Sunday, May 30, 2010

The Grand Jihad Has Arrived


The president’s “top counterterrorism adviser”, John Brennan, opines that we should “just say no to jihad”.

The Grand Jihad by Andrew McCarthyThis is excellent timing: just as Andrew McCarthy’s book, The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America is released, this Leftist government lackey tells us why we shouldn’t use the term (and why this Islamic administration won’t be using it, either):

“…because jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam, meaning to purify oneself or one’s community.”

Sure it is, Mr. Brennan. By the way, may I have some of whatever it is you’re smoking?

Investor’s Business Daily and The History News Network both agree that this administration spokesperson is being willfully blind.

First, IBD:

We’ve seen the enemy and it’s not just the jihadists. It’s also our own government, which refuses to see this very real enemy. How can we fight and defeat what we refuse to see?

The editorial hits the high spots with the Fort Hood Massacre (they don’t mention the lame report that followed, though), and then AG Holder’s pathetically funny inability to say “radical Islam”, plus the underwear bomber and the wanna-be-bomber in Times Square. As IBD points out:

Brennan could benefit from talking to people who have actually been on the front lines fighting jihadists.


It’s plain that Brennan has been told by Muslim leaders what jihad does or doesn’t mean without finding out for himself.

Yes, and those “Muslim leaders” hold positions in our own government bureaucracy, determined to hollow us out using front men like Brennan.

Judith Apter Klinghoffer writes about the same issue and expands on the Leftism theme:

Anyone who needed added proof of the ongoing Leftist-Islamist alliance needs look no further than John Brennan, the terror Tsar who has repeatedly failed to keep us safe from Muslims trying to kill us in the name of Jihad.

I thought he was merely incompetent. After all, four security breaches in such a short period is a terrible record by any measure. I now realize that he is…a member of a leftist administration actively cooperating with Islamists in line with the old dictum that the enemy of my enemy is my friend, as Jean Bricmont recommended in 2006 when he suggested that the left put aside its scruples and join the Islamists’ anti-Western side.


Misleading Americans about al Qaeda’s Islamist ideology is a threat to US national security …John Brennan seeks to actively disarm America by downplaying the threats posed by Islamists openly waging war against her. [my emphasis here - D]

Which brings us to Mr. McCarthy’s new book, his second volume on jihad.
- - - - - - - - -
The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America fits Ms. Klinghoffer’s thesis, i.e., that the Left and Islam are cooperating to bring America to its knees. That is the American Left she means, not just the statists in Europe.

McCarthy’s publisher, Encounter Books (see previous post on their efforts), has a short review. Here is part of it:

The real threat to the United States is not terrorism. The real threat is the sophisticated forces of Islamism, which have collaborated with the American Left not only to undermine U.S. national security but to shred the fabric of American constitutional democracy-freedom and individual liberty.


McCarthy is the former federal prosecutor who convicted the notorious “Blind Sheikh” and other jihadists for waging a terrorist war that included the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. In his national bestseller, Willful Blindness: A Memoir of the Jihad (Encounter 2008), he explored government’s conscious avoidance of the terrorist threat, which made the nation vulnerable to mass-murder attacks. In The Grand Jihad he exposes a more insidious peril: government’s active suppression of the Islamist ideology that unabashedly vows to “conquer America.”

Obviously, we haven’t read what Mr. McCarthy has to say. This new one has only been out since May 25th; besides our budget doesn’t include books anymore or I’d be devouring it right now!

However, the reviews at Amazon are informative (Even there, though, you can find one Lefty troll. The other reviewers take him apart for not really reading the book but simply panning it). One fellow, who leads off the customer reviews, seems to have read The Great Jihad. I am going to excerpt from his very long review because he is a Muslim and he gets it.

On the Review Page he says:

As one who was raised in a muslim country in a muslim family and society, I often find books by westerners trying to describe islam through western paradigms to fail to grasp the reality of islam. Finally someone breaks through all the political correctness and presents true islam as clearly compatible with Jihad…

This author rightly presents the reality that many wonderful muslim neighbors do not want sharia law! They are muslim culturally because their parents were muslims, but they want to be able to walk in public with members of opposite sex, play chess, play soccer, have a drink every now & then, have fun and live a happy life.


Under President Bush, even the muslims who succeeded in blowing up the towers on 9/11 were given muslim freedoms to continue to read the quran and live by the islamic sharia law while in prison.


Sadly, under hussein obama , we have accelerated our downfall as president obama has opened the door for muslim terrorists to believe they now have the strong upper hand and multiple terrorist attacks in America only failed because of The Grace of God. Shockingly hussein obama told the world that America is one of the largest muslim nations in the world and disavowed all Christian connections of the early founders of America.


This book will trouble the politically correct and western minded intellectuals who do not understand islam or those who are fooled by quotes of earlier quran revelations that were abrogated/overruled by the prophet of islam himself once he had the power to establish sharia law.


For us to win the battle against terror, we must first agree on the honest root cause well documented in this book, so we can finally address the tough needed solution for peace in our lands for all people! To have our troops die on the battlefield only to then establish sharia law and even open a center to promote sharia law where 9/11 muslims succeeded is utter foolishness that will lead to the deaths of hundreds of millions of innocent around the world.

NOTE: no opinions put into the comments section about this person practicing taqiyya will be left standing. That’s an easy lob, too easy; it’s also a dead end in terms of forwarding the discussion. In addition, dismissing his views as lies does a disservice to someone who obviously spent a long time thoughtfully and sincerely exposing Islam in his review.

Another reviewer, one of Amazon’s “Top Fifty” says:

The title of Andrew McCarthy’s new book isn’t something he made up, it is taken from a 1990s document from a “mainstream” “non-violent” Muslim organization describing their long term goal of hollowing out Western culture using its own values of tolerance and religious freedom. Note that Islamic countries do NOT allow tolerance and religious freedom in anything like the Western manner. And their two holiest cities are closed to us non-Muslims because we are unworthy to enter such holy places. Once they have hollowed out Europe, America, and other nations, they can fill the void with Sharia, which is the Muslim law and turn these nations into Islamic countries and their Grand Jihad will have achieved victory. Note that terror is not necessarily part of this strategy. [my emphasis -D]

Who needs terror when America has as its president a man whose parents combined both ideologies in one convenient family package, all the easier for metabolizing by their son. Obama's father was a Muslim; his mother, a Leftist radical. They both hated America. Unfortunately, the offspring of their union seems to have the same perspective as his parents.

Those family antecedents wouldn’t be so bad if this man weren’t the President of the United States of America. But he is, and Obama is dismantling the work of many generations. Not that he hasn’t had help. George Bush’s proclamation that “Islam is a religion of peace” makes him our First Dhimmi President. Obama is not a dhimmi; he’s part of the Ummah - or, if you’re a Leftist, the Utopia - which is the ideology we’re stuck with for the moment. He's been in office long enough now for us to discern his true allegiance. It ain't us.

All we can do is limit his damage, expose his lies and deceptions, and not get side-tracked by his thuggish Chicago political mask. Would that he were merely a Chicago pol. But he’s much more than that and the fight against those he installs to help bring us down will have to be fought by all of us, in whatever ways we can. Agreed, no one reading this is part of the elitist ruling class. However, it is good to remember that we outnumber them.

It’s a matter of strategy and keeping your wits about you. Some people you simply have to write off as useless or harmful. But there are others, lots of them. I know this because they email us asking “what can I do?”

That is the question for all of us. It is good to have another book out there, reminding us of the danger we face. Mr. McCarthy’s in-depth experience with these killers in court gives him a good edge. Let us learn from what he has to say.

We’ve now had enough experience with our current president to know that he is no friend of liberty or of his own country. It is chilling to consider the depth of his disdain for the people he was elected to serve.

As best we can, we spread the word. Remember Peter Drucker’s dictum about dialogue: communication is the act of the recipient. Thus, you have to keep not just the truth in mind, but first and foremost keep your audience in mind. Doing that effectively is a difficult, arduous task.

Perhaps we ought to begin by going back to read Machiavelli. As good a place to start as any.


PatriotUSA said...

I think the budget will now
allow the purchase of this book.

Excellent post
and am sharing at PC!

Anonymous said...

I was puzzled by the note opinions put into the comments section about this person practicing taqiyya will be left standing as reading the excerpt did not suggest any taqiyya to me. Then I noticed the lead in sentence One fellow, who leads off the customer reviews, seems to have read The Great Jihad. I am going to excerpt from his very long review because he is a Muslim and he gets it. However reading his reviews on Amazon indicates he has been a Baptist for 23 years. So it would be odd if he was engaging in taiqya.

In some ways the left is only doing what one might have expected if it. The real disappointment has been the failure of the conservative side of politics to oppose the left's agenda and join in, e.g. George W's proclamation that Islam was a religion of peace..

Anonymous said...

I'm sorry your budget does not allow the purchase of books. Books are indeed expensive. I hope you have a good library not too far away, and it is not managed by leftist librarians.

Juniper in the Desert said...

Brennan is more than a lefty, he is a fully fledged muslim.

Someone needs to demand an answer from him!

Malcolm said...

Have you read this book?

"The Closing of the Muslim Mind: How Intellectual Suicide Created the Modern Islamist" Robert Reily

Anonymous said...

Tolerance and religious freedom are problems, I don't see how the heck one can take pride on that. A people is a defined group and who doesn't adhere to the mythology of that group isn't part of it. Religion, for example, is included inside it.

Robert, I agree. I have a really long reading list and I'd need more than 10,000 Euros to buy all the books that I want. I don't get why they don't make an online library. It's one of those things that piss me off. You could rent books online for a certain period of time and then remove the access of an user to it and it would have a monthly fee and work like a real library. I can't find any of these books at libraries in my country and it's really annoying.

Oh, and I hate reading online - I love real books. :( Still, $30 for one is beyond ridiculous.

Svartwulf said...

Rebelliousvanilla, please clarify something for me. Are you saying that we shouldn't be tolerant or have religious freedom? I only ask because of the first part of your comment.

Speaking as a person of a minority religion (perhaps the smallest religious group in the world) I can't help but be somewhat concerned. Isn't the very issue of Islam the fact that it is not tolerant and that it grants no religious freedom?

A wise man once said, "be careful fighting monsters, lest you become one."

I see no reason why, in the face of intolerance and religious repression, we should become the very things we are trying to stop. Don't get me wrong, I'm no bleeding heart liberal. Very much the opposite in fact and my solution to the Islamic problem would border on epic levels of super villainy if I had even the slightest chance to carry it out.

There is always a difficulty when everyone is free and people are supposed to be tolerant, but these ideals are the basis of Western Civilization. If we give them up, can we still say we are Men of the West? Or in fighting our destruction, have we become our destroyers?

Anonymous said...

NorseAlchemist, I'm not seeking to save 'Western' civilization(which actually is European civilization, not Western, since Europeans built it). I'm seeking to save European people - the culture is a product of said people.

So I don't care about saving the 'tolerance' of present day Europe since this is part of a problem. ConservativeSwede can explain this better, but if you look at all the sane groups of people, they have a common mythology that makes them a distinct group, besides the genetic closeness. That mythology shouldn't be free to interpretations, regardless of what it is.

My problem with Islam is different, it's not about my religion. It's about it being foreign, for one, and destroying all the other freedoms and what being European represents, on the other hand. I don't see tolerance as an ideal of European civilization, I see it as the destroyer of European civilization - just look at how intolerant we were 150 years ago. Obviously, by not having religious freedom I don't mean executing in public squares the followers of different religions though. A group of people is defined through their common ancestry/history and through their religion. Since the ancestry/history part is fixed regardless, the second needs to be too.

I will give you another example. Those that know me, know that I'm fairly anti-feminism. A lot of men understand from being in that position that I seek to make men equal to women in being pampered by the state, in forcing equality in the sense of drafting women and so on. They still are in the silly notion of equality, in the same way as you see tolerance related to this. What I seek is to have men be men again. I'd have no problem giving up my voting right(heck, I'd strip the voting power of 80% of the people if I could), in order for that to happen. In the same way, equality isn't an European civilization ideal. The purpose of a culture is to bring a group of people together, not to set them apart. So to answer you, no, I want the present culture completely destroyed so that we can go back in time and start from a sound foundation, from the point where we went astray.

Anonymous said...

Interesting post, Rebellious Vanilla. Did you know that when the Swiss voted (fairly recently) in favor of the feminine vote, there was a group of women campaigning against it ?

As for tolerance, one cannot reject it outright. Straightforward slogans are easier to communicate. However, in this case, it would be counter-productive.

Certainly, an extensive and naïve interpretation of the concept of tolerance is presently threatening Western civilisation.

However, tolerance is also part and parcel of the wonderful heritage of Western civilisation. If the West had not been tolerant, it would not be the West.

Openness and curiosity towards foreign cultures, knowledge, science, history and art is what enabled the West to be the leading civilisation today.

When Napoléon Bonaparte invaded Egypt in 1798, there were seventy grammars of the Arabic language written by European authors -- and no grammar of any European language written by an Arab author.

This striking difference is reflected in today's respective positions of Islam and the West.

The West integrated and welcomed Jews in its midst, and therefore greatly benefitted from their culture, creativity, intelligence, artistic and scientific achievements.

(Yes, I'm fully aware of the Holocaust and previous persecutions against the Jews, but what's important is the final result. I'm also aware of the negative influence contemporary Leftist Jews are having in the submission to Islam. But you get the point.)

Zenster said...

“…because jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam, meaning to purify oneself or one’s community.”

In saying this, BHO's "top counter-terrorism adviser", John Brennan, is absolutely correct. What he neglects to admit is that jihadist Muslims intend to purify themselves and their communities of all unbelievers. What's more, Brennan is also quite correct to note that “jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam”. Again, he merely neglects to openly recognize how jihad always has been and continues to be an ideological campaign directed towards violently converting all non-Muslims to Islam. Without question, “jihad is a … legitimate tenet of Islam” and it is only willful blindness, especially on the part of people in power like Brennan, which prevents a general connection of the mountainous sized dots that Muslims so liberally scatter betwixt Islam, the ummah, jihad and terrorism.

In The Grand Jihad he exposes a more insidious peril: government’s active suppression of the Islamist ideology that unabashedly vows to “conquer America.

This statement by publisher, Encounter Books, is open to dispute. It is patently clear that America’s current government is actively facilitating and not engaging in any “suppression of … Islamist ideology”. It may be suppressing the mention of it but every bow to Islamic leaders, every apology made while standing upon enemy soil, every concession granted to complaining hyper-sensitive Muslims only furthers Islam and in no way suppresses it.

NOTE: no opinions put into the comments section about this person practicing taqiyya will be left standing.

It would seem that this advisory is intended to deflect any questions as to the veracity of that Amazon reviewer’s claim of how:

… many wonderful muslim neighbors do not want sharia law! They are muslim culturally because their parents were muslims, but they want to be able to walk in public with members of opposite sex, play chess, play soccer, have a drink every now & then, have fun and live a happy life.

It is quite possible that the Amazon reviewer is not employing taqiyya in any way at all. There is little doubt that this world contains many Muslims who wish to peaceably coexist with their unbelieving neighbors.

The only problem is that, through a combination of inaction and inadvisable timidity, these same Muslims make themselves statistically irrelevant. The immense malice of Islamic jihad and its unassailable roots in Qur’anic doctrine simply moots any value with respect to the ostensibly benign desires of these so-called moderate Muslims.

Simply put, if there are so many tolerant and benevolent Muslims, then they possess the power to confront Islamic jihadists with an equal or greater degree of force in order to unseat these usurpers of their faith. However if, for whatever reasons of unwillingness or inability, these same tolerant and benevolent Muslims do not have the numbers, capability or ultimate intention of altering Islam’s course of global domination, then they must be disregarded entirely in the West’s own struggle for survival.

The danger remains that these same ostensibly peaceable but largely silent Muslim spectators will either be confused with their less charitable co-believers or, through inaction or apparently tacit agreement, be necessarily grouped with their jihadist component within Islam. It is incumbent upon the West not to allow any sympathy for these apparently innocuous Muslims to interfere with its survival. Either those within Islam who oppose shari’a law do so openly and actively or accept that they, willingly or not, do in fact facilitate jihad.

Nick said...

“…because jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam, meaning to purify oneself or one’s community.”

Quite so, Zenster. Talk of "purifying" a community immediately makes one think of Kristallnacht, and of the unspeakable crimes committed by the Einzatzgruppen in Western Poland.

Does this American official mean to reassure the intellectually free, morally sane people living with the borders of the United States by using such language?

Zenster said...

Nick: Does this American official mean to reassure the intellectually free, morally sane people living with the borders of the United States by using such language?

You have very capably exposed the tremendous danger of parroting Islam's own propaganda. The jihadist element within Islam is so deeply embedded that its language cannot be fully obfuscated, even in the most determined attempts at misrepresenting Muslim goals.

Thus did we see a supposedly conservative President Bush blather on about Islam being a "religion of peace", even as this new Liberal administration openly avows Islam's own stated intention to "purify" Muslim communities through jihad.

You just can't make this stuff up.

Disturbingly, the end result of either blunder, Conservative or Liberal notwithstanding, is so lethal that they both fall into the category of treason against Western culture.

Anonymous said...

Robert, what you describe isn't tolerance. For example, I despise Islam and yet I enjoyed visiting some Muslim countries, one of them by myself with nobody else coming with me. I enjoyed visiting those places, but I have no desire to have those places in Europe. In the same sense, I like ancient Egypt, but I don't want the Copts to move to my country. Also, if you ask me, for Europeans, the influence of Jews is a net negative, even though I agree that they are a lot better than other non-Europeans that are around.

By the way, I've been in your country recently. :P

Anonymous said...

So, what did you think of France, RV ?

Tolerance is not only measured by attitudes towards immigration or foreigners. It is a more general state of mind.

When you are tolerant, you invent the freedom-promoting Internet, and a religion which keeps talking about love (all right, the religion probably came first).

When you are intolerant, you never bother about translating a book from a foreign language, and you invent a religion which keeps talking about conquest, slavery and murder (or the other way round).

The consequences are for everybody to see.

Anonymous said...

Robert, I disagree with you here, even if I partially agree. Tolerance is good as long as it benefits you. This was the case for Europe until the late 19th century and in some regions earlier. So yes, the agreement part is that tolerance is good as long as it's seen as a tool that works within the confines of something else. For example, altruism is good when it's towards your family and group of people because it increases their genetic fitness, while doing it outside of your group is bad because it takes from your group and improves the fitness of your competitors. Tolerance works in the same way.

And I visited only Paris this time, even though I saw a couple of other cities the last time I've been in France. It was fairly cool, even if it got more expensive and it had the same disappointments. I can't say that Paris is my favourite European city, which is quite sad because it probably would have been 200 years ago. Still, I visited Notre Damme and the Louvre again and eaten some French food that isn't fun to eat outside of France and I had a painter make me a portrait(posing feeds my vanity, sadly, even if I paid for the portrait compared to the usual when I don't pay or get paid lol).

Svartwulf said...

RV, I have to side with the others. You said that being intolerant wouldn't lead to executions in the city streets for being different.

You're wrong, and I have two thousand years of forced conversions, witch hunts, and inquisitions to prove you wrong.

The West is based in tolerance. While we did have over fifteen hundred years of conformity and suppression under the Eastern Christ, before that the West was very tolerant. The Romans, Greeks, Germanic tribes, and Celts, all were very tolerant of other people's religions and ideas. They didn't fear violence, and did suppress those who rose against them, but there are far more examples of tolerance in their power than there was intolerance.

The only reason we have the knowledge of science, history, and other civilizations is because the West was tolerant. That's why I say if we lose that, we've lost everything and become the enemy.

Engineer-Poet said...

"A group of people is defined through their common ancestry/history and through their religion.  Since the ancestry/history part is fixed regardless, the second needs to be too."

RV, I've got a bit more perspective than you do, so let me offer you its benefit:  the warning not to fight monsters too much lest one become a monster is exactly apposite to this.  The West did not achieve its feats by freezing its nature; it advanced, and to advance it had to evolve.  Your prescription is exactly what a lot of planners are trying to achieve... in Mecca, wishing to fix everything back in its mythic utopia at the height of the Arab Islamic empire.  (Mandated orthodoxy requires the equivalent of a caliphate to maintain it.  Here in the USA, we describe wannabe-theocrats as having "fatwa envy".  They have become something inimical to their own country's founding principles.)

It didn't work for them then (read Bernard Lewis, "What went wrong?"), and it has never worked better for anyone else.  Ossified orthodoxy is tantamount to suicide; it's brittle, and tends to fail sooner rather than later.  We don't know what's going to succeed in the future, so people have to be free to try new things.  Freedom of inquiry is incompatible with orthodoxy; it's no coincidence that Islam stigmatizes innovation.  That very freedom, and evolution in technology (and everything else), is how the West reduced the Islamic world to a backwater which it then colonized.

Oil is the only thing keeping Islam alive.  If you want to destroy Islam, destroy demand for oil.  If you want to poison the metastatic cancers of Islam growing in the West, demand not orthodoxy but freedom.  Islam is incompatible; it says "Freedom Go To Hell".  So make your little hell of freedom where you are, and offer Islam a return to its shari'a heaven in Arabia.  At gunpoint, if necessary.

Anonymous said...

EP, you realize that Europe had state religions, it spread it's beliefs by the sword and conquered other people's land? And this just 200 years ago. 200 years ago a lot of American states had state religions and most European countries had state religions. You don't need a theocracy to maintain the common mythology of a people.

So no, when Europe and the Anglo world achieved it's feats, what I was saying was happening. It lagged in the 20th century because it took a while to demolish all the traditional beliefs that hindered things like universalism, equality, tolerance and the like.

Engineer-Poet said...

Yes, I know that most of Europe had state religions.  Some parts (e.g. England) still do.  But in today's state of scientific advance, ceremonial state religions seem to lead not to unity, but to atheism.  Forcing unity through orthodoxy requires Inquisitions and burning heretics and freethinkers such as scientists at the stake (see Giordano Bruno).  Turning a Christian state doctrine into a mirror image of Islam is worse than the disease.

A common mythology doesn't require a state religion.  The problem is that the Gramscian forces have been out-mythologizing most everyone else in the West.  There are alternate mythologies out there (Objectivism is even atheistic, albeit too dogmatic in its current form to play well with rapidly-advancing science); the problem is to get one accepted.  I admit that Christianity has a big head start in that department, but it's only an improvement as long as fundamentalism is suppressed (else you might as well bow to Mecca).