At large in the US? Over 3,500 illegal immigrants from Muslim countries who have disobeyed orders to leave the country

OT

Sorry to go OT so early, but this was buried on an old thread ("Algerian . . .") and I didn't want it to go unanswered, as it is part of a continuing pattern.

"Timbo" posted:

"Many of you get very angry when other countries say "no" to the USA, don't you?

Let me explain...

If you view other peoples with contempt ("Axis of Envy" - "home of Hitler", blah blah) and if you want the world to dance to your tune ("France's grandiose plans to make the European Union into a global rival of the United States" -how dare they take your power!) then you're no better than Muslims.

I saw on Fox News that over 50% of young Canadians think that America is a bad country. I would not worry about the Saudis hating you, but Canada? Canada! It was their parents who probably educated them in this. When the Canadians start hating you, I think its time to ask serious questions. The root of Anti-Americanism (me thinks) is your nation's moronic foreign policy over the last 50 years.

For example, check this out from the BBC (that infamous "egregiously inaccurate" organization, from that crappy little island that gave you programmable computers, TV’s, trains, trial by jury, the internal combustion engine, penicillin, the theory of gravity, the theory of evolution, and Shakespeare) on how the USA helped create al Qaeda:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/programmes/assignment.shtml

But hey, what the hell do the British know about anything!

Posted by: Timbo at January 1, 2005 08:35 PM"

My response:

Timbo:

"Your flagrant, blatant anti-Americanism is out of place here. This is an anti-jihad forum, but the majority of your posts denigrate the U.S. and are detrimental to the Common Cause that we have established here. If your goal is to just relentlessly bash America, as it seems to be, there are plenty of other fora where you will be welcomed with open arms, but such off-topic ranting in unwelcome here. Your focus is consistently against those whom you should see as your allies against the islamic Threat. As it is, you are of no worth to us with your present mindset. Your posts are more reminiscent of many islamist posters we've had as visitors than of anyone truly committed to the Triumph of Reason and Western Civilization.

I personally don't care how you feel about America. But if you can't put differences aside and join with us to fight the islamic Threat, you really don't belong here. I'm certain that another forum will be better suited to your worldview.

Posted by: CGW at January 2, 2005 06:45 AM"

And Franze aptly added:

"America is hated because many countries wanted to be the boss and being the boss is unpopular

Posted by: Franze at January 2, 2005 07:03 AM"

3,500 is very low ball. There are tons of illegal Pakistanis and Bangladeshis in greater NYC alone. Prior to 911 one Bangladeshi loudmouth in Queens said he wanted legalization (amnesty) for 100,000 illegal fellow country men of his in NYC.

Timbo proudly exclaimed.....

"You want to know about little ol' me? I'm a WASP, I was born in Australia in 1966, I spent 26 years in England, 3 years in Uruguay, and a year and a half in India. I now live in Sydney. I have a UK & Australian passport. Is that enough info?
at December 29, 2004 04:12 AM

ANSWER: Yes, too much as a matter of fact. Who cares about Timbo and where Timbo happens to board a plane, (no doubt a US made Boeing) and where Timbo happens to land. Timbo is irrelevant. A poser. Timbo's claim to fame, "I have been to the ANDAMAN & NICOBAR ISLANDS".

Timbo condescendingly writes....

"You can say whatever you like about me, but at least I have seen the world that you are so eager to comment about. Where’s the furthest you’ve been? Disney World?"
at December 29, 2004 04:12 AM

ANSWER: Yes folks, Timbo actually said this. I believe Timbo may be the most backward thinking hick on the entire planet.

OT~ Note to everyone: Giaour has been around for a while. I am just not sure what side he is on. I would rank him (her?) with Naseem (if they both are agreeable to that).

btw, where Is Naseem these days?

Welcome to the new year.

With regard to the illegal Muslims running around in our yard, a national public address, and all points should be broadcasted on every major news network with a picture of each one of them, along with the announcement of a bounty offer of $50,000 per illegal Muslim, dead or alive of course.

With regard to Timbo: Aren't Timbos the donut holes they sell at Tim Horton's?

I would venture to say that if you're anti-American, I'm anti you.

OT:

Robert Spencer has for the first time ever been quoted in an article in the Toronto Star, Canada's largest newspaper. Has Olivia Ward, the columnist who wrote the article, been reading Jihadwatch?

Woohoo. I'm celebrating!

Here is the article:

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&call_pageid=971358637177&c=Article&cid=1104621011730

Jan. 2, 2005. 01:00 AM

Religious extremism is back
Moral ground is shifting at record speed

Followers are motivated by fear, expert says

OLIVIA WARD
FEATURE WRITER

In Britain, a popular play is closed down when Sikhs attack a Birmingham theatre that features a scene of violence in a temple. In the Netherlands, an activist filmmaker is shot and stabbed to death after producing a documentary on the abuse of Muslim women.

Meanwhile, an American president calls his anti-terrorism campaign a "crusade," and declares that "God wants people to be free." And Israeli settlers insist that leaving their land goes against a God-given right.

Religious extremism, once believed a dying phenomenon, is back with a vengeance, symbolized by the shattered and blackened World Trade Centre towers. Videotaped threats by religiously focused militants are as commonplace as they are chilling to millions throughout the world.

In the 21st century, when frontier-shattering genetic discoveries are reported weekly, gay marriage is going mainstream, space exploration is probing new corners of the universe, and entertainment corporations churn out films, music and videos that would once have sparked national scandals, many scholars predicted that religion would fade into the realm of nostalgia.

But as the first decade of the second millennium reaches the halfway point, the reverse is true. In major religions there is a resurgence of fervent faith, sometimes to the point of violence, as intolerance rises along with determination to impose age-old standards of morality.

The flight to the margins, although proportionately small, is powerful. It is influencing the political agenda of governments in ways that would have been unthinkable a decade ago, threatening Western-style democracies and dampening hope for worldwide peace.

"Everywhere there is an explosion of passionate religious movements," says Peter Berger of Boston University, author of The Desecularization of the World: Resurgent Religion and World Politics. "It happens at some periods, like the Crusades. Contrary to expectations, it's a very religious world, and always has been."

Berger and others who study trends in religion call this a time of "fundamentalism," a term once coined to describe an American movement begun by religious intellectuals a century ago. They wrote a doctrine of Protestant "fundamentals" to counter a new liberalism in Christianity, and the word became identified with stern puritanism. But it is increasingly used to identify religious extremism today.

"In most major traditions there has been a resurgence of very aggressive, passionate religious movements, because people are feeling uncertain," Berger says. "And when you're uncertain, you're more aggressive."

Karen Armstrong, a British former nun and leading chronicler of fundamentalism, agrees. Those who embrace it, she says, are mainly motivated by fear in a world in which the moral ground is shifting at record speed.

"Fundamentalists have no time for democracy, pluralism, religious toleration, peacekeeping, free speech, or the separation of church and state," she writes in The Battle for God.

"Christian fundamentalists reject the discoveries of biology and physics and insist the Book of Genesis is scientifically sound ... Jewish fundamentalists observe their revealed law more stringently than ever before, and Muslim women, repudiating the freedoms of Western women, shroud themselves in veils."

Furthermore, Armstrong says, Buddhist, Hindu and Confucian fundamentalists are prepared to fight and kill in the name of religion, and "strive to bring the sacred into the realm of politics and national struggle."

With such dramatic and inflexible beliefs at stake, those who flee to the margins of religion inspire equally strong reactions, ranging from outrage to uncompromising devotion.

"Fundamentalism breeds fanaticism and often leads to terrible violence, injustice and inequality," argues George Dvorsky, president of the Toronto Transhumanist Association, in Betterhumans online magazine. "If society can force drug addicts into rehabilitation because they're a danger to themselves and the public, then we should be able to compel religious fundamentalists to undergo treatment as well."

But, says Robert Spencer, the director of U.S.-based Jihad Watch, what repels the moderate and secular attracts others just as strongly.

"The extremists have nowhere to go but up. Moderates don't have religious texts on their side, while radicals make thorough and consistent use of texts. In Islam, young people are very vulnerable to the sayings of the Prophet, just as in Christianity you have evangelicals telling you whether you should behave in a certain way. It's an effective winner of converts."

A strong concern of those who oppose fundamentalism is the polarization of society it inspires.

One of its most extreme forms is the apocalyptic movement that claims millions of converts in the U.S. Inspired by the biblical book of Revelation, its followers believe God will one day impose a catastrophic settlement in the earthly battle between good and evil. The wicked will be destroyed, and a new righteous kingdom established for eternity.

A Newsweek magazine poll found that 40 per cent of American adults believe the present world will end in the Battle of Armageddon, and such beliefs have entered popular culture. Many are also convinced that, as the book is interpreted to decree, the Jews will return to the Holy Land, and the kingdom of Christ will be established on Earth.

Apocalyptic beliefs are found not only in Christianity, but also in Judaism and Islam, and numerous religious sects have adopted them as a justification for war and violence.

Belief in an apocalypse creates unlikely religious bedfellows. Christian fundamentalists are among the strongest supporters of Zionism, which they insist is part of the literal truth of the Bible — that the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem will lead to Jewish conversion to Christianity, and an inevitable countdown to Armageddon, named for an ancient town in Israel, at the site where the battle is to take place.

The Sept. 11 attacks on the United States have fuelled apocalyptic visions even among mainstream believers. The phrase "clash of civilizations," created by Harvard professor Samuel Huntington, has become a real fear throughout the world. Huntington's theory, that the next great battle would not be ideological but cultural — a sweeping term that includes religion and philosophy — haunts those who see polarization of the West and Islam as inevitable.

"The tragedy of the last few years," says Jason Burke, author of Al-Qaida: A True Story of Radical Islam, "has been the appearance of two blocs of people, in the West and the Islamic world, both of whom believe erroneously that the other is set on destroying their culture and society."

Islam, with millions of peaceful followers, was especially identified with violent fundamentalism after numerous murderous attacks by the Al Qaeda network of Osama bin Laden.

In 1998, bin Laden declared a public jihad on all Americans, although he had no religious credentials to do so. "It's a bit like Lenin issuing a decree in the name of the Russian Orthodox church," observed political economist Francis Fukuyama in the Wall Street Journal.

But by using religion as the focal point of his campaign against the U.S., to protest its presence in historically sacred Saudi Arabia, and its links with the Saudi government, bin Laden created a new militant ideological movement that spread worldwide through the Internet and satellite television.

Appealing to the young and disaffected, bin Laden told them that Muslims were being killed, beaten and oppressed in many parts of the world, warning that "if you don't fight you will be punished by God."

The violence of bin Laden's campaign stunned moderate Muslims and faced them with a dilemma: As the non-Muslim world reacted with anger, they were pressed to make a choice between denouncing fellow Muslims at a time when the faith was under attack, or allowing the radicals to seize the initiative.

As a result, a debate on violence is only beginning to emerge within Islam. Meanwhile, the polarization of the Muslim and Western worlds continues.

In the United States, some scholars believe, it has been accelerated by the presidency of George W. Bush, who declared "you're either with us or with the terrorists."

"With the re-election of Bush, religious fundamentalism seems to be in overdrive in its effort to define politics through a reductive and somewhat fanatical moralism," says Henry Giroux of McMaster University, a leading expert on education.

Since Bush came to power, he adds, "a new breed of faith-bearing politicians (has) been elected to the highest level of government, supported by a media largely controlled by conservative corporate interests and a growing evangelical base of Christian fundamentalists."

Other analysts disagree that the politics of the world's most powerful country are being influenced significantly by a minority of the Christian right.

"Religious conservatives are not the centerpiece of this administration's policy," says Mark Shibley, a sociologist at Southern Oregon University, who has devoted his career to studying Christian fundamentalism. "People on the right talk about moral issues, but they have a broader vision, addressing the economy. They may try to slow down social change, and set the agenda through the Supreme Court. But their core values are more about freedom and liberty than religion."

But as Susan Jacoby, author of Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism, points out, "there has never been a government in any era in which religion and politics were as closely entwined as this one. Never has a president and Congress been so dedicated to tearing down the wall of separation between church and state."

Although Christian evangelism has not made enormous gains in the U.S. over the past decade, experts say, it has grown steadily. In Israel, Orthodox Jews have also increased their influence. And in Muslim countries, efforts to make citizens more religious are meeting with new success.

"(Muslim) countries with secular governments are more religious than they were even 20 years ago," notes Michael Dunn, editor of the Middle East Journal. "These movements, instead of being revolutionary, are becoming evolutionary, pushing for incremental change."

What is the appeal of fundamentalism in an age that allows more lifestyle choices than ever before — and why has the most structured kind of religion grown while secular liberalism has fallen out of favour in many parts of the world? The answer, for some analysts, is a flight from modernity, which has unsettled those unready to cope with its challenges.

For the uneasy, modernity goes along with corruption, licence, and the breakdown of society. In Muslim countries it has also been associated with the colonial values of the West.

"Fundamentalists feel they are battling against forces that threaten their most sacred values," Armstrong says.

The Toronto Star comments made by Robert Spencer,with all due respect and admiration that i have for him,are very disappointing,to say the least.
For Robert Spencer to draw a parallel between the teachings that young muslims get from their prophet Mohamad,and the teachings of evangelicals for christians,it is an obscene dose of political correctness,it is also a sign of dhimmithude,at least the onset of it.
Robert Spencer,as i recall is the one that stated so many times ,here at JW that to compare radical islamists to right wing christians(christian fundamentalists,if anything like that even exists)is a grave mistake...you will never find christian priests encouraging their followers to kill non-christians for the purpose of obtaining world wide domination....
Either Robert Spencer was taken out of context,but that is an excuse that we hear from imams too often to be true,or he just contained himself to say whatever he thought the interviewer wanted to hear.
Either way,a very disappointing comment.

Adela, and everyone else who was interested:

I was not quoted "out of context," but what was printed was incomplete. I explained to the reporter that Muslim jihadists point to chapter and verse of the Qur'an to win Muslims over to their point of view, just as Christian Evangelicals point to chapter and verse of the Bible to win people over to their point of view. This is not to equate the two, because the messages of the Bible and Qur'an are so fundamentally different.

I have been accused of political correctness before, but always by people who misunderstand, in some cases with clear malicious intent, what I am saying. In this case also I plead not guilty.

Cordially,
Robert Spencer

My comments were not intended as an attack against Robert Spencer,for which ,as i said, i have a great deal of respect.
Nor have my comments had any malicious intent.
I was just disappointed and felt somehow betrayed ,to read such comments,comparing islam,in any way,shape or form and in any context,to christianity.

With all due respect to Ms. Ward, when Eisenhower wrote of the war in Europe, he called it the "Crusade in Europe." To liken something to a holy war does not make it one. By the same token, by stating one's religious beliefs does not make one a fundamentalist.

Additionally, the concept of a separation of church and state is a relatively new interpretation of the Constitution (twentieth century). Ms. Jacoby, since it's "free," should do a little more thinking. Just as an aside, Ms. Jacoby seems to be one of those people who prove that it is far easier to get published than one might otherwise believe.

Though the Liberal mind does seem to have some sort of infatuation with connecting Christian fundamentalism with the fundamentalists of Islam, it just ain't so. To the contrary, in Western countries, the government of the State tends to step on the values of Judeo-Christians far more often than the other way around. By way of contrast, the Islamic world seems to do just the opposite.

Nothing against Ms. Ward, I'm sure she is a nice lady, but she seems to be discussing apples and oranges. Since that is, apparently, the case, wouldn't it have been nice if rather than just getting the point of view of apples, she had brought in an orange or two to state their side of the story? Balance, dear lady, balance.

Fundamentalists in the West, with one or two possible exceptions (and I literary mean - one or two), vote with the ballot and not the bullet. In the world of Islam, the bullet seems to be intended to deny those they disagree with the use of the ballot.

Well at least we finally made the move to enforce some immigration policie's.18 units to search for 3,600 does not sound so fair.Why could'nt the Government deputize a lot of people and place bountie's on them scumbags.

Lincoln describes it best when he posed this question?"If you call a dog's tail a leg,how many legs does it have?","five", his audience would usually respond."The correct answer","is four".
Calling a tail a leg does not a leg make.
Calling lies the truth does not make them so.

Gary if you read this.

Giaour is a heathen and an antijihadist. No that is mild, the only word I can come up with to describe myself is an "Islamophobe" (we need another word, any ideas}.

My case, however is valid.

Given what I know about the neo cons and Bush team (like the Islamic Republic Iraqi Constitution, and the Afghan Draft Islamic Constitution) google both then google Iran Constitution and compare. I am very upset and feel betrayed. We have wasted our treasure and the blood of our young folk, for what? To create an Islamic Republic of Iraq, run by SCIRI, a carbon copy of Iran?

Perhaps that sits in your craw, it does not sit in mine.

Meanwhile My second agenda is that I consider myself a Constitutional Liberal, and the last thing I want is a theocracy of any kind, including Christian. I more than familiar with Dominion Theology and it's goal to create a "Christian Theorcracy" in America. I am also well aware of the writings of Rushdoony, Gary North, and the many adherents to Dominion Theology, though they probably don't have any idea of that name.

Finally, although I consider myself a liberal, I can't be categorized with those ideological liberals and leftists,who apparently hate America or what she stands for.

But don't ever forget it was your Beloved Ronald Reagan who called the Mullahs of Afghanistan, the Thomas Jeffersons of their country, and who had Osama bin Laden given a tour of our bases under the pseudonym of Tim Osman.

And it was probably Perle or Freith who "leaked" the Abu Ghraib photos to Seymour Hersch, knowing full well what reaction they would have in the Muslim/Arab World.

I'm not the only person who has read Raphael Patai's most excellent, the Arab Mind.

BTW I never heard of Naseem, nor do I care.

But if I perplex you then join the company of others, as I'm called a NAZI (on liberal forums) a Jew on a forum dominated by Muslims and anti semites.

But you might consider that You can't take a sledgehammer to me and pound this square peg into a round hole.

Lastly, as one who believes that my own civil liberties and freedoms are inextricably linked to those of all. I am non plussed, for I wish nothing less than to expell all Muslims from the US.

A Muslim cannot be a citizen of this country and remain a Muslim. His loyalty to the Ummah supersedes any putative loyalty to a country, especially that of the Kufr.

As I read elsewheres a Muslim can only live in Dar Al Harb, so long as he propigates his ideology, and when necessary acts as a warrior.

My question for you Bush Fans and loyalitists, is why do you tolerate the betrayal of the US and our troops by your President.

And no I didn't vote for Dumpty Kerry as opposed to Humpty Bush.

This "left right" dichotomy is our downfall, we need to overcome the chasm of divide and somehow unite in a common cause... exposing Islam and Muslims.

Since we can't expel Muslims, it seems the only hope we have is in exposing the Muslim ideology to the populace, and we need more than isolated websites.

I am, to Islam, the pure Kafir, the unbelieving heathen, not even "People of the Book", I don't get to enjoy even "dhimmi status" in a Muslim world, I either get beheaded or pretend to embrace their god Muhammad.

PS Must read books (Besides Mr Spencers, which I have). Onward Muslim Soldiers is Great.

Read: Serge Trifkovic The Sword of the Prophet.
Raphael Patai's The Arab Mind
Maxime Rodinson's, Muhammad.
A.J. Wensinck's, The Muslim Creed (1936, hardbound, cost me $33 from Amazon, worth it).

Also for background on Iraq and Iran
The Shi'is of Iraq, Yitzhak Nakash
Sandra Mackey's, "Iraq" The Reckoning and Iran, Persia, Islam and the Soul of a Nation, also check out her older Saudis: Inside the Desert Kingdom.

Thousands of Muslims still at large in America, thousands more sneaking in through Mexico... meanwhile the Army and Marines are in Iraq making sure that Iraqi kids can go to school? At a cost of hundreds of Billions of dollars and thousands of GI lives?

Four more years... bring it on.

DC Watson, THIS is the reason that we are getting a reputation as a "hate site":

With regard to the illegal Muslims running around in our yard, a national public address, and all points should be broadcasted on every major news network with a picture of each one of them, along with the announcement of a bounty offer of $50,000 per illegal Muslim, dead or alive of course.

That kind of phony, tough-guy blather doesn't serve our cause in the least. I suspect that it is intended to make you feel like a real billy-bad-ass. Maybe the majority of the purebread sheltered suburbanites here are impressed with your braggadocio, but in the interest of broadening our base, do you think you could save the swagger for the boys down at Hooters?

Lincoln describes it best when he posed this question?"If you call a dog's tail a leg,how many legs does it have?","five", his audience would usually respond."The correct answer","is four".

ROFLMAO... perfect. Not as good as the "I'm going to Mohamed's; he's giving away candy" but still good.

I wonder why they hate Lincoln so much in Richmond. Oh wait--I remember why.

Gaiour: This "left right" dichotomy is our downfall, we need to overcome the chasm of divide and somehow unite in a common cause... exposing Islam and Muslims.

Right on. I don't get dhimmi "protection" either.

That "we need to come together" bs sounds nice, but if you look back in recent history you'll see that it usually only works when democrats are in the majority. Like when Reagan was president, or when Dub was the Gub of Texas.

Alas.. as you can plainly see, many of the respondents here come primarily to make this into a pulpit to whine about lib'ruls and other riffraff.

If you are looking for something a little more scholarly I suggest www.secularislam.org

You should have been here before the election...

KJ

The LLLL

Several days ago there was an item about the Dearborn City Council's resolution deploring the CLEAR Act, which required local police to help enforce the immigration and naturalization laws. One poster, who turned out to be from Dearborn itself, seemed exercised at my denunication of this craven attempt to win support, as I described it, from both Muslim and "islamochristian" Arabs (i.e. those who, while Christian, nevertheless promote the Islamic agenda out of a misguided sense of Arab ethnic identity somehow requiring support for Islam, despite the fact that their own ancestors left dar al-Islam precisely in order to escape persecution and mistreatment by circumambient Muslims).

Some may wish to revisit that article, and that thread of postings, and consider how many of the missing "Middle Easterners" might be picked up if the CLEAR Act were clearly enforced. And one wonders how many of those "Middle Easterners" who were formally told they had to leave the country, and are now on the lam, are holed up in Dearborn, where the City Council wins the support of a local Arab group for denouncing the CLEAR Act. Everything connects.

Giaour --

Your list is sound, except for the bizarre inclusion of the shallow Sandra Mackey. Not as bad as Juan Cole, next year to become, after the special ceremony of the uomini d'onore, the capo di tutti capi in Mesa Nostra, but bad. If Iraq is an interest, why not read instead Amatzia Baram, or the essay on Iraq in "Islam and the Modern World" by Elie Kedourie, by birth a Baghdadi? Or Philip Ireland's 1939 book on Iraq, which has not lost its relevance, except perhaps in Washington? Or the 2-volume Letters of Gertrude Bell, of which there used to be an abridged, paperback edition, for that plus-ca-change, plus-c'est-la-meme-chose feeling?

No whining, kj, Warning. you still can't spell.

*******************************************************

sonofwalker:

I saw in another post that you've decided on the Netherlands for your European conference site. May I suggest first checking into their hate-speech legislation and exactly what it entails? There are quite a few Dutch posters here that could advise, I'm sure. You don't want the whole group to be arrested.

sonofwalker:

I believe that one of our regular posters, Leveller, is Dutch and can be reached at www.dutchdisease.com.

Actually, if the whole group did get arrested for speaking about Islam in the Netherlands I think we'd be as well-known to history as Henry David Thoreau.

But no. I stated that the European conference will happen in the Netherlands only to put a specific goal on the table. If there are problems with the Netherlands, that's something we must learn to work around. No place will have everything we need, but all places will have problems we will gain from by learning how to deal with them.

My point, again, in setting a location is simply to set a place. It could have been anywhere, but because it is the Netherlands, if we start working on it now, by mid July we'll have our first European conference. That alone, even if only one person shows up, will prove that we can organize a conference. We need proof of our abilities. We must prove to ourselves that we are competent people. We must prove it to each other, but mostly to ourselves so we get over our fears that what the Moslems do is superhumn and only possible with finance from Gulf State oil money. Every place and every action will entail difficulties. If we worry, we will sit like the French until we're over-taken. But we do have members of our group in the Netherlands, and they have the opportunity to organize a conference not simply for a dozen over there but for the entirety of Europe. We have Australians who can mobilize around the free-speech trial and its aftermath. We can carry the torch, as it were, by creating the opening, the first moves toward reality of our movement by organizing in America, by showing the way, by setting an example, by following through and making it real.

I wish to make clear here that though I write as if I have some clear agenda and fervoured purpose, mine is one man's opinion. As it turns out, I find that in the middle of my life I have a great deal of experience in this field of organizing, how to put this, alternative actions. I do know some things, but nevertheless, I am still one man among many talented people.

Having stated that, I wish to begin the Adamic task of naming. I brought into the debate recently the concept of "reification," for which I received some spew of my own from someone who screamed that I'm a right-wing religious bigot. Let me explain to those not familiar with the concept: It is a naming of things that exist in the mind; in our case, our very group here on the cold-thread is an act of mind that becomes real in the naming of it. When we gather to create a forum here, we give it a name and an entity, like a corporation, or like Spiderman. These things exist in the mind, and they are made concrete reality by the efforts of men and women working on ideas. Reification is the traansformation of the image into the object, of going from the imagination to the drawing board to the assembly line to the showroom.

My first major point of the day, if you will, is that this group here can be named and made real only if we name it and make it a real entity in our own minds. I offer this, and unless there's a seriious objection or a better name, I want to call those of us here on the cold-thread, "Planned Action Co-ordinating Committee." [PACC.] As of now we can all refer to ourselves as members/contributors to PACC.

On that line of thought, I have to say that we have too much information here at this site. I mean by that that we cannot act effectively on everything that comes up daily. Susan_B wrote some great suggestions yesterday, and I can't remember them today. I am overwhelmed by information from so many sources that I'm barely able to see straight. Therefore, in the interests of planned action rather than sporadic and ineffectual action if any at all, I suggest that we gather ourselves into sub-committees under the heading of PACC.

I suggest, because this is one of the things I write about constantly, and a thing many regular readers are often only vaguely familiar with, to my surprise, that we break ourselves into sub-committees, one of which is the leaflet production sub-committee. Each idea has to break down into a managable task with a clear agenda, goal,timetable, and dead-line. A PACC sub-committee on library books can accomplish something, whereas you and I on our own will probably forget and go on to something else tomorrow. A focused sub-committee on a specific task will give us energy and a goal we can stay with till we reaach it. Having reached a goal, we will by a concrete and functional entity.

Who's going to know what we're doing if we do organize sub-committees? How are we going to co-ordinate? We, PACC, need a general secretary to keep our progress charted and disseminated. Each week we as sub-committee members should submit a report to our general secretary so s/he can spread it to the rest of us. I can't keep track of what goes on here from one minute to the next because there is too much input, and most of it is scattered and often cluttered with trash. If we submit reports to PACC weekly, we'll see where we are and what we're doing collectively, as a co-ordinated group whose actions are planned. We need a secretary.

Another point I wish to raise here is that of symbolism. In every endeavour of this kind one requires a symbol that catches the eye and sends a message instantly, as, for example, a Cross or a Star of David. Our opponents have a cresent moon symbol, and Communists have the Hammer and Sickle. In the advertising industry, it is a way of creating instant brand recognition. PACC requires that symbol to gain widespread growth. Again, this being only one man's opinion, though one I hope others will either better or accept as is, I offer a symbol from electricity. I suggest that this symbol appear on all correspondence and all public platforms wherever our work is seen. With this symbol we will not have to repeat our arguments ad nauseum but it will in itself give our audiences a headstart on knowing where they stand in relation to our movement so we can move directly toward our sympathizers and against our opponents. The electrical symbol I chose for our movement is a "Phase Shifter."

I chose the Phase Shift symbol for obvious metaphorical reasons, but also because of the simplicity and archetypal elements of the symbol itself. To draw this symbol, make a circle in the center of a page. Put a triangle around it, the peak at the top. Starting outside the triangle slightly, run a line though the triangle and circle horizontally till it comes just outside the other side of the triangle. Circle inside triangle bisected by a straight line. A phase shift. If it gains recognition in the mind of the public, the symbol is reified, and our movement is known by that symbol instantly.

Another point I want to make is that we've had long and agonized debate on what our idenitity is. Many of us are not happy with the names we use, such as infidel, anti-jihadists, anti-terrorists, kafirs. I wasted a god deal of time here writing on that topic. I'll do it again in the coming days, but for those of you who are interested, please google, "sonofwalker aporia." I wtrote, and will agian, that what we all share positively is our state of inspired aporia. therefore, and again unless anyone has a better idea, I suggest we adopt the title of "Proaporia" for our movement.

Finally, every movement needs a text to which its adherents can refer, or at least to hold as they walk around. I offer this as a starting point: that like the Communists of old we create a manifesto, based on the Communist Manifesto of Karl Marx and Freidrich Engels. We can state our beliefs in general aporia and lay our our aims for an Islam/fascist-free future.

To summarize for today:

We must organize, for our own sakes, as a confidence-building activitiy, if nothing else, and as a learning exercise, conferences for Jihadwatch readers and sympathisers in three areas: America, Europe, and Australia. To report back afterward that we held international conferences is to become internationally known to ourselves an to the world. We will also meet each other, to some degree. What matters most is that we act specifically to acheive one concrete goal, that of meeting and organizing. The time and place is arbitrary and more or less irrelavent. To act as a unified entity is essential for our self created identity.

Those of us who meet here are creating a corporate identity. That identity exists seperately from any one individual. I call it the Planned Action Co-ordinating Committee, PACC.

A general committee is essential for our collective struggle to reclaim for Humanity the freedom and progressive ideals we all have as a natural right. However, to make any one specific detail we must break down our general committee into smaller sub-committees so we can delegate tasks that we can achieve as individuals. We have to form sub-committees to stay focused and organized and productive. I choose to work on the leaflet committee.

To keep track of what we and others among us are doing, we need a secretary who will send us progress reports from and on each sub-committee. there is simply too much information for everyone to keep track of. A secretary can pick and choose from our sub-committee work and send all of us a synopsis of the detailed work we do. We need that secretary.

I recommend that we create publicity and name-recognition by attaching to our collective creation a simple but archetypal symbol, the phase shift "circle/triangle/line."

I want us to be some positive entity rather than being "what we are not." I say, and have written on this before, as I will again, that we adopt the general line of aporia, and that we think of ourselves and call ourselves "Proaporians" rather than infidels and kafirs.

To cement this committee and this movement for the future, I want us to collectively write a manifesto, a statement of principles and beliefs.

Susan_b356@yahoo is willing and able to direct you to me personally if you have questions or comments. I'll return here shortly with the location for tomorrow's cold thread for the PACC discussion, if you will. Meantime, if you're interested in the practical side of a propaganda campaign, kie. leaflets and posters, please contact susan to forward me your interests.

Thanks, CGW, I'll contact him today.

Tomorrow I think we'd do well to meet at "Mess-hall suicide," Jan 3. Please leave a message for me if that's not good for us. I have a head-ache, and I can't see very well. If I've mixed up the trhead and the date, I'll find your correction later.

It's "Laser aimed," Jan 3, 05. I ran a line of stars across the last post so you'll see where we begin.

I believe that DC WATSON's comment isn't that far off from what we should do.

I would not advocate the "dead or alive" clause of course but I think they should post pictures and particulars of these people on the web and ask people to report them. The FBI has a page full of the most wanted. Why not the most unwanted?

I for one would report any illegal alien I came in contact with. Who needs them? Get legal or get out. There is nothing wrong with reporting a crime and identifying a criminal, which they are if they are here illegally.

f.g.

sonofwalker - if you're still out there:
I don't know if Susan has contacted you about this, but I left her a list of things I could help with. I'll try and reach you through her this evening (about 3 hours from now).
What time zone are you in? I'm in the Eastern US.

Hey everyone,

Sorry I haven't answered your e-mails yet. I will soon. The flu has struck and I can't seem to get too far from the bed. I want my Mommy and chicken soup, NOW!

I will post an update real fast,

1. Mike is going to get information together on the various church headquarters/and information on violence against women.

2. Rabbit is putting together a web site we can use to post information, etc.

3. Son of walker is getting the leaflets together.

4. Rublev is going to get information together and format a letter for us on stricter immigration laws to send out to Congress.

5.Rikki is ready to distribute material in England.

6. Kelly mentioned getting a library project together to counter the project that CAIR has to place books on Islam in them.

We still need the following:

Someone to look into the day time talk shows, suggest a show to Oprah on reporters and authors getting sued for questioning Islam by CAIR. Suggest a panel, Robert, Daniel Pipes, Andrew Whithead etc.

Someone to look up information on "friendly" free press sites/web sites that we can submit articles by Robert, Hugh and DC Watson, plus other contributors from the site.

If Andrew is available, I'd like to get him to gather information on quotes from the Quran and quotes from various Muslim leaders. Show cause and effect on how the Quran is used to incite violence.

Someone to look into radio talk shows. Again we need to see what "friendly" sites there are to get Robert on them.

Throughout Europe and Australia, we need to get the same sort of information from members there.

From Canada, if Shiek Canuck and Ala Sux could put togeter information on Sharia law and how it will effect Canandian law and the loss of freedoms. Cause and effect.

I'd like to try to have everything by Mid-March, to pass along to everyone and start distribution of all the information we have.

I know there is more, but I can't get my brain wrapped around it.

I'm heading back to bed, will check in later.

susan-
If you see this post, please send Son of Walker my e-mail address and ask him contact me.
Thanks

Hi Mike. I'm looking forward to getting in touch with you, but at this time i have only a minute before i must duck out again. I'm west coast time for now, and I try to get to the office around 8-9:00 a.m. to write. will be at the new thread tomorrow. I still have a lot to write about.

I do want to pursue the idea of a strong committee set-up. I am focused on leaflets for all of us, uniform and effective for the public, but AI'm not relenting on collective action. Will return tomorrow.