Copy of Letter sent to Daily Telegraph in London

Sir: As sincere as I believe the condemnation of terrorism by the head of the Muslim Council of Britain, Sir Iqbal Sacranie, during the London Vigil of Thursday, he does his religion no favours by selectively quoting from the Koran. He quotes "... if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people".

This verse was was plagiarised from the Talmud and modified in the Koran to apply only to Jews (The Children of Israel). Here is the entire koranic verse:

5:32 "On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our messengers with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land."

If Sir Iqbal were to have continued on to the next verse: Chapter 5 verse 33, the Trafalgar Square crowd would have been enlightened with the following: "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter"

Altogether quite a different message.

Yours faithfully

Sebastien Wolf

Posted by: Sebastien at July 15, 2005 9:44 AM

Diana West is right about multicultie leftism being the suicide of the West, but I refuse to see "Messianic" as a term of abuse. Since "M'shiach" is Hebrew for "Anointed", and "Christos" is the Greek word for the same, "Messianic" is properly anyone who is a Christian.

Multicultural relativism runs amuck and disarms the West in the face of mortal danger only because three generations of Western elites have made the jettisoning of Christianity a rite of passage. They are only finding now, to their own dismay, that they have nothing with which they can rally the troops--unless, perhaps, a new, more savage, Godless, and vicious generation is bought with promises of a share in the oil wealth to be had after a conquest of the Islamic world and a general slaughter of its inhabitants (a prospect at which I cringe).

The Furor Islamicus will not be successfully met without a re-Christianization of the West--or the Christianization of other non-Islamic lands. But that depends on the mercy of God, not on my agitation.

Posted by: Kepha at July 15, 2005 9:53 AM

Yeah, they only want us, our children and our way of life dead. That is a rather simple concept to understand, about at simple as their actions of being able to hijack airliners with box cutters or walking into an ice cream parlor in Tel Aviv and detonating. Remember the recent furor over the bodies hanging from that bridge in fallujah? Well I can still see in my mind the picture of those palestinians flashing their bloody hands out a window after butchering a couple of Israelis that wandered into the wrong part of town. Pretty simple thing to rush enmasse into a jail, drag out a couple of guys and go to work with knives. We make it so complicated and we seem to ignore the hard lessons and tactics learned by little Israel that has endured for 57 years repeated onslaughts much worse than the London and Madrid bombings - endured and survived and even grown and reasonably prospered at that.

Posted by: goesh at July 15, 2005 10:16 AM

The multicultural agenda is as destructive and criminal as any of the totalitarian schemes ever hatched in modern history.

This one however, is far more sinister in that it seeks the target populations to become willing actors in their own spiritual, cultural and finally racial extinction.

To convince the population that opposition to an invasion is morally wrong is sheer psychological brilliance.

Plainly put, multiculturalism is the means for destroying European identity and heritage, while simultaneously replacing it with a third world and most dangerously, Islamic influences.

Notice how multiculturalism does not apply to immigrant groups. They, are the benefactors of a forced, artificially imposed tolerance, not grounded in merit or in earned respect as individuals, but as a group of 'untouchables, a new European caste based on their pigmentation only.

These untouchables, Moslems and minorities are not expected in ANY way to change their culture to conform to British standards. Britain, rather, must surrender its culture to accommodate its esteemed guests, often ignoring such practices as female genital mutilations, French Algerian/Moroccan gang rapes, and huge groups of Moslems occupying the middle of the streets during Friday prayer session calling for their hosts death and finally, school teachers and teenager British-born Moslem suicide bombers.

What will it take to understand this is a civilizational struggle, fought in our time and happening right before our eyes under the ideology and propaganda of multiculturalism?

We must smash multiculturism and the Islamic menace it nurtures, if we are to ever regain our sanity as a civilization. The ways to do this are too complex to get into in this post but we must begin by organizing a legitimate electoral base. Since multiculturalism is rammed down our throats by laws, we must insist various laws be reviewed and undone and the most obvious place to begin is with immigration.

Posted by: Anthony at July 15, 2005 10:24 AM

Oh no! Former North Carolina State Chemist cooks bombs for freedom fighters! Well? What freedom fighting insurgent driven to such drastic actions by the oppressive Western Christians and Jews wouldn't take advantage of the infidel's PELL and CAP grants? Are they dumb? Gimme' a break here! I hope he gets prosecuted for defaulting on his student loans! By God! that'll fix him!

Posted by: goesh at July 15, 2005 10:30 AM

Muslims comprise a large group of people who are inflicted with the 'herd instinct', they stick together. If not by choice, by force and threat.
The Quran/Hadiths and the Prophet provide the glue that holds them together...but in this process, freedom is lost...submission to Allah, is slavery ,Abdallah...slave to Allah...The only freedom allowed is to obey Allah and the Prophet Mohammad no matter what, as described, stated, and ordered, in their holy(?) books. And of course their decendents, the Mullah's , Imams, and Ayatollahs of today. Muslims have accepted this form of slavery for so long they think it is normal. Freedom is what is abnormal, dangerous, and needs to be destroyed, because it allows for all kinds of sinful behaviors that Allah/Islam cant stand. Slavery oppresses the human spirit...
Slavery is an unnatural condition for humans, and most humans will either resist it, or give up and resign themselves to it. Dhimmitude is an example of resigning to it...So far many in the west, leftists and PC champions especially, have failed to recognise the extent of the motivations of Islam/terrorists/jihadists.
Maybe Diana West is on to something...

Posted by: duh_swami at July 15, 2005 10:50 AM

My sister-in-law is a social-studies teacher in the US public school system. As is typical of those in the teaching profession, she is quite liberal. She occasionally attends seminars run by Muslim advocacy groups on how to teach Islam to American students...and often comes away absolutely giddy about how wonderful Islam really is and how the rest of us have it all wrong.

The last time I talked to her about it, she parroted the standard canards promulgated by the dawists....that "Islam is not a monolith, it is very diverse"...that "Islam is against suicide bombing", and that "female genital mutilation and honor killings are 'cultural,' and cannot be blamed on religion."

I patiently explained to her that yes, Islam IS diverse insofar as 1.2 billion Muslims encompass the global ummah. Muslims in northern Nigeria for example, speak a different language, dress differently and eat different food than the Muslims of say, northwest Pakistan. But I was absolutely clear in conveying that the hudud punishments of Sharia, the stonings of accused adultresses, the amputations, the killing of apostates...are IDENTICAL in both regions.

As far as suicide bombings go, I asked her if any of the Dawa specialists teaching at her seminar were Muslim clerics. She said no. I then informed her that the Grand Mufti of Cairo, the closest thing to a Pope that there is in the Sunni Muslim world, has publicly endorsed suicide-bombing in Israel as "a legitimate expression of jihad."

Then we moved on to female genital mutilation, where I explained that in 1993 the scholars of Al Azhar, the most prestigious institute for higher learning in the Muslim world, issued a ruling that female 'circumcision' was "in full accord with Islamic teaching." Attempts to de-couple FGM from Islamic theology are obviously disingenuous.

Finally, I asked her why, if Islam is not just a religion but "a way of life" as so many Muslims proudly proclaim, should the phenomenon of honor killings be disassociated from the religion itself; why, if Islam is to be credited for the positive facets of its culture (such as low-crime rates for example), should it be automatically exonerated from the negative? The many strictures found in the Quran and the Hadith denigrating women and relegating them to second-class citizenship (and I will site them one by one if challenged) certainly contribute to a societal motif where a phenomenon like honor killings can thrive.

My sister-in-law was somewhat deflated after our conversation, intimidated by my familiarity with Islamic history and theology and conceeding that my arguments had coherence. Our conversation is an example of exactly what it takes folks...a daily effort to educate Muslims and non-Muslims alike about the realities of Islamic intolerance.

Posted by: Cornelius at July 15, 2005 11:37 AM

Everyday we hear of muzis gaining ground demographically and otherwise into western lands.

Where are the stories of the reverse happening? i.e. of the more rational and spiritual among muzis leaving islam? I'm sure they exist and in good numbers too. Unless their efforts are encouraged, how do we break this demographic time bomb?

Posted by: voletti at July 15, 2005 11:47 AM

Re "moderate enablers": Dr. Zaki Badawi, the acknowleged voice of moderate Islam in the U.K. (he's even supped at the palace with the Queen), was denied entry this week to the U.S. No reason has been given for sending him packing. Perhaps it was a gross overreaction to last week's events in London; maybe there was no good reason and it was foolish not to let this voice of moderation speak his moderate views in America. I find it interesting though, that even this moderate imam would be so blind to the facets of his faith that give rise to "terrorism". Here, for example, is part of what Dr. Badawi wrote in the Times of London following 9/11:

"The world at large, including the Muslim world, is in danger of sinking deeper into tribalism with all the savagery which we witness in so many parts of the globe. The modern world, having downgraded spiritual values and put in their place materialism and hedonistic interests, is creating a culture without clear and reasonably stable rules of conduct. Individuals as well as societies have their inner peace troubled and have thus given way to aggression against the other.

No society is immune from violence. The worst type of which is that which dons the garb of religion. The invocation of religion often aims at giving respectability to despicable objectives. There may be a good reason to employ violence to eradicate the perpetrators of atrocities, but it is prudent to look deeper into the prevalence of brutality to discover the source of its seed and the environment which gives it nourishment. It is erroneous to fix our gaze on so-called religious fanaticism. True, we cannot dismiss its effect totally, but it may prove to be a minor player in the multiplicity of economic, political and social factors."

However moderate he is, he doesn't sound like he has a handle on the situation, and is looking to blame everyone and everything EXCEPT his religion.

Posted by: scaramouoche at July 15, 2005 11:49 AM

The process of organizing a 'legitimate' electoral base begins with information outreach.

Politicians are still as reticent to tackle the 'Islam in America' issue as they are the illegal immigration problem.

Dianna West's fine article was published in a newspaper of somewhat limited readership. That's a start.

News broadcasts, even the most liberal among them, are beginning to address Islam in the London bombings--because, I suspect, they know the public is wising up to their past obfuscations. That's even better.

The minutemen project on our Southern border got good coverage this past spring, with several other events upcoming. Such an 'Islam Awareness' event would be great. But is the time right to begin organizing such an event for our purposes?

So, how about a simple, but large scale email/fax campaign aimed at those politicians who are supposedly representing us, the writer's who represent our side, and the news outlets that are beginning to 'get it'.

Metaxy had an interesting idea the other day, that I had been thinking about for some time, too. I believe Hugh mentioned something similar.

Produce a concise brochure addressing the history of Islam, the problem it poses for Western societies, etc., that can be sent, or made available for any and all to have and read.

With an eye toward countering our national multicultural mindset, and to get 'Joe Six Pack's' attention, title it something like:

Ten Things Your Muslim Neighbor Isn't Telling You.

This document could be put together as a PDF, and posted somewhere. Plus, it could be sent to politicians, writer's like Dianne West, Newspapers, etc.

Any thoughts?

Posted by: PRCS at July 15, 2005 12:05 PM

Cornelius,
As Catherine would say, "you get the gold star for the day". Kudos to you my man.

As regards to West's article:
"...without its fanatics who believe all civilizations are the same — the engine that projects Islam into the unprotected heart of Western civilization would stall and fail. It's as simple as that. "

Do you understand that KF? You are part of the problem! I hope your proud of your self for trying to kill off the greatest civilization that ever existed. No doubt you are sincere in your beliefs, but that doesn't change the fact that you are fatally wrong and inadvertently trying to take us done with you. Well I and the majority of the posters here won't have it, so be gone with you, you are not welcome at this site.

Posted by: William The Crusader at July 15, 2005 12:07 PM

Notable and quotable:

This entry at my website talks about an article, "The Key to Jihadist Ideology and Strategy", by Lawrence Auster. It is EXTREMEMLY enlightening when trying to untangle the Chameleon of Islam. To summarize: The Entire life of mohammed (PTUI) is seen, not as a single template for behavior, but a set of templates, where any specific template is chosen based on the circumstances. Where Islam is weak, the early part of Mohammed's (PTUI) life is used. Where Islam is stronger, but still fighting the Infidel, the middle part of his life is followed. Where Islam has conquered, then the latter part of his life is emulated. It's a big con game: they can point to one PART of Mohammed's life and protest that THAT is Islam, while hoping you don't notice that they are following a DIFFERENT part of Mohammed's life as they speak. The Con works because Judaism and Christianity usually have only ONE template to apply (The Torah for the former, and Christ's life for the latter). The Torah is a fixed and finite document, and the record of Jesus' life, despite being written from different views and thus differing from each other in details, is so consistently peaceful and non-violent in itself that in "Carnage and Culture", Hanson himself blames Christianity, not for creating a huge invincible war machine, but the prime source for DISMANTLING it, and the prime advocate for not creating one. It is a mistake to think that Islam takes the Koran as the sole source of teaching and authority: it is the SUPREME source, but there are a number of secondary historical works containing commentary that is followed as faithfully and passionately as the Koran. In this sense, it is like the PreReformation catholic church, which pushed "the writings of the fathers," and Tradition as authoritative sources for interpreting the Bible. Don't be fooled by the "peaceful" Muslim: He'll not only switch templates on you the moment the situation changes, but will justify the switch as being fully Islamic. And he'd be right, because MOHAMMED (PTUI), did EXACTLY what he had just done.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=14660

Posted by: dennisw at July 15, 2005 12:13 PM

Cornelius, you have made my day, and everybody's day. It's the only way. Unprogram her, send her to the websites of ex-Muslims: www.faithfreedom.org, www.secularislam.org. Give her the book "Leaving Islam" full of the testimonies of former Muslims. Let her read what Azam Kamguian (just google) and Ayaan Hirsi Ali have to say about Islam. Find the Ibn Warraq article on Islam and Fascism (google "Ibn Warraq" and "Islam" and "Fascism"). Do everything you can to make her understand what it is all about. Explain what are in the Hadith and Sira -- let her find out about what Muhammad did. And go on from there. Keep it up. Don't stop. It is like saving a soul. No, it is saving a soul, and saving more than that at the same time.

Posted by: Hugh at July 15, 2005 12:14 PM

Diana West, you rock. Awesome article.

Posted by: angry_kafir at July 15, 2005 12:38 PM

This article is the biggest piece of gloom and doom shit I've read in a while! Multiculturalism does not mean "Accept all people who are trying to kill us." It means "Know who the enemies are and who the enemies are not." That's the big difference.

If you poll self reported multiculturalists, I am quite certain without resorting to the mathematic spin I often see on this site, that 100% of them would wish to do away with those elements that are radical, violent and incompatible with society. All of them, Islamists included. Multiculturalists would also want to know what makes those people tick and how they can be stopped before resorting to terrorism. It is called pragmatism, realpolitick's counterpart.

Those who want Islam terminated are equally as dangerous as those who wish to do ill in the name of Islam. It took a multiculturalist to point this out to you. How ironic.

Posted by: KingTolerance at July 15, 2005 12:38 PM

King Fool. Read my post above.

Posted by: William The Crusader at July 15, 2005 12:52 PM

Multiculturalism does not mean "Accept all people who are trying to kill us."



No King JerkOff. That's exactly what it means sometimes. Other times it can mean that
Merit Scholarships are terminated at the University of California because only
Asians and whites were qualifying. Not enough minorities, balcks, Indians,
Hispanics were getting these ***MERIT*** Scholarships

___________________________

UC Quits National Merit Program

By Stuart Silverstein, Times Staff Writer

The University of California announced Wednesday that its campuses will stop
participating in the National Merit Scholarship program, contending that the
annual competition doesn't fairly assess academic talent.



The decision means that the six campuses that had been funding scholarships of
up to $2,000 a year for National Merit finalists will channel the money into
other student awards, starting with the fall 2006 freshman class.

The move is considered a blow to the 50-year-old National Merit program,
which is partly funded by campuses and corporations. It annually names about
8,000 scholarship winners, many of whom are recruited as intensely as star
athletes by universities around the country.



UC officials faulted the National Merit program's reliance on the PSAT as the
initial screening filter for the 1.3 million high school juniors who take that
practice version of the SAT college entrance exam each year.



M.R.C. Greenwood, the UC system's provost, said during a telephone news
conference that UC bases its undergraduate admissions on a wide variety of
academic and personal accomplishments. By contrast, Greenwood said, "The
National Merit Scholarship program uses the score on the PSAT to eliminate the
vast majority of students from further consideration in their process. This
particular procedure of theirs is just not consistent with our own academic
principles and policies."



Last year, National Merit scholarships funded by UC campuses went to 618
students and amounted to $735,000. UC officials emphasized that undergraduates
already chosen for the system's National Merit scholarships will continue to
receive them for a full four years.



Pulling out of the program are UCLA, along with the UC campuses in Irvine, San
Diego, Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz and Davis. UC Berkeley dropped out three
years ago, and the two remaining UC campuses with undergraduate programs,
Riverside and Merced, never participated.



Greenwood emphasized that the National Merit awards represented only a small
portion of the merit scholarships granted throughout the UC system. In all, UC
campuses provide scholarships based on academic merit to 16,700 undergraduates
at a cost of $62 million annually.



The action by the UC campuses follows a 17-0 vote by UC faculty leaders late
last month recommending withdrawal from the program. Along with faulting the
reliance on the PSAT, faculty leaders noted that Latinos, African Americans
and Native Americans accounted for only 3.2% of UC's National Merit
scholarship winners; those groups make up about 19% of all UC undergraduates
who receive any type of merit scholarships.



UCLA Chancellor Albert Carnesale said some UC chancellors initially might have
harbored concerns that, if they scrapped the National Merit program, they
would lose out on talented students and be punished in the rankings published
by such magazines as U.S. News & World Report. He called the decision
"another move in the direction of doing what you think makes the most
sense rather than be concerned about what it will mean for the rankings."



Elaine S. Detweiler, a spokeswoman for the nonprofit National Merit
Scholarship Corp. in Evanston, Ill., dismissed speculation by Carnesale and
other academics that some of the 200 other participating universities might
follow UC's path. Detweiler called the PSAT "the most equitable way"
to identify academically talented students from around the country, noting
that the same exam is given to students at 22,000 high schools in all 50
states.



"We regret that finalists in the extremely competitive National Merit
program who may wish to attend a UC campus will no longer have the opportunity
to earn a Merit Scholarship sponsored by the university and, more importantly,
receive the recognition for academic excellence that accompanies a Merit
Scholarship," she said.



Other defenders of the National Merit program, including other universities
that actively recruit the winners and the winning students themselves, say it
remains a helpful way to identify talented candidates even if the selection
process is flawed. Some have pointed out, for example, that students are less
likely to have taken test preparation courses before the PSAT than before the
SAT.

Posted by: dennisw at July 15, 2005 12:59 PM

PRCS-
I think that is a GREAT idea. I just put together a package for my new assemblyman regarding hate speech in California mosques from Freedom House, the connection to Saudi funding, and religious (R1) worker visas. After the Lodi Iman debacle, I'm hoping this hits home.

If you want help developing such a brochure, I'd be willing to help.

A copy should be sent to every member of Congress.

What about a t-shirt that says
Is Islam really (italics) the religion of peace?
On the back www.jihadwatch.com

Posted by: treehugger at July 15, 2005 1:31 PM

If England passes this religion 'bad mouthing' crime bill, and Diana had mentioned any of those Muslim leaders who spew their hatred of Infidels, I believe this would well qualify as hate crime.

goeshe wrote...but in this process, freedom is lost...submission to Allah, is slavery ,Abdallah...slave to Allah...

I have read some about this concept. Allah is master, and the Muslim is his loyal slave. It is also reflects that Muslims look at it a chain, with them having their own slaves. There are so many things that the West just assumes everyone agress on, but not Islam. Slavery is Okey Dokey as long as they are the top slave, i.e. the Slavemaster. Got it!

Posted by: reset at July 15, 2005 1:35 PM

....This particular procedure of theirs is just not consistent with our own academic
principles and policies."...

That's some good taquiyya. Careful, you could get drunk on that stuff.

Posted by: reset at July 15, 2005 1:42 PM

First of all, thank you Hugh and William the Crusader for your kind remarks.

King Tolerance, I'm struck by the extent of your naivetay. You write:

"If you poll self reported multiculturalists, I am quite certain without resorting to the mathematic spin I often see on this site, that 100% of them would wish to do away with those elements that are radical, violent and incompatible with society. All of them, Islamists included."

Do you honestly think that including "Islamists" (not to be confused with the average Muslim) in your poll of 100% makes any sense whatsoever? Religious fundamentalists (i.e., Islamists) are precisely the radicals who are incompatible with a secular, multicultural society. You're suggesting that Islamists would gladly vote to ban themselves.

What planet do you live on?

Posted by: Cornelius at July 15, 2005 1:54 PM

scaramouche said... is looking to blame everyone and everything EXCEPT his religion. ..

Exactly, it's not Islam, it's a blight on all religions. It's not Islam's fault, it's a shared blame. Not only that, there was subtle dawaah in his lamenting that the West '...having downgraded spiritual values and put in their place materialism and hedonistic interests.'' Come Islam is calling to save you from this. Then he adds '..is creating a culture without clear and reasonably stable rules of conduct.'

What does that mean Igbal? The West is at fault for these Islamic terrorist attacks. Ah so grasshopper. I thought the Muslim suicide bomber had broken the 'rules of conduct.' So glad, master, that you have enlightened me.

Man, some of the best taquiyya going. And those Brits (the ignorant ones, including Imam Blair and Police Mufti Blair), eat it up. Time for lunch!

Posted by: reset at July 15, 2005 1:58 PM

Excellent, excellent article! Anti-multiculturalism is becoming mainstream. Better notify someone that lib’ral tolerant multiculturists needs to be added to the endangered species list.

Posted by: Cross at July 15, 2005 2:03 PM

Archduke of Marmalade said, "Multiculturists would like to know what makes these people tick..."

That's the definition of the problem and the point of the article. Twaddle around looking for justification within a cultural setting instead of admitting that the oil of Islam doesn't mix with the water of the rest of the world even if it is as obvious as the gorilla in the parlor. Tut, tut it's must be okay, it's just a different culture whose tenants call for your eradication, nothing to worry about, just understand.

Claptrap!

Posted by: QuickHenryTheFlit at July 15, 2005 2:17 PM

One major flaw with this article: not one mention of Leftism or liberalism.

To criticize multiculturalism and never mention Leftism is like criticizing "terrorism" and never mentioning Islam.

Just as Islam is the incubator and nourishing soil from which terrorism grows, so is Leftism the incubator and nourishing soil from which multiculturalism grows.

Hugh Fitzgerald, Robert Spencer, Rebecca Bynum, others at Jihadwatch, and now Diana West have been ignoring this "second elephant" in the room (Leftism) too long. Yes, they've adverted to it here and there in limp-wristed or baffled language, but consistently they have been ignoring this Second Elephant as the large, robust elephant that it is.

Posted by: metaxy at July 15, 2005 2:25 PM

I'm well into my second year here of writing almost daily, but I think I can sum up my general thesis thus: We will win this struggle in our neighbourhoods and communities by talking to our neighbours and community members in person about the nature of the threat of Islam to the world at large, and to our lives in particular.

I suggest we do not bother writing letters to newspapers and congressmen and M.P.s and the like but rather that we sit with the folks next door and talk to them about what we know ourselves about Islam.

I urge that we leaflet within our communities, pass out flyers and handbills, and that we organize our friends at coffee bars and small public venues where we can meet in small groups to talk over the nature of the threat among friends. We are more likely to convince a friend of our position than we are to change the world by writing a letter to the NYT. When ten people quit buying the NYT and ten people threaten to vote for someone other than the sitting member, people begin to pay atention. When people see a leaflet passed among friends they'll want one too. They'll want to join you for coffee if only to prove you wrong in public.

Is it possible? Can we actually create leaflets? Well, yes. Susan P. has been covering a large part of the southern United States for nearly a year passing out leaflets we've created here among our friends. Anne has done the same with leaflets and a sticker: "No Dhimmitude." Susan P. has bumperstickers. People from Florida to Indiana, from Portsmouth to Douglas have written to me asking to find out more.

We've created leaflets, we've had conferences through the Internet, we've set up further web-sites, we've begun the work of changing the emotional fabric of the West. But we are not even close because we fail to do some fundamental and essential things:

We must combine our activities through a central organizing committee so we can remained focused and become professional as organizers within our neighbourhoods and communities. Single people doing random agitation doesn't get us far enough. We need planned action within a co-ordinated committee. [search "jihadwatch PACC.]

We mustn't refer to ourselves as kafirs. We are not 'anti-jihadis' or 'anti- this or that.' We are revolutionaries. We are the heirs of the three revolutions that created the modern world the fascist of Islam and dhimmitudist in the West are trying to destroy: We are heirs and propagators of Modernity, of the American, French, and Industrial Revolutions.

When we discuss the threat of Islam in the modern world we aren't debating the relative benefits of Islam but the nature of fascism. We aren't passing out leaflets as kafirs and anti-jihadists but as revolutionaries determinid to spread the modernity of our revolutions to the rest of the world.

It is the Moslem world that is reactionary, backward-looking, death-worshipping, mysogynist, hate-filled, anti-modern, and anti everything we take for granted as our birth-right as free Human beings. We are revolutionaries in a sea of hungry cannibal fascists.

We are not cohesive in our beliefs. KJ, Kepha, and even that smarmy King Tut-Tut do have something in common, and that is a sense that Modernity is preferable to reaction and fascism. We can't all work together on the same platform. But we can create our own sub-committees under an umbrella of PACC. Not "Vegetarian liberals against bad stuff" trying to unite politically with rock-like Christians and preening poseurs but within our own groups of like-minded Modernists united under the banner of the Phase-Shift symbol united in aim if not in goal, we can find our own mates and work with them in conjunction with others unlike ourselves politically.

If we plan our actions rather than spin off in all confused directions solo, and if we can are co-ordinated so we pull in roughly the same direction together at the same time, and if we work as a general committee, then we will have success.

We can begin by starting Jihadwatch study groups, printing out a few pages of Spencer's books for mates at a coffee bar to discuss once a week.

We can report here on our progress, which we've successfully done before. We can raise again new sites for discussion of details and organizing tips. Maybe it's still too early in the game, and no one will follow through just yet. Or maybe it is time, and this time we might be organized to the point of real success. If not now, and if not you, then we'll continue and try over and over till it does work-- or until we're all bowing down before our Moslem masters.

Posted by: sonofwalker at July 15, 2005 2:45 PM

King Tolerance, I'm struck by the extent of your naivetay.
What planet do you live on?
Posted by: Cornelius

Im guessing, Uranus?

Posted by: Bar at July 15, 2005 2:49 PM

Re: the King Tolerance dispute above.

It's simple:

"multiculturalism" means the following:

when a security guard or policeman or concerned citizen sees what they reasonably (albeit sometimes imperfectly since we are imperfect human beings in an imperfect world) assume to be Muslim man or woman with a large backpack or bulky bag or incongruently bulky clothes walk into a mall or train station or office building -- the security guard or policeman or concerned citizen will not go up to that Muslim man or woman and stop them and say "what are you doing? what's in your bag? can I see some ID?" -- for fear of offending the Muslim and making them feel unCOMfortable, and for fear of being called a racist and being sued or arrested for a hate crime.

Thus, this stupid side of multiculturalism is irrational and will result in the needless mass-murder of innocent civilians, many times over the next few years, until people finally reassess and rationalize the problem.

(And the sociopolitical incubator for this multiculturalism is Leftism.)

Posted by: metaxy at July 15, 2005 3:28 PM

metaxy,

Take a moment, if you will, and review my post, treehugger's response, and the post by sonofwalker, above.

I have long thought about a brochure, perhaps something similar to the one you suggested the other day, as a means of promulgating straight forward, concise, and IRREFUTABLE info for widespread public consumption.

I like a title along the lines of 'Ten Things Your Muslim Neighbor Isn't Telling You'. You obviously have your own, possibly better goals. Treehugger is interested in something similar.

sonofwalker has a vaguely similar thought, in leafletting I believe (but what should the leaflett say, could it be a brochure?, etc.)

I already have the flyers he mentioned and business cards similar to Susanp's that I place at the public library, public events, etc.

Can we all get on board with this and bang heads?

Posted by: PRCS at July 15, 2005 3:41 PM

sonofwalker,

I'll pass for now on the election committe you've suggested. Not comfortable there at this time.

Enlighten me, here. Do you feel that sending a well-prepared brochure or pamphlet to elected officials would be wasted time? I must confess, that I have received not one single response from my own politicians (but I haven't sent any really well-researched, informative documents to them). I agree with much of your post, but am more the leaflet 'bomber' type of person.

Posted by: PRCS at July 15, 2005 3:54 PM

PRCS,

I'd be willing to get together to brainstorm something to do.

However, I have the following reservations and/or needs:

1) I'm on board for a small brochure or booklet, but not for a leaflet (I don't have anything against leafletting, except that the format is too short, so I'll leave that up to others)

2) The brochure or booklet has to look good. Thus, it has to at the very least be printed out using one of those self-publishing softwares, with color printing, good paper, and an attractive professional-looking cover. Without good looks, too many people will be more likely to dismiss it as a cranky right-wing fanatical agit-prop. Unfortunately, I can't contribute to this angle of the project at all -- no money, no equipment, no computer knowledge.

3) I would want the brochure/booklet to reflect the outline I provided before, which you mentioned. I'm willing to brainstorm about the content and format with others -- but one crucial factor is that it has to be BRIEF and CONCISE, but not TOO concise (that's why I don't like leaflets).

4) Most of the content I proposed in my outline will require facts which I do not have at my fingertips, but which, evidently, many folks here at Jihadwatch do have at their fingertips on file (Catherine, Hugh, Rebecca, Robert, etc.). Should I expend dozens of hours of my own time researching this content, when Catherine, Hugh, Rebecca, Robert and others already have it, but for some reason decline to join our project?

5) Thus, I view my role in the project as the one who has conceived & organized the outline and format of the Booklet -- and I would leave the other roles up to others.

Posted by: metaxy at July 15, 2005 4:51 PM

You'll worry yourselves into inactivity long before you begin to do anything.

Let me know when you're serious.

Posted by: sonofwalker at July 15, 2005 5:05 PM

Folks-

I admit to a bias towards quantifiable objectives. I also think we would be more powerful as a united group, trying to get the many skeptics from many sites together and speaking as one.

That being said, a nicely done brochure with key points about Islam (e.g. apostacy penalities, and so forth) would still be worthwhile.
How about a discussion on content? Then ask Robert, Hugh, and Rebecca if they would be willing to contribute short blurbs for each. If not, there is a great deal of info available on JW. Split up the topics between several people, with editorial input from Robert, Rebecca, and Hugh. The writing workload would not be too great, and maybe a printable copy could be kept AT THIS WEBSITE, if Robert approved. Maybe send a copy to sites such as faithfreedom, etc?

I have a friend who does brochure layouts, and I could ask for her help on that end.

I think that it is VERY worthwhile to send a copy to your Congressmen. That would be my choice of first activity, try to cover each and every Congressman in the US, and the brochure would be mailed by an actual constitutent. We HAVE to try to educate our decisionmakers about Islam and itss pitfalls. Having further information sources included in the brochure would be very important, such as the Freedom House report.

Posted by: treehugger at July 15, 2005 6:30 PM

"To convince the population that opposition to an invasion is morally wrong is sheer psychological brilliance."

An 'irrational' fear of Islam, you are an Islamophobe!!!

Posted by: ia786 at July 15, 2005 6:36 PM

Metaxy-

When it comes to leftists, you better consider Oriana Fallaci and Christopher Hitchens (by no means small potatoes in the world of the left) and others who are in opposition to the Islamic tide. And where does good ole "Lemme hold the hand of this Saudi prince, since he wants to hold mine" Dubya fit into your equation??

We will ultimately kill the germinating, promising and thriving seed of anti-jihadism by falling on the sword of extinct political alliances.

ia76-

Why on earth do you bother to post here, since you add little to the dialogue, but only fall on tired old aphorisms?

Posted by: kafira at July 16, 2005 12:01 AM

kafira,

Fallaci and Hitchens are exquisitely rare exceptions that prove the overwhelming rule.
Pointing to Fallaci and Hitchens to prove that Leftists are not so bad is like pointing to the handful of Muslim apostates that exist as a way to say that Islam is not so bad.

I can understand Bush's constraints he has to follow due to Realpolitik, re: the Saudis. The main thing I fault him for is his failure to add more salt to his rhetoric. I wish he would say in his speeches that "Islam obviously has a profound problem and this problem is obviously contributing in various ways to increasingly global outbreaks of terrorism".

When I excoriate Leftists, I am not just criticizing a group of individuals, but also a sociopolitical dominance of PC idiocy affecting even many Republicans -- a dominance which Leftists and their immediate ancestors have achieved.

Posted by: metaxy at July 16, 2005 1:50 AM

An 'irrational' fear of Islam, you are an Islamophobe!!!
Posted by: ia78

Actually any fear of Islam is justified. Islam is the cause of Islamic Terrorism, and is a clear and present danger to all civilized societies.

Posted by: skidd at July 16, 2005 3:08 AM

So many here willing to accept that Islam is a mortal threat to the immediate future of the West and yet still construe anyone proposing real solutions as racists.

That must well please Moslems, who are not shackled by our empty “multicultural celebration” of the nearly non-existent integration and assimilation of British immigrants.

Moslems operate according to the assumption that their privileged position in society (as a precursor to dhimmitude) will soon lead to them achieving the means to alter western societies forever, i.e., implement Islamic rule (shari’a) over YOU, while YOU (liberal) offer shelter and comfort to the ideology of liberalism and cult of multiculturism which is proving deadly, by reducing all arguments on the issue to (sniffle) “racism.”

And the many liberal leaning, wishy-washy fools here starting with “TooBad”, sit around the computer typing how tolerant they are (as if others are not) and how the BNP is evil, more evil it seems for their desire simply to have England back the way it way for thousands of years, than the criminal unjust laws created by the British government to FORCE an entire nation people living according to their traditional historic norms, into extinction.

As I've said above, just read the plight of the average British citizen living in Leeds, Bradford, Staines, Oldham, London, etc., etc., who post their daily experiences to the BNP website. Many who say that as normal citizens, they simply want something done about the theft of their country and the non-stop violence and danger their government has placed them in by the crazy unstoppable importation of minorities far in excess of what could be remotely considered sane immigration and humanitarian policies.

They also see that their culture and heritage and national identity is being systematically erased by daily multicultural propaganda and endless racial legislation designed to marginalize the majority white British population--THAT is the real crime and YOU sit around and complain that someone is worried about "the color of somebody’s skin," ignoring the fact that the overwhelming majority of minority immigration to the UK is Islamic, the very thing YOU are against.

Hypocrites!

That tells me many who profess to be defenders of the West are actually a part of the resistance against anti-multiculturalism (the engine of Islamism) and a clueless pawn of the Islamification and third worldizaition of the West.

Posted by: Anthony at July 16, 2005 3:32 AM