"Christianity Is Just As Bad"


THIS IS ANOTHER installment in our series, Answers to Objections. When you criticize Islamic supremacism, a very common response you'll get is something like this: "Christians do the same thing. Look at the Inquisition. Look at the Crusades. More people have been killed in the name of Christianity than all other religions combined."

You can find an answer to the Crusades part here: What About The Crusades?

A simple way to answer the objection is: "Today, more people are killed in the name of Islam
every year than were killed in the entire 350 years of the Spanish Inquisition." Direct your listener to see how many people are being killed daily in the name of Islam at TheReligionOfPeace.com. Memorize that URL so you can recommend it. Write it down for them. It is a site that documents every verifiable act of jihad in the world where at least one person is killed.

Another answer is: "In the 1400-year history of Islam, 270 million people have been killed in the name of Islam. No other religion even comes close. Communism doesn't even come close. Naziism doesn't either. The reason we don't know this is that Islamic supremacists have infiltrated the textbook publishing business in America and have massively edited the history of Islam. They also heavily influence Western media."

And lastly, you can find a thorough answer to this objection here: Why I'm Worried About Islam But Not Christianity.

If you have ever responded to this objection with something you found particularly effective, please share it with us in the comments below. Thank you.


Strengthen the Forces of Liberty on Facebook


FACEBOOK has provided a new way to wage war against Islamic supremacism, and we should take advantage of it. Citizen Warrior is on Facebook, so click here to join us. What else can you do on Facebook? Here's what I recommend:

1. Join groups and causes. There are lots of a good groups and causes on Facebook, and each cause acts as a sifter of sorts. So if you join the cause, for example, 1,000,000 against Jihad, you have already filtered out anyone who would not join such a group. Almost everyone who joined the cause is on our side.

2. Invite people in those groups to be your friends. Do it a little at a time. Facebook doesn't let you just go through and invite a thousand people a day to be your friends. They consider it spamming. But you can invite ten every day. When you invite someone to be your friend, you have the opportunity to write a message. I recommend you use that opportunity and write something like this: "Hello John. I am committed to stopping Islam's relentless encroachment and because both of us are members of the group
2 Million people against Female Genital Mutilation, we share a common goal, so I think we should be friends."

Not everyone will accept, but many will. Over time, you can have hundreds of people who are interested in defeating the third jihad.

And you don't have to confine yourself to inviting people who are already committed. You can find other causes that may be related, and invite those people. That way, you can introduce new people to the cause. If they start being negative or leaving harassing comments on your page, you can UNmake them your friend. It's easy. Go to their page, and scroll down to the bottom left-hand side, and you'll see, "Remove from Friends." Click on that, and they can't leave comments on your page any more.

3. Post an exceptionally good article on your Facebook page every day or every other day or once a week or whatever. Your friends will see these and if the post looks interesting, they'll read it. This keeps the mission alive in others and increases their knowledge. It also introduces uninitiated people to the cause because often
your friends will put some of your posts on their pages, so you're helping to spread awareness and information on Islamic supremacism, which is the most important thing that needs to be done right now.

Make your post on Facebook look good. It helps give your post a certain amount of credibility and authority when it is professionally done. Here's how: Go to an article you want to share and copy the URL. Then go to your Facebook page and click on "Post Link." Paste the URL there and click on "Preview." It will show the title of the article and a little bit of the article itself. Click on the title and change it if you want. Usually, for example, the first part of the title will be the name of the blog. You can remove the name of the blog to make the title shorter and more eye-catching.

Now go back to the article (in a different window) and take the juiciest, most enticing, intriguing two paragraphs in the article and select them. Right click and copy the text. Go back to
Facebook and click on the text below the title and paste your paragraphs there. Then click "Post." Now you've got a good-looking post with a pithy excerpt that will make people want to read the article.

If you use
Facebook mainly for friends and family, and if your friends and family don't like your interest in the freedom movement (the counterjihad movement), you can sign up on Facebook as a different name, and use it for promoting freedom in the way I've described above. Then you can sign in as either identity (in other words, you can have two accounts).

Another alternative is to keep your Facebook account as it is, but post a link or article only every week or so, and keep it low-key. Post "beginner" material — the kind of stuff that might not offend too many people, but still says something valuable.

Sometimes someone in your family may make a comment on one of your posts, arguing with you or criticizing you or the article. If this happens and you don't know how to answer it, check out the Answers to Objections.

If you can't find an answer there, please
write to me and I'll help you formulate an answer. I'm serious about this. I want to know what people are saying. This is where the battle is taking place — right at the point where someone who knows about the third jihad says something to someone who doesn't, and the response is negative. If we don't handle those moments well, we will lose this war. It's that simple.

So write to me. I will help you, and I will probably post the answer as an article too, because if someone says it to you, others are probably hearing the same retort.

4. Post a good political cartoon or picture that says a thousand words. You can post a picture one of two ways: You can download the picture onto your computer and then upload it onto
Facebook (by clicking on "Add Photos") or you can click on the picture wherever you find it. Usually clicking on a picture will take you to a page that has nothing on it but the picture. Now copy the URL and paste it into "Post Link." After it's posted, if the picture is small, you can edit the post. One of the options is to make it larger.

Pictures capture the eye. Each person on
Facebook has a home page and can see the activity of all their friends. Pictures you post on your page stand out on all your friends' home pages, and will attract attention. One of the reasons pictures are appealing is because they represent a very small investment of time. People will often take the moment to look at a picture when they might not stop to read an article. So post pictures once in awhile in addition to articles.

By using
Facebook in these ways, you can join with others, you can help gain recruits to the cause, you can help educate the public, and you can lend your weight to many worthy causes. Join the Facebook revolution and defeat the third jihad using one of our most powerful weapons: Freedom of speech.

Here are some causes I recommend you join right away.


Geert Wilders Speaks the Hard Truth


IN A SIX-minute interview with Bill O'Reilly, Geert Wilders says that the first, most sensible thing Europe can do is stop immigration from Muslim countries. Watch the interview here:

Geert Wilders Calls for the End of Muslim Immigration

And it might
already be too late for Europe. But it is not yet too late for the United States because we still have a low percentage of Muslims. We must stop Muslim immigration before the percentage gets any higher. Not all Muslims follow the religion strictly, but the more Muslims you have, the more politically-active supremacists will be among them, and the more trouble we will have. (Watch a video about that here. Read more about it here.)

So if you haven't signed the petition to stop U.S. Muslim immigration, please sign it now and persuade all your friends and family to sign it. Post it on your FaceBook or MySpace page. Sign the petition here: Stop Muslim Immigration.


"Aren't You Being Religiously Intolerant?"


ALMOST EVERYONE in the free world firmly believes in the principle that people have a right to worship as they wish. Even people who are avowed atheists will defend this principle. So to hear anyone (you, for example) criticize any religion offends the sensibilities of people who know nothing about Islam (but assume it is one of many similar religions).

The negative reaction to your criticism of Islam is even more pronounced if they are a believer in another religion because they hear your criticism of Islamic supremacism as a threat to the freedom of religion, and they will often defend Islam on that basis alone.

So how can you respond to this objection? Here are some ideas:

1. I am actually defending religious tolerance. What should you do with a religiously intolerant religion? What can you do with a religion that will try to stop, defeat, undermine, and even abolish all other religions? If you want to preserve religious freedom, you had better keep the aggressive, intolerant religion on a tight leash. You had better be aware of what they're doing, and you'd better prevent them from getting their hands on the reins of power or it will be the end of religious tolerance.

2. There are two aspects of Islam. One is religious and the other is political. The religious part has to do with fasting and prayer. The political part has to do with subjugating non-Muslims, working to establish Shari'a law in places where it isn't already established, and repressing the rights of women. Islamic supremacists do not believe the religious part is separate from the political part because according to the Qur'an and the example of Mohammad, they are not separate, and it says in the Qur'an over seventy times that a good Muslim must follow Mohammad's example.

But some people who call themselves Muslim are perfectly willing to violate the tenets of Islam and separate the two. They only want to practice the religious aspects of Islam, which is private, and I have nothing against that at all. I think they have every right to do that.

But it behooves those of us who might be on the receiving end of their political action to be aware of the political aspects of Islamic teachings. Those teachings impact non-Muslims and restrict human rights for Muslim women, and that isn't right.

In many places in the free world right now, Muslim women do not enjoy the full rights of freedom because those areas are politically controlled by Islamic supremacists, who never let up on their relentless push for political and legal control. There are areas in Britain, Germany, and France where Shari'a law is legally practiced (examples here and here). The governments have conceded to Islamic pressure. This must be stopped because the pressure for more concessions will never stop. It is a true Muslim's religious duty to bring the whole world under the rule of Islamic law.

In the USA, Islamic supremacists are influencing American textbooks, misleading students as to the nature of Islam and the history of violent and aggressive Islamic expansion. This is a breach of the separation of church and state, it is an example of Islamic supremacists tireless political aggression, and we must not concede to it. This is not a suppression of religious freedom. It is a repression of unfair, one-sided, freedom-denying political practices (carried out as a religious duty).

After the Protestant Reformation, and after many years of persecutions and wars, Britain established a new policy which is the root of our model of religious tolerance today. Any religion or sect could worship as they choose without fear of persecution by the government or anybody else.

Churches that had once enjoyed a monopoly resisted this new policy. They were intolerant of other religions. So Britain told them: You will be tolerant of other religions or you will not be allowed in this country. And if you think about it, this is the only way religious tolerance can work. You can't allow an aggressive, intolerant religion free reign.

Right now 75 percent of the mosques in America are preaching hatred toward non-Muslims. This is a dangerous religious intolerance. You can't have everyone allowing everyone else to worship as they wish except one group who will only tolerate their own religion. That's the definition of supremacism and it is a threat to the freedom of religion. Everyone has to abide by the principle or it doesn't work. So being critical of Islamic supremacism and stopping its relentless aggressive encroachment is, in fact, an essential goal if the freedom of religion is to survive.

Those are three answers to the accusation that you are being religiously intolerant. I invite you — no, I urge you, I challenge you — to come up with an even better answer and add it to the comments below. Let us continually outdo one another with better and better responses.

I also encourage you to add your two cents about which answer we come up with is the best. Add your vote as a comment below.

Minds need to be changed, and it is right here that we can make it happen. Let us arm ourselves with effective weapons in this war of ideas. Let us forge the weapons here that will help us win the war against Islam's relentless encroachment and protect our freedom.


"What You're Saying Is Racist"


THIS IS ANOTHER installment in our series, Answers to Objections. I've already written several posts to help in answering this objection, since it is one of the most common.

The main problem with this one is that usually people will not say it outright. It is too offensive. To openly call someone a racist, at least in America, is a repugnant insult.

But you can usually read between the lines and realize the person you're talking to can only hear what you're saying in terms of racism — because they know so little about Islamic supremacism, they don't know how else to interpret what you're saying.

If you suspect this to be the case, you should bring it up first. It is best to handle this particular objection sooner rather than later. Here are some ideas to help you out:

1. Here's how to handle the racism objection before is even mentioned.

2. If it is a misnomer to call this kind of conversation "racist," what is it then? It is "criticizing a religious doctrine" and it is also "political criticism" — two perfectly legitimate activities in a free country.

3. Here is specifically why it is not racist to criticize Islam.

4. Here's how to make it perfectly clear you are not a racist.

5. Here is a great demonstration of why the racism charge is ridiculous.


Champions of Freedom: A Specific Example of Stealth Jihad


I READ SOMETHING the other day that filled me with hope, pride, determination, and joy. It was a 30-page report put out by representatives from the top two organizations in the counterjihad movement. It was a collaboration between the Mission Viejo chapter of ACT for America and the United American Committee.

The authors of this fascinating document (read it here as a PDF file) did a thorough job investigating and revealing how Islamic supremacists have successfully positioned themselves in a consulting role for several of the largest publishers of middle school textbooks in the USA in such a way that these Muslims decide what is said in American textbooks about Islam.

Digging further, the authors discovered that what the textbooks say about Islam is blatantly biased propaganda.

Does it matter what middle school kids read about Islam? Think about this: By the time those students become voting adults, they will have a positive feeling about Islam, and that positive feeling will seem to rest on very solid ground to them. What they can remember about Islam was, after all, in their textbooks. You can't get much more authoritative and mainstream than that.

The 30-page report, entitled Islam in American Classrooms, contrasts what is written in the textbooks with the actual history of Islam, and the deliberateness of the whitewash is completely obvious to even the most skeptical reader.

The report goes into detail and backs up everything it says with references.

This document is the most specific, concrete, thorough example of stealth jihad I have yet come across — and it was done by
volunteers. Not by professors, or experts, or by a government organization. In that way, the existence of this report is inspiring. This is the kind of grassroots accomplishment we have been envisioning since 9/11. It's finally happening.

If we the people don't do it, it will not be done. It is clear that governments will not save us, and neither will the experts, for various reasons I won't go into right now. We will have to save ourselves, educate ourselves, investigate things ourselves, and spread the word ourselves — and we can.

We can and we must.

Our most important task, as I see it, is to reach people who don't know much about Islam and educate them about the goals and methods of Islamic supremacists.
And we can use Islam in American Classrooms to help us accomplish this goal. Most people are overly focused on terrorism. If the Jihadis aren't blowing anything up at the moment, everything is okay, right?

Wrong! They are reaching into every aspect of our lives as deeply as they can get away with, they are thinking long-term, and they are taking strategic action every chance they get. The third jihad is being waged on many fronts at once. And
Islam in American Classrooms gives us a good example of how they operate.

Study this document. Print it out and keep it with you. When people don't seem interested in Islamic supremacism because "not all Muslims are terrorists" and they only have a vague worry about what the terrorists might do in the future, you can let them know, "They're already here, and they are already controlling what is taught in American classrooms!" Whip out the document and blow their minds!

The kind of thorough work this document represents can help us get through to people, which is the number one task in ultimately stopping Islam's relentless encroachment. For that reason, I name the authors of the document and everybody involved in the project true champions of freedom.


What Is This Mass Denial Made Of?


IN AN excellent article by Bruce Bawer, author of While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam is Destroying the West from Within, he wrote about what happened during and shortly after the "cartoon riots." Among other things, he said:

One book after another on the America-Europe relationship has contended that it’s America that’s the problem — that America is out of step with the world and needs to get back into line, pronto. In the title of Clyde Prestowitz’s 2005 book, America is a “rogue nation” because it refuses to go along and get along with the rest of the planet under the wise auspices of the UN. I don’t know exactly how to characterize or understand this mass self-deception, this determination to cling to an illusion of the West in which the ongoing Islamization of Europe simply is not a factor; it would appear to be rooted partly in confusion, partly in cowardice, partly in careerism — and partly, I think, in a perhaps not entirely conscious conviction that some truths are just too sensational to speak without sounding hysterical, too repulsive to be honest about without sounding (to some ears) vulgar and bigoted, and too challenging to face without being utterly overwhelmed by the scale and the horror of it all.
Read the whole article: Who's Sleeping More Deeply — Europe or America?

When we're talking to our friends and family about Islamic supremacism, we need to remember that their sources of information are almost entirely influenced by the self-deception about which
Bawer is writing. Most of their information sources smugly "smile down upon" those who think the West might have a "creeping Sharia" problem. The fact that this point of view seems so universal makes it seem self-evident to most people.

So make sure you don't blame your listeners for being so skeptical (or even hostile) to what you're saying. The truth about the third jihad is shocking and nobody wants to say it.

Except you. I applaud your bravery. Your courage is what will save us.

My favorite line from Bawer's article is:
Meanwhile Europe’s cultural elites are dominated by people who seem likely to continue to smile upon Islamization right up till the moment they’re stoned to death.
Roughly the same thing was said eloquently by Cox and Forkum:

When people respond to you so ignorantly and blindly and they're self-righteous about it, try to remind yourself of the tremendous amount of public denial they have been exposed to and then gently, patiently, and kindly open their eyes.


"But it is Just a Small Minority of Extremists"


THIS ARTICLE is the first of a series called Answers to Objections, where we will be exploring the responses you get when you start talking to people about Islamic supremacism and the third jihad. This is kind of like sales training. When you get a job as a saleperson, the trainer will usually teach you about the most common objections customers have, and hopefully will teach you how to handle them. Then when a potential customer gives you one of those objections, you won't be thrown off; you'll have a competent and well-thought-out answer — an answer that will satisfy the person making it. But maybe even more important, you'll give an answer that will satisfy the person your customer will talk to later. In fact, the objection may only be what your customer thinks others will ask later about his purchase. People often make a response that they think other people might make. This is true in sales, and it's true when you're talking about Islam's relentless encroachment. If your listener accepts what you're saying about Islam, and then they go share what they've learned with a friend of theirs, what objection might that friend come up with? Your listener will probably wonder about that, and might bring up that objection to see if you have a good answer for it — a persuasive answer, a satisfying answer, an answer that would even convince their skeptical friend. If you have a good enough answer, you can go further into the conversation with a willing listener. If you don't have a good enough answer, the conversation will stall and maybe stop, and your listener's mind will close, maybe for now, and maybe forever. Not many people really want to hear about Islamic supremacism, at least at first. It's ugly and it's scary. But if you do well enough in your conversation, you can get some good information into the other person's brain, and we will all be better off. This is the most important thing that needs to be done right now: SUCCESSFUL one-on-one conversations between people who know about Islam and people who don't. But, as you have undoubtedly discovered, when you initiate these conversations, people will often respond negatively. The good news is that the number of possible negative responses you get is limited. There aren't an unlimited number of things people will say to you. There are only six that are very common. My complete list is only eighteen objections, and the list covers, by my estimate, 98 percent of all the responses you can possibly get. People will present their responses as if that's the end of the argument. Case closed. As far as they are concerned, they just gave the final word on the subject. But if you have a good answer, the conversation can go on, and can go deeper, and your listener will walk away more informed about the third jihad. That's one less potential dhimmi in the world; one more recruit to our side. So let's begin. The first response on our list is: "You seem to be indicting the whole religion. It is really just a small minority of extremists who have hijacked the religion." Have you ever heard this? In other words, you'll be talking about Islam and what it says in the Qur'an, and they'll come back with, "You're talking about a minority within Islam." This is the biggest misconception people have — that Islamic supremacists are terrorists and they're small in number and a fringe group, and that the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful, law-abiding, kind-hearted, religiously-tolerant believers in humans rights. How can you respond? Here are a five different ways to answer:

1. Even a small minority of 1.3 billion people is still a lot of people. And the minority is not nearly as small as people like to think. Yes, the number of Muslims following Mohammad's command to "kill unbelievers wherever you find them" may be small, but a much much larger percentage believes in the political purpose of Islam and is working toward that goal in other ways besides terrorism. There are many ways to wage jihad. Violence is only one. Demographics is another (that is, immigrate to a new country, maybe even let them support you with welfare, but definitely out-breed the original inhabitants, build up a politically-active and powerful voting block of Muslims in that country, and then start pressing for concessions). Many forms of jihad are possible — litigation jihad, forest fire jihad, falsify textbooks jihad, and the list goes on and on. Violent Islamic supremacists may, in fact, be the least of our problems. 2. You mean the ones who are blowing themselves up in order to kill non-Muslims? Or flying planes into buildings? Or trying to get their hands on a nuclear bomb so they can set it off in downtown New York City? Those are worthy of concern, but in the longer term, the Muslims waging jihad by other means may be more dangerous. (Of course, at this point, they'll probably say, "What other means?" and you have opened up another opportunity to educate them further.) 3. Jihad is obligatory for all Muslims. Jihad doesn't mean only violence. Jihad means to struggle, in whatever way you can, to achieve Islam's single political goal: The subjugation of all non-Muslims to Islamic law. That political goal is a Muslim's religious duty. Mohammad didn't approve of meditation or navel-gazing. He said the way you can prove your devotion to Allah is by action. So even mainstream "moderate" Muslims are active, constantly working toward the end-goal of worldwide Islamic dominance. They do it by paying their zakat, which goes to the mosque, which goes to supporting Muslim causes (which are almost entirely political causes). And they do it by having lots of children, to give Muslims a demographic advantage in democratic countries. They do it by making every non-Muslim they meet think that Muslims are harmless and well-meaning. They do it by crying "racism" every time someone criticizes Islam, even though they know full well Islam is not a race (they say it because it gets the desired response: It shuts people up). They do it by writing to every television or radio program that portrays Islam in an unflattering light. It is all jihad. Bamboozling the non-Muslims is jihad. As Mohammad said, "War is deceit." And as you can see, they have been winning the war. You, like most other non-Muslims, know almost nothing about Islam and yet have a feeling that it must be all right. 4. We get that impression (that it is a small number of extremists) because almost none of the constant attacks by Jihadis are covered in the media. Go to thereligionofpeace.com and you can see every verifiable attack in the world made in the name of Islam. There are about five attacks a day. Some big, some small. But it adds up to a constant war being waged against all non-Muslims everywhere in the world simultaneously. More people are being killed in the name of Islam per year than were killed in the entire 350 years of the Spanish Inquisition. And each one of the Jihadis doing the killing is supported by a network of Muslims that, while they are not killers themselves, help to make it happen, help to finance it, help to hide them, feed them, encourage them, and protect them. And the ones committing violent jihad are only the tip of the iceberg. In many other ways, many more Muslims are following Mohammad's example and waging jihad on many fronts and at many levels at once. 5. The Muslim Brotherhood is the largest Islamic organization of any kind in the world. That makes it mainstream. Not fringe. The Brotherhood's goal is to make the whole world submit to Islamic law. And they are actively (and in many ways successfully) accomplishing their goal. Most of them do not advocate random bombings, which are strategically ineffective in most places and counterproductive to the goal of world domination. They have a long-range plan and they've been putting it into effect for over twenty years. This is not guesswork. Their documents have been seized in FBI raids. One such raid recently led to the prosecution of members of the Holy Land Foundation. The Muslim Brotherhood has established lots of "legitimate" organizations in the United States, which work toward the goal of destroying our government from within (this is their stated goal) — CAIR, MSA, ISNA, NAIT, etc. They raise money to promote jihad (while fooling people as to the real purpose of the money), they sue on behalf of Islam, they recruit on campuses and turn non-Muslim students against America, they influence how textbooks in American schools portray Islam, they influence how the FBI deals with Muslims, they fund and control madrassas and mosques all over America and make sure they teach hatred, intolerance, and non-integration. And more. And they do it all under our noses because our attention is focused out on the hot-headed Jihadis who are blowing things up. Read more about the Muslim Brotherhood's goals here.
That is our list of good responses — responses that will satisfy most listeners, and allow your conversation to continue productively. Feel free to write in with other possible responses in "comments" below. Let us share our discoveries with each other. Let's find the best ways to get through to people and prevent our conversations from being stopped by seemingly-sound arguments simply because we were not prepared. Read over these responses again and pick the one you would most want to use, and remind yourself of it every day until it comes to mind naturally. I recommend using the reminder service, Resnooze. Or read it onto an audio file and listen to it in your car while you drive. Let's prepare ourselves for these conversations so they can go well. People who don't know MUST BE REACHED! It is up to us. Let's get it done. Read more: What Muslim Leaders Say About Islam Dispels the Myth that Jihadists are a "Fringe" Element.


Update On Geert Wilders


IN SEVERAL recent posts on Citizen Warrior, we talked about Geert Wilders (see the previous posts here, here, and here). We've got an update on the situation.

Geert was recently invited by Britain's Lord Pearson to show his film, Fitna at the UK's House of Lords, but when Geert arrived in Britain, he was denied entrance into the country and sent back to the Netherlands! Listen to an interview with him about it here (the link goes to a BBC article, but at the top of the page is an 11-minute interview with Geert).

He makes a good point in the interview: This is a simple freedom of speech issue. The UK government says it does not want Geert to come to the UK because he might "disrupt security." Which means they are afraid his presence will cause Muslims to riot, which means the threat of Muslim violence is silencing a legitimate European politician from speaking his mind or even coming into the country.

The public response and the governments' responses to Geert's film is pushing one of the most important issues into the forefront. The issue is what to do about the Islamic encroachment onto the freedoms we've come to take for granted in the free world, and it's an issue that must be resolved successfully if the West as we know it is to survive. If organized violence on the part of a small minority can intimidate the government into silencing critics of the source of that organized violence, we haven't got much chance of saving our civilization.

Even though Geert was barred from entering the country, the film's showing went ahead as planned at the
House of Lords and received a positive response, with many calling for a debate on the issues raised by the film.

For more on the story, read this article from FrontPage Magazine: A Chamberlain Moment. Also, watch a short rant by Pat Condell on the incident.

Now, about Geert's case back in the Netherlands: His prosecution in the Dutch courts has mobilized the worldwide counterjihad movement. Here's a report from SITA:

[The protest against Geert's prosecution] is already a great success for the following reasons:

1) We were relayed/promoted by great sites, mainly American: Gates of Vienna, Act For America, Politically Incorrect (D), Faith Freedom International, Jihadwatch, International Free Press Society, Atlas Shrugs. (I have probably forgotten some) and also by a multitude of personal national sites: SITAmnesty, Bivouac-ID (Fr), Gudrun Eussner (D), Citizen Warrior (the USA), Up-PompĂ©ii (U.K.), Actionsita (Fr), hodjasblog (DK), Galliawatch (the USA) … etc. A Google search for Geert "Winston" and Geert "Charlie" Wilders will show you clearly that it is a media success on the internet.

2) We have already gotten thousands of visits for the 2 articles "Winston" and "Charlie" and if one can believe it, the famous Dutch daily newspaper
De Telegraaf has reported that hundreds of letters (and also e-mails) have come from many countries, arriving at the Court in Amsterdam as well as to the lawyer Spong, who has asked for police protection following the receipt of death threats. These threats, by the way, are detrimental to our cause because they give ammunition to our enemies. But all this makes a buzz around Wilders which was our intention. Statistics at this page.

What should we do next?

The lawsuit brought against Geert Wilders will go on for months and we must make sure our actions don't let up. It is not necessary for an enormous quantity of mail to arrive every day. A letter from time to time addressed to the Dutch authorities, to the 3 judges, to lawyer Spong and his collaborators will be enough under the terms of the principle of the snowflake: A flake on a roof nothing happens, two flakes … 10 flakes nothing happens, a multitude of flakes, nothing – but suddenly one flake more and the roof collapses. The letter that you send will perhaps be the letter that will make these dhimmis crack! (Get more information about the letter-writing campaign, including the mailing addresses, here.)

Call on all the bloggers to push this issue forward. You can do this whether you are a blogger yourself or not. Bloggers can keep articles about Geert on their home page to prevent the article from disappearing too quickly into the archives. Also encourage your favorite bloggers to publish a photograph of Wilders in their sidebar and link it to an article about Wilders. Thus the reader will be able not to forget Wilders and will be reminded to send a SITA-style letter from time to time. Another possibility is to republish regularly by copying/pasting an article of support each week or each month on the homepage of the blog.

We must give a large
Thank You to all those who took part and contributed to make this action a great success. You can also make it last by watching out for articles about the lawsuit against Wilders (try Google News Alerts) and commenting on those articles in support of Geert, and maybe pasting a link to a supportive article.

Let's keep this issue alive. Talk to people about it. Geert Wilders' case is a specific example of the loss of one of our most important freedoms because of the pressure, intimidation, infiltration, and violence of Islamic supremacists. Let's make sure Geert's plight brings this important issue into a productive mainstream dialog, and let's use his trial to help us inform the many as-yet-unaware Westerners about the way Islamization takes away freedoms, one concession at a time.


Islam's Compulsive Aggression and Profanity


The following article is written by Dharmaveer on the blog, Thoughts of a Nationalist Indian. India has been dealing with Islamic supremacism a lot longer than the United States. Dharmaveer gives us a history lesson here:

ISLAM IS A predatory religion. It seeks to demean and destroy other cultures and replace them with Islamic-Arabian culture. To this end, it finds the things most sacred, most symbolically sublime in cultures it encounters, and then proceeds to systematically profane them.

When Islam invaded India in 712 AD, they found the Hindus to be very different from themselves. Alberuni, an Islamic historian who accompanied the brutal Islamic invasions of Mahmud Ghazni in 1000 AD, states that the Hindus were, in every way, the opposite of Muslims. It is interesting and educational to read his accounts. For instance, he mocks the Hindus for "consulting their women in every matter of importance" — referring to the high position of women in pre-Islamic India and the pathetic animal-like existence of women within Islam. In Islam, a woman is a mere possession of a man meant almost entirely for sexual pleasure — so a Muslim would indeed find a Hindu consulting a woman on an important matter most incredible! Remember folks, women are Islam's first victims, and there is something very just about fighting an ideology that reduces women to the status that they "enjoy" in Islam
(read more about their status here).

Another aspect of Hindu civilization that the Muslims found singular was the Hindu veneration for the animal kingdom in general, and the Cow in particular. As I have explained elsewhere, Hindu Dharma lays great stress on harmony between humans and the animal and plant kingdoms. Our earliest scripture — the Rig Veda — prays for the well-being of all three simultaneously. Hindu Dharma stresses that mankind does not own this planet, and must strive to live harmoniously with all other life. To remind Hindus of this, one representative is chosen from each of the two kingdoms, and venerated in daily religious life.

The Cow is chosen as the representative from the animal kingdom because it is peaceful, easily domesticated, provides us with milk, and is a gentle, kind animal. Similarly, the Tulsi plant is chosen as the representative of the plant kingdom because of its many medicinal properties. A pious Hindu will feed a Cow, and water a Tulsi plant as part of his daily ritual to remind himself that he must live at peace and harmony with animals and plants. This is also why religious Hindus do not eat meat — they feel the animal has as much right to live as they do.

Yes, Islam is very different! In Islam, a non-Muslim has little to no right to life. A Hindu must be killed if he does not convert, a Muslim must be killed if he does, continuous jihad must be waged upon all infidels, and so on. Islam is the very opposite of peaceful harmonious co-existence. Islam is predatory. Islam is murderous.

Back to Islamic invaders of India. When they saw that the gentle cow was held in special veneration by the Hindus, they made it a point to slaughter cows en masse. To rub it in, they always slaughtered a cow at the very spot where a Hindu idol stood, before erecting a mosque in its place. Most of the time, the idol was smashed, mixed with cow meat, and placed at the steps of some mosque for the "faithful" to tread upon as they came for prayer.

We thus read in
Alberuni's India:

"..When Muhammad bin Al Qasim conquered Multan (in today's Pakistan), he inquired how the town had become so prosperous and flourishing, and how so many treasures had accumulated there. The Hindus told him the idol was the cause, for there came pilgrims from all sides to visit it (Multan had been a pilgrimage for Hindus). Therefore he thought it best to have the idol where it was, and hung a piece of cow's flesh on its neck by way of mockery. On the same place, a mosque was built.

When the Karmatians occupied Multan, Jalam Ibn Shaiban smashed the idol into pieces and killed the Hindu priests."
Tragically, there are literally hundreds of such gloating accounts of Islamic invaders on the atrocities and murder they heaped on the Hindus. I will try to reproduce some of them on my blog. It is very important to understand that this behavior of unbridled aggression towards non-Muslims is prescribed by the Qur'an.
Oh ye who believe! Murder those of the disbelievers and let them find harshness in you. (Sura Al Tauba: 123)

Humiliate the non-Muslims to such an extent that they surrender and pay tribute. (Sura Al Tauba: 29 )
Historians have estimated that during the course of the 1400 year encounter with Islamic Jihad, the Hindu population lost 50-80 million people by way of slaughter, deprivation, and transport during enslavement in terrible conditions. The mountain range of the Hindu Kush (which means literally "Hindu slaughter" in Pashto and Farsi) is possibly so-named because of the millions of Hindu slaves who died there in the cold while being transported from India to Arabia by Islamic conquerors.

Here is the account of enslavement of Hindus from the first jihad by Mohammed Bin Qasim in 712 AD, taken from the
Chachnama by Qazi Ismail — the first Qazi of Alor after its conquest by Islam:
During the Arab invasion of Sindh (712 C.E.), Muhammad bin Qasim first attacked Debal, a word derived from Deval meaning Hindu temple. It was situated on the sea-coast [not far from modern Karachi]. It was garrisoned by 4000 Kshatriya soldiers and served by 3000 Brahmans. All males of the age of seventeen and upwards were put to the sword and their women and children were enslaved. 700 beautiful females, who were under the protection of Budh (that is, had taken shelter in the temple), were all captured with their valuable ornaments, and clothes adorned with jewels. Muhammad dispatched one-fifth of the legal spoil to Hajjaj which included seventy-five damsels, the rest four-fifths were distributed among the soldiers.

Thereafter whichever places he attacked like Rawar, Sehwan, Dhalila, Brahmanabad and Multan, Hindu soldiers and men with arms were slain, the common people fled, or, if flight was not possible, accepted Islam, or paid the poll tax, or died with their religion. Many women of the higher class immolated themselves in Jauhar, most others became prize of the victors. These women and children were enslaved and converted, and batches of them were dispatched to the Caliph in regular installments.

For example, after Rawar was taken, Muhammad Qasim halted there for three days during which he massacred 6000 (men). Their followers and dependents, as well as their women and children were taken prisoner. Later the slaves were counted, and their number came to 60,000 (of both sexes?). Out of these, 30 were young ladies of the royal blood. Muhammad Qasim sent all these to Hajjaj who forwarded them to Walid the Khalifa. He sold some of these female slaves of royal birth, and some he presented to others.

In Sindh female slaves captured after every campaign of the marching army, were converted and married to Arab soldiers who settled down in colonies established in places like Mansura, Kuzdar, Mahfuza and Multan. The standing instructions of Hajjaj to Muhammad bin Qasim were to give no quarter to infidels, but to cut their throats, and take the women and children as captives.

In the final stages of the conquest of Sindh, when the plunder and the prisoners of war were brought before Qasim, one-fifth of all the prisoners were chosen and set aside; they were counted as amounting to twenty thousand in number (they belonged to high families) and veils were put on their faces, and the rest were given to the soldiers.
My friends, my readers, all of this is very depressing reading, particularly so for a Hindu. I am sharing this pain with you because I do not want there to be such slaughter ever again elsewhere. Whereever you are — in Europe or America — make sure Islam does not do to your civilization what it did to mine. You owe it to your civilization. And you owe it to those poor Hindus who died in the bitter cold while being transported like animals in cages through the Hindu Kush.

I end with a famous quote by the great historian Will Durant, from his
History of Civilization:
"The Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex order and freedom can at any moment be overthrown by barbarians invading from without and multiplying from within."

The original article is here: Islam's Compulsive Aggression and Profanity.


Get Active, Get Involved


The following is a message from Brigitte Gabriel, founder of ACT for America:

Dozens of Islamic paramilitary camps, training Islamists in jihadist tactics and often using live ammunition, exist on American soil. Why is this being allowed to happen?

Hundreds of thousands of intelligence intercepts sit in boxes, untranslated, because the FBI doesn't have enough Arabic translators. Yet the FBI predominately hires Muslims to do translating, routinely rejecting the applications of qualified Christians and Jews. Why is this being allowed to happen?

A study of publications from 12 of the most prominent mosques and Islamic institutions in the U.S. uncovered hatred for any religion but Islam, hatred of "infidels" (non-Muslims), contempt for democracy, and calls for jihad to overthrow democratic governments and replace them with Islamic government and sharia law. Why is this being allowed to happen?

If you are shaking your head right now in frustration about these outrages, this is your time to say "enough is enough — I want to do something about this!" Become an ACT for America chapter leader.

It is vital that we build ACT for America to be the nation's largest, most successful citizen action network, whose backbone is a network of patriotic Americans organized in chapters in every city and state in our great nation. An organization that will hold our elected officials' feet to the fire, monitor bills on Capitol Hill, and actively influence policy on the local, state and federal levels.

Outrages like those mentioned above will continue so long as too many government and elected officials kowtow to what is politically correct, shirking their constitutional duties to do what is in the best interest of America's security and the defense of our liberty and our values.

We must unite our voices and demand that our elected officials put the safety, security and freedom of the citizens of the United States above concerns for "political correctness" or the "rights" of those who want to harm us or radically alter our way of life.

Many of you have emailed and asked "What can I do? I want to do something." This is your opportunity to get involved with ACT for America. You can either start a chapter or join a chapter that will be starting in your area. See chapters in your area here.

We can't afford to sit back and hope our government officials and elected representatives will do the right thing when it comes to protecting our liberty and security. Some will, and we are thankful for them. Unfortunately, the track record for far too many in government is not cause for optimism or exuberance.

Increasingly, I'm getting opportunities to inform and educate government officials. On September 10th I gave an address on Capitol Hill, sponsored by the House Republican Policy Committee. Just last Thursday I did a briefing for FBI personnel, and as you read this I'm finishing two days of presentations to high-ranking military officers at the United States Special Operations Command in Tampa. So the word is getting out at the highest levels.

But I need you to join with this effort so that the power of the grassroots can be joined to the power of information I am disseminating at the highest levels of government.

On Monday we sent over 10,000 petition names to Columbia University, demanding they not let Iranian President Ahmadinejad speak. Imagine how powerful our voice will be when we have 1,000 local chapters and twenty times the members we have now!

With your help we will create the most formidable, organized grassroots voice in America that will drown out the foolish voices of political correctness and help ensure our government officials and elected representatives do the right thing to protect our safety, security, liberty, and way of life.

Put your hand in mine and join me in organizing and mobilizing our country. Please click here now.

Together, We Rise in Defense of America.

You can find her original message here.

Learn more about ACT for America.

Learn about other practical actions you can take to help defeat the third jihad.


Identifying Your Enemy is the Most Basic First Step in Defeating the Enemy


AMERICA HAS joined with countries all over the world in a "War on Terror." But that is just plain stupid. "Terror" is a tactic. You can't make war on a tactic. We have an actual enemy that CAN be named: Islamic supremacists — Muslims following Mohammad's example and waging jihad by many means against non-Muslims (and insufficiently-Islamic Muslims). In an effort to avoid offending "moderate Muslims," many people in important public arenas have gone out of their way to avoid implying that "terrorists" or "extremists" are primarily Muslim and commit their acts of violence and sedition in the name of Islam. Even some security agencies hamstring themselves by disallowing language that names their specific enemy — language that implies an Islamic connection. This has got to stop. Islamic supremacists are serious. This is not something to play around with. They've already killed over 270 million people in the last 1400 years, and taken over many countries. Trying to be polite should be the last of our concerns. As far as the perpetrators themselves are concerned, all their acts of violence and sedition are done very explicitly in the name of Islam. Islamic doctrine is something our security agencies ought to learn about. Islamic supremacists have followed the same rule book for 1400 years, which makes them somewhat predictable. But only if their Islamic foundation is acknowledged and understood. So let's free our security agencies to use accurate language to describe what they are trying to protect us from. Start by signing this petition:
Defining the Jihadist Enemy And urge everyone you know to sign it too. This is what the petition says:
To: U.S. House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence The American people condemn the May 8, 2008 decision by the majority of the U.S. House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence in rejecting Congressman Peter Hoekstra's amendment to the 2009 Intelligence Authorization Act (H.R. 5959), which was intended to "prohibit the intelligence community from adopting speech codes that encumber accurately describing the radical jihadist terrorists that attacked America and continue to threaten the homeland." Moreover, the American people call for those members of the Committee who opposed this amendment to publicly account for and explain their vote.Seems reasonable enough, right? Okay, then sign this petition. To learn more about what the security agencies have done and why, read: Counterterrorism Concedes to Political Correctness. If you're not convinced, read this excerpt from an article entitled France's War With Jihadis:
...the most indicative statement made by Alliot Marie is her call to create a "handbook on Islamism" to be used inside the prison system to allow authorities to detect the growth of jihadist or Salafist ideology. If anything, this bold move shows the precariousness of the recently developed assertions — both in Brussels and in Washington — that words that detect the ideology shouldn't be used. Here we have the minister of interior of the French Republic — a country that has more experience with Salafism than any other Western nation — urging just the opposite: that is the production of a manual that would precisely find and use all words possible that would help in finding the radicals. This comes as greater evidence that the architects of the so-called Lexicon disseminated across the U.S. bureaucracy is not only counterproductive, but is actually dangerous for the efforts in counter terrorism to detect the enemy ideology. While one of Europe's largest democracies is heading toward winning that battle of words by actually using them and understanding them, the most powerful democracy in the war on terror has abandoned one of the most efficient tools to "see" the enemy, and to educate its own public about it. Note that the French minister uses these terms in a very precise way. She used "Islamists" when needed and Salafists when she wanted to be more specific about the doctrine. In France, as I noted through my discussions this summer and as we can read widely in the media and academia, the terms jihadists, Islamists and Salafists are used with confidence and on solid academic grounds.The main justification for the security agencies' ban on "words that implicate Islam" is that it would offend peaceful Muslims. Where do people get this idea? They get it from organizations like CAIR and ISNA and MAS and other organizations that claim to represent the "moderate Muslim community." But they are front groups for the supremacist organization, The Muslim Brotherhood. Read more about the agenda of these organizations here. This is a PDF document that says using words might not really offend any JRMs (Jihad-Rejecting Muslims) and might lead to good results if intelligence agencies were allowed to use the right verbiage. One of my favorite authors, Bill Warner, has this to say on using the right names (from an article on Political Islam):
The jihad of Umar burst out of Arabia and crushed the Christian world of Syria, Egypt, and the rest of the Middle East. The Christians recorded it as an Arabic war. When Islam invaded Europe, Europeans called it a Turkish invasion. The jihad against Christian Spain was an invasion by the Moors. The Muslims called these events jihad. In the early nineteenth century America sent the Navy and Marines to war against the Barbary pirates on the Berber coast in North Africa. For centuries the Islamic Barbary pirates had raided Europe and taken nearly a million white slaves, and their shipping raids in the Mediterranean had taken a great toll. But the Muslims never called their naval raiders "Barbary pirates." They called them ghazis (sacred raiders). A raid led by Mohammed against the kafirs' caravans was called a ghazwah. The Muslims were clear that naval raids by the "Barbary pirates" were actually jihad by the army of Mohammed. Naming them "pirates" showed that the kafirs had no idea about the doctrine and history of Islam. Today we call the jihadists off the coast of Somalia who are attacking ships "pirates." Look at the news today. The media report an intifada (uprising) by the Palestinians against the Israelis. But the terms intifada, Palestinian, and Israeli are misnomers. The real terms are jihad, Muslim and infidel, if we follow the Koran, and the doctrine of political Islam clearly states that jihad is to be waged by all Muslims against all Jews and other "kafirs." Today is no different from 1400 years ago in Islam. 9/11 is recorded in the West as a "terrorist attack" by terrorists. Mohammed Atta, the leader of the 9/11 attack, was a pious Muslim. He left a letter clearly stating his intentions: 9/11 was pure jihad. An attack is a single event, but jihad is a 1400-year continuous process. Therefore, a terrorist attack is not the same as jihad. Terrorism does not have the same meaning as jihad. Kafirs called them the "Paris riots." Muslims called the burnings and theft the "Great Ramadan Offensive," which connects them to Mohammed's first jihad in the sacred month of Ramadan. The name "Paris riots" evokes different thoughts, insights, and points of view from the "Great Ramadan Offensive." The naming of these events by kafirs does not convey the right meaning. Muslims' names for themselves and their actions connect events and people with Islamic history and doctrine and show a continuing process. Kafir names are temporary, do not connect events, and show no historic process. The only correct terms are those of Islam. The naming by the kafirs is wrong because the naming is a projection of Western culture. Correct naming leads to correct thinking. Why are we talking about naming? One of the marks of a dhimmi (a kafir who is an apologist for Islam) under the fourth caliph, Umar, was that a dhimmi was forbidden to study the Koran. The chief mark of dhimmitude today is ignorance of the Koran, the Sira and the Hadith. The ignorance of kafir intellectuals about Islam is profound. And that profound ignorance is only deepened with the ban on accurate language in the security agencies. If you agree and want to put a stop to it, sign the petition and get all your friends to sign it too.


Something Practical You Can Do


SUBMIT STORY ideas to your local reporters — newspaper, radio, and television. Find their phone numbers or email addresses, and send them stories so often they know who you are.

And not just the local ones. If major network programs started getting a flood of requests for stories on the Islamification of America, for example, they would do more stories of that kind, and that would go a long way to getting this information to the public.

And that is the vital first step in this battle: People need to know what's going on. They need to know about the broader plan by American and European Jihadis — what they're doing, what they plan to do, and how they are doing it.

No national policies can be voted in without significantly more people understanding this issue. It needs to be discussed openly in the public forum. And it needs to happen soon.

Media coverage will raise the profile of those doing something about it, gaining them more supporters, more funding, and more volunteers. It could greatly accelerate the whole movement.

Below is contact information for major networks. Make it a regular practice to share stories with them when you come across good ones. Put their phone numbers on your speed dial and use your commuting time to defeat the third jihad. You won't get a great response every time, but keep doing it anyway. This is the front line of the war. Get your friends to do the same thing. Put pressure on the networks to cover the stories. Let them know there is a public demand for this kind of information.

If you have limited time, concentrate on the media sources you personally use. If you have more time, contact them all with every good story you deem worthy. Here is the contact information:

CBS News 212-975-3691 212-975-1893

NBC News 212-664-4971 212-664-5705

CNN 404-827-1511 404-681-3578

Fox News 212-301-3300 212-301-8274

MSNBC 201-583-5222 201-583-5453

PBS 703-998-2150 703-998-4154

NPR 202-414-2200 202-414-3329

NY Times 212-556-1234 212-556-3690

USA Today 703-276-3400 703-247-3100

Wall Street Journal 212-416-2000 212-416-2658

Washington Post 202-334-6000 202-496-3936

Newsweek 212-445-4000 212-445-4450

Time 212-522-1212 212-522-0323

U.S. News 202-955-2000 202-955-2049

Associated Press 212-621-1600 212-621-7520

ABC News 212-456-4040 212-456-2795

You can submit stories to specific shows on ABC:

· Contact Good Morning America

· Contact World News with Charles Gibson

· Contact Primetime

· Contact 20/20

· Contact Nightline

· Contact This Week

· ABC News Programming Specials

· ABC News Programming Other

Of course, it is always a good idea to inform our representatives as well. Put these numbers on your speed dial too:

Congress 202-224-3121

White House 202-456-1414 202-456-2461


Article Spotlight

One of the most unusual articles on CitizenWarrior.com 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 CitizenWarrior.com is copyright © CitizenWarrior.com 2001-2099, all rights reserved.

  © Free Blogger Templates Columnus by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP