Video: Robert Spencer at CPAC "Uninvited" panel

Yes, in so much as the Corporate media can be "leftist". I am more cynical and I see a different picture, which is that the powers that be, have a vested interest in the ascendance of Islam in Western society. After all, laws favoring multiculturalism, Muslim immigration etc. have happened uninterrupted both under the Right and the Left in both the US and Europe. Superficially, it looks like the liberals are in favor of Islam but when you dig deeper you will find that it has the blessings of the Right too. After all, 'internationalism' or as it is better known "Globalisation" is very much a Right wing project. Figure it out.

Great video! ...applause, applause!!

Thanks Champ!

Allah damn it -- I made a typo: "Muslims comes along..." should be, of course, "Muslims come along..."

I pretty much agree with what you have said. I might add cognitive dissonance as a cause of the inability for many across the entire political spectrum to condemn Islam for what it is - an ideology that violates basic human and civil rights. In order to avoid the uncomfortable feeling that "opposing a religion" gives them (how unthinkable, how "not nice")they sublimate and avoid dealing with the obvious evidence that it should and must be opposed.

Contrary to the mainstream thought here at JW I also question the assertion that Obama supports those who would employ violent force to impose sharia on others. I find it a bit difficult to reconcile that with his policies of (senselessly and ineffectively) continuing to waste US treasure and lives opposing such elements in Afghanistan and Iraq (and to a lesser extent, Mali and other parts of Africa) and especially in deploying drones in Yemen, Pakistan and in other places to wipe out suspected al Qaida proponents even in the face of strong condemnation from across the political spectrum.

In my view, if Egyptians, Libyans, Tunisians, Afghans, Iraqis, etc want to adopt an Islamic republic ala Iran via vote and/or popularly supported movements, then the US should not use force to defeat such governments. But neither should we give one cent of foreign aid to them. If people choose to live like 7th century barbarians, that is their prerogative as long as their actions do not negatively affect my rights or well-being.

However, if and when they do affect my rights I want my government to take action. And if they commit an act of war (as Afghanistan's Taliban government is alleged to have done by aiding and abetting 9/11)against the US or its real allies, I would feel no remorse if we bombed them back into the 7th century where their inhumane social order originated.

I might add cognitive dissonance as a cause of the inability...

In order to have CD, you need an opposing thought...Most of these kuffar dhimmi's have no opposing thoughts...If they actually knew something of Islam, and still protect it, then CD is possible...But few of them actually know enough about Islam to even adequately defend it...So they react hysterically and shoot out words like hater, hate monger racist, etc...
That's not CD, but it is the result of fractured minds...That looks like CD, but it's worse...

Contrary to the mainstream thought here at JW I also question the assertion that Obama supports those who would employ violent force to impose sharia on others.

I guess you missed the part about the Muslim Brotherhood...

What "part" are you referring to?

I am no fan of the Muslim Brotherhood. On the contrary, but the success of its electoral win, though subject to criticism, is a fact. Also subject to debate is what I understand to be the stated position of MB leadership on the advocacy of force (it supposedly rejects violence). The USA is supposedly opposed to unjustified violence and force, but look at our actions after the Revolutionary War, e.g., the Civil War, Mexico, Vietnam, Panama, Iraq, and the current bruhaha over drone attacks around the world. No one is perfect.

I do object to the continuation of foreign aid to Egypt especially after the adoption of sharia law via the new constitution. However, it is Congress that ultimately approves foreign aid, not the POTUS and sometimes, one has to take a gamble to make the best of a bad situation. In the grand scheme of things 250 million is a drop in the bucket. I'm not sanguine about the dividends on aid to Egypt, but as we had a prior commitment it may be the "politic" thing to do.

Majority rule alone hardly means democracy. Ten people stranded on a desert island, six men and four women, could take a vote and the vote could be 6-4, with all six men voting to do what they want with the four women. You have majority rule here alright but also sham democracy because it is not infused with a proper moral order----and Sharia hardly constitutes a proper moral order by which any society can be governed.

Also, one has to be careful, which you aren't, not to engage in moral equivalency reasoning. In most every conflict the US has been involved in in its history a case could be made for it having been justified (though not necessarily wise). Take Vietnam for instance. It should be seen in the larger context of the Cold War, which was a war to the death, the end of the USSR proving this. Remember, the gretest amount of killing in SE Asia began AFTER the US left there in 1975, tending to validate the US presence there to begin with starting with the Eisenhower Administration.

I am not saying that America has not made mistakes in justified warfare. I am saying that the Muslim Brotherhood's inclination to use force (notwithstanding its bogus assertions to the contrary) is rooted in deep injustice, for instance its desire to eliminate Israel from the face of the earth, and therefore your comparison between the US and the Muslim Brotherhood respecting use of force is deeply flawed.

Yes you're right, Robert's speech is excellent and the world turned topsy-turvy. No doubt about that.

I consider myself is a true liberal with a very strong love for freedom. My parents lived in a time in Nazi Germany when trying to use freedom of speech was deadly. You could be killed for telling a simple joke about Hitler. The Nazis invented a term "Activities affecting armed forces", in German it sounds even stupider "Wehrkraftzersetzung". The Istanbul process, the anti blasphemy legislation the OIC aims at, all that reminds me of the Nazis, the plague of the 20th century. Now Islam has become the plague of the 21st century, worse than cancer and AIDS combined.

Obama, and Bush before him, is a multi-cultural hobbyist. He does not understand, and does not respect, the well-defined and inherently hostile culture of Islam, or the unicultural and absolutist societal requirements of Islamic doctrine.

To say that electing an Islamic government is fine and dandy, if that's what the people want (I used to think that way, too, a long time ago), illustrates this failure of understanding. Islamic doctrine demands zero back-sliding toward liberalization (beyond the 7th century norms of sadistic desert pirates). Intimidation and force of every kind are authorized by Islamic doctrine to insure that that regressive, fundamentalist societal bias survives in perpetuity. Therefore, electing an Islamic government means there is no possibility, ever, of electing a non-Islamic government in the future. Islamic doctrine requires that society be continuously purified, by obliterating the contaminating "other" from its midst. Thus, electing an Islamic government is the end, not the beginning, of representative democracy. It is the end, not the beginning, of multi-culturalism.

To say that only an act of war authorizes a warlike response, illustrates this failure of understanding yet again. When a country proclaims that it is now an "Islamic state," then by the immutable (because divine) Islamic doctrine, that proclamation means they have declared perpetual war against non-Muslim civilization. That is, they are already at war with us, and they have already committed the first act of that war. Furthermore, Islamic doctrine dictates, in no uncertain terms, that that war is to be total (no person is spared involvement, on either side), and the terms of conflict resolution are set: unconditional surrender by us, to them, and our abject acceptance of brutal enslavement, as the reviled and hounded impurities of society, groveling before them under Islamic totalitarian sharia law.

We lost the Iraq war on the day that Islam was placed into the new Constitution there (placed there by our own State Department, no less). We lost in Afghanistan the same way. By definition, these countries are today dedicated to our total destruction--as required by Islamic doctrine. They are not, and never will be,"allies." By definition, they are at war with us now.

We should respect Islam and Islamic beliefs. In other words, instead of pretending that "Gee, Muslims, you really can't be serious about jihad--this is the 21st century, after all" we should be saying to them "Okay, have it your way." We understand your doctrine fully, and will give you your just due as our mortal enemies."

In all relations with the Islamic world, we should respect their doctrine--that is, believe what they say and write (not the taqiyya, the real doctrine). That means we should recognize that they are at war with us. They seriously mean to destroy us. So be it.

We don't have to attack them every day--only when they threaten or attack us or attack our honest non-Islamic allies. Nation building in the Islamic world is a total waste of time and effort, and constitutes a massive failure to husband our finite national resources. Quarantine of Dar al Islam should be the name of the game. We should be sending them no aid, no food, no medicine, no military assistance of any kind. If they send warships into open water, those ships should be sunk on sight. If they send warplanes outside of their own airspace, we should shoot them down. There should be no immigration--zero--from those countries. No Muslim (a member of the Islamic Ummah--the global Islamo-fascist political party--and by definition, a jihadist soldier-of-allah who is serving a foreign potentate) should be permitted to set foot on our soil, for any reason, no matter how briefly. No visiting, no student visas, no tourist visas, no nothing.

The Islamic countries today never suffer the logical consequences of their hostile attitudes and their hostile actions. They insult us, and we apologize for being who we are. They attack us, and we send them aid. They support terrorism, and we give them military assistance. They build nukes, so we give them protection money. They riot against our freedoms, and we restrict our freedoms so as not to offend. They purge their Jews and Christians and Hindus and Buddhists, while we reject those refugees and instead resettle Muslim "refugees" by the tens of thousands in America. They burn down 50 churches in Nigeria, and 40 Hindu temples in Bangladesh, and permit zero churches and temples in Saudi Arabia, while we let them build a thousand mosques in the USA.

The Islamic nations are at war with us--total war--and we are losing our collective ass, all because we do not respect their canonical doctrines.

darmanad,

"As far as your position that the US was morally justified in raping Vietnam..."

That's an absurd and dishonest attribution. Wellington did not, and would not, argue any such outlandish thing.

In an earlier post you claim "...I also question the assertion that Obama supports those who would employ violent force to impose sharia on others."

Subsequently, you claim "...I do object to the continuation of foreign aid to Egypt especially after the adoption of sharia law via the new constitution."

Does the approval of continued foreign aid to a sharia-imposing Egypt constitute "support," in your understanding of the concept, or not?

I think it does. Not only that, but Obama supported the sharia which is implemented in Iraq and Afghanistan, by continuing the policies of Bush and Blair et al., which approved Islamic law in the constitutions of those countries. In addition, Obama, along with other Western leaders, has militarily and otherwise backed outright jihadist groups such as in Libya and Syria. Former U.S. presidents such as Reagan and Bush Sr. also supported the imposition of hard-line sharia and outright jihadists in Afghanistan. Obama, while apparently the most explicitly pro-Islamic, and sharia-friendly, is simply continuing the same trend shown by the recent presidents before him. There should be nothing remarkable or surprising about saying this; I mean, did the U.S., along with several other Western countries, allow its military to be used to implement Islamic constitutions and Islamic law in Afghanistan and Iraq, or not? Of course it did, all the while (especially under Bush and Obama) preaching to the masses in the West that Islam is a religion of peace and so forth. What Bush and Blair, and Obama after them, did in Iraq and Afghanistan was a conscious, deliberate choice.

Even if we discount entirely any pro-Islam statements from these Western leaders such as Obama, the fact of the support for sharia is undeniable in the objectively observable policies. That is, even if they claimed they don't think they're supporting sharia, the fact remains that they are supporting it with their actions (and inactions).

----------------------------------------

"...JW I also question the assertion that Obama supports those who would employ violent force to impose sharia on others. I find it a bit difficult to reconcile that with his policies of (senselessly and ineffectively) continuing to waste US treasure and lives opposing such elements in Afghanistan and Iraq (and to a lesser extent, Mali and other parts of Africa) and especially in deploying drones in Yemen, Pakistan and in other places to wipe out suspected al Qaida proponents even in the face of strong condemnation from across the political spectrum."

It's not difficult to reconcile if you realize that the Islamic governments, which maintain and support numerous elements of sharia, themselves are also fighting against these violent "extremists." Just because a party supports sharia does not mean they support every group that wants to impose sharia; or that they would fail to oppose some militant group which tried to overthrow them.

Polls taken in Pakistan show high levels of support for hard-line elements of sharia (death penalty for adultery, apostasy, etc.), yet a majority of these same people who support these elements of sharia also oppose the Taliban. Moreover, there is some conflict among the terrorist groups themselves.

The reality is that the U.S. gov't and other Western gov'ts, and Islamic governments, are fighting al-Qaeda and the Taliban et al. not because these groups are pro-sharia; rather they are fighting them because these terrorist groups have slaughtered civilians indiscriminately and present an on-going deadly threat to safety and security in the countries in question, and present a threat to governance and the rule of law, and incur an enormous burden in time and money. The Western governments and Islamic governments are explicitly fighting terrorism, not sharia.

daramand,

"However, if and when they do affect my rights I want my government to take action."

I disagree with this, because some of the rights we are talking about are basic rights to safety and security. The basic motive for having a set of laws and means to enforce those laws (i.e., police, a vigilant citizenry, etc.) is to protect everyone's rights, not just our own.

Ideally, without practical limitations, we [the West] ought morally to step in and take control of Islamic countries, abolish sharia and stop the madness and evil there, for the same reasons we would try to save a rape victim or a murder victim, or to save a drowning person. Unfortunately, the lifeguard himself is in serious danger of drowning, and if that happens, no one at all will be saved. So we have to save the lifeguard, and ration his workload to a manageable level manageable that allows him to continue.

The main limits stopping us from intervening in Islamic countries in order to abolish sharia and bring in a good set of laws are (a) practical--we [the West] simply don't have the money or the time to engage in these projects overseas whilst our own countries rapidly decay and slowly but progressively become Islamized, (b) moral--our leaders have no discernible objection to sharia and in any case are not opposed to it by way of objectively-observable actions and policies.

"...too numerous and unopposed." i.e., to too great an extent unopposed.

"No; the trends in the direction of the end of Western civilization..."

Lest anyone get the mistaken idea I'm forecasting an immanent doom of the entire West, let me be clear that I am talking about a change that will take place gradually due to demographic changes and will take about 100-200 years. Some countries will lose most of their Western character sooner, whereas in others this process of de-Westernization will take longer.

"Some countries will lose most of their Western character sooner"

e.g., I predict that Canada, France, the U.K., and Germany will probably have Muslim majorities by the end of the 21st century, and will almost certainly have non-Western majorities by then.

Stendec [re your comment above, March 18, 2.03 pm]

I'm with you, mate. I just see no other way for non-Muslim civilisation - non-Muslim humanity - to survive.

Our governments, alas, and most of the non-Muslim population not only in the western but also the *non-western* non-Muslim world, are a long, long way off realizing this, however.

But you have indeed engaged in moral equivalency thinking by way of your 9:46 A.M. post of today, specifically its second paragraph, never mind your 12:10 P.M. post which puts forward an assumption as an axiom, and a highly bogus assumption at that, that I think the US was morally justified in raping Vietnam.

Shame on you for this, particularly because of the defamation your statement does to the vast majority of US servicemen who served in Vietnam and who acted honorably in that conflict. Surely even you are not so clueless as not to see moral equivalency reasoning (or even worse) when it occurs. But then, perhaps you are that clueless.

For the rest of your unconvincing response, I refer you to Stendec and Kinana's responses. They are more than adequate to refute your assessments and I would only be redundant in trying to add to them. You know, you have a lot to learn and I think you never will.

I dunno Wellington; I’ll put 10 bucks on the come.
He’ll either straighten out or crawl in a hole.

But Dar – manad is HERE and he occasionally seems to have a cogent thought about Islam. His main value so far, has been to elicit quite excellent and well reasoned responses from some of our more erudite posters.

Got my mind shifted to 100 or so years out, which is what we should be thinking more of. Things like Cub Scouts, Girl Scouts, etc. Sometimes Grandpa has time with the kids. Comic books come to mind.

Yes.

'Sometimes grandpa has time with the kids'.

In fact, right now, across the western world, because in many families the only way the couple can pay off the family home or pay the rent, is for both parents to be working full time, the *grandparents* - either the husband's parents or wife's parents or sometimes both sets, alternating - are *caring for the kids*. Kids are being substantially *raised* by their grandparents. That grandparent-grandchild connection could turn out to be very, very important.

I see this in my parish church: there are little ones and lower-school-age children coming to church with grandma or grandpa rather than with parents; and they do this because they *also* are cared for by grandma or grandpa for at least some of the time during the week.

And it isn't just the really little kids. Grandparents are doing school pickups and caring for the kids after school till mum and/ or dad gets home from work.

Well then: Islamosavvy grandparents can maybe warn and teach the kids. Like you said - comic books come to mind. And maybe an old movie or two or three - 'Khartoum'? *And* share with them the good stuff about our history and culture, too. Don't preach at them: tell them stories.

And again: Scouts and Girl Guides, Cubs and Brownies, could be critically important. Because they teach survival skills and leadership. People forget that the Scouts was originally invented in a military context.

Shoutout to any jihadwatchers reading here who *are* involved with Scouts/ Guides/ Cubs/ Brownies...or might have an opportunity to get involved..

And then, of course, there's cyberspace.

Badly needed: teenager-friendly counterjihad/ truth-about-Islam sites. I have NO idea how the awful truth about Islam might be communicated in a kid-friendly/ teenager-friendly way, not just on youtube, but on sites like tumblr (which is where my 15 year old daughter spends a LOT of her spare time, enthusing about the three or four 'fandoms' that she is involved with). But it needs to be.

Girls in particular need to be warned, because they will be targeted and are *already* being targeted by Muslim males - whether for 'marriage jihad', or targeted as girls have been in Britain, by seduction/ 'grooming'/ pedophile-rape gangs.

“Our governments, alas, and most of the non-Muslim population not only in the western but also the *non-western* non-Muslim world, are a long, long way off realizing this, however.”

Maybe our governments DO realize this. It just happens to be what they want. After all, it would be much easier to rule over a Muslim population who do not recognize that they have any rights in the first place, are used to brutal punishment and conditioned to obey without criticising, have a fatalistic approach to life and are obedient to those that rule over them. There is otherwise no other rational explanation for what is happening to Western society.

Certainly, if I w as planning a one world government (and with that a one world religion) with only the top 1% controlling all the wealth and power, I would not want pesky Judeo-Christians with a history of civil rights and liberties and the intellectual prowess to challenge the and foment revolution – no I would want a docile and subdued population. And that is why they are purposely making sure that Islam is spread in the West and are aiding an abetting Islam to be the dominant religious force in a few generations. I simply refuse to believe that our Leaders in the US and Europe are naïve and misinformed about Islam. And really how could they be when they have the best intelligence agencies and political analysts and all sort so of experts to advise them. Even Winston Churchill knew all that there is to know about Islam and accurately wrote about it nearly a hundred years ago and so did US President Thomas Jefferson.

The elite of course, including the old and new aristocracy, and religious leaders, will remain overwhelmingly White, male and atheist.

Why are you even bothering to post here then, if you think the Resistance to Jihad is doomed to fail before it even begins?

What's the point, of squawking, as you do, over and over, the equivalent of 'Despair! Do nothing! Don't even BOTHER! Don't even THINK of trying to do anything, because THEY [cue sinister background music] are all powerful and all-knowing and NEVER EVER make a single mistake??'

Please do not shoot the messenger. I am simple pointing out the elephant in the room that everybody conveniently misses.

The war against Jihad is doomed to failure because the first step in winning any war is to first identify who your enemies, something which we consistently have fail to do. Not only that, but we find a lot of excuses for the glaring and obvious collusion of our leaders with Islam.

I visit this site because I truly wish we could defeat Jihad but the first step to doing that is to identify who the real enemy is. And unless we do that, then we will just keep on going in circles. Yes I do DESPAIR of people ever waking up to the unsavoury truth.

“I visit this site because I truly wish we could defeat Jihad but the first step to doing that is to identify who the real enemy is.”

At least you are able to articulate the problem, and in that I agree with you.

Many of us feel frustrated, that our fellow Infidels are willfully ignorant of Islam. We are afraid for what we see happening regarding the creeping infiltration of Islamic operatives into the very heart of our governments and centers of power – and occasionally we suffer despair at the long odds against us.

But as Kinana of Khaybar so eloquently stated:

“We must continue to oppose sharia and Islamization because it is the right thing to do and in the interests of our own survival, regardless of the odds stacked against us.”

Which is the same sentiment expressed by Winston Churchill in an earlier time when facing a different set of murderous barbarians:

“If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without bloodshed,
if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly,
you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case.
You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.”

So, regardless of the despair we may occasionally feel, we must do what we can to educate or fellow Infidels. Regardless of whether those we associate with are Liberal or Conservative.

We really have no choice.

Deus Vult

LemonLime, you still here?

Nice to see that there are others in this world, who just might be as tenacious, bull headed and as big a pain in the ass as I am!

When you gonna have that barbeque, that I’m not invited to?