In the days after the Fort Hood jihad attack, we noted here just a few of the blizzard of backlash stories that ran in the mainstream media, and I wrote that there would be no backlash. And there has not been. Americans are decent people who do not victimize random innocents. But the Islamic advocacy groups in the U.S. need to maintain their victim status for political reasons -- it is they who want and need a backlash, and they who are responsible for all the mainstream media handwringing over something that never happened or was even likely to happen.
"The Myth of the Anti-Muslim Backlash: Hysteria hasn't swept the country since the Ft. Hood terrorist attack," by Gary Bauer in The Weekly Standard, December 22 (thanks to Maxwell):
Backlash: a strong or violent reaction, as to some social or political change.It has been more than a month since U.S. Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan allegedly murdered 14 people and wounded 30 others at Fort Hood military base in Texas. And while we were led to believe that the rampage by Hasan, who is Muslim, would provoke a strong and violent reaction against Arab and Muslim Americans, a backlash has been conspicuous only by its absence.
In fact, in the immediate aftermath of each of the dozen attacks by Muslim Americans since 9-11, the conversation has been dominated by predictions of inevitable violence toward Muslims by bigoted Americans unable to control their rage. And each time a backlash has been virtually nonexistent. Our journalistic and political elites have become terrorism's unwitting domestic enablers, perceiving religion-based violence where there is none, while ignoring it where it is widespread and intensifying.
After Hasan's terrorist attack, an Associated Press headline read, "Another attack leaves U.S. Muslims fearing backlash." A Christian Science Monitor story was titled, "Fort Hood Shootings: US Muslims feel new heat."
Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano declared: "We object to, and do not believe, that anti-Muslim sentiment should emanate from this." And U.S. Army Chief of Staff George Casey said, "I'm concerned that this increased speculation [about Hasan's motives] could cause a backlash against some of our Muslim soldiers. And I've asked our Army leaders to be on the lookout for that. ... as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that's worse."
But the data show that America's more than two million Muslims have little to fear from their fellow citizens. According to crime statistics compiled by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the number of hate crimes against Muslim Americans increased in the immediate aftermath of 9-11. But it declined precipitously after that, and has remained low ever since.
Of 6,832 religion-based hate crimes reported between 2002 and 2006, 4,627, or 68 percent, were committed not against Muslims but against Jews, while 744, or 11 percent, were committed against Muslims. In 2007 there were 1,477 reported offenses motivated by religious bias. Again, 68 percent were committed against Jews, and only 9 percent against Muslims. Reported hate crimes against Catholics and Protestants accounted for 8.4 percent.
And recently-released FBI statistics for 2008 show that 65.7 percent of religion-motivated hate crimes were anti-Jewish, 8.4 percent anti-Christian and 7.7 percent anti-Islamic. That means there were 1,013 cases of hate crimes motivated by anti-Semitism in 2008, the highest number of hate crimes against Jews reported since 2001. There were just 105 reported cases of anti-Islamic hate crimes.
Don't believe the FBI's statistics? Data compiled by Muslim lobby groups paint a similar picture. The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee Research Institute's 2003-2007 Report on Hate Crimes and Discrimination Against Arab Americans found "The rate of violent hate crimes against Arab Americans continued to decline from the immediate post 9-11 surge, to a level somewhat but not dramatically increased over that seen in the five years leading up to the 2001 attacks." A 2008 survey by Human Rights First called Violence Against Muslims found only two assaults based on anti-Muslim sentiment in 2007 and 2008, no incidents under "violent backlash to terrorist and other attacks" and just one incident under "attacks on places of worship and cemeteries."
Almost all of the "backlash" against Muslims following acts of Islamic domestic terrorism has consisted of acerbic blog posts, tightened restrictions at mosques and enhanced airport security....
Technically, isn't it abnormal, or insane, that there isn't an anti-Muslim backlash? Even if we are just talking about a non-violent backlash, a verbal taking on of Islam AND MUSLIMS who are followers of Islam whether they want to admit that or not, is REQUIRED of a normal rational healthy society that had its two biggest skyscrapers taken down by Muslim freaks flying planes into them and killing thousands of innocent people in the process. That there is no backlash more or less proves the entire American population is certifiably insane, cuckoo, loony tunes, around the bend, several fries short of a Happy Meal, the lights are on but no one is home, etc. etc.
ThinkThrice : That there is no backlash more or less proves the entire American population is certifiably insane [SNIP]
TT, I think your statement is incredibly insulting to good people who are not willing to grab their pitchforks and torches and head for the nearest mosque.
The reason America is so great is that we are better than a knee-jerk reactionary mob. We can all use our purchasing power and decision making to marginalize the threat of islam.
Don't buy from moslems, don't sell to moslems, don't hire moslems, don't help moslems. Treat them like the fascists they are.
Oh, but wait...you're one of those 'devout' christians, right?
Ah, I get it now! Thanks for the shining example.
From the viewpoint of your stunted world view you probably can't even state the reasons that Muslims should not be allowed to immigrate or spread in America in the first place. Your "analysis" can go no further than "Christians" are bigoted and that is the only reason. That is pathetic. If there had been Christians at the time of the founding THERE WOULD NOT BE AN AMERICA TODAY. Islam is incompatible with the Constitution and democratic freedom. But you are brainwashed and you think that Christianity is no different than Islam or any other religion. You could probably make a better analysis comparing coffee makers or microwave ovens or sports teams or styles of music, but "all" religions are essentially the same, a fairy tale, no more no less. Pathetic. You just are not a serious person at that point.
I'm typing too fast here, it should read, if there had been Muslims in America at the time of the founding, there would be no America. Muslims were not in America until the last 40 years.
The myth of a malign "Islamophobia" with the potential for generating a backlash that would victimize Muslims is a prime example of the "big lie" propaganda technique first described by Adolf Hitler in "Main Kampf":
" ... in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying."
TT : From the viewpoint of your stunted world view you probably can't even state the reasons that Muslims should not be allowed to immigrate or spread in America in the first place....[SNIP]
As islam is a fascist ideology bent on world domination and certainly NOT compatible with democracy I'd say it's not welcome anywhere where people prefer to think for themselves.
There. I stated 'why'. If you want to go back through my posts on this forum over the past 5 or so years you'll see I've stayed true to that. Religion is bad. The worst currently is islam followed closely by $cietology.
TT : You could probably make a better analysis comparing coffee makers or microwave ovens or sports teams or styles of music, but "all" religions are essentially the same, a fairy tale, no more no less. Pathetic. You just are not a serious person at that point.
Instead of insults why not try proving me wrong or even basing an argument on facts? Just because we don't agree (other than on how evil islam is) doen't mean we can't have a polite discourse. Wellington and I do it all the time.
Typing too fast, thinking too little. It'll get you every time.
Denying the Christian basis for Western Civilization and American freedom and democracy is where your analysis fails. I was replying to your comment that all religions are the problem, obviously they are not, there would be no America or the West without Christianity. Arguing that core basic reality over and over is a serious problem in the West today. People like you do not seriously confront Islam, you confront "all" religion and that is a massive cop out and it is a serious danger for our civilization. You claim to have courteous discourse with Wellington, but you attack me out of the blue for apparently being a "devout Christian" during Christmas week. Nice.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb050/is_3_77/ai_n29473851/
Christianity and American Democracy
Church History, Sept, 2008 by Gerald L. Sittser
123Next ..doi: 10.1017/S0009640708001546
Christianity and American Democracy. By Hugh Heclo. The Alexis de Tocqueville Lectures on American Politics. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2007. xii 300 pp. $25.95 cloth.
Hugh Heclo's book reminds us that Alexis de Tocqueville still speaks, even after 175 years. Using de Tocqueville as a foundation, Heclo argues that it is the particular nature of Protestant Christianity that helped to make American democracy successful, for the Christian faith and the political order established a mutually supportive relationship. According to Heclo, however, that relationship is now imperiled. Heclo's cogent argument deserves careful consideration. His forty pages of endnotes and ten pages of index show that he has done his homework well.
According to de Tocqueville, Protestant Christianity exercised a great deal of influence in America by shaping personal morality and public reason, which helped to check and retard the natural proclivity of people to exploit their political freedom. It thus "ordered liberty" by making people subject first and foremost to God and to a clear, authoritative, and unchanging moral code. Its value was not in its political usefulness but in its universal authority.
But Protestant Christianity did something more. In what Heclo calls "the great denouement," it united the "twin tolerations" of commitment to political freedom and to religious freedom, an idea that Europeans, who accepted the official establishment of religion, did not take seriously. Christianity in America made universal claims that threatened the prescribed boundaries of political society and thus eschewed the official establishment of religion. If anything, any kind of establishment was believed to violate the very nature of the Christian faith. Practical considerations played a role, too. The diversity of Christian sects made persecution of dissident groups difficult if not impossible, which engendered increasing sympathy for tolerance and made religious coercion seem contrary to the nature of Christianity. Religious and political liberty required mutual support.
Thus Christianity and democracy developed a symbiotic relationship in America. On the one hand, Christianity provided the idea of the millennial hope to explain America's mission and destiny in the world (which Heclo considers heretical). It also buttressed the value and equality of the individual person. Revivalism turned the powers of Christianity toward remoralizing American politics and inspiring ordinary citizens to form voluntary societies to serve the common good. On the other hand, democracy called into question the very undemocratic notion of election and bleached doctrines that seemed too elitist, complex, and unfair. The relationship was mutually beneficial, though not entirely equal. According to Heclo, "Christianity has probably been better for American democracy than American democracy has been for Christianity" (79).
TT : Denying the Christian basis for Western Civilization and American freedom and democracy is where your analysis fails.
Really?
The Treaty of Tripoli:
Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
And:
Thomas Jefferson: "History I believe furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free, civil government."
I have an absolute TON of this stuff if you want me to keep going, but I won't flood the forum as a point of good manners.
TT : .....but you attack me out of the blue for apparently being a "devout Christian" during Christmas week. Nice.
Hey, glad you liked it!
Now, be honest and you'll see why I 'attacked' you.
Try not to call all Americans "certifiably insane, cuckoo, loony tunes, around the bend, several fries short of a Happy Meal, the lights are on but no one is home, etc. etc." just because they remain happily unaware of the threat of islam.
And so it goes, around and around and around. You are of no help in saving the West or America from Islam. Have fun on your crusade against Christianity. In the end you will wish you had grown up and focused your hate where it was deserved. And I stand by my comments. You attacked first on the suggestion of giving terrorists bibles instead of Korans. Then later you claim to see the threat from Islam, then later you revert to the same old tired attacks on the founders. Round and round it goes, and it does nothing to protect us from Islam. It is crazy, certifiably insane, and all the rest of the ways one can describe it.
TT :You are of no help in saving the West or America from Islam.
I'm doing far more than you are. I'm *actively* doing *things*.
I would have religion gone from all places, you just want to convert moslems to your tribe. That's not progress, just regression by another cause.
You may have the last word. Try to make a point that advances your pro-theist argument this time.
There is a backlash, but not (yet) a violent one. As Question_Everything! says above, trade with mohammedans is affected.
I have not bought an 'Indian' takeaway since a few weeks after 9/11, when I discovered the truth behind that appalling atrocity.
When my company was hiring recently, any CVs with mohammedan names went straight in the bin.
I will not knowingly do any sort of business with mohammedans until they drag themselves into the 20th century, and start behaving in a civilized way.
And I know I am not alone; each day more and more people learn the details of, and are disgusted by, the mohammedan culture, and want nothing to do with it.
On the backlash issue, both ThinkThrice and QuestionEverything are right and wrong, though I lean toward the former.
While of course on the whole it is good that America, and the West in general, are not "grabbing their pitchforks and torches and head for the nearest mosque", the problem with that tendentious way of wording it is the following:
"pitchforks and torches" aren't the only way for Westerners to have a backlash -- by wording it this way QuestionEverything is assuming precisely what all the Leftists and PC MCs assume, that unless white Westerners control themselves, they will start lynching Brown Muslims, rounding them up, and ethnically cleansing them. And how does "control" manifest itself? Precisely by the way the West currently is controlling itself, by erring irrationally on the side of being too careful. The assumption is that Westerners are incapable of a judicious, reasonable, healthy, and appropriate backlash against Muslims. And so, with that assumption solidly in place, and with the fear of ourselves undergirding it, we paralyze our societies from being able to take necessary protective actions against Muslims. And people like QuestionEverything are doing their part to enable this self-paralysis.
Tsk, tsk Hesperado....
I'll repeat:
The reason America is so great is that we are better than a knee-jerk reactionary mob. We can all use our purchasing power and decision making to marginalize the threat of islam.
Don't buy from moslems, don't sell to moslems, don't hire moslems, don't help moslems. Treat them like the fascists they are.
I actually go a lot farther than this personally, but I'd hate to incriminate myself or put JW at jeopardy as a place where vigilantes hang out.
Everyone opposed to islam MUST do something, some lack spine, some lack nerve and most, I believe, are just under-informed.
I was annoyed at TT's suggestion that the American people are "certifiably insane, cuckoo, loony tunes, around the bend, several fries short of a Happy Meal, the lights are on but no one is home, etc. etc.".
I was one who cautioned Robert not to dismiss the possibility of a backlash, lest he find himself eating his words had one occurred. What a relief that I was wrong.
What might be the implications of a violent backlash?
1) Validation of Muslim claims of victim hood
2) Diversion of law enforcement resources to protect Muslims and investigate anti-Islam groups
3) A frenzied, new hyper-demonization in the media of Robert Spencer and those like him
4) A general discrediting of our cause, the diffusion of our energies, and an end to our gathering momentum
I was never a supporter of the militia movement (thought they were a bit over the top), but in the late 80s-early 90s, there is no denying it was a growing social movement numbering in the 10s of thousands nationwide. Along comes Timothy McVey and in the aftermath of Oklahoma City, the movement is consigned to oblivion, shriveling to a few hundred hard core hold-outs.
In short, a violent, anti-Muslim "backlash" is one of the worst things that could happen to the anti-Jihad.
QuestionEverything,
The problem with your prescription is that it necessitates a majority (majority of both ordinary people and of "elites") who have the mental/psychological/cultural capacity to wake up sufficiently to start boycotting Muslims on the scale you are talking about.
We're not there yet -- not by a long shot. And one main reason we're not there is that we are too careful, too afraid of the "inner racist" we think is inside ourselves, the white Westerner, who might be unleashed if we start feeling and thinking things that are too negative about Muslims.
In order for our Western societies to get to that place -- not just of boycotting but of more robust condemnation of Muslims and the Islam they love -- we need more anger, repulsion and hostility against Muslims, borne not of Neanderthal redneck sensibilities, but of rational, healthy Rage and Pride based on the enlightened contrast between Islamic inferiority and our superiority. But we can't get there if we think we are only "great" by virtue of being ridiculously restrained in our emotions -- lest our hands start twitching in the direction of the pitchfork.
Oh boy, a few people decide not to eat falafel or whatever it is they are doing or not doing as the case may be and they think that is enough of a response to Islamic jihad. For crying out loud, that is ridiculous. What is required is not petty actions such as that, it is wholesale recognition of the incompatibility of Islam with the West and with freedom and democracy. Anything short of that is window dressing and ultimately absolutely meaningless. The benefit of a "backlash" of any sort, if widespread at all, would be to give regular people the political cover, the courage, to speak the truth about Islam, to break away from the insane, and yes it is insane, politically correct dialog that currently passes in regard to Islam in the West. The denial of the Christian roots of the West and the lumping of Islam in with "all" religions is just another phase of the politically correct dialog that prevents the proper analysis of Islam and ultimately the coming together of a political SOLUTION to the PROBLEM of Islam in the West.
Dear Hesp, I agree with you, but I also have to agree with Question_Everything that we should have a polite discourse among ourselves. Unlike Mahoundians we're civilised people.
In my opinion the first source of Western civilisation is Judaism where Christendom emerged from. In general I respect all relgions, there are different religions in different civilisations and there are very different ways of life. But these different ways of life are compatible. There are Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Shintoists etc. living in Western countries in peace and harmony with the Western indigenous people. Unlike the Mahoundians they respect the culture they settled in. In Islam we only find a totally uncivilised way of life, based on fascism, supremacism, and a perverted law that they want to impose on everybody else on this planet not only on the Western world. All civilsed countries have the same problems with Islam.
And one concrete manifestation of the kind of healthy backlash I am talking about: an orderly, yet robust Million Man March on Washington Against Islam.
Americans can muster thousands to go to Washington over the Health Care issue; Danish can muster thousands to take to the streets over Global Warming; a few years ago mass demonstrations in cities all over the West, from Australia to Italy to England to the USA -- protesting the Iraq invasion. But nary a public peep about Islam.
This is not a case of Christianity vs Islam. This is a case of Islam vs Everyone.
What must be understood is that Islam is not just an enemy of "Christian values" - it is an enemy of _secular values_, period.
No, neither QuestionEverything (I'm quite sure) nor I would be comfortable living in a purely Christian society, run by Christians, with whatever that group of Christians defined as Christian values. What of atheists, gays, and women who didn't want to be wives and mothers? Would they be welcome in such a society? Would we be shunned, or our rights respected in such a society? Would we be allowed to run for office in a such a society? Would Wiccans and neo-Pagans be able to worship freely?
Btu that isn't really the point here, is it? This is Jihadwatch, where we're supposed to all come together, and put our differences aside, in order to recognize and fight the threat that Islam poses to ALL of us.
ThinkTrice, you're not innocent in the anti-atheist sniping any more than QE is innocent of anti-Christian sniping.
As far as throwing blame goes, who is to blame for allowing creeping sharia to take place? BOTH SIDES. Both the secularists who want to equivocate all cultures and religions with each other, and with the Christians who think it's our duty to bring in the third-world masses and show them the light of our civilization in order that they might like it and adopt our ways (and your religion, under the excuse (and I've heard this from Christian mouths) that "God so loved the world, and so should we love - unconditionally - everyone in it."
While, yes, I think in many cases, the Christianity bad, every other religion good crap has gone way too far, the fact is that Christianity is, in fact, open to its own abuses, and can be and has been used to demonize people that a given Christian or Christian group simply does not like. Yes, the world has been civilized by the hand of Christianity, but Christianity in turn has been civilized by humanist/secular influences. Thanks to science, you now understand that epilepsy is not demon-possession, thanks to humamist ideals, you no longer call for the burning of so-called witches. However, there are still some amongst you who would meddle in the teaching of science for superstitious reasons, who fear that two gays getting married will bring the wrath of your god on us all, that someone smoking a joint in their home will bring down the entire edifice of civilization, because it's a "sin".
But - we need to understand, and to explain to people on BOTH sides of the fence that these issues seem rather pale in the face of what Islam will do if it gets the upper hand because we're too bloody busy squabbling amongst ourselves over these issues.
We can leave the interecine squabbling to other sites, and prefereably until Islam is back OUT of the picture of problems we, as a society, face.
As far as backlash goes, no we don't need to march on mosques. Yes, economic measures can and sometimes do work. Don't buy from them, deal with them, rent off them, hire them, etc, if you're in a position to do so. And otherwise, spread the word about Islam. Tell people the truth about it, without getting emotional. Don't do things that will get you arrested, or worse, beat up (I know a fellow who did recently, because he got too het up about the things I told him, and about the fact that his cousin is about to be spirited away to Iraq by her Muslim husband). The backlash must come through non-violent means, or else we will simply discredit ourselves, whether we are Christian, atheist, or other.
The American populace is NOT cuckoo, any more than the European populace or the Australian or Canadian or other populace is, just because we're not beating Muslims up in the street. The problem is there is too much misinforation about Islam, mostly coming from Islamist groups themselves - too many people believe in their propaganda, because they WANT to, in the spirit of feeling like a fair and just person. ANYONE here who has spoken up against Islam in any setting other than this site can tell you that they've been called a bigot or a racist because of it. And that is what we have to fight - not with guns (not yet, anyway, until and unless it really comes to that) but with words - rational, well-spoken words.
And we have to stop throwing the blame around for what HAS happened, we must work together to figure out what must BE DONE.
Aardvarkm you are than criminal by usa law for not hirely muslim.So I order you to shut down your bussies and leave america forever we donot needed racist criminal like you.
They need Muslims even less.
I completely agree with you that a united front against the designs of Islam is of paramount importance for those who wish to preserve liberty. There is no use in dividing amongst ourselves while at the same time dealing with what Islam wants for the entire world. Complete despair is of no use either.
Yes, other totalitarian, authoritarian, thuggish elements exist out there but they are quite manageable compared to the Islamic threat. One fight at a time, and the fight right now must be combatting Islam's many nefarious intentions. Really, this ain't rocket science. Just what common sense, basic knowledge and moral intelligence should teach all of us who relish freedom.
You really do need to repeat grade school. Your illiteracy is really quite appalling. Also, who are you to order anyone about? I doubt that you are up to cleaning toilets unsupervised. If you are the best Islam has to offer, it is a sad faith indeed.
Both sides are over-simplifying the Christian influence in the founding of our country. It is, of course, true that Christianity is a huge part of the developement of Western civilization. But the religious motivation for the founding of the Colonies varied greatly. In Massachusetts religion was the main motivation, but in Virginia money and land were the objects for most, even though traditional religious language did appear in Virginia's charter. And let us not forget what the Puritans did to religious dissenters in New England once they established themselves.
There was great suspicion of state sanctioned religion among the founders during the American Revolution. It is interesting to note that the Baptists, Presbyterians and Quakers were some of the most vocal supporters of seperation of church and state. Having lived under the Royal/Anglican government, they knew first hand the pitfalls of not fitting in with such a system.
It is also interesting, and almost shocking to note the total absence of religious wording in the Constitution. For centuries it was customary to begin major governmental documents with religious wording (James, by the grace of God, King of England, France and Ireland etc.)The lack of inclusion of such language in the Constitution shows a very intentional effort to back away from the establishment of official religion. It would have been very easy for them to have included a statement such as "And the religion of the United States shall be Christianity". They didn't do so, and for good reason, even though many of them (but not all) were devout Christians.
Did Christianity influence the thinking of the founders? Of course. But so did the study of ancient Athenian democracy, and the Roman Republic. We did end up with a Senate after all, thanks to the pagan culture of Republican Rome.
The Enlightenment must be given its due when considering the causes of the Revolution. And many of the champions of the Enlightenment were Deists, not Christian, and some, such as Thomas Payne (of whom John Adams said "without Tom Payne there would have been no revolution) even Atheists.
All that being said, and as an agnostic myself, I find the basic tenants of Christianity to be far superior to those of Islam, and do believe that a resurgance of Christianity, especially in Europe could not but help the battle against enroaching Islam.
You know, I've been wondering...? In a way, I look like a muslim. But, I'm a hindu. If there's been a backlash, I and the others w/ brown skin color would have been on the frontline of this, so called, backlash. To the contrary, I've been living the same way that I've lived before 9/11.
And Gorge Casey said, "... as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that's worse."
Say what?
Hasan murderd 14 americans and injured around 30 people here in Texas, but for Casey it was "...horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that's worse."
Question-everything, you wrote:
"Don't buy from moslems, don't sell to moslems, don't hire moslems, don't help moslems. Treat them like the fascists they are." Aardvark also wanted something similar. He even threw job-application-letters from Islamic-sounding names into the bin.
Maybe if we somehow could develop and rephrase that policy into favoring and supporting staunch democratic businesses and people over justifiably and reasonably suspected and warned theocratic businesses and people, after first clearing up where people's loyalty by their own admission lie, and advertising about it broadly, then we could go this way.
But as it stands, it would advantage and give fuel to our theocratic enemies. I notice this in Holland. One of the most enduring and damaging criticisms of Muslims is that they are discriminated against already. They allege that if they perform an experiment and send 2 exactly the same letters and resumes in job-application, invariably the Western-sounding name-person gets invited and the Islamic-sounding name-person is rejected. With the name as the only difference for clarity.
This kind of complaint has huge influence on the minds of the ordinary people who are very much against discrimination. I encounter Westerners who find this unfair a lot. So my concern with this policy is it's huge impact on both Muslim propaganda and attitude of the silent majority.
Well after taking this all in I'm putting my two cents in.
If the influx and proliferation of muslims doesn't stop then we're all had for. Why is there an EDL? Why is France and England screwed? You can talk about it until you're blue in the face but the PC attitude still kicks in.
Only someone with the guts to DO anything has to be in power to enable (through law enactment)institutions to shun the onslaught. The frustrations of Ft.Hood,Rifqa Bary,Geert Wilders/ksm/Navy Seals/AmPak pending cases, is building. If any of these cases are lost or minimalised or re-directed back into our laps to contend with as "our fault", then what? Then we become morose and destitute and depressed and angry,like now,but worse,because then we'll be coming to the sudden sad realisation that our supposed just and forthright "system" ain't cuttin' the mustard to OUR liking.
THEN,with ANY luck, we'll be REALLY mad,and SOME pressure valves will blow,and justifiably so.
But this madness will only subside when islam is tapered down to a manageable level,and that process has to start with minimising muslim immigration and enforcing OUR laws,ie:polygamy and terror camps,and creating new laws to ensure not just our survival,but our happiness as well.
We are not happy campers anymore,that's for sure.
If you start reading from the last paragraph at "The Neutrals" and continue on to the next page, perhaps some myths may be dispelled.
Indians wiped out..by Indians.
http://www.nosracines.ca/e/page.aspx?id=181889
"Great favorite with the Indians"
http://www.nosracines.ca/e/page.aspx?id=182055
"Only playmates were Indians"
http://www.nosracines.ca/e/page.aspx?id=182206
P.S. Where the fk was Allen West two fn years ago?
Either him or Jim Webb pulls a switcheroo.
Thanks guys,Robert,Hugh,Marisol..Merry Christmas.
Muslims thrive on creating "victimhood"....they even create situations that appear they were "injured" by racism or hate...we then often find out the entire senario was staged...In Islam..."war is deceit"...
"Aardvarkm you are than criminal by usa law for not hirely muslim.So I order you to shut down your bussies and leave america forever we donot needed racist criminal like you."
That's the funniest thing I've read in weeks. Spoken like a true follower of Old Mo the control freak. Defender, what kind of racist criminals do you think we need?
How to "smart backlash":
1. Draw and publish some cartoons.
2. Wait for riots.
3. Identify the ones calling for violence.
4. Remember Holocaust Lesson #1: When someone says he is coming to kill you, believe him.
If ThinkThrice VS. QuestionEverything were a baseball game the score would be TT 7 QE 3. The very notion that Judeo Christian principles had nothing to do with the founding of our country makes my head hurt. Morality is the cornerstone upon which ethical behavior is built. Without those principles, what do you have?
I too am concerned that there has not been more of a verbal backlash. Americans are way too complacent. Thats why we have the two party mafia political system that we have.
"The very notion that Judeo Christian principles had nothing to do with the founding of our country makes my head hurt. Morality is the cornerstone upon which ethical behavior is built."
The pre-Christian non-Judaic Greeks and Romans had morality and ethics; indeed morality derives from Latin philosophy and law, in turn drawing upon Greek ethics. The Founding Fathers knew this well, since they had not succumbed to the general amnesia about Western history. The Founding Fathers were living in an era of transition, of a sea change in thought, a major paradigm shift by which the previous paradigm, a theocracy of Christendom built upon the four Western pillars -- Graeco-Roman Judaeo-Christian -- had been undergoing profound, indeed catastrophic changes beginning two centuries earlier with the Reformation, continuing with wars of religion in Europe and the inchoate formation of a new sociopolitical entity -- the nation-state -- to replace royal rule in symbiosis with the Church.
Indeed, the Founding Fathers and the America they founded were not only living in an era of paradigm shift, they became major movers of that shift as the decades unfolded after them. The modern West that has resulted with America at its vanguard has fully replaced Christendom as the edifice constituted by the four pillars -- Graeco-Roman Judaeo-Christian -- replaced it with what could be called Secularism. No other culture or civilization in the entire history of the world has ever been as thoroughly secular in its laws, politics, academics, economics, institutions, social norms, and popular culture as is the modern West coming out of the 19th century and into the 20th, and now the 21st.
There is much good that has come of this paradigm shift, and some major ills. Of the latter is the development of PC MC which, just at the time when the ancient enemy of the West, Muslims, who had receded into such a degree of regression in the shadow of the West's spectacular ascendancy to global superiority beginning in the 17th century that they had more or less become forgotten, demonstrates colossal weakness of mind and of resolve in the face of this ancient enemy now undergoing a global revival of its ancient imperative to conquer the one civilization that had humiliated them over the past few centuries into retreating from that "holy" and obligatory imperative of theirs, without which their fanatically obsessive salvation remains in their depraved minds jeopardized.
Hesperado, I can say what you said in three sentences instead of three paragraphs. The founding fathers had a set of principles that were based upon past cultural morays/ traditions. But because they, unlike Mid-Eastern cultures had evolveved, they formulated a more just but secular system rooted in certain beliefs. Shew,I think I just made my own head hurt.
"Acerbic blog posts" -- oooooh, the raging Islamophobia!
I just received an email stating that Shalom International is going to have an "On Guard for America - Israel - Freedom" Rally in Fort Lauderdale, Florida on December 30th.
On the 27th, here in Toronto, there will be a counter-protest at the "Gaza Freedom March" which is beginning in front of the Israeli consulate (where else).
I don't know if a counter-protest has been planned for the march in Ottawa.
Of course, this isn't a backlash, it's freedom of speech.
DefenderofSlime said:
'Aardvarkm you are than criminal by usa law for not hirely muslim.So I order you to shut down your bussies and leave america forever we donot needed racist criminal like you.'
1. There is no US law that says I must hire mohammedans.
2. You have no authority to order me to do anything whatsoever! I will run my 'bussies' in any way I see fit.
3. I am neither a racist nor a criminal. I am, however, a culturist. The civilized western culture is far superior to the barbaric mohammedan one, and we should do all we can to encourage mohammedan barbarians to leave the west as soon as possible.
rico : If ThinkThrice VS. QuestionEverything were a baseball game the score would be TT 7 QE 3.
I just hope you're not a Major League Ump, although I've seen some games where the calls have been bad enough that could be the case.
Religious extremism is what got us here in the first place.
The greatest thing about the West, Democracy (A Greek invention, not a religious invention, BTW)and JW in particular is that we have a forum to disagree. That would not be possible if Theocracy were dominant.
Hi QE, reading what I told Hesperado puts us on the same page. By the way I was terrible at baseball.
Merry Christmas.