Why is defending against the global jihad controversial?
Here is video of my remarks yesterday at the Breitbart News’ “Uninvited” panel at CPAC.
Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed
Leftists want ‘internationalism’, while Muslims want ‘Ummah nationalism’ based on Arab supremacism.
Leftists denounce colonialism and assume that 1) Counterjihad is neo-colonialism and 2) that political Islam does not have an imperial ambition, therefore Leftists think they can control it. Leftists have no clue about ‘Ummah nationalism’.
Leftists think of Muslims as the noble savage. And because they espouse moral relativism, they are blind to Islam’s misogyny and Arab supremacism.
Leftists and Muslims are unnatural allies. However, both believe in a Spartan kind of society organized from top down. They are competitors, rather than true allies.
For my part, I fully understand why I support, in spirit and financially, you guys (Robert, Pamela).
What I don’t understand is why others are absent on these issues. And where o’ where are the political leaders?
(video, 1 Min) “Truth is the new hate speech” – Brave hero Pam Geller
Pamela Geller “The Uninvited” Panel CPAC 2013
In Arabic, jihad means inner & outer (warfare) struggle
” In Islam, jihad means only warfare (e.g. 9:5, 9:29) against the kuffar (unbelievers)
In Arabic, jihad means inner & outer (warfare) struggle
” In Islam, jihad means only warfare (e.g. 9:5, 9:29) against the kuffar (unbelievers)
All points made with utmost clarity.
No fudging or phoney pc.
Names named and supporting evidence supplied.
Obama personally in the frame.Again with evidence.
And the final warning that unless something is done history will repeat and muslims will rule much of the world. Again.
Is there any way this can be posted on You Tube?
Others need to see this.
I wish that I could have been in that room to stand up and cheer your remarks.
Again Robert Spencer has spoken the truth and with great clarity. Spencer is a true conservative. CPAC increasingly is looking like a faux conservative organization—and don’t think conservatives like myself haven’t taken note of this.
It’s interesting to note as well that old fashion liberals in the mode of Harry Truman and Clement Attlee were far more realistic about dangers to liberty than many so-called conservatives are today. This is telling. Modern liberalism has been completely corrupted by PC/MC and modern conservatism seems well on its way toward attaining this ignominious status too.
Ah yes, I look nostalgically back to a time when liberals and conservatives disagreed about such things as how much or how little government should exist, taxes, etc., all the while both understood quite well, as Truman and Eisenhower did, as Churchill and Attlee did, that evil is evil and evil must be confronted and that making excuses for evil is itself evil. What a stupid age we live in—the Age of Nonsense.
Why is CPAC trying to marginalize those that speak to the ever growing threat of Islamic supremacy?
Are we now seeing the “pucker factor” among those administrating CPAC when it comes to the aggressive and threatening nature of Muslims?
I tend to go with the theory of occam’s razor on that question.
Great speech Robert, You told it like it is.
I liked the part where you said that there was no real opposition to the policies of Obama, that the Romanay was so eager to agree with Obama that it left many people who would have voted for him feel not voting at all.
God bless both Robert and Pamela for having the courage to face head on the evil that is Islam.
Yep…Those kuffar who should know better, but don’t should be ashamed of themselves…
Excellent 7 minutes.
Witch hunts are rendered impossible when free speech and facts are front and center. Right now, the witch hunt is aimed at free speech activists like Robert Spencer. This tells us a lot about what’s wrong with CPAC and even the GOP right now.
Good for you, Robert! But how come the video cuts off in mid-sentence, though? Was there more in your presentation (and Pamela’s) that is available to watch?
Wow, Robert, you were on fire! …everything you said was so spot on!
…oh and you’re *fearless*, Robert!
Pam and Robert, THANK YOU. America wake up please, it is getting late!
I want a T-shirt with “THE UNINVITED” on it as well as Jihad Watch.
If it’s got cool graphics, it’ll sell for 20 bucks all day long.
Well, Robert. I would guess that next year you will be uninvited to the uninvited panel.
Thanks for doing what you do so well–telling the truth without waffling or flinching, standing tall and foursquare against tyranny.
Haha. That was awesome. Go Robert. It’s so unusual to encounter anyone with any integrity today. And Pamela looked hot.
Yeah, the CPAC situation is depressing. Even the MC of an “Uninvited’ talk seemed cowed.
Am I naive for being disappointed that I saw nothing about the Uninvited in the copious CPAC coverage on Fox? (Not to mention the MSM, but then I’m not quite that naive.)
I’m truly impressed with Breitbart News that they pulled this off–right in the teeth of CPAC. Thanks to them–and despite the best efforts of Norquist, Khan and their lackeys–Mr. Spencer’s voice (and that of others) WAS heard. Nice going, Breitbart News–and thank you!
Robert, thanks soo much for what you are doing. You are truly extraordinary and fearless.
If I may, here is a link to my small contribution to the cause of waking people up to this islamic threat. It’s a song called ‘Taqiyya Dance’:
p.s. Robert, if you’d prefer that I don’t post this link for my song again, please let me know. I just want to share what I’ve done in hopes that it will help. Thanks again.
Very well done, Robert, as always. Straight shootin’, with what needs to be said.
And appreciation to Breitbart, for pulling it out of the fire, for America’s benefit. Only wish it were front page on every paper…….
So pleased you speak for us, and so consistently well.
Well….this panel is ALWAYS welcomed (and invited) in my home.
“Why are we not on the big stage front and center?”
Because the panel is not made up of cowards.
The panel is not afraid of the TRUTH.
The panel has facts that their opponents can’t explain away.
This panel has facts that expose their opponents for what they really are – evil.
If you hate genocide – you’ll love the truth.
If you hate rape – you’ll love the truth.
The opponents of this panel are exposed with these facts.
That is why this panel is not “Front and center”.
For the ignorant: If you sit with rapists and murderers…you are one. And “ignorance of the law” is no excuse – especially when it comes to Islam’s laws – which these days – is a hot topic – thereby, leaving all of you supporters of it – without excuse.
Again, the problem is not the Republicans or the Democrats, not the conservatives or the (unclassical) liberals.
Any one of those four somewhat illiterately distinguishable positions ordinarily would have nothing within their sociopolitical essence preventing them from thinking, and acting upon, a condemnation of Islam.
Something else has entered into the equation: a fashion of thought, Politically Correct Multi-Culturalism (PC MC), which has affected, and infected most people in the West on all points of the sociopolitical spectrum.
According to PC MC, one cannot criticize Islam too much, for fear of incurring the charge of “bigotry” or, Allah forbid, “racism”. And since, according to the aegis of that same PC MC — which has become dominant and mainstream throughout the West in the last 60-odd years, the imputation of “bigotry” or “racism” (often unjustly imputed) is itself the worst Thought Crime.
Thus, Muslims comes along — deemed to be an “Ethnic Minority” (or a wonderful tapestry of ethnic minorities) — and so, any excessive criticism of Muslims — or even any excessing noticing of the horriblly anti-liberal atrocities they are perpetrating around the world — becomes verboten, and the one calling attention to his a persona non grata.
Damn Allah again: another typo:
“…the one calling attention to his…”
of course, should be:
“…the one calling attention to this…”
Congratulations! Well spoken and well backed up with research.
A little disturbing to me that there were not many more cheers, even in that room, for what you were saying. I guess politics doth make cowards of us all.
And neither Robert or Pam needed a teleprompter, or even notes…Straight forward talk is something dhimmi’s like the SF board of supervisors guy complaining about Pams ads, can’t understand…Some CPAC conservatives understand it, but don’t want to hear it…I think Lemonlime is right, PC MC has infected many…Like Dajjal, they are blind in one eye and don’t see well out of the other one…
My students in Current Events Class will be watching this video.
I agree with you on the nature of a democratic republic and the need to avoid the tyranny of the majority, however I don’t think I have engaged in moral equivalency because I never purported to condone the social order mandated in Egypt via implementation of sharia. Exactly the opposite. I have expressed that sharia violates human and civil rights.
If those fanatic barbarians in the MB, having attained power, under a colorable claim to democratic process, now wish to impose (by forceful or manipulative peaceful means) their inhumane mores upon society I do not think the US is justified in interfering with force. My position that the US should not intervene with force is not the equivalent of condoning the Egyptian form of democracy as if it were on a par with non-sharia government.
As far as your position that the US was morally justified in raping Vietnam, I believe you are in a small minority. A very small minority. In any case, there’s no point in arguing with you about that or other US involvements and how they compare to any intimidation tactics of the MB. I simply hope you concur that there is currently no justification for intervening (especially by force) in domestic Egyptian politics.
However, consistent with my prior post, if Egypt were to attack or aid and abet a serious attack on Israel then I would be in favor of bombing a few power plants, war meteriel mfg and storage locations , and a government building or two…for starters.
This is sickening, SICKENING.
Havwe been trying to get Mr Spencer and Ms Geller and others to speak here in Humboldt County and being met with EXTREME opposition in both liberal and conservative vlocks,.maybe I’m not calling the right folks but this “the uninvited” is sick and possibly shows there are ulterior motives to getting blackballed here. Gads this is harder than i thought.
Conservatives are buying into the koolaid islam want to see them alive and work with them!
And to continue the lifeguard analogy…
the lifeguard [i.e., the Western powers] has to realize that some of the “drowning” people in question are
(a) actually deliberately trying to set him up and pull him under and drown him;
(b) uncooperative to the point of resisting being saved, thereby wasting his time and resources and putting him at risk;
(c) too big and/or too numerous to be saved.
In light of these realities, the lifeguard seriously has to assess the situation, and prioritize, focusing on helping those who want to be saved and who will cooperate, a manageable number in his own immediate territory, i.e., the West. Once the West is safely secured and regains its strength, it can then consider taking over Islamic countries and ensuring that sharia is abolished.
Am I optimistic that the West will even be able to save itself? No; the trends in the direction of the end of Western civilization are too strong and too numerous and unopposed. 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.
“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.”
Aye, it’s free men against Islam the Colossus.
Well said, Kinana and Stendec.
We’ve REALLY got to educate the kids, they will be dealing with this when Islam is even stronger.
An error as bad as — if not worse than — failing to identify one’s enemy, is the error of mistaking a friend for a foe. Only a tiny minority of Westerners are consciously and willfully in league with our Muslim enemies. To expand that tiny minority by mistaking mental and emotional confusion for willful collusion is to commit a grave error that can only make matters, already in dire straits, even worse.
Too many in the Counter-Jihad have no mental or psychological outlet for their explanatory frustration: They see behavior all around them (particularly among “Elites” with whom in comparison they feel powerless) that ostensibly resembles collusion, then briefly they scratch their heads in needless bafflement, then with alacrity reach for the Conspiracy Explanation, glibly and with reckless irresponsibility tarring innumerable fellow Westerners (the Fatter the Cats the more they lick the saliva dripping from their chops in imaginative anticipation) with the charge of effective sedition.
There is, however, another explanation for this ostensible collusion; but to fully appreciate it, one would have to get out once in a blue moon.
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!!
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…
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.
“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.
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.
“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.
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.
“…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.
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.
‘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 naÃ¯ve 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:
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.
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?
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Notify me of follow-up comments by email.
Notify me of new posts by email.
Contact Jihad Watch
Spambot blocker question
8 - 7 =
Articles at Jihad Watch by