In Search of the ‘Moderate Islamists’

pic_giant_091514_SM_Hasmas-Muslim-BrotherhoodBy Andrew C. McCarthy:

It is not out of ignorance that President Obama and Secretary Kerry are denying the Islamic roots of the Islamic State jihadists. As I argued in a column here last week, we should stop scoffing as if this were a blunder and understand the destructive strategy behind it. The Obama administration is quite intentionally promoting the progressive illusion that “moderate Islamists” are the solution to the woes of the Middle East, and thus that working cooperatively with “moderate Islamists” is the solution to America’s security challenges.

I wrote a book a few years ago called The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America that addressed this partnership between Islamists and progressives. The terms “grand jihad” and “sabotage” are lifted from an internal Muslim Brotherhood memorandum that lays bare the Brotherhood’s overarching plan to destroy the West from within by having their component organizations collude with credulous Western governments and opinion elites.

The plan is going well.

As long as the news media and even conservative commentators continue to let them get away with it, the term “moderate Islamist” will remain useful to transnational progressives. It enables them to avoid admitting that the Muslim Brotherhood is what they have in mind.

As my recent column explained, the term “moderate Islamist” is an oxymoron. An Islamist is a Muslim who wants repressive sharia imposed. There is nothing moderate about sharia even if the Muslim in question does not advocate imposing it by violence.

Most people do not know what the term “Islamist” means, so the contradiction is not apparent to them. If they think about it at all, they figure “moderate Islamist” must be just another way of saying “moderate Muslim,” and since everyone acknowledges that there are millions of moderate Muslims, it seems logical enough. Yet, all Muslims are not Islamists. In particular, all Muslims who support the Western principles of liberty and reason are not Islamists.

If you want to say that some Islamists are not violent, that is certainly true. But that does not make them moderate. There is, moreover, less to their nonviolence than meets the eye. Many Islamists who do not personally participate in jihadist aggression support violent jihadists financially and morally — often while feigning objection to their methods or playing semantic games (e.g., “I oppose terrorism but I support resistance,” or “I oppose the killing of innocent people . . . but don’t press me on who is an innocent”).

Understandably, the public is inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to people the government describes as “moderates” and portrays as our “allies.” If transnational progressives were grilled on these vaporous terms, though, and forced to concede, say, that the Muslim Brotherhood was the purportedly “moderate opposition” our government wants to support in Syria, the public would object. While not expert in the subject, many Americans are generally aware that the Brotherhood supports terrorism, that its ideology leads young Muslims to graduate to notorious terrorist organizations, and that it endorses oppressive Islamic law while opposing the West. Better for progressives to avoid all that by one of their dizzying, internally nonsensical word games — hence, “moderate Islamist.”

I rehearse all that because last week, right on cue, representatives of Brotherhood-tied Islamist organizations appeared with Obama-administration officials and other apologists for Islamic supremacism to ostentatiously “condemn” the Islamic State as “not Islamic.”

As I recount with numerous examples in The Grand Jihad, this is the manipulative double game the Brotherhood has mastered in the West, aided and abetted by progressives of both parties. While speaking to credulous Western audiences desperate to believe Islam is innately moderate, the Brothers pretend to abhor terrorism, claim that terrorism is actually “anti-Islamic,” and threaten to brand you as an “Islamophobe” racist — to demagogue you in the media, ban you from the campus, and bankrupt you in court — if you dare to notice the nexus between Islamic doctrine and systematic terrorism committed by Muslims. Then, on their Arabic sites and in the privacy of their mosques and community centers, they go back to preaching jihad, championing Hamas, calling for Israel’s destruction, damning America, inveighing against Muslim assimilation in the West, and calling for society’s acceptance of sharia mores.

The Investigative Project’s John Rossomando reports on last Wednesday’s shenanigans at the National Press Club. The Islamist leaders who “urged the public to ignore [the Islamic State’s] theological motivations,” included “former Council on American-Islamic Affairs (CAIR) Tampa director Ahmed Bedier, [who] later wrote on Twitter that IS [the Islamic State] ‘is not a product of Islam,’ and blamed the United States for its emergence.”

Also on hand were moderate moderator Haris Tarin, Washington director of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC); Imam Mohamed Magid, former president of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA); and Johari Abdul-Malik, an imam at the Dar al-Hijrah Islamic Center in Falls Church, Va. All of these Islamists are consultants to the Obama administration on policy matters; Magid is actually a member Obama’s Homeland Security Advisory Council.

Where to begin? CAIR, as I’ve repeatedly pointed out, is a Muslim Brotherhood creation conceived to be a Western-media-savvy shill for Islamic supremacism in general, and Hamas in particular. At the 2007–08 terrorism-financing prosecution of Hamas operatives in the Holy Land Foundation case — involving a Brotherhood conspiracy that funneled millions of dollars to Palestinian jihadists — CAIR was proven to be a co-conspirator, albeit unindicted. Mr. Bedier, who is profiled by the Investigative Project here, is a notorious apologist for Hamas — the Brotherhood’s Palestinian branch, which is formally designated as a terrorist organization under U.S. law. He also vigorously championed such terrorists as Palestinian Islamic Jihad’s Sami al-Arian (who pled guilty in 2006 to conspiring to provide material support to terrorism).

I’ve profiled MPAC here. It was founded by disciples of Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna and champions of both Hezbollah and the Sudanese Islamists who gave safe-haven to al-Qaeda during the mid Nineties. After the atrocities of September 11, 2001, MPAC’s executive director, Salam al-Marayati, immediately urged that “we should put the state of Israel on the suspect list.” Without a hint of irony, MPAC’s main business is condemning irrational suspicion . . . the “Islamophobia” it claims Muslims are systematically subjected to. Like many CAIR operatives and other purveyors of victim politics, MPAC officials tend to double as Democratic-party activists.

Read more at National Review

Moderate Islam Is Multiculturalism Misspelled

Koran (3)by Daniel Greenfield:

I have been searching for moderate Islam since September 11 and just like a lost sock in the dryer, it was in the last place I expected it to be.

There is no moderate Islam in the mosques or in Mecca. You won’t find it in the Koran or the Hadiths. If you want to find moderate Islam, browse the newspaper editorials after a terrorist attack or take a course on Islamic religion taught by a Unitarian Sociologist wearing fake native jewelry.

You can’t find a moderate Islam in Saudi Arabia or Iran, but you can find it in countless network news specials, articles and books about the two homelands of their respective brands of Islam.

You won’t find the fabled land of moderate Muslims in the east. You won’t even find it in the west. Like all myths it exists in the imagination of those who tell the stories. You won’t find a moderate Islam in the Koran, but you will find it in countless Western books about Islam.

Moderate Islam isn’t what most Muslims believe. It’s what most liberals believe that Muslims believe.

The new multicultural theology of the West is moderate Islam. Moderate Islam is the perfect religion for a secular age since it isn’t a religion at all.

Take Islam, turn it inside out and you have moderate Islam. Take a Muslim who hasn’t been inside a mosque in a year, who can name the entire starting lineup of the San Diego Chargers, but can’t name Mohammed’s companions and you have a moderate Muslim. Or more accurately, a secular Muslim.

An early generation of Western leaders sought the affirmation of their national destinies in the divine. This generation of Western leaders seeks the affirmation of their secular liberalism in a moderate Islam.

Even if they have to make it up.

Without a moderate Islam the Socialist projects of Europe which depend on heavy immigration collapse. America’s War on Terror becomes the endless inescapable slog that the rise of ISIS has once again revealed it to be. Multiculturalism, post-nationalism and Third World Guiltism all implode.

Without moderate Muslims, nationalism returns, borders close and the right wins. That is what they fear.

If there is no moderate Islam, no moderate Mohammed, no moderate Allah, then the Socialist Kingdom of Heaven on Earth has to go in the rubbish bin. The grand coalitions in which LGBT activists and Islamists scream at Jews over Gaza aren’t the future; they’re the Weimar Republic on wheels.

Flash back to Obama in his tan suit wearily saying that he has no strategy for ISIS. The original plan was to capture Osama alive, give him a civilian trial, cut a deal with the moderate Taliban and announce the end of the War on Terror before the midterm elections.

So much for that.

Moderate Islam is a difficult faith. To believe in it you have to disregard over a thousand years of recorded history, theology, demographics and just about everything that predates 1965. You have to ignore the bearded men chopping off heads because they don’t represent the majority of Muslims.

Neither does Mohammed, who did his own fair share of headchopping.

The real Islam is a topic that non-Muslims of no faith who hold sacred only the platitudes of a post-everything society are eager to lecture on without knowing anything about it.

Their Islam is not the religion of Mohammed, the Koran, the Hadiths, the Caliphs or its practitioners in such places as Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq or Indonesia. Their Islam is a religion that does not exist, but that they fervently believe must exist because without it their way of life is as doomed as the dodo.

Read more at Frontpage

Video: Jamie Glazov on Obama’s Islamist Odyssey

United-in-Hate-coverby Frontpagemag.com:

In a recent special episode of The Glazov GangAnn-Marie Murrell interviewed Frontpage Editor Jamie Glazov about his recent battle on Hannity against Jihad-Deniers, in which he called out progressives’ willful blindness in the face of the Islamic threat.

Due to the overwhelming interest and support that Jamie’s confrontation with the Unholy Alliance has garnered from our readers, Frontpage’s Editors have decided to run an earlier two-part video interview that Josh Brewster conducted with Jamie about his study of the Left’s romance with tyranny and terror.

high noonThroughout the interview, Josh asks Jamie about his critically-acclaimed United in Hate and most recent, High Noon For America: The Coming Showdown. Jamie crystallizes the impulses that draw leftists, such as Obama, to make alliances with America’s enemies — namely with contemporary jihadist forces such as the Muslim Brotherhood. Jamie also discusses his family’s struggle for freedom, David Horowitz’s work, influence and contribution to freedom, and much, much more:

 

 

Both parts of the two part series are below:

 

Video: Jamie Glazov Discusses His Battle on Hannity Against the Unholy Alliance

kl-450x250In this special episode of The Glazov GangAnn-Marie Murrell interviews Frontpage Editor Jamie Glazov about his battle on Hannity against the Unholy Alliance:

Brandeis, Female Mutilation and the Falsehoods of a Faculty Petition

But this woman is a black, feminist atheist from Somalia. And so what we’re learning here, which is fascinating, in the hierarchy of progressive-politics identity-group victimhood, Islam trumps everything. Islam trumps gender. The fact that she’s a woman doesn’t matter. It trumps race. The fact that she’s black doesn’t matter. It trumps secularism. The fact that she’s an atheist doesn’t matter. They wouldn’t do this if it was a Christian group complaining about her, if it was a Jewish group complaining about her. But when the Islamic lobby group says oh, no, we’re not putting up with this, as I said, these jelly-spined nothings at Brandeis just roll over for them. – Mark Steyn


fgm (2)By 
Jamie Glazov:

Last Tuesday, on April 8, Brandeis University rescinded its invitation to human rights activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali to receive an honorary degree from the institution. Brandeis caved in the face of intimidation from CAIR and other Muslim Brotherhood front groups, as well as a student petition on Change.org and a faculty petition – the contents of which have now become known.

The faculty petition is a textbook case of leftist pathology and of how “progressives” demonize true heroic freedom fighters and push millions of victims of totalitarian regimes and ideologies into invisibility for the sake of their own egotistical and destructive agendas.

A case in point in this ugly leftist narrative is how the signatories of the Brandeis petition have succeeded in banning a woman from their university who is the victim of female genital mutilation (FGM), suffered under an Islamic knife because of Islamic doctrine. She represents millions of Muslim females — mutilated and mutilated-to-be. And yet the signatories of the petition are callously indifferent, because they have their progressive program to attend to and fulfill.

The Brandeis faculty petition, written on April 6 and addressed to President Lawrence, stresses “the horrible message” that inviting Ali to the university “sends to the Muslim and non-Muslim communities at Brandeis and beyond” because of Ali’s “virulently anti-Muslim public statements.” Aside from complaining about Ali’s truth-telling about Islam, the petition also issues a dire warning about the “unnecessary controversy” that the human rights activist’s presence would bring to the campus.

To be sure, who needs nightmarish scenarios like debate and intellectual diversity when the Marxist Left has already lovingly bestowed the peaceful the Party Line?

The petition then references the major issues with which Ali is concerned: female genital mutilation, forced marriages, and honor killings. “These phenomena,” the petition flippantly notes, are not “exclusive to Islam.” This is a standard and perpetual tactic of obfuscation and equivocation employed by the Left whenever a monstrous evil is labelled in a totalitarian enemy. It serves as an excuse for inaction by presupposing that if a crime is committed by someone else, somewhere else, that it somehow justifies doing and saying nothing in the face of a crime being perpetrated on a mass scale right before our eyes – and one that we can do something about.

In other words, the logic implies that if a sin or an injustice exist somewhere else on the planet, that one must never fight for — or defend the victims of — any one ideology or system (unless it is of the western variety, of course).

Thus, if one dares to show concern for the millions of Muslim girls who are victims of female genital mutilation, the leftist will reflexively retort: “Muslims are not the only group that practice FGM.”

But so what? The bottom line is that Muslims are the principle religious group that practices this sexual violence against women. And if a young girl is a victim of FGM, the chances are that she lives in a Muslim household and in a Muslim culture. And this barbarity is kept alive and legitimized by Islamic theology.

The faculty petition to President Lawrence also expresses a deep concern about the fact that Ali has suggested “that violence toward girls and women is particular to Islam or the Two-Thirds World.” This is intolerable (even though completely true) because, according to the petition, it obscures “such violence in our midst among non-Muslims, including on our own campus.”

This is another consistent tactic that the Left engages in to insert its falsehoods into dialogues about oppressed people under monstrous tyrannies. The plain fact staring everyone in the face is that while violence may exist among non-Muslims, their laws and institutions delegitimize and illegalize such conduct. For instance, if a non-Muslim anywhere in the United States, including on a university campus, engages in violence against a woman and the police are called, he will be charged. In Islam, violence against women is inspired and sanctioned by the institutions themselves, precisely because misogyny, including wife beating, is embedded in the Qur’an.

In other words, non-Muslims who are violent toward women operate despite and against the laws of their lands; Muslims, on the other hand, are violent toward women because of their laws, and that is why they are, in turn, protected by those laws.

Thus, in terms of female genital mutilation, millions of Muslim girls are victims of this horrifying crime which is rooted in Islam and is integral to Islam’s misogynist structures. The road to saving millions of Muslim girls from this crime is to do what Ayaan Hirsi Ali is bravely doing, and what the signatories of the Brandeis faculty petition are trying to stop her from doing: to isolate and pinpoint Islam as the main culprit in this context.

The point cannot be stressed enough: female genital mutilation is fundamentally Islamic and it is rooted in Islamic texts such as Umdat al-Salik:

“Circumcision is obligatory (O: for both men and women. For men it consists of removing the prepuce from the penis, and for women, removing the prepuce (Ar. Bazr) of the clitoris.” Sacred Islamic Reliance: page 59, Umdat al-Salik  (“Reliance of the Traveler”), a manual of the Shafi’i school of Islamic jurisprudence, endorsed by Egypt’s very own Al-Azhar University of Cairo — the oldest and most prestigious university in the Islamic world.

This explains why one of Sunni Islam’s “Four Great Imams,” Ahmad ibn Hanbal, quotes Muhammed as saying: “Circumcision is a law for men and a preservation of honour for women?” It is no shock, therefore, that Sheikh Muhammad Sayyed Tantawi of Egypt’s Al-Azhar University has called circumcision “a laudable practice that did honor to women.”

Read more at Front Page (with video)

From ACT! For America:

According to the World Health Organization, more than 125 million girls and women alive today have been subjected to Female Genital Mutilation (FGM).

The African Women’s Health Center of the Brigham and Women’s Hospital, report that approximately 228,000 women and girls in the U.S. have either suffered the procedure or are at risk of having it done to them. Many of these young girls are subjected to FGM when they vacation in a country that sanctions the practice. In other cases, circumcisers are brought into the U.S. – even though FGM is illegal in this country.

ACT! for America has been working diligently at the state level to see legislation passed so that no girl ever suffers the horrors of FGM – either on U.S. soil or elsewhere.

Also see:

Universal Studio’s new release Non stop demeans 9/11 families, degrades combat veterans and advances Islam

download (79)Florida Family Association:

Click here to send your email to NBC Universal officials.

Universal Pictures new movie titled “Non-stop” contains story line that demeans 9/11 families, degrades combat veterans and promotes Islam according to the Breitbart.com article titled Non-Stop’ Review: Liam Neeson Thriller Hits New Left-Wing Low.  Universal Pictures is a subsidiary of NBC Universal which is owned by Comcast Corporation.

Debra Burlingame of the 9/11 families issued the following alert:

Subject: Hollywood’s latest sucker punch

Dear friends,

Hollywood’s political correctness has now crossed the line.  The “big reveal” of Liam Neeson’s new “thriller,” Non-Stop, is that the terrorist hijacker who is anonymously murdering innocent passengers on a commercial airliner is a 9/11 family member/military combat vet fed up with meaningless war.  See, John Nolte’s review:http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2014/02/28/non-stop-review-neeson-thriller-new-left-wing-low

Worse, the flight’s quiet hero who comes to the aid of the protagonist, thereby saving the day, is a Muslim doctor.   (Oh, the irony, that  Al Qaeda’s number one is Ayman Al Zawahiri, a doctor.  And that six of the Glasgow Airport bombing plot were….Muslim doctors.  Hollywood likes to serve up its teachable moments cold.)

An added dash of moral vanity is the side story making news that Liam Neeson wants to convert to Islam , the religion he deemed in an interview to be “the answer.” Not sure what the question is, but apparently Mr. Neeson is more afraid of his Irish countrymen than his would-be co-religionists.

Normally Hollywood gets a pass, with reviewers issuing “spoiler alerts” when revealing details.  Sorry. Sitting through this movie for that sucker punch of an ending isn’t worthy of my consideration.

I urge people to pass this on.

Debra

“I am glad that I learned about this Islamist propaganda before I spent my money on it.”  Notes David Caton, Florida Family Association president.  “I encourage you to share this email alert with your family and friends.”

Florida Family Association has prepared an email for you to send to NBC Universal officials that conveys strong disappointment regarding the content of the movie Non-stop.

To send your email, please click the following link, enter your name and email address then click the “Send Your Message” button. You may also edit the subject or message text if you wish.

Please click here to send your email to NBC Universal officials.

Contact information:

NBC Universal
30 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, NY 10009
Phone:    212-664-4444
Fax:    212-664-4085

Matt Bond

Executive Vice President, Content Distribution,

NBCUniversal

matt.bond@nbcuni.com

Patricia Fili-Krushel

Chairman, NBCUniversal News Group,

NBCUniversal

Pat.Fili@nbcuni.com

Stuart J. Epstein

EVP and Chief Financial Officer,

NBCUniversal

Stuart.Epstein@nbcuni.com

Cesar Conde

Executive Vice President,

NBCUniversal

Cesar.Conde@nbcuni.com

Jeff Shell, CEO of Universal Studios

jeff.shell@nbcuni.com

 

Larry Kurzweil, President of
Universal Studios Hollywood
and Chief Operating Officer of
Universal Studios Hollywood

Larry.Kurzweil@nbcuni.com

James Schamus,
Chief Executive Officer of Universal Pictures
and Co-President of Focus Features.

joe.pirro@focusfeatures.com

Karen Armstrong’s 9/11 British Empire Blowback Thesis

armstrong_karenFront Page, by Andrew Harrod:

“We did this,” popular British religion writer Karen Armstrong said in a November 21, 2013, keynote address at Georgetown University in reference to her country’s imperial history and Al Qaeda’s September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.  Speaking to Georgetown’s Alwaleed Bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding (ACMCU) Armstrong clearly showed with bizarre, anti-Western self-accusatory explanations for jihadist violence how “I like to turn the finger against myself first.”

“We have all done terrible things,” Armstrong stated at ACMCU’s 20th anniversary conference on “Muslim-Christian Relations in the 21st Century:  Challenges & Opportunities.” Armstrong in particular was “very conscious as a person of the British Empire” about how “we are all implicated” in problems afflicting Muslims globally.  Armstrong referenced Anglo-French involvement during World War I in determining Middle Eastern borders and Pakistan’s “almost impossible” borders derived from Indian partition in 1947.  Armstrong also considered “our Palestinian mess” as a British sin inciting Muslim violence today.

American drone strikes around the world and “new images of Muslim suffering” following America’s military regime change in Iraq added to Armstrong’s anti-Western litany.  “Disgraceful” also for Armstrong was global poverty such as the “people in the world who do not have clean water.”  Reverently referencing “Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him,” Armstrong cited an Islamic hadith about the immorality of sleeping while others hunger.  In light of all this suffering, Armstrong rejected making Islam a “scapegoat” for the “violent sins of the 20th century.”

“Muslim pain, Muslim suffering” and the “desire to do something about it” were thus Armstrong’s explanation for violence from groups like Al Qaeda.  Al Qaeda videos, for example, presented a “collage of pain” and yet “we don’t see the half of it.”  “Self-interested policies have blown up in our face,” Armstrong concluded, and demanded that people “look at these images of pain.”

“Hiroshima and 9/11” result from deficient personal reflection, Armstrong concluded.  Armstrong compared impersonal killing from the “high altitudes” of World War II bombers to “killing from a helicopter” and criticized Westerners for being a “privileged caste” removed from the world.  In contrast, “weeping together creates bonds between human beings.”  Armstrong argued that the world should have wept for Muslims following 9/11 just as the Greek playwright Aeschylus mourned for his enemies slain at the Battle of Salamis in The Persians.

Armstrong perceived no threat in any given religion such as Islam, for all faiths according to her have a “version of the Golden Rule.”  Armstrong saw religious fundamentalisms “rooted in a profound fear of elimination,” not any aggressive ideology, such that they became “more extreme” under attack by military force and media.  The tearing off of women’s veils by Iranian troops under the Shah, for example, incited a backlash of Shiite fundamentalism.  The present Islamic Republic of Iran, meanwhile, elicited from Armstrong merely the comment that the “Iranian revolution is still continuing.”

None of Armstrong’s mea culpas make any sense upon examination.  Arab state borders are not by any stretch of the imagination the world’s most haphazardly drawn, particularly in comparison to Africa’s colonial borders.  Yet no global terrorism has resulted from sub-Saharan Africa.  Armstrong’s criticism of Pakistan’s borders likewise does not answer why only Pakistan’s Muslims, and not India’s Hindus, engage in cross-border terrorism.  Muslims have also been historically both colonized and colonizers.  Poverty is similarly ecumenical, but individuals in China and elsewhere have responded to deprivation with work, not warfare.

Echoing the various hostilities of the ACMCU’s namesake, Prince Alaweed bin Talal, his Saudi compatriot Osama bin Laden, and others against Israel, Armstrong seems to see causality for 9/11 in the British “Palestinian mess” supporting Zionism. Yet support for Israel’s right to exist is simply incompatible with the destruction of Israel sought by rejectionist Islamic ideologues like bin Laden or the Iranian ayatollahs.  Presented with this analysis, Armstrong during a coffee break criticized my being “obsessed with Israel…the word never crossed my lips,” as if Britain’s “Palestinian mess” was a reference to Zimbabwe.

Armstrong does not explain why Muslims in Gulf States like Saudi Arabia, never colonized, engage in terrorism and Boko Haram’s Nigerian Muslims massacre Christian Nigerians sharing the same British colonial history.  Sectarian agendas of jihad and sharia, the Golden Rule’s very antithesis, are invisible to her befuddled thinking.  Many “images of Muslim suffering” in places like Iraq, meanwhile, derive precisely from the application of these agendas to intra-Islamic divisions.

In Armstrong’s relativistic reasoning, pilots Paul Tibbets, who ended a war over Hiroshima, and Mohammad Atta, who began a war in New York, are equal.  Not a vigorous fight for freedom, but guilty mourning for Muslims should result from 9/11.  Such is the analysis of Armstrong, a member of the High Level Group at the United Nations’ Alliance of Civilizations.

Video: The Legacy of FDR’s Normalization of Relations with the USSR

nov16 (1)

With (left to right) Stanton Evans, Frank Gaffney, Diana West, Chris Farrell and (not pitcured) Stephen Coughlin

Eightieth Anniversary of Deal That Facilitated Penetration of U.S. Government, Society

Washington, DC — Eighty years ago this Saturday, President Franklin D. Roosevelt agreed for the first time to recognize the Communist regime of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. He did so on the basis of formal undertakings by then-Soviet Foreign Minister Maxim Litvinov that the Kremlin would not engage in subversive actions in America.
The rest, as they say, is history. And a sordid and still unfolding history it is.

“The 16th of November 1933 is a day that truly should live in infamy. This symposium will explore its significance both in terms of much of the most sordid history of the 20th Century — and as the predicate for similar forces at work in the 21st.”

The Center for Security Policy is pleased to convene a symposium to review that history — both that of the immediate post-normalization period, of World War II, of the Cold War and of today — from noon-2:00 p.m. at the headquarters of Judicial Watch in Washington, D.C.

  • Diana West, author of American Betrayal: The Secret Assault on Our Nation’s Character;
  • M. Stanton Evans, author of Stalin’s Secret Agents: The Subversion of Roosevelt’s Government Relations;
  • Christopher Farrell, Chief Investigator, Judicial Watch; and
  • Stephen Coughlin, author of the forthcoming book, Catastrophic Failure.
  • Frank Gaffney, President, Center for Security Policy, moderator.

Diana West at 7:09, Stanton Evans at 24:15, Chris Farrell at 47:09, Stephen Coughlin at 57:57 followed by Q&A (which you do not want to miss)

Defending Islam: The Height of Leftist Hypocrisy

By: Amber Pawlik

Ever since 9-11, Islam has been a topic of debate in many circles.  President George Bush announced that Islam is a “religion of peace.”  Leftists, though, in particular have convinced us that to criticize Islam is to be “intolerant.”  This has created a culture unwilling to call Islam for what it is.  Here is a list of common debate arguments in defense of Islam, usually given by leftists, and quick rebuttals to them, proving otherwise.

 

You are a racist if you condemn Islam.  

As soon as you go to criticize Islam, the first response you always get hit with is “you are a racist.”  This is not true.  Islam is an ideology not a race.  You can criticize Islam in the same way that you can criticize communism, liberalism, feminism, etc.   

In fact, the biggest victims of Islam are Muslims themselves.  Every Muslim I have ever met is bright and hard working.  It is unfortunate that Muslims are under the spell of Islam, which prevents them from making the kind of scientific and technological progress they clearly could otherwise make.

 

Christianity can be just as violent as Islam.  

When you point out the verses in the Koran which call for the murder of Christians and Jews, etc., or point out that Muslims are killing people in the name of Allah, the instant response you get is, “Christianity has violent passages too, and people have killed other people in the name of Christianity too.”  

All I have to say is:  and?  If people are using Christianity as a reason to kill innocent people, guess what:  they are wrong too.  You can’t excuse one evil by pointing to another evil.   

Besides that, there are no Christian nations right now that are responsible for killing 3000 Americans or 200 Spaniards.  It is the Islamic nations and organizations that are.   

 

It’s the wrong interpretation of Islam that is the problem.  

Leftists insist that the Koran isn’t bad; it is the “wrong interpretation” of the Koran.  I’m not sure how anyone can fail to correctly interpret statements like, 

They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them, Surah4:89, Nobel Koran) but I guess that’s just me.

When leftists say it is the “wrong interpretation” of Islam that is wrong, really what they mean is “why can’t Muslims just ignore the bad parts of the Koran?”  Leftists don’t understand the psyche of the person who takes things literally.  To them, things are just suggestions not commandments – even the law, as evidenced by the San Francisco mess.  

It’s not the wrong interpretation of the Koran that produces terrorists; it is an exact interpretation of the Koran that produces terrorists.

 

Most Muslims are nice people.  

The more emotional appeal is that most Muslims are nice, hard working people and criticizing Islam is to criticize these nice people.  Of course most Muslims are nice people.  The problem is in the leadership, i.e. people who are responsible for taking the Koran seriously and literally, not the naïve followers.   

It is not limited to leadership in the Middle East either. Representative Peter T. King said publicly while promoting his book Vale of Tears that he estimates 80-85% of the Muslim leadership in America supports “Islamic fundamentalism.”   

Islam is not benign.  To ignore this, being politically-correct, is to ignore a very large, deadly pink elephant in the room. 

 

Islam has produced scientific achievements.  

Lots of people insist that Muslim culture has produced various scientific achievements. The biggest “Muslim” achievement that they point to is that they supposedly discovered Algebra.  This isn’t true.  It wasn’t Muslims or even Arabs that invented Algebra:  it was the Iranians. The Iranians have had a very enlightened culture – one that radical Muslims have waged a war against, in an effort to Islamicize them (which you will never hear leftists condemn).   The Iranians also had their own religion, Zoroastrian, which was as opposite as you can get from Islam.    

Something else Islam defenders might point to as proof that Islam can produce scientific progress is a man named Razi, who they say was Muslim.  Razi made several findings in medicine.  But Razi, again, was not Arab or Muslim but Iranian.  In fact, he was so hostile to Islam that he wrote several books denouncing faith and upholding reason, and became a heretic.  Razi, an enlightened Iranian, was to the Muslim world what Galileo or Copernicus was to ours.  After treating these men of scientific achievement as heretics forced to live like gypsies, claiming them as proof that Islam can produce scientific achievement is a bit much.   

There is my short list of common arguments regarding Islam.  This brings me to what I believe is the biggest issue of our time and one of the largest hypocrisies. 

Leftists try to claim they are enlightened, sophisticated people, supporting the mind not faith – therefore denounce religion, especially Christianity.  Yet it is these very leftists that are most sympathetic to Islam: one of the most faith-based and anti-enlightened religions that has ever existed.   

Despite their theatrics, announcing they are intellectual, leftists are not enlightened or intellectual.  Genuine enlightenment came when men discovered reason and reality.  It started with one man:  Aristotle.  Accepting that reality was firm and external to man and that men can use reason to understand and explore it allowed for an explosion of scientific progress, technology, and civilization, as we know it.   

Read more at Faith Freedom

The Leftist Enablers of Hezbollah and Hamas

JudithBy :

“Understanding Hamas/Hezbollah as social movements that are progressive, that are on the left, that are part of a global left, is extremely important,“ proclaimed leftist Columbia University visiting professor Judith Butler, who is also an executive member of the Faculty for Israeli-Palestinian Peace in the United States and The Jenin Theatre in Palestine. Then, in a disclaimer so typical of the leftist apologists for terrorist organizations cloaked as “resistance fighters,” Professor Butler assured us that she does not favor violence.

Hezbollah and Hamas, like all terrorist organizations, are defined by the violence they regularly commit against innocent civilians.  Both have called for the destruction of Israel by any means necessary. Not only do they aim rockets and arm suicide bombers to deliberately target women and children. They use their own women and children as human shields and human bombs. Indeed, they glorify the “martyrdom” of young girls.

For example, here is an excerpt from an Al-Aqsa TV (Hamas) phone interview broadcast on January 22, 2010 on Hamas TV kids’ program, Tomorrow’s Pioneers:

Host to girl on phone: “How was it for you during the [Gaza] war [2009]? Were you afraid that you would die, that you would leave this world?”

Girl: “No. I wasn’t afraid. I wished for Shahada (Martyrdom) — Shahada for Allah.”

Host: “How wonderful. Even this little girl – how old are you?”

Girl: “Ten.”

Host: “[She] is not more than ten years old, and wants to die as a Shahida (Martyr) for Allah. We all wish for this [Shahada].”

Is this really what self-declared feminists such as Judith Butler wish for little Palestinian girls? To die violently as a “martyr” reciting a memorized script?  No, she would likely say, but she would nevertheless insist that Hamas and Hezbollah are still worth supporting for their non-violent “political” and “charitable” activities.

In reality, their “political” and “charitable” arms feed their militant operations, much as tumor blood vessels bring the nutrients to cancer cells that those cells need to grow. They are all part of one indivisible whole. But leftists like Butler pretend that such “anti-imperialist” groups, as they call them, can compartmentalize their “progressive” deeds from their armed activities.

Hezbollah Secretary General Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah demonstrated what his organization is really all about when he proclaimed on the last day of the twentieth century that “we will write our history with blood.” He was aiming his remarks against Israelis, whom he promised “will see more suicide attacks.” But his hatred is not reserved just for Israel.

During a February, 2006 speech he led a crowd in chants, “America, America you are the Great Satan … America, America, the enemy of the Muslims.” At the time, he was hosting radical professor Noam Chomsky, a great admirer of Hezbollah and other terrorist organizations and reviler of his home country, the United States. And, going further than Butler, Chomsky said that he had no problem supporting Hezbollah’s use of arms.  After all, he rationalized, they were fighting “imperialistic forces.”  Lebanese observers who heard Chomsky’s unequivocal support for Hezbollah were not impressed. One such observer, quoted in the Lebanese weblog Ya Libnan, said: “Chomsky needs to live here for a while to understand what happened during the past 30 years and why most Lebanese are against the Hezbollah arms.”

Chomsky and his comrades on the Left couldn’t care less what happens to real people as a result of the actions of terrorist groups like Hezbollah. Any group that hates the “Great Satan” has got to be alright for the Chomskyites, who meanwhile seek comfort and security in the land they so glibly condemn.

Such willful moral inversion is not confined to academia, of course. For example, former U.S. ambassador to Iraq and Gaza flotilla spokesman Edward Peck said after meeting with a group of Hamas leaders, including Hamas’s leader, Khaled Mashaal: “These guys were entirely rational.” Peck added that he found Mashaal to be “moderate in many senses.”

Mashaal projects a moderate image to Westerners when it serves Hamas’s interests, much as its parent the Muslim Brotherhood does. But it is all taqiyya – a bunch of lies – meant to deceive the gullible like Peck.

For example, in interviews with Western journalists, Mashaal said that Hamas would be open to a long-term hudna (truce) with Israel so long as Israel ended its occupation of the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza, and agreed to the right of return of millions of Palestinians living in refugee camps or exile.

“We are ready to resort to a peaceful way, purely peaceful way without blood and weapons, as long as we obtain our Palestinian demands,” Mashaal told CNN in an interview last November. In other words, if Israel concedes away its Jewish identity and capitulates to all of the Palestinian jihadists’ demands, there need not be any bloodshed. But only a month later, emerging from a door built into a large-scale model of a rocket fired at Israel, Mashaal whipped up the masses in Gaza celebrating Hamas’s 25th anniversary:  “We are not giving up any inch of Palestine. It will remain Islamic and Arab for us and nobody else. Jihad and armed resistance is the only way. We cannot recognize Israel’s legitimacy.”

Read more at Front Page

 

America Joins the Jihad

"Behead all those who insult the Prophet." The 'Istanbul Process', in which the State Dept. is taking a leading role, aims to achieve international-level legislation that would curtail free speech about Islam. (Source: WikiMedia Commons)

“Behead all those who insult the Prophet.” The ‘Istanbul Process’, in which the State Dept. is taking a leading role, aims to achieve international-level legislation that would curtail free speech about Islam. (Source: WikiMedia Commons)

by Clare M. Lopez:

Instead of presenting a firm defense of American principles based on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the entire U.S. national security leadership simply caved in to this attempt to suborn the government. The FBI submissively complied with these jihadist demands, purging its anti-terrorist curriculum of hundreds of pages that an undisclosed group deemed “offensive to Muslims.” Next demand? The removal of HAMAS from the U.S. Foreign Terrorist Organizations list.

It is not just that the United States government has aligned itself with the avowed vanguard of Islamic jihad — the Muslim Brotherhood [MB] — or committed American troops to battle (in Libya, and maybe soon in Syria) to ensure the victory of al-Qa’eda-linked militias. It is not just that whenever an opportunity has arisen, as in Iran in 2009, or pre-and-post revolutionary Egypt, or the Syrian civil war, the U.S. deliberately has chosen to side with the forces of jihad and shariah law and against the voices of civil society and genuine democracy.

The current U.S. administration has actually managed to flip from one side to the other, from “for the people in the streets” to “against the people in the streets,” as recently became evident in late June 2013, when protests mounted against the incompetent, oppressive regime of Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood. The U.S. Ambassador to Egypt, Anne Patterson, reportedly asked Coptic Pope Tawadros II, “to urge the Copts not to participate” — as well as other groups, apparently — in the demonstrations planned for June 30. There had been no such request reported two years earlier when Muslim Brotherhood supporters thronged Tahrir Square to demand that long-time U.S. ally President Hosni Mubarak step down. Nor did Ambassador Patterson pressure Morsi’s Muslim Brotherhood government to return power to Hosni Mubarak, an American ally for three decades, after those street demonstrations prompted the Egyptian military to remove him from power in February 2011. She also did not protest even after Morsi seized power outright from that military command in August 2012. Patterson has, however, reportedly been pressuring the Egyptian military command to reinstate Morsi after it stepped in once again on July 3, 2013 to remove chaos from the streets by removing Morsi from office.

What these policies make painfully obvious that the United States of America has apparently abandoned the core principles of its Founding Fathers and capitulated to the forces of jihad and shariah.The vision of America as “Shining City on a Hill,” an exceptional nation whose leaders champion the natural rights of the individual against the liberty crushing oppression of totalitarian theocracy, for the moment at least, has been suborned to a different vision: the vision of an America as a force for harm in the world, that apologizes for its exceptionalism, abandons its friends and allies, emboldens its enemies, and seeks unilateral disarmament so as to better meet its president’s desire to be just another “citizen of the world.”

The years from 2009-2013 have witnessed the remaking of the map of the Middle East and North Africa [MENA] region. The driving forces behind the Islamic uprisings were powerful indeed: beginning no later than the summer of 2010, al-Qa’eda and the Muslim Brotherhood meshed their tactics and timing in a synchrony that previously had only characterized their identical Islamic ideology. Absent any serious groundwork over the preceding years by the U.S., whether official or by NGOs, to nourish genuine pro-democracy voices, once al-Qa’eda’s July 2010 Inspire magazine call for jihad had been met with MB Supreme Guide Muhammad Badi’sanswering declaration of war in the cause of Islam [jihad] in late September 2010, and al-Azhar had provided thefatwa [Islamic religious edict] of approval for offensive jihad in January 2011, there was no one capable of standing effectively against the tidal wave of popular pro-shariah sentiment. Perhaps no one could have held back that long suppressed desire for Islamic Law.

But the U.S. did not even try. To the contrary, the current administration consistently and repeatedly appeared to respond eagerly to the calls for revolution from the Muslim Brotherhood’s senior Islamic scholar, Yousef al-Qaradawi. When al-Qaradawi said that Mubarak had to go, the U.S. waited a whole three days before throwing America’s key ally in the Middle East for over three decades under the bus. When al-Qaradawi called for Libyan rebels to kill Muammar Qaddafi (so the al-Qa’eda jihadis in his jails could get out and join the revolution), the U.S. led the Western military campaign that brought al-Qa’eda, the MB, and chaos to Libya. And when al-Qaradawi issued a call for jihad in Syria, in early June 2013, the U.S. quickly issued an invitation to Abdullah bin Bayyah (al-Qaradawi’s vice president at the International Union of Muslim Scholars), who told an Al-Jazeera reporter that, “We demand Washington take a greater role in [Syria].” It took the U.S. less than one week after al-Qaradawi’s fatwa to announce authorization of stepped-up military aid to the al-Qa’eda-and-Brotherhood-dominated Syrian rebels. The White House announcement came just a single day after bin Bayyah met with National Security and other senior administration officials.

Read more at Gatestone Institute

A Young Jewish Man’s Lethal Arab Spring Delusion

497x380xPochter-2.jpg.pagespeed.ic.6kvHzB4Pqz

Andrew Pochter’s murder represents the apotheosis of a Big Islamic Lie mentality, rigidly imposed by academic, governmental, religious, and media elites. It is well past time to hold accountable the hyperactive promulgators of such Big Islamic Lies before additional self-destructively indoctrinated victims of their warped “teachings” meet similar fates.

Cross-posted at The American Thinker

by Andrew Bostom:

Andrew Pochter, then a recent alumnus of the State Department’s National Security Language for Youth Program, published a report June 8, 2011 for Al Arabiya on his impressions of the Arab Spring uprisings in Morocco. Entitled, “The Acquisition of Reality,” the callow Mr. Pochter lauded Moroccan despot King Muhammad VI’s release of 90 imprisoned jihadists (arbitrarily designated “Islamists” and “Sahrawis,” i.e., the latter being “nationalists” cum jihadists), while lamenting,

This seems to be a good start, though it is important to keep in mind that over 100 political prisoners still remain behind bars.

Just two years later, the well-intentioned, if naïve Pochter’s tragic delusions about the ugly reality of the Orwellian-named Arab spring were shattered, instantaneously, by lethal violence. While photographing demonstrations in the Egyptian port city of Alexandria this past Friday (6/28/13), near an office of the jihadist Muslim Brotherhood, Pochter was stabbed, and suffered a fatal chest wound.

Veteran international journalist Jon Williams tweeted that, as per unnamed “intelligence sources,” Pochter’s assailant questioned the young man whether he were an American, before plunging a knife into the victim’s chest. If Williams’ account is confirmed, this would mark the second time in two months that an American was targeted for stabbing in Egypt. On Thursday, May 12, 2013, Chris Stone, an Associate Professor of Arabic, and Director of the Arabic Program at The City University of New York was stabbed in the neck outside the US embassy’s Cairo headquarters. Stone’s attacker, Kafr El-Sheikh, was motivated by his professed hatred of the US, and Americans.  Stone survived the attack, but as Al-Ahram reported, the knife lodged in his neck had to be removed by a surgical operation. Ironically, Stone, who had penned anti-Israel vitriol, and supported demands that the New York Police Department terminate its legitimate (and successful) anti-jihad terror surveillance activities, was recently appointed head of the Center for Arabic Study Abroad by the American University in Cairo, and, as Al-Ahram highlighted, “praised for his pro-Palestine views  and his interest in Arab culture.”

The late youth Andrew Pochter was described in an Al-Arabiya tribute by his former Moroccan Arabic teacher as similarly “filled with the Arabic language and with the Arab world.” Pochter attended Kenyon College, where he was areligious studies major, who co-managed the college’s Hillel, and had just completed his sophomore year. Prior to his fateful sojourn in Egypt, Pochterinterned for AMIDEAST, an American nonprofit that focuses on the Middle East and North Africa, and studied regional politics. His mother, Elizabeth Pochter, maintained that her son read poems to his girlfriend about the “Israeli-Palestinian conflict,”  and insisted that somehow the endless jihad against The Jewish State, “wasn’t just about some detached war to him, but a struggle that he passionately wanted to resolve.” Elizabeth Pochter added, according to a statement by Kenyon College, that her Jewish son,

…was a person who didn’t see the world as separate nations, but a collection of vibrant cultures.

In her encomium,  Marcela Colmenares, an instructor at Kenyon College, who had befriended Pochter,  characterized him  as “absorbing every bit of the Egyptian culture” —just before he suffered an even more horrific fate than the adult Arabic Professor, Stone.

Glaringly absent from these poignant encomia by Andrew Pochter’s mentors—academic, organizational, even parental—is any informed, honest recognition of the dangerous cauldron of Islamic hatredanimated by living doctrines and history—into which he had thrust himself.

Read more 

Also see:

Pathetic Video of Late Andrew Pochter in Immoral Equivalence “Israel-Palestine Poetry Slam” by Andrew Bostom

The Axis Behind Benghazi

20121030_white-house-benghazi-LIBYAby CAPTAIN GARY HARRINGTON, U.S. NAVY (RET)

There is now a burgeoning cornucopia of common sense revelations concerning the administration’s Benghazi cover up. Despite a new lucidity flowing from the drip, dripping deck chairs of deception and correctness, reporters have yet to define the iceberg clearly: I’m convinced it is an unholy civil union of political Islamists and U.S. transnational progressives. One party delivers, the other obfuscates and mollifies foreign and domestic violence.

There is a common thread linking the ever-lengthening list of Islamist outrages. That thread runs from Wahhabi economic jihad yesterday to diplomatic jihad today. In between, strategies of ideological, political, intelligence, and subversive jihad flowered. The seed corn of petro dollars poured into our intellectual centers years ago. Today, the Islamists’ bitter fruits are too numerous to count. CAIR-Ikhwan friendly advisors work closely with our highest defense, military and intelligence officials, and former Bush career Flag officers purge all references to Islamists from the training of our splendid young warriors. In 2005, a Middle East scholar artfully identified, weaved and published these troubling threads in his book, “Future Jihad – Terrorist Strategies Against America” (See chapter 9, page 137 for a quick overview).

I suspect the “Mother of All Answers” must be to this question: “If transnational progressive security policies are good for America’s defense, why won’t their champions explain and defend them in the public square as they apply to the goals of Salafist Jihadists?” Recent U.S. policies seem to have had a worsening effect in precisely those countries where there has been an administration push.

The Administration’s obfuscation of the identity, threats and motivating ideology among Al Qaeda, its affiliates, and the Muslim Brotherhood appears to manifest itself in a hyper tolerance of serial failures at CIA, FBI, DOD, and Homeland Defense. What’s wrong with this picture? I suspect the earnest people in those offices labor with half their brains tied behind their backs.
Read more: Family Security Matters

Downfall coming through coalition of Islamists and Marxists?

images (25)By Anita Crane:

A noted specialist on Islamic law and ideology from the Center for Security Policy, who has been cited as an expert for the Pentagon, says a coalition of Islamists and Marxists is working to destroy the United States.

The comments come from Stephen Coughlin, a lecturer for leading Department of Defense institutions such as the Naval War College, Marine Corps HQ-Quantico and for the FBI. Coughlin is a retired major in the U.S. Army reserves and was assigned to USCENTCOM, with a military intelligence specialty.

His assignments included the Pentagon’s National Military Joint Intelligence Center, the National Security Council’s Interagency Perception Management Threat Panel and the intelligence staff of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, so he has the credentials required for such assessments.

He recently addressed the Northern Virginia Chapter of ACT! for America, where he quoted terrorist Carlos the Jackal, who said, “Only a coalition of Islamists and Marxists can destroy the United States.” Thus, Coughlin said, “If we’re going to get a grip on this, we have to know their narrative and understand it. We know that when the other side has language that’s locked into doctrine, we need to hold them to it.”

He said, too, that the “lone wolf” jihadists can inflict damage.

He cited the case of Boston Marathon bombing suspect Tamerlan Tsarnaev, killed during a confrontation with police.

Tsarnaev reportedly sent a text message to his mother, Zubeidat Tsarnaev, saying he was “ready to die for Islam.” ABC News Radio reported that his surviving brother and fellow suspect told investigators both “were ready to die.” According to The Christian Post, “Dzhokhar Tsarnaev indicated that his older brother hated America and Christianity, especially for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.”

Al-Qaida is one of the Muslim Brotherhood’s many branches and it preaches that individual Muslims should act as lone jihadists, lone terrorists. Therefore, after the bombings in Boston, after the two Muslim Tsarnaev brothers were named as the primary suspects, Coughlin made an in-depth video on the Muslim Brotherhood’s narrative on this subject.

In it, he says, “A couple years ago, in June 2010, I was asked to brief a couple members of Congress about what this concept of the ‘lone wolf’ was. It’s the first time I brought the fact that what the FBI and DHS call ‘lone wolf’ is actually a formal part of jihad.”

In the video, Coughlin also highlights the cold calculation of al-Qaida’s leaders telling their followers who to murder and where to murder them.

And there are some surprising details. For example, he said al-Qaida urges against killing Jews in their synagogues. Coughlin believes that’s because it’s bad publicity that damages the Muslim Brotherhood’s deceptive “interfaith” dialogues with Christians and Jews.

He quotes an article from the al-Qaida magazine “Inspire,” which says: “The confrontation with America is fundamental, while the confrontation with Europe is secondary, aimed at making Europe lead the alliance by putting pressure on her.”

His presentation follows:

 

The U.S. government has known of the Muslim Brotherhood’s goal of defeating the U.S. since 2004, when federal investigators raided a terrorist’s home in Virginia and found “An Explanatory Memorandum: On the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America.”

Read more at WND

 

See also:

What the Left Does Not Understand About Islam

Picture-16By :

The left has never adapted to the transition from nationalistic wars to ideological wars. It took the left a while to grasp that the Nazis were a fundamentally different foe than the Kaiser and that pretending that World War 2 was another war for the benefit of colonialists and arms dealers was the behavior of deluded lunatics. And yet much of the left insisted on approaching the war in just that fashion, and had Hitler not attacked Stalin, it might have remained stuck there.

The Cold War was even worse. The left never came to terms with Communism. From the Moscow Trials to the fall of the Berlin Wall, the moderate left slowly disavowed the USSR but refused to see it as anything more than a clumsy dictatorship. The only way that the left could reject the USSR was by overlooking its ideology and treating it as another backward Russian tyranny being needlessly provoked and pushed around by Western Europe and the United States.

Having failed the test twice, it is no wonder that the left has been unable to come to terms with Islam, or that it has resorted to insisting that, like Germany and Russia, the Muslim world is just another victim of imperialism and western warmongering in need of support and encouragement from the progressive camp.

The anti-war worldview is generations out of date. It is mired in an outdated analysis of imperial conflicts that ceased being relevant with the downfall of the nation-state and its replacement by international organizations and causes based around ideologies. Nazism could still loosely fit into the jackboots of the nation state. Communism was another creature entirely, a red virus floating around the world, embedding its ideas into organizations and using those organizations to take over nations.

Islam is even more untethered than Communism, loosely originating from powerful oil nations, but able to spring up anywhere in the world. Its proponents have even less use for the nation state than the Communists. What they want is a Caliphate ruled under Islamic law; a single unit of human organization extending across nations, regions and eventually the world.

Read more at Front Page