Krauthammer on Wilders: ignorant, naive, and wrong

We really have a serious problem when even Charles Krauthammer does not get it.

Boilerplate stuff for most browsers on JW but this is brilliantly and concisely stated by Robert, and it cannot be restated too often.
Let's hope that more people will see the objective reality of Islam before much longer, whatever label is stuck on it.

People, if you want to try and teach Mr. Krauthammer a few basics about Islam, here's his e-mail which I looked up:

letters@charleskrauthammer.com

I would if Mr. Krauthammer's opinions about Islam and "Islamism" would change if he read the Qur'an?

"...What he says is extreme, radical, and wrong. He basically is arguing that Islam is the same as Islamism. Islamism is an ideology of a small minority which holds that the essence of Islam is jihad, conquest, forcing people into accepting a certain very narrow interpretation [of Islam]."

Gee, I would really like to see how Krauthammer sorts one from the other.

But where is this groupthink nonsense coming from? Is this due to the propaganda of the Armstrongs & Esposito's of this world or is there a little monkey who whispers in the ears of these talking heads?

Its a kind of learning resistance.

Its like those who still deny that Obama is a Muslim and a Marxist who wants to turn the American constitution on its head.

But perhaps we can get Krauthammer to explain to us how he separates Islamism from Islam....?

Disappointing but not surprising. Apparently the reality is yet too awful for Krauthammer (and most other pundits) to contemplate even when placed squarely in front of them by Wilders, Robert and even islamists themselves.

The simple truth that islam is a runaway 7th century cult and all that implies. Employing a logical fallacy (as Robert points out) is simply a soothing lie to avoid contemplating this unsettling truth and its consequences.

This distinction between Islam and Islamism that Krauthammer makes is contrived but nonetheless convenient for a quickly whitewash of an fascist ideology.

It is like wanting to argue that National Socialism as an ideology that is fit and proper since individuals that act badly are really following NAZI'ism.

When I see mainstream Muslim leaders start to take responsibility instead of playing the victim card, when they start clearly and consistently advocating the separation between state and religion and denounce those amongst them globally that peruse Sharia agendas, then maybe I will start to believe that there are some that have hijacked the belief system.

As it stands I see Krauthammer's Islamism being the tip of a fascist iceberg that is Islam.

Krauthammer said:

"...What he [Wilders]says is extreme, radical, and wrong. He basically is arguing that Islam is the same as Islamism."

Krauthammer needs to understand this: regardless of whether Islam and Islamism are the same thing or not, one CANNOT deny the fact that Islamism is an inextricable part of Islam everywhere in the world. Mainstream Islam is either unwilling or incapable (or both) of removing the "extremists" from Islam. It's all the same package,there are no violent divisions and conflicts between them in any country, and I defy anyone to point out any major sect or school of Islam that is truly "liberal". Western society is so desperate to believe in a liberal Islam, that they've toned down their definition of "liberal" to mean any group of Muslims that aren't personally involved in violent terrorism.

I have a lot of respect for Krauthammer's opinions and I'm not going to throw him under the bus for being a misunderstander of what is written in the Qu'ran.

But we certainly need to speak out and write articles criticizing his views as we have done and should continue to do with people like Glenn Beck, who needs to take a hard look at what constitutes facist behavior or others such as Dinesh D' Sousa of which Robert Spencer has taken to task several times.

I am always reminded at what Geert Wilders has stated numerous times " there are moderate Muslims but there is no moderate Islam".

As we all know and have observed almost on a daily basis; the tentacles of the due diligence of the 164 versus of jihad can strike anywhere and at anytime among Muslims.

Perhaps Krauthammer has too deeply imbibed Bush's insistence that "Islam is a religion of peace", or perhaps he resists because of the implications of the greater truth.

I was talking with an old acquaintance last week after a lecture about al-Qaida's strategy. He couldn't accept my suggestion that Islam wasn't a faith like all the others. He found my description of the current danger "too pessimistic", typical of those who just don't want to hear it. When he asked what I would propose, given my take on the situation, he simply couldn't fathom any restrictions on large scale Muslim immigration and refugee resettlement into the US. In short, we're crossing not just lines of political correctness, but of accepted wisdom. And the implications are too enormous for most to deal with.

Just how could an intellectual of Krauthammer's stature even come close to labeling Wilders anything but a great man who is standing up for not just free speech, but for the freedom to live our lives they way we desire. I must say that Krauthammer has made a fatal mistake in white washing Islam. I have always loved to hear his thoughts and political stand. But, he has lost credibility with me. It's amazing that he can't see the forest for the trees. How sad, so much for a superior intellect. He shows a remarkable lack of knowledge and comprehension of what is going on around him, just like the rest of the dimmi politicians we have. I just can't stop scratching my head on this one. This man is not the hammer and giant some readers have given him credit for. We're in a fight for our very survival as a nation. He must be a VERY FEARFUL MAN.

I don't speak Dutch, but from Wilders's English statements I think he can do much to improve the way he presents his case.

How often does Wilders invoke Islamic jurisprudence, Islamic history, or the extreme hostility and aggression exhibited by Muslims toward non-Muslims wherever they are in power today?

And does he make a strong and well-informed argument for his support of Israel, correcting the grotesque propaganda that pervades European media? Or does he merely assert his support and go no farther?

You can't remove the extremism from Islam without removing
the exhortations to violence written in the KORAN. That can't be done, because the Koran contains the immutable words of Allah. Islam cannot be reformed. The Jihadists who follow the latter part of the revelation consider themselves the authentic, practicing Muslims, and the non-violent are the non-practicing Muslims.
We have allowed the Muslims into our western countries in large numbers, and we will never be rid of them and their death cult. Wilders is naive to think that allowing Muslims to stay while excluding their belief system and its practices is at all possible. Islam would have to be reformed, and it cannot be. And the Jihadists are more determined to take over than we are to resist them.

For many people the facts are, as Othello said: "O insupportable!" Krauthammer is prbably of that mind set.

The reality of what we face is so overwhelmming that it is easier to bleme this on a "tiny minority of extremists" Even if that were true-- 1% of a billion people is 10 million--! That's more people than most cities, states and many countries.
But the underlying ideology and the defensive, if not hostile reactions of Muslims when confronted with the fact of jihad, is not encouraging. After the Virginia Tech killings took place, a major Korean American organization put an ad in American papers apologizing for what had happened, even though the killer in no way represented Korean Americans--but their revulsion toward thse murders made the entire community feel, as it were, "guilty" that one of their fellow consitituents would commit such acts. I would like to see at least one similar reaction on the part of Muslims rather than the usual pronouncements that they fear a "backlash."

This rebuttal by Spencer is excellent - if only Krauthhammer would read it and act on its advice to study Islam itself as it is presented in the Quran, hadiths and Islam's schools of jurisprudence.

Since Krauthhammer is much read & respected these kind of statements of his do a great deal of harm by intellectually disarming people against what is a real cultural and ultimately a real physical thereat.

Also shame on Bill Kristol for calling Wilders a "demagogue". Demagogues peddle half-truths or outright falsehoods. But what has Wilders said about Islam that isn't true?

Thanks Darcy,

I watched that public display of ignorance on Monday's Fox News Special Report by panel members Krauthammer, A.B. Stoddard, and William Kristol and moderated by Jim Engle.

Not one of them wondered aloud at Engle's note that Wilders had referred to Mohammad as 'a pedophile' and had equated the Qur'an to Mein Kampf.

And none of them had either the guts, or the knowledge, to acknowledge the veracity of Wilders' claims; resorting instead to their attacks on him.

FrontPage ran an article on that program, but I have yet to see a video of it. If one is available, it is well worth viewing; if only to actually see Krauthammer's 'I'm so much smarter than everyone else' presentation.

Stoddard was just as bad; Kristol less so.

http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/03/08/when-fox-news-might-as-well-be-msnbc-special-report-trashes-geert-wilders/

If there's one reason in particular that the general American public remains ignorant of Islam's true teachings, it's what Krauthammer--a generally respected journaist--did on Monday.

I will send him a polite note.

Robert wrote:

"This is an artificial distinction imposed by non-Muslims like Charles Krauthammer onto the Islamic world; it is not a distinction that is generally made by Muslims themselves, at least outside the U.S. and Western Europe -- or if it is, it is made in a different way."

True that, but how can we expect otherwise when this false distinction is peddled by some critics of Islam, themselves?

http://www.danielpipes.org/954/distinguishing-between-islam-and-islamism

So Robert - are you officially "personona non grata" at Fox yet???

I fear these elite talking heads fall susceptible to the easy mark of their own demagoguery because they are of the strategic notion that America or the West is too "BIG (or STRONG)" and too "OBVIOUSLY WONDERFUL" to fail, a notion that summarily dismisses any messier global view as impertinent no matter how much contrary information is at their disposal.

I too, have long been an eager fan of Mr. Krauthammer on matters of American realpolitik, specifically his appearances on the FN panel. But this blind spot of his with regard to Geert Wilders is reprehensible, far more worthy of a Democratic Party perennial candidate for Leader of the Islamic Global Caliphate than a no holds barred intellectual like Charles Krauthammer.

It's funny that during the cold war, most people (at least in the center and on the right) in the West could easily understand an analogous scenario. They understood that most of the people of the Soviet Union and Red China were decent people, they loved their children, most of them weren't involved in "extremist" communist agitation, and most of them were just concerned with their daily existence, not politics. They understood that while this was true, it was also irrelevent to understanding the danger of Communism as an ideology---they still understood that Communism presented an existential threat to the West. But today, few in the West are able to see Islam in the same terms, and they're locked into the mindset of "most Muslims aren't actively extremist, so that proves Islam can't be a threat".

This is very interesting - it never occured to me that infidels can also be misunderstanders of Islam.

To understand Islam, all one has to do is study the life and example of Mohammed. It is evident that Krauthammer has not done so. I doubt the writer of the preceding post has either.

The Washington Beltway seem to sap the sense out even good conservative people. Mr Krauthammer is usually very smart, but l would love for him to read this site and actually learn from Robert and others. Let him actually read some of Robert's books and perhaps he can wake up. He is usually right on, but with many Western Elites even the right can get it all wrong./

Until he went on violent jihad, Nidal Malik Hasan was a non-violent, seemingly peaceful Muslim. 99.9999999% of all bears have never killed a human being. However, 99.9999999% of all bears are a threat to human beings if you allow them to get too close. I do not want bears walking the streets of my city; not because I hate bears, I do not, but because I rightfully fear them.

Sadly, Charles Krauthammer is an Idiot.

I just e-mailed this article to Krauthammer, sans reader comments. (Thanks, Darcy, for providing an e-mail address.) It's the least I could do. Maybe our e-mails will ultimately lead to a paradigm shift. Just maybe.

The untruth of that is obvious. If you look at the United States, the overwhelming majority of Muslims in the U.S. are not Islamists. So, it's simply incorrect.

No, Charles, the opposite is obvious. And what you pompously dismiss as simply incorrect is obviously correct unless you're simplistic enough to fail to account for thousands of easily verifiable facts. They may not be acknowledged facts, but they're verifiable facts.

*** 92:8 ***

So, Charles, do these two things:

1) Acquaint yourself with these easily verifiable facts.

2) Account for them.

Either do these two things or please shut the hell up.

Whatever the reasons for Beck's fecklessness or Krauthammer's stunning ignorance about Islam or Fox New's apparently now responding to Saudi whispers in their ear, this presents a very serious problem. Fox is the cable news channel with by far the highest ratings in the U.S., one that many people had come to depend on as being the only responsible TV voice reporting from a conservative perspective, and one that had included reports with at least a modicum of realism about Islam. Now we can expect that henceforth it will become another channel like CNN in whitewashing Islam.

The question therefore becomes, now that we know what the problem is, what to do about it? Are there any effective measures that can be taken to limit, or better, undo, the damage that will now almost certainly begin to accumulate as Fox News reports about Islamic affairs will be scrubbed of unflattering stories from the ME even more than they already have been, and will instead begin to look more and more like Christiane Amanpour's reports?

Thanks Charles. I suppose it would be too much for you to report any gifts that you might now receive from Prince al-Weed or any of his surrogates in appreciation for services rendered, but would you be so kind as to at least share with us any warm congratulations you receive from the prince for doing such a splendid job? We'll be looking for reports about the awards that will now certainly be bestowed on you by various Islamic groups.

CAIR must be high-fiving itself until their arms are tired over this, err, I mean Allahu Akhbar-ing itself until their voices are hoarse.

I, too, sent e-mails to Mr. Krauthammer, Mr. Beck and FOX News. Exerpt:

"...When a man risks his life and that of his family to speak the truth, when a man stands for principles, for the centuries and souls it took to create systems of governance where liberty is allowed and personal freedom largely protected – you, an AMERICAN media news and opinion outlet should not decry that person for doing so. Perhaps you should pull up a chair and learn something, rather than be in line to squelch the life out of that canary…he is warning you, too, if you would only listen..."

http://civilusdefendus.wordpress.com/2010/03/10/wilders-liberty-totalitarianism/

Listen carefully to those that make such ridiculous distinctions (Islam and Islamism) and you'll note a self-righteous attitude. They are actually defending their core belief: cultural relativism.

And... they feel good about it.

Absurd, isn't it?

I simply cannot understand it.

I was thinking it would take another attack to wake em up but then I remember-
Fort Hood
Christmas day bomber.
etc.

and I start to fall into despair.
There's something seriously wrong going on.

This being "surprised" and being "stunned" has got to stop, guys. I hope I don't open Jihad Watch in a year from now, with yet another news story about yet another "conservative" icon demonstrating his normative incomprehension of the problem of Islam, and find all the Jihad Watchers in the comnents "stunned" and "shocked" and "surprised" -- and then proferring conspiracy theories to explain how this could have happened.

I hope, but I won't hold my breath.

Wafa Sultan, Ibn Warraq, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Magdi Allam, all have explicitly said, in many different ways, and in different fora, that the distinction between Islam and Islamism that Westerners make is unknown to Muslims, a mental construct that Westerners have fabricated for their own comfort, or to justify their own misguided policies, often based on pusillanimity, or because they can't quite see right to the bottom of things.

And if you read the great Western scholars of Islam -- C. Snouck Hurgronje, say, or Joseph Schacht, or David Margoliouth or any of a hundred others -- you find nothing about this distinction between "Islam" and "Islamism." It's a neologism, fabricated by Westerners who simply don't want to recognize what islam is all about, and don't want to accept Ibn Warraq's lapidary formula that "there are moderate Muslims [meaning Muslims who for various reasons -- reasons that deserve to be pondered -- do not take what Islam inculcates fully to heart] but Islam itself is not moderate." [meaning: Islam itself is what is meant when Westerners use, quite unnecessarily and confusingly, the comical neologism "Islamism."]

And they are joined, those articulate apostates who were born into, and raised within, Islam, and those long-dead Western scholars -- quondam Orientalists -- of Islam, by Muslims themselves, those who speak truthfuly instead of with the colubrine hiss of tariq-ramadans (though I doubt if even Tariq Ramadan would accept this "Islamism" idea, even as he tries to deny or deflect Infidel attention from, so much of what Islam inculcates]. Erdogan, for example, has written, in a perfect echo of Wafa Sultan, that "there is no such thing as Islamism. There is only Islam." (This is not verbatim, but close).

But those who are pundits, and who one day write about islam, and the next about healthcare, and the next about estate taxes, and the next about energy subsidies, and the next about this, and the next about that, as Krauthammer does, are unlikely to take the time to study, comme il faut, a subject that requires much more time and effort than anyone in Official Washington, and the hangers-on, the Meta-Washington of columnists of every reductive stripe, who long ago lost the habit of real concentration, and who don't even recognize which subjects require much more such concentration, and which ones can be picked up overnight by any quick study. Krauthammer is hardly the worst, but remember that he was also a great supporter of the messianic sentimentalism of Bush's "Light-Unto-the-Muslim-Nations" Project in Iraq, a project which depends patly on refusing to see the meaning, and menace, of Islam world-wide, and instead constructing a whole myth about the Good Musilms who, if only they have stable, unified, prosperous countries, will be, somehow, our natural allies, when what they will really be is one more group of Muslims saved from their own failures by massive Infidel aid and intervention, thus further transferring our resources to them, in the vain hope that they, as Muslims, will somehow give up the attitudes, and cease to live within the atmospherics, naturally produced in societies suffused with Islam.

If Krauthammer were to admit that the real theatre of war right now is in Western Europe, and if he were to understand that the most effective weapons of Jihad are not terrorism or even qitaal (combat), but rather the Money Weapon, campaigns of Da'wa, and demographic conquest, then his seven-year enthusiasm for the war in Iraq, and for the vast expendistures, in men, money, materiel, and morale, that that war required, would start to look a little foolish, a little missing-the-pointish. And that goes even more for William Kristol, who I saw debate John Deutsch on the Iraq War and its efficacy, and not once did Kristol care to define "victory" or if the American goal of a stable, unified Iraq were in fact attained, how that would help weaken the Camp of Islam, especially in Western Europe. This is something that the krauthamemers and kristols simply are ill-prepared to deal with; it's not part of what they grasp. They don't want to ahve to read a dozen books by Western scholars of Islam, or another dozen by apostates who might have something to tell them. They want a "robust foreign policy," they want "the projection of American power," they want "the world remade anew" and so on. They are not in the business of recognizing that it is not permanently 1946, that America does not have trillions to spend to remake the Muslim world, that sucha remake in any case merely delays the day when Muslims themselves are forced to understand that their own political, economic, social, intellectual and moral failures are the result of Islam itself. That recognition, at least among an elite, should not be delayed by Western aid and Western intervention.

And Krauthammer clearly has no real idea of what is going on in Western Europe. So few of those in Washington now have the vivid sense of Europe, of what it contains, of what it means, of what would happen to the United States if, slowly or rapidly, Europe were to be still further islamized, what it would mean not just for NATO, or for the weapons systems in, and security of, the peoples of Western Europe, but what the disruption in European life, the further decline in the native population (the more Muslim Europe becomes, the greater the expense of monitoring Muslim populations, the greater the cost that is of security guards and installations, of cameras, of police, of lawyers, of judges, of prison cells and prison guards), and the more schools decline because of a large Muslim presence, and the more expensive life becomes for the natives, the less inclined they are to have more than one or two children, or any children at all, while, in the meantime, Muslim families continue to have families two to three times the size of those of the indigenous non-Muslims, and have proven masterful at helping themselves to every possible benefit the welfare states of Western Europe provide. None of this is even on Krauthammer's mental radar. This is not an area where pieties about the free market, and prosperity, will do much good. Manyh of those on the right, for example on the editorial page of the Wall St.Journal, appear to believe that economic prosperity is all, is the key to dealing with Islam. But is this true? Is it true that now that Saudi Arabia and Iran and Libya and the Gulf sheikdoms are no longer impoverished, but fabulously rich, they are less of a threat than they were fifty or eighty years ago, before any oil or gas was found? Krauthammer shares, I think, with that Wall St. Journal editorial board, a kind of Marxism -- that is, the belief that economics underlies everything else, that the rest is merely epiphenomenon, and that what is in the minds of men does not matter as much as some think. After all, Krauthammer could hardly be expected to recognize that, for good or ill, the American belief in the efficacy and goodness and rightness of the workings, such as they are, of the Free Market, such as it is, is itself an ideology. Ideology? That's something for foreigners. Americans don't do ideology. And foreigners, even Muslims, in the world of Charles Krauthammer, really don't take Islam all that seriously. He puts one in mind of the certainties of Paul Wolfowitz, whom Richard Pipes described as not understanding the influence of history, of ideas, of culture, on men (being, Pipes said, merely a "weapons anallyst"), Wolfowitz who expected that the war in Iraq would be over in no time, and who learned so very much from his good friend Ahmad Chalabi and from his Arab divorceee girlfriend, who wasn't about to impart to him any unpleasant truths about Islam.

Disappointing. Krauthammer is one hell of a bright perceptive guy.

I can't help wondering what the hell he is basing his opinion on.

I've never noticed him to say or write anything that would indicate that he has personal expertise in this area. And I've never before seen him pretend to be an expert on something he doesn't know about.

Puzzling. Worrisome.

Then again, the Arabs have bought a chunk of FOX. But it's almost impossible to imagine Krauthammer being influenced by that fact.

Of course, I'm no expert on Krauthammer.

"But those who are pundits, and who one day write about islam, and the next about healthcare, and the next about estate taxes, and the next about energy subsidies, and the next about this, and the next about that, as Krauthammer does, are unlikely to take the time to study, comme il faut, a subject that requires much more time and effort..."

-- Hugh Fitzgerald

I don't think it takes all that much "time and effort". That's not a good excuse for the unacceptable retardation of 98% of our news analysts, reporters, pundits, academics, politicians, celebrities, etc.

I mean, did I have to become a scholar of Islam before I could see that Islam is evil, dangerous and unjust?

Did any of us Jihad Watchers -- we few, we happy few, we band of brothers -- expend that much time and effort to see what is plain as the nose on our face?

I think not. The time and effort we have spent has been mostly confirming, after the horrible fact, what our common sense told us after 911.

It's not about amassing information, not about scholarship. It's about cutting through the bullshit.

I certainly agree with wilders.
I had thought krauthammer was a right on guy.
now i know better.
Hope his wheel chair has a flat tire and turns over

Krauthammer seems to be under the typical Western delusion that Islam is merely a religion like any other and that "radicals" are the ones who have heaped socio-political structures upon it. This is demonstrably false and I am surprised at K's stand.

The distinction (Islam as a religion v. Islam as an ideology) is critical because it determines how one believes government and individuals should counter Islam. This is why the gov continues to be hamstrung in its "war on terror."

I saw the piece on Fox. So, I wrote Mr. K. a letter:

Dear Charles,

I follow your column religiously and also your TV appearances. In general I agree with most of your comments. However, I must strongly disagree with your recent comment on Geert Wilders, MP of Holland.

There is only one Islam...but there are moderate Muslims. Islam today is the same as the Islam at Tours in 732, or at the battle for Crete in 1565 or at the gates of Vienna in the 1690's. Islam cannot change because it is the Word of Allah, immutabe and incontrovertable. Islamic fundementalists believe in a strict adherence to the Koran, Hadith, Sura...etc. They view those moderate Muslims as not Muslims at all. This is one of Geert's major points.To call Mr. Wilders and a right wing nut or Fascist or other derogatory names is to misunderstand his position.

By the way, some years ago I went to see a movie on your recommendation and it was great The movie was Sideways. It's a 'guy' movie; I loved it, my wife hated it.

Keep doing your good work.

now wait a minute... Krauthammer, Daniel Pipes, and others have made the similar distinctions between Islam, Islamists, Islamofascism, and even between jihadists (the inner struggle v. outer struggle). if we can all poo-poo those distinctions now, and lump them all in the same evil group as suicidal maniacs, then where do we draw the lines of distinctions?

forget the politics of religion for one second and think...

there have been dozens, if not more, fatwas against terrorism in the past decade or so, no matter how hidden within, or full of taqqiya-speak as Robert and others have pointed out repeatedly in his writings and books. yet still, muslim leaders throughout the world did, in fact, denounce 9/11 and many other attacks. maybe weakly, but they did denounce them diplomatically. so, even though Wilders is keenly focused on HIS jihad in Europe, as an absorption and clashes of culture, or culture war, how can we, as policy, decide which Islamics are "good" (ie those who don't want to kill us) and which are "bad" (ie: those who don't want to kill us - directly)?

if the line for our diplomacy and official distinction must be founded upon "us v. them" then, ok, HOW is that done? the Wilders way? round them all up and ship them off somewhere else? not gonna happen here... and with people in Europe still alive who lived through WWII, its not gonna happen there either. OR, how about the Thomas Jefferson-Barbary Coast way? kill them all... maybe, maybe not. even 200 yrs ago, we killed some and befriended others, and it worked. even 100 yrs ago in the Philippines, we killed some and befriended others, and it worked. even over the last decade, we've killed some and befriended others... maybe it'll work, maybe not, but u get my point?

ergo... i think Krauthammer is trying to make that point. maybe not very well, but i think that is what he might be attempting. Islamics: can't love 'em all. can't kill 'em all. whattya gonna do?

reeko,

I still hold that our cold war approach to Communism was a pretty good blueprint. We recognized that Communist countries were our adversaries on every level. We almost always opposed them ideologically and culturally, blocking their moves to expand politically, militarily and economically, bombarding them with things like Radio Free Europe, rock music, movies, etc. We occasionally engaged in hot wars on various battlefields, although we avoided large-scale conflict. Although we had Communists and their sympathizers among us in the West, their power was largely kept in check. At least in the US, we most certainly did NOT allow millions of openly practicing Communists to immigrate and settle, and we certainly did NOT promote policies to allow avowed Communists into the government or military, and the mainstream media generally did not advocate that we welcome Communists into our society in the name of "tolerance". Heck, even in pop culture comics, the DC and Marvel comics heroes in the 50s and 60s were always battling the commies. Communists had some footholds in academia and entertainment, but still, their influence was mitigated. I think that same approach today in regards to Islam would be our best bet to maintain our democratic society.

Boston Tea Party,
thanks for taking the time to comment on my concerns. yes, it is indeed a cultural war, and yes, we don't really seem to be officially engaged in it. u made some valid comparisons to the direction our cultural war with communism took, but that was kinda built upon the basis of our foundation as a nation. that contrast in ideologies was/is easily made. communism didn't hide behind race (at first anyway, before Black Liberation, AIM etc) however, because Islamics can easily hide their ideologies by withdrawing into either rubrics of racism or religion, those of us who know better, like Krauthammer, Wilders, Spencer, etc., are still faced with a dilemma and conundrum. how do we separate the wheat from the chaff? as a country, we cannot order our State Department to cut off any and all ties to all Islamic countries. as an electorate, we cannot argue FOR that kind of isolationism. even Libertarians know that isolationism is stupid and silly as a party platform.

ergo, there MUST be a way to decide which are "good" and which are not and base our national policies on that. our national security depends on it. so how, again, i'm asking do we separate the Islamics? we tried the going after "state-sponsored terrorism" thing, which, as Robert and others correctly point out, as far as nations go, if Islam is their thing, then they sponsor terrorist activities in some fashion. no question about that. but how do we make distinctions in who we do business with and who we do not? remember, isolating ourselves or the rest of the world from Islamics is NOT an option. the rest of the entire world will readily join forces with Islamics, if not already, in order to defeat and destroy the US once and for all.

however, once we solve the overseas policy dilemma, and i think the GWOT was a huge step in the right direction by the way, then we can safely return to the enemy-within-the-gates cultural war on the homefront that both Wilders and others have championed. but, again, HOW? how to balance both aims? that is the question i believe the Thurmont Statement of 2009 attempted to answer, and its where the pointless Mt Vernon Statement failed. ie:

Thurmont Statement: Islamofascism equated to Communist threat.

Mt Vernon Statement: Islamofascism ignored.

now we know why it was ignored. it was written by Norquist.

The so-called "moderate Muslims" who, accordingly to many like Krauthammer (who is very smart usually), are nothing more than decoys in the ummah's quest for world supremacy. They serve to distract freedom lovers from the real issue at hand - Islam's desire to force the world to submit to Islam. Think for a minute - why, if America is such a wretched, sinful place full of infidels, would so many Muslims want to immigrate here when they could remain in their Islamic country with its Shari'a law and mosques on every corner? If such a society is the perfect society dominated by Islam, why on earth come to America?
The answer is simple. The ummah all have an understood plan that America MUST be submitted to Islam. It must be taken over for the sake of Allah and the U.S. constitution MUST be replaced by Shari'a law.
The question I have for my American friends reading this is "Are you going to stand by and let it happen?"
A force moving strongly in one direction will overrun everything in its way if not opposed by a stronger force pushing back.