In this important article an active US Army officer criticizes a national opinion leader for his mistaken notions about the motivations of Islamic terrorists.  He criticizes and with good reason those who speak ignorantly about Islam but know little about it, particularly opinion makers in the national spotlight.

It is important that Americans understand Islamic doctrine as this is the motivator of jihadists. We have seen many times, most recently at Fort Hood when a self-identified jihadist attacks unbelievers and explains/justifies his/her actions in a doctrinal context. The context of jihad and attacks on non-Muslims by adherents of Islam is the doctrine of Islam, Koran, Sira, Hadith. To deny this linkage is to deny reality and suggest that ideology is not a motivator even when the perpetrators of these atrocities say specifically that it is.

Disturbingly, our leaders continue to minimize or actively denythat Islamic doctrine or Hasan’s Muslim identity had anything to do with his murders, treason, and betrayal. People who believe such absurdities are in denial with devastating consequences for all Americans.

The author convincingly shows that knowledge of the doctrine of Islam is our first line of defense. Without this essential knowledge, we cannot defend ourselves.

This article appears in Human Events and is re-posted here with permission by the author.

Video

A video appears at the end of this article that is complimentary to the message of the author and to this site. A former terrorist discusses his motives, and why the West is hated. The man in the video is now a defender of the West and of Israel. For those having difficulty accepting the the truth of the unpleasant ideology of Islam and the dire threat that it presents to us have only to listen to this brave and knowledgeable man.  He speaks with the knowledge of experience. Ignoring this man and his message is a fool’s choice.

-DLA

Why They’re Really at War With Us

Over eight years since 9/11, it is amazing that a prominent conservative would not understand the fundamental motivation and doctrine driving those who have and continue to attack us. This is not rocket science.

Raymond Ibraham’s analysis in his invaluable book, the Al Qaeda Reader, best summarizes it. On page xii he explains that radical Islam’s war with America and the west is not finite and limited to political grievances real or imagined but is existential, transcending time and space and deeply rooted in [the Islamic] faith.

Pat mentions only half of al Qaeda’s binary worldview in his article, the dar al-Islam (the land of Islam). By failing to even mention the dar al-Harb (the land of warfare), he fails to acknowledge that Islam, by doctrine (Koran 9:29), views the entire non-Muslim world as a land that must be subdued under Islamic rule (read sharia law).  This is explained in the primary text of Islamic Law, Reliance of the Travelerby Ahmad ibn Naquib al-Misri (page 605).

What Buchanan also fails to mention, is taqiyya- the Islamic doctrine of deception, the understanding of which is fundamental to understanding the threat. Muhammad himself said war is deceit. (See “Summarized Sahih Al-Bukhari” by Muhammad Muhsin Khan, p. 614) Here again, Mr. Ibraham has done yeoman’s work analyzing and explaining the doctrine of taqiyya and its impact on jihadist terrorism in his article, “How Taqiyya Alters Islam’s Rules of War.”

As we learn from Reliance of the Traveler, by Islamic law there are things Muslims are required to know and there are other things we, as non-Muslims, are allowed to know. In fact, Islamic law requires lying at times (it is obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory.) (See pages 8-14, 732 and 745).

As a result of their binary world view, al Qaeda has two main audiences: the Muslim world (the ummah) and the non-Muslim world, consisting of the United States and the rest of the Western world. As such, it uses markedly different approaches to address each group.

When speaking to America and the Western world, al Qaeda turns statements made by what Lenin called the “useful idiots” into popular propaganda. They frequently cite Michael Moore, William Blum and other liberal commentators.

In contrast, when speaking to their constituents — the Muslim World — bin Laden and Zawahiri instead use formal Islamic theology and sharia law as levers to enforce Muslim compliance. Those who don’t comply are labeled apostates, who, by sharia, must be killed and will inhabit hell. (See “Reliance of the Traveler,” pp. 595-98 and 848).

Written for Muslim audiences, they [al Qaeda’s Islamic theological treatises] are rarely translated into English or disseminated to a non-Muslim public. This is unfortunate since they reveal much more about al Qaeda’s ideology than the more famous political [propaganda] speeches. In these theological tracts, al Qaeda gives Muslims reasons why they should hate and fight the West that differ from those they give in their political speeches. (“Al Queda Reader,” p. 2)

There’s a difference between reciting the enemy and knowing the enemy. Buchanan confuses the two concepts. Which is why his cry for appeasement is misguided. He implies that if we packed up and came home (from Iraq, Afghanistan and all other Muslim countries), and adopted an isolationist foreign policy, then they would stop attacking us. Wrong.

Not only would this hand them a strategic victory, but they’d simply find another reason to continue to attack us. Islam cannot be appeased. (Koran 9:29). Not to mention the moral bankruptcy of abandoning the Afghan people and leaving them under the repressive rule of the Taliban.

Buchanan writes as if the Taliban were a legitimate government. The Afghanis know we are not the Russians or some other malicious occupier. But they are realists in a hostile land with a legitimate concern about our staying power and what will happen after we leave. Pat’s argument doesn’t help our cause.

Buchanan states that this is their war (the Muslim world’s war) and suggests that if we stayed out of it they would leave us alone. Even if this were true — and it is not — it wouldn’t be the right thing to do.

Americans are not being killed, as Buchanan retorts, for the propaganda reasons he repeats, but rather for who we are and what we believe. Not one American died in Iraq in December because the Iraqis finally saw the bankrupt ideology al Qaeda was selling and they helped us eradicate them.

To bin Laden and his ilk, we are the Great Satan. They hate us more than they hate Israel.

As for Hamas and Hizballah — which Pat paints as if they have benignly left us alone — they are here in the United States — actively pursuing a strategy of non-violent jihad that is arguably a more dangerous threat than the challenges in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen or Somalia.

I can understand his sentiment and aversion to war. As a career soldier, I know too many Gold Star parents to be cavalier about war.

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. – John Stuart Mill

As a parent, you’ll not hear me utter the unfatherly expression, Give me peace in my day. Rather, I will always say — as the real Thomas Paine said in 1776 — If there must be trouble, let it be in my day that my child may have peace.

It’s time we start to know our enemy.

As for Mr. Buchanan, it’s encouraging that he’s started to learn the enemy’s vocabulary. I hope he’ll stop repeating the enemy’s talking points and blaming us for the enemy simply executing their own offensive, totalitarian doctrine.  

It takes many hours to read and study books such as the ones I have mentioned here.  But unless more Americans do — especially opinion leaders such as Mr. Buchanan — we cannot understand the true nature of the enemy.

by DL Adams

[This article orginally posted on Family Security Matters, 1/11/2010]

The barely prevented horror that was the recent Christmas Day jihad terror attack on an inbound flight to Detroit from Amsterdam seems to have affected people in our country in a way that other recent terror attacks have not. Only 8 years since 9/11 and only weeks from the atrocity at Fort Hood it is now clear that we continue to be unsafe and profoundly vulnerable; the commonalities of our daily lives put us at risk in ways that we never thought could be possible in our country.

There is loaded symbolism also in Abdulmutallab’s terror attack of Christmas Day; an inbound flight to perhaps America’s most devastated city (Detroit) was almost destroyed by an ideologically driven sadist and would-be mass murderer. The image of a blown up (with all its attendant casualties) American aircraft at the aerial doorway of Detroit is horrific; a revolting unity of destruction and failure in the air and on the ground. The just-prevented terror attack is a symbol that every American city could one day become just like Detroit through acts of jihad war and hate.

The economic failure of Detroit is complex and occurred over many decades; the devastating cultural bankruptcy that now impedes the legitimate defense of every American city will likely result in future catastrophic disasters that will take only seconds to transpire, not decades. The failure of Detroit is not an illustration of the failure of Americanism, or democracy but rather a failure of attention paid; we have an obligation to do our best for the city of Detroit (or any American city) just as we have an obligation to secure our people, borders, cities, and the infrastructure of our country.

After the Christmas Day attack on the Detroit flight we stand at a crossroads; a crossroads where denial and ignorance meet rationality and common sense. We enter the new year observing a disturbing confluence of errors, mistakes, malfeasance and incompetence that puts every American and all of our friends across the world at increased risk. The last-minute prevention of the “crotch bomber’s” attack is a rare bright spot for us; there are few silver clouds to be found in these dark linings.

We continue to send our best and brightest men and women to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan. The president said recently in a speech at West Point that US  troop levels would be increased by 30,000 in the Afghanistan theater of operations, a new surge. The president did say during the campaign that Afghanistan was the most important fight and Iraq was not; why this was so was never explained other than with derisive accusations of the previous president’s “errors”. The comparison dismissed by the current resident of the White House is an important one and should not be so readily minimized; Iraq and Afghanistan are the same battle in a much wider war. 

Afghanistan and Iraq – War for the Enemy’s Ideology

While his “progressive” supporters were almost universally condemnatory of this new surge, those on the political right were almost universally supportive. But they are all wrong because the foundations of both conflicts are built upon concepts that are contrary to American ideas of freedom, tolerance, equality of the sexes, and justice.

The “mission” in Iraq and Afghanistan appears to be “nation building” with ideals of democracy given lip service but no substantive backing. This is because the constitutional foundation of both beneficiary “states” is Islam and Sharia law.

There can be no doubt that Sharia law is anti-women, anti-tolerance, anti-homosexual, and anti-democratic and contrary to our concepts of justice and human rights. American support for such a brutal and anti-human system in two countries with the blood of our best and a great part of our national treasure derived from all citizens through taxation defies explanation.

If the foundation of both “states” is the law of Islam (Sharia) and the law of Islam is contrary to American concepts of freedom, justice, equality, and tolerance why then do we support these “states”?

When questions of ideology are presented to the planners of these wars and our leadership, the questioner is excoriated for his/her intolerance and impropriety and lack of consideration for another “culture”; but the questions themselves are never answered. We are experts at blowing things up, but we seem ill prepared for the ideological component of this massive conflict of which Iraq and Afghanistan are but a part.

The indefensible fact that no answers are forthcoming and, that the questions themselves cannot be asked, is a national tragedy upon which future tragedies will be constructed and for which our leadership must be held accountable.

The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are deeply flawed because we are fighting for Sharia law (Islamic Law) in both countries. We are, in effect, fighting for anti-democracy and monoculture (Islam), hatred, intolerance, and jihad. Astoundingly, we are fighting for the same ideology then for which our existential jihadist enemies fight – the creation of an Islamic state and the rule of Sharia law.

In Afghanistan does it make sense to support a Sharia law country (Karzai’s government) that is fighting a Sharia law former government (Taliban) when Sharia law itself is fundamentally opposed to everything for which the United States stands? Can there be a national foreign policy anywhere based upon greater moral, ethical, and intellectual confusions, ignorance, and foolishness than this?

The idea that American soldiers fight and die, and that America would stretch its economy to the breaking point, for a totalitarian system of brutality and cruelty (Sharia) would have been unthinkable only a generation ago. We have surely passed some kind of red line. 

Afghanistan

Afghanistan Constitution: Article One
Ch. 1. Art. 1
Afghanistan is an Islamic Republic, independent, unitary and indivisible state.

Iraq

Iraq Constitution: Article 2-
First: Islam is the official religion of the State and it is a fundamental source of legislation:
A. No law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established.

If establishing Sharia Law with all its cruelty, misogyny, brutalities, anti-homosexuality, anti-religious freedom, denial of individual rights, and the inculcation of Islamic supremacism and obligatory jihad is not the purpose of the United States government in supporting Iraq and Afghanistan it is certainly going to be the result. The purpose of jihad is to actively oppose the existence of systems of government, cultures, and religions that are not Islamic and bring the entire world under Islam and Sharia law. Participation in jihad is an obligation for all adherents of Islam. In Koran this is “fighting in Allah’s cause” and is mentioned over 100 times; it is a central if not the central theme of Islam itself.

The question must be asked, what is our purpose in supporting the creation and growth of societies and governments that are fundamentally opposed to our existence (as delineated in their founding documents and in Islamic doctrine) and the concepts of liberty and freedom, tolerance and openness, for which the United States has always, until recently apparently, so steadfastly stood?

Wars of Self-Destruction – Abandoning our Heritage

What then do our American ideas of freedom and justice mean when we encourage the existence and growth (with both blood and treasure) of societies that are opposed to such ideas? These wars are a disaster whose purposes must be understood. American support of Sharia law anywhere is evidence of an American cultural failure and an abandonment of the foundational concepts that form our national character and the foundations of our country. Support of Sharia law anywhere by the United States here at home or abroad is a foundational failure of understanding the doctrine of Islam.

Alexis De Tocqueville in “Democracy in America” compared the importance of the concepts of religion and American civilization in the early 19th century. His observations are as valid today as they were in 1840.

Mohammed professed to derive from Heaven, and has inserted in the Koran, not only religious doctrines, but political maxims, civil and criminal laws, and theories of science. The Gospel, on the contrary, only speaks of the general relations of men to God and to each other, beyond which it inculcates and imposes no point of faith. This alone, besides a thousand other reasons, would suffice to prove that the former of these religions will never long predominate in a cultivated and democratic age, whilst the latter is destined to retain its sway at these as at all other periods. (Democracy in America, Vol 2, Cambridge: Sever and Francis, 1840; reprint, 1863); p.26.

The conceptual foundations of America as understood by early historians of the republic and of later analysts is in the Judeo-Christian and Greco-Roman tradition. De Tocqueville’s assessment is essentially correct in analysis but mistaken in its prediction; how could he have known that we ourselves would finance the resurgence of Islam through the greatest transfer of wealth in human history through our purchases of Arab/Islamist oil?

Over time it appears that we have been our worst enemy – forgetting those profound concepts of freedom and justice upon which the republic was fashioned with the intention that, like the Union itself, these concepts would be perpetual through our protection of them.

In our forgetting we have created an intellectual environment of radical tolerance for other ideologies and cultures – even to the existential detriment of our own.

Islamic justice, peace, war, tolerance, and civilization itself are profoundly opposed to American understanding of the same concepts. The failure of American leadership in acknowledging the fundamental oppositional relationship between Islam and American democracy is at the core of our failure post 9/11, to Fort Hood and the skies over Detroit.

Because the Taliban is entirely ideologically motivated (by the Islamic doctrine), and since their purpose is the implementation of Sharia Law wherever they hold power, what is the difference between the Taliban and the Karzai government? The Afghan Karzai constitution states in its first article that Afghanistan is an “Islamic Republic” and in the 3rd article that

“In Afghanistan, no law can be contrary to the beliefs and provisions of the sacred religion of Islam.”

What can be the difference between the Taliban and Karzai’s government except the cooperation that the Karzai government provides to the kafir Americans? The two forces are unified by Islamic ideology after all; the Taliban fights the Karzai government because the American -supported government isn’t Islamic “enough”; that is, most importantly, they cooperate with the kafir (non-Muslim).

Why are we fighting a war in which the purpose of both sides is the implementation of Sharia law?

In plain terms, what is the difference if Karzai and his kleptocrats implement Sharia or the Taliban does? Either way, American support of Sharia law and its savagery is a humanitarian and philosophical failure.

In such a conflict how is “victory” defined – through self-negation? Everyone will accept American funds and all sides will continue to fight for the success of Islam.

Prior to 9/11 our foreign policy was founded upon both national defense and support for those who wanted freedom if it was within our power to support them. Now, we ignore the freedom fighters on the streets of Iran and fight for Sharia law states in two countries; our foreign policy is overturned.

The “progressives” who opposed the surge in Afghanistan are correct but for the wrong reasons; the surge in Afghanistan is a mistake because the mission itself is confused and based upon a total ignorance of Islamic doctrine and purposes; goals in which both local sides in these conflicts (Iraq and Afghanistan) share. 

If the conflict in ideologies between American society and the Taliban/Karzai administration weren’t enough, there are the lessons of the Vietnam War that must be acknowledged but thus far have been ignored or too derisively dismissed.

Denial of History

Ngo Dinh Diem was the corrupt ruler of Vietnam from 1955 to 1963. Unwilling to check corruption and unwilling to follow the American line, Diem was overthrown with American help (and John F. Kennedy’s person approval) in 1963 only a month before Kennedy’s assassination. The parallels between the Obama Afghan surge and Johnson “surge” in 1965 in Vietnam (despite Johnson’s promise to continue President Kennedy’s policies of slow disengagement) are mistakenly ignored. It should be our policy universally to avoid the errors of our past.

There is no question whatever that our support of the implementation of Sharia law in Afghanistan by either the corrupt Karzai government or the abysmal Taliban is morally and ethically untenable. These facts put our entire effort in both Afghanistan and Iraq into serious question.

If the leadership in Kabul which we support is corrupt, and if the people there know it, and if we know it, and if the purposes of the supported government there and the opposing party (Taliban) are essentially the same (implementation of Sharia law and creation of an Islamic state), we have neither provided the people of the country with a viable alternative to the ideology of the forces we oppose or the conflict itself has been couched in terms that are false.

If Islam and its draconian and savage “legal system” of Sharia law is itself a form of slavery and barbarism and totalitarianism we have failed to provide an alternative to the people of either Iraq or Afghanistan; this is a failure on our part.

If we had created a secular state in either country in which religion was subordinate to the state (as in the American system) then we would have provided a beneficial alternative to Sharia and Islam to the people of both countries. However, in Islam there is no separation between religion and state; Islam is both a religion and a political ideology.

Even in Afghanistan in 2006 years after the Karzai government had been installed, leaving Islam (apostasy) was a crime punishable by death; this is Sharia law.

Regardless of the self-destructive extreme radical tolerance now in vogue in the United States support of a culture and ideology whose adherents are literally hostages to the ideology of the state itself (Islam is the state in both Afghanistan and Iraq) is clearly contrary to American concepts of justice, and individual rights.

If the people of Afghanistan wish to continue living in an Islamic society then we have no cause in which to be involved in what is essentially an internal conflict between adherents of Islam. What kind of “nation building” is possible when the only result can be a Sharia law “state”?

There has been no discussion of freeing the people of Afghanistan from the tyranny of Islam, as they appear to have no such interest; nor is it within our capabilities at this time to do so if we were to embrace such a concept. (Because of the totalitarian nature of Islam the people of Afghanistan, or any Islamic state, do not have the means of communicating such a desire.) Of course, such an approach would be condemned by those who know nothing of Islam, jihad or the doctrine of cruelty, hatred, and war upon which Islam is constructed; such an approach would be condemned as “intolerant” or simply “not nice”.

Afghanistan and Iraq – The Victory of Islam with American Aid

The people of Afghanistan with or without American help will continue to live under Islam because this is the only option that they have. The victory of Islam in Afghanistan which will occur with either a Karzai or Taliban victory is a negative result for Americans and lovers of freedom everywhere.

What is the difference between the brutality of the Taliban implementing Sharia and Karzai’s corrupt government implementing Sharia? Even after years of American military and financial support the Karzai government had plans to kill an Afghani who had converted to Christianity in 2006.

Abdul Rahman, 41 years, is separated from his wife; he was arrested last month after his family – fighting with him over the custody of his children – denounced him for being a convert. The man, who was found carrying a Bible, was accused of having rejected Islam.

The “rejection of Islam” is a crime under Islamic/Sharia law. The penalty for this crime is death under Sharia Law. There is no religious freedom in any state under Islamic law; leaving Islam is a matter of both religious and state authority; it is the gravest of crimes in Islam, it is considered worse than murder.

But any of you who renounce your faith and die an unbeliever, will have your works count for nothing in this world and the world to come. These people will be prisoners of the fire, where they will live forever. (Koran 2:216)

[Edit Note: The correct Sura for this quote is Koran, 2:217:
"But any of you who renounce your faith and die an unbeliever, will have your works count for nothing in this world and the world to come. These people will be prisoners of the fire, where they will live forever."

The Karzai government rejected the death sentence for the Christian convert only because of American outrage; biting the hand that feeds has never been a great strategy in international relations. The Afghan authorities conveniently however found though that the convert was suffering a mental illness which is one of only several ways in which a convert is spared the death sentence.

The minister said: "We released him last night because the prosecutors told us to.
"His family were there when he was freed, but I don't know where he was taken."
Deputy Attorney General Mohammed Eshak Aloko said prosecutors issued a letter calling for Mr Rahman's release because "he was mentally unfit to stand trial".
Mr Aloko added Mr Rahman may be sent overseas for medical treatment.
Critics said Mr Rahman should be free to follow the religion of his choice but under Afghanistan's deeply conservative Sharia law, he had committed a capital crime.
Hundreds of clerics and students chanted "Death to Christians" at a protest against dropping the charge.
SkyNews

Ibn Warraq, the celebrated scholar of Islamic doctrine (and former Muslim), explains the exceptions as follows.

Under Muslim law, the male apostate must be put to death, as long as he is an adult, and in full possession of his faculties. If a pubescent boy apostatizes, he is imprisoned until he comes of age, when if he persists in rejecting Islam he must be put to death. Drunkards and the mentally disturbed are not held responsible for their apostasy.
Apostasy and Human Rights, International Humanist Ethical Union

The critically important differences between the Afghan government that we support and our own society could not have been more starkly on display. The differences remain but we as a culture mainly pretend that they do not exist. Our denial of the totalitarian nature of Islam is folly.

The purpose of jihad is the advance of Islam and the destruction of all non-Islamic religions, political systems and cultures. The holding of great wealth (the jihadist on the Detriot flight lived in a £2 million apartment in London) is irrelevant to those who adhere to and embrace the doctrine of Islam and its warfare against the kafirs (unbelievers). Jihad war is not about the frustrations of poverty.

Abdulmutallab, 23, had lived a gilded life, and, for the three years he studied in London, he stayed in a £2m flat.
Independent-UK

Our failures to prevent crimes of doctrinally motivated Islamic killers (even when we are warned by their parents) is further evidence that we do not take the threat doctrine of Islam-motivated haters seriously enough.

You are commanded to fight although you may dislike it. You may hate something that is good for you, and love something that is bad for you. Allah knows and you do not. (Koran 2:216)

[Part 2 will be posted soon.]

by D. L. Adams

[This article currently appears in New English Review]

Saul Alinsky and his “community organizing” methods and philosophy have had a profound influence on the politics of the United States. Recent history would suggest that this influence is just short of catastrophic.

Alinsky’s book, “Rules for Radicals,” published in 1971 still has enormous effects on our country today. Hillary Clinton wrote her Wellesley College thesis on Alinsky, interviewing him personally for her research. After her graduation Alinsky offered her a job with his organization, which she refused to pursue other opportunities. President Obama worked for Alinsky organizations and taught seminars in Alinsky tactics and methodology during his “community organizing” period in Chicago. Michelle Obama echoed Alinsky’s words in her speech at the Democratic Convention.

Michelle Obama:

“Barack stood up that day,” talking about a visit to Chicago neighborhoods, “and spoke words that have stayed with me ever since. He talked about “The world as it is” and “The world as it should be…”
And, “All of us driven by a simple belief that the world as it is just won’t do – that we have an obligation to fight for the world as it should be.”

Saul Alinsky, “Rules for Radicals,” Chapter 2:

“The means-and-ends moralists, constantly obsessed with the ethics of the means used by the Have-Nots against the Haves, should search themselves as to their real political position. In fact, they are passive-but real-allies of the Haves … The most unethical of all means is the non-use of any means … The standards of judgment must be rooted in the whys and wherefores of life as it is lived, the world as it is, not our wished-for fantasy of the world as it should be.“

Alinsky is making a strong case in this quote for the abandonment of morals and ethics as nothing but impediments to political success. For Alinsky, as for Michelle and Barack Hussein Obama, morality and ethics prevent the world from being what “it should be.” The Alinsky end game is likely a global utopia in which the “people” have “power.” Unfortunately, this utopianism has been the foundation of several über-violent movements of the last century which have resulted in over 100 million deaths.

Saul Alinsky

Alinsky’s dedication of “Rules for Radicals” to Lucifer is easily understood; as a champion of amorality and the abandonment of ethics as nothing more than props that sustain the status quo Lucifer is the perfect model of the destroyer for the activist Alinsky. The fact that our top political leadership has embraced this amoral set of tactics for political gain should cause all Americans concern.

There is no utopia; those who have strived to make the impossible real, to implement their grand visions of life have been the agents of death and destruction on a scale surpassed only perhaps by Islam. Alinsky, like the Koran, Sira, and Hadith, represents morality turned upside down or abandoned entirely in favor of cold pragmatism.

ACORN uses Alinsky’s aggressive model of “Community organizing.” It is no surprise that they have been deeply involved in voter fraud and other nefarious practices.

ACORN’s transgressions and fraud were so abysmal that the federal government de-funded the organization several months ago. ACORN operates on Alinsky principles of immorality and total radical pragmatism, after all, they are trying to usher in the people’s utopia; why should they allow mere ethics, legalities, and other such encumbrances to interfere with their mission to save humanity from itself?

Recently, ACORN employees attempted to assist two young people who wanted to start an illegal sex business; unfortunately for the ACORN people the two entrepreneurs were actually conservative activists who had filmed the entire encounter. Following in the path of Alinsky, what could be wrong with a bit of prostitution and other sex-related “businesses” if it “empowered the people” and could help to de-construct the institutions of society? For ACORN it was a win-win opportunity.

Alinsky’s mission was to incite constant struggle and agitation so that the oppressive “system” would eventually be brought to its knees; ACORN is on the same path, but pretends legitimacy much better than Alinsky ever attempted. In fact, the ACORN “sting” as it is now known is Alinsky methodology put to good use. ACORN and its Alinsky amorality were supported by our current President.

“In fact, Obama’s Acorn connection is far more extensive. In the few stories where Obama’s role as an Acorn “leadership trainer” is noted, or his seats on the boards of foundations that may have supported Acorn are discussed, there is little follow-up. Even these more extensive reports miss many aspects of Obama’s ties to Acorn.” (Stanley Kurtz, National Review)

Many Americans have read Alinsky’s books and understand his methods; this is excellent as so few read Mein Kampf, and fewer still have read the Koran, Sira, and Hadith. These are the foundational texts of existential opposition to the existence of the United States in its present form.

The fact that our current President and Secretary of State (wannabe President Hillary Clinton), are followers of Alinsky is beyond disturbing. That so many Americans know Alinsky is heartening but few know the motivations behind the agitation that is so central to the Alinsky method and further what it means when a professional agitator acquires the power that they claim to require. What kind of effective governance is possible from the permanent agitator when the reins of power are handed to him/her? We have seen the results.

The problem with the Alinsky method is that the end game is amorphous; the end game is the acquisition of power but little is said of what to do with that power once acquired. The core of Alinsky’s method is destruction, destruction of the “system” that allows a disparity of wealth. There is no discussion of what is to replace this system once it is brought down. However, there is little doubt that Alinsky’s idea of a better “system” is one that brings forced equivalence or Marxism. Fundamentally, the struggle to get power is the essence of Alinsky, what to do with the power once acquired is another matter altogether.

“Community Organizer” Barack Hussein Obama teaches the Alinsky method of power acquisition.

Just two weeks before his death in 1972 Alinsky gave a revealing interview to Playboy magazine. While this is not a widely known interview it provides great insight into Alinsky, his purposes and, most importantly, his deep alienation from concepts of decency, ethics and morality. In order to understand our current “leadership” we must understand Alinsky.

David Horowitz recently published a small but insightful pamphlet on Alinsky and “Rules for Radicals.” Horowitz understands what few do not: Alinsky was a nihilist. What does Alinsky’s nihilism say about those who follow in his footsteps? The answer is clear.

The current use of the term “change” is directly from Saul Alinsky. This is a term that can mean many things to many people.

“Pragmatically, the only hope for genuine minority progress is to seek out allies within the majority and to organize that majority itself as part of a national movement for change.” (Alinsky interview)

“Change” is both the tool and the goal, but it is rarely defined in any way that is not strictly local and economic; better housing for the poor, better economic opportunity, better wages, better municipal services, etc. However, at the national level “change” is left undefined. In fact it seems, the process of change itself, not the implementation of “change,” is the goal.

This is amoral political agitation that appears to be about something positive but is really about deconstruction. Once the institutions of “oppression” that require “change” are destroyed, there is no plan delineated by Alinsky (nor his current crop of followers) as to what will replace them. The goal apparently is “people power” (whatever that means). However, since the concept of destroying the institutions of society specifically to “empower” people is foundational, this is the same message of Marx.

Alinsky is a Marxist without the red flag. Any institution that allows one group of people to advance at the expense of another is to be brought down even if those who advance within it do so as a result of honest hard work and talent. The essence of Alinsky is a radical idea of universal equivalence, though this has been seen before both in Marxist theory, and in Communist states. In order to agitate for “change,” Alinsky and his adherents require the population to be on edge; “rubbed raw.” This desire for endless agitation as a goal is bizarre and disturbing.

“The despair is there; now it’s up to us to go in and rub raw the sores of discontent, galvanize them for radical social change. We’ll give them a way to participate in the democratic process, a way to exercise their rights as citizens and strike back at the establishment that oppresses them, instead of giving in to apathy. We’ll start with specific issues — taxes, jobs, consumer problems, pollution – and from there move on to the larger issues: pollution in the Pentagon and the Congress and the board rooms of the megacorporations. Once you organize people, they’ll keep advancing from issue to issue toward the ultimate objective: people power.” (Alinsky interview)

Alinsky believed that the struggle itself is empowering and important, in and of itself. “People power” is another way to say the rule of the people, and not elites or institutions or representatives. This is Marxism. Our president is the greatest acolyte of Saul Alinsky. The influence of Alinsky in our national politics cannot be overstated.

“We’ll not only give them a cause, we’ll make life goddamn exciting for them again — life instead of existence. We’ll turn them on.” (Alinsky interview)

Alinsky claims to love the United States, but not in its current form. His love of country is as hollow as that of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright.

“I love this goddamn country, and we’re going to take it back.” (Alinsky interview)

“An ABC News review of dozens of Rev. Wright’s sermons, offered for sale by the church, found repeated denunciations of the U.S. based on what he described as his reading of the Gospels and the treatment of black Americans.

‘The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing “God Bless America.’” No, no, no, God damn America, that’s in the Bible for killing innocent people,’ he said in a 2003 sermon. ‘God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme.’” (ABC News)

“Taking back” was a popular meme of the radical left during the Vietnam War era. Once the country is “taken back” what is to be done with it? We now have an Alinsky acolyte in the White House, one could say he has “taken back” the country, but it is clear that he does not know what to do with it. He doesn’t know because no Alinskyite has ever reached this level of power except for Hillary Clinton.

The ongoing agitation that comes now directly from the White House, most particularly the failed health care “reform,” shows that the “rubbing raw” method is being followed closely; the popular resistance to “change” that we now see growing across the country is evidence that perhaps this method of “community organizing” is bereft of solutions. Constant agitation is not a solution though Alinsky would have you believe otherwise. “Struggle” itself is the purpose and goal of the Alinsky way.

“All life is warfare, and it’s the continuing fight against the status quo that revitalizes society, stimulates new values and gives man renewed hope of eventual progress. The struggle itself is the victory.” (Alinsky interview)

This is essentially an anti- anti-revolutionary concept. The idea of fighting for the sake of fighting itself is morally depraved. But this term “depraved” would not have bothered Alinsky for he is the champion of the abandonment of morality. Amorality is fundamental to Alinsky and to his followers; an ideology that justifies the abandonment of morality and ethics is attractive to many – to the detriment of us all.

“Integrity! What shit.” (Alinsky interview)

In fairness to Alinsky, the above was said relating to a specific local situation, but the dismissal of integrity is illustrative. Alinsky saw the march of history as driven by revolution; without revolution there is stagnation (lack of development of humanity in his view). It is stunning to see someone dedicated to destruction and deconstruction so self-convinced that he is an agent of human necessity and development; Alinsky is deeply confused. Unfortunately, Alinsky’s followers are just as confused on this matter.

“History is like a relay race of revolutions; the torch of idealism is carried by one group of revolutionaries until it too becomes an establishment, and then the torch is snatched up and carried on the next leg of the race by a new generation of revolutionaries. The cycle goes on and on, and along the way the values of humanism and social justice the rebels champion take shape and change and are slowly implanted in the minds of all men even as their advocates falter and succumb to the materialistic decadence of the prevailing status quo.” (Alinsky, interview)

Alinsky grew up in Chicago in a very poor Jewish family in the early part of the century. He said that he had “kicked the habit” of Judaism at an early age, but would always say that he was a “Jew.” Seeing the corruption of Chicago at the time and the hero status held by Al Capone and his operatives, Alinsky made it his affair to associate himself with them. He saw no difference between the Capone criminals and the corrupt city officials of Chicago at that time. He was successful in flattering himself (his characterization) into the Capone organization and became a trusted fellow traveler for “two years” according to his estimate. In fact, the influence of the Capone gang on Alinsky is substantial and lasted for more than two years.

“He introduced me to Frank Nitti, known as the Enforcer, Capone’s number-two man, and actually in de facto control of the mob because of Al’s income-tax rap. Nitti took me under his wing. I called him the Professor and I became his student. Nitti’s boys took me everywhere, showed me all the mob’s operations, from gin mills and whorehouses and bookie joints to the legitimate businesses they were beginning to take over. Within a few months, I got to know the workings of the Capone mob inside out.” (Alinksy interview)

Alinsky’s self-identification of Frank Nitti the mobster killer as his “professor” is important. In retrospect one can speculate that Alinsky learned a great deal about pressure and intimidation from his friends in the Chicago mob.

But even more enlightening is that the mob killer Nitti is the anti-thesis of what America is about; amorality and criminality were what Alinsky apparently found so fascinating about Nitti and his gang- they beat “the system” which Alinsky saw as just as corrupt or equally so to the Capone/Nitti gangsters.

This abandonment of morality and ethics and in fact, the identification of morality and ethics as impediments, would become a theme with Alinsky. The two years of training with “Professor” Nitti would reap huge rewards for Alinsky over time. But what it has left as a legacy for this country is a disaster as Alinsky’s followers took this abandonment of morals and ethics as a serious lesson; nothing is excluded as far as tactics and strategy are concerned – this is the lesson of the “professor.”

Alinsky’s abandonment of morality and ethics is not difficult to demonstrate. “Rules for Radicals” is dedicated to Lucifer, the rebel against God’s rule and great destroyer of Christian ideology.

Dedication to Lucifer in Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals"

Alinsky and his method negate and reject morality and ethics. The denial of history is an important component of the denial of ethics and morality. Alinsky writes in the dedication to Lucifer that history cannot be known.

“…Who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins – or which is which…”

Without a knowable historical record there can be no learning from past events, and no trust in previous knowledge. The result of the denial of history is the denial of learning, because no existing knowledge can be trusted. Denial of the capability of people to attain knowledge and understanding from existing sources of information is a component of nihilism. This leaves the future open to radicals and de-constructionists like Alinsky who have made a definitive break with the past.

The institutions of society, the old institutions upon which society and morality are built, are therefore illegitimate and are to be brought down. This distrust in the idea of knowledge itself is a totalitarian, anti-intellectual concept.

Alinsky’s worldview is built then on new knowledge only and experience as the old cannot be known or trusted. This shattering of old orders is completely revolutionary and destructive as the past is therefore inherently unworthy because it cannot be trusted (myth and history are the same). The result of the rejection of the past and of knowledge can best be seen in Pol Pot’s Cambodia where knowledge and wisdom and those who possessed such things were destroyed to make way for the revolutionary Utopia of the Khmer Rouge.

Beginning on the day in 1975 when his guerrilla army marched silently into the capital, Phnom Penh, Pol Pot emptied the cities, pulled families apart, abolished religion and closed schools. Everyone was ordered to work, even children. The Khmer Rouge outlawed money and closed all markets. Doctors were killed, as were most people with skills and education that threatened the regime. (New York Times)

The rejection of morality and ethics and the embrace of total pragmatism to achieve the goal of power is characteristic of the “radical” Lucifer so respected by Alinsky. It is not important to Alinsky that Lucifer is the embodiment of the idea of evil and opposition to good; what matters is that Alinsky sees Lucifer as effective; the trains always run on time when Satan runs the show. Effectiveness and success are divorced from issues of morality and ethics; success is its own morality for Alinsky and his followers.

Morality and ethics have no value for the “radical” who wants to overturn the institutions of society and save the world. Alinsky was a Utopian dreamer who turned his formidable intellect to de-construction and removed morality from the equation for operational purposes. There can be no place for morality and ethics when the world must be transformed to a Utopia – for Alinsky and his followers this purpose is superior even to any “supreme being” and the morality and ethics which may have originated from such a being.

In fact, this rejection of accepted morality means that anything goes; any “action” is acceptable if it destroys or undermines the “status quo” and brings “change.” This is radical anti-stability for the sake of Utopianism.

The Alinsky puddle-deep “philosophy” is incredibly dangerous because it elevates “struggle” and “change” over humanity, individuals, and institutions that, while they may be flawed (but can be improved) must be destroyed simply because they are institutions. This is anti-intellectualism and a denial of context and history which results in what can only be endless agitation, conflict, and de-construction. This is a philosophy of a great cosmic vacuum in which stability and quality are sucked up forever until there is only “struggle.”

Utopians believe themselves above morality and ethics because there can be no greater purpose than theirs – the creation of Utopia. Utopians therefore consider their opponents evil.

The cruelty of Utopians toward their enemies is easily understood.

“Over and over again, the firebrand revolutionary freedom fighter is the first to destroy the rights and even the lives of the next generation of rebels.

But recognizing this isn’t cause for despair. All life is warfare, and it’s the continuing fight against the status quo that revitalizes society, stimulates new values and gives man renewed hope of eventual progress.” (Alinsky interview)

Utopianism is at the foundation of Soviet Communism, Pol Pot’s Cambodia, Mao’s China, Hitler’s Germany, etc. We have seen in history that Utopian ideologies resulted in the greatest toll of death of innocents in human history. Jihad and its hundreds of millions of victims is a Utopian effort to bring the world out of jahiliya (non-belief, ignorance) into dar al-Islam (the purview of Islam’s deity, Allah). The amorality and moral degradation of Utopianism is one of our greatest threats.

David Horowitz’ excellent recently published pamphlet “Barack Obama’s Rules for Revolution: The Alinsky Model” offers keen insights into Alinsky and what it might mean when Alinsky followers are in positions of power. The conclusions he reaches are not pleasant but are borne out by current events, public utterances of the president, his history, and the work of Alinsky himself.

What we are seeing is the most radical President in our country’s history who is unable to govern because governing is not his purpose. The Alinskyite, ever the destroyer of institutions, cannot govern because governments and societies are built upon institutions.

The cold war is over – but now it is being fought anew under a new name in the halls of our national centers of political power under the multi-colored banner: “Hope and Change.” The promotion of socialism though socialized medicine, the constant bowing to foreign leaders, and apologizing for American actions across the world and a new detente with traditional enemies and abandonment of and hostility to traditional friends is evidence that agitation and de-construction is the goal of the present administration.

A small article appeared in the Boston Globe just after the conclusion of the Democratic National Convention in Denver. It was written by Saul Alinsky’s son.

“All the elements were present: the individual stories told by real people of their situations and hardships, the packed-to-the rafters crowd, the crowd’s chanting of key phrases and names, the action on the spot of texting and phoning to show instant support and commitment to jump into the political battle, the rallying selections of music, the setting of the agenda by the power people. The Democratic National Convention had all the elements of the perfectly organized event, Saul Alinsky style.

Barack Obama’s training in Chicago by the great community organizers is showing its effectiveness. It is an amazingly powerful format, and the method of my late father always works to get the message out and get the supporters on board. When executed meticulously and thoughtfully, it is a powerful strategy for initiating change and making it really happen. Obama learned his lesson well.

I am proud to see that my father’s model for organizing is being applied successfully beyond local community organizing to affect the Democratic campaign in 2008. It is a fine tribute to Saul Alinsky as we approach his 100th birthday.” (Boston Globe, 8/31/08)

While Mr. Alinsky relished the fact that Mr. Obama had learned his father’s “radical lessons,” we should not be so sanguine. The anti-morality of Alinsky has brought our national political discourse to a breaking point. This is good for the true believers of Alinsky but bad for those who love liberty, democracy, and the future growth and stability of the United States and the prosperity and security of ourselves and our friends.

Utopians live in a fantasy realm outside of context and history, as if history and its cycles and challenges do not apply to them. Mr. Obama is at war, but not in the way that you might expect.

Our president does not appear to be seriously interested in war in Iraq or Afghanistan, these are but distractions to the main issue which is the homeland. With his oath of office taken on Abraham Lincoln’s personal bible the American people thought that the long circle of racism had finally been closed with Obama’s inauguration, but it is not so. We thought that we had entered a new era of openness, bi-partisanship, and post-racialism. It is not so; not since Jefferson Davis has an American president been so divisive. The Civil War allusion to Lincoln is appropriate but it is not accurate, our leadership is purposefully divisive because they are Utopians first, Americans second, third, or fourth, or fifth. We live in a time of disunity and radicalism foisted upon us by our leadership. This is not the future for which Abraham Lincoln had labored.

“A majority held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations, and always changing easily with deliberate changes of popular opinions and sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people. Whoever rejects it does of necessity fly to anarchy or to despotism. Unanimity is impossible. The rule of a minority, as a permanent arrangement, is wholly inadmissible; so that, rejecting the majority principle, anarchy or despotism in some form is all that is left.”

“We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature. (Lincoln, 1st Inaugural Address)

“With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation’s wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.” (Lincoln, 2nd Inaugural Address)

We live in a time of unprecedented domestic upheaval and not any that has been brought upon us by circumstances or international conflagrations but because our Alinsky-influenced, post-modern leadership believes that conflict and struggle is the path to human evolution.

The Obama administration is the embodiment of the failure of politics because it is not about politics – politics involves concession and compromise – it is about victory at any cost. The American people expected hope and change, as that is what they voted for but what they really wanted was stability and prosperity.

“Thus Alinsky begins his text by telling readers exactly what a radical is. He is not a reformer of the system but its would-be destroyer. In his own mind the radical is building his own kingdom, which to him is a kingdom of heaven on earth. Since a kingdom of heaven built by human beings is a fantasy – and impossible dream- the radical’s only real world efforts are those which are aimed at subverting the society he lives in. He is a nihilist.

This is something that conservatives generally have a hard time understanding. As a former radical, I am constantly asked how radicals could hate America and why they would want to destroy a society that compared to others is tolerant, inclusive and open, and treats all people with a dignity and respect that is the envy of the world. The answer to the this question is that radicals are not comparing America to other real world societies. They are comparing America to the heaven on earth – the kingdom of social justice and freedom – they think they are building. And compared to this heaven even America is hell.” (Horowitz, pp.16-17, Barack Obama’s Rules for Revolution: The Alinsky Model)

The United States was founded upon the concept that “the people” rule not the elites; that is why there are checks and balances built into our system of government. The Alinsky followers, now that they hold the levers of power, are seeing a popular opposition to their endless agitations. The rise of the Alinskyites has been a rude awakening for most Americans, but it has also energized a vocal opposition.

We must return to our roots, our moral, ethical and legal roots, Constitution and Bill of Rights. We must see ourselves in an historical context which the Harvard and Yale dhimmis in positions of authority will not. Our culture and our country are of great value and are worth protecting and saving. We live in a confused time, but the confusion is clearing away; it is clearing away through knowledge and understanding of the motivations of those in power.

The Alinsky ideology of nihilism and deconstruction must be repudiated. Those who are his sycophants and fellow travelers must be exposed and shamed for waging war on their own country and their own people in the name of Utopianism and endless struggle.

Our purpose is to learn through the slow, but sound, evolutionary process of trial and error, and to preserve the Constitution its sovereignty over this great land. If our leaders do not concur, if they seek to shortcut the natural process or disrupt the rule of law, they must be voted out or impeached.

Saul Alinsky’s message resonated heavily with many intellectuals and activists of the 70s and 80s including Hillary Clinton and Barack Hussein Obama. Our people naively voted for Mr. Obama and his party. Mr. Obama’s agenda is clearly built upon Mr. Alinsky’s model and method. Mr. Obama taught seminars in this method; he is a true believer. The message is that the United States is corrupt and must be de-constructed so that the power can rest with the people. But, it already does.

Our system of democracy based upon our Constitution must be slowly and continually perfected, but not de-constructed or destroyed. The United States is the hope of the world; some have forgotten this, or never believed it. The American people believe it still while our academic and political elites appear to have abandoned the idea.

We believe in liberty, freedom, and tolerance, we do not believe in totalitarian barbarism like that of Islam. We are expected to preserve these freedoms and our system of Constitutional government that supports them.

There is no utopia, and there is no better system of government in history than what we have here in this country. Our purpose as citizens should be to constantly improve it and aspire to perfect it knowing that absolute perfection is impossible. This is not absurd but an embrace of constant self-examination and improvement.

“Perfection” as a realistic political goal is a Utopian concept. Those who embrace Utopianism, like Saul Alinsky and his followers, believe that it is real – the Utopian idea is the same as the fascist, totalitarian, and communist, and Islamic concept of global conquest. Utopians know what is best, those who oppose them are… evil.

Ours is not a world of global fellowship, disarmament and universal goodwill. We live in a world of challenges and threats. When we forget that the reality of humanity is the driver of the functioning of the world, we are lost in dreams. Dreamers, utopians, and fantasists do not drive the world; they break it or are broken by it. Pragmatism without morality and ethics to check it is amoral and leads to de-construction and devolution. Alinsky and his followers have confused agitation with growth; the advancement of humanity must by necessity be driven by morality and ethics.

Pragmatism without morality and ethics leads to holocaust.

Alinsky has no goal but endless strife; “the struggle is the victory itself,” as he says. This means that institutions must be brought down because stability is seen as immoral in this amoral worldview. This is a bizarre and corrupt ideology for any leader of a nation to embrace.

“If the radicals’ utopia were actually possible, it would be criminal not to deceive, lie, and murder to advance the radical cause which is, in effect, a redemption of mankind. If it were possible to provide every man, woman, and child on the planet with food, shelter and clothing as a right, if it were possible to end bigotry and human conflict, what sacrifice would not be worth it?” (Horowitz, p.45, Barack Obama’s Rules for Revolution: The Alinsky Model)

Those having a theological bent might ask where Saul Alinsky is now. The answer is best provided by him.

“Let’s say that if there is an afterlife, and I have anything to say about it, I will unreservedly choose to go to hell. …Hell would be heaven for me.” (Alinsky, interview)

We Americans are a people of morality and strong beliefs of our place on this planet and in history.

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” (John Adams, 2nd US President)

“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them.” (Washington, Farewell Address, 1796)

We Americans believe that we have something of great value; we know it is so because we enjoy liberties that others on this earth do not; we know it is so because so many immigrate to our shores for the freedoms, openness, and opportunity that this country offers.

America is no utopia, but we shall do our best to work with the concepts of freedom and good government that Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, Washington, Madison, Monroe, and all the rest left to us as their legacy forever.

“If there is a form of government, then, whose principle and foundation is virtue, will not every sober man acknowledge it better calculated to promote the general happiness than any other form?” (John Adams, 2nd US President)

We hold this legacy as a great responsibility to ourselves and to future generations.

“I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. My sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history and naval architecture, navigation, commerce and agriculture, in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry, and porcelain.” (John Adams, Letter to wife Abigail from Paris, 1780)

There is no utopia but the one that we aspire to here with the superb tools which were left to us by our founders. We have not forgotten their gift to us, and we will make it right once again.

by D. L. Adams

As this difficult year comes to a close there is reason for positivity. There are now serving politicians in our country who are aware of Islam and the dangers that it poses to our freedoms and national survival; and there are now candidates running for national office who understand the challenges that we face from an ideology that is fundamentally opposed to ours.

We have been successful in raising awareness about political Islam its purposes and doctrine across the country and beyond. Even more important perhaps is the difficulty that we experience in discussing issues like this one.

We experience resistance to our discussions about Islamic doctrine and what it means for Americans and America because the United States and the West in general is in the midst of a crisis of meaning.

In addition to the horrors that we experienced on 9/11 and subsequently most recently at Fort Hood is the growing understanding across our society that we no longer have a shared concept of what it means to be American and what “America” itself means.

If there was no crisis of meaning in the United States there would be no controversy about the doctrine of Islam; there would be no confusion about what is the “true” Islam or what is the “false” Islam, the hijacked version of the … hijackers. If there were no crisis of meaning there would be unfettered and open discussion of Islamic doctrine, ideology, and history across the society.

The doctrine of Islam is clear about non-believers (Allah and Mohammed hate the unbeliever, the kafir), and it is clear about what the future of the world is supposed to be (the future is supposed to be entirely Islamic). The doctrine is clear about the House of War (dar al Harb), and the House of Islam (dar al Islam). The followers of Islam who kill non-believers and shout Islamic religious phrases as they kill give a clear message to all who care to listen to it. The followers of Islam involved overtly in jihad do not hide their purposes though they fool the multiculturalists and the ignorant with taqiyya about Islam as the “religion of peace”.

The doctrine of Islam is clear- it is the obligation of all followers of Islam to be involved in jihad, fighting in Allah’s cause. Allah’s Cause is the elimination of every religion or culture that is not Islamic, ruled under Allah’s law, “Sharia”.

The clarity of the message of the jihadists and the doctrine of Islam which explains why jihadists do what they do and commit the atrocities that they commit is difficult to defend, though it is defended nevertheless. It is defended and explained away by post-modernists and multiculturalists because if it is accepted as being what it is and if it is accepted that it is oppositional to American concepts of freedom and tolerance, then those who do not live a life of meaning have a foundational crisis of purpose and understanding; their deeply felt concepts of how the world functions will collapse.

The resistance to accept the reality of and then understand the truth of the doctrine of Islam is essentially a self-referential protective response on the part of a widely ignorant and post-modern culture deeply enamored with so-called post-historical ideas and Utopian concepts of radical tolerance.

Many in our culture believe that we in the United States are immune from historical forces; that we are safe in “fortress America” from all the horrors of the world that always happen “over there”. Even 9/11 could not shatter this Pollyanna silliness. The failure of 9/11 to awaken the mass of our people to the great threat of political Islam is a significant failure that cannot be defended, but it must be explained.

By way of explanation, Americans are a forward-looking people; we are tolerant, accepting and friendly. These are the foundations of our open society and why so many throughout our history have fled their own troubled homelands where the forces of history in all their ugliness wrecked their havoc. The place to evade the forces of history has always been the United States. This is why America has been the shining beacon of freedom and safety for generations.

What happens after a stunning and world shifting event like 9/11 occurs in the haven of openness and tolerance? What happens to the city on the hill—will the lights blink on and off then come back on bright as ever? Or will the lights shimmer and dim, because the people cannot accept the truth of this new world, which in fact is extraordinarily old (app 1400 years), into which they have been thrust?

The fundamental concepts of a stable and pleasant life for most are built upon the idea that everyone shares in the same desire for pleasantness and stability. Many in our country believe that a want of niceness on our part rather than simply our existence is the reason why so many across the world dislike the United States and our freedoms. This is a common idea across the land and a singular reason why discussing the doctrine of Islam and what it means is often met with rancor and fear. Many Americans do not want to know about the doctrine of Islam because it means that their concepts of stability and the nature of humanity are shattered.

The idea that an ideology can be so opposed to the existence of Americans as a group or nation is not unprecedented, we have been in civilizationalwar before. We fought WW2 because we saw the civilizations of Europe at risk of destruction and we knew that if they fell, the United States would be next and their essential concepts of freedom and the dignity of men were our own.

Since 1945 we as a society have forgotten that kindness and openness and a desire for mutual association is not enough to ensure peace and security here at home. There are forces at work that deny the right for others to live with their own beliefs and their own governments; this is called totalitarianism.

As this difficult year comes to a close we have much to be thankful for, but profound challenges remain. We are in an ideological war for which most are not prepared; in fact, many are unaware that such a conflict exists.

There is no denying the essential anti-freedom, intolerant political meaning and purpose of the doctrine of Islam, though it is denied anyway; this denial is the corner stone of our national suicide.

We are a forward-looking people; our grasp of history and of other cultures is neither extensive nor deep across the wider culture. Our current “culture war” has been described as a conflict between Republicans and Democrats; liberals and conservatives; capitalists and socialists but these are over-simplifications and miss the core point. The core of our current difficulties is a conflict over meaning and how to respond to challenges from those who do not share our concepts of meaning.

Throughout history societies have been required to defend themselves from threats both internal and external; this is why the Founders placed “I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic” in all civil and military oaths of office. We now must respond to a domestic and foreign threat that is ideologically driven.

Because we are in a crisis of meaning–as  shown by our lack of societal awareness and acceptance of the threat even these few years since 9/11 and only weeks since Fort Hood (a smaller version of the same crime driven by the same forces that were behind 9/11)—we  cannot respond effectively or at all.

In previous generations it was clearly understood by all what it meant to be an American, and what the concept of “America” was about. Rarely do the people have a shared understanding of these concepts now. What we see is a hodgepodge of competing ideas with the essential unifying concepts of “Americanism” forgotten or misunderstood.

The foundational concept of our country is built upon our Constitution which provides for just governance through representation and guaranteed freedoms for the people. The idea that a government is given its legitimacy from the people (rather than the government to the people) is unprecedented and merits appreciation, understanding, and defense.

Our culture is distracted and fragmented due to competing concepts of meaning. In the last 30 or 40 years we have seen the rise of an irrational and radical ultra-tolerance whereby any and all ideologies are accepted because they are different.

There is no value judgments placed upon these ideologies, even if they oppose our own because to do so would be to display intolerance; we are sacrificing our nation on the altar of a mistaken and ignorant misunderstanding of the functioning of humanity.

Radical tolerance upon which multiculturalism and post-modernism rest is the idea that there is no truth which can be known, that all “truths” are relative and a matter of opinion. This bizarre anti- self-legitimization is linked inextricably with the denial of history and the belief that we are somehow immune from the horrors of history’s cycles if we are but “nice” (tolerant) enough. The abandonment of immigration controls is evidence of this abandonment of essential truths; for how can we prevent the entry of someone to our country simply because there is a difference of opinion between them and the prevailing understanding of “good” in our culture let alone the laws of the land? Post-modernists would likely say that such controls would demonstrate a lack of “kindness” and “tolerance” on our part. This idea of radical baseless tolerance is one of the consequences of post-modernism.

The rejection of all previous concepts of truth and the rejection of the idea that truth itself can be known is what post-modernists are about. We see a total lack of moral and ethical foundation across the culture because the culture is widely accepting of post-modernism. For such anti-intellectuals there is no reason to limit immigration, no reason to condemn ideologies that are hate-based, intolerant and violent and opposed to our existence because we are no longer able to say with confidence that our “way” is good and worthy of defense and another ought to be opposed or condemned.

The mistake so rife among post-modernists is that the process of democracy, voting, polling, debate, etc. is mistaken for democracy itself. The post-modernist is the voter who voted for the NSDAP (Nazi party) in 1933 and said, “Look! Democracy at work!” This is a deep moral confusion because post-modernists are amoral.

Morality and ethics are built upon surety. Doubt in the ability to learn, to know, to judge—and, in fact that “judging” itself is immoral—is the essence of amorality.

As we doubt ourselves and pretend that we live in a world outside historical forces and embrace the ridiculous notion that, only with more and more tolerance and openness, those who wish to destroy us will be turned to friends completely forgets the lessons of history and of millennia of human and civilizational development. Post-modernists are ignorant Utopians whose ideas have no foundations in history but instead have a powerful and attractive message to a confused populace overwhelmed with data overload and their own growing doubts about meaning as essential and previously unassailable institutions across the culture are de-constructed. 

It is not now known when the idea that certitude could be essentially wrong (or worse) gained favor in our culture. This happened most assuredly over only several generations; the Civil War generation through the aftermath of WW2 into the Cold War had no such confusions as to the value of their society or country. We have somehow lost the firm belief that the United States and our Constitution are exceptional and worthy of defense. This loss of purpose and identification must be accepted, challenged and overturned. We must soon return to the core concepts of what America is, and what it means to be American.

The post-modern message is attractive because it exists outside of the horrors of history which include world war and holocaust and the “evil that men do”. The essence of post-modernism is a radical totality of acceptance of differences and an abandonment of weighing differences to come to a conclusion as to relative values. For post-modernists relative value is Truth, because there is no essential truth anymore. Judgment is certitude in action and certitude means that one concept is better than another.

The abandonment of the legitimacy of making value judgments is foundational to post-modernist anti-thought – it is the basis of our ongoing inability to defend ourselves from aggresive antagonistic ideologies. If we identify an ideology as oppositional that is not considered “tolerant”, we cannot act for fear of appearing “intolerant”. Why does it matter at all if we appear “intolerant?” We are all adults, are we not?

This lunacy must end. The lunacy of radical tolerance prevents our self-defense; radical tolerance and post-modernism must be exposed for the absurd ridiculous Utopian fantasies that they are, and eliminated from our national discourse.

The believability of post-modernist thought itself is at stake when the doctrine of Islam is discussed and events such as Fort Hood and 9/11 are placed in an Islamic doctrinal context. The failure of post-modernism in these and so many other cases is founded in the refusal to place people and events in a rational and legitimate context; Utopian fantasies are no way to explain the world.

If it is true that there is a doctrinal basis for 9/11 and Fort Hood (there clearly is), then universal radical tolerance is impossible—for how can radical tolerance positively affect ideologically driven foes whose purpose is the destruction of the very concept of radical tolerance itself and those who support such concepts?

Post-modernists are unknowing self-haters. They are self-haters because they will not dare to make a negative judgment about an ideology that despises them and their concepts of humanity and the functioning of the world.

We are in an existential conflict understood now by many more than understood only a year ago. Post-modernism is a Utopian dream built upon ignorance and wishful thinking only; there is little that can be said in its defense. If the world functioned in the way that post-modernists and multiculturalists believe that it does there would not have been 9/11 or Fort Hood and the doctrine of Islam would be something other than what it is.

Post-modernism is a denial of truth and the ability of humans even to know “truth”. In the world of post-modernist relativism everything is true and everything is equivalent. This is an extreme radicalism that we must oppose so that rationality built upon knowledge and understanding can again arise across the country and the West.

To those who believe  there is truth and untruth and accept this historically valid concept of the dichotomies of life which are “truth/untruth” and “good/evil”, the way forward is both challenging and difficult. It is a comfort in a sense to know that history and raw experience is on the side of knowledge and rationality; post-modernism and multiculturalism are irrational.

The denial of history, of the good and bad of humanity and the horrors of our experiences (9/11, Fort Hood, etc.), cannot long be sustained by those Utopians who prefer the world to be something other than what it is.

Those who know Islamic doctrine and understand that jihadists commit atrocities because the doctrine of Islam commands them to do so cannot live in a post-modern/multicultural world because such a world is a Utopian fantasy.

If we accept the world for what it is (and not the illusion of how we would wish it to be) and if we compare ourselves, our government, and our Constitution with those of other lands present and past, we can come to a conclusion based upon knowledge that what we have and what are are are worthy of defense.

If we accept the world for what it is and not for how we would wish it to be, we can divine the truth and accept that the clarity that comes with acceptance of reality is illuminating. We are not dreamers but realists. We have the audacity to learn the doctrine of our enemies, to discuss it, and to extrapolate from it so that we can understand events of the world in which we all live.

The post-modernist and multiculturalist concepts of us and the world (and our place in it) will fall away as the idea that truth can be known and understood again comes into fashion.

We are rationalists and students of reality; we are not dreamers living in a fantasy who reject reality because it is impossibly unpleasant (as multiculturalists and post-modernists do). We accept that we cannot change the world by inviting those who would destroy us into our fantasies of universal radical tolerance and ignorance.

We build our opposition to conditions today and to ideologies of hatred and violence on knowledge and acceptance of reality. We accept the understanding that others have of themselves and of how they relate to us; we have friends, allies, and enemies.

The essential truth of humanity and history has not changed; we would prefer a happier world but accept the world for what it is. This is our audacity; the audacity to speak the truth and challenge falsehoods and lies. We mourn our lost innocents and make them a promise that we will make things better so that their tribulations, sacrifices and pain are not in vain.

We are all learning, and sharing our knowledge. This is the foundation of the future. A new year is approaching and we welcome it with great hope.

by DL Adams

[This article currently appears in New English Review]

Our Commander in Chief’s immediate response to the jihadist massacre at Fort Hood was “we don’t know all the answers yet and I would caution against jumping to conclusions until we have all the facts.” What facts remain to be gathered? The traitor, betrayer, Muslim, jihadist killer Major Nidal Malik Hasan shouted “Allah Akbar” (additional sources here, and here) as he gunned down his fellow American soldiers. There is nothing else that we need to know.

Site Notes – Lectures and Readings

The superb foundational lectures on Political Islam by Dr. Bill Warner are now available directly from the site banner by clicking on “Lectures“. Our short “Reading List” is also posted in the banner for your review (click Readings).

The lectures on Islamic doctrine are courtesy of Dr. Bill Warner of the Center for the Study of Political Islam (and politicalislam.com). You may download these lectures or listen to them directly from this site. These lectures are ground breaking and will provide you with a comprehensive understanding of the doctrine and history of Islam.

The reading list is short and is not meant to be comprehensive. The list is specifically for those with little or no background in Islamic doctrine. You are invited to add your suggestions for books and websites in the comments section of the page.
DLA

Foundational Lectures – Bill Warner, Center for the Study of Political Islam

Dr. Bill Warner, one of the foremost scholars of Political Islam, provides these comprehensive lectures to SIOA readers and the Web community free of charge.

Dr. Warner has few peers in the foundationalist study and analysis of Islamic doctrine, and history.

The information contained in these lectures is fundamental to understanding what is happening in the world today, and why Islam is in conflict with the non-Islamic world.

Our preferences and opinions are not relevant; what is important is that we learn as much as we can about the doctrine of Islam – the foundational documents and concepts of Islam that drive the conflicts of the past, present, and into the future.

Understanding the doctrine of Islam is critically important if we are to defend our country, our friends, our way of life and our democracy from the brutality and cruelty that is Islamic supremacism and totalitarianism. Islam is a unified political, religious, military, cultural, and legal system; an all-encompassing ideology.

According to Islam all peoples, all countries, all cultures must be Islamic; no other religion or political system is acceptable.

The high cost of Islamic conquest through jihad is in the hundreds of millions of lives since the founding of Islam by Mohammed 1400 years ago in the Arabian desert. Jihad continues today.

Jihad war is upon us; our opinions are not relevent; only what we know matters. Knowledge is the foundation of our response.

The knowledge in these lectures contains the hidden history that moves the world today and has for the last 1400 years.

We must break through the darkness of ignorance and into the light of knowledge and understanding. With these lectures, you will understand.

-DLA

Instructions to download the lecture files

Downloading the lectures files can be done via Google Chrome browser.
Note: This process will not work in Firefox or MS Internet Explorer.

1. Download Google Chrome (google’s free excellent web browser) if you haven’t already got it on your computer. Skip this step if you have Google Chrome. Download Google Chrome from: http://www.google.com/chrome
   Extra Note: If you don’t want Google Chrome, just download it for this process then delete it when you’re finished.
2. Launch Google Chrome.
3. Type (or copy/paste) the following in the address bar of Google Chrome:
   ftp://getfiles@sioanetwork.com/
4. Press ENTER on your keyboard.
5. After several seconds a security window appears.
6. User Name: getfiles@sioanetwork.com
   Password: download1653
7. A list of MP3 files appears. These are the Warner lectures from the Center for the Study of Political Islam.
8. Right-click on the file you want to download, choose “Save Link As”.
9. The “Save As” window appears.
10. Browse to your target folder, then click SAVE.
11. ENJOY!

-BlogAdmin

Download text version of the lectures

You can download a text version of the lectures here (PDF format): http://www.siad.dk/pdf/13lessons.pdf

Lecture One

Introduction to Political Islam by Bill Warner, PoliticalIslam.com

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Lecture Two

Mohammed.

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Lecture Three

Basics of Islam.

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Lecture Four

Jihad.

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Lecture Five

Islam and the Jews.

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Lecture Six

Islam and the Christians.

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Lecture Seven

The Dhimmi.

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Lecture Eight

Islam and women.

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Lecture Nine

Slavery.

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Lecture Ten

Ethics.

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Lecture Eleven

Koran.

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Lecture Twelve

Submission and Duality.

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Lecture Thirteen

Tears of Jihad.

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Conclusion

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

An important article appeared today on American Thinker’s website. It is written by Dr. Bill Warner, founder of the Center for the Study of Political Islam. Dr. Warner is one of America’s foremost scholars of the doctrine of Political Islam; he does not mince words.

Today Israel desires peace and the Palestinians insist on victory. Guess who wins? Peace is for losers. Regrettably, Israelis and American Jews are choosing to be the losers. The consequences however are too dire; ultimately, Israel may get their peace, but it may be the peace after jihad’s victory.

Dr. Warner’s article is a concise summation of the state of affairs between Israel and the so-called “Palestinians”. The Palestinians are poor militarily in comparison to the Jewish state but are winning their propaganda war against the Jewish state. Israel is not engaging in an ideological war, so Israel is losing. The consequences of losing this war against jihad is civilizational annihilation.

Until the election of Barack Obama Israel was one of the most respected and solid allies of the United States in the Middle East and one of our staunchest allies on the planet. Only 9 months have passed and our government leaders in the executive branch have abandoned Israel preferring a neo-Chamberlainism (appeasement) approach to the forces of jihad across the Islamic world.

The lunatic president of Iran has promised to acquire nuclear weapons and when they are acquired to use them against Israel first, then against the United States. We have done nothing to stop them in their pursuit of nuclear weapons but have in fact aided them in their efforts. When tens of thousands of anti-government protesters took to the streets of Iran several months ago the government of the United States ignored them.

The state of Israel is historically the home of the Jewish people. This birthright is thousands of years old.

The founding of the state of Israel in 1948 was a direct political result of the Holocaust. The refrain at the time was “never again”. This refrain is now abandoned.

Israel is the front line of jihad. We are next though we are entirely unprepared.

The abandonment of Israel by the Obama administration, and the ceaseless international condemnation of Israel as an impediment to peace rather than a victim of jihad sets the foundations for deligitimization of Israel itself in the international community. If Israel is illegitimate say the forces of jihad and their apologists then an Iranian bomb is not a problem, because Israel itself is the problem not Iran’s nuclear ambitions and threats of a new holocaust.

The stage for Israel’s destruction is being set, and nothing is being done to stop it. The world is upside down with our leadership at the forefront of this doublespeak Orwellian lunacy, ignorance and abandonment of Israel and the Jewish people.

Dr. Warner’s article is groundbreaking in that it identifies the failure of the government of Israel to engage in ideological war, and the consequences of that failure.

Continued failure to awaken leftist American Jews, for example, from post-modernist self-hating, ignorant fools to lovers of their own people and their ancestral homeland will have catastrophic results. American Jews must understand that Israel is a victim of Jihad and is not fighting offensive war regardless of what any absurd false reports (Goldstone) might suggest.

There are multiple fronts in war, propaganda/ideology is an important front and can be as powerful as battlefield victories (or losses). Israel must engage on this front as vigorously as it fights militarily. Modern wars are fought in the press as well as the battlefield. Propaganda victories can nullify battlefield victories – this is one of the lessons of VietNam.

It is the nature of current warfare that the press is used as a battleground to reach hearts and minds; Israel is not winning in this sphere. Only when the doctrine of Islam is understood and communicated to all the people at home and abroad, only when the threat doctrine of jihadists (doctrine of Islam) and the states that support them are widely known and widely discussed can the motives of the enemy of freedom and humanity be opposed and the cause of decency and human freedom persevere.

Islam is an ideology of submission; everyone must submit to it. "Freedom" is an enemy concept to Islam because adherents of this ideology aspire to total slavery to Allah, Mohammed, and the entirety of the doctrine. Freedom is the enemy of Islam.

Understanding the doctrine of Islam as we now do is a fairly new condition. We live in a country whose foundation is religious tolerance, and we have been taught (and lied to) that Islam is one of the three great “Abrahamic faiths”. This concept is an Islamic idea that is used to confuse the kafirs (unbelievers) into non-action as jihad is waged relentlessly against them across many fronts. There is no Islam without jihad; jihad is a core idea/purpose of Islam.

Islam is a political ideology and a complete civilization, religion is one part of it. The political ideology of Islam is about conquest, cruelty, intolerance, and barbarism. The “peaceful” religion is cover for the brutal, intolerant, and anti-human political ideology. As more and more Americans learn about the doctrine of Islam and apply that knowledge to understanding the actions and motives of jihadists and Islamic sharia law countries, and the actions of Islamic immigrants living in kafir countries we can then make laws, and enforce our existing laws to protect our culture (for example: freedom of speech), and country from this grave existential threat.

Freedom of speech and expression are enemies of Islam because adherents of this ideology are required to remain within a very restrictive range of subjects that are considered worthy to discuss. All of these subjects are approved by the doctrine, if they are not approved, they are opposed by Islam. The violent reaction against the Danish cartoonists is evidence of this.

Israel is the front line of jihad. We are next.

Israel must fight an ideological war against the forces of jihad so that the Iranian-promised new holocaust will be stopped. We were told “never again”; how did this promise die?

We face a devastating truth: Israel may not survive jihad. The purpose of jihad is conquest of the kafir so that the kafir submits to Islam and Sharia law. “Islam” means “submission” it does not mean “peace”. Peace with Islam can only come after the host culture has submitted to Islam – this must never happen here and it must never happen in Israel.

Dr. Warner’s article is posted here in its entirety. You can see the original with comments from readers here: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/losing_israel_1.html

-DLA

Losing Israel

by Bill Warner
(originally posted on American Thinker)

When America entered the war in Vietnam, Ho Chi Min said that it would be a long war and that the communists would win by using propaganda in the media and the universities. He was correct.

It is time to take stock in the war between Israelis and the Palestinians and deal with some forbidden subjects. Israel is losing the propaganda war, hasbarah, and for a very good reason.

Israel is not in the hasbarah game, unless one counts belated responses to the Palestinians’ propaganda offensives. Pierre Rehov, a Moroccan French Jew, is a documentary filmmaker. He claims that the Palestinians have made over 50 propaganda movies, while Israel has done only 8. Of those eight, Mr. Rehov made six.

Why don’t Jews and Israel want to deal with propaganda? Simple. It would mean talking about Islam. Jews and Israel must face the facts that the Koran and the Sunna (the actions and words of Mohammed) are filled with invectives against the Jews. At first the words were complimentary, but when the Jews of Medina rejected Mohammed as a prophet they were all enslaved, exiled, murdered and robbed — all acts of jihad. These were not (just) historical acts, but perfect examples of Islamic action towards Jews — models prescribed for Muslims to follow up to the present time. To illustrate the severity of this predicament, statistically speaking, in the Koran of Medina 10.6% of the text is devoted to Jew hatred, whereas, only 6.8% of Mein Kampf is devoted to Jew hatred.

The language and actions of Palestinians and all Muslims in general are directly approved by Islamic political theological doctrine. Not only the language, but also policy is set by the Islamic political doctrine. To repeat: political doctrine — a political theological doctrine of jihad against all kafirs.

Yet, it seems until now that both Jews and Israel choose annihilation over talking about Islam. It is simply not an acceptable subject matter. Political correctness prevails over survival. Unfortunately, these are suicidal choices. It is obvious that the ADL and the Jewish Federations for example, are only two Jewish organizations that have corporate polices of not discussing Islamic political ideology.

The ADL will admit that there are a “few” radical Muslims, and would gladly argue in public that except for a few Muslim extremists, Islam is not the problem. ADL is the first to argue that Jews and Christians have their share of crazies and they are no different from the Muslims. This is the ultimate multiculturalist view, which may well lead to a disaster for Israel and aid in the demise of Western civilization.

Since a propaganda war is about the use of intelligence, one would think that the Israelis would be the world’s best and the Muslims would be the worst. Look at Nobel prizes, especially in the sciences. Israelis win them by the handful compared to the Arab world. But in the hasbarah, public relations, the Israelis are lazy fools and the Palestinians are industrious geniuses.

Israeli government officials who will comment off the record say that as a government, Israel cannot launch a propaganda war over Islam.

And, if Israel were to launch an ideological war, who would be the target audience? The ultimate target would be the secular and liberal Jews of America and Israel, who are the near enemy. If you can launch a hasbarah campaign that would open their eyes, enough of the world would tag along.

Otherwise, if the Israelis continue to think that they can keep scoring military victories and by that win this ideological war, they are fools and worse. America won the Tet offensive on the battlefield, but lost the propaganda war in the media and the universities, exactly as Ho Chi Min predicted.

As a brilliant example of ideological war, revisit Netanyahu’s UN speech on September 24, 2009. He laid out the civilizational differences between Holocaust deniers and Israel. The same arguments about civilization should apply to the war between the Palestinians and Jews in Israel. This is because the Israel/Palestinian conflict is no different than the jihad in Kashmir, India, the Philippines, or in dozens of fronts in Africa.

After the Mumbai terror attack, the Jewish community in Nashville, TN had a rally at a synagogue. They prayed for peace in Israel.  The same day, Christian supporters of Israel held a rally, and they prayed for Israel’s victory.

Now, which one of the two maintains a stronger position — peace or victory? Today Israel desires peace and the Palestinians insist on victory. Guess who wins? Peace is for losers. Regrettably, Israelis and American Jews are choosing to be the losers. The consequences however are too dire; ultimately, Israel may get their peace, but it may be the peace after jihad’s victory.

Ironically, Israelis and Jews abroad are not the only ones in a state of denial about Islamic politics; they just happen to be at the frontline. President Bush demonstrated after 9/11 that he too had no clue how to fight this Islamic ideological war. Instead of using military force against our enemies, he and his successor- President Obama should have declared ideological war against our true enemy-political Islam.

They seem to lose their war and so will Israel unless some tough questions are faced and actions are taken.

by D. L. Adams

The Constitution of the United States is the foundation of resistance to Sharia law and Islamization. According to Article 6 of the Constitution, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and no other law can supersede it. It is important that we understand Sharia law and the Islamic doctrine from which Sharia is derived.

Our leaders and the majority of our people know nothing of Islamic doctrine and nothing of  Sharia. They must be educated, quickly.

We must learn the doctrine of Islam and we must hold our judiciary and our local, state, and national leaders to their oaths to uphold and defend the Constitution. Sharia law is fundamentally antithetical to our Constitution and cannot be allowed an iota of legitimacy or authority in our democratic society.

There should no longer be any doubt in the minds of Americans whatever that Sharia law and the Constitution of the United States are mutually exclusive. Sharia is counter to all of our concepts of freedom, inclusiveness, justice, decency, equality, and the rule of law. For those who still have some question on the matter there is this situation for your review.

AL-LAITH: A 10-year-old bride was returned last Sunday to her 80-year-old husband by her father who discovered her at the home of her aunt with whom she has been hiding for around 10 days.

A local newspaper said the husband, who denies he is 80 in spite of claims by the girl’s family, accused the aunt of meddling in his affairs. “My marriage is not against Shariah. It included the elements of acceptance and response by the father of the bride,” he said.

He added that he had been engaged to his wife’s elder sister and that this broke off as she wanted to continue with her education. “In light of this, her father offered his younger daughter. I was allowed to have a look at her according to Shariah and found her acceptable,” he said.

Source: Arab News, August 26, 2009 This story was also posted on Daniel Pipes’ site.

Sharia law is the codification of the commands of Allah and Mohammed and the Sunna of Mohammed (found in Sira and Hadith). Since Mohammed had a child bride, it is therefore “sunna” for all Muslims that is, acceptable. As the 80-year old husband in the story above states quite accurately, his marriage to a ten year old is both sunna and within his rights under Sharia law.

Anything that Mohammed did or said or commanded is considered “correct”, that is “allowed” within Islam. Mohammed is the perfect example of humanity for all Muslims to follow forever. Mohammed married Aisha when she was 6, and “consummated” the “marriage” when she was 9. The 80-year old “husband” is following the perfect example of Mohammed so he is in the right according to Islamic doctrine. (Hadith, Sahih Muslim; 113,031, 5977)

Child abuse is not supported by the Constitution of the United States, quite the contrary.

The critical difference between Jewish and Christian law and Sharia (Islamic law) is that Jewish and Christian law are subordinate to the secular laws of the cultures in which Jews and Christians reside. This is not the case with Sharia.

Sharia is both absolutist and universal – everyone, including non-Muslims must submit to Sharia law. Causing the unbeliever to submit to Sharia is one of the core purposes of Islam itself.

Mohammed: “I have been ordered to wage war against mankind until they accept that there is no god but Allah and that they believe I am His prophet and accept all revelations spoken through me. When they do these things I will protect their lives and property unless otherwise justified by Islamic law, in which case their fate lies in Allah’s hands.” (Hadith, Muslim; 001,0031)

47:3 This is because the unbelievers follow lies while the believers follow the truth sent down from their Lord. It is in this manner that Allah sets forth the rules of conduct for mankind. (Koran)

47:4 When you encounter the unbelievers on the battlefield, cut off their heads until you have thoroughly defeated them and then take the prisoners and tie them up firmly. Afterward, either allow them to go free or let them pay you their ransom until the war is over. This you are commanded. If it had been Allah’s will he would have taken out His vengeance upon them, but He has commanded this so that He may test you by using these others. As for those who are killed for Allah’s cause [jihad], He will not let their sacrifice be in vain. He will lead them into Paradise, of which He has told them. (Koran)

The doctrine of Islam is very clear on points regarding the unbeliever, or “kafir”. Sharia is the tool by which all peoples, believers and non-believers, are made to submit to Islam.

As Sharia law is contrary in every one of its components to our Constitution, and is essentially a foreign legal system whose purpose is to supplant the Constitution itself; it must therefore be opposed. This opposition is founded upon human rights grounds and upon the oaths that all public servants across our country take to defend and uphold the Constitution.

Article 6 of the Constitution is clear on these points. The Founders were prescient  in many ways. They knew that foreign forces, or oppositional anti-human concepts could take root in the United States. They planned for this eventuality with Article 6 (among others).

Article VI.

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution;but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

The oaths of office of government servants, state level government officials, the military, and members of the Congress, officers of the courts, as well as the President reflect this requirement to uphold and defend the Constitution. 

Senator’s Oath of Office:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same…”

Lawyer’s Oath – State Bar of Michigan:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm):

I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Michigan…”

Lawyer’s Oath – State Bar of Louisiana:

“I solemnly swear (or affirm) I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Louisiana…”

Congressional Oath of Office:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God. “

Supreme Court Oath of Office:

According to Title 28, Chapter I, Part 453 of the United States Code, each Supreme Court Justice takes the following oath:

“I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”

US President Oath of Office:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

New Hampshire Oath for Civil Officers (including state officials):

“I, A.B. do solemnly swear, that I will bear faith and true allegiance to the United States of America and the state of New Hampshire, and will support the constitution thereof. So help me God.”

US Military Enlistment Oath:

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic…

It is clear that all United States public servants, as well as our military personnel are obligated by voluntary oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. Article 6 of the Constitution clearly states that no other law other than the Constitution itself shall be the law of the land.

As Sharia law fundamentally is meant to usurp the law of the land (Constitution) and replace it with itself, it must therefore be opposed by all officials of the United States. Every citizen of the United States should remind their officials that they are obligated by their solemn oath to uphold and defend the Constitution.

Islam’s opposition to our Constitution and our country could not be clearer. Allah and Mohammed hate the kafir (non-Muslims) and command that Islam be at war with them forever, until there are no more kafirs.

[2.217] They ask you concerning the sacred month about fighting in it. Say: Fighting in it is a grave matter, and hindering (men) from Allah’s way and denying Him, and (hindering men from) the Sacred Mosque and turning its people out of it, are still graver with Allah, and persecution is graver than slaughter*; and they will not cease fighting with you until they turn you back from your religion, if they can; and whoever of you turns back from his religion, then he dies while an unbeliever– these it is whose works shall go for nothing in this world and the hereafter, and they are the inmates of the fire; therein they shall abide.
DLA: *”Idolatry is a greater sin than murder” is the translation according to some scholars.

[8:39] And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah; but if they desist, then surely Allah sees what they do.

According to the Sira of Mohammed (the biography of Mohammed), submission of the kafirs to Islam is all that matters (Ishaq, 484).

[3:151] “We will strike terror into the hearts of the kafirs because they worship others besides Allah, which he gave them no permission to do. Their home will be the fire, a terrible resting place for the evil doers.”

[9.5] So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters (kafirs) wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate (jizya tax), leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

The doctrine of Islam is clear. Its purpose is to supplant the religions, government, and culture of the host culture and replace them with Islam and Sharia law.

“Mohammed said, ‘I have been directed to fight the kafirs until every one of them admits, ‘There is only one god and that is Allah.’ Whoever says, “There is only one god and that is Allah,’his body and possessions will be protected by me except for violations of Islamic law, in which case his fate is with Allah, to be punished or forgiven as he sees fit.” (Hadith Bukhari; 4, 52, 196)

The importance of immigration to kafir lands (countries that are non-Muslim) is doctrinally codified in Islam. In fact, the first year of the Islamic calendar is notthe year in which Mohammed began his prophethood but rather the year in which he emigrated from Mecca to Medina.

Immigration is fundamentally important to the growth of Islam; we are seeing it across Europe as Islamic immigration is causing upheavals and strife in too many European countries to mention. These upheavals occur not because of any hostility on the part of the host peoples, much the contrary – the people of Europe have welcomed Muslim immigrants. The problems of Europe are foundationally built upon the lack of interest of the “Muslim community” to assimilate.

“Muslim hate fanatics plan to take over Britain by having more babies and forcing a population explosion, it has been revealed.

The swollen Muslim population would be enough to conquer Britain from inside, they claim.

Fanatics told a meeting of young Muslims on the anniversary of the 9/11 atrocity, that it would then be easy to impose Sharia law on the population, the Sun newspaper reported.”
(September 13, 2009; London Evening Standard)

The disintegration of Europe is founded upon the desire of Islamic immigrants to change the host countries and cultures in which they now live. This is sunna as Mohammed did this in Medina when he immigrated there from Mecca. (Please see the excellent book on Islamic immigration Modern Day Trojan Horse: Al-Hijra, The Islamic Doctrine of Immigration, Accepting Freedom or Imposing Islam?)

The oppositional nature of Islam to kafir (non-Muslim) countries and cultures is firmly written in the doctrine. We ignore the doctrine at our existential peril.

“[9.29] Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.” (Koran)

It is difficult for many post-modernists (and multiculturalists) who believe in nothing (because for them everything is equivalent) to conceive that people can be motivated so strongly by an ideology.

It is clear that we are in no way living in a “post-historical” world but rather in a world in which we are assaulted daily by historical forces that we do not understand because they are not taught in our schools and universities. This is a systemic failure in our American culture that must quickly be rectified if we want to continue to have an American culture and system of government.

The word “Islam” means “submission”. An adherent of this ideology is “one who submits”. Adherents submit to the commands of Allah and Mohammed and the “perfect example” of the life and actions of Mohammed as found in Sira and Hadith. Koran is considered the perfect word of god and cannot be questioned. The doctrine of Islam cannot be criticized or analyzed, it can only be implemented. The implementation of the doctrine of Islam means soft or violent jihad against the kafirs, everywhere and forever until there are no more kafirs.

It is our responsibility as lovers of freedom and democracy to oppose the growth of Islam and the implementation of Sharia law in our country. It is the responsibility of our public servants and our military to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. We must remind our local, state and Federal leaders of their responsibility and of their oath.

Our Constitution is the key to opposing Sharia law in the United States. The Constitution is a special document unprecedented in the history of humanity. It is our responsibility to uphold and protect it. Our forebears have done this; now we must do it, too. This is our duty as Americans and decent people across the world.

When faced with existential threats as Islam is to our way of life, we must respond. We must learn the doctrine of Islam, and educate one another about it. We must educate our leaders and remind them of their duty to protect and defend the country and Constitution. Nothing less is acceptable.

Today, New English Review published an interview that I was privileged to conduct with the last surviving member of the White Rose.

The White Rose was led by 19-year old Sophie Scholl, a student at the University of Munich. During the height of WW2 Sophie and her friends pamphleted Munich and other cities denouncing Hitler and Nazism. They called for the end of Nazism and told the German people of the horrific crimes that the Nazis were commiting. Arrested by the Gestapo, Sophie Scholl and several other White Rose members were tried and executed in a repellent show trial. Mrs. Suzanne Zeller-Hirzel was sentenced to 6-months in prison.

Mrs. Zeller-Hirzel is now 89-years old. She is an active member of an anti-jihad organization in Germany. Mrs. Zeller-Hirzel is seen as a saint and hero by all lovers of goodness and freedom around the world no matter their political leanings, right or left. Mrs. Zeller-Hirzel sees the fight against jihad, sharia and Islamization as the same fight fought by the White Rose.

Please give this interview to all of your multiculturalist and post-modernist friends. When they have read the interview ask them this: If the last survivor of the White Rose, Sophie Scholl’s best friend, says that the fight against Islamism is the same as the White Rose’s fight against Nazism how can they condemn you for opposing Sharia and Islamization in the United States or elsewhere?

This interview should be a wake up call to everyone on the political left in the United States who defends Islam but know nothing of it; who condemn those who oppose Sharia and Islamization; and retain their ignorance believing that their ignorance gives them the moral high ground. Multiculturalists must answer to Mrs. Zeller-Hirzel, and embrace Sophie Scholl and people like her wherever they are found.

-DLA

Go to the Interview.