Is There a Double Standard Favoring Jihadis?

Understanding the Threat, by Stephanie Ameiss, April 19, 2018:

On Saturday April 14th, less than two years after 49 people were killed by muslim Omar Mir Seddique Mateen, the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) and the Aisha Cultural Center hosted a “Positive Parenting Skills” conference at the Greenwood Lakes Middle School in Orlando, featuring Islamic scholar Dr. M. Rateb Al-Nabulsi.

Al-Nabulsi is a Syrian Sheikh who calls for the killing of gays and Jews.

ICNA (Islamic Circle of North America) was identified by evidence in the largest terrorism financing trial ever successfully prosecuted in American history – US v Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, Northern District of Texas, 2008 – as being a part of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood’s Islamic Movement with the stated objective of waging “Civilization Jihad” to overthrow the U.S. government and establishing an Islamic State under sharia (Islamic law).

Why did the local government approve this event and why did local police/sheriff’s offices provide security for this event?

When a local camera crew opposed to the event showed up, the police were quick to threaten arrest for trespassing.  Why?

Local elected officials and police swear an oath to protect and defend the Constitution against seditious threats like this.

Will Greenwood Lakes Middle School in Orlando invite Understanding the Threat (UTT) to teach a session on American’s Founding Principles?   How about classes on the Muslim Brotherhood network in Florida, sharia, and the threat these pose to local Florida communities?

UTT is still waiting for a response to our call.

AppleMark

Khaled Bahgat, a muslim from Egypt, is the liaison officer between the Columbus (OH) Police Department and the city’s muslims, particularly Somali refugees.  Does the Columbus Police Department have a designated Catholic officer to outreach to the Christian community?

 

Middletown (PA) Patrol Officer Mark Hovan was suspended  for 10 days for attending Catholic Mass at the Blessed Virgin Mary Catholic Church during his patrol shift.  Yet, would the Middletown Police Chief have an issue if muslim officers when to prayers at a mosque?

The photo above shows two Los Angeles police officers praying at the Muslim Brotherhood’s Islamic Center of Southern California.

Has the LAPD suspended them and launched an investigation as to why their officers are associating themselves with a jihadi mosque?

Is it unprofessional for police departments to have different standards for Christian officers and muslim officers?

Is it legal for police departments to have different standards for Christian officers and muslim officers?

Muslim Brother/Hamas leader Ahmed Bedier speaks inside the Florida State House at Muslim Capitol Day hosted by Hamas (CAIR)

Texas Hamas leader Mustafa Carroll (far right) at the Texas Capitol Day hosted by Hamas (CAIR)

Muslim Capitol Day occurs all over the United States every year, and local/state police protect the participants despite the fact the events are hosted by Hamas doing business as CAIR and advance the jihadi agenda of Civilization Jihad.

What should police officers do when they are given an unlawful order to support a designated terrorist organization and it’s events?

Being the leader of Hamas in Arizona (dba CAIR) did not prevent Mohamed El-Sharkawy from being employed with American Airlines and training employees at Phoenix’s Sky Harbor Airport.  As a matter of fact American Airlines gave El-Sharkawy an award and defended him when UTT questioned them about employing a Hamas leader.

Nor did his terrorist affiliation prevent El-Sharkawy from founding and serving on the Arizona Police Muslim Advisory Board.  In fact, El-Sharkawy currently serves as a board member on Hamas’ (CAIR-Arizona) Board of Advisors.

Do police departments in Tempe, Arizona and elsewhere have Christian Advisory Boards?

Citizens where are you?  Why are you putting up with these double standards?

1. Evidence in the US v HLF trial reveals CAIR is Hamas.

2. Two weeks ago the seditious and terrorist-supporting Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) gave its marching orders to the terrorists from Antifa to threaten venues which resulted in those venues canceling programs involving Understanding the Threat (UTT).

3. When UTT conducts it’s 3-day “Understanding and Investigating the Jihadi Network” program for police, the unanimous response from attendees , including FBI counter-terrorism agents, is shock because they admit they were not aware of the information presented.  Yet, they also state the information UTT presents is “critical” to protecting their communities.

Local police sometimes act in inappropriate and unlawful/unconstitutional ways in these matters because they do not understand this threat nor are they trained on how to respond.

The FBI has not informed them.

No police chief wants to deal with a riot or threats of violence.  The easy route is often to support the shutting down of events instead of dealing with the consequences of the event.  However, police chiefs, sheriffs and the men and women in those departments swear an Oath to protect and defend against “all enemies, foreign and domestic.”

This is where we fight this war – by standing firm, even when it is very difficult.  But this means citizens must encourage and stand with the police when these tough decisions come down the line.

Citizens – don’t stand around and watch!

Question your local officials why they allow local facilities and state houses to be used to advance the jihad by designated terrorists (Hamas/CAIR) and known subversive groups, and tolerate a double standard when it comes to the muslim community, even among police.

Citizens get involved – Tell your local police leaders you want those sworn to protect you to be trained about this threat and support them when they have to deal with the heat from sedition/Marxist organizations and their jihadi task-masters like Hamas doing business as CAIR.

Huffington Post Arabic Closes

Camera, April 17, 2018:
Huffington Post Arabic has shuttered its doors. Leaving aside what prompted the powers that be to discontinue publishing their materials under the well-known and longstanding Huffington Post brand, it’s important to note that, with the closing of the Arabic site, the Muslim Brotherhood and its supporters, such as Hamas, have lost an important mouthpiece.
Shortly after Huffington Post Arabic’s 2015 launch, The Guardian’s Brian Whitaker charged “that [Wadah Khanfar] the editorial director of Huffington Post’s Arabic offshoot is a Qatari known for his pro-Islamist stance and its Egyptian editor-in-chief is a self-declared member of the Muslim Brotherhood.”
Khanfar, the former editorial director of Huffington Post Arabic, previously served as director general of Qatar’s Al Jazeera. A synergy between the two news outlets, with Khanfar as the apparent conduit, foreshadowed his later role at the American site.
While the web site operated thanks to the American principle of freedom of the press, on numerous occasions it failed to uphold key Western tenets of professional journalism. For instance, there was not a single other media outlet in the Arabic language that operated with the pretense of providing serious coverage, and yet which simultaneously gave voice to expressions like “the Zionist enemy” or “the Israeli entity.” In addition, no other Western news site so diligently served the role as spokesperson for senior Hamas members by republishing declarations previously appearing in Hamas media outlets. Moreover, Huffington Post Arabic violated a basic journalistic standard by using Hamas material without informing its readers of the source.
Thus, the Huffington Post did not manage to impart professional journalistic standards and practices for serious coverage into the realm of Arabic-language Western media outlets. To the contrary, from the moment that a Qatari company gained ownership of the Arabic site, it served as a tool in the political and media conflict between Doha and a number of Arab and Gulf capitals. Qatar’s fingerprints were all over the Huffington Post site, and this carries over into the new incarnation of the site, Arabi Post.
While it was possible to send feedback and even prompt corrections at Huffington Post Arabic, the new site does not provide any means of communication. Nor does it provide any information about its ownership. It is not possible to verify whether Huffington Post Arabic editors maintain their positions at the new site. In any event, as the Arabic proverb says: “The ass who goes looking for horns returns without ears.” The Huffington Post Arabic editors attempt to plant a new discourse into Arabic-language Western media outlets was a failure, costing them the Huffington Post imprimatur.

National Security Experts Issue Letter Endorsing Mike Pompeo as the Next U.S. Secretary of State

Center for Security Policy, April 10, 2018:

(Washington, D.C.): Today, 53 national security experts and public practitioners issued a letter to Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker and the committee’s Ranking Member Robert Menendez calling on the U.S. Senate for swiftly endorse President Trump’s choice of Mike Pompeo to be the next U.S. Secretary of State.

The letter’s signatories agree that the wide range of urgent national security threats facing our nation today requires an experienced, highly competent national security leader like Mike Pompeo be confirmed as Secretary of State as soon as possible.  With, among other challenges,  growing tensions in Syria, an upcoming summit between President Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, and an impending decision on the fate of the nuclear deal with Iran, this is no time for the State Department to be without such a skilled professional at its helm.

The signatories also credit Mike Pompeo for his mastery of the multifaceted threat that Donald Trump promised to defeat in his August 15, 2016 address in Youngstown, Ohio.  Both men recognize this particular danger as ideological in nature, which Mr. Trump correctly noted is called “Sharia” by its adherents, who include “Radical Islamic Terrorists” and “the support networks for Radical Islam in this country.”

Mr. Pompeo’s leadership and management skills from his time in the U.S. Army, the private sector, Congress and as CIA Director are exactly what is needed at the State Department, which is suffering from huge numbers of unfilled positions, low morale and lack of direction.

The letter concludes:

Mike Pompeo is the sort of seasoned, accomplished and energetic national security policy practitioner our nation desperately needs at this juncture in the role of Secretary of State to help President Trump secure our nation from all enemies, foreign and domestic. He enjoys our strong endorsement and we respectfully request that the United States Senate express the same by confirming him at the earliest possible moment.

See the letter with signatories

100 French Intellectuals Denounce Islamist Separatism

Supporters of French President Macron celebrate his victory (Illustrative photo: Jeff J Mitchell/Getty Images)

Clarion Project, by Leslie Shaw, March 21, 2018:

A group of 100 diverse French intellectuals denounced Islamist totalitarianism in the newspaper Le Figaroon March 19, 2018. The following is a translation of their statement made by Clarion contributor Leslie Shaw:

We are citizens of differing and often diametrically opposed views, who have found agreement in expressing our concern in the face of the rise of Islamism. We are united not by our affinities, but by the feeling of danger that threatens freedom in general and not just freedom of thought.

That which unites us today is more fundamental than that which will undoubtedly separate us tomorrow.

Islamist totalitarianism seeks to gain ground by every means possible and to represent itself as a victim of intolerance. This strategy was demonstrated some weeks ago when the SUD Education 93 teachers union proposed a training course that included workshops on state racism from which white people were barred.

Several of the facilitators were members or sympathizers of the CCIF (French Collective Against Islamophobia) or the Natives of the Republic party. Such examples have proliferated recently. We have thus learned that the best way to combat racism is to separate races. If this idea shocks us, it is because we are Republicans.

We also hear it said that because religions in France are trampled on by an institutionalized secularism, everything that is in a minority — in other words Islam — must be accorded a special place so that it can cease to be humiliated.

This same argument continues by asserting that in covering themselves with a hijab, women are protecting themselves from men and that keeping themselves apart is a means to emancipation.

What these proclamations have in common is the idea that the only way to defend the “dominated” (the term is that of SUD Education 93) is to set them apart and grant them privileges.

Not so long ago, apartheid reigned in South Africa. Based on the segregation of blacks, it sought to exonerate itself by creating bantustans (territories set aside for black South Africans) where blacks were granted false autonomy. Fortunately this system no longer exists.

Today, a new kind of apartheid is emerging in France, a segregation in reverse thanks to which the “dominated” seek to retain their dignity by sheltering themselves from the “dominators.”

But does this mean that a woman who casts off her hijab and goes out into the street becomes a potential victim? Does it mean that a “race” that mixes with others becomes humiliated? Does it mean that a religion that accepts being one among other religions loses face?

Does Islamism also seek to segregate French Muslims, whether believers or otherwise, who accept democracy and are willing to live with others? Who will decide for women who refuse to be locked away? As for others, who seemingly do not deserve to be protected, will they be held under lock and key in the camp of the “dominators”?

All of this runs counter to what has been done in France to guarantee civil peace. For centuries, the unity of the nation has been grounded in a detachment with respect to particularities that can be a source of conflict. What is known as Republican universalism does not consist in denying the existence of gender, race or religion but in defining civic space independently of them so that nobody feels excluded. How can one not see that secularism protects minority religions?

Jeopardizing secularism exposes us to a return to the wars of religion.

What purpose can this new sectarianism serve? Must it only allow the self-styled “dominated” to safeguard their purity by living amongst themselves? Is not its overall objective to assert secession from national unity, laws and mores? Is it not the expression of a real hatred towards our country and democracy?

For people to live according to the laws of their community or caste, in contempt of the laws of others, for people to be judged only by their own, is contrary to the spirit of the Republic. The French Republic was founded on the refusal to accept that private rights can be applied to specific categories of the population and on the abolition of privilege.

On the contrary, the Republic guarantees that the same law applies to each one of us. This is simply called justice.

This new separatism is advancing under concealment. It seeks to appear benign but is in reality a weapon of political and cultural conquest in the service of Islamism.

Islamism wants to set itself apart because it rejects others, including those Muslims who do not subscribe to its tenets. Islamism abhors democratic sovereignty, to which it refuses any kind of legitimacy. Islamism feels humiliated when it is not in a position of dominance.

Accepting this is out of the question. We want to live in a world where both sexes can look at each other with neither feeling insulted by the presence of the other. We want to live in a world where women are not deemed to be naturally inferior. We want to live in a world where people can live side by side without fearing each other. We want to live in a world where no religion lays down the law.

 

Waleed al-Husseini, writer

Arnaud d’Aunay, painter

Pierre Avril, academic

Vida Azimi, jurist

Isabelle Barbéris, academic

Kenza Belliard, teacher

Georges Bensoussan, historian

Corinne Berron, author

Alain Besançon, historian

Fatiha Boudjahlat, essayist

Michel Bouleau, jurist

Rémi Brague, philosopher

Philippe Braunstein, historian

Stéphane Breton, film maker, ethnologist

Claire Brière-Blanchet, reporter, essayist

Marie-Laure Brossier, city councillor

Pascal Bruckner, writer

Eylem Can, script writer

Sylvie Catellin, semiologist

Gérard Chaliand, writer

Patrice Champion, former ministerial advisor

Brice Couturier, journalist

Éric Delbecque, essayist

Chantal Delsol, philosopher

Vincent Descombes, philosopher

David Duquesne, nurse

Luc Ferry, philosopher, former minister

Alain Finkielkraut, philosopher, writer

Patrice Franceschi, writer

Renée Fregosi, philosopher

Christian Frère, professor

Claudine Gamba-Gontard, professor

Jacques Gilbert, historian of ideas

Gilles-William Goldnadel, lawyer

Monique Gosselin-Noat, academic

Gabriel Gras, biologist

Gaël Gratet, professor

Patrice Gueniffey, historian

Alain Guéry, historian

Éric Guichard, philosopher

Claude Habib, writer, professor

Nathalie Heinich, sociologist

Clarisse Herrenschmidt, linguist

Philippe d’Iribarne, sociologist

Roland Jaccard, essayist

Jacques Jedwab, psychoanalyst

Catherine Kintzler, philosopher

Bernard Kouchner, doctor, humanitarian, former minister

Bernard de La Villardière, journalist

Françoise Laborde, journalist

Alexandra Laignel-Lavastine, essayist

Dominique Lanza, clinical psychologist

Philippe de Lara, philosopher

Josepha Laroche, academic

Alain Laurent, essayist, editor

Michel Le Bris, writer

Jean-Pierre Le Goff, philosopher

Damien Le Guay, philosopher

Anne-Marie Le Pourhiet, jurist

Barbara Lefebvre, teacher

Patrick Leroux-Hugon, physicist

Élisabeth Lévy, journalist

Laurent Loty, historian of ideas

Mohamed Louizi, engineer, essayist

Jérôme Maucourant, economist

Jean-Michel Meurice, painter, film director

Juliette Minces, sociologist

Marc Nacht, psychoanalyst, writer

Morgan Navarro, cartoonist

Pierre Nora, historian, editor

Robert Pépin, translator

Céline Pina, essayist

Yann Queffélec, writer

Jean Queyrat, film director

Philippe Raynaud, professor of political science

Robert Redeker, writer

Pierre Rigoulot, historian

Ivan Rioufol, journalist

Philippe San Marco, author, essayist

Boualem Sansal, writer

Jean-Marie Schaeffer, philosopher

Martine Segalen, ethnologist

André Senik, teacher

Patrick Sommier, man of the theater

Antoine Spire, vice-president of Licra

Wiktor Stoczkowski, anthropologist

Véronique Tacquin, professor, writer

Pierre-André Taguieff, political scientist

Maxime Tandonnet, author

Sylvain Tesson, writer

Paul Thibaud, essayist

Bruno Tinel, economist

Michèle Tribalat, demographer

Caroline Valentin, essayist

David Vallat, author

Éric Vanzieleghem, documentalist

Jeannine Verdès-Leroux, historian

Emmanuel de Waresquiel, historian

Ibn Warraq, writer

Yves-Charles Zarka, philosopher

Fawzia Zouari, writer

Movie Critics Complain Eastwood Doesn’t Show Sympathetic Terrorist

Truth Revolt, by Mark Tapson, Feb. 15, 2018:

TruthRevolt friend Christian Toto over at HollywoodInToto.com has helpfully rounded up a sample of movie reviews of openly conservative director Clint Eastwood’s new terrorism drama The 15:17 to Paris. The film is based on the true-life Islamist attack on a Paris-bound train in 2015 that was quickly thwarted by three American heroes who happened to be passengers on that train.

“The 87-year-old icon drove liberal critics batty with his 2014 smash ‘American Sniper,’” Toto began. “Heroism? Sacrifice? All-American values? It’s like garlic to some film critics. They’d rather swoon at films depicting the U.S. Military in an unsavory fashion.”

Indeed they would, because the vast majority of film critics are Progressives whose kneejerk anti-Americanism kicks in with every movie that dares display a patriotic streak — such as Eastwood’s newest film, which stars the actual American friends who were on that train as the movie’s leads.

“A few critics hated how Eastwood didn’t give enough screen time to the terrorist in question, Ayoub El-Khazzani,” wrote Toto, such as this reviewer from The National Post:

15:17 to Paris overly simplifies the attack and its aftermath. The terrorist (Ray Corasani) snarls and wears sneakers, but there’s little more to him.

The movie’s not about him. The movie is about the three American heroes. And to the outrage of leftist reviewers, Eastwood apparently wasn’t inclined to depict a sympathetic terrorist. This is a Clint Eastwood movie, not a Rolling Stone magazine cover.

“Slate also has the sads about the terrorist’s lack of definition,” Toto noted, quoting the critic:

And the sense of wheelspinning only underlines the movie’s failure to make its antagonist more than a cartoon scowl with a Kalashnikov. The geese in Sully were more well-rounded characters.

“Slant Magazine joins the chorus, complaining about the terrorist’s abbreviated screen time”:

One misses the prismatic structure of the 15:17 to Paris book, which fuses multiple points of view—including El-Khazzani’s—and which is reduced by Dorothy Blyskal’s script to cut-and-pasted bromides.

The Daily Beast:

As for the villain in question, Eastwood primarily films his hands, sneakers, arms, and back, all as a means of making him some sort of faceless existential threat—a symbolic vehicle for [one of the Americans’] “greater purpose.” Mostly, though, it’s just another example of The 15:17 to Paris’ regrettable blankness.

The Pittsburgh Post Gazette gripes that the film is too patriotic:

But at this point, there’s a certain repellent hubris about [Eastwood’s] patriotic formula: Make America grate again, on the rest of the world, in paint-by-numbers (red, white and blue), which happen to be the same as the Tricouleur — not that Mr. Eastwood makes any use or reference to that.

The Irish Times complains:

There’s a great deal of God-bothering throughout… [t]hose seeking geopolitics or any hint that US foreign policy helped forge Isis will be sorely disappointed.

Reviewer Rex Reed (he’s still alive?) strangely whines, “We never really learn much about the three leads or their take on terrorism…”

“Here’s a wild guess,” answers Toto, “they’re against it?”

The Daily Mail sneers at the main characters’ Christian faith and the “simplistic” conservative perspective on good and evil:

In that sacred American way, incidentally, their Christianity is not incompatible with an obsession with firearms….The ­narrative throbs with Eastwood’s ­conviction — shared, as we know, by President Trump — that the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Better still, a good guy with a gun and a bible.

All these reviews are symptomatic of the left’s refusal to draw a line between good and evil, and to recognize which side of that line America is on.

I remember when the movie Black Hawk Down came out, about the failed Clinton-era military mission in Mogadishu that resulted in the downing of two American helicopters and an insane firefight with an armed mob of Somalis. Critics complained that the bad guys depicted in it were not fully developed as characters — as if everybody in a mob needs a backstory. Movie critics know that’s impossible and doesn’t make sense story-wise, but they simply hate it when Americans are depicted as heroes and enemies who happen to be non-white are not “nuanced” enough.

Let’s prove all of Clint Eastwood’s critics irrelevant by making The 15:17 to Paris another pro-American blockbuster.

The Fight of Our Lives

A new documentary exposes the growing threats to the West.

Front Page Magazine, by Mark Tapson, Feb. 8, 2018:

Editor’s note: The world premiere of The Fight of Our Lives will be held at the Broad Stage in Santa Monica, California on Monday evening, February 19, through the support of the David Horowitz Freedom Center. For details, click here.

“Civilizations, empires, great powers, can fall apart very fast. Collapse can come suddenly, like a thief in the night. And we should be very wary of assuming that our civilization, the civilization of the early 21st century West, will oblige us by declining gradually.”

That warning from noted historian Niall Ferguson is the opening and the theme of the vital new documentary The Fight of Our Lives: Defeating the Ideological War Against the West from filmmaker Gloria Z. Greenfield.

Greenfield’s previous work includes Body and Soul – The State of the Jewish Nation in 2014 (which I reviewed for FrontPage Mag here), Unmasked Judeophobia in 2011, and The Case for Israel – Democracy’s Outpostin 2009. She is the president of Doc Emet Productions, the simple and powerful motto of which is “Truth in film.” Unlike, say, propagandist Michael Moore’s front-and-center, demagogic presence in his films such as Fahrenheit 9/11, director Greenfield gets out of the way and crafts her narratives about anti-Semitism, history, Judeo-Christian values, freedom, and democracy from the authoritative, articulate arguments of the many intellectuals who lend their expertise to her projects.

Such is the case with her latest documentary, which features compelling observations and insights from well-known historians, journalists, and thinkers such as Niall Ferguson, Victor Davis Hanson, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Alan Dershowitz, Melanie Phillips, Bruce Thornton, Raymond Ibrahim, Brooke Goldstein, Ibn Warraq, Alan West, and many more respected commentators from academia, human rights organizations, and think tanks. [Full disclosure: I am included among the featured speakers, as are David Horowitz Freedom Center Fellows Thornton and Ibrahim.]

The Fight of Our Lives addresses the various internal and external threats facing Western civilization today, and cautions that if we don’t recognize these grave dangers now and rouse ourselves to resist and overcome them, then it is no hyperbole to say that the West as we know it will come to – as Ferguson warned – a swift and inexorable end.

The film groups topics into seven “chapters”: “Utopian Masks” (about the subversive internal threats of cultural relativism and multiculturalism), “Crumbling Towers” (on the political radicalization of the university), “Weaponizing Identity” (on the gender and race conflicts that have sprung up with the rise of identity politics), “Breaching the Gates” (on the threat of global Islamic supremacism in the West, whether through terrorism or subversion), “People of the Book” (regarding the Islamic persecution and genocide of Christians and Jews), and “Durable Values” (on the assaults against the values that have made the West great, such as the freedom of speech). It concludes with a chapter on “Standing Up,” which exhorts us, the heirs of the Western tradition, to push back against our enemies and defend our heritage and our future.

Niall Ferguson speaks on the cultural consequences of the recent tsunami of migrants and purported refugees from Muslim countries into Europe, the heart of what used to be called Christendom. That civilization, he claims, may not be around by the end of the century – or it may have changed so much that it’s unrecognizable. The United States, with its rapidly growing Islamic population and influx of illegal aliens across our southern border, is facing a similar demographic transformation.

But we are facing a more significant threat by way of a subversive ideological assault. “The threat from within comes from the people who want to undermine the basis of Western civilization,” says journalist Melanie Phillips. She points out that the Baby Boomer generation was heavily influenced by the political philosopher Antonio Gramsci, who urged revolutionaries to infiltrate the organs of culture – the media, academia, entertainment – and “turn the mind of the West against itself.” That infiltration and indoctrination, as others in the documentary discuss, has been shockingly successful, particularly in our educational institutions.

Attorney Alan Dershowitz, for example, decries “the light fog of fascism which seems to be descending on the universities” and which poses a tremendous danger for the future of Western values. “In universities there is almost a kind of an intellectual masochism, the sense that we should not be proud of the values that we stand for, that we even need to engage in a kind of a ritual self-flagellation,” says Kenneth L. Marcus from the Louis D. Brandeis Center. “There is too little in our universities being taught about what the admirable aspects of the Western tradition are,” declares Jeffrey Herf of the University of Maryland.

The influence of multiculturalism, as historian Victor Davis Hanson and The Lawfare Project’s Brooke Goldstein point out, has resulted in a moral relativism and a chilling effect on free speech, as any criticism of non-Western cultures is now deemed to be hate speech. Raheel Raza of the Council for Muslims Facing Tomorrow points out the inconvenient truth that not all cultures are created equal; a culture which subjects homosexuals to grisly executions and women to female genital mutilation and honor killings is not on the same moral plane as one which defends individual rights, freedom, and gender equality. But that’s an unacceptable judgment to make in our relativistic culture now.

Speakers such as the Tikvah Fund’s Ruth Wisse, McGill University’s Philip Carl Salzman, and myself address how identity politics has fragmented society into tribal conflicts among races and between the sexes.  Radical feminism, for example, is carrying out an assault on gender relations and masculinity that has contributed to the breakdown of the family unit, an alarming decline of the birth rate in the West, and an emasculated society that is too timid to defend itself from the threat of an aggressively male-dominated Islamic sub-culture within the West, a culture which is outbreeding us.

The Hoover Institution’s Ayaan Hirsi Ali and TBN host and terrorism expert Erick Stakelbeck, among others, discuss the danger of refusing to identify Islam as a supremacist ideology intent on destroying the West and establishing a worldwide caliphate in its place. Meanwhile, such authorities as the Simon Wiesenthal Center’s Shimon Samuels and the Freedom Center’s Raymond Ibrahim state that a literal genocide is being waged in the Middle East against Christians and Jews, who are targeted even in Europe and the United States as well, while the West wrestles impotently with self-loathing and willful blindness.

There is much more to this documentary. With The Fight of Our Lives, Gloria Greenfield has created a riveting and disturbing, but ultimately enlightening and inspirational, clarion call for the Western world to wake up and reverse its decadent course before it’s too late. Its urgent message is one that deserves as wide an audience as possible.

In the film, Niall Ferguson recalls Edmund Burke’s observation that civilization is a pact between the dead, the living, and the yet unborn. I cannot stress enough how important it is to view The Fight of Our Lives, take its message to heart, and honor that pact by standing up when and where you can in defense of the West.

For more information on the film, the filmmakers, and the featured commentators, click here.