Evening the Odds

A recurring theme here at Gates of Vienna is that we’re on our own.

Our governments have effectively abandoned the Counterjihad; hence the repeated efforts on both sides of the Atlantic to uncouple the word “Muslim” from the word “terrorist”, and the sickening capitulation of our governments to the cultural demands of the imams. The media and the academy went over to the enemy a long time ago, so the only possible focus of resistance left to us lies within networks of ordinary citizens connected to each other by the internet.

I said last week that the opinions of most people in the West about immigration and Islam remain unvoiced, thanks to the muzzle of political correctness imposed by the media and our major institutions. A large reservoir of pent-up feeling is out there, waiting to be released. Nobody knows its true magnitude — the very mechanism of cultural suppression prevents that — but it’s there.

However, we're not really completely silenced. There are a few voices crying in the wilderness, even within the MSM.

Cal Thomas is one of these voices. With his syndicated column and his television and radio programs, he manages to get the message out to a wide audience across the United States. He’s one of the few who don’t hesitate to name the menace of violent jihad in our time.

But the other day Mr. Thomas went too far — he insulted CAIR, and immediately got himself into hot water.

I can insult CAIR with impunity any time I want, because this is a little blog with only a few thousand readers, and CAIR doesn’t bother swatting gnats like us. But Cal Thomas had the temerity to go on the air in our nation’s capital and speak the truth about CAIR and its allies to a large audience.

Here’s the story as related by Doug Farah in Family Security Matters:

An interesting bruhaha developed over the July 4th holiday when Cal Thomas, well known syndicated columnist and author, chose to speak out on WTOP FM Radio about CAIR (the Council on American Islamic Relations) and the other Muslim Brotherhood groups operating in the United States. CAIR cried foul, as it is wont to do, and demanded listener reactions.

A source at WTOP reports that they have moved beyond the brief tempest created, after determining that email generated in response to CAIR’s caviling demands for an attack campaign ran 10-to-1 in favor of Cal Thomas. Perhaps CAIR underestimated Americans’ commitment to free speech, or they overestimated the willingness of listeners to pay much attention to a group now formally outed as an un-indicted co-conspirator in yet another Federal terrorism trial and a U.S. body of the Muslim Brotherhood. Or both.

When I showed the above passage to Dymphna, she asked, “What in the world made CAIR ask for listener reactions? What were they thinking of?”

One assumes that CAIR is accustomed to take the pulse of the American public by reading the major newspapers and watching the talking heads on TV. They’re not the first people to mistake what appears in the pages of The New York Times for the opinion of the average American. Most national politicians — including an infuriating succession of our presidents — gauge their policies based on the editorial responses of the MSM, and not on what the American people actually want.

CAIR, of course, followed its usual modus operandi and distorted what Mr. Thomas said by using selective quotes out of context.

Here is the relevant portion of what Cal Thomas said: “How much longer should we allow people from certain lands, with certain beliefs to come to Britain and America and build their mosques, teach hate, and plot to kill us?” Thomas asked. “Okay, let’s have the required disclaimer: Not all Muslims from the Middle East and southeast Asia want to kill us, but those who do blend in with those who don’t. Would anyone tolerate a slow-spreading cancer because it wasn’t fast-spreading? Probably not. You’d want it removed.”

So, those Muslims who want to kill us are limned as “a slow-moving cancer” (this is pointedly not the same as saying that all Muslims are, which is how CAIR has formulated the remarks to incite its audience).

It’s becoming increasingly obvious that the “required disclaimers” are not enough to shield a prominent person from the wrath of CAIR. If he says something negative about even a single Muslim, or speaks the simple truth about something that reflects badly on Islam, he crosses a line that puts him beyond the pale, and the Wahhabist engines of destruction then gear up to cast him into the outer darkness.
- - - - - - - - - -
The good news is that WTOP’s listeners agree with Cal Thomas, and don’t buy into the religion-of-peace nonsense. Somehow, despite the 24/7 bombardment of dhimmi indoctrination that they are subjected to, people still understand what’s going on.

And we need that ten-to-one margin just to even the odds, because the CAIR’s funding has a ten-to-one or even a hundred-to-one advantage over the Counterjihad.

They’ve got the money, but we’ve got the numbers — at least for now.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
In her speech in Toronto last week, Bat Ye’or said this:

Doudou Diène, the UN Special Rapporteur on Racism, Xenophobia and Related intolerance at the Human Rights Council (Geneva) links immigration controls, security measures and European cultural and national revivals to Islamophobia.

[…]

He condemns as Islamophobic “the purely security-based approach to the inspection and surveillance of places of worship and culture and even the teaching of Islam, and thereby in the resurgence of policies and the adoption of legislative, administrative and police measures, that stigmatize or criminalize national or foreign minorities of the Muslim faith as demonstrated by the increase in the number of Imams who have been deported. Lastly, the rejection of diversity and multiculturalism is manifested by the creation of obstacles to the construction of mosques and by intolerance and repression of Islamic cultural expressions and symbols and attire and therefore its very visibility.”

He also condemns “the selective profiling in airport stations and at borders of people with alleged Islamic appearance, whether physical or because of their clothing”.

These accusations are, of course extremely serious because they deny to Europeans their own human rights to security under the pretext of Islamophobia, while in fact, security for the human being is a basic and primal right that comes before the rights of immigrants. In the same spirit, the sovereign, national and cultural rights of Western societies are denied in order to promote those of Muslims to immigrate into these societies with their own traditional rules, languages and customs.

We see therefore, that the issue of terrorism and immigration touches in some ways the Jihadic principle of the right of Muslims to immigrate in the dar al-Harb, the land of War (Harb) of the infidels, to Islamize it, and that this right has primacy over the rights of the infidels for security and their national or cultural rights, which are anyway not recognized. Doudou Diène requests Europe to accept (and this is repeated constantly in his reports), that it is multicultural as if Europeans should renounce their own culture and national patrimony in order to accommodate Muslim immigrants. He calls their refusal Islamophobia.

It’s no big deal when Doudou Diène says these things — after all, he works for the UN. Not only that, he’s not a native of the West, and his own country and culture are the net beneficiaries of a policy which lays Europe open to the hosts of Mohammed. It’s in his interest to label any resistance to the Islamization of Europe as “Islamophobia”.

But what about the people within Europe and other parts of the West who facilitate Eurabia? It’s true that they and their cronies stand to gain from the new régime — but at the expense of the destruction of their own cultures? How do they think their grandchildren will be living?

We are enjoined to accept all of this — the subjugation of women, the dietary restrictions on school lunches, the suppression of free speech, etc. — because the religion of the Muslims requires it. Their religious freedom trumps all our other rights, including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Somehow Christians and Jews never receive the same deferential treatment. Try putting a crèche up on public property and see what happens. And when was the last time you saw ham taken off a public school menu out of respect for its Jewish students?

But Muslims are different. Muslims are special.

Is it because they have convinced us of the superior quality of their faith?

Or is it because they will blow us up and behead us if we don’t comply?

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
The principle of religious freedom does not require us to destroy ourselves in order to uphold it. From Doug Farah’s article:

As Winston Churchill said, when the West confronted another existential and fascist threat, “As between the fire and the fire brigade, I refuse to be impartial.” I would imagine that a rather substantial percentage of our fellow citizens would share this view given the facts, and will increasingly come to support a more rapid calculus in favor of protection, echoing Justice Jackson’s observation that “The Constitution is not a suicide pact.”

Let’s see whether Cal Thomas can hold out against CAIR. With opinion running ten-to-one in his favor, WTOP and his syndicate are unlikely to sanction him.

But CAIR is not done with him yet. It represents the Deep Pockets of the jihad, and a civil rights lawsuit can be very, very expensive to fight.