Maybe "Terrorism" Isn't The Best Word For It


DO YOU feel terror? Neither do I. Maybe I did on September 11th as I watched the planes fly into the Twin Towers. But even then I don't think I could call it "terror." I felt angry and confused. Flabbergasted. Astonished. I was definitely stressed by it. But I didn't run through the streets panicking in terror.

I'll bet you can say the same. We might be dealing with an insufficient term. A more useful term is demoralism. The hot-headed Islamic supremacists are trying to demoralize as a prelude to invading and defeating us.

In war, one of the most important psychological impacts a general tries to have on his enemy is demoralization. A demoralized enemy is easier to defeat. A demoralized enemy becomes paralyzed by indecision or cuts and runs, and in the confusion is easy to route.

Islamic supremacists have been infiltrating the western world and undermining our confidence, our clarity, and our values for decades. They chose the World Trade Center for many reasons. Among other things, the Towers were symbols of Western morale. The Jihadis' aim was to demoralize the West.

And they succeeded to some degree. My wife was talking to a woman the other day about Islam and what we must do about it and the woman responded, "I don't think they can be defeated. It is in God's hands."

Unbelievable! The woman has given up. I say this because she didn't say it like, "I will do all I can and after that, it is in God's hands." She said it like, "There is nothing I can do about it. Therefore it is in God's hands." That's defeatism.

To be demoralized means to have given up. Demoralization is the opposite of determination. When you are demoralized, you feel that no effort on your part will make any difference. For example, many people tell me they have tried educating their fellow non-Muslims about the third jihad and the response they get is either hostility or apathy. One woman told me, "It's like beating your head against a brick wall."

In other words, trying to educate the public about Islam is an exercise in futility. Many people have told me, "It's going to take a major catastrophe to wake people up." This is not too much different than, "It's in God's hands." It is saying, "I give up." It is saying, "Nothing I do will make much difference."

This attitude has to be removed from our brains, people! We can't have that kind of defeatism. If we are demoralized, the enemy has already won. We need a fighting spirit to the bitter end. Morale is a necessity.

To defeat Islamic supremacism, the most important thing that needs to be achieved is a widespread public education about it. The media will not do it. The politicians will not do it. IT IS UP TO US! It will be done one-on-one by those of us who know about the third jihad, or it won't be done.

So if you come up against what seems to be an insurmountable barrier, you should NOT decide it's impossible and start trying to explain all the reasons it cannot be done. We MUST win this fight. Failure is not an option. What you need to do is decide you will surmount that barrier or die trying. You need to confide in your allies and let us help you. We can pool our ingenuity and find a way.

Whether you are demoralized or not is UP TO YOU. The circumstances can never determine whether you will give up or not. No demoralists can make you feel demoralized without your consent. Your morale is in your control.

You must stay aware that the decision to give up or keep trying will usually function as a self-fulfilling prophecy. In other words, if you decide you're going to fail, and you give up, you have failed. Your decision has become a reality.
If you decide you will find a way to succeed and you try and fail, does that mean you were wrong? No, you can try again. You can try a different way. You can study about it, learn more about it, put in the time thinking about it, talk to people about it and glean their ideas, and you can keep trying until you succeed.

Either way, your decision has become a self-fulfilling prophesy.

Awhile back, I wrote a short article with links giving you tools to help you restore another person's morale. The links go to a series of articles that you should study if you ever feel demoralized or disheartened by this work. The articles are based on rigorous scientific studies. These are not my little pet theories on what might work. People who change their explanatory style have a significantly and measurably improved power to persist in the face of obstacles, as shown by over seven hundred scientific studies. People who have developed this kind of psychological resilience have a significant and measurable improvement in their ability to succeed.

Study that material. Literally STUDY it. Do the writing exercise. Make SURE you keep your morale high, and then help the rest of us do the same. This arsenal of counter-demoralizing techniques are a powerful defense system against the relentless efforts of the demoralizers to make us throw in the towel. We will not throw in the towel. We will crush the third jihad and arise victorious!


An Interview With Geert Wilders


THE FOLLOWING is an interview with Geert Wilders (the two interviewers are Jesse Petrilla and Tom Trento). Wilders is sensible, sane, rational, calm, intelligent, articulate man, and he is being silenced (learn more about that here, and what you can do about it). The video is sixteen minutes long, but worth watching, and worth sharing. Watch it and share it quickly because you never know what YouTube will remove for being "offensive."

Let us take up Geert Wilders' cause, first because he is a good man and on the leading edge of defending freedom of speech in the Western world from Islamic encroachment.

And second, let us take up his cause as a way to introduce the uninitiated into the goals and methods of Islamic supremacists. Speak about this specific example, try to get your listener to do something about it (even signing this petition). Geert Wilders' plight is a good "excuse" to share a little of your knowledge about Islam with someone. Whether they do anything to help Geert is almost beside the point. You've gotten a little information into their brain. The information will join with other facts and events in the future, and some day that person may eventually realize the West is under attack and decide to defend it.

But first
something needs to penetrate their brain. Geert Wilders' case is a very good vehicle for this kind of conversation. I'm sure he would appreciate it if we used his legal distress to advance the cause.

A new blog is devoted to helping Geert Wilders. Check it out: Defend Geert Wilders.


A Practical Way To Support Freedom Of Speech, Stop Islam's Relentless Encroachment, And Help a Good Man


THE FOLLOWING is a message from an excellent activist organization, somewhat like Amnesty International but specifically aimed at stopping Islam's relentless encroachment. It is called SITA. Here is their latest cause, which we would all do well to participate in: Geert “Winston” Wilders, the Dutch Parliment member (and leader of the Party of Freedom) is fighting Islamic supremacism. He is one of the few politicians in the world who is speaking honestly about Islam. (See more about Geert Wilders here.) Wilders is being prosecuted by dhimmis (a dhimmi is someone who accepts Islam's dominance) because he warned the European people about Islamic supremacism with his movie Fitna (watch the video here). The dhimmis harassing him obviously have a defective memory. Let’s remember that both Winston Churchill and Adolf Hitler had the same opinion about Islam: It is a totalitarian and violent religion. Churchill denounced and warned about that ideology while Hitler admired it. Today Winston Churchill, the most stalwart anti-Nazi, would be arrested in Holland for incitement to hate and racism whereas Hitler would be free to promote Islam and recruit Muslims into his Nazi party unmolested. As reported by the BBC, the Dutch court has ordered prosecutors to put elected politician Geert Wilders on trial for making anti-Islamic statements. “The Amsterdam appeals court has ordered the prosecution of member of parliament Geert Wilders for inciting hatred and discrimination, based on comments by him in various media on Muslims and their beliefs,” the court said in a statement. “The court also considers appropriate criminal prosecution for insulting Muslim worshipers because of comparisons between Islam and Nazism made by Wilders,” it added. Things have changed for the worse since Europe defeated Nazism in 1945. Winston Churchill, the most prominent European fighting Nazi tyranny, had this to say about Islam:

“How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Muslims may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen; all know how to die; but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Islam is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science -the science against which it had vainly struggled- the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.”
Nazi leader Himmler had this to say about Islam:
“Muslims responded to the call of Muslim leaders and joined our side because of their hatred of our joint Jewish-English-Bolshevik enemies, and because of their belief and respect for, above all — Our Fuehrer.”
In his memoirs, Albert Speer wrote about Hitler’s appreciation of Islam, reporting a discussion which captures Hitler’s effusive praise for Islamic supremacism:
“…a religion that believed in spreading the faith by the sword and subjugating all nations to that faith. Such a creed was perfectly suited to the Germanic temperament.”
Hitler, according to Speer’s account, repeatedly expressed the conviction that:
“The Mohammedan religion…would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?”
Churchill likened Islamic terrorism to Nazism:
“In truth though, just as the British stoicism recalls the same from 65 years ago, so too, there is a deep and instructive similarity between the Nazis and the Islamic-fascist forces that attacked then and attack today. The fact of the matter is that even more important than invoking the famous British “stiff upper lip,” to fight this current war to victory requires understanding and accepting the similarities between the Nazis and the Arab-Islamic terrorist armies.”
Geert Wilders, among many others, likened the Koran to Mein Kampf. Jihad means “personal (supposedly) struggle.” Mein Kampf means “my struggle.” During WWII Muslims themselves — when they were completely free to make their own choice — did choose the Nazi side. People trying to silence Geert Wilders need to be brought back to crude reality. Let’s explain to them, loud and clear, that European people will NEVER accept the loss of our freedom of expression, and even less to lose democracy. HERE'S WHAT YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT: Doing something real and effective to support Geert Wilders — and freedom of expression above all — is very simple with the Amnesty International-SITA method: A letter in a stamped envelope, sent by snail-mail. Amnesty International has a strong record of success with this method. For the letter itself, it is even simpler: A basic-rate stamp allows sending at least two sheets of paper. Here are some possible things you could include: 1. Print out the first two pages of this article (one sheet front and back). Dutch people commonly read English in addition to Dutch. (Note than another article supporting Geert Wilders is available too). So that's one page. For the second page... 2. You can add another sheet with information to help people better understand and face Islam. A small cartoon is worth a thousand words, and does not need any translation. For example you can print a Steph Bergol cartoon depicting the situation well. Here's another one. Or you could include a leaflet about Islam, like this one (PDF document). Or you might include the first two pages of chapter XXII from the 1923 book “Islam and the psychology of the Musulman” by AndrĂ© Servier. Or how about including a letter to mankind from Ali Sina? Or how about including two pages of comments chosen among the thousands on the internet petition for virtual support to Geert Wilders? WHERE DO YOU SEND THE LETTER? 1. To the dhimmi lawyer who initiated that “legal” Jihad is Gerard Spong. Here's the web site of his office. And this is his postal address: Gerard Spong P.O. Box 15812 1001 NH Amsterdam the Netherlands Dhimmi lawyers are very sensitive to snail-mails. You might also want to send a message to his associates so they can choose if they really want to still work with somebody fighting democracy to install an Islamic dictatorship. Here are the names of Gerard Spong's associates. Send your letters to the same PO Box above, but with the associates' names. 2. It is the Amsterdam district which rules the case (court of appeal and public prosecutor’s department), so another place to send your letters is to them. Here is their mailing address: Gerechtshof Amsterdam Postbus 1312 1000 BH Amsterdam Telefoonnummer (020) 541 21 11 E-mail: You can find the names of the three judges here. 3. Regarding the public prosecutor’s department, an article gives the name of a spokesperson, Otto van der Bijl, allowing to go back to the page giving all the names of the main people for the public prosecutor’s department of Amsterdam here: Dhr. F. (Franklin) Wattimena Mw. S.Q. (Sanne) van Meeteren Dhr. D.M. (Dino) Daal O.J.M (Otto) van der Bijl Mw. mr. H.A.B. (Hanneke) Festen Mw. mr. A. (Alexandra) Oswald Send letters to them so that they can fully realize the tremendous mistake they made when accusing Geert Wilders. He will have no more escape than demonstrating publicly, in front of all the medias (thanks to them!) to the extent that the Qur'an is indeed an hypocrite hate book, and Islam is a fascist underhanded ideology, completely incompatible with Western democracy. Use this mailing address for the six names above (this is the all-purpose address for the public prosecutor’s department of Amsterdam): (put the person's name here) Parnassusweg 220 Postbus 84500 1080 BN Amsterdam 4. And finally, the Minister and State Secretary of Dutch Justice must take a stand. If they stand against Geert Wilders they will have to face the consequences. You can send to them your letter supporting Geert Wilders in order to incite them to protect freedom of expression in Europe by politely sending back to their deserts the bedouins lost here in our infidel lands. Here is how to write to them: The Minister:
Dr. E.M.H. Hirsch Ballin Postbus 20002 2500 EA Den Haag
The State Secretary:
Mw. mr. N. Albayrak Postbus 20002 2500 EA Den Haag
Choose someone to write to (or better yet, choose several), print the article, put it into an envelope, stamp it (”Europe” rate) and send it. Support Geert Wilders against Islam to protect your freedom of expression (among other values). It is that simple. Eventually, you can register your action on the Sitathon, to encourage more people to do as you did. You can also register for the newsletter (if you can read French) to be told about the future actions. Take a stand: Send a letter! PS: In addition, Geert could use our financial help to face this “legal harassment jihad." If you can contribute, do not hesitate to make a donation on Geert’s website. The above is a fleshed-out, edited version of SITAmnesty's article. Now here's an explanation of the Geert Wilders' situation by Pat Condell (five minutes, nineteen seconds long): Support Geert in whatever way you can! Sooner is better than later. Convince your friends and family to support Geert. Even if you fail to motivate them to take action, your effort will help introduce them to what Islamic supremacists are up to, making them more open to information in the future (if you do it calmly and matter-of-factly, and think in terms of small bits and long campaigns). Let's help Geert Wilders and advance the cause!


Citizens' Declaration of Threat & Plea for Relief


WE HAVE a new powerhouse in the counterjihad movement, a person going by the name Civilus Defendus. He or she has created a Declaration and written it as a petition. I urge you to sign it and get your friends to sign it too. Here is what it says:

We declare

Islam is both theological and political in nature, as revealed in generally accepted renditions of the Quran, Sira, Hadith and Islamic law known as Sharia, whose expressed ambition is to bring the world into a state of submission to Allah and divine (Sharia) law;

Core tenets of Islam are irreconcilably in conflict with the United States Constitution, identified in part as infringements upon freedom of religion and expression, lack of equality among people and between the sexes, and sanctioned deception in dealing with non-Muslims; these precepts constitute a breach of inalienable human rights;

Political Islam's supremacism represents a duality of existence, placing Muslims superior to non-Muslims, and endorses behaviors that can debase, harm or kill non-Muslims;

History is replete with examples of the aggressive and violent expansion of Islam across Africa into Europe and across the Middle East into Europe and Asia, offering an invitation to Islam, subjugation under Islam with inferior class status, or jihad war;

Current events are filled with examples of the Islamic expansion and imperialism through violent and covert jihad, including Kosovo, India, Kashmir, Malaysia, Philippines, Sudan, Kenya, Israel, United Kingdom, France, Algeria, Morocco and others;

The attacks of September 11, 2001 upon the United States, its financial institutions, its people and traditions were claimed by people as jihad in defense of Islam, to spread Islam and to subjugate, obliterate, or otherwise defeat the United States;

Sharia finance has been shown to fund jihad against the United States and the West;

Many followers of Islam through words and deeds encourage insurrection and incite violence toward United States to subjugate it and replace the Constitution with Islamic rule; and

Many more silently endorse or use intimidation to support armed or covert jihad, thereby providing aid and comfort to our avowed enemies during these times of domestic and international strife.

The petition then goes on to say what should be done. This is well thought-out and well-executed. I urge you to
sign the petition here. And then try to persuade your friends to sign it. The process of talking them into it will give you an opportunity to educate them a little bit about this issue. And the process of signing it will influence them with the powerful principle of commitment and consistency.


"My Friend is a Muslim and He's Really Nice"


Sometimes when you're talking about Islam, someone will tell you something like this: "My cousin is married to a Muslim man and he's a really great guy." And they will say it like that's the end of the argument. They pronounce it as if their statement obviously cancels and disproves everything you've said about Islam. Here are some possible responses:

1. I can see that you are defending your friend, so let me be clear that I'm not attacking your friend or anyone who calls himself a Muslim. I'm talking about Islamic doctrine. I'm talking about what a devout Muslim is supposed to do, according to Muhammad, and what millions of Muslims in fact do.

2. Is he a practicing Muslim or a Muslim in name only? If he is a practicing Muslim, jihad is obligatory. But keep in mind, jihad means struggling toward the political goal of the dominance of Islamic law. Violence is only one of many ways to work toward that political goal. Also, if he is a practicing Muslim, he cannot be friends with you, according to the Koran. He can pretend to be your friend if it serves the goals of Islam, but if he actually feels affection for you and really considers you a friend, he is doomed to burn in hell according to the Koran.

3. That's good (that he's a really great guy)! But the Muslims following the doctrine still need to be stopped, and one very important thing that needs to happen in order to stop them is for non-Muslims to be educated about what is in the Koran and the Hadith. Our fellow non-Muslims need to be made aware of the game plan of the enemies dedicated to destroying our way of life. By trying to stop people like me from educating non-Muslims about Islam, you are actually helping Islamic supremacists with their political goals.

4. Maybe this Muslim's apparent goodness is only taqiyya. Another possibility is that he is simply ignorant of what his religion really requires of him. I will tell you what is in the Koran, but only if you promise not to tell him. We don't need any more Muslims to awaken to the requirements of their faith. Let him live in benign and peaceful ignorance.

5. He's a Muslim and he's really nice? Good! It's entirely possible he does not follow the whole teachings. However, does he pay his zakat (alms)? Then he is probably contributing to Islamic supremacists who are following the whole teachings (the zakat usually goes to the local mosque, and most mosques in the U.S. are owned and run by dedicated Wahabbis). Does he pray five times a day? Does he fast for a month during Ramadan? Has he read the Koran? If he had to choose between Shari'a law and the U.S. Constitution, which would he choose? Do you have any idea?! Or are you simply saying your cousin is married to a Muslim with very good people skills? (Read more about the basic obligations of a Muslim.)

6. The existence of a nice Muslim does not invalidate the statement that Islamic teachings advocate intolerance and violence toward non-Muslims. The fact that you know a Muslim who knows how to get along with non-Muslims does not mean he would not also advocate imposing Shari'a law on non-Muslims, and does not mean he is not actively striving toward that goal. The fact that he is really nice does not mean he repudiates the supremacist nature of Islamic teachings. The existence of a Muslim who happens to be charming does not discredit a single thing I've said.

7. Is your friend an apatheist? If so, I think that's great. But I wasn't talking about people who call themselves Muslims but do not follow the doctrine. I'm talking about the actual Islamic doctrine — what it says in their holy books and what nearly all the Islamic authorities have decreed for the last 1400 years — and what is being followed faithfully by Muslims all over the world. Those who are following the teachings of the Koran and who faithfully follow Muhammad's example are a danger to the free world and they must be stopped.

8. Muhammad Salah was a very nice man too. But he was also the leader of the worldwide military wing of Hamas, a brutal terrorist organization! (Read more about this here.)

9. Here's a nice short one: "Ted Bundy was nice too." You could add, "I'm not saying just because someone is a Muslim he must be a murderous psychopath. I'm saying that the quality of 'niceness' doesn't necessarily have anything to do with what a person is capable of."

Read more: What Does Niceness Tell You About Someone's Goals or Plans?

Give some of these responses a try, and come back here to let us know what happened. Also, please let us know what other questions or statements people make that leave you temporarily tongue-tied.


Geert Wilders Is In Trouble And You Can Help


GEERT WILDERS is the chairman of the Party for Freedom in the Netherlands and one of the few politicians in the world willing to speak honestly about the controversial issue of Islamic supremacism and the third jihad. (Read more about him, read a great speech of his, and see some interviews with him here.) This is from ACT! For America:

In a stunning decision, a Dutch court has ruled that Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders has committed criminal “hate speech” due to his public criticisms of Islam, and should be prosecuted. (See the International Free Press Society release below).

When a court takes such a step in a country as “progressive” as the Netherlands, every person who cherishes liberty and the right of free speech should shudder.

Mr. Wilders has, at the risk of his own life, courageously spoken out against Islamofascism and everything that comes with it. The decision of the Amsterdam Court of Appeals is a crushing blow to free speech and a victory for radical Islamists who are bent on suppressing any public criticism of their ideology.

This is why we keep issuing warnings and action alerts to you about how politically correct governmental actions, in league with radical Islam, are moving us ever closer to the day where we cannot speak out against an evil that has produced 270 million deaths and caused untold suffering over the past 14 centuries.

This is why we must build a powerful, informed and organized citizen action network that will stand in unity against the evil of Islamofascism and the political correctness that aids and abets it. Whether we are Democrats, Independents or Republicans … conservatives, moderates or liberals … there is no choice. We cannot allow America to sink to a place where an American prosecutor would obtain an indictment against a Member of Congress for criticizing Islam.

If you would like to help us further this effort, whether by making a contribution or helping to start or get involved in a local chapter, please log on to today.

While the Dutch court seeks to censor, through unjust criminal prosecution, the kind of political speech that has been the hallmark of free countries, it looks the other way when radical Muslims in its country call for the death of infidels and praise Hitler for what he did to the Jews.

The message is clear. It’s okay for a radical Muslim to call for your death, but don’t you dare criticize the Muslim for doing so.

Read more about what Wilders was charged with and why. And this is from the International Free Press Society:

January 22, 2009 - Washington, DC and Copenhagen, Denmark: A Dutch court yesterday ordered the criminal prosecution of Geert Wilders, Dutch parliamentarian and leader of the Freedom Party (PVV), for his statements — written, spoken and filmed regarding Islam. The Amsterdam Court of Appeals has deemed such statements "insulting," declaring that they "substantially harm the religious esteem" of Muslims.

Clearly, the effect of this Dutch court order is to set new limits to public debate in Dutch society, in this case about the highly controversial but nonetheless crucially important subject of Islam. This makes the prosecution of Geert Wilders an unacceptable breach of the sanctity of freedom of speech in Western society.

Having ordered a criminal prosecution for the opinions of a duly elected leader of a legitimate political party, Dutch authorities have dealt a devastating blow to political expression. While Dutch prosecutors prepare their indictment and Geert Wilders' future hangs in limbo, who in The Netherlands will dare discuss political and cultural matters related to Islam
Islamic law, Islamic integration, Islamic crime, Islamic policy openly, freely and fearlessly? The chilling effect is instantaneous. If, indeed, Wilders is ultimately convicted, free speech will cease to exist in the heart of Europe.

The International Free Press Society believes this court-ordered prosecution against Geert Wilders, a central figure in the fight against the Islamization of the West, amounts to a dangerous concession to the strictures of Islamic law, which prohibits all criticism of Islam, over Western traditions of, and rights to robust and unfettered debate. As such, it is tantamount to a surrender to totalitarian influences that undermine all Western freedoms. And as such, it must be resisted.

It is important to recall recent history. Two Dutchmen, Pim Fortuyn and Theo van Gogh, have been murdered for their outspoken opposition to Islamization in The Netherlands. Another Dutch politician, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, has been infamously forced into exile. Wilders alone now carries this debate over Islam in Dutch society forward — forcefully but logically, outspokenly but reasonably, and always peacefully. In order to do so, this member of Dutch parliament lives in a virtual prison, consigned to 24-hour guard by Islamic death threats against his life. Now, Dutch authorities have ordered him to be prosecuted for the Orwellian crime of committing "insulting" words.

As Wilders puts it, "If I have to stand trial, I will not stand trial alone, but also with the hundreds of thousands of Dutch people who reject the Islamization of The Netherlands." He will also stand trial with those in The Netherlands and beyond who reject government prosecutions of free speech. In recognition of this dire situation, the IFPS immediately calls on every supporter of free speech to come to the aid of Geert Wilders. To assist in this effort, the IFPS has launched an international campaign in defense of Geert Wilders and his freedom of speech.

To support these efforts, we urge you to contribute to the Geert Wilders Defense Fund. Donation information can be found at the IFPS website at

Let's use Geert Wilders' prosecution to bring this vital issue to a wider audience. Help him win this case and let's publicize it and talk about it to everyone we know. His case is a clear example of the goals and methods of Islamic supremacists. This is long-range jihad.


When People Think You're Nuts


I'VE BEEN in a lot of conversations with people about Islam, and I've experienced many people who think I'm nuts. Or at least think I'm exaggerating. Or they think I watch too much Fox News (I don't have cable and I've never seen Fox News). Or they think I must be a racist bigot. For sure I must be a Christian or a Jew (I am neither).

It is hard for people to grasp this information. Especially the fact that Islam has an inherent supremacist doctrine in its most foundational teachings. And that Mohammad was intolerant and violent and Muslims are supposed to follow his example.

They don't want to hear it. It must not be true. It CAN'T be true! You can hear in the back of their minds, "God help us if it's true!" Okay, now I'm hearing things in the back of people's minds. Maybe I am nuts.

Many potential citizen warriors clam up when they get this kind of reaction. They give up. They feel demoralized. To explain these setbacks they blame the media or the closed mind of their listener.

But a citizen warrior like yourself will not be demoralized for long. You will keep your morale high. You will look at your explanations of your setbacks and remove the mistakes in your thinking that made you feel discouraged and frustrated. And you will get back in the game and fight to win!

You will stay motivated. You'll set achievable short-term goals to keep you focused. You'll respond with purpose and commitment. You'll think in terms of small bits and long campaigns. When one approach doesn't work, you won't give up, you'll find a better approach. You'll learn how to gain better rapport with people and make your points more effectively.

You won't give up. You're a warrior. You'll take the blows in the battle and keep fighting the good fight. For all our sakes, you will keep fighting.

Learn more about influencing your friends:


What One Citizen Warrior Can Do


ONE OF THE chapter leaders for ACT For America, Mary Washington, is an inspiration to me, and I thought I'd share with you what she is doing so she can inspire you, too. She's the Golden Gate chapter leader and she's got a blog for her local members: Golden Gate Chapter.

Here are some of her recent activities:

She received 200 copies of the DVD, Obsession from Tom Trento to distribute. Mary belongs to several different groups and she was willing to find a way to put the DVDs in people's hands, so Tom gave her to DVDs for free.

Over a period of a couple of months, she took copies of Obsession to group meetings and handed them out to people, briefly explaining what the DVD was about. She also asked them if they had a friend or two they thought might be receptive to viewing the movie, which was a way she planted the suggestion to pass along the DVD after they had watched it.

At the same time, she recommended that after viewing Obsession, they may want to organize a movie night at their own home, or at a club or organization they belonged to, or their church or synagog. And she offered to assist them in doing so and offered to speak at these meetings if they wanted her to.

These are some of the groups she talked to:

  • Conservative Forum of Silicon Valley: Meeting and Newsletter
  • Second Amendment Club
  • Minutemen Groups
  • Local Political Meetings and Debates
  • Friends
  • Neighbors
  • Email friends
  • Her husband's work contacts
  • UC Berkeley Young Republicans
  • She also randomly left a few copies here and there, at the Kaiser Med Center and the grocery store.
She told people that 30 Million FREE copies had been distributed and that the copies she was distributing were also free, but she added, "If you wish to contribute something toward the cost of distribution, anything will help." She received one donation of $20.00, which sent to Tom Trento.

Mary says, "Many people had heard something about Obsession and others had not. Some people were offended and some people wished to remain ignorant of Islamofascism. However, most people were receptive and gladly took a couple of DVDs. With our busy lives, the upcoming election, and the financial crisis, I knew that it might take some time before people actually watched the movie, which as it turned out, I was correct. Several people came back to me after a few weeks and asked for more copies to distribute to others."

With the help of a friend of hers, she then hosted a meeting. Her friend arranged for the venue, which was the conference room at her condo complex. Mary prepared two Powerpoint presentations: an Introduction to
ACT For America, and a "Projects List" of what each person could do. At the meeting, they watched part of Obsession, listened to a guest speaker, and had some light refreshments. Before everyone left, Mary gave handouts with recommended reading and website links, her ACT For America business cards and of course, free DVDs.

A couple days after the meeting, she emailed a recap of the event to everyone who had attended, plus those who were invited but did not attend, and other trusted contacts.

She is now planning on holding monthly meetings at local public libraries.

Imagine this kind of thing happening all over the world. Imagine how fast the profound and widespread ignorance of non-Muslims would disappear. Imagine what would happen if the majority of people in your country were briefed on the situation. It would be a whole new ball game.


Why Do Even Decent, Well-Meaning Muslims Try To Whitewash Their Religion?


IT'S CRAZY. Most Muslims pretend there is nothing about Islam that might inspire terrorism. I get letters from apparently sincere Muslims all the time who try to convince me that violent Jihadis have got it all wrong because Islam really is a religion of peace.

This is understandable for people like my friend from Bosnia who has never read the Qur'an and only knows what his parents told him about his religion. But many of the people who write to me have obviously read the Qur'an and the Hadith, and some of them even know about the principle of abrogation (I've been asking them lately), and still they want me to stop saying unflattering things about Islam.

How is this possible? And why are there so many of them? Why don't they do the sensible thing and renounce Islam? Why aren't there more apostates? It doesn't make any sense. But I came across an experiment that shed a little light on the situation. I read about it in the excellent book, Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion, which I recommend to you since the most important thing we can do is influence other non-Muslims to stop giving concessions to Islam's relentless encroachment. We need to master the principles of influence.

Anyway, two researchers did the experiment back in 1959 to test the hypothesis that "persons who go through a great deal of trouble or pain to attain the something tend to value it more highly than persons who attain the same thing with a minimum of effort."

In their experiment, they set it up so that if a college woman wanted to join a "sex discussion group," they would have to endure an extremely embarrassing initiation ceremony.

The group was really staged — all the other group members were actors who the researchers had coached to make the discussions as "worthless and uninteresting" as they could be.

Another group of women went through a less embarrassing initiation ceremony, and a third group had no initiation ceremony to endure.

The results were pretty straightforward. The women who had to endure the most embarrassment found the most value in the discussion group.

In another experiment, it was set up pretty much the same way except instead of embarrassment, the women had to endure a painful electric shock to join the group. The more shock they had to withstand, the more valuable they found the group.

In the book, Cialdini points out that this at least partially explains the tradition of "hazing." He writes:

"As long as it is the case that people like and believe in what they have struggled to get, these groups will continue to arrange effortful and troublesome initiation rites. The loyalty and dedication of those who emerge will increase to a great degree the chances of group cohesiveness and survival. Indeed, one study of fifty-four tribal cultures found that those with the most dramatic and stringent initiation ceremonies were those with the greatest group solidarity."
Islam does not have initiation ceremonies, except perhaps the circumcision. But they do have a stringent and troublesome ongoing practice. Fasting for a month every year, traveling to Mecca, paying their zakat (charity contributions), and praying five times a day. Oh yes, and they are supposed to strive for the cause of Allah until the whole world submits to Islamic rule. These are all non-negotiable obligations a Muslim must fulfill.

I think simply praying five times a day the way they pray is stringent and troublesome enough all by itself. I'd much rather endure a very painful electric shock.

So one reason Muslims may try to whitewash their religion is that they have been strongly influenced by all the stringent and troublesome efforts they've already endured.

There is also the principle of commitment and consistency working against their potential for renouncing the faith or at least criticizing it. Once a person has done something, especially in public, that demonstrates a belief in something, he will find it difficult to reverse his position.

And of course, if you add to that the actual danger of leaving Islam, the situation is very much like a person who really has no way out, and must make the best of his imprisonment.

So when you come across a Muslim who tries to whitewash his religion, who tries to explain away the intolerance and violence at the core of Islam, show them some compassion. It may not be taqiyya. But also, don't waste your time trying to argue with them or convince them to give up their religion or admit it has faults.

And don't let their efforts to whitewash Islam dissuade you from educating your fellow non-Muslims. We will find safety only if enough non-Muslims know about Islam. We cannot rely on Muslims giving up their faith or reforming their religion.


Influence and Skill — Balancing Fear and Determination


I READ A LOT of blogs. Often the writers tend to be metaphorically shouting, "The sky is falling!" In delivering a piece of news, some will present it in a way that seems to say, "You see, Islamic supremacists are taking over the world and nobody notices or cares! We're doomed!"

And I have often found myself doing the same thing in conversations with people. Haven't you? Why are we doing this?

When I pay attention to my motivation while I'm doing it, I seem to be frustrated at my listener's lack of appreciation for the scale and significance of the situation. So I try to arrest her attention with how horrible, dangerous, and scary things are.

The technique works in a way, but you can go too far with this. When you use scare tactics, you can see some listeners look at you like maybe you're unbalanced.

So on the one hand, you want people to take the threat seriously and stop assuming somebody else is taking care of it.

But on the other hand, if you go too far, you wind up as a Prophet of Doom, spreading defeatism, which is not good either. People will turn themselves off and turn away from your information if they think the battle has already been lost. This subject is so big and so disconcerting, some people will TRY to find a way to ignore it.

But you can make people understand the danger of our situation without demoralizing them by focusing on what can be done, on what others are already doing, on explaining
why it must be done, and why we need every participant we can get.

Alternate between fear and motivation. And call them to action.

Walk that fine line with people between anxiety and determination. Recognize that they are not getting this information in their news sources. Recognize that they have a lot of cultural barriers to getting this information, and a lot of personal motivation driving them to avoid grasping the scope of the problem. And help them overcome these barriers with your deftness, with your finesse, thinking in terms of small bits and long campaigns, using all the weapons of influence at your disposal (including commitment and consistency and social proof).

We need this to happen. We need those people to wake up. The media will not do it. Politicians will not do it. And apparently even something as horrible as 9/11 will not do it. You must do it. If each of us reached our own sphere of influence, a certain percentage of those people would start influencing their circle of influence, and before you know it, we'd have a big enough political force to make the changes that need to be made.

It starts with you. Make a commitment to reach the people in your circle of influence. When you come to a barrier, find a way around it, or come back to this page and let us know your difficulty (in the comments to this article), and we can help you find a new approach.

A few years ago I read six books about Milton Erickson, one of the most effective psychiatrists who ever lived. And I read two books by him. So many books have been written about him because he was a phenomenon. When patients could not be helped by any other psychiatrist, they would send them to Erickson, and he would often cure the person, usually very quickly. People observed Erickson at work, filmed him, and studied the films to find out how he did it.

One of the things they found is that some of Erickson's personal philosophy differed from most other psychiatrists in interesting ways. One difference really struck me and it is relevant to our discussion here: Most therapists believe there is such a thing as a "resistant patient." In other words, when the therapist tries to help the patient, the patient resists the help for personal, psychological reasons. A whole section of psychiatric literature is devoted to resistant patients and what to do about them.

Erickson's philosophy was totally different. He saw "resistance" as his own failure to be creative enough. In other words, the patient wasn't resisting the improvement he might gain in therapy, but rather, his resistance was a side-effect of Erickson's ineptness, lack of finesse, lack of ability, lack of rapport, etc. That's the assumption Erickson started with, and then when he met resistance, Erickson would work to remedy his own lacks.

I think we would be much more effective with the "resistant" people in our circle of influence if we would think the same way.

When someone resists talking about Islamic supremacism or the third jihad, think of it this way: They're not resisting the topic, they are resisting the way you are talking about it. Instead of thinking they have a problem, or that the media is to blame, deliberately make the assumption that their resistance is only a sign of your own lack of creativity or flexibility or knowledge, and then remedy that lack.

This is a courageous way to interpret someone's "resistance." And it is not the "right" interpretation. There is no right or wrong here. This is simply another way to look at it. But this way of looking at it opens up new ways of thinking. And it can make your effectiveness blossom.

Maybe you could approach the subject differently. Maybe you could gain better rapport with the person first. Maybe your timing could be better. Maybe you could think more carefully about how to open up the subject. Maybe you could study a book on how to influence people, and get some good ideas you can try. Maybe any and all of these things would have an impact on your effectiveness.

Educating our fellow citizens is the most important thing we can do right now. We cannot do what needs to be done politically until this first task is accomplished. We need to be smart about this, we need to concentrate on it, and we need to act quickly.

One way to increase your effectiveness at reaching people is to balance fear with determination. Tell them how serious it is, but also tell them what can be done about it, and urge them to join the fight. And do it all with skill.


Interesting Facts About Islamic Doctrine


THE FOLLOWING are quotes by Bill Warner of CSPI, one of the most innovative leaders in the counterjihad movement. His approach is so different and so powerful, I believe it can revolutionize our effectiveness at getting our message across to the uninitiated. He gives facts, and facts are powerfully persuasive. Here are some examples from his writings:

"To measure the Koranic fixation on kafirs, let us measure the fixation by counting the amount of text devoted to them. In Mecca an astounding 67% of the text is devoted to the kafir. In Medina 51% was about kafirs. The amount of text in the entire Koran devoted to kafirs is 61%."

"How important is the Koran? It contains about 153,000 words. The Sira (by Ibn Ishaq) contains about 292,000 words, and the Hadith has 646,000 words (using the Bukhari text). So Allah is about 14% of the total of the Trilogy and the Sunna (Mohammed's words and deeds) is 86% of the total. These are only a quantitative measure, but still, it points out how important Mohammed is compared to Allah, based upon the amount of text.

"This is born out further by noticing that the Koran does not contain enough information to practice even one of the Five Pillars of Islam. Only the Sunna (primarily the Hadith for religious practice) tells the Muslim how to worship. So the statistical measure shows that Islam is also Mohammedism."

"The Hadith of Bukhari gives all of the tactical details of jihad. A simple counting method shows that 3% of the hadiths are about the inner struggle, whereas, 97% of the hadiths are about jihad as war. So is jihad the inner struggle? Yes, 3%. Is jihad the war against kafirs? Yes, 97%."

I recommend two books by Bill Warner and his team: An Abridged Koran and Mohammed and the Unbelievers. And I strongly recommend his audio program, Thirteen Talks on Political Islam. He comes out with a new article at Political Islam about once a week. His articles are well worth studying.

Warner's approach will help you gain a clarity on the subject, which will increase your effectiveness at sharing your knowledge with others.




I received an email a couple of days ago from a woman named Kate. I liked her idea and got her permission to publish it here:

After reading most of the stuff on your site, I can see why, for most people, this subject sends them into a glassy-eyed state of denial. Islam is so insidious and counter to the way most people in the West think, that it is just a lot to take in.

So, how do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time. I have a suggestion that you might want to pose to people. There is a practice called "glamourbombing" where people, mostly teens and young adults, leave objects in unexpected places, to surprise and hopefully delight the finder. So, I leave the Danish and other cartoons depicting the truthful irony of "Islam," in library books, coffee shops, book stores etc.

If even one new person starts to pay attention, it is worth the little time and effort it takes me.

Kate sent along two examples (below) of cartoons depicting the irony of Islam.

Another simple way to intrigue people and help educate them is to get some of those business cards you can print on your home printer and make cards that say nothing but "" and put them wherever you can. Some grocery stores, for example, have a place you can post your business cards, or a bulletin board. Every time you go to the store, re-stock the cards.

People who are interested will seek more information.

Kate is right. Islam's relentless encroachment is a difficult topic, full of controversy. A gentle introduction is probably best.


Is It Racist to Criticize Islam?


WHEN I'M TALKING about Islamic teachings, sometimes people say, "That seems racist." I usually respond that I'm talking about the teachings, not the person, and that it couldn't be racist anyway because Islam is not a race. There are Muslims of every race on earth.

I make the point that: "Even if I were to say, 'All Muslims are evil,' that's not racism, either. It would be an overgeneralization, but it's not racism. If I said, 'Indonesians are evil,' THAT would be racism."

I just came across a story I'm going to keep in mind next time someone accuses me of racism.
As the story shows, anyone from any race or country can be a devout Muslim, and if he is following the strict teachings of Islam, he is a threat to any non-Muslim of any race. The story is about training whites in Muslim training camps.

The "racism response" is one of the most common reactions people have when they hear about Islamic supremacism. You and I need to be clear on why our criticisms of Islam are not racism so we can answer effectively.

If I said the tenets, recruitment practices, and indoctrination techniques of the Ku Klux Klan are dangerous to civil rights in America, would anyone call my statement "racist?" Would it be called "hate speech?" Am I suffering from KuKluxKlanophobia?

No, those criticisms would be ridiculous. Rather, my statement that
the tenets, recruitment practices, and indoctrination techniques are dangerous to civil rights is a legitimate statement of debate, and there is nothing the matter with stating it openly and talking about it.

But say the same about Islamic supremacism in mixed company and there is an almost audible gasp, and an embarrassed silence, as if you had broken some sacred taboo. Why? The Islamic supremacists themselves have been accusing their critics of racism and hate speech and Islamophobia, and they've influenced the mainstream media to do the same, so it has entered the mainstream cultural thought-process. Now, it is an almost automatic emotional reaction.

Islamic supremacists have been using these accusations because they know in this country we have a hot-button on those issues. Nobody wants to be considered racist. The Jihadis use this fact as a weapon.

So we need to carefully and effectively explain to everyone why criticism of Islam is quite different from hate speech, Islamophobia, or racism. Make this distinction clearly and persuasively. People need to hear about Islam, but as long as they have this barrier to their listening, you can't get through.

Start with the idea that learning about Islam actually prevents racism.


Petitions to Stop Muslim Immigration Into Western Democracies


Some Muslims move to Western countries for a better life. But some want to follow Mohammad's example (as it says they should 91 times in the Koran) and make the governments of their adopted home eventually follow Sharia law rather than the already existing laws. We have no test to determine the political intentions of a Muslim, so it is a prudent caution to stop Muslim immigration until such a test is created. So please join with us and sign a petition to stop Muslim immigration now:

For U.S. citizens, ACT! for America has a new petition to stop Syrian Refugees from entering the U.S. It is an open letter to Congress. Read about it here, complete with links to the petition: No Syrian Refugees to the U.S.

Here are things U.S. citizens can do: Three Ways to Tell Your Legislator No Refugees.

Petition to Temporarily Halt Muslim Immigration to the United States.

Here's one for the UK: Stop allowing immigrants into the UK.

Here's one to stop refugees coming into Canada: Refugee Pause.

When you come across more petitions, please email them to me here.

If you want to create your own petition, you are welcome to use the following text:

We have no way of determining which Muslims are Islamic supremacists and which completely reject Sharia law. Islamic supremacists seek to undermine and eventually overthrow democratic countries. Orthodox Islam has a political goal: the domination of Islam over all other religions and governments.

When Muslims move to a country, a certain percentage of them start agitating for special considerations. They start to organize and influence the nation politically in a way that is good for Islam and bad for freedom and equality. When the percentage of the Muslims in a nation's population becomes high enough, freedoms and rights begin to disappear.

Until we have a way of determining who is an Islamic supremacist and who is a heterodox Muslim, no more Muslims should be allowed to immigrate into free countries.

Does this seem extreme? It's not as bad as it might seem. Each country already chooses who can immigrate and who cannot. We are not under any obligation to allow anyone to immigrate who wants to. They do it with our blessing or they don't do it.

So this policy is simply adding to the already-existing filter.

This is not racist. Islam is not a race; it's an ideology. The policy of stopping Muslim immigration is simply acknowledging the reality of the Islamic teachings. If you don't know what Islam teaches, please take the pledge and read the Quran.

There are Muslims who reject the violent and intolerant verses of the Qur'an. But Islam also teaches the principle of "religious deception" (taqiyya) and we have no way of knowing who is sincere and who is deliberately deceiving us.

We should not take the chance, at least until we find some way to discover who genuinely rejects the political goals of Islam and who does not. In the meantime, we should stop all immigration into free countries by Muslims while we can.

Right now it would be impossible to pass this legislation because too few people know even the most basic precepts of Islam. Until a large percentage of our population knows about Islam, we will not be able to politically protect ourselves from the Islamic invasion now underway.

The situation is urgent because at some point Muslims will comprise too large a voting block for politicians to ignore. We must stop immigration soon. The first step is to show political leaders there is widespread support for such a policy. So please sign the petition for your country. And get all your friends to sign it. Post it on Facebook. Do whatever you can to get the word out. Let's get this done.


A Well-Funded Public Campaign of Disinformation


By the time I finished reading the 24-page report put out by (about the top 12 Islamophobes in America), I'd scrawled so many notes in the margins, I could have easily written a document twice its size in commentary on the PR effort to convince readers that those who are trying to educate the public about Islam's political goals (and the methods of Jihadis) are all "Islamophobes" who are doing nothing more than smearing the good name of Muslims everywhere and stirring up "racial hatred."

The whole 24-page document, entitled Smearcasting, criticizes, insinuates, implies, but doesn't really say anything substantial. Yet it displays a virulently hateful and sarcastic tone about these "Islamophobes." Ironically enough, they seem Islamophobe-phobic and yet in the entire document, they never once refute any of the quoted claims of their hated dirty dozen.

Robert Spencer, one of my favorite writers, is one of the dozen the document tries to discredit. "Spencer serves as an intellectual force in the [Islam-bashing] movement," it says, "specializing in one-sided interpretations of the Qur'an...Yet Islam does in fact have an interpretative tradition..." The note I wrote in the margin was: "Who cares?!" Let me elaborate on exactly why Islam's interpretative tradition doesn't matter to non-Muslims:

1. Simply by reading the Qur'an — which I have done, and which I recommend you do — you will see why Jihadis are doing what they're doing. They are not "interpreting" the Qur'an and they have no need to do so; they are just doing what Allah tells them to do very directly.

2. You can look on and see the tremendous number of Muslims following the Qur'an's directions.

3. It doesn't matter how the peaceful Muslims have "interpreted" Islamic teachings. It doesn't matter what the "true" teachings are. The non-Muslims — the target of Islamic hatred — need to know what the Jihadis believe, not what the "moderate" or apatheistic Muslims believe.

In addition to all the insinuating and criticizing, the writers of Smearcasting do not acknowledge — and I think this is a significant omission — two vital facts. And the omission of this acknowledgment makes the document lose all credibility. The two facts they omit are:

1. Muslims are committing large numbers of violent acts in the name of Islam.

2. The Qur'an violent and intolerant passages — not mere references to violence but clear commands to Muslims to practice intolerance and violence in their lives.These are such glaring and pertinent facts, I don't think any amount of whitewash of Islam or vilification of these 12 pundits could gain any credibility unless the two facts above are addressed, or at least acknowledged.

Despite all this, the Smearcasting article cheered me up because they offered nothing that caused any doubt about the work we're doing (the dirty dozen and all the rest of the writers, bloggers, podcasters, radio personalities and public speakers trying to educate the public). And more important for my morale, the Smearcasting article revealed the impressive reach of these 12 pundits. It was heartening to know so many people are hearing about Islamic supremacism and apparently wanting to hear the message.

Micheal Savage has a radio show that reaches 8.25 million readers per week. That's impressive. According to the article, Savage "sees a monolithic Islamic scheme to take over the U.S." This statement, as well as many other statements quoted in the Smearcasting article, is never refuted in the article. The authors of the article must have assumed they were writing for multiculturalists who would accept the implication that these claims were preposterous. But, in fact, there IS a monolithic Islamic scheme to take over the U.S. Read about it here. And here. Michael Savage isn't "seeing" it, the Muslims themselves have published their goals!

Bill O'Reilly's Radio Factor show reaches 3.5 million listeners. His show, O'Reilly Factor has an audience of two million prime time viewers. Michelle Malkin and Robert Spencer both have bestselling books. Glenn Beck has the third highest-rated national radio talk show among adults ages 24 to 54, and he has "repeatedly associated Islam with Nazism. He drew a parallel between Mein Kampf and 'jihad' because, he said, both mean 'my struggle.'" Here was another statement left standing, as if it was self-evidently ridiculous, when in fact it is an accurate statement.

Anyway, it was a relief to know these counterjihad pundits were so popular. And it was pleasing to know that in this well-researched onslaught, which was meant to defame and hopefully destroy these twelve kings and queens of Islamophobia, that the best they could come up with was completely toothless.

One of the dirty dozen is Steven Emerson, the man who made the film, Terrorists Among Us. According to Smearcasting, Emerson, "specializes in advancing allegations linking Muslim groups in the U.S. to fundamentalist Islamic international terrorism." Allegations? He's caught them on film!

It seems as if the authors of this slick PR effort didn't think anyone reading it would know anything. Emerson doesn't "alledge" these Muslim groups are linked with terrorism, he simply shows you on film leading known terrorists speaking to large Muslim audiences in America, preaching fiery jihad at events sponsored by large, well-established, mainstream, seemingly moderate Muslim groups in the U.S. Read more about how they operate in America.

I'd like to point out one interesting comment in the Smearcasting article. They were criticizing Robert Spencer, accusing him of "selectively ignoring inconvenient Islamic texts." They write, "A similarly selective reading of the Torah might lead one to conclude that Jews favor killing homosexuals, as well as those who wear garments that mix cotton and wool."

This was one of the best arguments they made in this cloying article, and it is so weak as to be pathetic. When is the last time a Jew killed a homosexual or a someone wearing a cotton/wool blend?

On the other hand, when is the last time a Muslim killed a non-Muslim for being a non-Muslim? Probably a few minutes ago.

These particular texts may be obscure for some Muslims (like those who have never read any Islamic texts), but clearly a lot of Muslims take the Qur'an and Sunnah to heart and sacrifice their lives to fulfill the holy passages. The texts Spencer quotes are relevant and significant right now. Those texts present a concrete threat to the free world. In fact, Spencer continually illustrates quotations of those texts with recent acts of Muslims.

The Smearcasting article also quotes Sean Hannity as saying Islamic extremists have the goal of making Islam the religion of America. This statement was said as if it couldn't possibly be true, which is one of the things that make this article seem like taqiyya. Nobody who wrote this article could possibly be unaware of the goals made public by the largest Muslim organization in America, the Muslim Brotherhood, who very much wants to make Islam the religion of America.

If the people who wrote this article knew about this — and I don't see how they could not be aware of it — then this whole article is an effort to smear the dirty dozen. That is, the article must have been written to intentionally mislead the public about the nature of this issue and to discredit these pundits unfairly and innacurately...knowingly and intentionally. In other words, the article itself is smearcasting. The article is jihad.

Here's a bonus Islamophobe: Brigitte Gabriel. She wasn't one of the dirty dozen. I personally think she qualifies. Check it out: CAIR’s Smear Job Against Brigitte Gabriel.


Mohammed and the Unbelievers


CSPI (the Center for the Study of Political Islam) has produced some excellent material for the non-Muslim. Their work centers around the idea that understanding Islam need not be difficult — it can be written in plain English. And they've done an excellent job doing so.

I've read (and recommended) A Simple Koran, and was thoroughly relieved to have such an understandable rendering of the Qur'an.

One of their books, Mohammed And the Unbelievers, is along the same lines. If you're only going to read one book, this is the one to read. It is only 167 pages, and contains everything you need to know about Mohammed's stance toward non-Muslims (and therefore Islam's stance today), and what he demonstrated in his life.

One of the things I have often recommended is talking to people about Mohammed because one of the most universal bedrock principles in all sects of Islam is that Mohammed's example is supposed to be followed by all Muslims. The reason this is so vital for non-Muslims to know is because Mohammed had a policy toward non-Muslims that Muslims follow to this day, all over the world. Here are some excerpts from the book:

"The religion of Islam is important to Muslims, but the politics [of Islam] affect every non-Muslim."

"Islam's success comes primarily from its politics. In thirteen years as a spiritual leader, Mohammed converted 150 people to his religion. When he became a political leader and warrior, Islam exploded, and Mohammed became king of Arabia in ten years."
Why knowing about Mohammed is important:
"The Koran repeats more than thirty times that a Muslim is to obey Mohammed in word and deed, and more than forty times it condemns those who do not."
Every passage in Mohammed And the Unbelievers has references to the original Islamic mainstream source of the passage, and it gives you the chapter and verse. I have checked many of these passages with my standard Qur'an (published by and for Muslim believers), and found every quote is accurate. One more excerpt from the book:
"Mohammed was the supreme master of complete war and has had no equal to this day. His understanding of the use of force was sophisticated and subtle. Physical violence was only a small part of his understanding of war. That is why comparisons make him superior to military men such as Julius Caesar. Other military geniuses established empires, but none of them had a process for war and empire that lasted for fourteen hundred years and is still going strong.

"Mohammed's profound insight was not just the waging of physical war but of the mind, emotions, culture, politics, and religion. There is no aspect of being human that Mohammed did not use for war. Money, salvation, sex, culture, religion, destiny, family, immigration, legal codes, government, power, deceit, racial pride, tribalism, community, fear, propaganda, diplomacy, spy-craft, philosophy, ethics, and psychology were all used for jihad. Jihad was not holy war but complete and total civilizational war."
I urge you to read Mohammed And the Unbelievers, and share what you learn with all your friends. Think of the education of those around you as a long campaign. Start today.


Article Spotlight

One of the most unusual articles on is Pleasantville and Islamic Supremacism.

It illustrates the Islamic Supremacist vision by showing the similarity between what happened in the movie, Pleasantville, and what devout fundamentalist Muslims are trying to create in Islamic states like Syria, Pakistan, or Saudi Arabia (and ultimately everywhere in the world).

Click here to read the article.


All writing on is copyright © 2001-2099, all rights reserved.

  © Free Blogger Templates Columnus by 2008

Back to TOP