Friday, September 26, 2008


The following essay was sent in from Brigitte Gabriel, founder of the anti-terrorist watch organization aptly called Act For America:

FOR THE PAST FIVE YEARS, I've been traveling the world in an effort to inform people about the threat of radical Islam. I have often been accused of "hate speech" and "Islamophobia." The latest was in an article in the New York Times, where I was described not just as an "Islamophobe," but a "radical Islamophobe." This made me question what those terms really mean. What is the difference between "hate speech" and "free speech"? What is "Islamophobia" and who are the true "Islamophobes?"

"Hate speech" versus "free speech" is easy to define. All over the United States, so-called "progressive" individuals and groups berate the USA and Israel and in the process tell outrageous lies about both countries. That's called "free speech." When others, including me, tell the truth about the threat of radical Islam, that's labeled "hate speech" by many of these "progressives."

But what is "hate speech" and what is "Islamophobia"? When I describe the threat presented by radical Islam, I quote chapter and verse from the Koran and authoritative classical Islamic sources. When I describe the worldwide campaign of Islamist hate indoctrination against the West, and the mind-numbing mass violence committed and glorified by radical Islamists, I am relaying facts that have been published by print and electronic media outlets all over the world. Do some of the facts about Islamist supremism manifest "hatefulness?" Certainly.

However, it's not my fault that the truth about Islamist supremacist teachings and edicts is that they promote hate. I wish they didn't. But wishing doesn't make it so (contrary to the belief of the New York Times). The Koran explicitly tells Muslims to hate (terrorize, subdue, oppress, and slaughter) the unbeliever until Islam is supreme in the world: "Your Lord inspired the angels with the message: 'I am with you. Give firmness to the Believers. I will terrorize the unbelievers. Therefore smite them on their necks and every joint and incapacitate them. Strike off their heads and cut off each of their fingers and toes.'" (Koran 8:12)

The Koran explicitly preaches that Christians and Jews are descended from monkeys and apes. In the more than 13 centuries since the emergence of Islam, this strict Islamic dogma has never been abrogated, amended or ameliorated. It is the Koran that is guilty of "hate speech." I merely am the messenger exposing this hate.

Which brings us to "Islamophobia" and "radical Islamophobes." According to the dictionary, the suffix "-phobe" comes from the Latin phobos, which means "fearing." Do I fear radical Islam? You bet. Do any of these locales ring a bell? London subways. Madrid train stations. Bali night clubs. Beslan elementary school. They are all locations of horrendous terrorist atrocities committed by radical Islamists, with scores of civilian fatalities and hundreds maimed. I can name hundreds of other locales, from all over the world. If fearing radical Islamist terror makes me an "Islamophobe," then I am an "Islamophobe" in its healthiest manifestation. In light of recent history, I submit that it would be (at best) foolhardy to be otherwise.

Things get a little more complicated when we get to "Islamophobia." The dictionary defines a "phobia" as "an exaggerated, usually inexplicable and illogical fear of a particular object, class of objects, or situation." Anyone who thinks that my fear of radical Islam is "exaggerated," "inexplicable" and/or "illogical" is invited to take the world terrorism tour referred to in the preceding paragraph, or read my two books, which I submit as evidence from a personal and factual level. If exaggeration or illogic are required elements in the definition, then my fear of radical Islam is NOT "Islamophobia."

If that was not sufficiently complicated, when used as a suffix "-phobia" can include "intolerance or aversion for" the object of the phobia. Am I intolerant of mass murder, justified and glorified in the name of Allah? Yes, I am. Do I have an aversion to subway and train bombings? Yes, I do. According to that definition, my fear of radical Islam would be "Islamophobia." However, if my intolerance of mass murder and my aversion to nightclub bombings makes me a "Islamophobe," then I submit that my so-called "Islamophobia" is fully justified and logical and therefore not a phobia in the usual sense of the word.

The next question must be: what distinguishes a "radical" Islamophobe from a run-of-the-mill Islamophobe? Perhaps they should be distinguished by how their Islamphobia affects their behavior. My "Islamophobia" motivates me to stand up and speak out about the threat of radical Islam. My "Islamophobia" motivates me to tell-the-truth. This definitely makes me a "radical." Examples of conventional Islamophobes abound. Their fear of Islam motivates them to censor themselves in the face of Muslim threats and intimidation.

The best-known example is the craven failure of the major American media to stand up for freedom of the press during the Muhammad cartoon controversy. Anyone who will read this will be familiar with the details. There was much hand wringing in the media about freedom of speech, but only three newspapers in the United States had the journalistic integrity to print the cartoons in solidarity with the Danish newspaper which originally printed them. Only one newspaper in the United States actually had the integrity to admit that they were not printing the cartoons because of "fear of retaliation from . . . bloodthirsty Islamists who seek to impose their will on those who do not believe as they do...." The rest declined to do so, usually offering as their rationale that the cartoons were "offensive," and they were being "respectful" of Muslim "sensitivity." Approximately two dozen periodicals in 13 European countries ran the Muhammad cartoons, "insisting that they will not allow thugs to decide what a free press can publish."

The New York Times itself dutifully reported on various European newspapers printing the Muhammad cartoons in solidarity with and support of the Danish newspaper. The Times could have taken the hint and printed the cartoons, but was apparently oblivious to the irony of being taught a lesson in freedom of the press by a bunch of Europeans. Instead, the Times' fear of Islam, its Islamophobia, caused the great Grey Lady of the Fourth Estate, the most respected voice in American print media, to roll over and play dead. This is dangerous, craven Islamophobia.

And the Times is still playing dead. It has failed to report adequately on an even more egregious and harmful example of Islamophobia afflicting the American publishing industry. Random House has just cancelled the publication of a book about one of Muhammad's wives explicitly because of fear of a violent Muslim reaction. The major American media outlets, both print and electronic, have absorbed the lessons of the Muhammad cartoon riots, and the Salman Rushdie affair, and the slaughter of Theo Van Gogh, etc., etc. They are intimidated into silence by their Islamophobia. They've become like slaves, so accustomed to the feel of the lash that they flinch at the mere thought of their master raising his hand. No one rings the alarm at the Times when a major American publishing house cancels publication of a book because they fear Muslim rioting.

Am I afraid of those Muslims who do not use the Koran as justification for murder and terrorism? No. Do I fear radical Islam? I already admitted that I did. Maybe that makes me a "radical Islamophobe." But am I cowed by my fear of radical Islamists? Absolutely not. I will continue to stand up and tell the truth. Will anyone on the staff of the New York Times admit that they fear radical Islam, and they are cowed by their fear? Almost certainly not. On the contrary, they would probably protest loudly that the opposite is true. But their actions, and their editorial policy, speak louder than their protestations. They are also Islamophobes, but of a different stripe.

If I were a New York Times Islamophobe instead of a Brigitte Gabriel Islamophobe, I could no longer say I come from the land of the free and the home of the brave.

—Brigitte Gabriel

Labels: , , , ,

Thursday, September 25, 2008


The following essay found online is offered as a distinction against the ugly notions and scorn many of our enemies take the time to entertain in subversive attack upon our worldview, a worldview aimed at achieving peace, love, and fuller comprehension of our human condition, beginning with freedom and liberty for all peoples. We would hope such strategies would usher in an era of ultimate disarmament and mutually assured co-operation. But we are not fools. We recognize the world to be a dangerous and militant place, and a comprehensive survival strategy can hardly be dismissed in the face of an enemy who would threaten us, enslave us and destroy these aims.

ZIONISM AND ONLY ZIONISM can save Western civilization. The enemy has the guiding ideology, which is Islamism, but the cowardly, disorganized, disoriented West has none, operating only only the pervasive chaos of opinions and is now sliding into downright insanity, actually subordinating itself to Islamism. Zionism or Islamism—this is the stark choice facing the West.

Why Zionism?

Because people need a guiding ideology, that is above all those thousands of special interests, pulling the Western countries in thousands of different directions, tearing them into thousands of pieces. And why invent a bicycle if one is already available? Zionism is the only "ism" that has proven itself.

Communism is beautiful in theory, but in practice has produced different results. Gorbachev is a Communist, Dubcek was a Communist, but so were Stalin and Pol Pot.

Nazism does not promise anything good even in theory—only hate, atrocity and genocide. Zionism, however, gave birth to Israel, whose entire history is made of miracles. Contrary to widespread misconception, one does not need to be a Jew to be a Zionist. Zionism is a modern political ideology, only 111 years old, NOT the Jewish religion.

True, it takes its inspiration from the Bible, the Zionist Manifesto of 1897 echoing well-known biblical verses with declarations such as: "Israel shall be light unto nations", and "This world shall be liberated through our liberty". But the Bible is not just the Holy Scripture of the Jewish people, it is its cultural heritage, a treasuretrove of historical chronicles and folklore. Zionism is richly spiritual, which is one of the things that distinguishes it from the pig-iron spiritless Communism.

Being a Zionist will not turn someone into a Jew. It is not about religion, it is about setting things right in this world. Robert Spencer had recently commented on the Fascist conference in Europe against Islamisation, rejecting—rightly—any group that espouses racism. But we should not paint all those groups with a broad brush. I wholeheartedly agree with poster Martin who classified Le Pen's National Front as "not OK", and Italy's National Alliance as "OK".

Le Pen is an ultra-Catholic Nazi who cannot be trusted. He is close to Nazi Croats. One can hardly find another European people who were as instrumental as Croats in empowering Islam in Europe in the past century. In 1914, they joined Bosnian Muslims in the "Schutzcorps" organised by Austria to pogrom Serb civilians, even though by the admission of Austrian officials and the German Chancellor Bernhard von Brunow, the assassins of the Archduke were an isolated group, and the Serbian government had absolutely nothing to do with them.

And on June 22, 1941, the Nazi Croat Education Minister Mile Budak declared the "final solution of the Serb question" to rest in this "One-third of them we will kill, one-third expel, and convert the rest into Catholicism". By contrast, the Nazi Croats had united with the Bosnian Muslims and declared them "the flower of the Croatian nation".

Together, they embarked on a frenzy of sadistic torture, mutilation and murder of Serb civilians that was too much even for some Nazi Germans. And the Italian Fascist troops actually turned on the Croats, their fellow Catholics, and shot quite a number of them, saving the lives of thousands of Serbs, Jews, and Gypsies. Even the Italian Fascists were so uncomparable better than the US military and the militaries of other Western democracies who helped Croat, Bosnian and Albanian Nazis to finish their job on the Serbs much more recently.

Anti-Semitism did not exist in Italy even during Fascism. Which brings me to Gianfranco Fini, a true hero of the Western civilization in this era of cowardice. He is the leader of Italy's National Alliance, the successor to the Fascist party. Even though the Italian Fascists were not guilty of Holocaust, he publicly apologized to the Jewish people for the Fascist past. He then led mass demonstrations in support of Israel. Beautiful! He is a Gentile Zionist without calling himself one.

Zionism is the litmus test. It will separate heroes such as Italy's National Alliance from toxic waste such as Le Pen. Those Fascist groups who are decent should rename themselves Zionist Resistance, and then we can unite with them under the Blue Star, the guiding star for us all. Israel is, indeed, the guiding light for the Western civilization, and we should follow it for our salvation. Another litmus test is Serbia. Those who profess to be anti-Islamist, and yet approve of the massacre of the only armed anti-Muslim resistance in Europe by Islamo-NATO are too convoluted and dark-minded to be of any use at all.

—Ruslan Tokhchukov

Thanks to Mr. Tokchukov for his analysis of some of the more obscure aspects of this 20th century European history. Those of us who are trying to sort out what is true from what is false in struggle to find allies in what we feel is an imminent threat to Western Civilization can always appreciate those who put a finer point on the distinctions we must all make as we continue to seek peace through strength, even though the numbers of those who rally against us often seem insurmountable.

After all—to voice caution when considering illegal immigration is simply human. Human migration has been going on for millennia. The repeating pattern is that a stronger or more numerous population invades or simply displaces a weaker and less numerous one. So naturally, when an established population perceives a foreign population entering its territory in high numbers, the self-preservation instinct revives. High-minded sorts might deplore this instinct as primitive or atavistic, but that doesn't change the fact that it exists, and rather naturally at that.

So who is "morally" right—those who resist extinction, or those who demand it? Is it racist, xenophobic, or nativist not to want to see one's culture and people replaced by another? Perhaps, but it's also ineradicably, biologically, anciently human.

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Thursday, September 18, 2008


Sharia Law offers public flogging. Resolutely unAmerican, unWestern, uncivilized.

ON THE UPROAR of this short documentary called Obsession which was recently inserted into newspapers distributed primarily in swing states—Florida, Pennsylvania, Missouri, Ohio, Michigan—and the attached card mentions the upcoming elections.

Fear tactic? Yes. Blatantly false? Not on your life.

The documentary with real clips and honest reportage makes this case: That a current tendency in Islam regards the West, especially the United States and Israel, as enemies to be destroyed and that achieving personal annihilation in forwarding that goal—to die in jihad—is a good and holy thing. This tendency is far from being a majority view, and yet neither is it suppressed; in fact, it is supported by regimes that allocate television airtime and publish schoolbooks.

We must be keen to note that 9-11, the Madrid bombing, the London bombing, the Beslan slaughter, the Bali slaughter and dozens of other outrages were not merely linked to terrorism but were expressly and explicitly motivated by a particular kind of Islam. Let's cut the crap. That isn't an anti-Muslim point; it is an anti-jihad one, and the odd fact that it has become impolitic in some circles even to discuss the nature of this threat is exactly why it's worth airing in this or any political season.

The real scandal is that this film has been available and shown for two years now, but has been barred from wider release in part for political reasons, in part because of the kind of spinelessness displayed by one North Carolina newspaper publisher, at the Greensboro News & Record, who refused the insert as it was "divisive" and "serves no educational purpose."

"People don't want to feel this is part of a single threat," says Winston Churchill biographer Sir Martin Gilbert tells the documentary interviewer, "because if you come to that conclusion—and I'm sure it's the true conclusion—then you have to do something about it."

Read more about why you should take some time out of your busy schedule to learn more about this threat. Don't be a tool of the Left, or the Right. Get some facts that will start you on the journey for significant citizenship. Before it's too late.

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, September 16, 2008


Culled from the vast wasteland...

WITH BOTH PARTIES' U.S. PRESIDENTIAL and vice presidential nominees now set, American voters have their last opportunity to decide whether Democrats or Republicans can field the team best qualified to meet the challenges of the next four to eight years.

Voters' primary concern in November should be the war—but not the one in Iraq or Afghanistan. It is the unavoidable war, already begun but not yet fully fought, that will be fully fought within the next one to two presidential terms. Our votes later this year will determine if we are prepared to do so.

This unavoidable war will be with Iran. Every American voter should understand this before casting a ballot. Every voter should understand the theocratic leadership in Tehran is of one dominant mindset. The mullahs, led by the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and current president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who serves at the former's call, are committed to developing a nuclear weapon for Iran. Mr. Ahmadinejad has made his convictions on this clear. An Islamist zealot, he believes the 12th imam will return to lead Islam to world domination. As the 12th imam can only return after global cataclysmic chaos, Mr. Ahmadinejad believes he must become the vehicle for creating this chaos. (As Tehran's mayor prior to becoming president, Mr. Ahmadinejad so convinced of the 12th imam's return—widened some city streets for the welcoming parade.) In 2006, observers at the United Nations heard Mr. Ahmadinejad pray to the 12th imam before delivering his speech.

When one understands all this, factoring in Mr. Ahmadinejad's past warnings about wiping Israel off the map and his lack of intimidation over retaliatory U.S./Israeli nuclear strikes (rationalizing the deaths of any Muslim victims will expedite their journey to an afterlife of rewards for their sacrifice), one understands why war with Iran is inevitable.

Read it all in the Washington Times.

As an American I depend on civilization. America is my identity. I would prefer to live in liberty with my family and friends than die for either simply because neither I nor my nation is prepared to do the right thing towards solving as many of the conflicts of our times. Here is a rather poorly written but persuasive essay detailing one of our major problems facing us in the West by Bill Warner—the director of the Center for the Study of Political Islam (CSPI).

The Doctrine of Ignorance

Once you understand the doctrine of political Islam, there is a question that naturally arises. Why doesn't everyone know about this? It's simple. But, first let's take a look at the actual state of ignorance.

  • The media never refers to the actual doctrine of political Islam.
  • No university teaches the doctrine and history of Islamic slavery or about the dhimmi.
  • No divinity or rabbinical school teaches the doctrine and history of Islam and the Christians and Jews.
  • Since schools don't teach about Islam, is it any wonder that kafirs are ignorant?

    So there is a doctrine of ignorance about Islam. It is not only that we don't know, we have also developed a systemic social theory of why we will not learn.This guarantees the stability of ignorance. We are ignorant and we will remain ignorant. The doctrine of ignorance is based upon fear, but it manifests many different ways.

    The biggest part of any doctrine of ignorance is inertia. Most people never do anything to buck any system, no matter what the system is. These are the sheep, the sheeple. But this does not explain why leaders and intellectuals do not want learn about Islam. Leaders are supposed to be able to go against the tide.

    This is a big worry by kafirs. There is a sneaky suspicion that Islam is the equivalent of cancer, and if we have cancer, we have to do something. And that something may be drastic. Besides, Islam is so huge, that we can't afford to do anything, so it is better to do nothing.

    What is tragic about this concern for "what to do" is that it ignores the true nature of planning, strategy and execution. Don't worry about what to do until you know what the problem is.

    Not learning because you don't want to think about what to do is like not getting the biopsy test because you might not like the results and have to deal with the possible cancer results. The smart thing, of course, is to get the data.

    The defense here is that I don't need to know about the doctrine or the history since Ahmed at work is so nice. Since Ahmed is nice, Islam is nice. That is all I need to know. Of course, this means that you have to avoid ever wondering why so much violence around the world involves Islam and some Muslims are jihadists. Because if you thought that, you might have doubts about Islam is not so nice.

    If the doctrine is bad, then Muslims are bad. If I learn bad things about Islam, I will be called a bigot.

    This belief is that nothing is worse than Christian religious violence. So no matter how bad Islam is, it can't be as bad as the Christians. Conclusion—there is no need to know about Islam; I can go back to sleep.

    The only thing worse than religious violence in the 20th century was the violence of atheism. Mao of China was an atheist and caused the deaths of 77 million. Stalin of Russia were fervent atheists and killed 77 million and 62 million each. Hitler killed about 21 million and was not an atheist, but he despised Christianity and admired Islam. He said that Christians are wimps and Muslims are killers. Hitler was right. Islam has killed about 270 million over 1400 years. Maybe, it would be a good thing to know how and why it happened.

    This is one of the most common reasons to stay ignorant. One manifestation of this "too hard" idea is that only Muslims can understand the Koran. This is a natural response because our educational systems have taught us nothing about Islam except its glorious triumphs (where no one suffered) and a vague Golden Age. What is ironic here is that to understand political Islam, you only need to study Mohammed. How hard can that be? And now the Koran has been made easy to understand—a simple Koran.

    When you examine these ideas, they can all be summarized by one word—fear. Those who can function in the presence of fear are heroes. So you must be a little bit of a hero to learn about political Islam. The next time you are speaking with someone about Islam and they have no facts about the doctrine or history, ask them: What is your reason for not learning about political Islam? Why are you afraid of this knowledge?

    —Bill Warner

    copyright (c) CBSX, LLC
    Use and distribute as you wish; do not edit and give us credit.

    This message was sent by:

    3212 West End Ave., Suite 500
    Nashville, TN 37203

    Labels: , , , , , ,

  • Monday, September 15, 2008


    Paul McCartney
    OH, IT'S AS TRUE as Uncle Albert. Islamic leader threatens death to Paul McCartney for playing in Israel. McCartney has been threatened that he will be the target of suicide bombers unless he abandons plans to play his first concert in Israel. Self-styled preacher of hate Omar Bakri claimed the former Beatle’s decision to take part in the Jewish state’s 60th anniversary celebrations had made him an enemy of all Muslims.

    Sources said Sir Paul was shocked but refused to be intimidated. In an interview with Israeli media yesterday he said: “I was approached by different groups and political bodies who asked me not to come here. I refused. I do what I think and I have many friends who support Israel.”

    Read it all.

    Labels: , , , ,


    WE KNOW THAT BRITISH AGENTS are operating in the United States to trace links with Islamic extremists from England who recruit Muslims to fight for terrorist groups abroad.

    So first this...

    The British-led investigation has played a part in identifying a number of US-based terrorists and helped the authorities in Washington to break up an al-Qaeda cell operating in Falls Church, Virginia.

    The agents are particularly keen to discover if the visitors included Mohammad Sidique Khan, leader of the July 7 suicide bombers, who is alleged to have travelled to America’s East Coast to meet fellow militants and stage a series of attacks on synagogues. Khan was considered such a threat that he was banned from returning to America two years before the attack on London, according to a book written by a US intelligence specialist.

    The disclosure, made by the award-winning author Ron Suskind in an extract from The One Percent Doctrine in The New York Times in 2006, led to calls for a full public inquiry into intelligence lapses before the attacks on July 7 which killed 52 people in London.

    Now this...

    An anonymous note has been left at the base of The Dust Cries Out, a statue done by artist Karen Swenholt commemorating the victims of the terrorist attacks on 9/11, which calls for the removal of the recently erected public art.
    Or else.

    Dust Cries Out
    The statue was placed a few weeks ago on Great Falls Street in Falls Church as part of the City's honoring the seventh anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. Falls Church City is just four miles from the Pentagon and its fire department was among the first responders at the Pentagon attack. The unsigned note appears to have been produced on a word processor, is typed in blocked letters, and is written in broken English syntax. There is no information on who may have authored the note or why it was left at the site, although we have a strong guess that would require some minor "culture" profiling.

    Here is the text of the note:

    Labels: , , , , , ,

    Thursday, September 11, 2008


    HERE IS ANOTHER MUCH longed for website that purports to support Israel, the United States, peace, and harmony. And the Palestinians. It purports to be non-confrontational. It seems to be a legitimate response to the radicalized Islam now challenging the West with violence and sedition.

    Let us celebrate such a group of Arabs with an poignant excerpt from an essay found on the site that echoes some of the same realizations that other websites such as Jihad Watch have tried to suggest to the misinformed who apologize for the ruthless behavior of the so-called jihadists of Al Qaeda, Hams, Hezbollah, CAIR, and other unrepentant, aggressive groups. Let's hope that other Muslim groups will take notice, and come to the same conclusions as Mr. Tashbih Sayyed, author of this essay has done:

    Christian Europe was fortunate to have lived through the throes of reformation, counter-reformation, movements that brought in enlightenment and cause the French revolution. This experience allowed them to see the benefits of democracy, pluralism and tolerance. Muslims on the other hand, since they had never experienced a political, cultural or military setback, up until Napoleon invaded and conquered Egypt in 1798, never felt a need for self-evaluation and self critique. The very fact that they remained in control of much of the world as rulers gave them a sense of superiority and deprived them of an ability to learn from others. The long Muslim political supremacy contributed in the creation of a false sense that their faith represents the absolute truth and all other faiths are inferior.

    In the aftermath of Ottoman Empire’s demise, radical Islam built its campaign of terror on this premise of Islamism being the absolute truth. The whole concept of the world being divided in two house; dar ul Islam (House of peace) and Dar ul Harb (House of war), is based on this ideology.

    In order to ensure that radical Islam remains in control of the Muslim heart and mind, Islamist state joined hands with the dogmatic mosque that preached the most rigid and the most exclusivist interpretations of Islam—Deobandi, Salafis and Wahhabis. Saudi Petro-Dollars helped this un-holy alliance gain legitimacy and hijack the mainstream Islam. This radical ideology is possessed by a destructive passion—it wants to control the world by overwhelming all open societies.

    Radical Islamists are aware that they can control the hearts and minds of Muslim street only so long as they somehow suppress the desire among Muslims to seek modern education. They know that the United States of America and the state of Israel – being open, pluralistic and democratic—are the only two entities in the world that can thwart their Fascist designs. That’s why they want to destroy them. As a first step in this direction, they have launched a smear campaign against Judeo-Christian civilization.

    Radical Islam’s job has been made easy by a long Muslim tradition of misinterpreting the Holy Scriptures as condemning Jews. The custom of accepting fabricated fables demonizing Jews and Christians as Prophets Traditions has also empowered the fundamentalists. Using these manipulated Holy Scriptures and fabricated traditions, radical Islamists projected Judeo-Christian powers as responsible for Muslim defeats, setbacks and downfall.

    By spinning the history, Islamists have labeled all the traits of freedom and openness as a Zionist conspiracy to undermine the Islamic values and culture. The concept of nation-states is condemned as a conspiracy to divide the Muslim Ummah (faith based Muslim nationhood). Radical Islamists realize that their spin and mesmerism will only work so long as the Muslim street is not exposed to the truth—as contained in modern and scientific knowledge and the principles determining the directions of open societies.

    To prevent the Muslim masses from gaining insight, they have made certain that modern education does not reach the grass roots level. And they have succeeded in achieving this goal by labeling all modern education as un-Islamic. As a result, the Muslim world is plunged into an abyss of darkness, anti-modernity, anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism.

    I am convinced that the only way to save the Muslims from being permanently consigned to the dustbin of history is to destroy the basis of anti-Semitism from the Muslim traditions and liturgy. And this can be done only by exposing the Islamist.

    In my view, to expose radical Islam, Muslims have to be introduced to the real reasons of anti-Semitism. This can only be done by creating an alternative source of information and education from within the Muslim community. Only a Muslim challenge to the dark ideology of Islamism can undo the damage done to the Muslim mind.

    Since only Jews represent over five thousand years of human pursuit of knowledge, struggle to prevail over bigotry and absolutism and persevere against a perpetual desire on the part of evil forces to destroy them, their history if presented in an honest fashion to the Muslims can go a long way destroying anti-Semitism.

    I consider the creation of the Jewish state as a blessing for the Muslims. Israel has provided us an opportunity to show to the world the Jewish state of mind in action; a mind that yearns to be free; a mind that longs to see the humanity enjoy life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. If the American civic faith has given the world a hope to be able to live with dignity, self respect and honor in peace, the Jewish traditions and culture of pluralism, debate, acceptance of dissension and difference of opinion have manifested themselves in the shape of the state of Israel to present the oppressed Muslim world with a paradigm to emulate. And if we want this world to be free of any kind of terror, we will have to defend this state of mind, whether it is seen in the shape of Israel or in the form of the United States of America.

    Mr. Tashbih Sayyed is editor-in-Chief of Pakistan Today and the Muslim World Today, California-based weekly newspapers, President of Council for Democracy and Tolerance and adjunct fellow of the Hudson Institute.

    Labels: , , , , , ,

    Monday, September 08, 2008


    THE LEFT AS A WHOLE, while individuals do vary, that needs a harsh dose of wake up calls and to get out of the Land of Nod, pass by me in the crossroads of Grey and then move into the waking world as their somnambulism and media dreamland are leading to no good end, whatsoever. While there has always been defeatist and anti-Americanism on the Leftward side of the Ship of State, I have yet to recall such a mass group donning life preservers—and then heading straight to the pool and jumping in claiming that they are overboard.

    Perhaps if they would put down their cocktails and apply some sun lotion they might also complain about the heat in their being overboard.

    The Western Left, as a whole, has turned against Nations as an idea. Their general wish to impose some benign, cancerous socialist State upon the world is running straight into another group also trying to impose a Global cancer—The Islamic Fascistic Fundamentalists.

    Now here we have the wonderful dissonance of two groups trying to put forth pre-20th century 'perfect dreams' of how people 'should live': The Left embracing a Global Socialist ideal of the Internationale from the 19th century, and the Islamic Fascistic Fundamentalists trying to impose an Empire of Religion straight out of the 11th century. Both wish to use division imposed by definition upon peoples to divide them and bring them down. Both require the dissolving of Nations as their means to do so.

    And both mean to enslave the World to their dreams of making the World more like they want it to be.

    Read it all in a most interesting article posted in 2006 by one of the leading lights of the fledgling Jacksonian Party movement.

    Labels: , , ,