LEBANESE ARMY FIGHTING THE JIHADISTS

An excerpt from the Spirit of 1683 found on Jihad Watch:

And our so-called 'men of the cloth' were just as bad. But the wicked got what they wanted from a West that is easily duped because it chooses to be easily duped, and this is so because it chooses to be violently anti-semitic. The spirit of Nazism has been resurrected in 21st Century Europe, and has sadly been exported to the US.

Another aspect of this was the marches in dozens of Western cities. Tens of thousands of brain-dead Leftist and Islamist rabble-rousers carried banners showing solidarity with Hezbollah. Contrast this with the size of the rally in Glasgow last week, which had a few hundred attendees, with half of them carrying "Stop The War" placards—and half being non-Muslim. Of course, the Left pretend to be against racism and for civil liberties if their banners are to be believed but salivate over the worst racists and vilest regimes on the planet. What a depressing picture this creates of a Britain that seems to care more about the lives of Hezbollah terrorists than of London pubgoers and Glaswegian holidaymakers.

And today there is a different battle going on in Lebanon—between the Lebanese Army and terrorists in a refugee camp. The protestors, who only a year ago slandered Israel on our streets are strangely absent. There's no Green Helmet Man around today, nor a Red Cross ambulance in sight. No bellowing has been heard from the obnoxious Galloway and his ilk. Our press and media remain strangely silent. The so-called 'peace activists' have suddenly decided Lebanon isn't the place for them. What a stunning lack of morals from a bunch as deficient in guts as they are in ideals.

A BRIT LAMENTS

Ah, just remembered, the Channel 4 thing is about the Far Lefts unholy alliance with Islam.

Monday night, in the UK, if you're in America you get hundreds of channels of crap instead. Could be interesting, Channel 4 is generally Left leaning and liberal, but for some reason, seems to recognise that there's something in Islam to be feared. Or at least recognises that the debate is open.

They've run programs on the man-made climate change myth as well. Something else the BBC should be doing. I hang my head in shame at what the BBC has become. Even when their pro-Islamic journalists are kidnapped by Islamists, they can't stop their misinformation campaign. They've become a national disgrace.

SOME ON THE LEFT AWAKEN

Previously, admiring myself as a left wing, tolerant liberal, into Buddhism and yoga and all things "peace and love", I thought that America and Britain were causing a lot of the extremism with its violence towards others. I marched against the war, and thought Bush was a tw*t and Blair a liar.

Then, I met a girl from a (non-practising) moderate Muslim family. I decided to do a bit of research into Islam, I thought it would be helpful and open-minded of me.

Well, the more I learnt about Islam, the more I was felt sick and disgusted. There is a strong vein of intolerance running through this mythos, a clinging to the belief that every word in the Koran is correct and that none of it has been corrupted or is wrong, and certainly not to be questioned. Moderate Muslims, either through fear or ignorance, will trot out the line of "Islam is peaceful" while failing to scrutinize a dogma that helps violent people justify their violence. Islam needs reformation, and the moderates need to be the ones who start it.

So, now I am of the same mind as the writer (Hassan Butt), but having come from two different directions. I still think that "our" part in violence will only bring violence, just as if I hit someone they are likely to hit me back. But if they follow a system that countenances violence—and the system's rules against it are slack (and they are)—then it's even more likely they'll hit me, perhaps even if I don't hit them.

Let's move to end the violence, from ALL factions. I still think Bush is a tw*t and Blair is a liar, only now I know that Islam isn't really about peace and love, it's about superiority and intolerance. The whingeing about victimization is nothing but a lament for lack of power to impose this will to superiority.

A powerful, astute piece and I applaud the writer's courage.

Just sign me,

Yogaboy

THE CONTINUING FOLLY OF MORAL EQUIVALENCY

Why is it that when the hatred and intolerance that are the very essence of Islamic theology are exposed and discussed, those who participate are labeled "haters"? This is an illogical method of reasoning, resting on the foundation that should everyone just ignore the hate that oozes from Muslims and Islam, that generalized goodwill will mitigate the Islamic intensity and make it disappear.

Do people actually reside in the West who believe that hate and evil can be eradicated with kindness and love? Other than in the words of Jesus Christ I have never heard such idealism ushered into a play for reality, but now the Far Left in the West, of course, quite sturdy in their opinions without need of any religion, now spoofs us, and taunts us into believing the unreliable. The real world is not and will never be the multicultural utopia of these social deconstructionists' dreams, and Muslims want no part of such a world. They want a monocultural world, an Islamic world, a hardcore totalitarian structure which they would impose on all of us tomorrow if only they had the corporeal power to do it. Even CAIR has acknowledged this dream.

Islam creates and sustains the most insidious, inexorable, intractable hatred imaginable, an evil that most people of the contemporary Western mindset cannot imagine, much less comprehend. To acknowledge this takes a certain amount of courage because it means that conflict and self-defense are inevitable. Self-preservation requires constant diligence and close scrutiny of Muslims, most of whom are our enemies. If self-preservation and self-defense are now considered immoral, yes, we're guilty, but then so are the Muslims who fight tooth, nail, and children with bombs to preserve and extend their own dark sensibilities.

In addition to the remarkable congruence between Islam and many of the more extreme kinds of 'cult' groupthink, between Islam and organized crime 'families' (e.g. the Chinese Triads, or the Mafia) there are many clear symptoms of deep-rooted sociopathy—Mohammed's own sociopathy, perhaps, apoptheosized by religious decree as the perfect man and the perfect model for man. And woman, well, that requires a whole other set of inhumane formulas, and Islam does not flinch from the task.

For the benefit of those who don't have time to trawl the archives, let's draw attention to M. Scott Peck's chilling book 'People of the Lie' (1988). He is talking about evil people generally, but much of his analysis is directly relevant to our present encounter with Islam, the jihadists and their spin-masters. It also accounts remarkably well for the documented characteristics of all Islamised societies and their relationships with their unfortunate non-Muslim minorities and non-Muslim neighbours.

Among other things Peck stresses the pathological narcissism of truly evil people—they persistently reject both self-knowledge and external criticism. He notes: "evil people, refusing to accept their own failures, actually desire to project their evil onto others".

Page 82: "A predominant characteristic of the behaviour of those I call evil is scapegoating. BECAUSE IN THEIR HEARTS THEY CONSIDER THEMSELVES ABOVE REPROACH, THEY MUST LASH OUT AT ANYONE WHO DOES REPROACH THEM. THEY SACRIFICE OTHERS TO PRESERVE THEIR SELF-IMAGE OF PERFECTION".

Reminded of anything, folks? Pope rage, cartoon rage, apostasy and other draconian blasphemy laws? Peck stresses that the truly evil personality also 'creates confusion' because it lies consistantly to itself and others—hence the title of his book, People of the Lie.

A key observation: "I have learned nothing in 20 years that would suggest that evil people can be rapidly influenced by any means other than raw power. They do not respond, at least in the short run, to either gentle kindness or any form of spiritual persuasion with which I am familiar."

The susceptibility of the average person to ideas of moral equivalence is truly a sign of intellectual decadence. The conditions under which one could truly say two antagonists are morally equivalent seem to me to be much more rare than the opposite conditions, under which one of the antagonists would have to be considered the morally superior.

Compare moral standing to the system of accounting and ask yourself how frequently it happens that two distinct businesses have the same exact debits and credits in their accounting statements? Pretty rarely. Well, that's how frequently true moral equivalence can be asserted between two antagonists.

The intellectual decadence consists of asserting that the "exception" (true moral equivalence) is the "rule".

THE BOILING POINT

Writes an obviously flustered fellow on the travel:

"Now I don't want to sound like a racist, but I was shocked when I moved to England and discovered that my neighborhood was majority Muslim—mosques, hijabs, halal shops, etc...

"I am all for diversity, but if you want me to be tolerant, I expect the same in return. Don't get me started on this topic. Anyway, when I walked to the marketplace and realized I was the only one NOT wearing hijab, and was being ogled by stall keepers who claimed they didn't know English—I made a comment later about feeling like I had wandered all the way to Pakistan, and my Pakistani ex accused me of being racist for saying that, so tell me, am I a racist based on this simple remark? or was I merely observing the obvious?

"Pfff... I don't think any race is better than another—its oppressive cultural and religious practices I have a problem with... "

I don't know where that fellow had originally lived before taking off to England, but he should consider Dearborn, Michigan in the United States. The blighted streets lined with hourly-rental motels that lead from Detroit into the suburb of Dearborn gradually give way to busy avenues dotted with mosques and thriving small businesses. Arabic signs advertise attorneys and physicians, passers-by speak Levantine and Gulf dialects of Arabic, and on the sidewalks women wear the colorful headscarves of hijab.

Dearborn is a microcosm of the Middle East planted in the Midwestern United States. The roughly 40,000 of Dearborn's 100,000 residents that are Arab American defy the myth many Americans hold of a unified Muslim world, filled with parading masses bearing the likeness of Ayatollah Khomenei. While there are some radical Islamists, Dearborn's growing Muslim population runs the gamut from international traders to educated professionals to local business owners.

Every Arab nationality and religious sect is found here, from Yemeni traditionalism to secular modernity. The development of Dearborn seems like that of any other American city in which there has been a large influx of immigrants. The development of the mosques tells another story.

After a series of conflicts and scandals traced to radicalized leadership in the mosques, tensions have escalated and continue to poke holes in the fabric of an integrated Dearborn. Race isn't the issue, the issue is the forced accommodation to Muslim customs. Earlier in the 20th Century, Muslims attempted to moderate and integrate, to forge a community uniquely both Muslim and American, but the effort was sabotaged by extremist elements.

Muslims have been establishing themselves in western countries for at least 35 years. The terror plot in England to blow up planes was not among native Pakistanis but among youths who were born in the west. The spreading of the jihadist problem is much worse than most in the west believe, as some polls indicate that 70% of Muslims worldwide support Hezbollah and Hamas. They are not all extremists or fascists, but most rank and file Muslims certainly sympathize with them.

That's a problem. Why did Nasrallah apologize for killing Arab children in Nazareth? It wasn't because they were Israelis, it was because they were not Jews. If every Jew in Israel would convert to Islam, there would be no more war with Israel so it is definitely not about land. The issue is religion. The holy war is a religious war. Mainstream media hates to see it characterized this way, but it's the raw, unvarnished, politically incorrect truth. But of course we all know the media cares nothing for the truth.

Britain is a right mess in places. According to one Brit, writing on the Apostates of Islam BBS, there are no white zones in Oldham and one can't find a English corner shop hardly anywhere in the cities nowadays.

He goes on to lament that there are "no pig ornaments in windows, and Brits are not allowed to say Christmas holidays (instead it's winter fest), and Easter is almost non existent. Whites [historical Brits] can't fly the Union Jack and if you dare speak out you may get arrested.




Well, I don't know anything about pig ornaments hanging in the windows, but there is a strong odor of political correctness in sublimating traditional Western holidays while simultaneously the apotheosis of Muslim ones jar local sensitivities worldwide, even here in America.

"When will they realize it's not about the color of their skin (unless they already do) but their religion and culture. There's a big difference in being a racist and being anti-religious and they are just playing on the fact they have a different skin color and now are trying to make out that anyone who speaks against Islam is a racist and inticing religious hatred and the whites have fallen for it, too. I think that if white people became Muslim they would never be fully accepted and if Islam does take over I would not have any sympathy for the whites who joined them. They've had plenty of warnings."

Sounds like the boiling point is getting closer.

Sadly, even should public opinion shift considerably the civil rights laws protect Muslims in jobs, government positions, and our military—and the prisons are a veritable recruitment center for them.

The first amendment is construed by most as a blanket right to this religion by most lawmakers today. It's a sacred cow on both the right and the left.

Areas like Dearborn, Lodi and large areas of most big cities have large populations of them; as they know they can coerce their brethren more easily in this land of "sin". It's also foolhardy to openly wear a t-shirt that has one of those cartoons of Mohammed upon it in those areas and Canada, where 40,000 this past year were made citizens. A Muslim with former ties to Nation of Islam is in a run for Congress representing a large Islamic constituent in Minnesota, where in the year 2000 only 9% of the population classified themselves as non-white. People change. Maybe. Maybe not.

But population changes are natural and vital, yet the sheer speed of the population surge, and the forces behind these swift changes are the disturbing factor for many observers, including this humble blogger. And that force—in a phrase—is illegal and unchecked immigration of all sorts of people, changed and unchanged.

US college towns are swamped with foreign students and most major universities are given huge endowments to basicly bribe the academics to speak highly of them; with the attendant online student associations and web sites—often paid with government money. Georgetown University, a prestigious Jesuit school in Washington, DC is the latest to sell its soul to the Muslim invaders.

Sounds like the boiling point is getting even closer.

There is concern on the wires that every time someone of a certain stature has the gall to speak out against this Muslim usurpation of Western generosity "big oil money will take over and flood the air with propaganda" against this person. Or if a book critical of Islam is published, both this book and its author are routinely ignored by the media powers.

Deepening the mistrust is the notion that once the West does awaken from its slumber, all religion will be persecuted, particularly Christianity, as if this were not already the case. The Left has long waged war against Christianity, and now seems to have found a temporary ally in Islam, strategic for the moment, until the time arrives to execute its final solution: have all religion either abolished or amalgamated into a single world religion.

Sounds like the boiling point is getting even closer.

Another voice pipes in: "Only a few of the major editorialists actually give Islam any negative attention, Malkan, Charon, Coulter, Buchanan and some off them are nuts—most others compromise shamelessly—even that mouthy bastard O'Reilly on the "No Spin Zone" on Fox hasn't either the brains or guts to say Islam has a problem&151;even though he claims he's on a hit list from Al Qaeda. And neither Hannity or Colmes is much better. It makes me wonder who the major shareholders are."

I'll tell you, my friend. Saudi Arabia is the 4th largest shareholder in Fox News. Sounds like the boiling point is getting even closer.

THE CRACKING LEFT

Well, Nick Cohen has said it so well, I won't even begin to add to his eloquent insights into the confusion of the Old Left with the New Reality in his bruising piece called: "Where Have All The Pacifists Gone?"