal and moral degredation and weakness.

This reality of the failure of multiculturism is reflected in the rejection of Obama’s open hand of appeasement by the mullahs of Iran.

Islam uses political correctness. Islam grows because multiculturalists who know nothing of Islam and protect it because extreme tolerance is their moral philosophy, are the “useful idiots”, the anti-intellectual foot soldiers of totalitarianism.

The PC acolytes believe that since Islamic totalitarianism is “different” – and “difference” is inherently worthy -  it is considered then of equal value to anything else, equivalent to democracy and freedom. This is intellectual and moral failure.

Western political correctness is nothing more than prettified cultural and societal surrender.

The forces of totalitarian Islam see and understand this “philosophy” as the politically correct adherents do not. To the forces who desire our demise political correctness is their ally.

Extreme tolerance, tolerance of those who want to conquer us through any means, is seen by the forces of evil as moral, ethical and societal weakness and that is exactly what it is.

Islam is on the rise because we are on the decline.

When a critic of Islam says, “Islam is a totalitarian, cruel ideology of hatred and intolerance” the multiculturalist, extreme tolerance-centric westerner does this: they replace “Islam” with “Jew” and do a “self-test”. They restate the statement about Islam but now it is about Judaism.

“Judaism”, the desperate multiculturalist thinks-using their broken calculus, “is a totalitarian, cruel ideology of hatred and intolerance”. The next step for the PC doyen is quick: did the Nazis say such things against the Jews? Well, if they didn’t it sure sounds like a Nazi-ish statement!

Then, the multiculturalist dismisses the original statement about Islam and condemns the speaker for being a racist and bigot. This is the core of political correctness lunacy and anti-intellectualism. Dismissal of true context and a reassignment of inappropriate context to the argument specifically for the protection of politically correct ideas (and not for the pursuit of truth) is the purpose of the politically correct response.

Political correctness and multiculturalism are self-referential theories, they understand reality only in so far as it confirms or denies their foundational concepts. Anything that offends their fundamental concepts of how the world functions must be destroyed and the proponents of such ideas vilified. This is how self-referential ideologies (multiculturalism and Islam) that deny reality continue to exist and grow. Truth is not the core, protecting the ideology is the core.

The Jews of Germany prior to the Holocaust were completely assimilated into German culture. In fact, most Jews of Germany prior to the 2nd World War considered themselves Germans first and Jews second.

The mental gymnastics of the politically correct anti-intellectuals is false. Jews did not attack Germany, instead they were at the core of German intellectual, and cultural life. Jews were at the core of German life. Our own Manhattan Project was staffed with brilliant Jewish scientist escapees from nazism.

Islam has declared war on the west, on the United States andIsrael, but we prefer to pretend that there is no war, that Islam is “the religion of peace” and that terrorists quoting Islamic doctrine as they kill non-believers are misunderstanding and “highjacking” the doctrine of Islam. Political correctness is a fraud.

The adherent of multiculturalism denies a truth that they do not prefer to accept.

The truth of Islam is that it IS totalitarian, it is cruel and it is intolerant. We see evidence of this in the doctrine of Islam, in the activities of Islam every day, and in the writings of jihadists. This is the true reality. Political correctness and multiculturalism is the denial of reality and nothing less.

Islam is at war with us, and we pretend that it is not.

In no other war in history has any nation ever persevered when the very existence of the conflict was denied. Our multiculturalists and politically correct well-wishers are self-destructive.

Denial of reality is self-destructive; denial of reality is anti-intellectual. Political correctness is jihad. 

June 24th, 2009 by admin

by Tim Cummings

This is a question I hear often from citizens who feel as if they have been forgotten by their elected officials.  Their frustration with unresponsive politicians is to be expected, but the answer to the question is a resounding YES; you can make a difference!

One such example is the recent and repeated attempts to provide amnesty to illegal aliens. If one were to choose to listen to the media such action would appear unstoppable. But, time and again, as bills were introduced into Congress, the voters communicated with their elected representatives, and each of these efforts died … despite the desires of many politicians to push this legislation through.

Your communications to your elected officials do carry enormous weight.  In fact, one of the fastest ways to lose a job as a staffer is to fail to record a constituent’s interest/ objection to legislation. Most elected representatives want to be re-elected!  Regardless of their personal view of an issue they absolutely want to know the sense of the people back home, their constituents. They judge this primarily by the response of the vocal citizenry.  If you are silent, your position will not be represented.

With this said, what is the most effective way to communicate?  To state the obvious, whatever way you actually chose to communicate will be effective for you.  Let’s consider the following opportunities to “reach out and touch” your congressman or senators.  The obvious choices are emails, faxes, petitions, phone calls, letter writing, and office visits.  Many times you have an opportunity to contact officials other than your specific representatives.  If you are contacting them because of the position they hold, such as Speaker of the House or the chairman or member of a specific committee, your communications will carry weight.  Otherwise, contacting representatives for whom you cannot vote carries considerably less weight (Note that I did not say “no weight”).  Representatives are most concerned with the people who elect them.  I am not discouraging you from communicating with any elected official as their decisions do impact you. It is important to realize that if you have limited time, focus on your elected officials, first.

Before detailing the various means of communication, let’s define some strategy.  There are two main strategies when communicating with elected officials.  The first strategy is to get your position counted.  Under this strategy, the reason why you feel the way you do is not really important – you just want to get your side of an issue counted.  This is a key strategy when floor votes on legislation are approaching.  If you are addressing a bill under consideration, always, always, always include the bill number in your communications!

The second strategy is to make your convictions known to your representative(s).  He/she was elected to represent you, so do not be shy about sharing your views – whether you voted for the representative or not.

Emails:  Email is such a useful tool – especially since the Anthrax scares.  Email is fast and efficient.  Technology allows a representative to parse emails for key words and record your support or dissent.  If your purpose is to get your position logged and counted, using the form based email system available at each representative’s website works well.  When you fill out the form, your entries are entered directly into a database and from there can be viewed, tabulated, and assessed.  Normally, these forms have one or more fields where you can leave additional comments.

Most representatives will accept emails sent directly to their email addresses.  I believe the White House has closed this option and accepts only those generated through their online form.  While your views from a direct email will be logged and counted, this type of communication does require more work on the part of the representative’s staff.

If you are a part of an interest group that will email for you, be sure to change something in the email to personalize it, if you can.  It may be that you can change the subject, or one or more sentences in the body of the email.  Many congressional offices will run software to identify “generated” emails.  These are not discounted entirely but an email that shows your personal touch will carry more weight.

Emails are a great way to make a final push when a bill is moving to the floor for a vote.  Email carries less weight (in some cases none) if you are not in the congressman’s district or the senator’s state.  An exception to this rule is if the person you are contacting sits on a committee that is conducting hearings on the bill upon which you are commenting.  A surprisingly small number of emails can impact a representative’s vote!

Online Petitions:  Online petitions are a mixed bag.  The ones solicited by chain emails are worthless.  They have no real validation and are, in my opinion, a waste of time.  In fact, they may lull constituents into a false sense of having done something effective when they have not. 

Petitions that are managed by an organization are a different story.  Grassfire was one of the first organizations to effectively manage electronic petition drives.  How can you tell if a petition drive is worth pursuing?  Consider these features:

1. It should be a web-based form
2. It should validate your participation by collecting at least an email address.  Collecting zip code is better as that identifies your representatives.  Some permit you to provide a signature.  Do not include any information that might lead to identity theft.
3. If possible, have a copy of the petition sent to your email address and store in a folder for documentation.
   Petitions, properly managed, are a way to add your weight to a group with common concerns on an issue.  They are also helpful in waging the media battle on a contested issue.

Faxes:  Faxes are viewed as showing a higher level of commitment than emails.  As such, they carry more weight.  Most representatives have software to receive faxes electronically which can parse for specific words.  If you use an organization to generate your fax, you can usually personalize your fax – do so if possible.

Phone Calls:  Phone calls carry more weight than emails or faxes, as they represent a greater level of involvement and interest.  Many representatives will monitor and track an issue if they receive as few as ten phone calls from their constituents on that issue.  The issue will continue to be tracked and reported upon each week that 10 or more calls are received. 

You can make multiple calls on an issue.  A good strategy is to call different offices, rather than the same one each time.  Congressmen have at least two offices.  Senators typically have three or more.  Many people feel that their comments are ignored if they are on a different side of the issue than the representative.  I assure you that your position is being logged and counted, even if they do not record the full details of your argument.

Understanding this fact, it is best to be polite, and brief in your comments.  If you are calling about a contentious issue, you are probably one of many calls being handled.  Be considerate of the staffers and help them enjoy taking your calls.  Remember that the exercise is to get your position recorded.  You don’t have to argue them into accepting it.  It is far more effective to spend your time encouraging like-minded constituents to place their own calls than to spend time trying to argue a staffer into changing their position on an issue.

If you feel strongly about an issue, create a plan to contact your representative(s) once a week for as long as the issue is being considered.  Never comment on two issues in a single phone call!

Writing letters:  A concise, well written letter is a very powerful tool for any voter when communicating with your elected representatives.  Since the anthrax scare, the procedures for handling any written correspondence adds anywhere from four to six weeks to the delivery time.  This virtually eliminates this method of communicating with your representative for time sensitive issues such as floor votes.  Just be aware of this limitation if you chose to send letters or post cards through the US Mail.

Office Visits and Appearances:  Probably the most powerful way to communicate with your representative(s) is to show up at an office location or a public event such as a town hall meeting.  You can join the representative’s mailing list and get updates on his/her scheduled appearances.  Your attendance shows a level of commitment far beyond the normal constituent.  You presence can also serve to bring focus to issues where the representative may differ from your position in a forum which may get other voters to consider your point of view as well.  Always be concise, pleasant, and respectful.  You will be known as much by your attitude as your arguments.  The object is to engage in the discussion of the ideas and principles … not to get excluded from the debate.

Much of today’s debate is being stifled.  This can be very frustrating to people who are committed and passionate about their views.  Being respectful and controlling your emotions will go a long way toward winning … remember that winning – in this environment – is getting your view counted by your elected representative.  It is foremost a “game of numbers” first.  The next most important issue is getting your arguments heard.  This is best achieved through dialogue, not confrontation.  Keep focused here. Remember, the party that loses control of emotions first, is generally the party that loses the battle as well.

To sum up yes, your opinion can count.  As few as 1000 comments to a representative may change his or her vote on an issue.  You need to make your view known in a respectful manner.  There are two ways to accomplish this task, one is to impact by getting counted on one side or the other of an issue, the second is to promote the views you hold on an issue.  Each approach has its place.  The hierarchy of impact increases (the number of instances of communication to sway a representative decreases) as follows:

1. Email
2. Properly Conducted Petition Drives
3. Faxes (personalize if possible)
4. Phone Calls
5. Written Correspondence (as opposed to electronic)
6. Physical Appearances

What is vitally important to remember is that in a congressional district with an average of 650,000 people, it may take only one thousand (1000) emails and phone calls to change a representative’s vote.  You can be one of those making the difference.

Tim Cummings
citizen@buzzmaster.net

June 21st, 2009 by admin

by D. L. Adams

In times of great uncertainty, confusion, and even despair, absolutist philosophies and ideologies gain ground. These are our times, and Islam is the absolutist ideology of the moment.

Some commentators and modern philosophers have suggested that we live in a time of post-Christianity – the failure of the Catholic church leads this fall. Repeated cases of child abuse by errant priests over the last twenty years have put the moral foundation of the Catholic Church in America at risk.

Current economic strife and general uncertainty in the totality of the restructuring of American institutions of government and business add to the growing sense of unease and discomfort across the culture. Those of the political left celebrated the election of Barack Obama as something of a messianic revival – they wanted change, and they’ve got it. Change they could believe in. But this kind of sweeping fundamental change in all of our institutions, our foreign policy, and the character of our leadership was not what most of the electorate had bargained for – even the accolytes and high priest of the new messianism which is Obamoidism.

All of the notions of the past seem to be collapsing around us, and what has always been true is now true again, everything is about money – one doesn’t have it, one struggles for it, one fights to retain it. There is now no discussion of upward mobility, only yearning to keep what one has and prevent a further decline. There are few who are thriving.

This environment is the perfect world for absolutist ideologies. The places where people used to go for answers have fallen or seem to be in collapse – we live in an environment of “crisis of confidence” every day. This emotional, intellectual, economic, and philosophical barrage is the perfect garden for absolutist ideologies such as Islam to plant seeds and watch them grow with but a little water, and no love.

There is no “Golden Rule” in the ideology of Islam. We in the Judeo-Christian world of American culture understand the foundation of ethics and morality to be “do unto other as you would have them do unto you”. This is a concept embraced by all philosophies founded upon kindness, compassion, and empathy. It is not embraced by Islam.

In his appeasement address to the so-called “Muslim World”, President Obama told his audience in Cairo and across the world that the United States is one of the largest Muslim countries of the earth. This is not so – Muslims are approximately 1.2% of the population. The “Golden Rule”, do unto others as you would have them do unto you, is the foundation of our national ethics and the core of our identity at home and abroad. We are not now an Islamic country by any stretch. There is no “Golden Rule” in Islam. If we were to use the language of our own heritage to describe the foundational rule of Islam it would be this: Do Unto Others.

Islam is not about compassion, nor is it the religion of peace. It is a unified ideology of existence whose logic and ethics are dualistic. There is one set of ethics for the Umma (the community of Islam) and quite another for the unbeliever, the kafir. The term kafir is one of derision. Islam can do anything it wishes to the unbelievers including violence, rape, enslavement, deceipt, everything unpleasant you can imagine because one of the greatest sins of Islam is not being a believer. In Islam unbelief (being a kafir) is a greater sin than murder. This is why those who leave Islam (apostates) suffer death because their sin is considered so great by the collective of Islam, the Umma.

A new website called “Huntch” recently got some positive advertising (masquerading as a news article) on CNN.com. This is a site in which you ask a question and the site returns advice. The advice is based upon your answers, and the answers of thousands of others, to a series of questions. The aptly named founder of the site a Ms. Caterina Fake says in the article,

Fake: It’s like it’s an amazing period in the history of the Internet just in that way. … We know more in the collective than we do in the individual.

The collective, not the individual is the core of Islam. Perhaps this is why Islam is so attractive to so many who are in deep confusion and having difficulty finding answers.

People want answers and they want definitive answers. Can there be a more vigorously definitive ideology than Islam?

Islam is not about moral choices or ethical dilemmas: Islam is about what is forbidden and what is allowed. What is allowed is somehow moral, and what is forbidden is apparently immoral. Then there is Mohammed, the Prophet of Islam, the greatest example of humanity that all Muslims are to emulate. Mohammed is the measure, Mohammed is the guide for all adherents of Islam. Islam means “Submission”, a Muslim is one who “Submits”. What they submit to is the ideology of Islam as found in Koran, Hadith, and the biography of Mohammed, the Sira. Unfortunately, Mohammed was not a very Christian fellow.

Jihad, “fighting in Allah’s cause” is mentioned again and again in the Koran. Even when adherents do not want to do Jihad they are obligated to participate. Jihad is the conversion of all kafirs to Islam by violence, propaganda, money, and deception, essentially by any means. All Muslims must participate in Jihad or at least support those who do. This is a fundamental pillar of Islam, some have called Jihad the 6th pillar it is so critically important. What does this mean for those who are not Muslim? This means that the denial of the Golden Rule is at work forever against them, “Do Unto Others”; “do” can mean a great many things but it essentially means the conversion of the kafirs, their cultures, religions, and governments to Islam by any means.

The doctrine of Islam is frozen in time, but it is very much alive. It cannot be criticized, it cannot be reformed. The lack of a “golden rule” and Islam’s lack of compassion and empathy for those who are unbelievers is the foundation of the greatest conflict of the planet, ongoing jihad against the kafir.

People on a “personal journey” seek answers. But even moreso they seek surety, absolutes, definitive truths. Islam offers all of these things. Having a morality and ethics based entirely on the eradicaction and conquest of “the other” the kafir, Islam is the greatest ideology of war and death ever invented. But it is also said that it is the fastest growing “religion” in the world.

Just as addiction is said to be a universal human failing, a flaw in our organic character that we all must rise above, this yearning and need in some for  definitiveness and absolute surety is another. Islam feeds on this flaw, exploits it as a cult exploits the runaway at downtown bus terminals and rail stations.

In Islam there are no moral and ethical quandries; there is only what is allowed and what is forbidden. In Islam there is no compassion except for other adherents, the kafir gets no compassion until the kafir is converted. Since death and enslavement is an option for those kafirs who resist Islam, there is no compassion or empathy at all, forever for the kafir. If the conflict with Islam is not a civilizational conflict the term must be forever retired.

As our institutions come into doubt, as our economy and our work lives hang by an apparent thread, and our national leadership embrace the lie that is peaceful Islam perhaps it is understandable that so many see Islam exactly for what it is not.

In this time of national realignment, institutional distrust and failure and a continuing sense of urgency and emergency there are many who find absolutism attractive. Just as the Germans of the 1930’s found the absolutism of Nazism attractive as their own economy failed and their international reputation and sense of national pride collapsed, Islam fills this need for those who cannot see the greater picture.

It is said that Lenin described those in the West who supported Soviet Communism as “useful idiots”. Those who defend Islam yet know nothing about it, having never read the doctrine are the same; those who attack scholars who discuss the doctrine are the same; those who say that Islam is the religion of peace while acts of violence that any civilized person must condemn occur daily accross the world in the name of Allah and Mohammed are the same. The searchers who have lost their way, who have lost faith in their religions, their families, their nations are Islam’s useful idiots.

Ms. Fake of Huntch.com says that ”we know more” in the collective than we do as individuals. This concept of the value of the collective over the individual is fundamentally oppposed to American concepts of democracy built upon individual worth, choice, and freedoms. But it is very much in line with the ideology of Islam.

In Islam there are no individuals, there are only those who submit – those who then are part of the collective, those who submit. There is only the Umma. For those who have desires and goals outside the Umma, the collective, there is nothing. Islam is the opposite of individual empowerment, it is the submission of the individual to a collective. Such a concept is the antithesis of American concepts of pluralism, freedom, and individual worth.

Hugh Fitzgerald is quite right when he says that Islam is a collective. Essentially, the promise of Islam is a lie – there is no true “truth” in the absolutist ideology of Islam but the ideology of Islam itself. It is self-referential, self-annointing, and self-propagating. Islam is about nothing except Islam itself and there is little profundity in that that any thoughtful “searcher” could find enlightening or attractive. Absolutism is a false path, an escape from confusion and personal, local, regional, and national challenges. Islam is the opposite of American democracy, it is no religion of peace regardless of what Mr. Obama may say.

And far from being a faith that allows for individual autonomy, Islam is a collectivist faith. One’s sole duty is to Islam. In Islam, it is perhaps most accurate to say that neither Allah nor even Muhammad, that exemplary Perfect Man, is being worshipped, but rather Islam itself. Yes, in Islam one worships….Islam. And the individual adherent, that “slave of Allah,” must conform outwardly to Islam, and, ideally, live in a state where the Holy Law of Islam, the Shari’a is enforced.  (Hugh Fitzgerald, Jihad Watch)

June 19th, 2009 by admin

Enjoy!

Jump to Reading List

June 14th, 2009 by admin

by D. L. Adams

President Obama  recently assured the “Muslim World” that we are not war with Islam, and never will be. The response has been less than encouraging. The lack of buy-in to Obama’s message of friendship and pandering to the “Muslim World” is because while we may not be at war with them, they are certainly at war with us.

Throughout history there have been civilizations that are so fundamentally different from one another that no interaction or accommodation between them could be possible. This is the situation with Islam. Because Islam is at war with every kafir state and religion everywhere and forever, accommodation or understanding with Islam in the Obama model cannot be successful.

The doctrine of Islam states that no religion is acceptable other than Islam; it asserts Islam’s superiority over every political and religious system anywhere and for all time. Adherents to the ideology of Islam are required to “fight in Allah’s cause” even though they’d not prefer to be involved in such things. Allah commands that all must be involved in Jihad or at least support those who are. Islam is much more than a religion, it is also a political, cultural, legal, and military system that encompasses the entirety of existence from birth to death; it is a comprehensive ideology.

Because the majority of the Koran discusses how adherents are to interact with non-believers the Koran is the foundational document of a political ideology whose purpose is the conversion and destruction of all  non-Muslim states and cultures and peoples everywhere and forever. This conversion and destruction of non-Muslim peoples is acccomplished through Jihad.

Jihad is asymmetrical war. This is the kind of warfare we now face in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is about propaganda, street violence, assassinations, church burnings, brutality and barbarism and small unit actions of violence and mass-murder that terrify the kafirs into inaction. There are no mass armies on the move in this war (though some jihad actions in the past have involved such kinds of warfare), no massive air bombing campaigns like those of WW2 there is only constant strife and conflict at the street level and into the institutions of the host culture whereby they are undermined and prevented from mounting an effective defense.

There are two phases of Islamic jihad, active warfare and hudna. Hudna is not peace because no Muslim is bound by any treaty of word or paper with a non-Muslim. Treaties between Muslims and kafirs are worth less than the paper that they are printed upon. Mohammed broke treaties, and encouraged lies and deceptions in Jihad and that is exactly what we see today.

“The Quran also allows them to be “disobedient towards the disbelievers and their governments and strive against the unvlievers with great endeavour.” (25:52)
- Shoebat, Why We Want to Kill You, p214

Westerners confuse the temporary period of non-fighting which is “hudna” with actual peace. The truth is that hudna is just a period of time that passes without conflict while the forces of jihad regroup, rearm and wait for new opportunities to fight the kafir unbelievers. Mohammed used this tactic to great success as do all of his followers over time.

There is no peace with Islam and with Jihad, there is only a temporary pause as the jihadists await better opportunities. For many it is difficult to conceive that this status quo of fighting punctuated by pauses could be a tactic rather than a situational response to political conflict (e.g., Israel-Palestine). Our leaders say that we are not at war because they cannot conceive that this kind of warfare can be real, but it is. This is entirely an ignorance-based position. We are very much at war with Islam but we do not defend ourselves because our leadership has deluded itself into believing that the war is not real.

But the war is very real, and we are losing it because we will not take action for defense.

We are overrun and in retreat everywhere even as we apologize to our enemies and pretend that their culture is foundational to our own, which is false.  We cannot fight a war that is waged against us when we pretend that it is not happening. Jihad has never stopped since the founding of this ideology, it only pauses. So long as the trilogy doctrine of Islam requires adherents to “fight in Allah’s Cause” everywhere and forever, we are at war with Islam because they are at war with us. This is not a matter of opinion it is rather a matter of the acceptance of an ugly reality.

In the Islamic world honor and pride override all boundaries and linkages of kin and morality. Those who offend the honor and pride of their Islamic familiesdo so at their peril. Family bonds and responsibilities are subsumed by the demands of Islam.  The Umma of Islam is the family to adherents. This is contrary to our western concepts of the overriding value of family connections. One’s connection to Islam is more important than one’s connections to family, father and children, sister and brother, etc.

In their investigation, PCHR said police sources “revealed that the victim’s father issued a confession to the police” that he had killed his daughter to “preserve family honor.” (Maan News, see link above)

………………

In the first incident of its kind, a Palestinian family has killed its 15-year-old son in the West Bank after accusing him of “collaboration” with Israel.  

Raed Wael Sawalha’s body was discovered in the basementof a house in his village of Hijjah in the Kalkilya area on Wednesday.

The Palestinian Authority security forces announced that they have arrested a number of the boy’s family members in connection with the killing. (Jerusalem Post)

This kind of barbarity is fundamentally in opposition to our concepts of morality and family relationships. This is a civilizational conflict.

Recently in Pakistan a Christian man was murdered for drinking from a cup that was designated for Muslims only. He was beaten to death with “stones, iron rods and clubs” by 14 Muslim men. This is barbarism and this is a civilization  opposed to our own. A recent public beating in Afghanistan by a Taliban man puts on clear display the totalitarian brutality of Islam and those states that follow Sharia law.

Several weeks ago, a US Army private was killed in front of an army recruiting center in Little Rock, Arkansas. The killer was a Muslim jihadist. A memorial service for this victim of Islamic jihad was held in Little Rock. A Muslim woman in a burka showed up at the event screaming Islamic supremacist and Jew hatred slogans, interfering with the memorial. This was all captured on video. (See below).

Why would someone interfere at a memorial event for an innocent American murdered by a new-fangled Muslim jihadist killer? Interfering in the service was this woman’s jihad, fighting in Allah’s cause against the kafir. No compassion is extended to the kafir unbelievers in jihad, no basic courtesy even in mourning is given. Kafirs are less than human, they do not merit any courtesies from Muslims. Terrorizing kafirs, confusing them, and preventing them from following their own traditions of remembrance and respect are all jihad actions.

The kafir culture and kafirs themselves merit no respect by Islam and its adherents. Because kafirs have not accepted Allah and Mohammed so they are therefore the enemy. Islam knows its enemies – all non-believers wherever they might be. We do not know ours. ”The sheep do not know the wolf, but the wolf knows the sheep.” (Walid Shoebat)

Deconstruction of western traditions and even funeral observances are all part of the ongoing jihad. This is asymmetrical warfare in this civilizational conflict. We pretend it is not real – but it will not go away nevertheless.

June 9th, 2009 by admin

by D. L. Adams 

It is inaccurately understood that the United States remains in Iraq and Afghanistan because we are creating democratic states (where previously there had never been such things). This is the common (mis)conception of our mission in these two countries where trillions in American treasure and thousands of American lives have been sacrificed. There is a problem, however.

What we are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan is nation-building. This is not the same thing as building democratic states. If our mission is to build democracies, we have failed.

The constitutions of Iraq and Afghanistan are both available online. A review of both documents shows that we have failed in building democracies in both places because both countries are Islamic Sharia states, as far from democracy as Nazism and Stalinism. But we remain, nevertheless, pouring in blood and treasure to prop up these phantasm entities whose existence is contrary, in every respect, to our own continued existence and prosperity.

Iraqi Constitution

Article 2:

First: Islam is the official religion of the State and it is a fundamental source of legislation:

A. No law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established.

B. No law that contradicts the principles of democracy may be established. (Source)

The inherent contradiction between Article 2/First and the statement that “no law that contradicts the principles of democracy” may not be as clear as it should be. The first statement is an assertion that Islam is the law of the land; the law of Islam is Sharia law.

Sharia is the Islamic system of law that provides for the subjugation of women, the brutal killing of gays, the mistreatment of those of other faiths and the  complete supremacy of Islam and its adherents in all aspects of the operations and life of the state. This is fundamentally opposed to the inclusiveness, openness, and freedoms guaranteed to the invidual in a democracy. In previous generations we fought such states that espoused systems like Sharia and intolerance of others. But we do not now; we prop them up. Why?

Afghan Constitution 

Article One
Ch. 1. Art. 1

Afghanistan is an Islamic Republic, independent, unitary and indivisible state.

Article Two
Ch. 1, Art. 2

The religion of the state of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan is the sacred religion of Islam.

Followers of other religions are free to exercise their faith and perform their religious rites within the limits of the provisions of law. (Source)

The wording of Afghanistan’s founding document is similar to that of Iraq’s; both are Islamic states, Sharia is the law of the land.

Afghanistan makes the claim that followers of other religions are free to exercise their faiths “within the limits of the provisions of law”, unfortunately for such kafirs (unbelievers) the “law” of the land is Sharia.

Those who attempt to practice other religions under Islamic dominion are unhappy people in the extreme. The exodus of Christians from Iraq proves this point, and the recent narrowly reversed death sentence of a Christian convert (an apostate) in Afghanistan shows the hypocrisy of that country’s constitution.

In Islamic law it is illegal to leave Islam and take another religion; in fact, this is considered one of the greatest of sins in Islam. The punishment for leaving Islam (apostasy) is death.

One might reasonably ask how a “religion of peace” could require death for those whose paths and personal life journeys take them in a different direction away from the Umma? In Islam, if the ruler so desires, other religions may be tolerated, but they must live as “dhimmis” (semi-slaves) and pay the punishing jizya tax (poll tax). No religions and no political systems other than Islam are allowed by the doctrine of Islam. Dhimmitude is tolerated as it benefits the rulers.

The doctrine of Islam states that there are three options open to the kafir; conversion, dhimmitude, and death. Dhimmitude is meant to take advantage of the labor of the dhimmi and propel them to convert to ease the burden of their lives. It is a brutally effective system – diabolical, brutal, heartless, cruel, savage - but very effective.

In light of our ongoing fiscal and literal bleeding in Afghanistan and in Iraq, whose purpose is to bring change to countries previously under the yoke of tyranny, it seems out of context that President Obama would have felt the need to defend and apologize for American actions to the “Muslim world” in Cairo recently.  Why must we explain ourselves to the “Muslim world” when we are actively assisting Muslims in numerous countries and have done so for years? 

Our relationship with Islam is not  a relationship of mutual aid. It is a relationship of give and take with the Muslim world taking and demanding ever more from us, while we continue to give and give while our own country and economy fail. This is lunacy and national suicide; it is not any kind of statecraft that can be supported by reasonable people. 

If Saddam was unpalatable, we wanted a change for the Iraqi people and ousted him; if the Taliban were unpalatable, we wanted a change for the people of Afghanistan and ousted them. Just as in the Gaza Strip where Hamas was democratically elected by a landslide, the followers of the so-called religion of peace across the world will use democracy to vote in anti-democratic institutions, the institutions of political Islam (which they favor and espouse). Anti-democracy is the fundamental concept of Islam. Democracy and Islam are incompatible. Read the constitutions of Iraq and Afghanistan, and the Hamas “Charter”. Tx`here is no doubt on these points.  

Hamas Charter

The Universality of Hamas

Article Seven

By virtue of the distribution of Muslims, who pursue the cause of the Hamas, all over the globe, and strive for its victory, for the reinforcement of its positions and for the encouragement of its Jihad, the Movement is a universal one.

Islam is a reactionary, global,  revolutionary movement of intolerance and violence whose purpose as stated in its doctrine and innumerable following documents is the destruction of all kafir peoples, religions, states, institutions and cultures. Our leadership says that we are not at war with Islam. This is very convenient for Islam and a disaster for us because Islam is very much at war with us.

President Obama campaigned on the concept of “change”. We brought change to both Iraq and Afghanistan, but it is not the kind of change that any lover of freedom can support. Anti-war partisans of the left said,  during the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, “no blood for oil”. With oil at 70/barrel and gas again approaching 3/gallon in the US clearly this is not a war about oil. So then, what is this about? The Taliban are still active in Afghanistan and poised to overthrow nuclear-armed Pakistan. Internecine fighting continues almost daily between Sunnis and Shias in Iraq with American soldiers in the middle.

During the Second World War we allied with Communist Russia so that both could defeat Nazism – a common enemy. Russia later bankrupted itself fighting Islamists in Afghanistan, the same path that we tread now. Why?

These foundational questions are not being asked and they should be. Why do we support totalitarian Islamic Sharia states in Iraq and Afghanistan when we fought wars against totalitarian regimes in the not so distant past? Who is the mutual enemy for whose defeat our purposes are allied? If there is a greater enemy that a strengthened Iraq and Afghanistan can assist us in opposing who is it?

At this time we fight our wars in a vacuum with no clear purpose, no clear cause to follow, no clear mission; and a totally confused foundational concept of why we are there.  And when we leave, with two Islamic Sharia states of jihad and intolerance behind us, what will we have accomplished?

Defeating totalitarian movements like the Taliban is essentially good. Defeating dictators like Saddam Hussein is essentially good. But what is the essential good in creating and propping up Islamic Sharia states whose purpose is our own eradication? These explanations have never been provided. Now is the time.

June 4th, 2009 by admin

by D. L. Adams

President Obama has made his choice. The choice is the Muslim world over the state of Israel, and appeasement of a hostile ideology instead of active defense of the United States and our allies. This is a sea-change moment in history.

American and European leftists believe that Israel is the cause of Middle Eastern conflicts and war; not the actions of Israel but the very existence of Israel itself. It does not matter that Israel is the only democracy in the region; it does not matter that Israel is an ally of the United States. What is important is that Israel is seen as an impediment to peace because it exists. It is not important that the conflicts arise because Islamic countries attack Israel in the same ongoing universal jihad that has been going on for over 1400 years. If Israel is removed, the conflict problems of the Middle East are solved, immediately. This is absurdity and ignorance.

Daniel Pipes has written an insightful article on the abandonment of Israel by Mr. Obama for Iran a hostile country that stormed our embassy in Tehran and took our embassy staffers, our countrymen, hostage for 444 days in 1979. This was an act of war for which we have never gone to war with Iran. This is an unpaid debt that Iran must pay, but which President Obama, the new messiah and Harvard hero likely is not aware of.

We have the great misfortune to live in a time of great struggle, an existential struggle between freedom and the totalitarian ideology of Islam. President Obama’s trip to Arab states over the last several days and his active appeasement and coddling to dictatorships across the region is an ugly stain on our national identity. Mr. Obama has made the weak case that we are “not at war withIslam, and never will be.” But he ignores the truth of the actions of the followers of Islam and the doctrine of jihad that is central to their ideology of cruelty and conquest. Islam is at war with us.

Walid Shoebat, noted former PLO terrorist and now defender of Israel and the US, said in response to Mr. Obama’s speech today that recent discussion of Obama’s Muslim roots in the mainstream press are a serious matter. In conjunction with the appeasement message of the speech in Cairo today- it is a very serious matter.

This (dladams: mainstream discussion of Obama’s Muslim heritage) should automatically be seen as a red flag, especially if you are a supporter of Israel as an ally, and its right to live in its own land free from threat. Do you honestly know any Muslim that is “pro Israel”? You can count on your hand how many Muslims are pro Israel, so the fact that President Obama is now proud of his Muslim heritage should be a major wake up call to all who voted for him; who also believe in the safety of America and Israel. The evidence of his anti Israel position was hidden by the mainstream media and the twenty years of attendance at Rev Wright’s church as well as being the Presidents spiritual mentor should suggest this position. Further, Obama stated that his friendship with Rashid Khalidi the PLO operative helped in molding his views regarding Israel. The LA Times withheld a video tape a few days prior to the election that exposed Presidents Obama’s true virulent anti Israel position. (Walid Shoebat, List email, June 4, 2009)

This is Chamberlainism – appeasement of an enemy ideology or state because we do not have the political will to defend ourselves. In addition, Chamberlainism is wishfull thinking; rational people do not want to go to war with all the horror that that entails.

Some will do or say anything to prevent war. But like WW2 appeasement Obama’s appeasement of Islam can only delay the inevitable and undermine the forces of defense at work in one’s own country. This benefits the enemy ideology/state.

Mr. Obama is the new Chamberlain. It does not matter that he says that we are not at war with Islam, we aren’t; nor do we want to be. What matters is that Islam is at war with us. We must not pretend that it is not so. (Source of photo below.)

An earlier Obama attempts to make peace with totalitarian forces whose aims are anything but peace.

Mr. Obama spoke today in Cairo, Egypt. He says that he wants a new eraof cooperation and understanding between the US and Islam. Mr. Obama’s tone was quite conciliatory, quite apologetic. But what have we done to offend Islam? We have defended Muslims in Kosovo and Bosnia; we have sent billions in aid money to multiple Islamic countries; we have propped up Saudi Arabia and other dictatorships and tyrannies and brought them out of the depths of poverty with decades of oil purchases; we have recently freed two Islamic nations from despotism and insane cruelty (Iraq & Afghanistan) so what have we done to offend Islam? What we have done to Islam is exist.

Fundamentally, Islam is an expansive ever growing ideology whose purpose is its own growth and expansion. Islam is a unified ideology of existence that included religion, politics, jurisprudence (sharia), military doctrine, and culture. Islam is much more than a religion.

Despite George W. Bush’s concept of Islam as the religion of peace it is actually the opposite. The history of Islamic conquest, jew hatred, mass murder, brutality, and cruelty shows it to be so. Islam’s doctrine is essentially political, how non-Mulsims are to be treated by believers – the doctrine is not kind on this point.

Jihad, “fighting in the cause of Allah” as the Koran puts it, is the foundational tool of Islam’s expansion and is basically its 6th pillar. Jihad is unforgiving and brutal warfare against the kafir, the unbeliever, until all the unbeliever states and cultures are conquered and their peoples enslaved, converted to Islam, or killed. This is the real Islam. We have been lied to about Islam again and again. (source of photo below)

Followers of the religion of peace view Obama's Appeasement Speech with weapons at the ready. (Source: YahooNews)

In the western conception of the word “extremist” Islam is inherently extreme. Adherents are not allowed to take Jews and Christians as friends; adherents must fight unbelievers everywhere and forever for “Allah’s cause” (jihad); no religion or political system is allowed anywhere but Allah’s.

We saw just yesterday the evidence of this doctrine of cruelty and hatred and warfare when an American convert to Islam shot and killed a US Army private and wounded another in front of a recruiting station in Little Rock, Arkansas. Robert Spencer, one of the top scholars of Islam in the United States believes that this is jihad, and there are more attacks to follow. One is hard-pressed to find a counterargument.

We pretend that Islam is a religion of peace at our peril. Daniel Pipes, another top scholar, has been watching the violence of converts for some time. He describes the sudden violence of new converts as “sudden jihad syndrome”.

“Individual Islamists may appear law-abiding and reasonable, but they are part of a totalitarian movement, and as such, all must be considered potential killers.” I wrote those words days after 9/11 and have been criticized for them ever since. But an incident on March 3 at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill suggests I did not go far enough. (Source)

Adherents of Islam believe that they are at war with us, but just want say it, unless of course one is talking about Osama bin Laden and his ilk who make no bones about the state of war that exists between the west and Islam. Most Islamists, even terrorists, deny that there is war because this confuses the enemy (us), and leads us to doubt reality and the intentions of Islam.

Mohammed said that war/jihad is “deception”; the adherents of Islam have had 1400 years of practice. In fact, the doctrine of deception is codified in Islam as “taqiyyah” which states that a Muslim may lie to any kafir (non-believer) for reasons of forwarding the aims of the Umma or of Islam.

And so, we are deceived. We do not want to listen to the words of the killers, the jihadists; we do not want to read the doctrine of Islam which the killers follow to the letter; we do not want to listen to our few scholars who ring the bell of warning about this existential threat. Our ignorant leaders, our dhimmi leaders, are deceived and will apologize and beg for peace before those whose purpose and goal is our destruction and conquest. The forces of Islam could not be happier.

Khalil Al-’Anani in al-Hayat warned that the Obama administration’s readiness to negotiate on a basis of making concessions with radical states and forces would teach Middle Easterners to conclude “that extremism is the most effective way to attract the U.S.’s attention, and to compel them to conduct dialogue.” By showing weakness, the United States would ensure its enemies concluded that America was defeated and to make more demands. He even calls this policy one of “appeasement.” (Source)

Chamberlain showed that appeasement is a fool’s errand. We are at war already. 9/11 and all the previous and subsequent attacks against our country, people, and allies across the world show this to be true. Islam and its leaders are clear on this point. The Saudis use their oil wealth which we have supplied them in the last decades in the greatest transfer of wealth in human history to build mosques and Islamic centers in the US for the purpose of spreading their absolutist ideology of conquest. We may not see another attack (though it is very possible) – another hyper-violent attack like 9/11 is not necessary as the Islamists are winning through demographic growthand the denial of any threat by the populations of the west.

Mr. Obama’s concession speech to the Arab world is viewed as weakness by Islam. We are at a moment of deep national and cultural failure and weakness before our enemies but few are aware of it, apparently. Iran is actively seeking nuclear weapons; they have tested missiles that can reach Israel and beyond; they have promised nuclear destruction of Israel and the US via nuclear war, but our president now says that Iran has a legitimate right to nuclear power. The response from Iran to all of this American appeasement and open-handed pleadings for peace has been rejection and derision.

Iran’s supreme leader dismissed President Obama’s speech at Cairo University Thursday, saying the Muslim world continues to “hate America.” (Source)

This is insanity and national suicide.

Islam is so strong because we are so weak. We are so weak because we are in denial. We are in denial about the truth of Islam; Islam is not a religion of peace it is an ideology of totalitarianism and war that is fundamentally opposed to our way of life, our freedoms, our very existence as a nation.

We are at war. But we do not fight. We fight in Iraq, and we fight in Afghanistan to protect Muslims from one another, but we do not fight to protect ourselves from this existential and growing threat that is the doctrine of Islam. We must wake up, we must defend ourselves. There is much at stake… everything.

Denial is fundamental to the continued obsession with the economy, to the continued non-action in defense of our liberties and lands, to the appeasement of an ideology who purpose is our destruction. What is being denied? That we are in a war of civilizations.

Modern westerners cannot seem to conceive that people outside of their cultures would want western culture destroyed because of a religious and politicalideology of 1400 years ago; they cannot conceive that such concepts still motivate people to kill- but they do. Most importantly our inability to accept the truth empowers the forces against us in their goalto destroy us. This is an ideological, a military, and an existential war. 9/11 and all the other attacks before and since fit into a context of warfare that those in the west do not understand because they have never experienced it, and have never learned it. “Everything that happpens in Islam is based on an actual doctrine.” (PoliticalIslam.com)

A doctor in Israel tells the following story. It is illustrative. Israel is a rational, civilized, allied, democratic country. Mr. Obama has sided with Iran, a country fundamentally hostile to the United States and to Israel.

We are at a cross-roads. With the re-emergence of appeasement as the guiding principle of American foreign policy vis-a-vis the Islamic world, we have undermined our ability to resist Islam. We have undermined our political will to defend ourselves and our friends and we have given ample evidence to the enemies of civilization that the United States is not prepared to defend itself or its friends.

This is a sea-change moment in the history of the world. The possible results can only be disastrous.

I was instrumental in establishing the Israeli National Skin Bank, which is the largest in the world. The National Skin Bank stores skin for every day needs as well as for war time or mass casualty situations. This skin bank is hosted at the Hadassah Ein KeremUniversity hospital in Jerusalem where I was the chairman of plastic surgery. This is how I was asked to supply skin for an Arab woman from Gaza, who was hospitalized in Soroka Hospital in Beersheba after her family burned her. Usually, such atrocities happen among Arab families when the women are suspected of having an affair. We supplied all the needed Homografts for her treatment. She was successfully treated by my friend and colleague Prof. Lior Rosenberg, and discharged to return to Gaza. She was invited for regular follow up visits to the outpatient clinic in Beersheba. One day she was caught at a border crossing wearing a suicide belt. She meant to explode herself in the outpatient clinic of the hospital where they saved her life. It seems that her family promised her that if she did that, they would forgive her.
 
This is only one example of the war between Jews and Muslims in the Land of Israel. It is not a territorial conflict. This is a civilizational conflict. (source)

After Chamberlain came Churchill. This is our hope, too. There is a new Churchill who will ring the alarm of warning, and motivate us to defend outselves and our country, culture, and religions. If the new Chamberlainism is triumphant, western freedoms are defeated, forever.

Note: Additional analyses of Obama’s Appeasement Speech are available…

• Bat Ye’or
• Robert Spencer
• Caroline Glick
• Bill Warner
• Alex Knepper
• Hugh Fitzgerald
• Andrew McCarthy
• Charles Krauthammer
• David Horowitz
• Wafa Sultan

Existential War. The Nazi Holocaust ended; the Jihad Islamic Holocaust continues.