I have just returned to the United States -- well, at least as far as an airport where due to weather patterns I will be stuck most of the afternoon and evening -- from Germany, where adapter troubles prevented me from posting. Jihad Watch News Editor Marisol Seibold has done an admirable job in my absence, and I am most grateful for her work.
In Berlin I was speaking at "The Terrorist Threats to Germany and the United States. A Comparative Study of the Threats and Responses: An Experts' Workshop," co-sponsored by the Foreign Office of the Federal Republic of Germany and the U.S. Department of State, U.S. Embassy Berlin.
It has been a fascinating week on many levels. Among the topics were: "Overview of Muslim Communities in Germany and the United States"; "Terrorism in Cyberspace: Use of the Internet by Terrorists and Their Supporters in Germany and the United States"; "U.S. and German Government Responses to Terrorism Within Their Own Borders"; and many more. The topic I was given to speak on was "Political Agitation by Radical Islamic Groups in the United States and Germany"; I handled the United States portion.
A summary of findings will soon be published, and I will make it available here. A fuller volume of the various addresses will follow.
Tomorrow, after the briefest of stopoffs in the Jihad Watch offices in Secure Undisclosed Locationville to freshen Hugh's mint julep, I'm off to the Belly of the Great Satan to tape an interview with C-Span's Brian Lamb on the documentary film Islam: What the World Needs to Know. I'll let you know when it is set to air.
Robert,
Awesome news! Is this a sign that some of Europe is growing even more aware of the threats to security from Jihad activities? (even in their own communities?)
I will look forward to the information from this conference! I actually wish C-Span would show these kind of topics on their programs :)
Thanks again for ALL your efforts!
Wow, a look at the topic list and the fact that this workshop was organised by the federal govt of Germany and Department of State of US, gives me a hope!!!
Great news which confirms my "signs of waking up" theory about Europe. Germany is the economic leader of Europe, even though her economy has not exactly being flourishing recently. Germany is not exactly the leader of EU, but no important decisions can be done without the acceptance of Germany.
Concerning the highly improbable Turkish membership in the EU, this surely is a sign that it will never happen.
Welcome Home
Part of the American Tribe
Squirrel Hunter
Spide Killer
GOD BLESS THE COUNTRIES WHO HAVE HEROS PITY NOT THE COUNTRIES WHO NEED THEM AMEN
"Great news which confirms my 'signs of waking up' theory about Europe."
-- from a posting above
If I were you, I'd curb my enthusiasm until Robert conveys his impressions. You might be disappointed.
Aye, Hugh's right. As a German I can tell you that public awareness (I use the term loosely and include also politicians) on the nature of Jihad and the real nature of the treat we (the West) are facing is minimal at best.
It's not that we didn't have our own Roberts and Hughs. It's just that there are powers that are stronger than them (the Greens, the Socialdemocrats, but sadly also parts of the Christian Democrats), and you'll get hit with the Nazi mace rather sooner than later if you talk openly about the problems. It's not a climate that fosters the finding of solutions.
"Great news which confirms my 'signs of waking up' theory about Europe."
-- from a posting above
If I were you, I'd curb my enthusiasm until Robert conveys his impressions. You might be disappointed." (by Hugh)
agree, just have done myself a tour of Europe by air, sea, and road, what I´ve seen is not very encouraging... to me it looks like Europe has been irretrievably sold.
"If I were you, I'd curb my enthusiasm until Robert conveys his impressions. You might be disappointed."
-- from a posting above
So it's back to education through death for us poor Europeans. @:o)
Fantastic news about the appearance on C-span. I'm assuming it will be on the show that replaced Brian Lamb's Sunday night Booknotes -- yes? I can't even remember the name, though I watch it when they have interesting subjects.
Don't be silly, there's no terrorist threat. It's just a big neocon conspiracy.
Ask CNN, Hezbollah even told them so.
Robert,
You're in good hands with Hugh in charge...
On second thought, HURRY BACK AS FAST AS YOU CAN!
Mahdi
Great work Robert. Welcome back.
"and you'll get hit with the Nazi mace rather sooner than later if you talk openly about the problems."
More importantly, you will get hit with anti-Nazi mace, as the West continues to dig into its imaginary Maginot Line against what they think are any incipient signs of a new Hitler -- which, of course, cannot be anybody non-white and non-Western.
Hugh, WiredDragoon:
Your comments do not leave me with much hope for Europe. If the Germans do not awaken in time, then I fear that the rest will surely be lost. I'd hate to think that two World Wars have softened up a great nation's pride to the point that when Nationlism is so desperately needed most, it will not be available.
Robert:
Islam: What the World Needs to Know. When it seems that the History Channel might even be censoring itself when it comes to Islamic history*, I can't say enough about any documentary that actually talks turkey. When will it be available on DVD?
* http://www.foehammer.net/2006/06/history-channel-curiosity.html
If I were you, I'd curb my enthusiasm until Robert conveys his impressions. You might be disappointed.
In the theorem of Civilization Suicide Avoidance, there is the equation 33:21 + Sunnah = Rude Awakening.
Maybe the good Mr. Spencer shoulda flashed the gallows of his forthcoming Mohammed bio to have energized the workshoppers a tad.
610 * 623 * 732* 1066* 1215 * 1453 * 1492 * 1683 * 1928 * 1938 * 1948 * 1996 * 2001
How does one cajole a failed elite to admit its collective stupidity and reverse direction? That is the question to our survival. As happy Infidels, at least.
Television: "as the West continues to dig into its imaginary Maginot Line against what they think are any incipient signs of a new Hitler -- which, of course, cannot be anybody non-white and non-Western."
In that post you've answered 2 lingering questions I had:
1) what was that reference that some poster made awhile back to illustrate the fact that people can't see what's going on with Islam (accusing its critics of Islamophobia) because they are attuned to fighting an old war and thus are focused on trying to prevent a second holocaust (imagining that Muslims in this case are the new Jews, rather than recognizing that no - the Jews are still the Jews just as they've always been and that it is the Muslims who are the new (well, OK, not so new) Nazi's - and so they can't see what is staring them in the face, and
2) whatever DID happen to the good doctor? Glad to see he's alive and well (smile).
(None of those offensive emoticons here when words will suffice).
... what was that reference that some poster made awhile back to illustrate the fact that people can't see what's going on with Islam (accusing its critics of Islamophobia) because they are attuned to fighting an old war
Oh, that was me. What I said was Moslems are persons coated in mirrors. Whenever an Infidel looks at them, they see not the Moslem but only themselves, whether individually or collectively. And then the Infidel always gets messed up and disoriented.
Put a group of Infidels looking at a roomful of mirror-encrusted Moslem, and mass confusion ensues. This has been proven time and again in real-world experiments, many of them military.
Frequently, arguments ensue within the mirror-wearing Moslem group, and even more arguments break out within the Infidel group confused by their self-images they see in the Moslem Mirrors. Even arguments between the Moslems.
But the intra-Infidel arguments are always cut short by the too-bright light and the uncertainty caused by looking the be-mirrored Moslems.
Even the Moslems themselves get a little mixed up from time-to-time, but they don’t get vertigo or unsteady on their feet like the Infidels do. They seldom puke, and are always able to march forward, always an important behavioral quality in an army.
610 * 623 * 732* 1066* 1215 * 1453 * 1492 * 1683 * 1928 * 1938 * 1948 * 1996 * 2001
Blinded by the light.
My question is, what would happen if Israeli forces found weapons of mass death in the Bekaa Valley? Is Putin shy in his recourse, I thought Russia is against radical Islam. Just as France and the UN were about Iraq and the oil for food debacle. Hush now Israel, don't say a word, international alliances will promise you a mocking bird.
All of us know that to win this, mainstream parties in Europe, US and elsewhere would have to be won over - parties like the BNP in Britain aren't going to win national elections. If the majority of constituents of parties, be it the Republicans here, Tories in Britain, Christian Democrats in Germany, et al are to be convinced, their contituents need to start at Islam 101, not Islam 411, where we are. Start by allowing for the assumption that the problem is 'radical' Islam, let them investigate what little variation it has from mainstream Islam, and let them (and the parties) come to the right conclusion on their own. That way, they aren't accused of being our sock puppets (not that that's such a bad thing), and after people have the same awareness of the Islamic threat that they had during the latter half of the 20th century of the Communist threat, it should be an uphill struggle for the practitioners of taqiyya.
In other words, the strategy needs to be thought out right.
Well Israel itself is not ready to declare Islam as such. As is the majority of the rest of the civilized world. I can understand why. It would be the same as giving up on humanity and compassion, and sending a certain peoples to places none of us deem necessary. It would mean Israel would give up hope, and squash humanity, even if humanity is misguided. They have hope, and so we must, that rationality will play a role. If not, all will be lost. It is like saying, come to the light, when all that is known is dark.
Infidel Pride, has the psychology exactly right. To change somebody's firmly held opinion, you must apply the principle of cognitive dissonance. He described this process well, even though he didn't use the term.
The target person or audience must "discover" certain facts which do not fit with the held opinions or beliefs. These facts are more likely to be accepted as facts when the perceiver is allowed to discover them through personal observation, rather than, say, through a lecture. However, endorsement from a trusted and admired source is sometimes effective.
If the facts conflict with the held opinion, the observations may need to be repeated several or many times.
The perceiver will try to assimilate the new facts into his existing belief system. As long as the new facts conflict with his beliefs, he will most likely reject them. He will ignore (even forget) the facts if possible. Or reject them outright, as being at odds with "known" other facts. Or brand the facts as lies. Or try to find exceptions which would invalidate them. Or attribute them to unliked or discredited sources. Etc., etc. All of this has been shown in the laboratory.
This is all part of a psychological process in which the perceiver attempts to integrate his knowledge and beliefs.
The tipping point comes when the perceiver can no longer integrate the new "facts" within his known universe, his held opinions and beliefs.
At this point, if you are present and watching, you will see the emotional outburst, and the intellectual world of the perceiver is changed forever. It is at this point that the perceiver is likely to reject the source of his now-known-to-be-wrong beliefs. This reaction is powerful. It changes the perceiver's view of the entire matter at hand, and probably his view of the people and institutions he relied on to support that view.
At that point, the perceiver becomes a convert.
My own experience with this principle has occurred in police and forensic investigations. When the investigator "sees the light" there is a shift in world view that can be very isolating (and dangerous if your conversion is the new "fact" in someone else's world view).
Alas, the war goes on.
APF: "Oh, that was me. What I said was Moslems are persons coated in mirrors. Whenever an Infidel looks at them, they see not the Moslem but only themselves, whether individually or collectively. And then the Infidel always gets messed up and disoriented."
Actually AFP - I think the reference I was thinking about was, in fact, the reference to the Maginot Line that TV posted. But what you say about mirrors is an equally important point inasmuch as it addresses the same general issue of trying to understand WHY the average westerner can't see the enemy for who he is. This fact obviously has multiple contributing causes, one of which, as Television's reference to the Maginot Line is meant to convey - is that the average westerner can only conceive of Nazi's as coming in the guise of white western people and so, when they see brown non-western people like Muslims, they are incapable of grasping the fact that Muslims are really no different from the Nazi's in their supremacism and imperialist goals of conquering the world. But because Muslims happen to be a minority in the west at this point (like the Jews were 60 years ago), the average westerner is unable to see that the Muslims are basically Nazi's. They instead imagine that Muslims are the new Jews - attacked for no reason whatsoever other than racist or xenophobic paranoia. The reference to the Maginot line is meant to convey something about human nature and its incapacity to grasp an ever shifting reality.
But your point about the mirror is equally applicable, even if it represents a different illustration of the obvious failure of the average westerner to grasp the problem of Islam.
What you're talking about is not the fear of repeating a history that the west is deeply ashamed of and that has left a huge scar on its psyche, but rather the common psychological matter of generalized projection - the assumption that "they" are just like "us". These are 2 different issues.
Re the projection issue, I was trying to understand that phenomenon myself here:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/012184.php#c242338
When the infidel falls into the all too natural and human tendency towards projection in assuming that Muslims are just like them (holding up that mirror and seeing themselves reflected back as you describe) - it is a deadly mistake, especially when they are facing sociopaths who make the very same assumption. It may be a natural human tendency to fall into the habit of generalized projection - yes - but that doesn't make it rational.
It's going to be a tough fight indeed for the forces of rationality to prevail against the forces of irrationality all around – against Muslims (the very definition of irrationality) but also those westerners driven by "noble" emotions - the sort of emotions that feed the egos of those who have the need to bask in an imaginary reflected glow (your mirror analogy is apt) that reinforces their ego needs to demonstrate their own moral bona fides, the kind of reflected glow that makes them feel shallowly virtuous, because THEY (unlike all the idiotic war-mongerers on both sides) have the vision to see past it all.
They’re living in a fantasy world of course, a world of false reflected images, as you suggest. But they’re very dangerous nonetheless, as the Muslims are. Two sides of the same irrational coin in the end. On the one side the jihadis. On the other side the dhimmis. Both irrational and deluded and completely avoiding reality, each in their own way, but working in tandem as two sides of an inseparable coin (a coin that I imagine having a malevolent joker on one side and a unicorn on the other, or something like that).
Well if compassion is undesirable, then are you not projecting your own agenda? My world is the same as yours, but I on the other hand, insist that, murdering totaltarian righteous beings we are not. From the halls of montezuma to the shores of tripoli, But to say, all that are Muslim must die, is abhorent in nature. I fight the same fight of Islamic reform, but realize that genocide is equivical to Nazism, Stalinism, Maoism. It is like saying, there is no grey areas. Only white and black. And to say that compassion means muslims are gay? I realy fail to see what that realy means. Or compassion for the fellow man means projection? Maybe you should consult Freud on your projections.
Hence the female orthodox claim, is that in the Bible?
Caroline, Television here (I had to create another name because this second computer didn't recognize my password for some reason):
My "Maginot Line" reference also refers to the interesting phenomenon of the previous two World Wars: both involved drastic mistakes at the beginning which made the wars that much longer and more horrendous than they might otherwise have been, these mistakes basically being an inability to think outside the box of previous wars. Our next war (which, contrary to popular opinion among JWers, I don't think has really begun yet -- which is another feature of the next war that makes it different from previous wars: it won't begin with a formal declaration of war) looks like it will be begun with similarly drastic mistakes. At the threshhold of WWII, people were still thinking inside the box of the First War, which is where the Maginot Line was relevant.
At the threshhold of our next great war, we are now thinking inside the box we constructed in our struggle against Hitler. 60 years of European culture and politics has been, since 1945, an extension of this anti-Hitler construction, which is having the consequences you nicely articulated in your post above. I don't blame the Europeans for responding so monumentally to the horrors of Hitler; I'm glad they did. However, they obviously went overboard insofar as they are now making it nearly impossible to recognize a "Hitler with a headscarf" (as Michael Savage puts it).
America shares in this construction, with slightly different accents due to homegrown civil rights struggles and the rise of a Leftist nebula as the dominant political culture, so dominant it can even brainwash a Bush, a Rice and a Rumsfeld to say that Islam is not the problem but should be embraced as the solution.
Robert your abscence was surely noted, and glad to see that you are home and safe, and you and Hugh can enjoy some adult beverages. I have much confidence even though some above said we might be disappointed. l dont know what circle some talk in, but l know the people l spoke with in Europe, they know the evil nature of islam, just need that spark to open up to the biased traitorous liberal media.
its difficult enough to fight the muslim horde, but when you are fighting the bias in the media makes it that more tedious. It is good news that you were invited for this work shop, you know that people in high government places are not all fools, we can leave that to those on tv network news, CNN, BBC, etc.
Robert,
Welcome back. It's reassuring to know that your voice is being heard, especially in Europe where the need to recognise the Islamic threat is so urgent.
If there were any Muslim speakers at the workshop, I know you chewed them up and ate them for breakfast, in your cordial way of course.
remote_control: "..these mistakes basically being an inability to think outside the box of previous wars."
Yes. Precisely. That's why I recalled (as vaguely as I did) your previous metaphor re the Maginot Line. It's a metaphor that packs a real punch. Very important to grasp. It stayed with me in any case.
"they are now making it nearly impossible to recognize a "Hitler with a headscarf" (as Michael Savage puts it)"
Nice. And kudos to Savage for that one.
"America shares in this construction, with slightly different accents due to homegrown civil rights struggles..."
Yes. It all comes together across the shores in explaining much of the west's inability to think outside the box here.
As you imply - a noble accomplishment: ("I don't blame the Europeans for responding so monumentally to the horrors of Hitler; I'm glad they did.")
But I guess the central issue here is why that generation (the 1968 generation as it were) assumed the luxury of imagining that their struggle against what their own parents once obviously understood and grasped to be evil - was essentially over. Why did they think it was over? Why the hubris there? Is the answer affluence? Or is the answer that the west so successfully managed to insulate itself from manifest evil in its streets that westerners simply forgot that there WAS evil that needed to be fought? I don't know the answer. Obviously its complicated.
BTW - I prefer Television to Dr P. Much more user friendly. There's just something about Dr. I guess that is more off-putting. Nevertheless, I agreed with you when you were DP and found myself agreeing with you all the more when you were merely TV, not even knowing, until Interested was astute enough to point it out that you were the same person. Bottom line though I guess is that "a rose..." and all that. Whatever. FWIW though - Television is better than remote_control, if you can manage to get your old (and improved) moniker back. (smile, in lieu of that apparently annoying emoticon).
Caroline,
(for a while I will have two monikers as I will have two computers...)
Actually, the "imaginary Maginot Line" line also comes from Michael Savage.
"the central issue here is why that generation (the 1968 generation as it were) assumed the luxury of imagining that their struggle against what their own parents once obviously understood and grasped to be evil - was essentially over."
The Generation of '68 simply resumed the old struggle against the Evil West -- either they forgot that the West had helped defeat Hitler, or they murkily sided with Hitler, or they began to believe the conspiracy theories that the West was in collusion with Nazis -- or any combination of incoherent mush of pathology. That Generation is still alive and well, and can be seen in the dapper tanned face of Brian Williams on the Nightly News and a million other places.
Here's an interesting quote I found on the Net:
"In 1952 Muslims in the Armed Services sued the government for the right to identify themselves as Muslims. Until then, USA did not recognize Islam as a legitimate religion."
The website I got this from offered no citations to prove this. If this is factual, we can date the PC multiculturalist disaster that has taken over the West (including America) as beginning in approximately 1952.
Caroline,
Yes, our 'TV' seems to come across better to a wider audience now. Principles of persuasion are important--as noted by Infidel Pride and Texan above. That seems to me to be what we are doing, and I think Robert's approach* is still a good example for all of us.
*Scholarly but everyman (if I may use that as an adjective), disciplined but with the right amounts of humour, with more tendency to be exacting instead of sweepingly categorical.
Television: "The Generation of '68 simply resumed the old struggle against the Evil West"
Huh? What old struggle against the evil west? You mean some communist struggle? And if that is the case, then how did the west manage to marginalize the communists all throughout WWII?
OK. That was a rhetorical question. Obviously I need to brush up on my history here.
"In 1952 Muslims in the Armed Services sued the government for the right to identify themselves as Muslims."
WTF?? The right to identify themselves as Muslims as opposed to what? Americans? In 1952 America?
"If this is factual, we can date the PC multiculturalist disaster that has taken over the West (including America) as beginning in approximately 1952."
1952? Or dating farther back in time to that "old struggle againt the evil west" that you refer to?
Archimedes: "Yes, our 'TV' seems to come across better to a wider audience now. Principles of persuasion are important...Scholarly but everyman ..."
"Scholarly but everyman". Hmmm. You have quite a point there.
"Doctor" anything is a bit TOO scholarly for a blog commenter. Offputting really. Whereas "Television" sort of connotes "everyman", even if his posts are every bit as scholarly. It's quite interesting, as you point out, the difference a mere moniker makes.
TV
In the context of thinking outside the box, I doubt that the infidel world has really captured all the boxes that are models for Muslims to ultimately dominate any country. For instance, in the Middle East, Islam became dominant by direct conquest, in Persia, it became dominant by Sharia laws and slow conversion, and the same in Egypt. In Malaysia and Indonesia, it was achieved by simply converting the rulers, and leaving it to them to convert the rest of their subjects.
In the case of Europe, the campaign is on to do this demographically. Once this is figured out, the challenge for the West, and indeed the rest of the Infidel world, would be to figure out a way to get rid of them. In a democracy, I can't see how Muslim citizens can be stripped of their citizenship, but that's what will be necessary. The other option would be a temporary transition to a totalitarian regime not afraid to do the needful, but that would be a 'destroying democracy in order to save it.' That's the paradigm, and for most in the West, it would be difficult to grasp.
P.S. I left you a comment on your blog on the profiling issue. And I agree with Caroline - we all have come to recognize TV, so hope remote_control doesn't end up as your permanent identity. Actually, Caroline, Robert was the one who blew his cover; Interested is in no position to do that, unless she knows how to crack one's typekey account.
TV/remote,
You are touching on another major weakness of the west (i.e., other than PC), and that is Islam's appeal as a religion--something which still has Bush et al, and much of the general population, in its grip.
Islamic activists play both ends of the political spectrum, and they also play the religion card very well. They extract quite a lot out of that card. For one, they get instant sympathy from many Christians who are still uninformed as to the nature of Islam. For another, they can use certain types of camouflage and smoke-screen techniques that probably would not work if it were widely recognized that Islam is also a political ideology. For example, all of the usual arguments and assumptions about moderate Muslims, tiny minority of extremists, context, interpretations, etc., just wouldn't work if they were subjected to criticism the way members of political parties are subjected to criticism.
Due to the various weaknesses in modern democratic societies, Islamists are able to carry on their political activities full-time (and they do), while at the same time making full use of the "religion" defence to thwart most potential criticism.
Caroline,
Actually, I was referring to Robert with the "scholarly but everyman" remark. I'm still trying to get TV to replace words like "eschatology"...LOL
IP - I think Interested was simply astute enough to recognize the rather unique references to Voegelin and eschatology!
Fearless Leader,
Like everyone else, I'm anxious to hear about your observations of the Germans and their perceptions of jihad. Hopefully, you had enough personal contact to have gotten a feel for things over there.
Is there an emerging, mass anti-dhimmitude, or has little changed?
Doesn't surprise me at all that Robert gets invites from the Federal Republic of Germany and the U.S. State Department. Remember his invite a while back to the United States Command in Tampa? In a certain way he's the gold standard for Western opposition. Even liberal journalists at the New York Times (aka New Duranty Times) should be able to look at Robert's work and, if they are a little bit thorough, realize, "Hey, Spencer is...he's...he's so much like us in a way, in terms of his ethos and level of training. He follows the highest standards of jounalistic responsibility, sticks to facts and logic, is so scrupulous in always using the exact size brush needed instead of one overly broad, and to his very core seems compassionate and without rancor. How is it that someone like that can be saying these things about Islam and Jihad? Am I missing something?" If only they got that far.
Robert is kept by many people somewhat (not entirely) out of the media foreground in part because the problems he points to are so huge and dangerous. More people understand what he's saying than we might think.
Incidentally, I recently noticed a small good sign: the other night I heard Laura Ingraham say, on WABC national talk radio, that "the problem is Islam" -- she didn't say the problem is "radical" Islam or Islamists. Just "Islam." She pointed out that the "moderate" Muslims are not doing much at all to protest or fight the terror all round the world, and said that they have to start protesting and saying "not in our name!" (This was obviously in part an ironic dig at leftie Westerners who are, Ingraham implies, so ready to say "not in our name" about whatever the U.S. does, but who supposedly pay no notice to the far worse atrocities committed by enemies of the U.S.) She was furious about Iraqi Muslim terrorists who had apparently just shot some mothers and then kidnapped their children.
In response to a caller who pointed to the Quran's verse saying "there is no compulsion in religion," she asked the caller if he knew how old Muhammad's youngest wife was. The caller said he had no idea, and Ingraham informed the listening audience that the Muslim documents and traditions show Aisha was only nine-years old when Muhammad married her. Ingraham then pointed out that that was certainly compulsion. The nine-year-old Aisha cannot meaningfully be said to have been of the age of consent.
Ingraham could have mentioned all the other elements of compulsion in the Quran, for example in Quran Chapter 9, which urges violence against non-Muslims. She could have pointed out how Chapter 9 is considered to abrograte the earlier, tolerant verses. She could have given the verse numbers where "Allah" says later verses cancel or replace earlier verses, if the later contradict the earlier. She could have read some of the ahadith that show Muhammad saying apostates from Islam should be killed. She could have mentioned that all the main schools of Islamic law agree with that policy. Etc. One gets the sense she is still studying up, but perhaps in her attitude to Islam she is a bit ahead of the rest of the talk radio crowd on WABC.
In some cases, the refusal to criticize Islam (instead of Islamists) is strategic. Jamie Glazov, who is over at Frontpage.com and is no appeaser of Islam -- Trifkovic's articles have been at Frontpage, for example -- Glazov has at least once remarked that strategically it's a questionable choice to turn all 1 billion or more Muslims ever more actively against you by your explicit rhetoric, whatever you may know to be the case. Better to bite off only what we can chew at this point, he seemed to be saying. Calling for a little counter taqueyya perhaps.
TV,
I've posted most of what was formerly known as the "Koran compendium" in the ">Resources section at Islam-Watch
(It might be a good idea to delete the old Koran compendium file).
Folks,
I have started a thread gathering notes, quotes, and links dealing with Demographic Jihad. If anyone has any material that isn't already posted there, your additions would be most appreciated. The objective for now is to compile, on the internet, factual information (including citing of sources), about the demographic jihad.
TV, sorry for the typo.
Here is the Resources section link
Archimedes: "I'm still trying to get TV to replace words like "eschatology"...LOL"
You beat me to the punch! But with what word would one replace the word eschatology anyway? Is there actually a synonym for “eschatology”?
For my part, I'm simply not going to rest on this earth until I manage to use, just once, in casual conversation, the phrase "Immanentize the Eschaton".
Just kidding. TV has actually persuaded me in all seriousness to read a short book he recommended about Voegelin, and I look forward to doing so.
(and TV - I hope (and truly suspect in any case) that you can take a good-natured joke:-)
Archimedes: "I have started a thread gathering notes, quotes, and links dealing with Demographic Jihad. If anyone has any material that isn't already posted there, your additions would be most appreciated. The objective for now is to compile, on the internet, factual information (including citing of sources), about the demographic jihad."
Wow! It's 1:00am for me and way past my bedtime but I'm definitely going to check that out tomorrow. Outstanding idea.
Please note the two websites to which links are given by Archimedes above. And if information, hard or soft, relevant to "Demographic Jihad," is known (for example, if you know someone from, say, Niger, where suddenly everyone has become very very strict in their formerly easygoing Islam, or know of a small town in Umbria where, all of a sudden, there has been an appearance of an entire community of Muslims where there was none before, and they appear to have no fixed means of support, or if you have a friend in some French government office who knows something that the government would prefer the French people not know -- send it to "Demographic Jihad." Or, for that matter, to Robert.
More landmark dates from the history of Islam in the USA:
1952 The Federation of Islamic Associations of the U.S. and Canada is established in Chicago.
1957 The Islamic Center of Washington D.C., which contains a mosque and library, opens its doors. Ambassadors from all Muslim nations and President Dwight D. Eisenhower attend the center’s dedication ceremony.
1961 Najeeb Halaby is appointed the head of the Federal Aviation Administration by President John F. Kennedy. [Najeeb Halaby, 1915-2003, was the father of Queen Noor, who married the King of Jordan in 1978: he was born in Dallas, Texas, in 1915, of a Lebanese-Syrian father who at the time was a naturalized US citizen, and a mother who was the daughter of a Confederate soldier from Tennessee. Halaby had been a US Navy pilot during WWII, and was active in the American aviation industry after the 1960s.]
1962 The Dar al Islam movement begins in Brooklyn. It is first centered on Black separatism, but later adheres strictly to Sunni practices.
1963 The Muslim Student Association of the United States and Canada is established at the University of Illinois.
1965 Increase of Muslim immigrants to U.S. due to Immigration Act that eliminated immigration quotas.
1968 The Islamic Circle of North America is established.
1981 The International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT) is founded, with the involvement of Dr. Ismail Faruqi, a prominent Islamic scholar and activist who aided in the advancement of Islamic studies in the U.S.
1982 The Islamic Society of North America, an offshoot of the Muslim Student Association, is established to support the needs of the growing Muslim community in the United States.
1990 The American Muslim Council, a political lobbying group created to empower and represent American Muslims in U.S. public policy, is established in Washington D.C.
1991 Charles Bilal becomes mayor of Kountze, Texas. He is the first Muslim mayor in the U.S.
1991 Islamic lecturer and imam, Siraj Wahaj offers the first Muslim prayer at the House of Representatives.
1992 Warith Deen Muhammad is the first Muslim to offer prayers at the U.S. Senate.
1993 Captain Abdul-Rasheed Muhammad becomes the first Islamic Chaplain in the U.S. Army.
1994 Council on American Islamic Relations [CAIR] is organized in Washington D.C.
1996 January: Denver’s new international airport is the first airport to include a mosque next to its chapel.
February: First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton hosts the White House’s first Eid celebration.
1997 A crescent moon and star representing Islam is displayed along with other Christian and Jewish symbols on the grounds of the White House.
1998 The Pentagon hosts a Ramadan iftar meal for all Muslims on active duty in the armed forces and employees of the Department of Defense.
2001 The first Muslim museum, The International Museum of Muslim Cultures, opens in Jackson, Mississippi.
The U.S. Postal Service issues a stamp celebrating the Islamic holiday the Eid al- Fitr.
My point is that the message in these conferences should be to look within, rather than outside Islam for the source of the problems, and then let the audience do the looking. It sure beats a debate format where taqiyya artists are free to spike their drinks. However, by leaving wiggle room in the titles, as above, the audience is at least re-assured that we haven't already arrived at our conclusions about Islam but let them arrive at it independently, although, in fact, we have.
Caroline,
"What old struggle against the evil west? You mean some communist struggle?"
The communist and other movements in the broader neo-Gnostic nebula.
"And if that is the case, then how did the west manage to marginalize the communists all throughout WWII?"
Like I said, they resumed a struggle that had become suppressed for a while by a period of rationality in the USA. By metamorphosis, the struggle mutated into victory by the 1960s and increasing since then, infecting all our sociopolitico-cultural institutions and airwaves (but not hopelessly or wholly so -- cf. the Reagan mystique).
"1952? Or dating farther back in time to that "old struggle againt the evil west" that you refer to?"
I think the Muslim insinuation into our nation's fabric began more as a movement taking advantage of our general ignorance and complacency of the world of Islam which had by the 1950s receded into insignificance and exotic kitsch. This initial insinuation was quickly and serendipitously facilitated by the victory of PC multiculturalism, which in the ensuing decades has managed to accord almost every facet of Islamic culture the red carpet treatment in the West -- only stubbornly digging in its heels with the terrorism that has come to the forefront of the world's radar.
Archimedes, thanks for the links. Infidel Pride, I will check out your comments. Caroline, when you read Voegelin's book, you'll find more nuggets to use (or avoid), like "pleromatic parousiasm".
TV
You mentioned Michael Savage. Listening to him this afternoon, he mentioned that Muslim extremists (I forget whether he used this term, or Islamofascists, or something else) 'are twisting Islam by trying to take it back from the enlightened times that it was in the 9th century back into the 7th century, which Islam itself had escaped from.' What is he reading/smoking?
If someone, supposedly ahead of the curve on this subject, can make the argument that Islam, as it was at the time of Mohammed, wasn't true Islam, are they even educable? In Geometry, we generally assume Euclid's axioms to be true - we don't try to prove them. In Islam, one would think that Islam, as defined and practiced by their prophet Mohammed, is genuine, unadulterated Islam. If someone doesn't accept this basis - almost like rejecting the statement that 'if equals are added to equals, the answer is equal' - where on earth does one start?
Doesn't anyone at this website ever go to sleep?
Archimedes
I was under the impression that you wanted links to factual events, or timelines showing how a country changed from a Muslim minority to plurality to majority. Looking at your link, it looks more like a collection of articles that either cite Quranic or other injuncions, or alternately, articles showing how countries like Malaysia are encouraging Islamization of the non-Islamic population. Were you thinking of some more illustrative presentations, such as what Malaysia's demographic composition was in 1950 vs 1975 vs 2000 vs today? Similar comparitive graphs for other countries?
No
Whom can sleep at times like these?
Infidel Pride,
Any of the above. Statistics, as you suggest, would definitely be welcome. Hugh's suggestions are also good. Anything along the lines of pertinent information, as distinguished from opinion (we have an Op-Ed section for that), is good.
At this point, the task is to just build up and organize a collection of raw materials (notes, quotes, links and references). Anyone could then use the collection in writing articles.
OT
get a load of this - on the BBC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/club/your_reports/newsid_3836000/3836627.stm
bear in mind, that this is aimed at children.
Sleep is bad for us, Hugh, thats why we at Jihad Watch never sleep, 24/7, we are always on Watch...no surprise attacks here...
Welcome back Robert. I always read this site even though I rarely post. So many people here have such good things to say. Thank you all.
If someone, supposedly ahead of the curve on this subject, can make the argument that Islam, as it was at the time of Mohammed, wasn't true Islam, are they even educable?
Posted by: Infidel Pride on July 21, 2006 02:07 AM
__________________________________________________
I must confess I'm one of those who normally likes to listen to Michael Savage, but off late I'm finding more and more put off by him. Is it just me or does anyone else here think that he has become a little bit unhinged. In addition to the statements about Islam that you pointed out, Infidel Pride, he's also starting to sound like the BBC & CNN with his recent recoiling against the Israeli bombing of Beirut for the loss of 'innocent lives'.
Michael Savage has always prided himself on thinking outside the box -- including the box that he thinks his own fans put him in. He will quite often berate a fan who calls in to his radio show, or berate his fans in general, with jeremiads about how he, Savage, cannot and should not be pinned down to any viewpoint, trumpeting this as a virtue of an open mind. An open mind is all well and good, but I think that sometimes this attitude makes Savage loves open-mindedness more than he loves taking a stand, and sometimes it seems he will do dance-steps and about-faces just to prove he has a resilient and flexible mind, the mind of a true scientist (as he likes to think of himself from his former career as an anthropologist or archeologist or whatever he was).
Secondly, I don't think Savage was ever fully up to speed about Islam: even in his former days (a year ago on back) when he was blasting away at Muslims, he would reveal gaping lacunae of ignorance about elementary facts about Islam.
When you combine his eccentricity about open-mindedness with his spotty knowledge of Islam, his mind is ripe for infection by the PC atmosphere, which he in some degree of self-delusion will think demonstrates a refreshing open-minded change of mind or adoption of an opinion that goes against the grain -- in this case, the grain that he was getting boxed into.
Apparently, a few months ago, Savage, perhaps while leafing through a coffeetable book on the glories of Andalus, had an epiphany about how the sumptuous architecture of the "golden age" of Islam could not possibly have been produced if Islam did not have some measure of greatness as a culture. So this epiphany becomes a stubborn hobby-horse for him just to prove that he's a maverick and can't be pinned down to what his fans thought he was before.
Or who knows, maybe he woke up one morning a few months ago and discovered the severed head of a camel under his pillow.
Razdan, I wasn't aware of his statements on the Beirut bombings, but if that was what he said, that's one more reason not to listen to him. As it is, I find his rudeness and constant anger annoying, even when I agree with him. And his rudeness is by no means restricted to those who disagree with him - e.g. if someone mentions another host, he gets hung up on.
Infidel Pride, Savage has repeatedly claimed, with pride, that he invented the term "Islamofascism".
The caller said he had no idea, and Ingraham informed the listening audience that the Muslim documents and traditions show Aisha was only nine-years old when Muhammad married her.
While I understand that Laura went to an actual Ivy League college, it wouldn't kill her to crack a book.
Mo married Aisha when she was six. According to the sacred scriptures, Mo did not penetrate her with his penis unitl her 9th birthday. What he did during those intervening 3 yrs goes to the Thighing Question.
610 * 623 * 732* 1066* 1215 * 1453 * 1492 * 1683 * 1928 * 1938 * 1948 * 1996 * 2001
I used to wash the traces of Janaba (semen) from the clothes of the Prophet and he used to go for prayers while traces of water were still on it (water spots were still visible).
--- Aisha reporting on Mohammed’s sex life in hadith Sahih Bukhari V1.B4.N299
Anothre question would be this: How old was Aisha when she washed Mohammed’s semen stained robes?
OT, but CNN just reported that Congress (err, a Republican Controlled political body) just turned our ports over to control by a mid east country and of course your President Bush, who has no compunction about vetoing bills that condemn Parkinson and Alzheizers victims to suffering and a miserable death) will of course not think of a vetoing a bill that benefits his Muslim friends and allies.. why would he? The Bill exists because of pressure from him and his administration.
More OT News
Somali Islamist Leader declares Holy war on Ethiopia
Last word, while you may not like CNN Robert, Lou Dobbs is inflamed (as is CNN) over a congress who has sold our national security to Oman and whatever Mid east country (read Dubai) that operates from within it that will operate our ports. Juxtapose that to Fox whose Bill Oreilly ranted that anyone who opposed the Dubai ports deal was an Islamophobe.
And before anyone considers fellating Fox don't forget that Prince Walid Bin Talal owns a significant and influential share in Rupert Murdoch's business enough for him to pick up the phone and change headlines and programming (like 24).
Somali Islamist leader declares Holy war on Somalia
zooboomafoo:
It is a sad attempt of yours to imply that those of us that wish to see Islam combatted and cast from our nations, would at the same time be inviting genocide against the Muslims. In no instance have I ever called for genocide against any persons, nor have I ever seen such a claim made by any persons that come to these forums. It as if you think that those of us with the mindset to tell a stranger to leave our house would rather see them murdered on our doorstep.
Frankly, I think you're just another Muslim troll in loose-fitting diguise.
TV
One thing I keep forgetting to mention - your analysis about Islam is a henotheistic religion. It not being polytheistic helps keep it separate from Hindu and other polytheistic religions, but calling it henotheistic separates it from Judaism and Christianity - neither of which deserve to be defamed by the 'Abrahamic' or 'monotheistic' equivalences with Islam.
Welcome back Robert,
All your groupies around the world are awake, attentive, and alert.