Thursday was 4 July 2019, the 832nd anniversary of the Battle of Hattin, arguably the most symbolic, if not the most fateful, of Christian follies, when the stage was set for the Kingdom of Jerusalem to lose the very city that gave it its proud name, and for jihad to subdue Christian mediaeval backwardness under the yoke of Islamic pre-medieval backwardness. The Crusaders had taken the Cross and by virtue of that fact alone, most believed themselves invincible. Considerations of practicalities such as water, terrain or supply lines, or indeed, Salah ad-Din’s battle plans, were secondary at best, blasphemous at worst. The Crusaders had God, but they lost. It was inconceivable to them that Salah ad-Din, too, had God, and by virtue of that fact alone, the Muslims, too, believed themselves invincible. Relying on God in war is truly a gamble in which the odds are even.
Eight hundred and thirty-two years later, the unholy trinity of the Occident is secular: the god of political correctness; the god of multiculturalism; the god of diversity. Different gods purportedly wielded against the same jihad, except this time straining to subdue modern Judeo-Christian enlightenment under the same Islamic pre-mediaeval backwardness with which it confronted the Crusaders. On this year’s 4 July, we find ourselves in the midst of transition from the jihad of incessant victimhood, incessant taking of offence and incessant demands for special treatment, to the jihad of violent attacks and brutal enforcement of Shari’a by any Muslim, whether obviously “fighting in the way of Allah” or not. The voices that have been warning of this for so long now face more than just shrill denunciations for the blasphemies of “racism”, “fascism”, “intolerance” and “Islamophobia,” and for the heresy of being “far-right.” In chilling enactment of George Orwell’s 1984, they are being erased, and all levels of society are complicit in their erasure. Exactly how bad things have to get before such voices are taken seriously remains to be seen.
Gut-feel and all evidence of what jihad has managed to get away with in the West so far, strongly suggest that these voices of warning and truth will never be listened to. It seems that some of what were once Western societies will be defending Islam even as all manifestations of Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Sikhism and all other religions are destroyed, even as all democracy and all freedoms are obliterated, even as slavery is reinstated (supremacists take lectures from no one – see the taqiyya in the CDHRI, Art. 11), even as young white girls are shipped off en mass for sale in the Islamic heartlands, even as those who refuse dhimmitude and those who have left Islam are rounded up and publicly beheaded or crucified, even as married women see their husbands murdered before their eyes and are themselves dragged off to be raped, as per Muhammad’s excellent example, they will still be insisting that Islam is a religion of peace, is just like any other religion, and that Muslims are victims who have to be protected from “Islamophobia”.
And what of the God that the Enlightenment had relegated to a personal choice? I disagree with my Christian friends that we find ourselves in this worsening madness because “we have abandoned God,” and must return to him if we are to save ourselves from jihad. We owe our freedom, our equality and our democracy to our ousting God from his throne and lodging him instead in the hearts of those who will have him. God as free choice is the greatest achievement of the Enlightenment and one of the foundation stones of individual autonomy. Christian ideologues such as Jamie Glazov seem not to realise that they argue directly against individual freedom when they seek to re-elevate God to a cosmic imperative. Glazov’s timely and revelatory book, Jihadist Psychopath, has few flaws, but they are serious flaws. While this is not a review of Jihadist Psychopath, it is relevant here to mention one of these flaws. Being careful to pay lip-service to atheists, Glazov nonetheless insists that without God, humans are nothing. The same idea resides in the universal Muslim refrains of insha-Allah, masha-Allah and Alhamdulillah — in essence a denial of individual autonomy as well as of cause and effect. Do not the perpetrators of jihad account for their own people’s troubles in exactly the same terms as Christian ideologues do? The ummah languishes in backwardness and misery in the face of infidel prowess, according to Qutb, Al-Banna, Maududi, Al-Qaradawi and others, precisely because Muslims have abandoned Islam and must return to it. Inter-religious squabbles over who has God and who hasn’t have always been the one-sided blindness on which religious exceptionalism, not to say arrogance, floundered. That way lies tragedy. Robert Spencer makes essentially the same point in The History of Jihad from Muhammad to ISIS, when discussing the schism between the Eastern and Western Christian churches, quoting Pope Urban V, “The Osmanlis are merely enemies, but the schismatic Greeks are worse than enemies.” This is how Jerusalem was lost 832 years ago. Let us put an end to such costly nonsense. This is not the time for Christians to be stoking turf wars with atheists.
Just to be absolutely clear, I am an atheist, as many readers here already know. Not only that, I think religion erodes our innate sense of ethics, and that faith can diminish our humanity. But I also accept that belief is a central component of the way many people’s heads work. That, in and of itself, does not make them bad people. My head, though, does not work in that way. I could not function if there were something that I had to accept without question. The problem before us right now is Islam and I do not care if someone leaves Islam to become a Bible-basher or a Hari-Krishna chanter or an atheist. All I care about right now is that as many Muslims as possible leave Islam, that we support the victims of Islam, wherever they are in the world, and that we roll back jihad, by whatever means necessary. Muslims are already raping our daughters and we are already complicit in their deeds. The situation is dire.
We are helpless in face of the jihad onslaught because we have abandoned ourselves. We are no longer the human beings that the Enlightenment created. We are not even the human beings who vowed to go on to the end, to fight in France, to fight on the seas and oceans, to fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, to defend our island, whatever the cost may be, to fight on the beaches, to fight on the landing grounds, to fight in the fields and in the streets, to fight in the hills; to never surrender. Where are those heroic people now? If they are still with us, it is perhaps the greatest tragedy that they will live to see that they have died for nothing.
We became complicit when we substituted political correctness and identity politics for our common human decency and respect for human life and human freedoms, as if what wasn’t broke needed fixing. We drank from the poisoned chalice of “groups” and “communities” having rights that supersede the rights of individuals and entitlements to protection over the protection of individuals. Britain’s Muslim rape gang crisis stems not solely from Islamic sanction of such behaviour and jihad insistence on it, but from those Muslims who would be inclined to rape finding themselves in the enabling environment created by multicultural Britain. It is both dishonest and dishonourable to refer to Muslim rape gangs as either “Asian” or “grooming gangs.” They are distinguished not by being “Asian” or even “Pakistani”. They are Muslim, and they rape because they are Muslim (anyone with a fully-functioning capacity for language will immediately recognise that this in no way implies anything about Muslims not involved in gang rape). These gangs exist not to groom, but to rape, the grooming being but a means to that end. It’s when the grooming is over that the Qur’an-sanctioned activity begins. If they could get there without the grooming, they would. It insults the victims of these rape gangs to suggest that they have merely been groomed. In 80s and 90s Britain, there was widespread fear of social workers who seized children from parents at the slightest sign of anything that could indicate child abuse. Now social workers aid and abet paedophilia. Then, the residents of entire council estates physically drove paedophiles from their houses. Now, they won’t touch them. Is that because the white paedophile rings of the 80s and 90s did not have a 1.6 billion-strong religion behind them? Is it because then, “racism” still meant “racism,” and those who knew they weren’t racist had no fear of those who would call them that?
It has been a small step from identity politics to so-called “oppressed and oppressor groups,” to “all whites are racist,” to the denial of Muslim women’s oppression, to infidels taking offence at critique of Islam, to our own schools indoctrinating our own children to favour an ideology intent on enslaving them, and of course, to denial of the Muslim rape gang crisis.
In London, the setting of 1984, on 4 July 2019, a trial opened in the Central Criminal Court of England and Wales, otherwise known as “the Old Bailey.” It was no ordinary trail, but one in which the British state, by means foul and fouler, once more attempted to turn an innocent man into a criminal, after having failed several times before. A farce played out behind a noble injunction carved in stone over the heads of all who enter upon that august place: Defend the Children of the Poor and Punish the Wrongdoers. The man on trial was Tommy Robinson, and he was on trial for doing exactly that: defending the children of the poor and attempting to have the wrongdoers punished. Robinson, in his own naivete, still believes that the British state observes the rule of law, and fails to understand why mainstream journalists are happy to see the state abuse him. The wrongdoers, as it turned out, were not only the gangs of Muslim men who raped tens or hundreds of thousands of poor infidel girls up and down the land, but the many and varied arms of the state itself, who not only failed to punish the wrongdoers, but went out of their way to protect them and continue to protect them. The Ministry of Truth has shown that just because something is written in stone, doesn’t mean it’s true forever. Right before sending this essay off for publication, I learnt that Tommy Robinson had been “found guilty.”
And now, in the ultimate ignominy, the pinnacle of our civilisational accomplishment, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, is to be subjugated to the strictures of Shari’a, a barbaric seventh-century affront to humanity and decency, with the full support of many who would themselves be destroyed by such a folly. For folly it is to believe that self-righteous appeasement of Muslim powers can win over to coexistence and mutual respect adherents of an ideology that holds at its core the certainty of its own supremacy and a sacred, unshakeable hatred of all others, others whom it must, by divine order, kill, convert or subdue, and that employs the vilest and most deceitful of means to attain its end: “All worship is for Allah alone,” (Qur’an 2:193). This coup is taking place at the United Nations complex in New York, where, in the now non-existent shadow of the now non-existent twin towers, those who survived jihad’s greatest-ever single carnage to date and those who came after, do their best to celebrate “The 4th of July.” On this day, 243 years ago, they declared their land the protector of the freedom and equality of all human beings, and that from that day forth, no god shall meddle in their affairs.
Doing jihad’s dirty work for it has become an infidel virtue. The horror-movie trope of zombies, vampires and the like transforming loved ones into mindless freaks who return to infect those close to them or kill them, is not original. The Turkish jihad armies made a speciality of capturing young Christian boys, converting them to Islam, turning them into mindless killers and sending them to slaughter their own families. Robert Spencer, in The History of Jihad from Muhammad to ISIS, devotes a few harrowing paragraphs to this grotesque institution. By the time the future Antifa Youth gets around to reporting on, denouncing and killing their own parents, there’ll be no one left to listen to the warning voices, for a Dark Age will once again be upon us. All the social, moral and ethical gains so hard-won over the centuries will be abolished overnight, reducing civilisation to that of brutal seventh-century Arabia, a gentle foretaste of which is the Islamic State, Boko Haram, Al-Qaida, Al-Shabaab, the Taliban, Hamas, Hezbollah and a spectacularly long list of others. It is most telling that, once brought into extensive contact with Western society and culture, especially at the height of colonialism, the Muslim middle classes, for whom the benefits were not only obvious but also accessible, adopted Western values and habits with some enthusiasm, there being no question in their minds about which was the superior culture. Many tried to do so without jettisoning Islam. Today they still recognise this, but must pretend not to, under pressure both from jihad, that insists that Islam is superior, and from the Western handmaidens of jihad, who insist that all cultures are good.
The general societal standard of living, though, will decline less rapidly. Kenneth Pollack examines a concentrated form of Islam’s dependence on infidel expertise in his extensive and detailed discussion of the technical backwardness of Arab armed forces in his Armies of Sand. There is scholarly disagreement over whether there ever was an “Islamic Golden Age” of cultural openness and scientific prowess. See, e.g., Islam and the Psychology of the Muslim, by Andre Servier, and The Myth of the Andalusian Paradise, by Dario Fernandez Morera. What is not in dispute is that the Islamic world has been languishing in abject squalor and backwardness for centuries (bonanza revenues serve only to enrich the rulers or advance jihad or both, even the miserable Palestinian Authority is testimony to this). Some Muslim writers openly acknowledge the backwardness of the Dar al-Islam and do not seek to blame others. See, e.g., The Rise and Fall of Islamic Science: The Calendar as a Case Study, by Imad-ad-Dean Ahmad, and The Decline of Islamic Scientific Thought: Don’t blame it on al-Ghazali, by Hassan Hassan. It is in how this backwardness is accounted for in Western scholarship that we so often see the dead weight of cultural relativism and political correctness corrupting what could otherwise be excellent work. Pollack, above, is a case in point. The infidel technical expertise on which Islam parasitises will decay over time until all that remains are again the ignorance, superstition and fear that sustain “the perfect religion,” and the voices of warning are but a myth spoken of in hushed tones by the insane. What hope remains, it seems, must lie with the children of the poor, the ones who have been so virtuously denied hope.
Mac-101 says
We DO need to turn to G-d. And there is a time to sell your cloak and buy a dagger. If one wants salvation ONE must stand up and Speak Truth to Power and denounce Sin and EVIL. Elsewise Evil will Triumph till HE returns!
mortimer says
The BELIEF that UK needs to acquire is the unshakable belief in the freedom of expression.
– “The price of freedom of religion, or of speech, or of the press, is that we must put up with a good deal of rubbish.” – Justice Robert H. Jackson, chief prosecutor at the Nuremburg Trials
– “…if any opinion is compelled to silence, that opinion may, for aught we can certainly know, be true. To deny this is to assume our own infallibility.”
-John Stuart Mill, On Liberty (1859).
Westman says
Mortimer has the right idea.
It is well to remember that Israel only survives because moderate Jews, agnostics, and atheists work together to fight the periodic wars that it must endure to remain free. It is NOT the super orthodox who serve in the Israeli military.
If the West is to remain free it cannot afford fighting over religious differences in the face of a foe that considers every unbelieving man, woman, and child to be an enemy who is not worthy of existence except as an extortion victim or slave.
We can all agree that freedom is a common denominator that is sufficient for cooperation and enables all the various beliefs that require freedom for their full exercise.
Keys says
I think you are right, Westman. Our freedoms were, and are, strengthened by tolerance and respect.
Islam is intolerant, disrespectful, and supremacist by Allah’s command.
Islam, therefore, can not be tolerated or respected by any freedom loving people.
Carol the 1st says
Good point Westman. Israel conducts itself with real aplomb although it is “not the super orthodox who served in the Israeli military”.
We’ve gone full circle now from the near divine (Anjuli’s fine writing) to the slightly ridiculous (who shall remain unnamed) and now we hopefully have our feet back on the ground with you (but for how long?).
carolyne says
And as all educated people know, God hates vowels. He must be a native English speaker with an aversion to a, e, I, o u and sometimes y. For you oh so highly educated, J-s-s spoke Aramaic, not English, not Hebrew and not Greek (in which the New Testament was originally written.). Aramaic has no vowels that we would recognize as such unless we are Hebrew or Greek scholars, which I have yet to discern.. But if believing in myths gives you some feeling of superiority, have at it.
Mac-101 says
For bein so intelligent you do not appear to git it. Christians do NOT feel superior but recognize we are ALL sinners and fall short of the Glory of G-d and do our best to strive to be the best we can in our wretched sinful selves. Atheist are not confined by such restraints and those with OTHER ideas will gladly murder millions when given the chance.
.
Our Western Civilization was created by people who were able to obtain a printed Bible and read what Jesus actually Preached and did their best to live by it. The Globalist have no qualms of following such restraints and by the end of this decade, if you survive, you will experience the “Joys” of livin in a Utopia devoid of G-d. At least for 42 months. Enjoy.
el Cid 2 says
I am a Christian – but I agree with A. Pandavar.
This is the time for all, believers and unbelievers alike, to unite in the face of our common enemy – Islam.
Our differences exist – but we will not enslave each other. Islam will enslave us all – given enough time and our disunity.
Mac-101 says
I find it amusing that the atheist are the ones who are the most evangelistic now. I and most Christians I know don’t give a hoot what religion you are as long as you follow the Golden Rule. The best I know only one ‘Religion” in the 21st century does NOT have the Golden Rule. Once we cross the rive we can see who is correct.
Angemon says
May the names Gerard de Ridefort and Raynald of Chatillon live in infamy.
theanimalthatthereforeiam3 says
So weren’t those individual freedoms and independence based on God-given rights to begin with? This is a very intelligent and insightful analysis regardless of whether one is an atheist or person of faith in a higher power; indeed there have been and are serious failures in western religious practice, including widespread lack of courage and commitment to its own tenets and beliefs which have been sacrificed to political correctness at every turn; equally to blame are supposedly those who still believe themselves guardians of our western philosophical heritage; they have very little if anything to say about those timeless truths they used to dedicate their lives to…
Undaunted says
Fuckin’ A. Thank you.
carolyne says
The Patriots (Basically Thomas Jefferson) who wrote the Declaration of Independence were indeed of the opinion that human rights were God given. That was only their opinion and does not make it a fact.
Kay says
Logically, nor does it make their “opinion” false.
Their belief is widely shared. Are you saying that you hold a different opinion?
Lydia Church says
Testing
Beneath the Veil of Consciousness says
What you talkin’ about, Willis?
Lydia Church says
Hi,
I do agree with the point of “God as free choice.” I write from a Christian perspective and will say that often in most religions that is not honored. From the dark ages of Catholicism to Calvinists to islam, etc. they refuse to acknowledge the autonomy of the person to consent to be governed by God. Ironically, God does not force Himself upon us. He can and I would say has the right to impose Himself upon His creation. But He does not force people to want Him nor to love Him. He lets man ‘go his way,’ has given us the gift of freedom and freewill to chose what we will and live out the consequences of those choices. And yes, there is just punishment for those who cause the innocent to suffer. Anyway, I am one of those who chose God. No one ‘shoved Him down my throat.’ I was raised in a home that had some overhangings of vague Christianity, and growing up I also saw a lot of diversity in family and friends and neighbors all around me. Each was of a different persuasion. I had a thirst for God, I felt that He existed and had intervened in my life at just the right and pivotal moments. I had what is called ‘a God shaped hole in my heart.’ I began seeking, and not only did I find God (that He does exist), but I had an undeniable supernatural experience that simply cannot be explained away in any other way. So… I know. But alas, it is one of those things that I cannot ‘prove’ to my neighbor. And… I think that that is exactly how God wants things. He does show Himself to those who seek Him… and my soul has been eternally satisfied!
As for the abandonment of God resulting in the current predicament… well, yes, since God does not force Himself upon humanity, He lets them have their way. And outcomes like this are precisely the result. It is precisely that God has not forced Himself upon us, and it is rather that humanity has abandoned God and He does not interfere. He lets them have their wish. He is not a despotic king who will force Himself upon those who do not wish to be under His rule. But the alternative is not good. Of course it does not take everyone in a nation to consent, that is impossible in this world. But if at least the majority does, it will fare well. History has shown that time and again.
It’s sort of like a household. Mom and Dad have certain rules for the house that kids are to follow in order to be safe, healthy, have and enjoy a good life, etc. But say that Bobby turns 18 and says “I don’t like your rules, and I’m not going to obey them anymore!” So, Dad says, “okay son, then there’s the door.” So Bobby goes out and is a total rebel, thinking the whole while that he is enjoying ‘freedom.’ He is like the Prodigal Son, parties up a storm, in modern day he may be convicted of drunk driving, become addicted to drugs, get various girls pregnant, and to make a long story short in the end he is not healthy, not happy, not safe, has no money left, and is in a dire state. Who is to blame for his fate, him, or his dad? Some come to their senses and return, and get things right again, like the prodigal son. Were the dad’s rules really so stifling and overbearing, or were they only for his own good?
Anyway, for the current situation the fact is that it won’t get better. Not enough people will turn back to God to turn the Titanic around. So many migrants have invaded all over the West. There are so many other negative situations all over and more looming on the horizon. As a Christian, I know that Bible prophecy is being fulfilled and that is inevitable. Strings are being pulled behind the scenes according to the antichrist’s dictates. We are in the end times and it is not ‘surrender,’ ‘fatalism,’ ‘pessimism,’ or anything else other than an awareness of reality that most are not aware of. They can write it all off, they can laugh me to scorn, but eventually… they will see. And I don’t say that so that I can have that moment of ‘ah, see…? I was right!’ It’s so that some may still see the big picture in time and do like that prodigal did. As for arguing about how to defeat them, by these means or by those, and other battles with other groups based on that and as to how to proceed, it is a cooked goose anyway.
Many good points were made in the essay for sure.
One other item is when things turned to ‘groups.’ There is always debate between how much central power there should be, versus individual liberty. Anything can be good or bad depending on who is in control. I do believe in freedom and the ‘pursuit of happiness,’ but not if that ‘happiness’ includes a ‘satanist’s’ perceived ‘right’ to sacrifice babies to the devil, etc. But the more ‘direct democracy’ that exists, the less that tyranny is able to get a stranglehold on society. As one commentator said, where did our ‘natural rights’ derive from, if not God? There is no neutral in the war between good and evil. Who will you decide to have reign over you? That is a question that only you can answer for yourself.
: D
Good conversation about this stuff!
Mac-101 says
Well said. It is unimaginable for me for educated inform people can NOT see some power is makin these groups do things and make alliances which will NOT benefit them in the long run and most likely destroy them.
.
As for forcing Beliefs on other people, All people I know who are struggling to be Christian are NOT worried about forcing others to believe. They merely offer testimony and dust the dust off their feet and move on and we’ll see once we cross the river.
mortimer says
This post is about the CENSORSHIP of freedom of expression in UK and how the UK media and legal profession seem to be all for it.
Mac-101 says
Mort, I fail to understand how I didn’t respond to Lydia’s post intelligently.
gravenimage says
Mac, I thought you post was just fine. I’m not sure what Mortimer is objecting to.
gravenimage says
your post
Mac-101 says
Thx Gravin. I encourage people who disagree with me to explain why. I will and HAVE changed my opinions and believes as I see new evidence to the contrary or an angle of the “TRUTH” I did NOT recognize earlier. Unfortunetly life is NOT Black and White. However we MUST have a basis for our convictions or we believe in nothing.
Lydia Church says
I also want to highly recommend a new movie called “Homelands” that is out about the effects of the invading muslims, anti-semitism, and related issues. It’s a must see!!!
I watched the whole thing on the website ‘RatherExposeThem,’ under today’s date. To add to the incentive… it has been censored in the public in the EU…
And I can totally relate in the corner of the world where I live. I feel like the only white person and all these angry eyes are upon me wherever I go… I don’t feel at home here anymore either and I was thinking exactly what this lady keeps saying… “Where do I go?” That has been echoing in my mind for quite some time now! And I live in the U.S.
Mac-101 says
Population Replacement is NOT just about replacing White people with others. It is about replacing ALL Americans with 3rd worlders who are easily manipulated by the Elites. Once THEY gain total control no one, White, Black, Brown, Yellow or Red will benefit and most will not likely survive in Western Countries AND the 3rd world. Their goal use to be 500 million humans on the planet. With automation and robotics who knows how many THEY need to serve THEM! Only the SUPER Elites will benefit at the cost of THEIR Souls!
Kepha says
While I respect Anjuli Pandavar’s hard look at Islam and warning to the West, I can only give it a cheer and a half. Religion (presumably any traditional theism or holistic system of thought predating 1700 A.D.) erodes our innate sense of ethics? Nice try, Anjuli. It depends on which religion. Scratch any major Western enlightenment thinker, and you will find the parental faith’s ethics undergirding the “natural law” he supposedly finds by “unaided reason”.
Yes, I believe God implanted in us an innate moral sense. But, all this proves is that we still bear his sin-marred image, and live in his world. This natural law in the human heart and mind is, like the written one given to all Israel at Sinai, broken at every turn, and suffices only to let us know we are lost.
I am old enough to have witnessed the slippery slope of the sexual revolution, and am pretty certain that before I die (which won’t be too long from now, given human life spans)–And barring a surprise work of the Holy Spirit renewing repentance and faith in our land–I will see the pedophile priests let out of the slammer to be hailed by the MSM as brave fighters against a “puritan” culture and pioneers of the newest frontier of sexual liberation (even though I pray I will be proven wrong). I have seen a steady erosion of respect for truth; indeed, the post-modernists seem to disbelieve in its existence. I got to see the aftermath of the Cambodian horrors, which were launched by a supposedly enlightened and scientific movement that learned its Marx not from the “Slavic Uentermensch” in Moscow or the “primitive Asiatic” in Beijing, but from the “civilized Euromarxists” in the cafes and universities of Paris.
And perhaps the horror of the Shoah is that this reminder of our innate depravity was launched in the most educated, cultured, musical, philosophical, and scientific nation of poets and thinkers. Somehow, all those things that were to free us from the shackles of supposedly benighted Christianity nonetheless could not save Germany from its inner, self-destructive and murderous demons (then again, we believe that murder is evil only because our forefathers once believed that God actually did deliver the Decalogue to Moses and all Israel at Sinai). And before Eddie raises the complicity of the Christian churches of Germany, he might do well to consider that once cannot believe that Jesus was an “Aryan” and read the first page of the New Testament in a “fundamentalist” sense at the same time; and that it was German higher criticism of the Bible (highly speculative and subject to repeated revision rather than offering “assured scientific results”) that both dethroned the BIble and made the Protestant churches of Germany the most theologically liberal in Christendom (I do not see American Unitarianism as Christian)–and his beloved Barth tried manfully to recover biblical categories in his critique of liberal theology.
I have seen enough of so-called “atheism” to know that it is only rejection of the historically dominant deity or deities of the society in which that “atheism” arises. Hence, Christians were “atheists” to Graeco-Roman culture. But post-Christian “atheism” is actually a mask for a host of idolatries. Even the “atheist” poet Carl Sandburg admitted as much:
I have seen the old gods go
And the new gods come.
Dy by day
Year by year,
The idols rise,
The idols fall.
Today, I worship the hammer.
The idolatry of the secularist wing of the civil rights movement (and I believe that the enforcement of equal rights for African-Americans was overdue in those years of my childhood), for which no struggler against white racism could possibly do wrong, threw the door wide open to Islamic infiltration through its canonization of the execrable Malcolm X–who persuaded a borderline feeble-minded pugilist to drop the name of a Christian abolitionist and take up the name of a red-haired, sharp-nosed, freckle-faced Albanian adventurer who stole Egypt from his Ottoman masters in order to glom all the profits of the Sudanese slave trade for himself. Indeed, it is the eagerness of radical Westerners to drop Christianity as quickly as possible that further opens them wide to Islam.
I’ll also accuse Pandavar of misrepresenting the way both Crusaders and ‘Ayyubids fought back in the 13th century; and as a high school history teacher, most abashedly apologize on behalf of my profession for the lousy job we have been doing for way too long. Those long-dead 13th century warriors sharpened their weapons, used whatever military intelligence they had, and calculated or miscalculated their logistical and supply needs. Take theistic armies back far enough, and you see that the Israelite conqueror of the Land of Canaan, Joshua, began his military career in an intelligence-gathering mission (Numbers 13). Sure, the Crusaders made their mistakes, but belief in the Christian God was not among them.
Anjuli Pandavar says
Kepha, “I’ll also accuse Pandavar of misrepresenting the way both Crusaders and ‘Ayyubids fought back in the 13th century; and as a high school history teacher…”
—
Firstly, it was the 12th century, not the 13th. Secondly, I was talking specifically about the Battle of Hattin, because it took place on 4 July 1187. I was not talking in general about mediaeval warfare, or about the Crusaders versus the Ayyubids. I was talking specifically about the Kingdom of Jerusalem and Salah ad-Din, who died in 1193.
You write at great length against atheism and not a single word about how we are to counter jihad. My effort against precisely that attitude has, in your case, clearly been in vain. As an historian, you might perhaps more than once have come across Pope Urban V’s catastrophic words, “The Osmanlis are merely enemies, but the schismatic Greeks are worse than enemies.” The Muslim jihadis are merely enemies, but the atheists are worse than enemies. Talk about “throwing the door wide open to Islamic infiltration.” Bravo.
Brian hoff says
The head of rhe Knight Template as than fool with no military trainig attack than muslim force of 7000 men with 37 knght an he was one of the thee who didnot die.
gravenimage says
“Brian hoff”–really, “DefenderofIslam”–wrote:
The head of rhe Knight Template as than fool with no military trainig attack than muslim force of 7000 men with 37 knght an he was one of the thee who didnot die.
………………………….
What is the semi-literate “DefenderofIslam” babbling about now? My favorite of his typos is calling the Knights Templar “rhe Knight Template”. What a maroon!
carpediadem says
I disagree with much you write there Anjuli, but a great piece with fine points and references.
Anjuli Pandavar says
Thank you, CD. I’d be grateful if you would share your thoughts.
Ginny says
The one fault of atheism is the belief that humans are endowed with an “innate sense of goodness”. God knows his creation better. But there is much fine thinking in this article, something sorely missing in much off today’s discourse.
Anjuli Pandavar says
Ginny, thank you for you kind words. I am left perplexed, though. If “God knows his creation better,” he might’ve had the decency to warn the rest of his creation that he was going to send “the best” of his creation to rape them and murder them in jihad. Or does God not have an innate sense of goodness either?
Keys says
A P, fine post – I agree with Ginny about that, and her point about some atheists thinking they posses an innate sense of right and wrong. (My guess is you would not think Chairman Mao possessed it).
For many who believe there is a God, that God is Good; Truth; Love. God is not deceit or hatred or enslavement. Obviously, goodness, truth, and love are not always evident in men. And for many believers, their God desires a man’s heart to be free to believe or not; free to be good, truthful, free to love; or not.
It seems to me that for many atheists man becomes the “measure of all things”; and why not – what other creature could be ? But what man (or men) is to to say who are good men and who are bad men ? Mohammad ?
Will those in power define good and evil ?
Ironically, I think your excellent post elicited a response from “believers” because in part of it they felt “accused” (if that is the right word – just above you accused Ginny’s God of not having decency), when believers of all kinds and unbelievers of all kinds ought to be opposing Mohammedan jihad, as you eloquently stated.
Anjuli Pandavar says
I appreciate your kind response, Keys.
You illustrate my point well. All believers of one kind seem to think that they are the only believers (my point about who has God and who hasn’t). From you comment, “For many who believe there is a God, that God is Good; Truth; Love. God is not deceit or hatred or enslavement,” I take it you are discounting 1.6 billion believers who say God is most definitely deceit and hatred and enslavement. Your “many who believe” with the God of truth and love and these 1.6 billion with the God of deceit and hatred and enslavement, are *all* believers. You *all* believe in God. So unless you are prepared to acknowledge that, according to believers, God is truth and love and deceit and hatred and enslavement, you are going to have to say the *you* have God and they do not. *They* face exactly the same choice as you. Many who’ve responded here start from the premise that only Christians are believers (some even that only their kind of Christian are believers) and only *they* have God.
Mao was not an atheist. Mao was God. Stalin was not an atheist. Stalin was God. All their followers were *believers*. Their gods just happened to be real, rather than supernatural. This is a logical extension of what I’ve just said above.
*All* gods, once created, are truth. It is exactly the same mechanism at work, whether you are a jihadi, a Quaker or a peasant on the Long March. Right now, it doesn’t matter whether its the Quaker or the peasant on the Long March, the jihadi wants to kill them both. *God* commands it.
I understand what you’re saying about believers feeling accused. I was accusing. I was accusing believers of holding the distinction between themselves and those they regard as not believers as more important than the distinction between themselves together wit those they regard as unbelievers on the one hand, and on the other, those who are out to subjugate all who is not them, those who believe *and* those they regard as not believing. It is a ridiculous petty squabble in the face of an adversary for whom that squabble is irrelevant.
Instead of saying that Christians and atheist face a common, extremely dangerous enemy, they instead knuckle down and *reinforce* the distinction between themselves and atheists, completely ignoring the common enemy.
LB says
Finally, someone with common sense.
While I do agree that the decline of Western civilization is in direct correlation to it abandoning its Judeo-Christian roots, giving birth to all sorts of LGBTQWERTY+ mentally ill abominations with infinite genders and sexual orientations (nothing against normal gay people, but why go so far just to be “special”), I also think that you don’t need to be a believer to take up arms in a crusade against jihad. You only need to be someone with– as I stated above–COMMON SENSE! It doesn’t take a genius to realize that muslims are out to exterminate and subjugate everything non-muslim, as shown throughout history.
I myself was raised in an Orthodox Christian environment and I am thankful to be able to choose whether I believe there’s a dude in the sky puppeteering our every move for us, or whether your own choices and actions are the result of your own success/misfortune. Think about it: if a surgeon saves a persons life against all odds during a several hour operation, is that the result of his hard work throughout his whole life, or was it all simply “god’s will” that the patient survived because “god guided the surgeon’s hand”? I choose to believe the former.
That said, I fully acknowledge the fact that Christianity (at least as far as West is concerned) is what showed us what’s good and what’s evil (thou shall not steal, kill, etc.), through the example of Jesus Christ (an actual historical figure). And it is upon Christianity that modern laws are established. But I refuse to believe that EVERY SINGLE THING that happens on this world (including all our science breakthroughs and achievements) is the work of god.
As a man of science myself, that annoys me to no end when I hear the bibble-thumpers screeching about things they have ZERO clue about. A large part of scientists throughout history were considered heretics and were shunned, even killed in some cases, because they DARED to question god. In that regard, zealous Christians are no different than zealous muslims. This is why the Library of Alexandria was burned to the ground, effectively slowing our civilization down by who knows how many centuries (granted, it was burned by muslims, but still).
TL;DR: Fuck islam! Even though I’m an atheist, I would gladly join a crusade to take back our ancestral Christian lands from that 7th century rape cult. But if you’re the type of Christian who thinks everything happens on this world because it’s the work of god, then fuck you too!
murlimews says
You are naive beyond count to imagine our world, our universe is random, a fluke. You somehow missed examining the complexity and orderliness of a human cell, eyes, hands, the alignment of the earth and moon, the very axis of the earth. You must first know these things before you are capable of philosophy. Otherwise you are like a gonging bell, moved by the wind.
altealuna says
Thank you, Anjuli Pandavar. Your article is the best I have read in a long time.
jbeckeratheist says
Brilliant, accurate, excellent, necessary article! Thank you, fellow atheist and conservative.
Leesa Martin says
Yes, excellent, true, and so urgently needs to be heard by all.
Norger says
Mr. Pandavar,
Brllliantly written.
I’ll never understand “intersectionality;” the “feminist”/Islamist alliance, for example, is just a total head-scratcher. Why would any person who professes to support western liberal values would choose to align with a violent totalitarian supremacist ideology whose ultimate goal is the subjugation of our civilization and the eradication of every freedom we have? It is just mind-boggling.
In my opinion, a major part of the problem is that the MSM and our political leaders simply will not allow Islamic ideology to be discussed openly and honestly. I think this approach was probably well-intentioned, but has led to results that can be fairly characterized as disastrous to the point of treason (e.g. discouraging or prohibiting law enforcement and military personnel from undertaking appropriate studies of Islamic ideology for the purpose of threat assessment). The reality is the infamous Muslim Brotherhood memorandum is being implemented and our “miserable house” is being sabotaged from within, by our own hands. Doing “stealth jihad” work has indeed become an infidel virtue.
I fear that it’s going to take a major attack on an American city, with casualties in the millions, before our leaders awaken to the threat.
Anjuli Pandavar says
Thank you, Norger.
It’s Ms Pandavar, though. 🙂 I point this out only because if I were Mr Pandavar, I would have twice the mental ability that I have now, and you might’ve read a much better essay. There also wasn’t another woman around to remind me of all the parts that I’ve forgotten.
Norger says
Apologies:( My bad. Brilliant writing.
Angemon says
XD XD XD
UNCLE VLADDI says
HERE’S WHY LIBERAL RACISTS DEFEND MUSLIM CRIMES:
Without bothering to investigate it, liberals always deny islam could ever be a threat because muslims are brown people who can never be a threat to white people because, to racist liberals, they’re always presumed to be mentally inferior to all whites.
So there’s never any need to investigate islam, because it’s just some sort of a silly and ultimately harmless brown-person’s superstition, to which they’re racially entitled. There’s no way it could ever be a threat to whites, nor could it have inspired Nazis.
Only whites, by dint of their superior intelligence, can be evil racists who are always the main threat to the inferior browns.
To racist and mentally delinquent liberal criminals, only whites can be held to be guilty of any crimes, because crimes require mens-rea guilty mind criminal intent, which no black or brown mentally inferior muslim can ever have the mental capacity to be.
Further, all whites are Christians, so Christianity is oppressive; and all blacks are muslims, and so are naturally the victims of all the evil white Christians.
These are the most shallow, visceral feelings of all hateful liberal racists, which mere facts will never affect, because these feelings are so self-evident that there’s never any reason to consider that most Christians today are black Africans, not smug and plump white Europeans in business suits – nor that muslims come in all races and colours, too; nor that Arabs are whites. And there’s no way Muhammad was “the Whitest of men” who owned black slaves.
Because if and once they dare to admit otherwise, they might have to risk them selves to do something about it.
abc says
Anjuli, I fully agree with you.
Moreover I believe that the major reason the West is not properly responding to Islam is based on “excusing” its own failure to distance itself from all the fakery in the religions of the West! Applying the same logic used for “protecting” their own false beliefs and behaviors to militant Islam we have what we have now.
The “religious tolerance” as it is known in the West was invented to prevent different Christian groups from killing and suppresing each other. However it was never the right answer to really any group actively working to take away freedoms of others. Which is what Islam is. The error is in treating it as “it’s *just* a religion” and that it should be treated like the religion groups that learned not to assert themselves over the freedoms and human rights.
Where the “same logic” comes from? Well, the religious of the West, if they honestly believe in the Christian story, believe in most of the same claims that Islam claims: hell for anybody who isn’t believer, heaven only for believers who abstain from the sin, the apocalypse and day of judgment. Islam talks about the same with the added catch that no matter how much you have sinned you and even your family goes to heaven as soon as you die trying to kill unbelievers. The overlap of the ideas (hearing Islamist having a lot of points that are shared with the western religions) is what confuses today’s people, wishing to believe that “god must be good” and that god loves “everybody” and “peace.” However, the truth is, reading the Bible, the god of the Old testament is not less murderous than Muslim god, so the basis of all the western religions and of Islam is the same problem: the representatives of modern societies not thinking clearly enough to really strongly reject all these old bad stories and defend the societies that they are supposed to defend.
It’s more complex than just that, but the bottom line is that the established “tolerance” to the insanity of the religions in the West was what allowed Islam to depend on that while spreading itself. Without that the thinking would have been potentially clearer an the readiness to not tolerate “just a religion” bigger.