Friday, November 20, 2009

The Counterjihad Manifesto

A representative of a European NGO contacted me this morning and asked for my help. His organization was preparing a presentation on the Islamization of Europe, and he was in urgent need of a brief description of the Counterjihad, including a statement of our goals and a concise rationale for what we are doing.

I was happy to oblige him, and the result is below.



The Counterjihad: Resisting Islamization and Reviving the West

Fist and MinaretsIslam has been at war with the Western world for fourteen centuries — since its inception. Muslims all over the world still consider themselves to be at war with non-Muslims; this is why Islam refers to us as Dar al-Harb, the “House of War”.

The West, however, has forgotten that this war exists. We continue to labor under the illusion that Islam is an ordinary religion, like Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, and Buddhism.

Unfortunately, Islam is above all a totalitarian political ideology, sugar-coated with the trappings of a primitive desert religion to help veil its true nature. The publicly stated goal of Islamic theology and political ideology is to impose the rule of Islam over the entire world, and make it part of Dar al-Islam, the “House of Submission”.

Widely accepted Islamic theology based in Koranic doctrine explicitly requires that Islam be spread by any and all means necessary, including by violence and mass slaughter, in a process known as jihad, or holy war.

The fact that many Muslims do not support or engage in violent jihad is not germane. If only one percent of Muslim believers take the Islamic mandate of jihad seriously, it means there are over fifteen million people scattered among the world’s Muslims who want to destroy us, and we have no means of determining in advance which ones they are.

Therefore, those who oppose Islamic totalitarian ideology and the expansion of Islam into the West have formed themselves into a coalition known as the Counterjihad.

The goals of the Counterjihad are:
- - - - - - - - -
1. To resist further Islamization of Western countries by eliminating Muslim immigration, refusing any special accommodations for Islam in our public spaces and institutions, and forbidding intrusive public displays of Islamic practices.
2. To contain Islam within the borders of existing Muslim-majority nations, deporting all Muslim criminals and those who are unable or unwilling to assimilate completely into the cultures of their adopted countries.
3. To end all foreign aid and other forms of subsidy to the economies of Muslim nations.
4. To develop a grassroots network that will replace the existing political class in our countries and eliminate the reigning multicultural ideology, which enables Islamization and will cause the destruction of Western Civilization if left in place.

We are a loose international association of like-minded individuals and private organizations. We all share the overriding goals described above. We are non-partisan, and welcome members from any political parties who share those same goals, and who also demonstrate a strong commitment to the humane democratic values of the West.

We are Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, Baha’is, ex-Muslims, agnostics, and atheists.

We live in Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, India, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Lithuania, Malta, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the UK, and the USA.

We are the Counterjihad.


Update: This post has been translated into German.

Update 2: Spanish.

Update 3: Italian.

Update 4: Dutch.

I suppose that I should start time-stamping these updates…

Update 5 (11/22/2009 23:48): French.

Update 6 (11/23/2009 11:37): Swedish.

40 comments:

Thrasymachus said...

I may be a little drunk, what with it being Friday and all. But I must say: this post give me a f'ing hard on. Proud to be amongst you.

Sebastian said...

"The fact that many Muslims do not support or engage in violent jihad is not germane. If only one percent of Muslim believers take the Islamic mandate of jihad seriously,.....". BB

It is a mandate, it is a mandate, it is a mandate. Do you hear that liberals?

Yes this fact needs to oft be repeated and pounded through, that is namely that -- though many even most Muslims around the world are not actively involved in any form of direct Jihad, it is nevertheless a traditional mandate in Islam. Albeit a mandate that hasn't been followed by most muslims of the past century in any coordinated fashion against the West.

That was while Islam was struggling to come to terms with Western dominance and magnificence and questioning itself in the face of the Western political and scientific tradtions. Yet they are enamored with us no more and have been led down this path by a few leaders, notably Sayd Q'tb, who taught resistance to the wholesale onslaught of Western ideas and the sewerpipe of "Democratic" decadence that ran from America and Europe into Isalmic countries. Western promiscuity giving them a leg to stand on, something to say they were better tna us in, having failed on the other fronts mentioned.

Yet still it is and always has been a mandate, a sleeping mandate much like a sleeping cell. It is a mandate, it is a mandate, it is a mandate. A mandate always there and ready to be used, ready to justify, even when it is not used, it is still there, something that can always be revived. Do you hear that liberals?
What does that mean? That means it is always possible, all of Islam is a sleeper cell of sorts, and the dynamic of groupthink is also a factor. This coincides with the fact that so called radical Muslims , which are really just true Muslims according to the authoritative tradition, have a hook in the conscience's of Muslims all over, which is why the so called moderate Muslims, those you do not practice Islam according to its strict and traditional form, are often quiet in the face of Islamic terror tactics. They have a soft spot or weakness in them which holds them back and keeps them from being free and speaking out against other Muslims. IN other words "moderate Muslims" have respect for the radicals, who are willing to suffer, die and do the hard and nasty things that bring an Islamic state into being. Though they are not willing to do it. There is a great conflict in the souls of Muslims today, they are forced to lie about their religion and pretend that it is something that it is not, because they want to believe it so badly. They want to believe that Islam is peaceful, not some psychotic religion. Why do they want to believe this? Why do they feel the need to lie? Of course some of them are just liars and manipulators and we all know how they use differetn definitions of words according to a "secret" Islamic lexicon, like who is an innocent and etc... and what is peace and justice that they speak of and the difference between the Jesus they say they accept and the Jesus of the Bible which they reject, putting themselves up as the authorities over the bible and Christianity. This is really the key issue here, that is that Isalm was founded upon the premise that it was superior and final and in more perfect form than Christinaity and Judaism, they being corrupted forms of original Islam. So you can see that is setting oneself up for a superiority complex and a feeling of destiniy or right to be in first place whihc justifies their jihad and subjugation of others. If you are not muslim or Christian then just forget about it.

Sebastian said...

Cont.

Yes some Muslims have an agenda and yet I believe as repugnant and offensive as the religion is in itself, some , many Muslims are in great conflict and a little confused. i do not say com[pletety confused because they all know what the hell hole countries they come from are like and most do not say good things about them but they do not wish to connect it to Islam which has not the power to purify and reform men obviously only to make them self righteous while leaving them the way they are, hateful full of cursing, swift to shed blood, veangful, with a religious twist, basically criminals and sinners under any other view except Islam.

sofa said...

and I thought the goal of a 'counter-jihad' would be to crush it utterly,

A brutal barbaric totalitarian political movement with some mystical elements - is still a brutal barbaric totalitarian political movement. Checking it, empowers it. Look at 1400 years of those who tried and failed. Many people, cultures, nations, and empires pretended that they could contain it and it would eventually go away. Islam is not a nuisance, like a cold virus. It is more like bubonic plague. The only time it has been pushed back is through brute force. But enough survived to grow and spread again.

Historical precedent and 1400 years of data indicate there is only one method that works: Utterly crush it. And drive it home to strike the root, and be done with it.

Or be consumed by the barbarism.

Politically correct = sure death.
Face reality = chance to survive.

EscapeVelocity said...

Should have mentioned Shariah Law....and the majority support for it among non violent Muslims in Western Nations.

Baron Bodissey said...

E.V. --

The number of words I was permitted to use was limited. Sharia is covered under "refusing any special accommodations for Islam in our public spaces and institutions".

The same clause covers the hijab in employment, guide dogs in taxis, halal food in schools, footbaths, gender separation, etc. Using this wording allowed me to stay within the limit.

There are many, many things that can be said on this subject. It's tough to fit it all on one page.

EscapeVelocity said...

Baron, dont get too defensive. I am glad that you (and Dympha) are leading spokesmen for people like me, with less of a voice.

I understand the complexity of the situation and the difficulting in making concise statements.

If I were really to criticize, I think that CounterJihad is the wrong word....and that label becomes a misnomer.

However, there is nothing wrong with CounterJihad....but its only a subset of the larger real problem. If all we had to worry about was the occasional Jihadi violence that wouldnt be a threat to Western Civilization and would be easily contained.

But there is room for a thousand flowers to bloom, all doing their part to oppose Islam. In fact that is a strength...this is how the Western Left become so insidious and effective. When one group radically pushed violently, another in full agreement with said group could don the moderate mantle and "compromise" of course compromise after compromise adds up to movement on the agenda.

Essentially, Islam could be easily contained even now, if not for the perfidy of the Western Left. Islam is not a threat to Western Civilzation, Jihad, Shariah Law and all without the aiding and abetting of the Western Left..which is the real threat to Western Civilization.

laine said...

Adding together two observations by Sebastian:

"all of Islam is a sleeper cell of sorts".

"'moderate Muslims' have respect for the radicals, who are willing to suffer, die and do the hard and nasty things that bring an Islamic state into being. Though they are not willing to do it" (themselves).

the objective analyst can only conclude that when push comes to shove, Muslims will support their team, the jihadis. They already do so, with their refusal to criticize repeated jihadi offenses against all human rights standards and instead deflecting the focus from these outrages to discussions of fictional Islamophobia.

More actively, many fund jihadi initiatives. Others wage lawfare against host states from within. Still others strut in their beards and burkas and achieve mosques with towering minarets, footbaths and prayer rooms in public spaces to occupy as much visual space as possible and psychologically dhimmify non-Muslims who are forbidden from objecting on pain of being smeared as racists/Islamophobes.

Any one of these so-called "moderates" could turn at any time on his fellow infidel citizens to the feigned? mystification of his own family.

If we take Muslims at their word and their own families cannot predict someone "going jihadi", then obviously, the Muslim expectation is that we should simply accept these occasional slaughters like Fort Hood as the price of keeping their wonderful selves among us.

But they are not wonderful or irreplaceable for whatever good they bring.

Is there any doubt that if all Muslims were returned to their sharia run hellholes, we would be better off? Their social costs burden all of us but their wealth is never shared with non-Muslims.

And frankly, even if they were a net financial benefit which they almost certainly are not, most Americans who have not lost their survival instinct to liberal brainwashing would gladly take the economic loss to escape the gathering malevolent force punctuated by random attacks.

Baron Bodissey said...

E.V.--

I couldn't agree with you more.

As you know if you have read some of my previous writings, I believe that Islam is the symptom, not the disease. The disease is Socialism, and its more recent mutant offspring known as Political Correctness and Multiculturalism.

However, it's very, very difficult to fight those evil twins directly, because they are so threaded through the warp and weft of our political and cultural life.

Now Islam has come along to provide an undeniably evil manifestation of the sourge of Multiculturalism. I focus on Islam because it is holding up the mirror that allows us to see the pox on our own faces.

EscapeVelocity said...

No doubt Islam is so ugly and vile that it exposes the foolishness at best of the Multiculturalist "Anti Racist" New Left. Its the 1000 pound straw that broke the camels back. Hopefully it will bring forth a new cultural confidence that breaks the New Left Establishment and discredits them so thoroughly that they are ashamed to utter their treacherous inanities in public again. One would think that their support of Soviet/Communism would have been enough.

There is gonna be a reckoning in Western Civilization. And it cant come fast enough for me. the double standards, the villification of certain idenity groups, their history and culture.

The viscious attacks on Sarah Palin are a manifestation of deep seated hostility to Western Civilization, Culture, and Peoples. You know how the Tea Partiers have been smeared as Racist Haters...well if you want to see real Racist Haters, look at the attacks on Sarah Palin. Anti-Western Hater, Self Hating Westerners and their gaggle of identity political groups that form the coalition against the Europeans and their culture and peoples.

Its a shame, because I think we had the opportunity to move forward instead of pushing more tribalism, however that was never the driving force of the New Left who pushed and supported tribalism, its just that some tribes were stigmatized and disallowed from participation in the Diveristy Celebration.

Bad move.

Jérémy said...

You want to "eliminate Muslim Immigration". And I think I understand why that is the main feature of your political communication campaign.

But, then, why do you want to "end all foreign aid and other forms of subsidy to the economies of Muslim nations". Is that a goal in itself, or is it only a means ? And isn't that in blatant contradiction with the christian values you claim to be supporting ?

Further, if you want to stop immigration, why don't you talk and think about the causes of contemporary migrations ?

4Symbols said...

Jérémy

"Further, if you want to stop immigration, why don't you talk and think about the causes of contemporary migrations?"

I think you answered your own question when you prefixed immigration with "contemporary" this hints that you are aware that what is under contention is something more than a equally beneficial movement of people.


To equate foreign aid with Christianity is naive and plain wrong to do so makes the recipients prisoners of your own conscience, to finance your own destruction goes beyond any understanding that I have of Christianity.

Baron Bodissey said...

Jérémy --

I detect an undercurrent of hostility in your comment here, as I did with your remarks in an earlier thread. Thus I doubt that you are commenting in good faith, and I don’t expect that you will take in my answers with any openness towards re-evaluating your position. Nonetheless, I will make the attempt.

But, then, why do you want to "end all foreign aid and other forms of subsidy to the economies of Muslim nations". Is that a goal in itself, or is it only a means ?

All of these proposals are a means to the end, which is to halt the Islamization of the West. The goals are enumerated to establish a possible route to that comprehensive purpose.

And isn't that in blatant contradiction with the christian values you claim to be supporting ?

Not at all.

Christian charity arises within the heart of the individual Christian, and is directed by the individual towards those he deems worthy of his charity.

A government can never act out of Christian charity, because any wealth it possesses it had to obtain through coercion from its citizens. Citizens do not part from their wealth in a charitable spirit when they deliver it to the government. Not only that, governments deliver aid to recipients out of their own interests – i.e. for the transient political purposes of the state – and therefore no charity is involved.

Like many people raised in the Socialist Age, you confuse true altruism with the actions of governments. In fact, the two are polar opposites.

Further, if you want to stop immigration, why don't you talk and think about the causes of contemporary migrations?

Evidently you have not read any of the many previous posts on our blog which discuss this very topic.

Practical goals can be discussed separately from analyses of causes. A pragmatic program does not necessarily require the inclusion of all information about past causes as a part of its planning. If that were the case, no action could ever be taken. Requiring a full exposition of causes would require a catalogue extending all the way back to the primum mobile, and would paralyze us.

I recognize the trope: examining the “causes of contemporary migrations” inevitably leads back to the guilt of white Europeans, thereby requiring us to engage is various ameliorative actions benefiting less developed countries before we are permitted to take action that ensures the survival of our own civilization.

I don’t buy that argument.

Actions that are urgently necessary to preserve our cultures must be taken; causes are irrelevant to that overwhelming imperative. Studying history to understand what went before is a worthwhile endeavor, and will make better leaders and administrators out of those who undertake it. This is the case regardless of the fact that urgent action needs to be taken.

But take it we must. Requiring a study of “causes” is a strategic diversion mounted by our enemies in an attempt to immobilize us while they destroy us.

mace said...

Baron,

I agree that the problem is multiculturalism and its elimination is the solution.

All liberal democratic societies are multicultural by default,so there was no need for self-appointed or government appointed supporters of multiculturalism to institutionalize and promote the concept, that's where the problem started,people often push the boundaries of their little empires beyond reason,as a result, they produced "multi-culturalism" that rather pernicious doctrine that infests modern society.

Our grandparents would have stopped any Islamist advances in the West by stating "these are the laws and underlying principles of our democratic society and we will not compromise these to accommodate your primitive tribal beliefs and practices" The idea of cultural relativism would have been ludicrous to most members of earlier generations in the West.

Guy DeWhitney: Heretic Crusader said...

POLITICALLY CORRECT GUIDE TO FREE SPEECH 2009 Edition

Christians
It Is Hate Speech If You Offend non-Christians

Jews
It Is Hate Speech If You Offend non-Whites and Muslims

LBGTs
It Is Hate Speech If You Offend Muslims

Females
It Is Hate Speech If You Offend Muslims

White Males
It Is Hate Speech If You Offend non-Whites, Females and Muslims

Non-Whites
It Is Hate Speech If You Offend Muslims

Muslims
It Is Hate Speech To Offend Your Imam

Jérémy said...

If I strongly disagree with your position, I can appreciate your civility. I find it a shame you can't extend it beyond the "gates of vienna".

I consider my comments as a kind of experiment, as probes meant to explore your ideas and, much more so, your rhetoric. I am indeed opposed to political exploitation of xenophoby, to any politics ultimately motivated by fear, and/or to any politics without a modernist and progressive project.
I won't, you can guess, re-evaluate my position on these points.
And I won't haunt your blog much longer, rest assured.

I commented here (certainly with some hostility) because I think your views can be countered through rational argumentation, as I think you are wrong, your are off-target, a bit hypocritical, and I think that Muslims-bashing won't solve today's problems.
Of course a lot of what is sold today as "multiculturalism" is to be criticized, as a lot of other features of today's society. But making scapegoats out of muslims is useless and shameful.

About "foreign aid" : actions of governements need not be "polar opposite" of christian charity.
If the governement can not act out of christian charity, citizens who vote can. A citizen can vote for a governement because he find, as an individual, its program to be more in accordance with christian values than the opponent's, even though voting for this government could go against his own financial interests. (Voting for such a governement could go against its interest, but he could do it out of moral judgement).
As in the following caricature :
"Our society won't let the poor in such a mess" VERSUS "Enough with tax and those bloody ****[insert here a religious or ethnic label]"

About this :
Actions that are urgently necessary to preserve our cultures must be taken; causes are irrelevant to that overwhelming imperative. Studying history to understand what went before is a worthwhile endeavor, and will make better leaders and administrators out of those who undertake it. This is the case regardless of the fact that urgent action needs to be taken.



But take it we must. Requiring a study of “causes” is a strategic diversion mounted by our enemies in an attempt to immobilize us while they destroy us.


If your goal is to stop immigration (so as to stop "Islamization"), as you pretend, then you can't despise an analysis of the causes of migration.
Wanting to stop immigration with the police is a little bit like wanting to prevent a baby from crying by gagging her. You don't need to go back to primum mobile in order to find a better course of action.

White (and other) westerners can act, for example, against global inequalities. It need not be motivated by "guilt". It can be motivated by a certain sense of justice and decency. And it doesn't imply a destruction of our "civilization". The contrary would be much closer to the truth.

If you really want our civilization to "survive", maybe you could to what you can to criticize it, in order to better it, so as to give future generations good reasons to endorse it, rather than repeating a monotonous, already heard and quite vain hymn about "preserving our culture". (You make an interesting variation on the "preserving our race" theme, but this is still the same old trick).

I am quite happy there is better things in the west than your relentless rantings.

I loved your : "Requiring a study of “causes” is a strategic diversion mounted by our enemies in an attempt to immobilize us while they destroy us.".

You could just as well have written that philosophy and science are an attempt at destroying the west.


Btw, have you ever heard this :
" The barbarian is the one who believes in barbary " ?

I hope you'll consider my adverse remarks as serious criticism. Though I am aware it could unfortunately make you angry, if you think that criticizing your "ideas" is equal to attacking yourself.

Graham Dawson (Archonix) said...

Tautological nonsense like that is the reason modern anthropology is so trapped in it's quagmire of cultural relativism and inability to critically analyse the objective realities of foreign cultures. Yes it may well be a quote from a very famous, influential and respected Anthropologist, but it's still tautological nonsense.

We have a multicultural world. Why do we need multicultural nations?

Jérémy said...

This quote might have paradoxical implications, but it is certainly not tautological.

Sean O'Brian said...

Jérémy,

I am indeed opposed to...any politics ultimately motivated by fear

Permit me to disagree. Plato has a whole discussion of politics based on fear in The Republic. He said the guardians of the city must have fear. Because they love the city, they fear the bad things that could happen to it, and this fear makes them courageous in the city's defense. This is how most of the people here think.

Progressives, conversely, think that what fears we have are really phobias (a phobia being an irrational fear of something or someone) and that not only are our fears irrational but (though they do not generally come out and say this) there is scarcely such a thing as a rational fear, that fear and rationality are mutually repulsive. This is false IMO.

As far immigration as goes, the only way to stop immigration is it to physically stop it at the border. It would also be a lot easier to focus on global inequality-solving programs when you don't have to worry about irrendentism, massacres, civil war etc.

Klausbert said...

Translated into Spanish, here.

mace said...

Jeremy,Archonix

If you're both referring to the expression "the barbarian is the one who believes in barbary"(sounds ridiculous enough to be French in origin).It's, in fact, not tautological, and definitely not paradoxical,it's what, I'd say, philosopher Daniel Dennet would call a "deepity". A "deepity" is a proposition that seems to be profound because it is logically ill-formed,eg "love is just a word".
Those people who are not motivated by fear in regard to the Islamist menace really don't understand the existential threat that it poses.

EscapeVelocity said...

Some people might be afraid. However I wouldnt put many others in that category. They arent Islamophobes, but rather rational human beings that reject Islam and the crap that goes with it, and are will to stand up to it....being secure in their own identity and values and willing to protect them that identity and values...within the institution of the nation state has been and effective protectorate for quite some time.

They are Anti-Islam....not Islamophobic. Im not afraid of Muslims or Islam, I think its a vile ideology (like Communism) and needs to at minimum be contained outside the borders of my country.

I think that you have been watching to much Dr. Phil....and have been sucked into the medicalization of behavior.

gift said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
gift said...

@Jérémy 11/21/2009 5:45 PM:
ok we could fight against the inequalities in the world and we do in a certain way.
however, what if the reasons for the inequalities are not us, but reasons inherent to the islamic cultures ?

you wil admit that questioning facts is a core feature of western civilization and the engine of scientific evolution.
however, islam regards questioning as blasphemy, islam means submission and obedience. such a culture is naturally damned to poverty. were it not for the oil, the islamic countries were among the poorest on the planet. muslim immigrants fare much worse than other immigrants, didn't you ever wonder why ?
and what better way to help those people than by pushing back islam, by delegitimizing it ?

Jérémy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jérémy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jérémy said...

[I removed my previous comments because of typos]

Well, you seem to forget quite quickly that mathematics and philosophy fared quite well in Islamic civilization before it was the case in Europe. And that Europe can be quite thankful to Avicenne. And that Copernicus had some problems in the West (does anyone says that christianism or christians are thus condemned to failure ?). And that western economic dominance is not that old (and might not last much longer - hint : East Asia back in the game).

@Escape Velocity, if someone was to say that he is "anti-judaism", or "anti-christianism", would that not ressemble "anti-semitism", or "christianophobia" ? And I guess that Hitler would not have said that he was afraid of Jews, but only that he wanted to protect the west from them. (You're not little Hitlers, but this blog definitely have some characteristics in common with his totalitarian discourse).

@Gift, you can't explain social and economic inequalities by culture, because culture is always an explanandum, never an explanans.
I guess that talking about the history of the capitalist world system would arise way too much "guilt" for you to handle (while I think that guilt should have nothing to do with these issues).

Salam'. Shalom. Bye.

M said...

Jeremy, please don't leave yet, let us educate you. In regards to mathematics and philosophy I suggest you go to The Brussels Journal or just google 'Fjordman' to read academic essays regarding the treatment of classical knowledge after the islamic conquest of Byzantium. Taking the islamic claims of developing knowledge at their face value gives in to their superiority complex. Look deeper. See what was merely translated from the spoils of conquest on Greek lands.

Jérémy said...

If I need to educate myself about history and the history of science, I will certainly not rely on political propaganda (be it islamist fundamentalists, conservatives, or left-wing ), dude.

Avicenna was only an egocentric crazy ignorant machist murderous jihadist, is that it ?
And the Europeans need not him because they had Aristotle in their blood ?

Please educate me : from which greek author did Al Khwarizmi stole the idea of algorithm ? And where in greek books did he find the problem of the resolution of algebric equations through radicals ?

You could self-educate yourself by relying on a greater diversity of sources (nothing to do with cultural diversity btw).

Talk about a superiority complex.

And I guess the Brussels Journal have nothing interesting to say about Copernicus or Galileo Galilei.

Klausbert said...

Excuse me but I don't get it:
We have to let sharia law be imposed upon us, because some arab guy invented algorythms centuries ago?

Graham Dawson (Archonix) said...

"And where in greek books did he find the problem of the resolution of algebric equations through radicals ?"

Oh, he didn't. Those came from India.

Zenster said...

laine: Is there any doubt that if all Muslims were returned to their sharia run hellholes, we would be better off? Their social costs burden all of us but their wealth is never shared with non-Muslims.

And frankly, even if they were a net financial benefit which they almost certainly are not, most Americans who have not lost their survival instinct to liberal brainwashing would gladly take the economic loss to escape the gathering malevolent force punctuated by random attacks
.

I wanted to include laine's closing comments as a reinforcement of what Counter-Jihad is all about. Yes, there is a larger issue of Leftist Cultural Marxism but it is not quite the existential threat that Islam currently presents to Western culture.

Unfortunately, we are rapidly approaching a chicken-and-egg situation whereby the Leftists will have imported sufficient numbers of Muslims that both become existential threats to modern culture. However, it is best to remain focused upon Islam as its quest for WMDs could result in irretrievable losses to the Western world.

There is also a potentially hidden positive outcome. Exposure of Islam for the anti-life and tyrannous ideology that it is may well help to increase a general awareness of how Leftist and Socialist entities have hitched their anti-Western wagon to Islam's moon and star. This might be able to cast a much-needed actinic glare upon just how dysfunctional their own policies are. The Left's use of Islam as a stalking horse could well come back to discredit it in ways currently not apparent.

Sean O'Brian: Progressives, conversely, think that what fears we have are really phobias (a phobia being an irrational fear of something or someone) and that not only are our fears irrational but (though they do not generally come out and say this) there is scarcely such a thing as a rational fear, that fear and rationality are mutually repulsive. This is false IMO.

This is an excellent point in that the Left is constantly about "feelings" instead of facts. So much of Socialism and Post Modern deconstruction involves Magical Thinking™, with America's current administration being a prime example of this.

The notion of all feelings being irrational stems from those who irrationally allow their feelings to rule them. There is absolutely no logical basis for concluding that feeelings must necessarily be irrational. They are merely a primary form of perception that, if correctly processed, can lead to cogent and rational insights.

For a sane mind, feelings can be perfectly rational. The feelings of revulsion or digust evoked by Islam's barbarity and viciousness are not "phobic" whatsoever. They are the logical result of a humane and reason-based analysis with respect to Islam's historical track record examined along side of what it avowedly stands for today.

Sean O'Brian: As far immigration as goes, the only way to stop immigration is it to physically stop it at the border. It would also be a lot easier to focus on global inequality-solving programs when you don't have to worry about irrendentism, massacres, civil war etc.

Which, again, echoes my overarching point. Resolving the immense folly of Leftist societal deconstruction and its convulsive embrace of Communism will be a lot easier if, first, we can disable its war dogs, the Muslims. Attempting to neutralize the Left in the midst of Islam's jihad would be like placing too great an emphasis upon fighting the Mafia in the midst of World War II. Such a distraction is simply not permissible in the fact of such an existential threat.

EscapeVelocity said...

Is being anti Communist and anti Islam a crime against humanity?

Good Lord!

Jérémy said...

Zenster : "The Left's use of Islam as a stalking horse could well come back to discredit it in ways currently not apparent."

LOL. Who is using Islam as its main and almost sole feature ? Don't you call yourself the "counter-jihad" ? Who is stuck with question of Culture and Islam ?

Personally, when I don't explore some dead-ends of political thinking like this blog, I try to focus on political-economy and law.

@Klausbert : you willfully misread my argument. I never said sharia should be imposed on anyone.
I am clearly opposed to it, just like I am opposed to any kind of religious fundamentalism (be it muslim, christian, jew etc.).
But no need to try to paint Islam as The Evil, or muslims as "barbaric" to prevent it. Opposition to multiculturalist "projects" need neither be anti-Islam, nor conservative (nor anti-christian, nor anti-enlightment for that matter).

@EscapeVelocity :

Who ever implied this ? If any criticism of your political positions can only be countered though that kind of voluntary misunderstanding and absurd deformation, it might be because you don't have a lot of good reason to support it.

Bye.

Guy DeWhitney: Heretic Crusader said...

Jeremy, fancy words do not hide a lack of logic and factual history.

"Well, you seem to forget quite quickly that mathematics and philosophy fared quite well in Islamic civilization ..."

Hard to forget something that hardly happened. Islamic "civilization" passed on some mathematics and philosophy. It certainly did not add much to either. The only real innovations they made were in optics, and compared to the progress in Europe later even that was a rather paltry contribution.

Sources in NON Islamic cultures gave ideas like algebra and "Arabic" numerals that were passed on. This hardly compares to the invention of the new ideas in the East or how fast these ideas developed in the West.

Philosophy: virtually all refer to was GREEK or PERSIAN. It only flourished where Islamic heresy was rampant. Each time the Caliphate established more "proper" Islamic cultures science and philosophy stagnated.

All the "glory times" are found in places where Islam is NOT strong and many ideas are exchanged.

Compare the paltry influence Muslims have had on ALL arts and sciences compared to their numbers and power with the Renaissance and Enlightenment in sad Europe.

"And that Europe can be quite thankful to Avicenne. And that Copernicus had some problems in the West. And that western economic dominance is not that old ..."

Comparing Catholic repressions hundreds of years ago with Muslim repression past and present is like comparing the kid that gave your kid a bloody nose three days in a row with the drifter that killed your wife, child and dog then urinated on the carpet!

"@Escape Velocity, if someone was to say that he is "anti-judaism", or "anti-christianity", would that not ressemble "anti-semitism", or "christianophobia" ?"

No, common sense says saying you are anti-KKK is not the same as saying you are anti-BSA. What matters are the objective reasons why a certain group is opposed.

Anti-Semitism is a result of envy of a culture that rejoices in creative pursuits. Jews are human like anyone; good, bad and indifferent. But look at ANY activity that involves creative thought and intellectual pursuits and Jews abound. There is no conspiracy, just a culture that has an attitude that makes the anti-Semites look lazy. Especially Islamics, who are almost absent from the world stage outside of politics and terrorism.

"And I guess that Hitler … not afraid of Jews … wanted to protect the west from them."

Strawman! What about facts or evidence? Show me unforged Jewish texts that confirm the Nazi libels.

"@Gift, you can't explain social and economic inequalities by culture, …"

Fancy words but a total fallacy. Culture can be both what is explained and the explanation, depending on what you are talking about.

If we are looking at HOW a certain culture got messed up it is one thing. But, if we are talking about WHAT aspects of a culture cause certain specific inequities in the present time, it is quite another.

"I guess that talking about the history of the capitalist world system would arise way too much "guilt" for you to handle (while I think that guilt should have nothing to do with these issues)."

Spoken like someone with a truly one dimensional view of history.

Have you ever even tried to look at the "guilts" the non-Eastern world owns for their treatment of each other before the evil Westerners made them stop dry raping their own people and economies? Are you aware that in horrid, evil irredeemable British controlled India the locals FOUGHT to be employed by those twisted white bastards? Why would they do that you ask? Well, it seems the British treated their native workers like something between an ox and a human while the local rich treated them like a cross between a piece of furniture and an ox. So who should be more guilty? The descendent of the British, or the descendent of the local who had to be forced by outsiders to see "lesser" folks as worthy of ANY respect.

EscapeVelocity said...

Ill note that the US had an ideological exclusion to Communists in its immigration policy.

Guy DeWhitney: Heretic Crusader said...

Jeremy chimes in again with his version of "logic":

"...not rely on political propaganda (be it islamist fundamentalists, conservatives, or left-wing ..."

Did your nose just gain an inch? You obviously HAVE swallowed whole the propaganda of Leftists and Islamists.

"Avicenna was only an egocentric crazy ignorant machist murderous jihadist, is that it ?"

No, he was a PERSIAN who never really was much of a Muslim till his death bed! His genius thrived ONLY because he was more Persian than Muslim and lived in places where enforcement of orthodox Islam was lax.

It should tell you something that soon after Europe picked up the (mostly translated, not invented) "Islamic" knowledge, Islamic civilization REJECTED virtually ALL of the science and philosophy they felt was incompatible with their faith. Especially philosophy and science that had philosophical implications.

WHY do you think that math and optics were their biggest contributions? They have almost no implications theologically!

"And the Europeans need not him because they had Aristotle in their blood?"

A paltry handful of geniuses managing to be heard over a thousand years hardly compares with the roll call of intellectual demi-gods produced by Western Civilization in any 100 year period since 1300. Or the contributors from Rome and Greece before the year 500!

"Please educate me ...?"

How about you educate yourself on how little ISLAM produced, and how much was by Persians, Greeks and Romans not yet ground down by Islamic orthodoxy?



"You ...diversity of sources ..."

Your problem is not sources so much as mathematics. You can produce maybe 12 world class so-called "Muslim" scientists and philosophers; we can list hundreds of Western contributors who did their work without conflicting with the priests.

Deal with this or refute it: World "civilization" IS Western.
What aspect of modern world civilization and it's values and structures are NOT Western? Hmm?


"Talk about a superiority complex."

My thought exactly regarding "Islamic Science". Al hat and no cowboy.

"And I guess the Brussels Journal have nothing interesting to say about Copernicus or Galileo Galilei."

It means nothing to you that only a pathetic few managed to contribute in Islamic lands? Are you even aware of how many major contributions to science in the West were made by PRIESTS? There has been not ONE from a non-heretical Imam, EVER!

ANTI-ISLAMIST said...

"The Manifesto" translated to Swedish.
==================================
Vad är COUNTERJIHAD?

http://tinyurl.com/ye3rj66

ATT MOTARBETA ISLAMISERING OCH BLÅSA NYTT LIV I VÄSTVÄRLDEN!

Islam har alltsedan sin start för fjorton århundraden sedan befunnit sig i krig med västvärlden.
Muslimer världen över anser sig fortfarande vara i krig med icke-muslimer; det är därför som Islam hänvisar till detta förhållandet med uttrycket Dar al-Harb eller "Krigets Hus".

Västvärlden har emellertid glömt bort att detta krigstillstånd fortfarande råder. Istället har vi hemfallit åt illusionen att Islam är en helt vanlig religion precis som judendomen, kristendomen, hinduismen och buddhidmen.

Tyvärr förhåller det sig inte så. Islam är först och främst en totalitär, politisk ideologi, vars sanna natur döljs under den sockersöta glasyren av en primitiv ökenreligions olika attribut. Det öppet deklarerade målet för islamsk såväl teologi som politiska ideologi är att införa islamsk överhöghet världen över, som då kommer att betecknas Dar al-Islam eller "Underkastelsens Hus" - på engelska "the House of Submission".

Allmänt accepterad islamsk teologi baserad på Koranens lära kräver uttryckligen att Islam skall spridas genom alla möjliga och till buds stående medel -- även genom våld och massakrer, om så skulle krävas. Denna process benämnes JIHAD, eller "heligt krig".

Det faktum att den övervägande delen av världens Muslimer, trots det religiösa påbudet, inte (öppet) stödjer eller engagerar sig i att bedriva "heligt krig" eller våldsam JIHAD saknar relevans. Om bara en procent av världens troende muslimer tar det islamska påbudet om JIHAD på allvar, innebär det att det finns 15 millioner människor spridda bland världens muslimer som vill förgöra oss otrogna västerlänningar - och vi har ingen möjlighet att i förväg avgör vilka de är.

Därför har vi som motsätter oss den islamska totalitära ideologien samt dess fortsatta expansionen i västvärlden bildat en världsomspännande koalition kallad COUNTERJIHAD.

Målen för COUNTERJIHAD är följande:

1.
Att motarbeta ytterligare islamisering av västvärlden genom att propagera mot och om möjligt förhindra muslimsk invandring, att införa förbud mot etableringar av specifikt islamsk karaktär i offentliga miljöer och på offentliga institutioner samt verka för förbud mot påträngande allmän uppvisning av islamsk praxis.
- - - - -
...first part

ANTI-ISLAMIST said...

"The Manifesto" in Swedish
...second part
===================================
2.
Att verka för att Islam förblir inom gränserna för existerande nationer med muslimsk majoritetsbefolkning och att till ursprungslandet eller till någon av dessa länder deportera alla muslimska brottslingar samt de som bevisligen är oförmögna eller ovilliga att helt assimilera sig till invandringslandets majoritetskultur.

3.
Att avsluta alla bistånd och andra former av bidrag till ekonomier i muslimska länder.

4.
Att på gräsrotsnivå utveckla ett nätverk ämnat att ersätta den nuvarande politiska konstellationen i våra olika länder och undanröja den härskande multikulturella ideologin, vilken möjliggör islamisering och, om den lämnas i fred, kommer att förorsaka den västerländska civilisations förintelse.

Vi är en löst organiserad internationell sammanslutning av likasinnade personer och av privata organisationer. Vi delar alla de övergripande mål som redovisats ovan. Vi är partipolitiskt obundna och välkomnar presumtiva medlemmar av alla politiska chatteringar som delar vår uppfattning och vår målsättning och som också hyser ett starkt engagemang för västvärldens humanistiska och demokratiska värden.

Vi är kristna, judar, buddhister, hinduer, sikher, bahaier, agnostiker, ateister och ex-muslimer.

Vi bor i Argentina, Australien, Österrike, Belgien, Bulgarien, Kanada, Kroatien, Tjeckien, Danmark, Finland, Frankrike, Tyskland, Ungern, Indien, Irland, Israel, Italien, Litauen, Malta, Nederländerna, Nya Zeeland, Norge , Polen, Portugal, Rumänien, Ryssland, Serbien, Slovenien, Spanien, Sverige, Schweiz, Storbritannien och USA.
- - - - -
http://tinyurl.com/yaxju88
http://tinyurl.com/y9qx5gj
http://tinyurl.com/ydme9po
http://tinyurl.com/y9j8mhw
http://tinyurl.com/ycefwdl
==================================

Dor said...

BANG!