Wednesday, November 30, 2005

Saudi Arabia: Jihad Leader

Paul Sperry, in the New York Post, explains that “our Saudi ‘ally’ is playing us for suckers.” A Senate Judiciary Committee report explains how “Riyadh has not stopped exporting anti-U.S., pro-jihad propaganda to our shores. And it's now whipping up young jihadists to cross the border into Iraq and kill our soldiers.” Sperry suggests that we should demand that our legislators support the “Saudi Arabia Accountability Act.” Damn good idea!

Monday, November 28, 2005

Islam: Political Ideology or Religion?

According to the mythology, Mohammad founded Islam in Mecca, moved to Medina, and culminated his career as a military and political leader who plundered and conquered all of Arabia. (Tellingly, the Muslim calendar starts from the move to Medina!) According to history, Islamic scholars started to document and solidify the religion 150-200 years after Mohammad, when a pure Arab hegemony gave way to an Arab/Persian fusion cemented by the myths of Mohammad. In either case, Islam is a state religion created to justify power and the oppression of non-Muslims.

What do we find when we examine the doctrines and practice of Islam? Mark Alexander has written an excellent review comparing Islam with other political ideologies. You decide! (Hat tip: AOW.)

Mao Tops List

R.J.Rummel, the premier scholar on 20th century mass slaughter, has updated his assessment on Communism’s deadly toll. Previously, he omitted deaths due to famine during the Great Leap Forward due to incomplete information as to the exact role of the central government. However, now he is convinced that Mao was at fault. Under Chinese Communism, the total deaths due to democide are:

73 million
That tops the Soviet Union’s 62 million deaths and Hitler’s 20 million deaths. Communism, including Pol Pot and other, has killed:

148 million
The Left’s legacy will live in infamy.

A Moral Posture

In the past I’ve suggested that Islam is based on primitive concepts among them are the primacy of shame and humiliation. During the 19th century, the British, proud of their culture, were critics of Islamic customs. Britain led the world abolitionist movement by banning the slave trade from the seas. Under British colonial influence Arabs also rid themselves of the slave trade – not by creating vibrant abolitionist societies – but by slowly and shamefully capitulating to the British.

The esteem of the West was infectious. Ataturk, seeking to become Western, brutally suppressed Islam and eliminated the Caliphate. His means were clearly anything but liberal but he wished to gain the fruits of the liberal order – even if by near-totalitarian means. This is the only example of a sustained transformation of a major Islamic society. The Shah of Iran followed his example but failed when his domestic secular enemies (the Communists) foolishly joined forces with Islamists … and the Communists became the first casualty after the revolution.

Today, the West is the primary cheerleader for the ideology of Islam. It is nearly impossible to criticize Islam. To vilify this ideology results in banishment from the public debate. While the Islamic revival is driven by internal forces, it gets a boost when praised by Western leaders – often the same leaders that will vilify their own culture. What would happen if we reverse that process? What would happen if we proudly trumpeted our superior culture and vilified the savage culture of Islam?

Let’s ask an astute ex-Muslim. Ali Sina, of Faith Freedom International, notes:
If a lot of us become involved and spread this message so everyone can see the ugliness of Islam, we will succeed. Muslims will leave Islam when everyone denounces it. How do I know that? It is because I know the Muslim mind. Muslims are desperate for others’ approval. See how they quote this or that celebrity who praises Islam and how they lobby for recognition of Islam by politicians and governments? No one else does that. No other religious group needs such approvals to feel good about their religion. Muslims are very insecure of their faith. This can be witnessed in their reaction to criticism. Muslims are the only group that go in a frenzied hysteria, riot, burn houses of worship and kill innocent people if someone somewhere says something not so flattering about Muhammad. These insecurities are the signs of their vulnerability. Once the "useful idiots" stop praising Islam, it would be like cutting their narcissistic supplies. Their pride and arrogance will whither and eventually they will leave Islam. Believe me, they will!

So, forget about the Muslims, you target the “useful idiots”. When these useful idiots and appeasers stop praising Islam, Muslims will atrophy and vanish. Educate and if necessary put the useful idiots to shame to grab their attention.

Exactly! Honor and shame are important – and they should be – but in Arab culture there is an intense over-emphasis, often in crude ways, which are typical of those who internally feel the shame of a spiritual impoverishment. If we honestly expressed our moral indignation instead of clinging to moral relativism, if we acted like they were ill-suited to enter civilized society, and if we condemned the daily Islamic atrocities as a sign of a barbaric religious ideology, Mr. Sina is right -- Islam will become marginalized as it was, to a large extent, in the 19th century.

We, of course, are doing the opposite. They are not brain-dead and, as I mentioned below; they have inferred what many Americans are quietly thinking. But imagine if we all expressed those thoughts. Never under estimate the power of a moral posture. It's time we affirm our greatness and act accordingly.

Sunday, November 27, 2005

Our Debt to Robert Spencer

What does it say about our culture, when it is taboo to criticize the ideology of the enemy after the greatest attack on the homeland in our history? Since 9/11, it has become almost impossible to discuss the inherent barbarity of this ideology, Islam, and its bloody history. There’s been a pre-emptive defense of Islam that is bizarre considering the general hostility to anything that has the faintest smell of religion.

Hollywood has eliminated Muslim villains after 9/11 to such an extent that it has changed the identity of characters in a Tom Clancy film. Chris Matthews and Jimmy Carter join Kofi Annan in bashing America as a bigoted country filled with hate. After all, we might conceivably feel towards Islam what our parents felt towards Nazism. Remember all those war films with Nazis as bad guys? Were the men and women of the Greatest Generation bigoted and hateful? Or were they just facing the facts?

Despite the taboo, people are learning about Islam. First of all, there is the evidence of our senses. Every day we see the barbaric behavior prevalent in Islamic cultures. After the Beslan massacre, one Egyptian “man in the street” reportedly said: what will people think about Islam now? Thus, even in Islamic lands, where they hear no criticism from our intellectual and political leaders, they have enough common sense to figure out what any half-conscious human being must be thinking. That is the reason for the pre-emptive attacks on America by the Carters and Annans of the world. They know what logically follows from the facts, too. And they hope to perish the thought.

The one person most responsible for exposing Islam is Robert Spencer. For twenty years Mr. Spencer has studied and written about Islam. “Islam Unveiled: Disturbing Questions about the World’s Fastest-Growing Faith,” is one of the three books that I recommend to those approaching the subject for the first time. Spencer goes beyond the superficial comparisons between Christianity and Islam that are prevalent in most other books. And he raises the nagging questions about Islam that just won’t go away.

Spencer won’t go away, either. He penned “Onward Muslim Soldiers” and edited “The Myth of Islamic Tolerance.” His latest book, “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades)” has made the New York Times bestseller list for 14 weeks. Despite the media black-out, despite all the exhortations to think only good things about Islam, despite all the books written by Islamic apologists, people are discovering the truth. People, realizing that they've been told lies, sooner or later, discover Spencer’s books. Given that he now has the backing of the major conservative publishing house, Regnery, his books will reach an influential audience.

We all owe a great debt to Robert Spencer for his resolve, hard work and great dignity while our fellow countrymen slowly become aware of the danger in the world today.

Tuesday, November 22, 2005

Is Islam Racism?

Daniel Pipes points out what should be obvious: Islam is not a race but a religion that is practiced by people of many races. Thus, it is not logically possible to consider someone a racist, no matter what he thinks of Islam or Muslims. Pipes points out, however, that there are those who want to use the word, racism, in a wider sense: to apply to any ethnic or religious group. If that’s the case, Islam may be the most racist doctrine and practice in history. I present the arguments here.

The concept racism has a specific meaning for important reasons. It is worthwhile to fight against the corruption of this word by those who want to extend the well-deserved condemnation of racism to other matters. The idea that words are mere names applicable to any vague (or arbitrary) grouping is called nominalism. Nominalism dispenses with the notion that there is some essential or central aspect that is key to considering, understanding, and classifying entities of a certain kind.

I have one point of contention with Mr. Pipes, however. In his debate with Lawrence Auster, Pipes takes the view that Islam is whatever the nominal group, Muslims, practice. This makes the nominal demographic group, Muslims, prior to the doctrine of Islam. Given this way of talking, criticism of Islam (and thus implicitly the demographic group Muslims) is seen as an unfair over-generalization. Thus, the label “racism” doesn’t seem so far fetched.

I hope Mr. Pipes reconsiders his definition of the religion from the trivial nominal-type to a more robust doctrinal-type based on texts and ideas rather than a nominal grouping of people. For intellectual clarity, precise definitions are an imperative. Only then will we consistently avoid the kind of nonsense he has exposed in his current article.

Sunday, November 20, 2005

The Sloth of a Conservative

William Buckley recalls that the conservative movement, responding to the Soviet threat, was driven, focused, and resolute. And indeed it was. A sample of the thinking at the time:
George H. Nash, in his definitive history of American conservatism, captures the conservative anti-communist resolve. “In this struggle, there were, according to [Frank S.] Meyer and other conservative cold warriors only two choices: ‘the destruction of Communism or the destruction of the United States and of Western civilization.’” 9 “Liberals might prefer to hope – serenely, pathetically, endlessly, futilely – that maybe now, maybe this time, maybe soon, the Communists would change their spots, cease to be committed revolutionaries, and settle down. Perhaps we could then have peaceful coexistence at last. Meanwhile let us negotiate, “build bridges,’ engage in cultural exchanges, climb to the summit. Come let us reason together.” “The Communist system is a conflict system; its ideology is an ideology of conflict and war …” says Robert Strausz-Hupe 10 Frank S. Meyer argued, the Communist “’is different. He thinks differently.’ He is not ‘a mirror image of ourselves’ Communism is a ‘secular and messianic quasi-religion’ which ceaselessly conditions its converts until they become new men totally dedicated to one mission: ‘the conquest of the world for Communism.’” Gerhart Niemeyer writes, “It was totally unrealistic to expect that Americans could ’communicate’ with a Communist mind that ‘shares neither truth nor logic nor morality with the rest of mankind.’” 11
That was the way conservatives spoke: clear, uncompromising, hard-hitting, passionate, and without apologies. Today, we rarely hear conservatives talk in this manner, now that communism is defeated. Mr. Buckley opines “… for that reason I think conservatism has become a little bit slothful. It could be very decisive when the alternative was the apocalyptic reordering presented by the Soviet Union. . . . But in the absence of those challenges, there were attenuations.”

But, Mr. Buckley, what about the Islamic threat? We’ve had an attack on America as deadly as Pearl Harbor! The enemy is motivated by an ideology as pernicious as communism, hateful as Nazism, and dedicated as a Kamikaze. The Islamist Holy Grail is the nuclear destruction of an American city. Once again, what about the Islamic threat?

"Well," he says, "it lacks the formal face. It's detached from national dimensions. As such, it legitimately inquires into two things. No. 1: To what extent does this society elect to fight it? Because if it doesn't care that much about it then to hell with it. No. 2: Is this society pliant enough to come up with a formula to defend itself that nevertheless acknowledges the ancient restrictions on ideas? If I'm correct, there hasn't been an act of terrorism in the U.S. for four years, and that bespeaks not the absence of will by terrorists to damage but a lack of resources.”

Unfortunately, Mr. Buckley is not alone among conservatives. Too many conservatives are in denial. Yes, some conservatives (and a few non-conservatives) understand the Islamic threat. But most need to wake-up and face the danger in the world today: Islam. For an introduction to the problem, here are some references. Antiquated conservatives, like Mr. Buckley, are blind to a threat that dresses itself in religious garb, fails to wage conventional wars, and is, well, conservative in the sense that it looks back to the original practice of what appears (to some) to be just another monotheistic religion. Apparently, Mr. Buckley was a one-shot conservative unable to retool for the coming war. We will have to move forward without him.

Update: Glad to see I’m not alone on this!
Update 2: Here's another.

Saturday, November 19, 2005

Defeatism by any Other Name

It’s not Rep. Murtha’s opposition to the President’s policy that bothers me but his reasons. He claims that we are the prime targets of the “insurgency.” Has he been living on a desert island? Yesterday, 82 Iraqis died after being targeted by jiahdist terrorists. It’s been obvious to anyone with an eye half opened that it’s been Iraqis who’ve been targeted and deliberately killed for some time now. And after the Islamist uprising in France and killings in every country where the “religion of peace” is practiced, to regurgitate the old leftist lie that they are merely responding to our foreign policy, only makes one wonder if Rep. Murtha has another agenda.

What does Murtha suggest? We’ve abandoned the Shiites in 1991 only to be slaughtered by Saddam; we’ve worked hard in the last two years convincing them to step up to the plate. Now, on the eve of electing their first government, Rep. Murtha is suggesting that we close our eyes and run out of there as fast as we can. There are certainly honorable options and we may disagree with aspects of the current course but this doesn’t sound like a man with a solution – or even an attempt at a solution given the gravity of the situation. Defeatism and surrender is the only word that comes to mind.

I recommend McQ’s comments on this matter. Also, read Rancher’s thoughts on what’s going right over there. Update: Victor Davis Hanson.

Thursday, November 17, 2005

Conservative In Name Only

George Will has wondered what has happened to limited-government conservatives. So has Robert Bidinotto. Why, for example, is there such a focus on including Creationism in school curriculum? This is now the hot topic as government spending and regulation grow uncontrollably. And there is absolutely no mention of removing the Federal government from schooling or private alternatives! Is conservatism, in particular self-reliant rugged individualism, dead?

Update: It's not just our conservatives. This blogger from the UK sees the same problem in England. Worse! He notes that a lead candidate in their Conservative Party is not only "Conservative in Name Only" but wants to get rid of the name!

People Are Waking-Up

Below, I listed a few quotes from conservatives showing an increased awareness of the Islamic problem. The President has taken a step in the right direction by changing his rhetoric from “hijackers” to an “ideology.” That opens the discussion as to the nature of the ideology.

We also see changes in France. The French support Sarkozy’s tough stance.

In our fight against Communism, the signs of a major change came in the 1980s with leaders like Walesa, Reagan, and Thatcher. At the time, however, I found it telling that the long-standing Western European Communist parties were losing membership. In France, the early 1980s saw a sizable drop in Party support. That signaled the end of the love affair with communism (with the exception of hopeless intellectuals.)

Now, with regard to the Islamic threat, we are starting to see some signs, here and abroad, of the first steps down the road of change.

Tuesday, November 15, 2005

Pragmatism vs. Principle

Pragmatism undercuts our ability to see what the enemy is about, weakens our resolve, leaves us defenseless against a continual barrage of unwarranted criticism, and wears us down to the point where we are hesitant to take the war to the next level. What is this innocuous sounding idea, Pragmatism? Read Edward Cline, he’ll explain it (hat tip: Grant Jones). Food for thought!

A few quotes worth sharing:

A few choice quotes Jack Wheeler’s subscription-only e-zine, To The Point:

Frank Gaffney and Alex Alexiev write: “It is high time for European officials and the rest of us to understand that Islam in Europe is about sedition, not religion, and needs to be treated as such.”

Paul Belien, speaking of the Jihad in France: “It is hatred. Hatred caused not by injustice suffered, but stemming from a sense of superiority. The 'youths' do not blame the French, they despise them.”

Tony Blankley concludes: “We should not sneer at French weakness, but rather should encourage them to re-find their strength. It is a strength we will need someday soon to find in ourselves, as well.”

Congrats to Dymphna and the Baron

Pajamas Media, a collaboration 70-blogs, will be launched this weekend at a reception in New York City. Included in that group are Dymphna and Baron Bodissey of Gates of Vienna. Congratulations! As prolific and intelligent bloggers, they’ve earned the recognition. We knew them when …

Today, they have a good article on our government's unwillingness to face the role of Saudi Arabia in the Islamist movement. You remember our “friends” the Saudis?

Update: AOW – more on the Saudi duplicity ... or should we use the Arabic: taqqiya?

Saturday, November 12, 2005

Multi-Culturalism In Action

Nazism was a form of “Identity Politics” where one’s group membership was seen as the force that defined one’s fundamental way of thinking. Robert W. Tracinski, points out that this idea is alive and well … but with a twist:
“Europe never learned the real lesson of the evils of Nazism. Rather than reject the deepest premises of the Nazis, they have inverted them into a new form, so that Europe no longer seeks to liquidate its racial minorities—but instead empowers those minorities to carry out the self-liquidation of Europe.”

“Multiculturalism is a program for self-imposed dhimmitude. … It is in the streets of the Parisian suburbs that one can now see the ultimate effects of Multiculturalism—and sense a premonition of the dark and murderous future that lays ahead for Europe.”
Bruce S. Thornton, in the New Individualist, has an excellent article on multiculturalism.

Update: I forgot to plug my own work. What hope is there for France if it is actually illegal to be critical of Islam or Muslims? How can they even debate rationally with such a constraint?

Tuesday, November 08, 2005

In Defense of France

Too many conservative venues have inadvertently exonerated the Islamic attacks in France by blaming the victim first. For years, conservatives have understood that savage acts are not the fault of society but of the vicious individuals who commit them. Today, we read about France’s dysfunctional economy, its policy of appeasement, and its obstructionist foreign policy. These are all valid criticisms but they shouldn’t be elevated above the fact that Islamic hostility to the West is independent of our action or inaction. I’ve talked about the root cause in the past.

France’s record of appeasement doesn’t mean “they brought it upon themselves” any more than our record of appeasement means we brought 9/11 upon ourselves. It’s appropriate to note the prudent measures that are required to fight the enemy but it should never replace the moral condemnation and intellectual identification of that which drives the enemy.

In France, the left has dominated intellectual life and determined French politics not unlike it would here if there were a slight change in numbers. It wouldn’t have taken that many people for Kerry to have been elected. We may be critical of the French regime but in this struggle, we must be on the side of France—even if they are not yet ready to fight. Indeed, as I’ve pointed out, it is illegal to even discuss the problem.

The irrational hatred that the French intellectuals spew in our direction is obvious good reason to be critical of their culture and policies. But now is not the time. In this battle we should want France to win. Let’s hope she wakes up sooner rather than later.

Update: Daniel Pipes and Robert Spencer, of course.
Update2: Grant Jones, AOW, Pastorius, Sixth Column, Robert Bidinotto, all have extensive comments and links. As do many others in the list of links at the right. What the mainstream media fails to do, the Internet has done tenfold. Great job everyone!

Thursday, November 03, 2005

Peters Tells It Like It Is

Ralph Peters sums it up exactly:
“Global intellectuals and Islamist terrorists share common enemies — the United States, Israel and the West in general. They're unified by a disdain for freedom, capitalism and democracy — especially the latter. … Islamist fanatics are willing to kill millions to fortify and purify their religion — just as intellectuals excused Stalin's purges and Mao's mass slaughters in the name of building communist utopias.”
Of course, they’d like to forget the 100 million killed by Communism as they romanticize Stalinists who temporarily lost their jobs in the 1950s. Ralph is just getting started:

“After destroying their communist-socialist dream-world, perhaps the cruelest thing Americans have done to intellectuals is to ignore them when things get serious.”

Wait, here’s another:
“[They] let countless others die, if only the theory holds. Excuse genocide, if it frustrates Washington. Paint faith-maddened murderers as freedom fighters, if it somehow embarrasses America. Deny that the wretched of the earth might desire human rights and freedom. Betray the weak. And vilify anyone who takes America's side.”
And that’s only a sample. I knew our military guys were tough in the field, but this retired Lieutenant Colonel and son of a coal miner, takes no prisoners in print. And it is rewarding to finally see this expressed in a print and in a major daily newspaper.

Tuesday, November 01, 2005

Imagine if We All Did It

In a thought-provoking article, Amit Ghate argues for the importance of moral judgment and decisive action particularly when a person is of such vile and treasonous character. He suggests one should shun and ostracize extremely loathsome people as civilized society once did. Many have qualms about such actions believing that the modern notion of rights makes social ostracism obsolete.

The law, properly implemented, is neutral with regard to the content of speech no matter how odious and equally respective of rights of each individual regardless of the failings of character. It is limited to the protection of liberty and property, in a just society, while leaving the individual responsible for developing worthy character or sinking into personal depravity. Only when one steps beyond the line and violates another’s right to life, liberty and property – i.e. commit a crime – does the law step in.

With freedom comes moral responsibility. First of all, there is the responsibility for one’s own character. Rights protect the minimal moral percepts in a social context thereby insuring individual sovereignty. It leaves open the whole question of how one should lead one’s life and what kind of person is one to become.

Not only must one be concerned with one’s own character but one also has the responsibility to judge the character of others for the sake of one’s own well-being and the well-being of one’s family, friends, and community. This is where Ghate has a point. Today there is pressure to suspend moral judgment.

Ghate asks: why is Ward Churchill, instead of being shunned, invited everywhere to spew his anti-American propaganda and hate? Let’s add the example of Michael Moore. Here is unabashed liar, who champions the terrorists that target and kill Iraqi civilians and our troops. Yet, during the Democratic Party convention, we see him sitting in the guest of honor box next to Jimmy Carter. Any suggestion that he be shunned results in charges of intolerance and censorship. This is nonsense, and Mr. Ghate does a good job exposing the absurdity of today’s promiscuity:
"All it takes is a society of individuals who value morality and who have the right to act in accordance with it. The Greeks had both. They valued honor and acting for the good above all else. And they had no government regulations to prevent them from honoring those whom they found noble nor from shunning those whom they found immoral.

In today’s world both requirements for successfully ostracizing people are not only lacking, but even reversed. Consider that the subjectivists on the Left continuously cry that free speech means not just respecting a person’s right to voice his opinion, but actually respecting the opinion itself – no matter what its content (“everyone’s opinion is equally valid”). In so doing they don’t just deprecate morality, they actually eradicate it completely. For if every opinion is equally valid (which means that there is no truth), there can be no science aimed at discovering and defining the proper code of values necessary for man to succeed and prosper on earth – i.e. there can be no morality or ethics."

There is one man today that does have moral standards and won’t go along with the crowd. As everyone was turning yet another cheek to show their willing to forgive and forget, Rudy Giuliani stood alone. Jason Moaz’ recalls when Rudy kicked Arafat out of an invitation-only Lincoln Center affair of U.N. representatives ... to the shock of nearly everyone. Rudy was right.

Arafat, the “father of modern terrorism,” was rewarded with control of territory in the West Bank after the Oslo Accords by promising to reform. In the decade of his rule, he systematically trained a generation to embrace terrorism. The result of this process was the recent wave of suicide bombers. Arafat is proof that terrorism works (because of our appeasement.) And rewarding terrorism only encourages more. Character and culture are created over a long period of practice. Neither can be suddenly discarded with the rare exception of vast and utter defeat. Reform and redemption require a long period of thought and deeds before the cultivation of a new character or culture is achieved.

A healthy culture requires private citizens to cultivate incentives, values, moral stature, and honors appropriate to civilized society. It also requires the disincentives and condemnations – and in extreme cases, ostracism – when evil presents itself. Liberty is valuable if we use it wisely to do the right thing. Rudy suggests it can be done. Imagine if we all did it.


Leftist Defeatism, Defeatism of Rep. Murtha
undermines war effort by double standard.
Left revisionism of Clinton’s policy on Iraq.
Muslim refute Leftist “root causes.” Link to Neuro-Conservative
The Left’s
demented vilification of America.
dissent and vicious anti-American hate.
Tough on Communism but soft on Islam: William F. Buckley, Jr.
Some conservatives get it.
Quotes from writers in To The Point.
Wheeler: on Islam, moral offensive, and Leftist appeasement
Blankley exposes the Islamist threat to Europe.
conservatives believe Islamists raise good points.
President now sees
threat of ideology vaguely related to Islam.
Jack Wheeler: fight the jihad, moral offensive, no appeasement.
Conservatives fought communism but are in denial about Islam.
Conservatives and
others can’t take on a religion.
Confusion conservatives have about secularism.
This conservative doesn’t object to Islamic theocracy.
Jack Wheeler on Islam as a
political ideology.
Ledeen says Bush is not tough enough.
Jack Wheeler on moral
certainty in the past and today.
Culture, Morality
Moral Judgment (Ghate on Ostracism; Maoz on Giuliani)
Culture: the effects of Philosophy, Religion, and Ideology
Islam is the problem, both left & right in denial.
Islam as an ideology
Philosophy is the
root cause; thus Islam is a root cause.
Ignoring the influence of Islam and expecting change.
Greco-Roman Heritiage
Epistemological problems in our culture: intellectual surrender.
Denial of Islam like denials of past threats.
Ideology is the key: Islam. (Machen and Alexiev)
Jack Wheeler on Islam as a
political ideology.
Secularism is the solution to the religion of Islam.
Links, importance of Islamic ideology: Trifkovic, Flew on Warraq, Pipes on Warraq.
Warraq on Islam, truth, philosophy, etc.
Islam: links to six articles from Sixth Column.
The universality of
Conservatives confused about Islamic threat and secularism.
Arab culture and their way of thinking.
rule-based thinking and lack of universalism.
America has reason to be proud.
Paleo-Libertarians fail to understand the influence of culture.
Islam and 9/11 – re-
affirmational aspects of the religion.
election was a transformational act.
democracy isn’t enough.
Democracy isn’t enough – especially in Islamic countries.
Cultural change is slow and there are often setbacks.
Denial of the Islamic Threat
The denial is like those of the past & includes left & right.
Compared to Denial of Totalitarian Threats in the 1930s
Both present and past Presidents lie about Islam.
gullibility and blindness to the threat.
Prince Charles
deception and appeasement of Saudi Arabia
ABC fires Michael Graham
National Review
caves to CAIR.
The deliberate lack of
Muslim villains.
Columbia faculty is Dhimmi-whipped.
Hollywood changes Muslim villains to non-Muslim.
France and Europe
The Response to the Islamist Uprising In France
Multi-Culturalism & Identity Politics in
With links to
Tracinski & Thornton
cause of Islamic Rioting in France
Criticism of Islam is illegal in major European countries.
Blankley exposes the Islamist threat to Europe.
faces the Islamic threat after 7/7 but worries continue.
Islam & 7/7 Islamo-facism
comments by Frank Gaffney.
History of Islam
Links including Short’s history of the Ottomans via Gandalf.
Egypt: had hope when it was under Colonial Rule
ethnic cleansing.
Islam’s respect for individual rights
Afghanistan’s suppression of freedoms or speech and religion.
Links including Robert Spencer: on oppression of the Copts
ethnic cleansing.
Islamism or Islam?
Islamic Revival or Islam or Islamism?
Islam is a
supremacist ideology.
role in 9/11.
Exposing Islam effectively
The Islamic
Revival and technology.
President now sees
threat of ideology vaguely related to Islam.
Jack Wheeler: fight the jihad, moral offensive, no appeasement.
Jack Wheeler on Islam as a
political ideology.
Link to Islam’s role in terrorism (Locke on Islam’s role; Pipes on UK Muslims )
Marx and Mohammad compared by Jack Wheeler.
Koran vs. Das Kapital. Islam is not difficult to understand.
Islam and 9/11 – documentary review.
Islamism worsens in Pakistan.
Terrorism as the result of foreign policy … Islam’s foreign policy.
Fatwa on bin Laden – Muslims hate losers.
Moderate Islam
Moderate Islam is not the solution.
Does Moderate Islam
Secularism is the solution.
other Islam?
Original Islam is not Islam?
Where’s Moderate Islam after the 7/7
London attacks?
Brief comments and a link to Edward Cline’s article on its influence.
Denial of the threat of Communism.
Pragmatism blinds us again.
Anti-ideology and the inability to effect change.
Prejudice, Bigotry, Hate, etc.
Prejudice keeps us from vilifying Islam.
Islam is a
supremacist ideology.
Islam is Racism, or the equivalent.
Hate-mongering among Muslims towards America and Jews.
Islamophobia-baiting is hate and bigotry against
Racism-baiting and Islam: what underhanded playing of race-card.
Conservatives and
others can’t take on a religion.
In Favor of Islam –
Prince Charles
Links including Daniel Pipes: “Islamophobia” intimidation tactics.
Criticism of Islam is illegal in major European countries.
Exposing Islam effectively in the face of the taboo.
The deliberate lack of
Muslim villains.
Bat Ye’or fights the bigotry of Islam and anti-anti-Islam.
Multi-Culturalism and moral appeasement.
Multi-Culturalism & Identity Politics in
With links to
Tracinski & Thornton
The Left’s
Sympathy for Islamists – Ralph Peters
Leftist Defeatism, Defeatism of Rep.
Multi-Culturalism essay by
Eleanor of Sixth Column
absurdity of identity politics.
Reform of Islam
Links including Cubed’s article on Mu’tazilite revival
Moderate Islam is not the solution.
Religious Freedom
Bush on religious freedom.
Religious freedom and the new
Saudi Arabia
Saudi Arabia’s role in Islamism, terrorism, and the jihad.
Dealing with the Saudi Problem.
government’s support of this terror state. (Dymphna and AOW)
Links to: Dymphna and AOW on Washington’s blindness.
appeasement of Saudis. (AOW and GM Roper)
Links including Frank Gaffney: Saudi Arabia is not on our side
Links to Saudi funding or terrorism – by Eleanor on Sixth Column.
Denial of Hitler’s Threat by Stalin
Popular denial of Hitler’s Threat.
Marx and Mohammad compared by Jack Wheeler.
Denial of the threat of Communism.