Vegas, baby

"As I have said many times before, instead of biting at one another, genuine anti-jihadists need to put aside what differences we may have and stand together -- Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, whatever -- and work against the jihad and Islamic supremacism, or it will surely triumph. That unity is farther off, and more needed, than ever."

quoting RS.

Great piece of advise. After all the Muslims are united under one roof of Islam and Sharia. The UMMAH countries are united by the same grotesque ideology of Islam, and it makes sense for all infidels to unite and fight this ideology which is more than happy to kill the infidels in cold blood where it finds them.

"he is comparing our conflict, such as it is, to the Council of Nicaea..."

Sounds like delusions of grandeur, to me. Does he also think he's the Pope?

I wouldn't want your job, Robert. I mean, it's certainly interesting, but so are badgers, and I wouldn't want one of those, either.

Robert thoroughly dominates a FrontPageMag symposium on how to deal with the issue of Jihad...and shatters the arguments of the three apologists on the panel.

Check it out folks...Robert Spencer at his uncompromising best.

From...somewhere: L.A.: Spencer can never mention me without smearing me and calling me dishonest.

I detect a mental problem...'Me thinketh you protesteth too much'...

Never??? That's a long time. Maybe the dis-honesty is not so much about facts but intent. The facts(?) are being used as a weapon in a war of 'intent'.
What is the 'intent' of these attacks on RS, and what are the intended results? I have notice before that antagonists attempt to hang Spencer on the flimsiest of excuses. Anything appearing to be the least bit inconsistent is dogged to the point of absurdity.
A good education, a lot of degree's and lots of facts(?), are no guarantee of a decent human being.
I have been posting here, and reading JW/DW for years. I perceive RS and crew to be decent people
facing a tough up hill battle. People seeking clarification may be decent people, those on a mission to destroy, are not.
My father once told me, 'If you don't have something decent to say, don't say anything' at all.
L.A. and a few others should heed that advice as well...

Amen.

Forget Mr. A.

More important...

"War, Terrorism and Geo-Political Crisis: Is Religion the Solution or the Problem?"

What a stupid topic for a debate. The problem is one religion that can't deal with the rest of the world.

I can hear it now!

Which was worse...the Gulag or the Inquisition? Are decadent and wicked western women why Muslims hate us? Who created the universe? Who is the greatest debater of all times: D'Souza or Hitchens? Who has the bigger brain: D’Souza or Hitchens?

Good Luck, Robert!

I today's frontpage symposium you did an admirable job, especially your articulation of how the four schools of Islamic jurisprudence support subjugation of unbelievers....

"War, Terrorism and Geo-Political Crisis: Is Religion the Solution or the Problem?"
--- title of a debate topic

Why "problem" and why "solution"? The word "problem" in relation to Jihad sets up the hollow expectation of a "solution." There is not a "problem" susceptible of a "solution." There is a threat, susceptible of being reduced to manageable proportions.

Nazism did not disappear, but was reduced in power and influence by 1950, thanks to World War II.

Communism did not disappear by 2000, but was reduced, in power and influence, thanks to reaction of intelligent Russians themselves to the obvious failure, on its own terms, of Soviet Communism, the major Communist power. That failure was a result both of the internal weaknesses of Marxism, and of a series of measures, including military and economic war, and relentless propaganda against Communism among its own adherents or victims or slaves, by the governments of the Western world, and above all by the American government. It was members of the Soviet regime who themselves were forced to recognize the failures of Communism, and in so doing, lost control of the country -- those failures that the Western actions had helped to hasten.

But neither Nazism nor Communism can be said to have died out completely. They are always in the wings, waiting for their close-up, and have to be kept constantly, vigilantly, under observation (that is why the series of laws enacted in Germany, for example, while they may offend some fundamentalist civil libertarians, are justified).

What about Islam?

Islam was not lacking for followers in 1920 -- there were hundreds of millions of them. But there was no OPEC and no oil revenues, and no oil yet found or exploited in the Middle East.. Muslims by the millions, or even by the tens of thousands, had not yet been admitted into Europe, and the very idea of permitting such a thing would have horrified educated Europeans. Pakistan and Bangladesh did not exist; the Muslims of British-ruled India were in little position to wreak harm on the West, though they continued to to inflict their cruelties, when they could get away with in the absence of direct British oversight, in continued attacks on Hindus. Indonesia was still the Dutch East Indies. The Caliphate had collapsed and was a few years away from being declared over by Ataturk, presiding over a country that had lost its empire, the Ottoman Empire, because it had been defeated by Western powers.

Oh, Islam had its hundreds of millions of followers in 1920. But Islam -- Jihad -- was then a problem -- oops, I mean a menace -- of most manageable proportions.

I think the reason D'Souza isn't accepting the invitation to debate Robert is that D'Souza knows he ventured into an area he shouldn't have. Debating about Islam showed that he doesn't have the knowledge that Robert does on the subject.

D'Souza should be focusing on the God vs. Atheism debate, which I think he is superb at. His book "What's So Great About Christianity" is one of the best out there, which attacks the myths most atheists, such as Richard Dawkins, propagate. And even that many atheists are not the "scientists" and "brights" that they claim to be. For example, D'Souza makes Dawkins look foolish by highlighting that Dawkins was comparing him to Hitler on his web site (http://news.aol.com/newsbloggers/bloggers/dinesh-dsouza, scroll down a bit)

Even with the mistake of debating Robert, if you are a Christian you should be grateful that D'Souza is out there defending your faith in a culture that wants to humiliate and drive it out.

Alex, I'm not sure D'Souza is defending my faith (as a type he is) but I definitely think your response is great.

You hit it spot on with your commentary on his entrance into a sphere where he isn't quite as good (and his overwhelming leanings and urge to just sell books got him off on the wrong foot). For this reason he's back-tracked and we've seen it.

I'm grateful that D'Souza is defending what is true --- so I'm disappointed when he makes political and selfish biases the theme of his debates (herego errant reasoning on Islam). All in all, Alex, a very nice response.

Will there be a place where we can access Mr. Spencer's debate with Mr. Peterson? Thanks,

Palamas

Robert

Your debate topic should have been 'Islam: inclusive or exclusive (of other religions/traditions)', or 'Islam: Radical or Moderate'. Who picked the topic?

If only someone could arrange an Auster vs D'Souza slugfest...

Robinson is joining a ever growing list of academics that are determined to show people what pathetic, vindictive little men of little knowledge when it comes to Islam.

And worse they are terrified to openly debate someone like Spencer and instead hide behind their "credentials" so as to avoid exposing their own biases and outright lies.

From the exchange between Auster & Awake:

Auster: If you want to get a substantive reply from me, then re-write this e-mail showing respect for me and my good faith and intentions. I have no interest in replying to insulting e-mails which call me dishonest.

Awake: Lawrence, Respect is earned, not given.
In light of the factual backings of the links that Mr. Spencer provided in response to "anonymous'" challenge at JW today, obviously as a result of your posting at VFR, are you really going to continue to claim that your representation of Spencer's position on Muslim immigration is an honest one?
Everyone makes mistakes. It takes a man to admit when he has made one.
Your move.

Auster: Apparently you are not aware that every time a Spencer comment on immigration comes to my attention, I link it and discuss it. For again calling me dishonest and insulting me, as though I needed to be taunted by a low class idiot like you in order to speak the truth, you are permanently closed out. Don't bother writing to me again.

Actually, one thing about Auster that I do admire is his practice of taking the stated positions of anybody, and analyzing where it leads - something I had adapted myself in recent years. Not that that's unique to him - Rush Limbaugh, for one, is brilliant in doing it, albeit less so on topics not involving Liberal vs Conservative. It's a very good analysis tool by which to avoid disappointments later by just toeing the party line. But by acting as though he's owed respect, rather than needing to earn it, he's lost whatever respect I previously had for him. After all, that's what Mohammedans do when they feel they aren't being respected - throw their own tantrums. Only that Auster, as a true Infidel, is non-violent about the way he goes about it.

P.S. Actually, Awake, the proverb is 'Respect is earned, not demanded'. Anybody can give respect even to one undeserving of it, e.g. Mohammedans respecting Mohammed.

I've been watching this situation (with SIOE, LGF, Vlaams Belang, Auster, etc...) deteriorate since October of last year. We've lost six friends or acquaintences since then, including my best friend. I'm not old unless you're twenty. Life is too short to run around name-calling like it's eternal middle school.

Auster is a very intelligent man from what I've read, with the exception of an unhealthy obsession with skin color. So what's his excuse for petulant feuding? I'm always amazed how many people seem to think Robert Spencer is responsible for Islamic theology and coming up with solutions to every problem which results from said theology. Both Muslims and alleged allies in the fight against Islamic supremacism repeatedly blame Robert for things like this:

You can't innovate Islam

Islam is inherently political

Jihad is obligatory on all Muslims

Notice I used only Islamic sources to prove those points. I was cleaning out my favorites menu recently and realized how much work I put into self-education on Islam, no thanks to all the liars specializing it Islamic education. In fact it was increasingly studying Islam after the first WTC attack in 1993, moreso after the Cole in 2000, and obsessively after 9/11, which caused me to gravitate to Jihad Watch soon after it came on the Internet. Robert does yeoman's work trying to explain Islam every day. His patience and repetition of key concepts for effect have reached heroic proportions, and yet he faces the same idiotic criticisms from every camp.

If people have been dealing unsuccessfully with Islam for 1,400 years, why is it Robert's responsibility to solve the problem singlehandedly? Of course it isn't.

It's not enjoyable to share ideas on the Internet any more; and it's becoming more criminal than burglary in the EU. It must be a million times worse for Robert. It's places like Jihad Watch in the sights of budding totalitarians in the EU, OIC, and UN. But instead of just trying to stay afloat, hard enough, people want to push him in the breech. Now I'm mixing metaphors. Time to stop.

Robert wrote:
This man spending an astonishing amount of time savaging me when there are people with far greater reach and influence than I who have far greater differences with him than I do

The behavior of Lawrence Auster is truly sick and absurd.

But the bottom line in all this, is in how the "Spencer" product keeps what it promises, while the "Auster" product does not.

Read this: Auster's moral dilemma

It's a blog post I wrote yesterday about Auster's flabbergasting Islam apologism (yes, you heard that right!)

I've been reading and writing here for years, some suggesting I've been here even longer than Spencer himself. One reason, the most important reason for my length of stay, is that Spencer is honest. He has never lied to us. He consistently retracts any misinformation he might post as soon as he finds out about it, and he makes it clear that he has made a mistake, when that happens. Spencer might not agree with me on all points, but that is a slight quibble in comparison to his honesty.

If Spencer agreed with me more often, then he would be perfect. As is, his honesty sets him in a league of his own. Others are clever and well-informed, as is Spencer, but Spencer is honest at all times. I won't say others are dishonest, that's not the point. The point is that Spencer is honest.

P.S. Actually, Awake, the proverb is 'Respect is earned, not demanded'. Anybody can give respect even to one undeserving of it, e.g. Mohammedans respecting Mohammed.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at July 11, 2008 1:07 PM

Thanks, IP. It is amazing that after it was pointed out to Auster that Spencer has been consistent on his position of Muslim immigration, a mistake initially by one of his readers no doubt and influenced by Auster's own misinterpretation, that he would take such offense to Robert trying to correct the record.

Conservative Swede good site, article...

What side is he on (L.A.)?
Basically I don't want him on my side. Let him fight jihad, or whatever he does, away from me. I have worked in dangerous situations with people who would watch your back, and with those who would stab it. Guess who I prefer, and who I don't trust for one second.
The bottom line is, if I can't trust you, I don't want you around...

And this from Dag...One reason, the most important reason for my length of stay, is that Spencer is honest.

Exactly...

By the way Awake...Thumbs up...

Good luck convincing a professor of Islamic Studies and Arabic from Brigham Young University of the dangers of the "religion of peace".

I WILL BE TO THIS GENERATION A SECOND MUHAMMAD

Polygamist “prophet” and founder of the Mormon “religion” Joseph Smith:

“ ... we will establish our religion with the sword. … We will trample down our enemies and make it one gore of blood … from the Rocky Mountains to the Atlantic Ocean. … I WILL BE TO THIS GENERATION A SECOND MUHAMMAD, whose motto in treating for peace was ‘the al-Qur’an or the swaord.’ … So shall it eventually be with us JOSEPH SMITH OR THE SWORD.”
Male Mormons die and become “god of their planets with unlimited “goddess wives”.

Oh, Islam had its hundreds of millions of followers in 1920. But Islam -- Jihad -- was then a problem -- oops, I mean a menace -- of most manageable proportions.

Posted by: Hugh

Probably because the West was strong and secure in its own belief system and because no one was importing oil from dar-al-Islam (if they even knew it was there). Large swaths of Africa and Asia were still under European control. Political correctness was another world war, a few proxy wars and several more decades away.

Ted and Bobby Kennedy, chief architects of our current immigration policy, hadn't even been born yet. John was barely out of diapers.

It was a different world back then.

I WILL BE TO THIS GENERATION A SECOND MUHAMMAD
Polygamist “prophet” and founder of the Mormon “religion” Joseph Smith

Darn, I thought I was going to be the second Mohammad. Ok I will settle for third. That's not so bad, Ali was the third caliph. The caliph does get first pick of slave girls. When do I get sworn in?
I wonder if Joseph Smith read the Quran? All those heavenly sweethearts sounds familiar...

Joseph Smith was ignorant of Islam. How many of us believed Islam was a religion of peace until the past few years. Joe Smith had a 3rd grade education, so how much could he have known at the time about Mohammed? Besides, the mormons were being eradicated from Missouri and Illinois at the time, and he was probably a little vindicitive about his circumstances. Who wouldn't be pissed off at having their homes burned and friends killed by mobs?

As a mormon, I have never been taught to follow the principles of a bloodthirsty Mohammed. In fact, most Mormons I know can't stand Islam, or its teachings. I, as well as many, many mormons stand with most people who frequent this site. We know what it's like to be persecuted, and dont want it to ever happen again, especially by the barbarians of Islam.

There is no reason to throw mormonism into the fray since as most educated people know there is a world of difference between mormons and muslims!

Lawrence Auster

I usually agree with Lawrence Auster, and I find his analysis of Vlaams Belang and Nick Griffin's British National Party more convincing than Jihad Watch's.

However rational Auster is, when it comes to criticizing Robert Spencer, he does it with great passion. I would wish that he simply debate Spencer but tear about the very tiny true pro-Western movement and nitpick with Robert Spencer and Hugh Fitzgerald over sophistic details such as how often Spencer denounces immigration or moderate Islam.

The same applies to "Erich" of jihadswatch.blogspot.com.

I have two important questions for Robert.

1. "Those who are aware of the problem of jihad need to put aside what differences we may have and stand together -- Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, whatever -- and fight against the jihad and Islamic supremacism, or it will surely triumph. That unity is farther off, and more needed, than ever."

Why does this sentiment not apply to Vlaams Blang and the BNP? You have stated at least twice that you cannot support these European parties. You said that Charles Johnson was right in his criticisms of these parties (though I have not seen your specific objections to them). Both VB and the BNP are aware of the problem of jihad. Why not put aside what differences you have and stand together in unity with them?

2. I agree that it should not be necessary for you to have to put your position on muslim immigration in a full essay to make your position known. But on the issue of restricting muslim immigration into the West, what do you say about deportation of muslims OUT of the west? The reason you give for supporting immigration restrictions is "the impossibility of distinguishing actual or potential jihadists from peaceful Muslims". Does not the same reasoning apply to support a muslim deportation policy?

Rush Limbaugh used to claim that he was correct 99% of the time. Then I began to learn about Islam by reading blogs, including both JW and VFR, and the books discussed at these sites. Then I realized how all the conservatives I had once admired were so naive and ignorant about the threat of Islam and Rush was never close to that 99%. I found myself concurring with you and Hugh 100% of the time. Before the Counter Jihad Europa LGF/Gov kerfluffle, I had read nothing by you, or Hugh, that I could find disagreement. I was very disappointed on the position you stated against the European parties who are willing to take a stand against the Islamification of Europe. European anti-jihadists, with their imperfections, and their differences, need our help. You harm their efforts indirectly by supporting CJ's smear campaigns. There appears, therefore, a bit of an inconsistency in your call for unity.

Regarding L. Auster I will note that I am an avid reader of his blog for much the same reason I am an avid reader at JW. I am no more a sycophant of Auster than I am of you and Hugh. I am interested in the ideas of both of you and believe deeply that you both have a great deal to offer the counter-jihad movement. I agree with the poster above who points out Auster's obsession with skin color. In the matter of his opinions on the black race he is, in a word, a bigot. Nonetheless, his positions on Islam are well articulated, and in my most humble opinion, not so much different from yours ( or Hugh's). Auster has a penchant for pissing people off royally. Over the past 18 months he seems to have made enemies of Fjordman, Daniel Pipes, David Horowitz, Melanie Phillips and several other serious writers and thinkers who's names escape. It seems that he cannot debate others without impugning the opponents' integrity. To his credit though, as in this latest, he reports the entire dispute, including the worst charges made by his adversaries. From my perspective, on the issue of jihad, I see a lot more that is in common between you, than is in dispute. If you both adhered to that principle of seeing past others' differences in the name of unity of cause, we would all benefit.

"I agree with the poster above who points out Auster's obsession with skin color. In the matter of his opinions on the black race he is, in a word, a bigot."

Therein your admission lies a fundamental difference.

"Nonetheless, his positions on Islam are well articulated, and in my most humble opinion, not so much different from yours ( or Hugh's)."

Fair enough, And I am quite Sure Robert or Hugh will not disagree.

Auster has a penchant for pissing people off royally. Over the past 18 months he seems to have made enemies of Fjordman, Daniel Pipes, David Horowitz, Melanie Phillips and several other serious writers and thinkers who's names escape.

That is indicative of a problem to me, but then again, you can correct me by clarifying your statement.

"It seems that he cannot debate others without impugning the opponents' integrity."

Please, do continue for I agree whole-heartedly.

"From my perspective, on the issue of jihad, I see a lot more that is in common between you, than is in dispute."

I also agree with this sentiment and I think Robert has echoed that sentiment here at JW this very evening. Does Auster have the same capacity?

To date, the answer is doubtfully at best.

I see a lot more that is in common between you, than is in dispute. If you both adhered to that principle of seeing past others' differences in the name of unity of cause, we would all benefit.

Posted by: USorThem at July 11, 2008 11:29 PM

Agreed. Now hop to it and post these explicit words on Auster's blog, that is, if you can get them through, that is.

Good Luck giving Auster any criticism, and I mean that, sincerely.

Just an observation.

I actually enjoyed discussing and debating issues with him while he was here, and never really thought that the bans on him were called for, but then again, this is Robert's house, not mine. So I continue the discussion with Erich at Hesperado.

IP, are you certain that he has been baned from posting here at JW/DW?; Why don't you ask him?

And just out of curiosity, what moniker do you post under, at that now, defunct, blog of Erich's?

Just wondering.

Cantor hasn't been banned.

Posted by: MarisolJW at July 12, 2008 12:46 AM

Thank you Marisol, for I have inherent knowledge as such, as well.

Erich simply decided to stop commenting here at JW/DW, but then again, a full-time hit piece blog against Robert and Hugh does take a majority of one's time, doesn't it?

And just out of curiosity, what moniker do you post under, at that now, defunct, blog of Erich's?

Awake: IP, are you certain that he has been baned from posting here at JW/DW?; Why don't you ask him?
Marisol: Cantor hasn't been banned

I know Cantor hasn't been banned, but he himself stated that the persistent threats to ban him, coupled with his history of actually being banned, made him uncomfortable and he decided to finally cease posting here. (Had I been in his place, that's what I'd have done the very first time - I don't believe it's right to stay on where one is not welcome. While I did regret the bans on him, I didn't think he did the right thing by returning with other identities, although he did reveal that he was TV when he for some reason had to log in as 'Remote Control').

USorThem:

1. "Those who are aware of the problem of jihad need to put aside what differences we may have and stand together -- Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, whatever -- and fight against the jihad and Islamic supremacism, or it will surely triumph. That unity is farther off, and more needed, than ever."

Why does this sentiment not apply to Vlaams Blang and the BNP? You have stated at least twice that you cannot support these European parties. You said that Charles Johnson was right in his criticisms of these parties (though I have not seen your specific objections to them). Both VB and the BNP are aware of the problem of jihad. Why not put aside what differences you have and stand together in unity with them?

I explained here why I couldn't support the BNP or race-based approaches to the jihad resistance:

http://jihadwatch.org/archives/019648.php

At that time I thought the VB had allied with the BNP. When the VB denied that, I put up the update on that post and also posted this:

http://jihadwatch.org/archives/019678.php

These things have of course been ignored by Auster in his relentlessly malignant caricature of my positions.

In any case, this is the bottom line: I cannot support race supremacists or neofascists. VB says they are not that. If they are not, I have nothing more to say about them.

2. I agree that it should not be necessary for you to have to put your position on muslim immigration in a full essay to make your position known. But on the issue of restricting muslim immigration into the West, what do you say about deportation of muslims OUT of the west? The reason you give for supporting immigration restrictions is "the impossibility of distinguishing actual or potential jihadists from peaceful Muslims". Does not the same reasoning apply to support a muslim deportation policy?

There are levels of awareness and steps to a goal. The public today remains so abysmally unaware of what the problem is that I continue to believe that it is best to try to raise awareness of the nature of the problem. Those who are aware of the nature of the problem, or think they are, are impatient with this and have launched a full-bore attack on me for supposedly offering no solutions. They apparently do not realize that the long-term possibility of attaining those solutions can sometimes actually be harmed by agitating for them before a public that is insufficiently aware of the need for them.

I say all that in reference to Muslim immigration, but it goes all the more for deportation. In Sarkozy's France it was bruited about some months ago, with the idea of paying immigrants to leave -- an idea which I criticized on the grounds that creating a demand would only create a supply, and a cycle of immigrants coming and getting paid and going. That would be predicated, of course, on the implementation of the program without any halt to unrestricted Muslim immigration.

In the USA, this idea is much farther away from any serious discussion than it is in France. No one sees the elements of Islam that are dangerous; so how are they going to react when people start talking about deporting Muslims? Those who are calling for such things today lack even rudimentary political sense, and any awareness of how they are hurting their own cause.

As for me, I think that many, many other things should be advocated first that are not being done today, and that, contrary to the "Spencer recommends nothing" caricature, I have recommended many times in the past: monitoring of mosques, calling on Islamic groups in the US to institute specific and inspectable and comprehensive programs teaching against the political and supremacist aspects of Islamic tradition, classification of Islamic groups as political rather than religious or calling on them to renounce in deed and word the elements of Islam that make it incompatible with Western republican pluralism, etc.

We have to do everything we can in order to defend our nations, our cultures, our civilization. This includes not being politically and morally stupid and failing to recognize the astonishingly low level of understanding that still prevails among most of our countrymen. We have a moral obligation not to shoot ourselves in the foot.

From my perspective, on the issue of jihad, I see a lot more that is in common between you, than is in dispute. If you both adhered to that principle of seeing past others' differences in the name of unity of cause, we would all benefit.

It takes two to tango, my friend. I have responded to a very few of his many frenzied attacks. He is the one doing all the character assassinating and excommunicating, not I.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

from Awake above:

"Now hop to it and post these explicit words on Auster's blog, that is, if you can get them through, that is."

First, although I read Auster's blog, I do not "comment" as such, on it. Auster does not allow general commenting as most blogs do allow. He picks emails (or sections thereof) that HE finds worthy for public consumption. I detest the idea that my opinions and observations will be monitored or edited for relevancy by the site owner before publication. The rationale for this is that only the more germane or interesting comments are published, saving the readership the time in trudging through "unworthy" comments. I take more time than most in drafting comments so I refuse to send my writing in for his "approval". Also, I enjoy reading most other commentators as much as reading the posted story or essay/article.

Second, I strongly suspect Auster is following every word written about him here at JW. He is posting on everything said about him. Thus, I don't think it necessary for me to reach him directly to convey my opinions on the current matter.

"He picks emails (or sections thereof) that HE finds worthy for public consumption."

Posted by: USorThem at July 12, 2008 7:43 AM

Exactly, and as Robert stated, this whole episode (the current one, anyway) originated from an incorrect statement from one of Auster's readers, which he ran with and refuses to correct, even after a mountain of empirical proof otherwise was provided by Robert.

"nobody (I actually mentioned this in one of my past posts in either JWW or Hesperado: both he and Kab-bin-Ashraf know who 'nobody' was)"

Aaah, thanks IP. there weren't many but nobody was sure one of them.

"I agree with the poster above who points out Auster's obsession with skin color. In the matter of his opinions on the black race he is, in a word, a bigot."

Auster's blog is a more general purpose one than that of Jihad Watch. Therefore he writes of things concerning society and culture that are not, and should not, be the focus of JW. Now while one can debate the underlying causes, is there any one here who will deny that the level of Black violence is proportionately much greater than that of Whites? (Or indeed that of other ethnic groups).

Robert is absolutely right about the absurdity in publicly advocating for solutions such as mass deportation of Muslims from the West, given the parameters of possibility in our struggle. It dovetails with something I wrote the other day at dhimmiwatch:

"All the ranting and grandiose advocacy we find in the comments section here at JW is contributing little or nothing in the way of actual concrete solutions. To hell with what SHOULD be done...I want to know - given the reality we live in - what CAN be done?"

Cornelius,

Unless the parameters of possibility are changed and changed soon, then the only thing that CAN be done is to purchase a prayer rug.

Hitchens himself laid out the parameters from the start: "Today we only have time to discuss one thing, does this stuff, even if it's all made up, does it at least make people behave better?"

He who frames the question wins the debate; and this is about the most fallacious frame I can imagine.

No religon or set of believes can "make" you do anything; religons have always been about voluntary complience.

No one called Hitchens on this one?

Robert Spencer, who earlier in the day debated a Middle East studies professor on the topic, "Islam: Peaceful or Violent," was among the impressed.

"I'm not an atheist, but Hitchens would almost make me one," Spencer, a Catholic, told WND.

http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=69456

Well Mr. Spencer I can only think that your own "faith" has been on shaky grounds for a long time if one jolly Hitchens with his "wicked wit" is all it takes to make you nearly an atheist.

"monotheistic religion is a plagiarism of a plagiarism of a hearsay of a hearsay, of an illusion of an illusion, extending all the way back to a fabrication of a few nonevents."

Thus spake Hitchens, oh my. And the proof for such a grand declaration from on high?

Hitchens contended God, himself, is the author of totalitarianism, presiding over a "celestial North Korea in the sky that subjects us to constant survey … while we are asleep, after we are dead."

Really? Some say Jesus is god; and Jesus said to "love one another as I have loved you."

Granted, I can not follow such a command, but explain to me how this is totalitarinism. If this is how the celestial North Korea in the sky is governed, it don't sound too bad to me.

RBLA,

Fair enough. Consider it the first order of business...how to expand the parameters of possibility?...i.e., how to shatter the sacred cows of political correctness so that advocating an idea such as immigration restrictions on Muslims will no longer render one marginalized as a cook or an extremist.

Make that a kook!

My latest post about Auster's ongoing brawl with Spencer... well, Auster's ongoing brawl with everyone:

It's really hard to take this seriously

See also Geza's comment to it:

Does this man have no idea of how rude he is?