The Official Blog Of Edward Cline

Month: December 2015 Page 1 of 2

“The Absence of Facts” in the War on Terror

“Mr. Keyes, I’m a Medford man. Medford, Oregon. If I say it,
I mean it. If I mean it, of course I’ll swear to it.” Double Indemnity, 1944

Except that any fashioner or overseer of military
and civilian threat analysis could never swear to anything in a court of law or
during a Congressional committee hearing, because he would invariably perjure
himself. So he would hedge behind a well-rehearsed litany of presuppositions
and assumptions.
Continuing a column on “Our Ignorance” from Stephen
Coughlin’s Catastrophic
Failure
: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad
(pp. 443-484), from Institutionalized
Ignorance of Islam
, I will focus here on the rendering of language and
words to meaninglessness by Army writing guides discussed by Stephen Coughlin
in “Our Ignorance.” I thought a Socratic exposition of the subject would better
drive home the point over a straight narrative.
 ________________________________________________________________________

In a fictive, imaginary setting, a
House or Senate committee hearing member, identified here as the Interrogator, in full possession of his
faculty of reason, might challenge the “expert witness” about what he knows and
what he claims he knows – or doesn’t
know. The hearing has been convened to examine the reason why the nation’s “War
on Terror” has not prevented the commission of terrorist acts in the U.S., and
is in general ineffectual.
The
Witness, a captain in a U.S. Army
counter-intelligence unit, has just finished delivering an opening statement
about how his unit conducts threat analyses and contributes to the government’s
ability to fight the “War on Terror.” He reads the conclusion of his statement:
Witness: Our recommendations and
conclusions are then forwarded to the next echelon of threat assessment evaluation
with the best assumptions and presuppositions underscored and emphasized, which
subsume all possible likelihoods  and
scenarios concerning the enemy’s next activity. Our highly combed assumptions
and presuppositions have played no little role in projecting anticipated enemy
activity, and enabled us to counter hypothetical but very significant threats.
Often, facts play a role in the final assessment.
The
Interrogator replies: Assumptions
and presuppositions are not admissible evidence, sir, neither as sworn
testimony nor in depositions. We need to know why our counter- and
anti-terrorism efforts have been salutary failures. You have already
acknowledged that they are failures. Please state facts. Facts constitute
evidence, not suppositions, presuppositions, or assumptions.
Witness: As I know them? As I see them?
Interrogator: No. As they are. You say facts often have a place in a final
assessment. Shouldn’t they always? Shouldn’t they be the center point in any
assessment, forecast, or prediction?
Witness:  [Scoffs in reply] Begging your pardon, but we
can’t be sure that they are factual.
We can only assume or suppose that they’re raw, unrefined approximations of
things as they really are, which we, as human beings susceptible to error and
fallibility, can’t know. That’s what facts
are. This is especially true…I mean, applicable…concerning human actions and
psychology. We in the services – or in the FBI, and the CIA, or DHS, or the
Pentagon, and so on – are proud to admit that we don’t pretend to know
anything. Anything at all…about this, I mean.
Interrogator: About who or what causes
terrorism? So, you’re saying you can’t know the truth, because facts are
finicky, Heraclitean things, you can’t depend on them to be true all the time?
Witness: [Blinks
in confusion.] Excuse me, sir?
Interrogator: Heraclitus, a
pre-Socratic philosopher. He claimed that things are never the same from moment
to moment. Like a river. That’s a Heraclitean notion of yours, claiming that
facts only occasionally play a role in your assessments and have little or no
bearing on the truth. You insinuate that truths are chimerical. You have little
use for them.
Witness: Oh….
Interrogator: As for truth, or true, I think a definition is in order
at this point. [Opens a book on his dais.] From Black’s
Law Dictionary
, sixth edition: “True – conformable to fact; correct;
exact; actual; honest. In one sense, that only is ‘true’ which is conformable
to the actual state of things.” [Puts the book aside.]
Witness: Well…It’s true about our not
knowing everything about terrorism.
Interrogator: Are you certain of that, sir? Would you swear to that? Honestly, sir, you should
be embarrassed to have such a position, while I find it disgraceful. [Grins,
and shakes his head.] Never mind. Go on.
Witness: It’s a complicated issue, a
frustrating task. There are so many variables, and motives, and causes, and
interpretations. It’s very difficult to fix a vector on motives or to triangulate
causes, often impossible to, although it’s our job to. But we can’t pin
terrorism on one single cause. It’s unfair 
and highly presumptuous to blame Islam or ISIS or other jihadist organizations
for terrorism. It is policy that any analysis submitted by a subordinate that
relies exclusively on Islamic motives and perverse interpretations of Islam is
symptomatic of Islamophobia. The subordinate is then either disciplined or removed
from the program and transferred elsewhere.
Interrogator: I think, sir, that had we
relied on your assessment of Japanese
strengths
and intentions after Pearl Harbor, we would still be fighting
that war, or lost it.
Witness: I am sorry, sir, that you have
such a low opinion of our work.
Interrogator: As am I. Sir, I have here
a Qur’an, which I have read almost in
its entirety and in which I have attached Post-its to pages that contain what
are called “violent verses.” That is, the ones that call for killing or enslaving
non-Muslims, encouraging brutal and bestial behavior towards non-Muslims, and
in general waging war on them. And, by extension, on us. [Interrogator holds
aloft a Qur’an, then puts it down.] I
asked my staff to cull those verses from the Qur’an and print them out for easier reference. There are about one
hundred and sixty-four or sixty-five such verses, out of a total of over
six thousand verses
. These violent verses, which are quite
explicit
in their wording and intent, and, I have read, are frequently
linked to verses, anecdotes, or  Sunnah
in the Hadith. [Interrogator picks up a sheaf of paper and wafts it in the air.]
This is the printout of the violent verses.
I have had a copy of the printout made for you. [Indicates to a committee
clerk to give the Witness the
printout.] The Hadith will
not be a subject of discussion here, although I voice my own assumption that
you and members your unit, sir, are more familiar with the it than I wish to
be. And, it should go without saying, with the Qur’an.
Witness: [Giving a cursory glance at
the pages handed to him by a clerk.] Thank you, sir, for the pages here. Many
of the verses listed here I recognize instantly. But they have all been
mis-interpreted all out of proportion to their original intent. They have
nothing to do with Islam.
Interrogator: [Scoffing with incredulity.]
The terrorists beg your pardon, sir, but in virtually every instance of
terrorism in this country, regardless of the organization, the perpetrators
have either quoted one or more of these verses, or it was learned that they had
been cued or prompted by certain of these verses. They have everything to do
with Islam. That is a fact. Moreover, the violent verses, I have read from
authorities and scholars on the subject of the Qur’an, abrogated or replaced earlier ones that were more in line
with the Judeo-Christian ethic of kindness, tolerance, and forgiveness.
Witness: Misinterpretations of these
verses separate the terrorists from the authentic Islam, sir. We do not
formulate our analyses and hypotheses on what is in the Qur’an. That is distinctly against overall policy. We construct our
analyses based on how we think many
of the verses have been misconstrued by terrorists.
Interrogator: You don’t take the
violent verses literally, as they were written?
Witness: No, sir. That would be against
policy. It would be in error. We look for individualized interpretations unique
to a person to formulate a threat analysis based on what we think is or was meant.
Interrogator: What
you’re saying, then, is that a verse that goes [Interrogator picks up his own copy of the violent verses and reads
from it] “The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle and strive to make mischief in the land is
only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their
feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned.” That’s
verse five colon thirty-three, and it means something entirely different?  Or, “They wish that you should disbelieve as
they disbelieve, and then you would be equal; therefore take not to yourselves
friends of them, until they emigrate in the way of Allah; then, if they turn
their backs, take them, and slay them wherever you find them; take not to
yourselves any one of them as friend or helper.” That’s from verse four colon
eighty-nine. Or, “Fight in the way of with those who fight with you. And kill
them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out,
and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the
Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then
slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers,” verses two colon
one-hundred-ninety and ninety-one.” That doesn’t mean what it says, and you’re
suggesting that it might be a hidden metaphor for a Betty Crocker recipe? [Almost
all the spectators in the room chuckle discreetly, some not so discreetly.]
Witness: I can understand your
confusion, sir, but I see no point in introducing levity into this discussion.
Interrogator: Forgive me, sir, but the
absurdity of what you are insinuating in your answers invites some levity. Do
not the words in those and in other violent verses mean what they say? Were the
compilers of those verses master cryptologists? If not, and if something else is
meant that is radically different from what we can read, why did not the
compilers just come out say what the best way was to fix a falafel?  [Again,
subdued laughter is heard in the chambers.]
Witness: I don’t know, sir. We have put
together some very unfunny scenarios
based on our projected moves the enemy might make.
Interrogator: I’m sure you have. But,
taken altogether, sir, when you read these verses, and see that they conform to
the actions taken by the terrorists, and to what their stated and iterated
overall goal is, which is to impose Sharia or Islamic law on non-Muslims or
unbelievers, to establish a Caliphate in this and in other countries – is that
what is called in your circles a doctrine,
or a philosophy of war? The verses cannot be taken to mean anything other than
what they literally say, at face value, at face meaning. The doctrine is there in plain sight. What
stops you from formulating a reciprocal doctrine, one that has the virtue of
working, and which is based on reality, and not on what one expert on this subject
– I believe his name is Stephen Coughlin – has called a pseudoreality? That is, with a projected threat analysis that does names
the enemy and is based on facts, on reality? It seems to me that the simplest
policy of your department would be to take the terrorists at their word, and
formulate an answering doctrine. Wouldn’t you agree?
Witness: It isn’t as simple as that,
sir. There are other considerations to take into account when refining a threat
analysis to send up the pike.
Interrogator: What
other considerations?
Witness: [After some throat-clearing
and a glass of water, the captain replied.] Well….one is that our conclusions
and assessments must agree in a general sense with those of our superiors,
first with majors and colonels up the line, and then with generals and
higher-up civilian overseers in the State Department, and the Joint Chiefs, and
so forth. If our products don’t mesh with their assessments, they throw it all
back in our faces
Interrogator: [A moment passes.] Tell
me, sir: Are you happy with that situation? With your work? By that I mean that
in large part your analyses only occasionally employ facts, and that they are
what can only and loosely be called fabrications and excursions into pseudoreality, on which our national
security and so many lives depend? Are you satisfied that you are adhering to
your oath to defend this country?
The
Witness remains silent, but is
obviously uncomfortable. He looks away from the dais.
The
Interrogator repeats his questions.
The
Witness remains silent. Looks around
the chamber with a stubborn expression.
Interrogator: You
may plead the Fifth if you are reluctant to answer, sir. [Laughter in the
chamber. He adds another remark.] You may avert your eyes and your mind from
the questions, sir. I believe a great philosopher called such behavior
“blanking out.” I think we are finished with you here.
The
Interrogator turns to other
committee members, and asks if any of them have questions for the Witness. The others shake their heads.
Interrogator: The committee is finished
with this Witness.  He is dismissed. The hearing will take a
fifteen-minute recess, and reconvene to hear our second Witness.
The
captain leaves hastily amidst a general hubbub, brusquely refusing to answer
reporters’ questions and queries from some of his colleagues, and hurriedly exits
the chamber.
When
the hearing reconvenes, a new Witness,
a first lieutenant in the same Army counter-intelligence unit, is seated at the
table. After he is sworn in and identifies himself, and advised of the
seriousness of his testimony, including the consequences of perjury, he
recounts his career service, and at the end makes an opening statement.
Witness: If it pleases the committee, I
have brought with me a document that will confirm the testimony of the previous
Witness. I wish my testimony be focused on this document. [Witness rests hand atop a pile of purple-colored books.]
Interrogator: We shall see about that.
And what document is it, sir?
Witness: It is the Joint
Operation Planning
manual, Joint Publication five-point-naught, issued
by the Joint Chiefs in August 2011.
Interrogator:  Has it been updated since then?
Witness:  No, sir, not since October 2010. I have brought
copies of it for the committee to peruse. [The Witness asks a clerk to hand the Interrogator and other committee members the copies. This is done. The Interrogator leafs through the manual.
He exclaims.] What a morass of mealy-mouthed bureaucratese! [Continues leafing
through the manual. Stops.] Ah! Here’s an interesting term, “Center of Gravity,”
or COG. Sir, would you mind reading that aloud for the record? It’s under “Executive
Summary, Elements of Operational Design,” Roman numeral page x-x-i.
Witness: [Turns to the page, reads.] “A
COG is a source of power that provides moral or physical strength, freedom of
action, or will to act. An objective is always linked to a COG. In identifying
COGs it is important to remember that irregular warfare focuses on legitimacy
and influence over a population, unlike traditional warfare, which employs
direct military confrontation to defeat an adversary’s armed forces, destroy an
adversary’s war-making capacity, or seize or retain territory to force a change
in an adversary’s  government or
policies.”
Interrogator: Thank you. COG. The “Center
of Gravity.” Sir, would you say that was descriptive euphemism for a doctrine? It covers all the essentials
of understanding one’s enemy’s means and ends.
Witness: In the short-term, yes, I would
call that a doctrine. The term “moral strength” I think is a discreet term for a
doctrine unique to Islam, or a prudent reference to it.
Interrogator: I agree. Say, rather, it
is a singularly circumspect term for Sharia. [He leafs through the manual.]
Also, I notice that the preferred term throughout is “adversary.” Is “enemy”
too strong a word for whom they’re discussing? These are generals, war-fighters.
[To himself.] Maybe they’re better golfers than they are generals.
Witness: I noticed that, too. I can’t answer
your question, sir.
Interrogator: Now, on to what you
wished us to focus on.
Witness: Please direct your attention to
Roman number Part Four, pages seven and eight, on the section on “assumptions.”
The wording in the 2011 edition is similar to that of the 2010 and 2006
editions of the manual. It is under the heading, “Determine Known Facts and
Develop Planning Assumptions.” The differences in wording are slight. I think
this is important to bring to your attention. The term “assumption” occurs
numerous times throughout the manual. But in the discussion of assumptions on
the cited pages, there is a serious qualification which I think merits your attention,
as well, because it affects every statement in the manual that employs the term.
Interrogator: [He has found the page
and reads it.] I see what you mean, sir. Please read it aloud for the record.
Witness:  “An assumption provides a supposition about
the current situation or future course of events, assumed to be true in the absence of facts. Assumptions that
address gaps in knowledge are critical for the planning process to continue.
For planning purposes, subordinate commanders can treat assumptions made by
higher headquarters as true in the absence of proof to the contrary. However,
they should challenge those assumptions if they appear unrealistic. Assumptions
must be continually reviewed to ensure validity. A valid assumption has three
characteristics: logical, realistic, and essential for the planning to continue.
Assumptions are made for both friendly and adversary situations.”
Interrogator: I see what you mean, sir.
“Assumed to be true in the absence of
facts
”? That is an astounding confession of moral and cognitive
decrepitude. Just because a general says so, you’re to go ahead and implement
his plan which is based on an absence of facts?? Just on his say-so?  On his gussied up, three-star conjecture? It’s
curious that the statement is highlighted in bold. [Pauses.] How often do you
subordinates challenge the assumptions of the higher-ups?
Witness: [Replies meekly.] Not very
often, sir. But, I would also like to direct your attention to the Glossary,
page GL dash five. It’s a qualification – or an emendation – to the entry on “assumption.”
Interrogator: [With other committee
members, turns to the Glossary. The Interrogator
scans the entry.] Please read it for the record.
Witness: [Reading from the manual.] “Assumption.
A supposition on the current situation or a presupposition on the future course
of events, either or both assumed to be true in the absence of positive proof, necessary to enable the commander in the
process of planning to complete an estimate of the situation and make a decision
on the course of action.” 

Interrogator: An “absence of
positive proof
”?? [Shrugging, and gesturing with his hands.] But, it means
the same thing as an “absence of facts”! It just isn’t as starkly brazen a way
of saying the same thing. It’s what Mr. Sheridan would call “puffery.” But I’m not
sure right now which category the phrase would fit into. I may have to
invent a new one.
Witness: Sir?
Interrogator:  [Waving a hand.] Never mind. I was
thinking of that play, The Critic.
Tell me, sir: How often do you review assumptions to check their validity?
Witness: Too often, sir. It’s like a
dog chasing its own tail. Nothing ever comes of it. However, our commander discourages reviews.         
Interrogator: You have my sympathies. [Studies the Witness for a moment. He snaps the
manual shut.] If it pleases the committee, I would like to adjourn this hearing
until tomorrow. I need to take this document home to read and examine more
closely. I would advise the committee to do the same. We should reconvene at
ten a.m. [Addressing the Witness.]
Sir, please make yourself available to continue your testimony. Thank you for
your illuminating insights. I’m sure you have many more to convey.

Witness: Yes, sir. I do.
Interrogator: This hearing is adjourned until ten a.m. tomorrow.

            [General hubbub of people rising,
talking, and leaving.]
 ________________________________________________________________________


Many thanks to Stephen Coughlin for the chance to pen this brief drama.

Catastrophic
Failure
: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad
, by Stephen Coughlin. Washington DC: Center
for Security Policy Press, 2015. 788 pp.

The Islamic Candidate?

I commented on a Daniel Greenfield FrontPage column
of December 24th, “Muslim
Immigration is Exactly What ISIS Wants
.” In it, Greenfield argues that ISIS
wants to send thousands of its “fighters” to Europe and especially to the U.S.,
for the purpose of establishing operational bases for terrorism.
Agreeing
with everything said by Mr. Greenfield concerning ISIS’s tactics and overall
strategy, a crucial question is: Because Obama wants to bring in tens of
thousands of Muslim “refugees,” and knows damned well there will be
scores of ISIS agents among them, is this what he wants? Is he acting as an
agent for ISIS? …I can posit an answer, but this is a question which would
naturally occur to anyone observing Obama’s actions and statements.
And that has been over the years, at least seven of
them. In June 2008 I penned a five-part commentary on the rise of Barack Obama,
“The Year of the Long Knives,” which is accessible here.
(That series does not mention Islam or Muslims even once.  It dwells chiefly on the mooning crush on Obama
our decrepit “aristocracy of money” has exhibited.) In this column I am
positing an answer. It is purely speculative.
If it smacks of a “conspiracy theory,” so be it.
Because, after all, what exactly is a “conspiracy”? It is a plan, a long-range one,
featuring many shadowy co-conspirators and their dupes and dogberries, together
with secret funding and a knack for devious dissimulation. The term “conspiracy
theory” has garnered the dubious distinction of being the exclusive preserve of
garden variety kooks and of men who wear aluminum foil hats to better
communicate with the aliens who are working with the Rosicrucians allied with
the Elders of Zion to take over the earth.
And if there are observable, plausible, demonstrable
dots to connect which, when connected, begin to show the outline and elements
of a “conspiracy,” then one has a “theory.” Then the task is to pursue the
devil in the details. Sometimes a conspiracy theory is structurally sound but
empty of evidentiary details; other times there is, as Stephen Coughlin put it
in Catastrophic
Failure
,
“…a
tremendous amount of raw data. We denature it, break it into data bits, and
pour it into a soft-science mold….The data on which our understanding is should
have been based now serves only to buttress whichever theory is in vogue.” (p.
453).
In short, the conspiracy theory may be rich in
details but have no credible, realistic structure. It may be a thousand-piece
jigsaw puzzle of blanks on which one can spray-paint any image but that of
Islam.
However, there is
a conspiracy afoot – one that has been walking the walk for many years –
perhaps not even beginning with the Muslim Brotherhood’s description in the 1991
Explanatory
Memorandum
of how to corrupt and take over America and the West, but even
before that, say, in 1928 with the formation of the Muslim Brotherhood by Hassan
al-Banna
. Or in 1964 with the publication of Milestones
by Sayyid Qutb, a
Brotherhood member, whose advocacy of an incremental introduction of Sharia law
is followed “religiously” by his successors.
In Obama’s case, I do not think it is so much a
conspiracy with ISIS and Al-Qaeda, with the Muslim Brotherhood, with CAIR, with
the ISNA, and with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), as it is a
simpatico, symmetrical, ideological marriage made in hell. Islam is
totalitarian; and hates America. Obama’s leftist ideology is totalitarian, and
hates America. The alliance of the Left and Islam is a matter of record. Of
course they would exploit each other’s grand plan to bring down America.  But I doubt very much there is buried email
correspondence or communications between the White House and, say, Abu Bakr
al-Baghdadi
, the leader of the Islamic State, or anything like Hillary
Clinton’s surreptitious emails over Benghazi and her hidden bathroom email
server.
So, I don’t think Obama is our “Islamic Candidate,”
in the way of the half-witted character in 1962’s The Manchurian Candidate.
He was the garrulous,  buffoonish
husband, John Yerkes Iselin, played by James Gregory, of the power-lusting mistress
of manipulation, played by Angela Lansbury (any resemblance in character
between Mrs. Eleanor Shaw Iselin and Hillary Clinton is startlingly
appropriate). She plotted to have his presidential running mate assassinated by
her own son so her husband could take his place as the presidential candidate
and very likely win the White House, where she would be the power in the Oval
Office.
Obama, however, is not a half-wit; he knows what
he’s doing. He has stayed the course of his collectivist agenda ever since
entering politics. He’s shrewd, deceitful, glibly articulate, and a master of
insouciance. That is my kinder description of him. But, is he Putin’s poodle?
Bill Clinton’s gofer? Hillary Clinton’s whipping boy? George Soros’s puppet? Or
Islam’s useful idiot? Or is he just a “lone wolf” executive
jihadi
? I can’t think of a single policy action of his, including the
immigration issue, that hasn’t if not immediately benefited the advance of
Islam, later came home to roost.
So, is what ISIS wants, what Obama wants? Those
reams of unintegrated data possibly presented to him in his morning security
briefings – which Obama may or may not take seriously or even bother to read –
must inform him of ISIS plans to infiltrate into the country with hordes of
Syrian “refugees,” and across the border from Mexico. If we, the public he
wishes to deceive, are aware of these facts, can he not be, regardless of the
accuracy and truth, or lack of such, in the information presented at his
briefings? How can Obama not know
what is going on?
I would say, yes, he knows. He has met with
prominent Muslim figures overseas – who knows what was said between him and
them behind closed doors? – when he met with Saudi
kings
and when he met with officials at Cairo
University
in 2009 and delivered his pro-Islam
speech
. His foreign policy agencies are top-heavy with “moderate” Muslims,
all vetted with so-called security clearances. There are probably more Muslims in
Obama’s administration than there were Communists and fellow travelers in
Roosevelt’s. This cannot be as simple an issue of politically correct hiring policies
– “we mustn’t be beastly or discriminatory towards harmless American Muslims!” –
but rather a signature characteristic of Obama’s administration.
Greenfield’s argument about how Muslim immigration
benefits ISIS (and all the other implicated Islamic entities) is that the more
Muslims are settled in Western countries, and especially in the U.S., the more
potent their presence as colonizers and permanent “settlers” and as
fifth-column type terrorists, ready to go into action once their jihadi psyche
is triggered on orders from afar, or eclectically as individuals. Anything that
enlarges the Ummah, or the global
Islamic collective, benefits the Islamic Movement, even if it’s only a small
pocket of Somalis in Cheyenne, Wyoming. However, writes Greenfield:
The
ritualistic “Why do they hate us” browbeating favored by the chattering classes
is nonsense. Al Qaeda hated us because we were not Muslims. But it was only
using us as the hated “other” to consolidate a collective Muslim identity. We
are to Islamists what the Jews were to Hitler; a useful scapegoat whose
otherness can be used to manufacture a contrasting pure Aryan or Islamic
identity….
No
dialogue is possible with an ideology whose virtue is premised on seeing you as
utterly evil….
ISIS doesn’t plan to defeat
America through acts of terrorism. The plan for defeating America, like every
other country, Muslim or non-Muslim, is to build a domestic Muslim terror
movement that will be able to hold territory and swear allegiance to the
Islamic State….
ISIS does not plan to defeat
America with terror plots. But those plots will eventually accumulate into an
organized domestic terror organization. An Islamic State in America based
around a majority Muslim town or neighborhood with its own leader pledging
allegiance to the Caliph of the Islamic State.
Dearborn, Michigan comes to mind. Greenfield:
Any
Muslim plans for expanding into the West depend on Muslim immigration. Whether
it’s ISIS or its Muslim Brotherhood ancestor, or any of the other Islamist
organizations and networks, they all require manpower. Some of that manpower
will be provided by high Muslim birth rates, but it won’t be nearly enough, not
for a country the size of America, without a large annual flow of Muslim
migrants.
We
are told that halting Muslim immigration would only encourage Muslim terrorism.
But our open door to Muslim immigration certainly hasn’t stopped terrorism.
Instead it has increased it by providing reinforcements to the terrorists. If
we can’t stop Muslim terrorism with the population we have now, how are we
going to manage it if the Islamic population continues doubling and even
tripling?
ISIS doesn’t need to be “offended” by a call to
halt Muslim immigration to the U.S. to launch terrorist attacks. It already has
a plan, a doctrine, and an open conspiracy, as explained in that notorious Explanatory Memorandum from 1991:
“The
process of settlement is a ‘Civilization-Jihadist Process’ with all the word
means. The Ikhwan [Muslim Brotherhood] must understand that their work in
America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization
from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands
of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious
over all other religions.”
If Obama was ever Muslim Brotherhood friendly – and
he certainly hailed the triumph of Mohamed Morsi and the
Brotherhood in Egypt, and even, with
Hillary Clinton
, contributed to Morsi’s rise, albeit it lasted only
a year
– he had to have had knowledge of the Explanatory Memorandum. He has to know that the Brotherhood’s
overall doctrine, which is identical to ISIS’s, and CAIR’s, and the OIC’s, is
to impose Sharia on the West and most particularly on the U.S.
Further on ISIS’s preference for an enabled
immigration of Muslims, Greenfield notes:
Even
if we defeat ISIS tomorrow, Al Qaeda and other Islamist groups descended from
the Muslim Brotherhood will continue pursuing the same goals. And they will
rely on the Muslim population in the United States to provide them with money,
supplies, cover and an infrastructure for terrorism. 
ISIS
can’t defeat us with terror attacks. The only hope for an enduring Islamic
victory over America is through the rise of domestic groups that pledge
allegiance to the Caliphate. ISIS can’t invade America. It has to be invited
in. That’s what our immigration policy does. Trump isn’t a threat to national
security. Muslim immigration is….
Muslim
immigration is the Islamic State’s only hope for victory over America.
In terms of imposing Sharia law on the U.S., it is
also the hope of the Muslim Brotherhood, the OIC, and CAIR, among all the other
Islamic front groups now in the country.
Earlier, I mentioned George Soros. No conspiracy
theories need be fashioned where he is concerned. He has openly supported
Obama’s program to “transform” the country and has meddled in no little way to
steer U.S. foreign policy to his liking, which has been the diminution of American
influence and the reduction of the country into a Balkanized collection of
warring pressure, religious, and ethnic groups. His “rap sheet” on Discover
the Networks
is several pages long. Obama was certainly Soros’s preferred
candidate. This is described in New York Magazine’s October 2007 article, “Money
Chooses Sides
.”
The
investment banker Robert Wolf first met Barack Obama one afternoon in December
in a midtown conference room. Obama was in town to deliver a speech at a
charity dinner for children in poverty at the Mandarin Oriental—but also to
pursue another, less high-minded, but more momentous, objective: to begin the
process of attempting to pick Hillary Clinton’s pocket.
The
conference room belonged to George Soros, the billionaire bête noire of the
right. After talking to Soros for an hour about his prospective bid for the
White House, Obama walked down the hall and found assembled a dozen of the
city’s heaviest-hitting Democratic fund-raisers: investment banker Hassan
Nemazee, Wall Street power Blair Effron, private-equity hotshot Mark Gallogly,
hedge-fund manager Orin Kramer. Most had been big-time John Kerry backers in
2004. Most had a connection to the Clintons. All were officially uncommitted
for 2008.
I have no idea why the author of the article, John Heilemann, would characterize Soros
as “the billionaire bête noire of the right,” when Soros is of the global government
left.  But then journalists from the left
usually see any billionaire as a right-wing, knuckle-dragging fascist. And Heilemann
has a master’s degree from the John
F. Kennedy School
of Government at Harvard, which can explain his
confusion. Further, it is billionaires like Soros, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet,
Mark Zuckerberg, and others who have become the voluble vanguard of global
socialism.
Is Soros a conspirator? I think so. In his role as
a spread-the-wealth, Yes-you-built-that-but-we’re-going-to-take-it-anyway
gadfly, he has spoken against national borders. This was revealed in a November
Breitbart article, “Soros
Admits Involvement in Migrant Crisis
.” In response to Hungarian Prime
Minister Viktor Orban’s accusation that Soros was one of the movers behind the
hordes of migrants crossing European borders, Soros sent an email:
Mr.
Soros has now issued an email statement to Bloomberg Business, claiming
his foundations help “uphold European values”, while Mr. Oban’s actions in
strengthening the Hungarian border and stopping a huge migrant influx
“undermine those values.”
“His
plan treats the protection of national borders as the objective and the
refugees as an obstacle,” Mr. Soros added. “Our plan treats the protection of
refugees as the objective and national borders as the obstacle.”
Yes, national borders are obstacles. Aside from
helping define the character of a nation, they also serve the same purpose as
fences, doors, windows, and locks, which help to frustrate trespassers,
burglars, home invaders, and other predators. It is a nation’s
identity
that Soros wants to erase.
In 2006, FrontPage
interviewed Richard Poe, the co-author of The
Shadow Party:
How George Soros, Hillary Clinton, and Sixties Radicals
Seized Control of the Democratic Party
. Among other things, Poe said:
The
Shadow Party is always changing.  New groups form and old ones dissolve.
For instance, America Coming Together — which raised $135 million for Democrat
get-out-the-vote drives in 2004 – has been mothballed, at least for now. 
The most active Shadow Party groups today are probably the Center for American
Progress, America Votes, Democracy Alliance, the New Democrat Network, the New
Politics Institute, ACORN and, of course, MoveOn.org.
In
his new book The Age of Fallibility,
Soros writes, “The main obstacle to a
stable and just world order is the United States
.”  He announced in 2003 that it is
necessary to “puncture the bubble of American supremacy.”  Soros is
working systematically to achieve that goal. (Italics mine)
So is Obama. Is this why Soros backed Obama’s run
for the presidency? He certainly placed the right bet. But did Soros also see Obama
as an ideal Islamic Candidate as long ago as 2007? Doubtless. Soros’s role in
the mass invasion of Europe didn’t show until there was resistance to his “open
society
/open borders” notion began to manifest itself, especially in
Eastern Europe.
As Pamela Geller reports in her October Atlas
Shrugs article, “World
Leader SLAMS George Soros for promoting, funding ‘migrant’ invasion
”:
His
tentacles are everywhere. Muslim migrants arriving in Europe are given a
‘migrants handbook’ packed with tips, maps, phone numbers and advice about
getting across Europe. The “rough guide” contains phone numbers of organizations
which might help refugees. The ‘rough guide’ is written in Arabic and contains
phone numbers of organizations which will help refugees making the journey,
such as the Red Cross and UNHCR. The “Rough Guide”, being printed and
distributed by the Soros “Open Society”
group “W2eu” or “Welcome to the
EU”, Foundations, has activists handing out these guides for free in Turkey.
And
how can one account for all the cell phones, tennis shoes, clothing, backpacks,
and other personal items carried by the thousands of healthy male “refugees”
posing as impoverished Syrians fleeing the chaos of the Syrian civil war, or from
Libya, Somalia, and the Balkans? Too likely these were also distributed free by
Soros through Open Society or some other NGO he controls.
In
conclusion, I would mark Barack Obama as every Islamic collectivist’s perfect
candidate to help advance Islam in the West and around the world. That may or may
not be Soros’s religious cup of tea, but I don’t think it would make any difference
to him who or what dissolves the West in the name of whatever fantasy world he
imagines the world ought to be. That is the nature of the poisonous, maleficent
ball of glop that is Soros’s “soul,” which only a Fyodor Dostoyevsky would have the fortitude to examine in
depth.
And,
because so much of Obama’s past is either closed to
scrutiny
(e.g., his not releasing much information about his academic
career) or off limits to any kind of “shovel-ready” investigating reporting.
Only
Obama knows for sure whether or not he is “The Islamic Candidate.” And his
actions, speeches, and policies over the last seven years are certainly not
calculated to discourage the idea.

Institutionalized Ignorance of Islam

A typical modern critic was as likely to grasp or report the
substance of a book – good  or bad, and
whether or not he liked it or approved of it – as it was that a chimpanzee would
appreciate a thermometer. He’d worry it, nibble on it, look through it, try to
clean his ears with it, or use it to fish for maggots.
Private Detective Chess Hanrahan, in Honors
Due
(2011)
In October 2014, Mark Tapson published on FrontPage
a review of an online document which qualifies as an enemy’s threat doctrine.
It was reprinted on The Counter
Jihad Report
.
In
the spring of 2004 a strategist who called himself Abu Bakr Naji
published online The Management of Savagery: The Most Critical Stage Through
Which the Ummah Will Pass
(later translated from the Arabic by William
McCants, a fellow at West Point’s Combating Terrorism Center). The book – what
the Washington Post calls
the Mein Kampf of jihad – aimed to provide a strategy
for al-Qaeda and other jihadists. “The ideal of this movement,”
wrote Lawrence Wright in The New Yorker, “as its theorists saw
it, was the establishment of a caliphate that would lead to the purification of
the Muslim world.”
By that Naji doubtless meant a planet that has been
conquered by Islam, scoured clean of all unbelievers, with the Ummah lording it
over what few recalcitrant infidels have survived, all the others having been
made extinct. What astounded many was the unabashed endorsement of such savagery
as a military policy by Naji.
The manifesto proposes that
the jihadists exhaust an overstretched America through a patient war of
attrition and a manipulation of the media to dismantle the superpower’s “aura
of invincibility.” It demands that the enemy be made to “pay the price” for any
and all attacks carried out against the jihadists, even if the retribution
takes years, in order to instill in the enemy “a sense of hopelessness that
will cause him to seek reconciliation.” No mercy must be shown: “Our enemies
will not be merciful to us if they seize us. Thus, it behooves us to make them
think one thousand times before attacking us.”
Shocking violence is a key
element of that strategy. “The beheadings and the violence practiced by [the
Islamic State] are not whimsical, crazed fanaticism, but a very deliberate,
considered strategy,” writes British
analyst Alastair Crooke
. “The seemingly random violence has a precise
purpose: It’s [sic] aim is to strike huge fear; to break the psychology of a
people.” For example, Naji recommends that in instances in which hostage
demands are not met, “the hostages should be liquidated in a terrifying manner,
which will send fear into the hearts of the enemy and his supporters.”
Naji believed that “we need
to massacre” others as Muslims did after the death of Muhammad. “We must make
this battle very violent,” the book says.
“If we are not violent in our jihad and if softness seizes us, that will be a
major factor in the loss of the element of strength.”
In short, there is a method to the madness, a cold,
calculated purpose to the savagery of ISIS, which did not exist at the time
“Management of Savagery” was published. ISIS’s alias is Al-Qaeda. However, ISIS
and Islam are names President Barack Obama is reluctant to pronounce in public,
which ingloriously but appropriately reflects the nature of our inept and misdirected
warfighting policy against ISIS in particular, and against Islam in general. As
though to underscore the fact that Islam radically re-defines Western terms so
that they mean the opposite of what is understood, Naji clarifies what he means
by the term “mercy”:
Some
may be surprised when we say that the religious practice of jihad despite the
blood, corpses, and limbs which encompass it and the killing and fighting which
its practice entails is among the most blessed acts of worship for the servants…
Jihad is the most merciful of the methods for all created things and the most
sparing of the spilling of blood.
Tapson reveals the “stage” or “phase” policy of
Naji’s overall strategy. It comports with Stephen Coughlin’s insistence, in Catastrophic
Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of JIhad
, that to effectively
fight the enemy, one must first grasp and integrate into one’s own warfighting
doctrine a sound knowledge of that of the enemy.
It is immediately apparent
from reading it that the logic of the work and the worldview of the author is [sic] significantly different from that
familiar to many in the West. The structure is both more circular and
multi-active than linear and sequential, and the world is viewed through an
Islamic and eschatological lens. This is important because although beating
ISIS militarily may be straightforward, in
order to defeat the movement we have to defeat them in terms that they
recognize
, and the logic of their campaign plan and narrative may not be
apparent to us. A force can be defeated militarily, but a movement is only
defeated when it recognizes itself as
defeated
in its own terms; the narrative of any campaign must reflect this.
(Italics mine)
A PDF copy of The
Management of Savagery
can be found here.
On the other hand – on the side of Western
civilization – we can also cite John David Lewis’s Nothing
Less Than Victory:
Decisive Wars and the Lessons of History
, published in 2010, in which Lewis
stresses throughout that victory over an enemy must move from demoralizing him to causing him to concede defeat and surrender. I reviewed this important
work in 2012 on Rule
of Reason
.
Lewis…does
not immediately discuss 20th century conflicts, but wars of antiquity, using
them as overtures to his discussions of the Civil War and World Wars One and
Two, underscoring the need, in warfare, of a government to have the will to identify an enemy and his morality or
ideology
, and then the will to fight the war on its own terms, and not
those of the enemy. What is more, the attacked nation must be willing to eviscerate the enemy’s will to
fight
on to foreshorten the conflict and possibly establish a peace
beneficial to the former opponents. (Italics
mine)
But to accomplish the demoralization, the loss of
will to fight, and concession of defeat in an enemy, the enemy’s total doctrine
or ideology must be understood trunk, root, and branch. This is a policy our
current intelligence and military communities refuse to adopt from a
politically correct notion that do so would offend the enemy’s sensibilities
and reflect,” among other things, “Islamophobia,” probably racism, and the
hubris of “imperialistic superiority.” Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, writes
Lewis, were not defeated until they felt they were defeated. It took two atomic
bombs to wring a surrender from Japan.
And there is evidence that Nazi Germany was crying
uncle before American tanks were rolling into Germany. But FDR, in apparent
accommodation to Josef Stalin, brushed off German High Command overtures to sue
for peace to allow the Soviets to “share in the glory” of defeating Germany and
also to allow them to gobble up half of Germany and most of Eastern Europe. See
my three Rule of Reason reviews of Diana West’s American
Betrayal: The Secret Assault on Our Nation’s Character
here,
here,
and here
in which she offers that evidentiary hypothesis.
Diana West emailed me this cautionary note:
We
don’t know FDR actually received these messages — for example, if you recall in
the case of the AP Berlin bureau chief Louis Lochner, Soviet agent and White
House advisor Laughlin Currie is the one who blocked his efforts to reach FDR
personally.”
[Concerning the
German High Command’s willingness to negotiate a surrender coupled with the removal
of Hitler.]
Stephen Coughlin, in
Part VIII, “Our Ignorance,” of Catastrophic
Failure:
  (pp. 443-484), dwells on
the depth and nature of our ignorance of our Islamic enemy. But suppose that
ignorance is a consequence of a policy that favors the postmodern mantra that
true, incontrovertible knowledge is impossible.
While reading
“Assumptions, Presuppositions, and Fraud” in Part VIII, “Our Ignorance,” I
suddenly recalled something from my early philosophical readings. In a critique
of Immanuel Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason, in which he argues that we
can’t know reality – or the “real” reality because our minds’ subjective senses
distort what we see – one thinker proposed, as a counter argument, that if that
is true, then Kant must include his own book, and the words in it, which would
lead one to conclude that Kant’s pretzel-like, brain-disabling assertions are
pure gibberish. If what we see on a page doesn’t reflect the “real” page or
even the words on it, what are we unable to
see? The unprovable. The indemonstrable. The nonexistent.
 Had that logic ever occurred to Kant? Would he
concede or not that the “truth” of his assertions, by his own hypothesis, was
no more provable or valid than anyone else’s? That the book in our hands and
the words in it were but the distorted products of our inadequate sense
organs?  Kant’s was the ultimate
philosophical con, using the “stolen concept” of “reason” and the demonstrable
evidence of his books and words to put over an attack on the Enlightenment,
which he opposed.
Unfortunately,
Kant continues to exert a powerful, tenacious, and destructive influence in
Western culture today. This I particularly true, as I can see, in Coughlin’s
description of how analysts must assume that what they think they know is just subjective,
baseless suppositions and assumptions “in the absence of facts” – which Kant
declared are unknowable, a claim with which the threat doctrine designers and
enforcers seem to agree, whether or not they have ever heard of Kant.
Under the
subtitle, “The Doctrinal Template,” Coughlin states:
The deliberate decision-making process that
the U.S. military uses to fight its wars is intended to begin with a doctrinal
template analysis of the enemy. Until it was disabled in 2009, U.S. doctrine on
threat analysis was based on an institutionalized preference for facts as the
cornerstone of threat analysis. It was Sun Tzu: Know the enemy, know his
doctrine, and know yourself. This doctrine was reflected in its simplest form
in an older edition of Army Field Manual
34-130, Intelligence Preparations of the Battlefield…
We would call it
“classic IPB.”
The IPB
Manual
dictated that all threat analysis begins with an evaluation of the
enemy’s stated threat doctrine based on his doctrine [e.g., in the published Management of Savagery], given his order
of battle. This phase of threat analysis is designed to generate a doctrinal
template of the enemy based on what he could or would do if able to fully
execute his doctrine, unconstrained by the environment or by an opposing
force. (P. 445 brackets mine; bolding the author’s)
Coughlin
then discusses some doctrinal  practices
and fallacies.
No
blue in the red
. The language of
military planning includes what are known as blue and red models. Blue models
represent the strengths and doctrines employed by the United States and its
allies; red models refer to the doctrines and strategies of the enemy. By
orienting our models entirely on abstractions, we commit the fatal error of
confusing our blue expectations with red realities. (p.446)
However,
writes Coughlin, there’s a catch and the ingredients of a delusion:
Model-based warfighting can sustain itself
almost indefinitely on the assumption that it serves as a reasonable proxy for
fighting a red enemy. All it consists of, however, is mapping blue capabilities
to blue expectations based on blue projections. 
And on and on – until, that is, a real enemy decides to assert himself.
Our exclusive reliance on war fighting processes based on blue modeling has
rendered us incapable of knowing real enemies. In the postmodern narrative,
there are no enemies. Today, Sun-Tzu
has little value beyond being a good source for signature block quotes. (P.
447)

Find the Islamic Terrorist

Facts, not
the jihadists, are the enemy of strictly blue threat analyses. Facts are
unwanted. Facts are intrusive. Facts get in the way of ideal, perfectly constructed
battle scenarios, just as facts and real events have exploded every
anthropological global warming (or cooling) computer model; computer models are
preferred because they are manageable while that unknown factor – the real
enemy – is not. Facts have nothing to do with Islam or an enemy’s ideology or motivating
doctrine. And we must not cast any aspersions on Sharia law and what it
condones, because that would entail Islamophobia and other indecorous frames of
mind. Coughlin continues:

In the War on Terror, it is incumbent on us
to incorporate stated jihadi motivations – as the jihadis express them – into our
threat doctrine. Unfortunately, when such an analysis is done, it doesn’t support
the preferred explanation of our senior civilian and military leaders. When they
contemplate the actions of the enemy, they ascribe a completely different motivation
to him – generally expressed in terms of “violent extremism,” usually in
furtherance of “underlying causes” – that is invariably based on behavioral
models that service blue expectations.
As noted earlier, in order to maintain the “violent
extremism” narrative, discourse must be reduced to a fourth-grade level of
speaking. “We are fighting violent extremists.” “Why are they extreme?” “Because
they resort to violence to achieve their goals.” “Why are they violent?” “Because
their extremist views forced them to become violent.”  Through this syllogism, any disagreement can
be framed in terms of “violent extremism.” (pp. 450-451)
And what
exactly is “violent extremism”? A “violent extremist”? Coughlin explodes the
idea:
In actual usage, it turns out that violent
extremism can mean anything you want it to mean, as long as it has nothing to
do with jihad. The “violent extremist” narrative is important to analysts in
the War on Terror because it fills a need to create value-neutral models. It allows
them to pretend they are talking about something when, in fact, they are
talking about nothing. Because the Countering Violent Extremis (CVE) narrative
reduces analysis to incoherence, it is a nihilist construct. (p. 451)
Coughlin
asks some important questions about why our strategy against jihad is so irrational,
incoherent, and ineffectual.
But if we are not fighting the war according
to our strategy, then whose strategy and to what end? If there is any
possibility that our current, strategically unmoored state is someone else’s
desired outcome, what strategic advantage would that person have (at our
expense)?….[W]e have yet to understand what we are doing. But somebody does and is benefitting from it.
(p. 452; Italics the author’s)
Al-Qaeda? The
Muslim Brotherhood? The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC)? CAIR? The ISNA?
The ICNA? President Barack Obama? Obama has shown that he is reluctant to
charge Islam with any doctrinal responsibility for terrorist acts committed in
this country. Or anywhere else, for that matter. He has simply perpetuated
President George Bush’s narrative that Islam has been “hijacked” by terrorists,
to be sure, but by terrorists who have purportedly misinterpreted Islam or put
a perverted meaning on the Koran’s many
violent
verses
– that is, on the verses that abrogated the earlier, banal,
non-violent verses. And if no doctrinal responsibility can be attached to Islamic
terrorism – if Islam and Sharia cannot be named in any threat analysis or by
the FBI or by military intelligence – then, indeed, everything and nothing can
be held responsible, and the issue sinks into a thousand-tentacle mishmash of
theoretical but unknowable causes.  
Coughlin has
no use for “complex” threat models. An enforced allegiance to “complexity,” he
argues, only hamstrings threat analysts in their jobs. They are expected to
produce answers that resolve nothing but abstractions that are not anchored to
reality – or to the enemy. A Jackson Pollock painting of drips and smears and
blobs may be said to be complex, but does it mean anything? You can attach any
meaning you wish to one of his canvases – everything but madness. That would be
offensive to Pollock and his followers, and indicative of a phobia for abstract
art. But a rational observer would say: Pollock doesn’t “do” art. Coughlin
would likely agree with that prognosis.
We don’t do intelligence anymore. Today, we
collect a tremendous amount of raw data. We denature it, break it into data
bits, and pour it into a soft-science mold, following the pre-determined path
prescribed by the model. The data on which our understanding should have been
based now serves to buttress whichever theory is in vogue.
This process allows us to concentrate on
models without having to identify the threat while sounding very scientific,
academic, and sophisticated. It is the illusion of knowledge where none exists.
A form of scientism, it’s the gnostic knowledge of our time thinly wrapped in a
veneer of science. Because we don’t have to define the actual threat, no one
has to worry about being reprimanded because they failed to accurately identify
real groups that publish real doctrines that call for the killing of real Americans.
(p. 453)

I think we’re
lucky that our current echelon of threat analysts have not yet projected an
Amish jihadi assault on a Lancaster, Pennsylvania mall by driving their horse-drawn
buggies on the sidewalks to mow down shoppers, or Pentecostal jihadis wearing
suicide vests assaulting a packed Mormon temple. But, then again, the equally ethereal
scenarios they are projecting have nothing to do with Islam, either, even
though the Islamist supremacists say it has everything
to do with Islam. But given the preference for what Coughlin calls a pseudo-reality
that allows the analysts to duck and dodge Islamic jihad, it’s only a matter of
time.
If you
could imagine the three monkeys rolled into one, you’d have a consciousness
that was conscious of nothing, as a matter of choice. The insensate monkey
doesn’t “do” reality. And you can’t ask him how long he expects to remain alive
in that condition. You won’t get an answer because he can’t hear or see you. To
him, you, the individual anchored in reality, don’t exist.
Catastrophic
Failure
: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad
, by Stephen Coughlin. Washington DC: Center
for Security Policy Press, 2015. 788 pp.

A Congressional Overture to Censorship

Stephen Coughlin alerted
me to a House Resolution introduced on December 17th, H.Res.569,
“Condemning violence, bigotry, and hateful rhetoric towards Muslims in the
United States.114th Congress (2015-2016).” 
As of this writing, the country remains clueless about this development.
The
resolution was introduced by Virginia Democrat Donald S. Beyer,
and sponsored by Frank
Pallone
, a New Jersey Democrat, and endorsed by seventy-one other Representatives,
most of them Democrats, and possibly a sprinkling of Republicans. The
resolution has gone into committee, but one can predict with confidence that it
will emerge virtually unscathed and unaltered. After all, the “victims” are Muslims,
and the House wishes to put it in the record that certain of its members are
against hurting anyone’s feelings.
Many of the
usual suspects have endorsed the resolution: Keith Ellison,
a Democrat and Muslim from Minnesota; Debbie
Wasserman Schultz
, Florida Democrat and chairman of the Democratic National
Committee; Charles
Rangel
, New York Democrat; and Alan Grayson, a Democrat
from Florida. Most of the other endorsers’ names I do not recognize. They are
all termites who have made careers of eating away at the rule of law and
“transforming” America from a Western nation into a multicultural,
welfare-statist, politically correct stewpot of no particular character.  
Resolutions
of this nature have a tendency to be reintroduced later as binding legislation
to be forwarded to the Senate. The introduction of this resolution is not yet
newsworthy, but it will be if it emerges intact from committee to be voted on
by the whole House. One suspects that H.Res.569 was inspired by U.S.  Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s promise to an
audience of Muslim
Advocates
on December 3rd that she would spend efforts to combat and
prosecute anyone guilty of anti-Muslim speech. I do not think the two-week gap
between Lynch’s pronouncements and the introduction of the resolution is
coincidental. It probably took two weeks to compose and fine-tune its wording.
Interestingly,
the term “Islamophobia” does not occur in the resolution text. That may or may
not have been oversight on the part of the resolution’s backers. But Coughlin,
in Parts IV through VI in Catastrophic
Failure
, reveals in detail the Muslim Brotherhood’s and the  Organization of Islamic Cooperation’s (OIC)
mutual and complementary obsession with having Islamophobia quashed and
prohibited on pain of penalty, worldwide, but especially in the U.S.
 Nevertheless, as Coughlin explains in great
detail in his book,
the language of the House resolution mirrors the
OIC’s Islamophobia narrative being implemented domestically. See my reviews of Coughlin’s
book here.
Rep. Michael McCaul and his CAIR fan club
Missing from the list of backers of the resolution
is one Republican of note: Michael McCaul, who
represents the 10th District in Texas. He is now chairman of the House Homeland
Security Committee. But he is very friendly with envoys and officers of the
Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). A Breitbart article chronicled
one encounter, “McCaul
Meets With Islamic Leader Who Says U.S. Muslims Are ‘Above Law Of Land
,”
from February 2015.

House Homeland Security Committee chairman Rep. Michael McCaul (R-TX) was photographed with—and
wrote a personal note in silver sharpie to—an Islamic leader who said
practicing Muslims in the United States are “above the law of the land.”
On May 13, 2013, McCaul held an open house
at a district office in Katy, Texas. While McCaul’s
Facebook posting
announcing the open house said an RSVP was required, a
spokeswoman for McCaul told Breitbart News that Council on American Islamic
Relations (CAIR) Houston branch executive director Mustafa Carroll showed up
without notice.
During the open house, McCaul and Carroll
were photographed speaking to one another. On top of the photograph, in silver
sharpie, McCaul wrote to Carroll: “To Mustafa and the Council on American
Islamic Relations, the moderate Muslim is our most effective weapon—Michael McCaul, TX-10.
” (Italics mine)
The most
effective weapon against what?? America? See Michael McCaul’s denial of reality
in Coughlin’s Catastrophic Failure,
Section VI, p. 401.
In parsing
this resolution, let’s first examine all the Whereas’s first:
Whereas
the victims of anti-Muslim hate crimes and rhetoric have faced physical,
verbal, and emotional abuse because they were Muslim or believed to be Muslim;
I think I can count the victims of anti-Muslim hate
crimes committed in the U.S. on the fingers of one hand; I don’t immediately
recall any Muslim of either gender in the U.S. of being physically assaulted as
Europeans are
now being
attacked and raped
by Muslim gangs of immigrants and “refugees.” I do not think the scarcity of reports
of anti-Muslim hate crimes is due to the news media’s oversight; there is just
a paucity of such crimes, unless one counts publically burning a Koran or hanging a side of bacon on the
front door of a mosque. But one can be sure that when one occurs, the news
media will be all over it like raspberry jam on a muffin.  As for “verbal abuse,” that’s covered in the criminal
code
, so a House resolution on the subject is redundant. Does the code
really need another superfluous category that pertains only to Muslims? Is  Congress
now turning to maintaining the emotional health and welfare of Muslims? It
seems so. There is the nanny state, complemented by the nursemaid state.
Whereas
the constitutional right to freedom of religious practice is a cherished United
States value and violence or hate speech towards any United States community
based on faith is in contravention of the Nation’s founding principles;
Note
how “violence” and “hate speech” are paired together, as though they were
synonymous offenses, which they are not. “Hate speech,” which I have argued for
years is an illegitimate concept (prosecute the demonstrable crime, not the contents
of a person’s mind), has no metaphysical power to physically harm anyone. For
words to be capable of actually harming anyone, they would need to “spoken” by
a kind of paintball gun rigged to replicate the sound of an insult as a mass of
air that could knock a person flat on his tosh. Words on paper, words
transmitted through the air, are not tangible weapons. Further, “hate speech”
is not in “contravention” to the nation’s founding principles. It hadn’t been
invented yet, and, it being an illegitimate category of crime, it is not to be
confused with genuine slander or libel. Those offenses our Founding Fathers
knew something about, most of them having been lawyers schooled in British law.
Whereas
there are millions of Muslims in the United States, a community made up of many
diverse beliefs and cultures, and both immigrants and native-born citizens;
And?
So what? Those millions of Muslims and their mosques expect to be deferred to
and accommodated because their “faith” requires it. No mention anywhere in the
resolution of the practice of female genital mutilations, honor killings,
beheadings, arranged marriages that often send a girl or woman to Pakistan or
some other Sharia-governed country, and sermons advocating jihad and not cooperating with the authorities when the latter are
investigating genuine “hate crimes,” such as the Boston Marathon bombing and
the San Bernardino massacre by….Muslims. No mention of Muslims bringing into
this country their age-old sectarian animosities between Muslims, no mention
either of their “cultural” hatred and contempt for Western liberties, so often
articulated by Muslim spokesmen.
Whereas
this Muslim community is recognized as having made innumerable contributions to
the cultural and economic fabric and well-being of United States society;
“Innumerable
contributions”? Which ones? I can’t think of any advances in medicine, science,
literature, or any of the other arts that Muslims have contributed to American
society. In terms of an economic contribution, I can think of a spike in gun
sales to Americans who, for some strange reason, wish to arm themselves against
Islamic depredations. I can see, too, how the presence of millions of Muslims
is tearing the fabric of our Western society, because their “culture” is alien
and hostile to everything America stands for. Again, in terms of economics,
there are the millions of Muslims who have gravitated toward the welfare state
and working as little as possible, if ever. Most American Muslims are here for
the same reason millions of Muslims want to settle and colonize Germany,
Britain, Sweden, and other European welfare states.
Whereas
hateful and intolerant acts against Muslims are contrary to the United States
values of acceptance, welcoming, and fellowship with those of all faiths,
beliefs, and cultures;
Come
again? Where do we see that “welcoming and fellowship” of Muslims with Jews?
With Christians? Except in some bogus “outreach” program or in interfaith
“dialogue”? There is a word that covers the act of a Muslim willing to talk
civilly with Jews and Christians: hudna,
or a temporary truce that Muslims are willing to endure to buy time or gain the
trust of infidels. The Koran,
however, specifically prohibits Muslims from being friends with infidels or
treating them as equals. Any “friendship” or “dialogue” that occurs between
Muslims and infidels is simply the practice of dawah, or attempts to persuade infidels to convert to Islam.  Effusive protestations of “friendship” with
non-Muslims are but practiced taqiyya.
On
the other hand, Koran
003.118
goes:

YUSUFALI: O ye who believe!
Take not into your intimacy those outside your ranks: They will not fail to
corrupt you. They only desire your ruin: Rank hatred has already appeared from
their mouths: What their hearts conceal is far worse. We have made plain to you
the Signs, if ye have wisdom.

PICKTHAL: O ye who believe! Take not
for intimates others than your own folk, who would spare no pains to ruin you;
they love to hamper you. Hatred is revealed by (the utterance of) their mouths,
but that which their breasts hide is greater. We have made plain for you the
revelations if ye will understand.

SHAKIR: O you who believe!
do not take for intimate friends from among others than your own people; they
do not fall short of inflicting loss upon you; they love what distresses you;
vehement hatred has already appeared from out of their mouths, and what their
breasts conceal is greater still; indeed, We have made the communications clear
to you, if you will understand.
Point made. There is much more where that came
from. Raymond Ibrahim, for example, has an excellent post on the role of taqiyya and false friendships, “Islam’s
Doctrines of Deception
.” Or absorb Stephen Coughlin’s section on
“Interfaith Outreach” in Catastrophic
Failure
.
Whereas
these acts affect not only the individual victims but also their families,
communities, and the entire group whose faith or beliefs were the motivation
for the act;
So,
we mustn’t consider the individual victims of Islamic terrorism, nor their
families and friends. Only alleged Muslim victims and their families, and
communities, and the whole Islamic ummah
can claim victimhood. Non-Muslim victims of Islamic terrorism are simply
blanked-out when Muslim victimhood is making the rounds in Washington,
D.C.  See the CNS report on the number of
anti-Muslim “hate crimes” here.
According to the FBI’s
Uniform Crime Reports: Hate Crime Statistics, 2014
, there were 1,140
victims of anti-religious hate crimes in the U.S. in 2014. “Of the 1,140
victims of anti-religious hate crimes: 56.8 percent [56.8%] were victims of
crimes motivated by their offenders’ anti-Jewish bias.” That amounts to
approximately 647.52 instances where Jewish individuals, businesses or
institutions were targeted. A mere “16.1 percent [16.1%] were victims of
anti-Islamic (Muslim) bias,” amounting to approximately 183.54 instances where
Muslim individuals, businesses or institutions were targeted.
Whereas
Muslim women who wear hijabs, headscarves, or other religious articles of
clothing have been disproportionately targeted because of their religious
clothing, articles, or observances; and
If
they have been disproportionately “targeted” for “discrimination” it is because
such garb is 1) required of Muslim women, otherwise they are beaten or
assaulted or honor-killed by other Muslims; and 2) because women are regarded
in Islam as second-class human beings, as chattel.  Muslim women who wear the full burqa or other
garb that covers their faces are not to be trusted because too many of them
have been suicide bombers.
Whereas
the rise of hateful and anti-Muslim speech, violence, and cultural ignorance
plays into the false narrative spread by terrorist groups of Western hatred of
Islam, and can encourage certain individuals to react in extreme and violent ways:
This
is perhaps the most obtuse and odious “Whereas” in the resolution’s text.
Islamic terrorist groups do not engage in “false narratives”; they mean what
they say and they as a rule quote chapter and verse from the Koran about why they do what they do. Western
“hate speech” does not “play into the hands of terrorists”; we, however, are
putty in their hands because we have adopted the false narrative that the
terrorists have “hijacked” a “peaceful religion” or have a perverted
interpretation of “kill the Jew or Christian if he does not submit or pay jizya.” To wit:
Qur’an
(9:29)
– “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day,
nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger,
nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the
Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves
subdued.” 
Suras 9 and 5 are the last “revelations” that
Muhammad narrated – hence abrogating what came before, including the oft-quoted
verse 2:256 –“There is no compulsion in religion…”.
That
is from the horse’s mouth. It can’t be “perverted.”
Now,
therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of
Representatives—
(1)
expresses its condolences for the victims of anti-Muslim hate crimes;
(2)
steadfastly confirms its dedication to the rights and dignity of all its
citizens of all faiths, beliefs, and cultures;
(3)
denounces in the strongest terms the increase of hate speech, intimidation,
violence, vandalism, arson, and other hate crimes targeted against mosques,
Muslims, or those perceived to be Muslim;
(4)
recognizes that the United States Muslim community has made countless positive
contributions to United States society;
(5)
declares that the civil rights and civil liberties of all United States
citizens, including Muslims in the United States, should be protected and preserved;
(6)
urges local and Federal law enforcement authorities to work to prevent hate
crimes; and to prosecute to the fullest extent of the law those perpetrators of
hate crimes; and
(7)
reaffirms the inalienable right of every citizen to live without fear and
intimidation, and to practice their freedom of faith.
Commentary
on these seven points would be redundant.
Someone,
please, tell me that
H.Res.569
is not in violation of the Establishment
Clause
of the First Amendment. That it is not thoroughly and treacherously unconstitutional, aside from it
being a commiserating overture to censorship and a not-so-subtle recasting of
the UN/OIC
Resolution 16/18
, which would criminalize freedom
of speech
about Islam and Muslims, regardless of the form the speech takes.
Someone
please tell me that
H.Res.569
is not a formal recognition and
application of Sharia law, which also purports to be the “law of the land” in
contravention of the U.S. Constitution being the “law of the land.”
No one can
deny it. No one can say that the resolution does not represent an itch to
legally gag Americans when they try to discuss Islam and the Obama-enabled
invasion of this country by enemy aliens. No one can tell me that this
resolution is not a victory for the Muslim Brotherhood and the OIC.
Doubtless,
the House resolution cannot be declared unconstitutional because it is a mere
opinion expressed by members of the House. It does not carry the force of law. Therefore,
it cannot be enforced or entered into the statutes, provided it survives, as a bill intended to become a law, vetting
by the Senate, and is signed by the President.
To
become the “law of the land.” Barack Obama would not hesitate to sign it.

Catastrophic Failure: A Review, Part II

 “The process of settlement is a ‘Civilization-Jihadist
Process’ with all the word means. The Ikhwan [Muslim Brotherhood] must
understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating
and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its
miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers…”
Page 7, Explanatory
Memorandum
, 1991, Muslim Brotherhood
I noted in Part
I
of this review that the “Islamophobia” of Americans is more the enemy
recognized by our “defenders” than is the actual enemy, Islam, the enemy that
cannot be named. Within that purgatory of purposeless analytical bean-counting
and sand-sifting is a startling and craven ignorance of the actual enemy,
enforced by post-modern, left-wing politically correct thought and speech, while
the Muslim Brotherhood and the Organization
of Islamic Cooperation
(OIC) stymie any meaningful investigation and
intelligence analysis by determining definitions and “red lines” and the
language employed in the War on Terror.
The Center
for Security Policy
briefly recounts the history of the Explanatory Memorandum cited above,
dated May 22, 1991.
It
amounted to the Muslim Brotherhood’s strategic plan for the United States and
was entitled, “An Explanatory Memorandum: On the General Strategic Goal for the
Group in North America.” The Explanatory Memorandum was written…by a member of
the Board of Directors for the Muslim Brotherhood in North America and senior
Hamas leader named Mohammed Akram. It had been approved by the Brotherhood’s
Shura Council and Organizational Conference and was meant for internal review
by the Brothers’ leadership in Egypt.
Actually, the Muslim Brotherhood and the OIC do not
stymie our politicians, the military, and intelligence agencies; they stymie
themselves. The censorship is voluntary, not imposed. The enemy knows this. Our
leadership does not, because it is immersed in a swamp of psychobabble and
behavior babble and “violent extremism” babble. All the varieties of babble are
meant to enable the leadership to defer knowledge of Islam, Sharia, and patronize
the language games of the OIC and the Brotherhood.
Rather than prosecute a genuine War on Terror, our
leadership would rather wear a blindfold and play “Pin the tail on the donkey,”
the donkey being anything but Islam.
Islam, in their eyes, is a “religion of peace” that was and is still being
“hijacked” by “radicals,” “extremists,” “lone wolves,” al-Qaeda, Boko Haram, alShabaab, and ISIS. It’s either that, or acts of terrorism have
nothing to do with Islam.
Stephen Coughlin, in Catastrophic Failure, torpedoes that whole perilous and
near-treasonous mindset. They’re all cut from the same cloth, and that cloth is
Sharia law.
First, let’s take a look at the Ten
Year Programme of Action
devised by the 57-member
state
OIC for the express purpose of criminalizing freedom of speech in the
West but in particular in the United States. The OIC, which has an observer
status in the United Nations, is counting on the UN to pass Resolution 16/18,
which would in effect globally criminalize “Islamophobia” or anything negative statement
or stance on Islam. Further, the OIC, hand-in-hand with the UN, has decided
that “Islamophobia” and any other criticism of Islam is “racist.” It has a new
definition of “racism,” which is criticism of Islam based on religion, not on
ethnicity. That religion is Islam.
These are quotations directly from the “Ten-Year Programme of Action to Meet the Challenges Facing the Muslim
Ummah in the 21st Century – Third Extraordinary Session of the Islamic Summit
Conference, Makkah al Mukarramah – Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, 5-6 dhul qa’dah
1426 h  7-8 December 2005.”
Emphasize
that inter-civilizational dialogue, based on mutual respect and understanding,
and equality amongst people are prerequisites for international peace and
security, tolerance, peaceful co-existence, and participation in
developing the mechanism for that dialogue….
Endeavour to spread the correct ideas about
Islam as a religion of moderation and tolerance and to safeguard Islamic
values, beliefs and principles in order to fortify Muslims against extremism
and narrow-mindedness…..
This is all
guff for Western, non-Muslim public consumption. As Coughlin discusses, in
Islamic law, ostensibly benign terms such as “tolerance,” “terrorism” and
“peaceful co-existence” do not mean the same things to the OIC or any Muslim
conversant in the Koran as they might
mean to us. “Tolerance” is not extended to non-Muslims unless they pay jizya, which theoretically buys dhimmis relief
from persecution by Islam; “terrorism” is confined to the killing of other
Muslims, not of non-Muslims, which is a moral obligation stated in the Koran; and “peaceful co-existence” means
that you being a Muslim should get along with your Muslim neighbors, provided
they are of the same Muslim sect (Sunni or Shi’ite). “Human rights?” Only
Muslims are “human.” And only Muslims have “rights.” There is no “peaceful
co-existence” possible between Islam and non-Muslims, only a hudna or temporary truce.
Under the
“Combating Islamophobia” heading are these points:
1.
Emphasize the responsibility of the international community, including all
governments, to ensure respect for all religions and combat their defamation.
2. 
Affirm the need to counter Islamophobia, through the establishment of an
observatory at the OIC General Secretariat to monitor all forms of Islamophobia,
issue an annual report thereon, and ensure cooperation with the relevant
Governmental and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) in order to counter
Islamophobia.
3.  Endeavor to have the United Nations adopt an
international resolution to counter Islamophobia, and call upon all States to
enact laws to counter it, including deterrent punishments. [This is Resolution 16/18,
endorsed by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton among others; see the Coughlin
video embedded in this Counter Jihad report.]
4.  Initiate a structured and sustained dialogue
in order to project the true values of Islam and empower Muslim countries to
help in the war against extremism and terrorism.
Coughlin:
A crucial characteristic of Islamic law is
that it is supposed to be the “law of the land.” Contrary to popular belief,
“radical” or “extremist” Muslims almost never say, “I fight jihad to gain
converts to Islam.” When they talk about bringing Islam to the world, they are
usually referring to Islamic law….They
do not talk about religion.
Everyone who has spent time researching Islam
has heard the statement: Islam is not
just a religion, but a complete way of life governed by Islamic law….
“Not just a religion” indicates that the
theology of Islam is subordinate to the law of Islam. While the personal
elements of Islam are – and ought to be – protected by the First Amendment, to
the extent that “governed by Islamic law” means Islam should be the “law of the
land,” Islam’s ambitions might conflict with Article VI of the U.S.
Constitution. In stipulating that the Constitution “shall be the supreme
law of the land,” Article VI establishes that no higher authority or system of
government can supersede its influence. [pp. 54-55]
Doubtless the 57 heads of state, kings, and
government officials conceded that Islam is followed by numerous ethnic groups,
including by Caucasian converts to Islam. But the racism designation carries or
invokes a particularly repellant form of intolerance. Needless to say, Islam
itself is manifestly intolerant of all other religions.  The OIC, as Coughlin explains, poses as the
Islamic Ummah, which, according to its own Sharia-defined premises, is a state.
This is, then, a state that wishes to obviate the U.S. Constitution and
establish its own rule over this country. With Sharia as the new “law of the
land.”
The purpose of the OIC’s Ten Year Programme is in
perfect conformance with the statement from the Explanatory Memorandum excerpted above. That is all. And the
“organizing principle” elucidated by Stephen Coughlin is simple, as well: It is
the incremental imposition of Sharia law or Islamic law.
Why incremental? Because the OIC is heeding Seyyid Qutb’s advice in
his 1964 manifesto Milestones
(Ma’alim fi al-Tariq) to slowly introduce
Sharia in the West and particularly on Americans, so they can accustom or acclimatize
themselves to living under Sharia law. I discuss Qutb, his life, and his
priorities in my 2012 column. “The
Madness of Qutb’s Milestones.
Milestones,
published in 1964* (Ma’alim fi al-Tariq), purports to adhere to and
advance the cause and spread of a moral code that will “save”
mankind. The book is actually a manifesto for nihilism that guarantees man’s
enslavement and the eradication of any and all who refuse to submit to Islam….
Qutb
was a selfless little man, a “moderate” Muslim, who came out of Egypt
to absorb Western methods of education (in the U.S. 1948-1950), and returned to
Egypt convinced that the West needed to be educated about the true nature of
Islam, even if that pedagogy meant killing, maiming, and enslaving
non-believers. He developed a special animus for the United States, for that is
where he went to learn about Western education. Long before any mullah deemed
America the “Great Satan,” Qutb’s observations of the country during
his two-year sojourn here caused him to mark it for jihad and its
cultural and/or violent conversion to Islam.

That is, he marked it for death. For that is all Islam is – a nihilist state of
existence for Muslim zombies and their looted and subservient non-believers….
The
Koran, he emphasized, was not just a
book to consult for “culture and information.” It was a command for
action, a blueprint for purification and conquest.
Coughlin links the policy of abrogation – in which
earlier Koranic verses are replaced permanently
with newer, violent verses – with Qutb’s recommended strategy of the gradual,
“peaceful” abrogation of secular and civil American law. This is called the
Milestone Process. The process also applies to an individual Muslim’s own fitna or internal struggle on the way to
becoming an “ideal” Muslim, ready to wage jihad.
A succinct video that explains the abrogation of verses can be viewed here.
Coughlin writes:
In
2012, Sunni scholar and chief Muslim Brotherhood jurist Sheikh Yusuf
al-Qaradawi used Milestones
vocabulary when discussing the strategic implementation of Islamic law in
then-Brotherhood-controlled Egypt:
I
think the shari’a should be
implemented gradually. This is a law of the shari’a
and a law of nature….We should do thing gradually. We should prepare the
people, teach them. People have to learn. We have to make an effort to teach
people the truth about Islam….People do not understand the shari’a properly…I think that in the first five years, there should
be no chopping off of hands. This period should be dedicated to teaching things.
A transitional phase….
Al-Qaradawi was discussing the rise of the
Brotherhood in Egypt. But, as Coughlin points out, the same principle applies
to America. Writes Coughlin:
Through
time, fidelity to the Milestones
narrative has been consistent – including within the Muslim Brotherhood in
America. Its secret strategy document restates Qutb’s message and includes a
common emphasis on developments in stages as stated in Qur’an Verse 17: 106 in
the 1991 Explanatory Memorandum.
Quoting Brotherhood General Guide Muhammad Badi
from an online magazine, Ikhwanonline
from 2011:
The
writer of the memorandum [Mohammed Akram] believes that understanding and
comprehending the historical stages of the Islamic activism which was led and
being led by the Muslim Brotherhood in this continent is a very important key
in working towards settlement, through which the Group observes its march, the
direction of its movement and the curves and turns of its road. [Note: The Explanatory Memorandum associates “settlement” with “civilization
jihad.”][Second brackets Coughlin’s] (pp. 145-147)
Compounding the damage to the nation’s security
caused by performing pseudo threat analyses by our intelligence agencies,
analyses that mean nothing because they don’t parse or acknowledge the role of
Sharia  and are not in the least
reality-based – so thoroughly explicated by Coughlin – and exacerbating the
crippled state of our “defenders’” epistemology and metaphysics vis-à-vis a
shrunken, politically correct lexicon and vocabulary written by the enemy and
enthusiastically adopted by the DHS, the FBI, the Pentagon, and all of our
military services, is the fact that the OIC and the Brotherhood have deemed
telling a single demonstrable truth about Islam as outright defamation,
blasphemy and evidence of “Islamophobia.” 
In
the Koran, it is spelled out that the
“good” is whatever advances or promotes the spread of Islam; the
“bad” is whatever rejects, combats, or repudiates Islam. That’s the
basic measure of the Islamic definitions of good and bad. The “good”
should be done or encouraged; the bad is wrong and should be forbidden. But, in
fact, there are no Islamic definitions of either term; it’s just Allah’s
command. Period. Muslims don’t demand that Allah define his terms. That would
verge on blasphemy or apostasy, and incur the death penalty. So, they do not
question Allah or Islam. It just “is.” What color can I have my new
Model T Ford in? Any color you want, as long as it’s black. Muslims treat Islam
as though it were a metaphysical entity whose existence and nature can’t be
questioned or disputed.
The “Islamophobia” charge is one our “defenders”
understand. Thus they go out of their way to not hurt the feelings or to not
offend the alleged dignity and super-sensitive “esteem” of countless anonymous
Muslims here and abroad and of the governing Islamists in the OIC and the
Brotherhood – to  not risk inadvertently “slandering” the prophet or even remotely
insinuating that Islam is not a “religion of peace” but totalitarian through
and through that depends on fear and force – or to not get the OIC and the Brotherhood and the UN angry with them and
instigate another staged violent “Day of Rage.” For as Coughlin reveals there
is a convergence of Sharia-driven forces that results in violence and
submission to the incremental establishment of the political element of Islam
in the West, a convergence of which our “defenders” are well aware but refuse
to acknowledge publically but which could have been foreseen and countered. Those
forces are the three “pillars” mentioned in Part I:  jihadi,
dawah, and the Ummah.
Catastrophic Failure
is not a light read. One must focus on each point Coughlin makes in its nine
main Parts: The One Organizing Principle – The Red Pill – The Islamic Movement
and its Awakening – Organization of the Islamic Caliphate – Days of Rage –
Blasphemy and Deterrent Punishment in America – Catastrophic Failures – Our Ignorance
– and the Duty to Know.  One must focus
and perform the task of comprehension and integration which is fraught with
dangers our “defenders” would rather not address and face. Americans not in the
intelligence-gathering business can formulate their own threat-analyses – in fact,
have done so – and find our politicians and “War on Terror” policymakers severely
wanting to the point that charges of a dereliction of duty and a violation of
the oath to defend and protect America and Americans would be a long-overdue
indictment.
Beginning in 2011, Coughlin was declared persona non grata in the classrooms and
lecture halls of the Pentagon and other venues in which warfighting anti-terrorism
policies are taught. The truths he reveals hurt the suicidal policies of
accommodation to Islam. But he would not be silenced. The official brush-off by
the White House and the civilian and military counter-intelligence entities
persuaded him to write Catastrophic
Failure
. The word is now out.
If anyone ever deserved to be conferred the Medal
of Freedom, it is Stephen Coughlin.
Catastrophic
Failure
: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad
, by Stephen
Coughlin. Washington DC: Center for Security Policy Press, 2015. 788 pp.

Catastrophic Failure: A Review, Part I

“What we’ve got here is failure to
communicate.”
Captain, Cool Hand Luke,
1967

In terms of understanding Islam, that would include
a failure, or an outright refusal, to grasp and integrate the truth about Islam
and its movers and shakers by especially those charged with the responsibility
of fighting the “War on Terror” and securing the safety of this country. Given
such a “war,” it is incumbent upon the government, the military, and
intelligence assessment agencies to “know the enemy.” As things stand now, in
their eyes Islam is not an enemy, but an “innocent” bystander upon which is
heaped the “calumny” of associating it with terrorism.
“Islamophobia” in Americans is more the enemy than
is the fearful enemy. Within that purgatory of purposeless analytical bean-counting
and sand-sifting is a startling and craven ignorance of the actual enemy,
enforced by post-modern, left-wing politically correct thought and speech while
the Muslim Brotherhood and the Organization
of Islamic Cooperation
stymie any meaningful investigation and intelligence
analysis by determining definitions and “red lines.”
And to paraphrase the Captain in Cool Hand Luke – the Captain, while a
villain, is certainly a quotable character – “Some men you just can’t reach.” The
men who can’t be reached have already submitted to Islam, and accepted the
“war” on Islam’s terms, and they are in our government. And they are not only
losing the war, but aiding in the enemy’s advance.
A single column review of Stephen Coughlin’s
vitally important Catastrophic
Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad
, would not do
justice to the book. I can only highlight some of the important, interlinked
and salient information presented by Coughlin. Therefore this review will run
to two or more columns. Coughlin’s book is literally vital, as vital as the
blood that courses through our veins. Catastrophic
Failure
brings to light everything we should know about Islam and its
advocates’ determined campaign to conquer the West, and especially America, and
impose Sharia law on the world – and everything our government has consistently
refused to know or evaded to a degree that amounts to criminal negligence.
Reading the book was a daunting and, I don’t mind
saying so, numbing task, numbing
because what Coughlin reveals in it vis-à-vis
what our government and the agencies, charged with protecting the country
against terrorism and the designs of foreign powers, refuse or are fatally
politically correct to learn, are not
doing to fulfill their legal and Constitutional mandates.
What Coughlin has assembled is a mountain of
information about the perilous deficiencies of our “warfighting” policies and
the “efficacy” of the Islamic Movement’s interlocking and integrated stratagems.
What he offers resembles a jigsaw puzzle about the size of a football field.
Straight off, in Part I, “The One Organizing Principle,” Coughlin identifies the enemy’s
overall tactical method of softening up America for the kill.
Official responses to terrorist acts have
“progressively become less reality-based,” writes Coughlin. “As the American
people grow more outraged, those professional and constitutionally tasked with
keeping them safe continue to lack awareness, understanding, and even
professional curiosity about the doctrines that drive enemy action.”
For
these enemies, the implementation of Islamic law – shariah – as the governing
law of the land is the objective. This is true not only for jihadi groups like
al-Qaeda, but also for dawah organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhood
and ummah entities like the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), a transnational body
that makes reasonable claims to represent the ummah, or the entire Muslim
world.
The
catastrophic failure of American strategy in the War on Terror is the refusal
to contend with the convergence of these three forces (jihadi, dawah, and ummah), which, as this book will
explain, interact to our great detriment. (p. 26)
(From my Islamic Lexicon: Jihadi:
Of Jihad, of a belligerent nature in action; Dawa(h):  Proselytizing;
recruitment and/or conversion)
More
than a decade into the War on Terror, we should have a common understanding of
the common objectives of jihadi, dawah, and ummah forces in the Islamic world,
as their self-declared “organizing principle” also serves as their single
unifying and governing principle. As this book will make clear, such unity of
purpose is ubiquitous throughout the published doctrine of the self-described
Islamic Movement. This information is too important to ignore or preemptively
embargo. We can succeed only by honestly assessing it.

An idolized
Mohammad receiving from Allah the Qur’an, which is also a metaphor for Mohammad’s
sword, capturing perfectly the iconic mystic of muscle.

The “organizing principle” is Sharia Law  — or Islam, they are one and the same, with
Islam as the ideology, and Sharia as its rule book – which Coughlin mercilessly
dissects throughout. Everything comes back to Sharia and its enforcement
wherever Islam sets down roots and establishes its hegemony. Sharia has
governed every action taken by mobs of demonstrating Muslims, by synods of
Muslim theologians and intellectuals, by meetings of Islamic heads of state,
and  in the public relations and press
releases of the Council on America-Islamic Relations (CAIR).

In Islamic parlance, or a “logic” that is defined
by Sharia, to utter a negative truth about Islam is “wrong” and amounts to
“blasphemy.” In essence, internally within the confines of its own practice, truth
is irrelevant to Islam. For example, the term “terrorism” is applicable only if
one Muslim attacks another Muslim “without right.” Then it’s a heinous crime. Imams,
mullahs, and spokesmen for Islam assigned to “assist” American efforts in the
War on Terror have frequently lectured our intelligence gathering agencies,
including the FBI and the DHS, on the “inappropriateness” of linking terrorism
with Islam.
But a Muslim attacking an infidel – or any
non-Muslim – is “with right” because it is prescribed in Islamic texts as an
obligation. Killing infidels is not seen as “murder” but as an act of
legitimate jihad. Killing infidels,
within Islam’s measure of right and wrong, carries no moral approbation.
This, Coughlin points out, is the Catch-22 of the
government and military analysts; to associate Islam with terrorism is to
criticize the “religious’ nature Islam and its adherents, and this is now
forbidden.
Faced with knowledge which they would rather not
know, our “defenders” adopt a militant, obstinate policy of waffling, and even
of perjurious evasion when questioned about whether or not Islam has any
connection with terrorism or the slaughter of American civilians and military
personnel right here in the U.S.  Americans
are wary anymore of their government and cast doubt on its willingness or
capacity to defend them from the depredations of jihadist killers. Not being
privy to the special mentor-protégé relationship between our “defenders” and
the enemy, they have noticed a widening chasm between the government’s rhetoric
and reality.
 For example, it took a few days for the FBI to
acknowledge that the attack in San Bernardino on December 2nd that killed
fourteen people was an act of terrorism, a few more days to admit that the
perpetrators were Muslims, and then a few more days for it to reveal that the
killers had been engaged in a long-range plot to do what they did, with myriad
connections to known Islamic terrorist groups here and abroad. They were not
“lone wolf” actors who had “misinterpreted” Islam, but “foot soldiers” in an
ongoing campaign to terrorize the U.S. 
They were not “extremists,” but Muslim ciphers fulfilling their Koranic obligation to kill the kaffir,
even if it meant, ultimately, and as it turned out, dying themselves.
Coughlin reports, on page 354, in Part VII,
“Catastrophic Failures”:
In
October 2011, the DHS Civil Rights and Civil Liberties division released
government guidelines forbidding reference to Islam in presentations and
related work product. In keeping with the OIC’s Ten Year Programme of Action
[adopted in 2005], “Countering Violent Extremism Training Guidance & Best
Practices” formalized the CRCL’s aggressive campaign to counter Islamophobia.
“Islamophobia,” in the context of today’s ongoing
“violent extremism” of suicide bombers, knife attacks, and the mowing down of
people with automatic weapons, and so on, all committed by Muslims following
the path of the Koran, is completely
justified and a rational expression of fear of Islam or together with the
mockery of Islam and its icons in the face of its “religion of peace” mantra.
But it’s “Islamophobia” that the DHS, the FBI, and other agencies are more
concerned about, over naming the enemy and hurting his feelings.
In Part VII, “Catastrophic Failures,” Coughlin
warns, in the context of the Muslim Brotherhood and its allied Islamic agencies
governing the language employed by our intelligence analysts in the War on
Terror:
…There
is no knowing this enemy without understanding their doctrine. We can lose a
war – and our country – for want of facts that could have been known had there
not been a policy decision to ignore and misrepresent them….
Today,
the Muslim Brotherhood dictates who does and does not do threat analysis for
the government on War on Terror issues. The Brotherhood also dictates what can
and cannot be discussed. This certainly fulfills key elements of any long-term
campaign oriented toward jihad fi
sabilillah
[jihad in the Cause of
Allah]. We ignore these realities at our peril. This is ignorance that kills.
[p. 367]
 In Catastrophic
Failure
the reader will learn:
Reason has no role in understanding Islam. Islam is
incomprehensible to Westerners – to those who, unlike our government, bother to
study it – and even to the brightest Muslim theologian.  Islam  is seen by its advocates as almost a “solid
structure,” a metaphysical entity, or entity that transcends existence or is
apart from existence. Allah himself has no form, human or otherwise, and like
the Koran, is timeless, having
existed before time itself, which Allah presumably created.  Myself, when I try to imagine Allah and the Koran having existed before time (which
is a contradiction, of course, but what need of causation has Islam?), I keep recalling
some of the most outlandish episodes of Star
Trek
. Coughlin cites a passage from a definitive Islamic text, Reliance
of the Traveler
,
about Allah’s attributes:
W8.0
Allah is Exalted above Needing Space and Time.
W8.1
Muhammad Hamid: What is obligatory for a human being to know is that Allah the
Creator…is absolutely free of need (al-Ghani)
of anything He has created, and free of need for the heavens and or the earth.
His is transcendently beyond “being in the sky” or “being on earth” in the
manner that things are in things, created beings in created beings….Allah Most
High is absolutely beyond any resemblance to created things, in His entity,
attributes, and acts. (p. 225)
Which more or less casts Allah in the form of a pulsating,
formless, faceless, featureless,  volitional
glob of energy, however conscious and able to cause things and events causelessly.
This is the stuff of childish fantasy and magic, albeit an extremely malign
form of fantasy subscribed to by the ummah,
or the whole adult Muslim population. As it is a beheading offense to portray
Mohammad in any form, it is unthinkable to Muslims to give Allah any kind of
recognizable form or identity. Arguing with a Muslim about the truth or
falsehood of Islam – or  the existence of
Allah, the historical existence of Mohammad, or even the veracity of the Koran, which I contend was cobbled together
by scribes and Islamic theologians over centuries, borrowing piggishly from Judaic,
Christian, and pagan creeds – is basically futile, because you will be led in concentric
circles by his circular logic, and he will probably wind up stabbing you.
To underline the magnitude of hubris of the Islamic
Movement in the U.S., CAIR, an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation
case and linked to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, in 1997 requested that the
statue of Mohammad be removed from the Supreme Court frieze, or at least sanded
down so it would not be recognizable. The
Supreme Court
building was finished in 1935. The bas-relief figures were sculpted
by Adolph A. Weinman. There are eighteen of them. The south wall depicts Menes,
Hammurabi, Moses, Solomon, Lycurgus, Solon, Draco, Confucius and Octavian,
while the north wall depicts Napoleon Bonaparte, John Marshall, William
Blackstone, Hugo Grotius, Louis IX, King John, Charlemagne, Justinian…and
Mohammad.
Why would CAIR object to Mohammad being in such
illustrious company?
1. Islam discourages its followers
from portraying any prophet in artistic representations, lest the seed of idol
worship be planted.
2. Depicting Mohammad carrying a
sword “reinforced long-held stereotypes of Muslims as intolerant
conquerors.”
3. Building documents and tourist
pamphlets referred to Mohammad as “the founder of Islam,” when he is,
more accurately, the “last in a line of prophets that includes Abraham,
Moses and Jesus.”
The most laughable objection was the reference to
the sword because it insinuated that Mohammad was in intolerant conqueror. That
is not a stereotype. The Koran and
the Hadith revel in the prophet’s
intolerance, butchery, rape, murder, and conquest. If it is a “stereotype” of
Mohammad and Muslims it is one perpetuated by Islam’s most sacred documents. If
CAIR objected so much to the presence of a sword on Mohammad’s person, I think
its spokesmen would have been hard pressed to explain the presence of crossed
swords in the Brotherhood’s emblem and in other Islamic organizations’ emblems and
symbols. More than that, no one knows what Mohammad, if he existed, really
looked like.
Then-Chief
Justice William Rehnquist dismissed CAIR’s objections, saying that the
depiction was “intended only to recognize him [Mohammad] … as an
important figure in the history of law; it was not intended as a form of idol
worship.” He also reminded CAIR that “words are used throughout the
Court’s architecture as a symbol of justice and nearly a dozen swords appear in
the courtroom friezes alone.”
Part II of this review of Catastrophic Failure will touch on Coughlin’s explication of the
roles of Sayyid Qutb, the Muslim Brotherhood, and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation
in the emasculation of America’s power to defend itself from “civilization
jihad. If there is a “failure to communicate” the peril in which America finds itself, it is not Stephen Coughlin’s failure.
Catastrophic
Failure
: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad
, by Stephen
Coughlin. Washington DC: Center for Security Policy Press, 2015. 788 pp.

Islam in Contemporary Fiction

Get
out
!!” bellowed Quamisi, jumping up and overturning the coffee service,
which tumbled off the desk and clattered to the rug, the pot’s contents
spilling over the colors. .…”Get out, killer of my brother!!”  Weakened with pent-up rage, Quamisi leaned
with both arms on the desktop. “I will have you, and I will have that coin!!”
“Of
course you will,” replied Fury. His expression had turned to mild contempt.
“When the sun rises in the west.” Then he turned and left the room.
Excerpt from We Three
Kings

My very first completed novel, finished sometime in
the early 1970s on an Underwood manual typewriter, was a dystopian one, In the Land of the Pharaohs,  set in the future in a New York City under the
thumb of a fascist dictatorship. I don’t even recall the year I typed the last
page of it. I managed to find representation for it by a literary agent, the
late Oscar Collier, who was unable to interest a publisher in the novel. The
story  centered on the exploits of a
homicide detective, Kenticott Coldiron, who eventually encounters a gang of
patriots who raid the fortress-like Federal Reserve Bank in lower Manhattan and
make off with its stash of gold bullion.

The gang’s headquarters were in an abandoned subway
station. The story climaxed in a shootout between Coldiron and Treasury Agent
Frank Vishonn in a disused subway car. Vishonn perishes, and the gang
disappears, as does Coldiron. That gang was a predecessor of what would become the
Skelly gang of patriotic but Crown-defying smugglers in Sparrowhawk. I remember few of the other characters’ names. I did,
however, appropriate the name Vishonn for a Virginia planter in the Sparrowhawk series, and also Gramatan. The
colonial Vishonn dies, too, and violently. I eventually disposed of the
manuscript of Pharaohs, after I’d
written my second detective novel, First
Prize
, as unworthy of further submission to publishers, although some fans
claim to still have a copy.
Most of my subsequent novels feature political hues
of various shades. The three Merritt Fury suspense titles, Whisper the Guns, We Three Kings, and Run From Judgment, are heavily political. The four Chess Hanrahan
first-person detective novels, With
Distinction
, First Prize, Presence of Mind, and Honors Due, are also politically themed,
especially Presence of Mind. Perfect Crime Books has published
the whole Hanrahan series. Finally, the thirteen Cyrus Skeen novels are colored
by politics, four of them blatantly so. My own Patrick Henry Press has published
the Fury and Skeen novels, while I republished the whole Sparrowhawk series when the original publisher, MacAdam/Cage
Publishing, bilked me out of two years worth of royalties and then declared
bankruptcy, leaving its whole backlist of authors high and dry. That was a few
years ago.
The first novel pitting the hero against Islam and
Muslims is We
Three Kings
, in which American entrepreneur Merritt Fury is thrust into
a battle of wits and patience with a Saudi sheik, Sheik Ali ibn Quamisi, to whom
the State Department, in a gesture of amicable relations with Saudi Arabia, grants
carte blanche permission to deal with Fury as he wishes, which will include
murder. Finished in 1980, that novel reflects my very low opinion of our State
Department and of diplomacy, one which has been sharpened ever since. Events
since 1980 have borne out my contempt.  
The sheik is a big wheel at the United Nations, and
a nephew of the Saudi king. He wants the rare gold British sovereign that Fury
has come into possession of. Fury won’t part with it. The test of wills between
Fury and Quamisi is the conflict that governs the action. The third “king” of
the title is Wade Lambert, a disillusioned New York City homicide detective who
becomes enmeshed in the tug-of-war. In the excerpt at the head of this column,
Fury is referencing the Islamic version of the “End Times” and the Resurrection,
which are signaled by the sun rising in the West.
The next novel dealing explicitly with Islam is The
Black Stone
, published in 2014, in which Cyrus Skeen, private detective
in 1930 San Francisco, investigates the murder of a New York City newspaper
reporter who reputedly stole the sacred Black Stone from the Kaaba in Mecca. Skeen
encounters, among other scurrilous characters, agents of the Muslim
Brotherhood
. Fleeing vengeful Brotherhood agents, the reporter ends up in
San Francisco. Thrown in for good measure are an American oil executive
scoundrel after oil exploration concessions in Arabia (not yet called “Saudi”),
and his heel-clicking German secretary, a proto-Nazi.
There have been many dystopian novels set in Europe
when it has been overrun by barbarians. Camp of the Saints, by Jean Raspail,
originally published in 1973 and since reissued, is about a million destitute
Hindus from India invading France from commandeered freighters and tramp ships,
and more or less seizing the country and enslaving its indigenous population.  The mass migration was a consequence of France
drastically reducing its foreign aid to India, and so the invasion by hordes of
ragged Hindus was a form of payback. I reviewed the book and was interviewed by
Family
Security Matters
about it in 2010.
In
December 2010 Family
Security Matters
(FSM) interviewed me about Jean Raspail’s The Camp of the Saints, published in
France in 1973 and translated for the U.S. market in 1975. Raspail predicted
and dramatized what would happen to Europe, particularly to France, if it
allowed the mass immigration – actually, an invasion – of a million
impoverished Hindus, first into France, and then into the rest of Europe: the
downfall of Western civilization. The relevancy now is the mass immigration of
Muslims, which, at the time of publication of Raspail’s novel, was a non-issue.
Now the parallels are apparent to all but to those whose minds have been
lobotomized, suborned, or silenced by political correctness and various other
liberal/left epistemological maladies.
There were Muslims in France in 1973, of course, but
they did not have the political and demographic clout they have now, thanks to
French government immigration policies. The novel (or the translation of it I
read) is badly written and badly constructed, but overall it is a true forecast
of what would happen if a massive influx of people from an alien culture
suddenly swamped a Western country, which would mean basically the end of that
country. And Islam is certainly an alien culture, and its drivers and planners
seek to swamp Western societies with sheer numbers of Muslims. Which is what is
happening in Europe, with its leaders complicit in the destruction.
There are recent dystopian novels about Islamic
totalitarianism coming to America, to Britain, and to France. I have not read
them and do not plan to. The synopses of the titles are good enough that I
could get the flavor of the stories and decide whether or not  they were worth reading. They were not. So I
shall report only what other reviewers who have read them have said, and what
they have said leads me to believe they are dismal and off-track.  I will confess that I toyed for a while about
a year ago with the idea of penning my own Islamic dystopian novel, but it was
such a dreary prospect — it would have been more of a chore than a joyous
compulsion – that the idea never got as far as a few hastily written notes,
which I have since mislaid. I must be enthusiastic about the worlds I recreate,
else I will  not touch a finger on a
keyboard.

There was in 2008 a political and literary dust-up
over a very minor pseudo-bodice ripper, The Jewel
of Medina
, by Sherry Jones, which depicted the life of an adult Aisha,
Mohammad’s luckless child bride of six or seven (a marriage consummated with
great difficulty, one imagines, by the time she was nine). The book was
originally to be published in the U.S. 
by Random House and in Britain by Gibson Square. Random House,
frightened off by a nebnose literary critic at the University of Texas who
warned of rioting in the streets should the “blasphemous” novel see the light
of day, cancelled plans to publish the book. It shelved it out of fear of
violence to its property and staff by froth-sputtering Muslims, while Gibson
Square’s publisher’s house was actually firebombed by Muslims.

The novel was eventually published in the U.S. by a
small house, Beaufort Books without a single chanting demonstrator darkening
its doorstep.  See the whole sorry
episode of hand-wringing and chattering teeth here. I have
flipped through the book in Barnes & Noble. All I can say about it is that
Sherry Jones is member of the “Writers of the Purple Prose” school of authors.
Mohammad, a rapist, a butcher, mass murderer, and a thief, comes off looking
like mild-mannered Jim Anderson of “Father Knows Best.” Many
critics gave the novel a patronizing pass.
Publishers Weekly thought the novel portrayed
Mohammad as “caring, progressive and politically savvy,” and opined that “A’isha
grows from a self-centered child to a worldly woman whose advice and counsel
are a source of comfort and strength to Muhammad. The subject matter here is
more spectacular than the writing, which tends toward the maudlin and purple.
It’s a page turner, but not outstanding.”  
But one must wonder: A writer of Sherry Jones’s
caliber could probably romanticize the courtship of Hitler and Eva
Braun
. The Jewel of Medina was followed by The Sword of Medina. See my discussion of the novel here, “Firebombing  Freedom of Speech” from 2011, and the
two  “Sensitivity Syndrome” columns, here
and here
from 2008.
There have been some Islamic novels of a
totalitarian bent, set in the future. Most of them are absurd in their premise.
Their authors simply do not understand the nature and ends of Islam. Much is
made, for example, of Robert
Ferrigno
, an American detective novelist who after 9/11 turned out a
trilogy of novels which imagined America broken up into two major regimes after
Iran (presumably) has nuked New York City and Washington, D.C. (and also
Mecca), the Islamic Republic or the Islamic States of America, and the Bible
Belt. Genetic engineering enables the protagonist to slam-bang his way through
the three stories to torpedo the machinations of a 150-year “Old Man,” whom I
suspect Ferrigno may mean George Soros. His mission: recover a piece of
Christ’s cross buried in an underground bunker in the ruins of Washington, D.C.
to foil the Old Man’s plan to establish a continental caliphate. Right.

Published just this year, in unexpected conjunction
with the massacre of the Charlie Hebdo staff in January, is French author Michel
Houellebecq’s Submission,
set in 2022 France, when an Islamic political party dominated by the Muslim
Brotherhood wins the elections and assumes power. The new president instantly
imposes Sharia law on all French citizens. The protagonist – certainly not a
hero – is a sleep-around academic who is indifferent to politics, until he’s
offered a high post in the New Sorbonne, on condition that he convert to Islam.
He’s also promised three wives. He submits.
Critics have gone wild over the novel. The New York
Times liked it so much it ran two reviews of it, one by Karl Karl Ove Knausgård and another by
Michiko Kakutaninov. Knausgård’s
review is nearly novelette in length at some 5,000 words, and is so dense with
existential angst it discourages comprehension. 
Here is a sample:
This
is the only place in the novel that opens up for the idea that the emptiness and
ennui that François [the alleged protagonist] feels is not just universal, a
kind of existential condition applicable to us all and which most people hide
away behind walls of illusion, it may also have individual causes. That is
somewhere he doesn’t want to go, and thus a vast and interesting field of
tension is set up in the novel, since the narrator is a person who is unable to
bond with others, feels no closeness to anyone, not even himself….etc and etc.
Kakutaninov’s
review is a modest 950 words. Here is a taste of it:
Mr.
Houellebecq’s writing tends to be highly derivative of earlier writers,
including Céline and Camus. His novels are hobbled by clumsy speechifying from
supporting characters who exist only to give voice to political or
philosophical points of view or to serve as objects of the hero’s contempt. His
protagonists are simply variations on one odious type — self-pitying,
self-absorbed and misanthropic men who have a hard time feeling any emotion
other than lust, and who regard humanity as a “vile, unhappy race, barely
different from the apes.”
And so on. Not exactly an invitation to run out to
pick up a copy. Most of the reviews of Submission
I’ve read of the novel are like that; tentative pats on the back for the author
with some throat-clearing reservations. The astounding thing is that anyone
would bother to review it.

M.L. Stewart seems to be a popular writer in the
U.K., and his dystopian thriller, The
United Kingdom of Islam
was apparently met with critical and reader
praise. Goodreads
offered a decent synopsis of the story, and readers on Amazon were unanimous in
their acclaim. To judge by reader appraisals of the novel on Amazon, it seems
to be much more realistic about the imposition of Sharia law on Westerners and
its gruesome consequences.
We should not forget the alternative
history/dystopian genre. Prominent in my mind are Robert Harris’s Fatherland,
which depicts a Nazi Germany that triumphed in WWII and now desperate to hide
the secret extermination of European Jews from President Joseph Kennedy, Sr. on
the eve of a meeting between him and a 70-year-old Hitler to establish a rapprochement;
and The
Man in the High Castle
, by Philip K. Dick, which paints an America partitioned
by a Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. I’ve read Harris’s novel and watched the film of it, and both are
fairly meticulous in their details (but, overall, literally incredible). I read
High Castle years ago, and while it
was suspenseful, it bored me. It is now a lushly produced Amazon Original TV series. Neither of these works deals with Islam.
My objection to such dystopian stories is one I share
with Ayn Rand: Dictatorships and totalitarian regimes cannot sustain themselves
if they destroy or regulate the freedom to think, speak, and act. At best, they
can leech off of neighboring semi-free, productive states. If those collapse
economically and/or politically, then the super-tyranny will shortly follow
suit.  Such stories can be told for
ulterior reasons, as Orwell’s Nineteen
Eighty-Four
was written not to be taken literally but to convey a message about
how suppression of thought and expression can be possible even in a semi-free
society.

Sharia Law: “He’ll Take Orders!!”

It is not common knowledge, but Ayn Rand, the
novelist/philosopher, described the means and ends of Sharia law, doubtless
before she had ever heard of it. She died in 1982, but in one key chapter of The Fountainhead, her archvillain,
Ellsworth Toohey, newspaper columnist and power-lusting gadabout, describes to
Peter Keating, his protégé in destruction, what he wants to see happen to
Howard Roark.

Roark is the architect-hero of the novel. He is scheduled to be
tried for blowing up a public housing project. Toohey confronts Keating to
obtain a key incriminating piece of evidence that Roark designed the project,
not Keating. Roark’s plans were altered by a team of second-handers, which
included Keating. Roark subsequently dynamited the half-finished project. Toohey
bares his soul to Keating for the first time. Keating is frightened,
understanding only now the charming, flattering, but dark motive behind
Toohey’s friendship with him.
Keating: 
“Why do you want to kill Howard?”
Toohey: 
“I don’t want to kill him. I want him in jail. You understand? In jail.
In a cell. Behind bars. Locked, stopped, strapped – and alive. He’ll get up
when they tell him to. He’ll eat what they give him. He’ll move when he’s told
to move and stop when he’s told. He’ll walk to the jute mill, when he’s told,
and he’ll work as he’s told. They’ll push him, if he doesn’t move fast enough,
and they’ll slap his face when they feel like it, and they’ll beat him with a
rubber hose if he doesn’t obey. And he’ll obey. He’ll take orders. He’ll take orders!”*
On the premise
that Islam is a totalitarian ideology, this is as good a dramatic description
of the purposes of Islam’s Sharia law as any, especially in regards to
non-Muslims. An unlikely-looking dictator, Ellsworth Toohey was a
dyed-in-the-wool totalitarian. But he preferred to be called a “humanitarian.”
(As he is described
in the novel, his physical appearance is a hybrid of that of British socialist Harold Laski
and of  the American actor Clifton Webb. In the 1949 film, the role of Toohey
was filled by Robert Douglas, who, while good, was far too masculine; Webb
would have been ideal. Anyone who has seen him as the sniping, condescending newspaper
critic Waldo Lydecker in Laura [1944] might agree.
Rand wrote her description of Toohey before she heard Laski speak in New York
at the New School in 1937.**)

He’ll take
orders!”
Er wird Aufträge zu nehmen!” It sounds so much more dictatorial in
Merkelian German. For that is what the Chancellor has told Germans: You will
take orders from your new masters, the Muslims. We must save Germany by
destroying it and demoting you to the status of second-class citizens is a
necessary precondition. You will not resist your new condition – defamers and
blasphemers will be punished to the full extent of the law – and defer without
protest to an admittedly crude and primitive culture, a culture and a people irreconcilably
alien to Western civilization.
Is it any wonder that some German
caricaturists have dared portray her with a Hitler style moustache, in Nazi
uniforms, as a “Bitch of Buchenwald”?
Toohey’s motive
is to acquire power: Power over people for the sake of exercising power. To
make them subservient to his whims, to order them about, to make them do things
they do not want to do. To see them humiliated and punished for the least
infraction of his diktats, for the least deviation from his will. To see them
humbled and obedient. To see them accept being slaves and minions of his will
as the natural and inevitable course of their existence, to see them act
against their nature as men of free will acting for their own, selfish reasons.
To see them alive but beaten. To see them work in their various industrial and
business “jute mills” to support their captors, who they know are their
inferiors in mind and spirit. To see them know they have no alternative but to obey. To see them bow and scrape and
approach their masters on raw, bloodied knees to beg for mercy.
The enforcers
of Sharia would take pleasure in knowing that that the captives of such a
system accept being “inferior” and live only to escape the sting of the lash,
bullets to the brain, the force of the stone, the agony of rape, the pain of
amputation.
Toohey does not
– and knows he cannot – reduce Roark to a passive, reactive cipher as he can others.
He knows that Roark cannot be broken. He wants him alive and knowing that this
is how his life will be spent, wasted in the suffocating regime of imprisonment
in a collectivist society, because he, Ellsworth Toohey, has to power to waste
it and imprison him.
Except for
minor particulars, Toohey’s envisioning of Roark in captivity in no way differs
from the means and ends advocates of Sharia law.
Subjugated dhimmis, as non-Muslims, as conquered People of the Book,
and atheists, as well, will do as they’re told, or suffer horrendous,
Sharia-prescribed consequences if they don’t do as they’re told. Rubber hoses
are an optional instrument of pain; burial alive, knives, swords, machetes,
rape, stoning, and amputation are also in Sharia’s toolbox of Islamic justice.
Siblings in Ideology
Toohey, like
any other ambitious totalitarian – Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, as well as
wannabe authoritarians like Barack Obama – is truly a “selfless” individual. He
doesn’t even hold conventional, second-hand values. He has no personal values
beyond the urge or compulsion he needs to satisfy to control other men, men who
do have personal values. Other men have more metaphysical significance to him
than does existence itself.  He is what
Rand called in her nonfiction a “social metaphysician.”
Other men are
the core of his existence – what they do, what they think, what they value.
They represent a threat, a collective nemesis, more so than does nature, which
he has elected not to control or master in the way of making an honest living
as a trader. Men pass him by in the pursuit of their values, living their own
lives. He resents this. If he cannot control other men – and the only way he
can control or rule them is to reduce them to empty vessels like himself, by
corrupting or destroying their values and their sense of personal worth – then he
will feel the dread of a kind of vertigo – more correctly, of acrophobia – of tumbling
into the empty, bottomless void of his soul. So the void must be filled with the
bodies and lives of other men. Not finding a way to control men is his most
frightening prospect. He  hates men who
will not bend to his will. They must be contained, controlled, or destroyed.
His only sense
of personal efficacy is based on the power to employ force or fraud on his
victims.
Muslims would
be Toohey’s ideal subjects and raw material for mass control, ready-made and
prepared to be told what to do with no questions asked. But the Islamic Umma – the super-collective of all
Muslims – like Toohey, cannot abide, tolerate or coexist with a society that is
diametrically opposite and opposed to it. So Islam’s antipode must be corrupted
and prepared for domination by Islam, just as Toohey throughout The Fountainhead cultivated and corrupted
men like Peter Keating for his domination.
And Islam is
well on its way to dominate the West, and possibly the whole planet.
On December 9th,
Gates of Vienna published Sonia Bailley’s précis
of part of Stephen Coughlin’s 790-page Catastrophic
Failure
: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad
, “Islamic
Timelines Fueling Jihad
.” She begins with:
All-out war with the West has begun. With the
culmination of two Islamic timelines imposing Islamic law or Sharia worldwide
converging this month, in fact one this week, things are bound to get worse.
More deadly terror attacks are expected worldwide as a result of this, as
forecasted by Major Stephen Coughlin, a former U.S. army intelligence
officer and Pentagon expert on Islamic law of jihad. The timelines are building
momentum in parallel, with one plan using violent jihad to destroy the West,
and the other using soft jihad to destroy Western civil liberties through the
use of Sharia-compliant UN resolutions and hate speech codes to curtail any
discussion or analysis of Islam.
In her
prefatory summary of her article, she wrote:
With the convergence of two Islamic timelines
(al Qaeda, OIC) to destroy the West culminating THIS month (the OIC’s timeline
ending Dec. 9th), along with the Muslim Brotherhood’s engagement in violent
jihad, as opposed to the softer jihad of dawah (inviting non-believers to
Islam, meant only as a preparatory phase to violent jihad), Westerners, as
predicted by Major Stephen Coughlin, are in for the biggest shock of their
lives in the dark times ahead, beginning this week, especially now that the
caliphate has been re-established.
And how does
Coughlin present Islam softening up the West for the fatal blows?
Al Qaeda’s 20-year plan to violently impose Sharia on the West in
stages is just entering Phase Six (2016-2020) of “Total
Confrontation”
. This timeline, hatched well before 1996, was known to the
West for ten years.
The other death-to-the-West Islamic timeline
implemented ten years ago by a highly powerful and influential organization —
the world’s second largest intergovernmental organization (next to the United
Nations) and largest Islamic organization — is also building momentum in a less
violent but parallel way.
The Organization of Islamic
Cooperation
[OIC], the
largest voting bloc at the UN (comprising the world’s 57 Islamic states)
proposed a Ten-Year Programme of Action (at a two-day summit in
Mecca concluding on Dec.9th) to internationally criminalize any criticism of
Islam or so-called Islamophobia, culminates this week (December 8th and 9th).
Toohey might
have added to his description of Roark’s captivity: “He’ll speak only when
spoken to, and not before – if ever.” Censorship – actual and de facto – is a means of silencing
critics of Islam about any aspect of the ideology, particularly Sharia law. This
silencing has been a goal of the OIC since 1999. It is obsessed especially  with the global criminalization of “Islamophobia.”
In all likelihood, the OIC-backed-and-boosted
UN Resolution 16/18 will become law not only in Canada, beginning with Quebec
as Bill 59 (which would criminalize websites offensive to Islam with fines of
up to $20,000) — but in the U.S. as well, in light of Attorney General Loretta
Lynch vowing just one day after the San Bernardino Islamic terrorist attack
that she will prosecute anyone using “anti-Muslim rhetoric” — although she didn’t mention
anything about prosecuting anyone using genocidal or jihadi rhetoric against
non-believers.
ABC News, in
its December 4th report, “
Department
of Justice Will Go After Anti-Muslim Hate Speec
h,
“ reported on Lynch’s appearance before the Muslim Advocates dinner :
U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch pledged that the Department of Justice will go after hate speech that might
incite violence against the Muslim community, she told a crowd of
Muslim-Americans and supporters Thursday night.
“Obviously this is a country that is based on
free speech,” Lynch told the audience at the Muslim Advocates dinner in
Arlington, VA. “But when that edges towards violence…we will take action.”
Muslim Advocates, a legal advocacy group,
asked Lynch to address concerns about an uptick in anti-Muslim rhetoric and hate
crimes
.  Since 9/11, Lynch says that
the Department of Justice has investigated more than 11,000 acts of anti-Muslim
rhetoric, which have led to 45 prosecutions. “I think sadly, that number is
going to rise,” said Lynch.
Bailley
notes:
Lynch’s promise conforms to
UN Resolution 16/18, which, if it becomes international law, would enforce
Sharia against Islamic blasphemy. This will be in accordance with those laws
enforced by Mohammed 1,400 years ago that condemned to hell or called
for the killing
of his dissenters and insulters.
Any form of expression that
reflects badly on Islam, or that is offensive or insulting to a Muslim, even if
that criticism constitutes the truth, is in violation of Islamic law, and is
considered a criminal offense in Islam. Those forms of informative expression might
include the mere mention or criticism of jihad and its cruel and barbaric
torture methods, the rape and enslavement of Christian and Yazidi women, the
persecution of religious minorities, gays, and apostates, to name a few, and
the motivating ideology behind all these horrific acts.
So,
why would the OIC, a bloc of Tooheys in burnooses, turbans, and Brooks Brothers
suits, want to silence those who criticize or mock Islam – unless its members
were uneasy with or even frightened of the free flow of ideas over which they
had no control, ideas that reveal the brutality and totalitarian nature of Islam?
 They don’t want non-Muslims to know the
truth about Islam, and are prepared to employ force to impose ignorance.
And
we here in the United States have a President who is willing to help enforce
that ignorance, in the persons of Barack Obama and his Attorney General Loretta
Lynch, among many others in his Muslim-populated administration, such as Huma
Shah, in Obama’s Office of Public Engagement.
Ellsworth
Toohey would chuckle and approve.
But
we Americans don’t approve. I think that is becoming fairly obvious by now. More
and more Americans seem to be siding with Howard Roark.We won’t take orders, either.
The
Fountainhead
,
by Ayn Rand. New York: Penguin 7Plume Centennial Edition, 2005. 727 pp.  P. 663.
*The Fountainhead, my 1943 edition. New
York-Indianapolis: The Bobbs-Merrill Company, 1943. 754 pp.  P. 688.
**See
pp. 113-115, The Journals
of Ayn Rand
. New York: Penguin Putnam, 1997. 752 pp.

The Great Pumpkin of Islam

A “Peanuts” TV special in 1966 had Linus, the blanket-clinging
tot in the cartoon series, concocting a kind of “religion” or “cult” around the
Great Pumpkin rising out of a pumpkin patch on Halloween night. Linus spends
that night in the pumpkin patch, to witness its appearance. It never manifests
itself, neither in form nor in echo-chamber voice. Nor even as a burning
pumpkin. Linus falls asleep, clutching his blanket. I guess. I was never a fan
of the cartoon strip and I certainly didn’t watch the TV special. Story details
can be read here.
In Islam, the Great Pumpkin can be likened to
Allah, and Linus to Mohammad. The “prophet” imagined he was getting the Koran directly from Allah (the name of
an already existing pagan god) via the angel Gabriel, and rode to Paradise on a
horse sporting a woman’s head, but all that and more, if the Koran is to be taken literally as a
record of true events, must have been the result of delirium, hallucinations, dehydration,
starvation, or sunstroke. He was living in a cave
near Mecca, ostensibly to meditate, but actually to escape the ridicule and
wrath of his Meccan neighbors. One can imagine him passing his days subsisting
on goat jerky and imbibing essence of distilled mimosa, or the local version of
Kickapoo juice.
Of course, I don’t take any of it literally, the Koran and its companion texts too likely
having been works-in-progress over centuries, cadging from the Christian,
Judaic, Zoroastrian, and pagan religions and liturgies. Robert Spencer
torpedoes the existence of Mohammad himself in his rigorously researched book, Did
Muhammad Exist?:  An Inquiry into Islam’s
Obscure Origns
.  
In short, Allah was Mohammad’s Great Pumpkin. Or,
if you prefer, his dancing, grand pink elephant, a deity greater than the Hindu
Ganesha. Allah, who shares
the metaphysical impossibility of all
deities, together with the contradictory attributes of omniscience and
omnipotence, has never manifested himself to Muslims or infidels, either. He
is, to put it tactfully, reality-shy. He exists only in the delusional minds of
those who wish to believe in such an entity. A figment of one’s
mysticism-inebriated imagination can’t be conjured into spatial existence no
matter how earnestly or often one prays, hopes, or wishes.
A Facebook friend of mine, whom I shall refer to
for security reasons as “Lois
Lane
,” conducted a four-year poll and survey of Muslims, largely over the
Internet using an avatar or pseudonym to disguise her identity, testing
Muslims’ knowledge of the Koran and
the Hadith, an anecdotal
compilation of Mohammad’s sayings and “exploits.” She compiled about 3,000
responses and reports some revealing information about our “peaceful” Muslim
neighbors, friends, and overseas pals. She focused on asking them about whether
or not they adhered to or agreed with the abrogating violent verses or with the
earlier “peaceful” ones. Here is a handy, short explanation of those verses on
YouTube, Three things you probably don’t know about Islam.” Lois Lane wrote:
Three thousand sounds  like a lot, but over four years that’s less
than half a Muslim a day. Some days I’d have quite a few conversations, and
during vacations, none. Almost all was done online and under screen names, so
there was no reason for the Muslims to hide what they really thought. They
came from all over the world. They had internet access, meaning
access to other ideologies. I have to be careful with my identity as I get a
lot of death threats.
I asked MANY Muslims about Islam,
and one of my goals was to find out what they knew about Islam. At the start, I
thought they would not know about Muhammed and what evil he did. But I learned
that they DID know. I spoke to around 3,000 Muslims over the course of the last
few years. I would ask them if they thought Muhammed was wrong to have sex with
a 9-year-old child, have people slaughtered for making fun of him, own and
trade slaves, sell women, and let his men mass rape women (and even join in),
etc.
It turns out that the overwhelming majority of her
Muslim respondents agreed with or endorsed the violent ones. And these were the
“moderate, peaceful” ones. Lois relates that there are over 6,000 verses in the
Koran that “pit Muslims against
nonbelievers.” She added that the Koran “is complete garbage, poorly written,
full of scientific nonsense and irrationality.”
The vast majority of Muslims did know about this (it is all
documented in the Islamic Hadiths). They would make lame excuses, say that I
was reading false Hadith, or rationalize. They are all taught to use the same
responses. I would put a huge pile of evidence in front of them. NOT ONE would
say that Muhammed was wrong/bad/evil to do such things. They would attack me.
Muhammed was above judgment no matter what he did. I would ask them to post the
verses since mine were wrong, according to them. No Muslim posted the verses.
No,
I guess none of them would. It would be an act of self-incrimination,
tantamount to forgetting to invoke the Fifth Amendment. But they remember to
take the Fifth, and remain silent. Or become abusive, or threatening. Or
perhaps they didn’t know where to
find the verses. As many Christians and Jews are not intimately familiar with
the key passages of the Bible and the
Torah, and could not cite chapter and
verse during a snap exam, many Muslims are not handily conversant in the Koran and its companion texts, either.
But,
as Lois Lane learned, they are adept in erecting a brick wall of denial.
Another
Internet pen pal, Linda, made this observation about Muslims getting angry when
presented with the truth about their “prophet” and about Islam itself.
“It’s not inflammatory
to cite facts.”
It is in Islam. That’s
something most people don’t know about. Truth is not a defense if a Muslim
accuses you of “insulting” Islam, because for a kafir to say
something that makes a Muslim uncomfortable about the religion, is considered
an insult even if it is true. 
Telling
the truth to a Muslim can result in threats or even one’s death. This would
explain those raucous demonstrations in London featuring mobs of wild-eyes,
unphotogenic Muslims brandishing signs that proclaim “To hell with freedom of
speech!” and “Behead those who insult Islam!” and so on ad nauseam. They prefer not to be reminded that they’re mostly
intellect-deficient yahoos and boobs.
Lois
Lane wrote:
The few other Muslims who
claimed to know nothing, did know.
When I presented my pile of evidence, not one said: “OMG, I had no
idea!” like any good person would do. They would then pick up with the
rationalizations and/or threats against me….

Muslims know how
evil Islam is and they choose to follow it. Good people do not choose to follow
evil ideologies.

A natural
question to ask is: What is a Muslim’s concept of evil? The answer is simple:
Anything that is un-Islamic. This includes man-made laws, other religions,
infidel women and their “exposed meat,” non-halal food, insults to Mohammad and
Islam, the mockery of same, not submitting to Islam, and books and columns that
expose the utterly fantastic decrepitude of Islam.
I
agree with that assessment 100%. What 
person with a modicum of moral sense (or even self-respect) would remain
a Muslim, let alone convert to Islam to become one? No one with any moral
sense. No one with first-hand values. Muslims are ciphers. What I call the Borg,
or the Walking Dead, or Pod People (re The
Invasion of the Body Snatchers
). They crave for some fictitious entity like
Mohammad or Allah to give themselves to, to submit to, to sanction their
existence, to let it make the decisions of what’s right or wrong, to govern the
content and courses of their lives. They are people who are completely empty
inside, because they prefer some all-knowing and all-powerful force to fill the
void, and to prescribe their values, which they won’t need to think about,
examine, or re-evaluate, because they’re ready-made, and anyway, it’s forbidden
to question Allah’s wisdom or to look too closely at the origins, essence,
purposes, and consequences of his commands.
Of
all the religious adherents in existence, I regard Muslims as the most
contemptible, despicable, and the most pathetic because they are not only
self-made automatons – that is, automatons
by choice
– but they’re taught and they believe that they’re superior to everyone else. They, the
empty vessels whose “souls” have been filled to the brim with ideological
and religious arsenic, who slaughtered 130 people in Paris and fourteen in San
Bernardino, are, by their corrupt measure of the “good,” regards themselves as
the betters of all non-Muslims.
Lois
Lane reveals more about her interactions with Muslims over the Internet:
Even
the most moderate Muslim, the ones who [profess to] hate ISIS, firmly believe
that all disbelievers deserve Allah’s horrible torture for all eternity. Allah
warned us and if we make the wrong choice, we need to roast. [Bracketed
comment mine
]
No
Muslim will say that Muhammed was wrong to rape, have sex with a child, own and
trade slaves, sell women, demand terrorism, have people slaughtered, etc. Not
one Muslim would judge Muhammed as anything but a perfect example.
 The nicest Muslim will become hateful if asked
the right questions. I cannot count the number of times Muslims threatened to
slaughter me and my family.
 Muslims play dirty. They gang up to have
people banned from forums if that person speaks against Islam. They lie often
and well. If you prove them wrong, they will ignore your evidence and stick
with the lie or go on to a new one.

I often hear people compare Muslims to Germans. That’s a false analogy. The
analogy should be to compare “moderate” Muslims to Nazis who have not yet
killed any Jews.
These
are the same “moderate” Muslims who struck in Paris, in San Bernardino, in
Boston, and on 9/11. A “moderate” Muslim is as much an oxymoron as is a
“moderate” Nazi or a “moderate” Communist. The Republicans, moreover, are just
as responsible for the situation we’ve been in ever for decades now. For
example. It was George W. Bush who just after 9/11 proclaimed that Islam was a
“peaceful religion” that was “hijacked” by
“militants.” You may as well say that Nazism was a
“peaceful” ideology that was “hijacked” by Hitler, or that
Communism was a “peaceful” ideology that was “hijacked” by
Lenin and Stalin, or that Shintoism was a “peaceful” religion
“hijacked” by Tojo. Still, absurdities continued to pile up from both
parties. Both parties officially refuse to recognize the nature and purposes of
Islam,
For
anyone interested in arguing with Muslims, Lois Lane has some recommended
websites that deal with arguing with Muslims about the truth and falsehood of
Islam.
http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Responses_to_Apologetics_-_Muhammad_and_Aisha
(Note: Wikiislam has been taken offline because of security issues with
Muslims.)
The
Great Pumpkin of Islam was carved out of the hallucinatory imagination of a
certified imbecile, illiterate, brigand, rapist, murderer, and tyrant.

Parsing Obama’s Palaver

President Barack Obama’s
speech
to the nation of “reassurance” and “resolve” on the evening of
December 6th had all the substance of cotton candy. It took up a lot of space
but essentially there was nothing there. It was a fluffy repeat of the same old
deception, misdirection, taqiyya, and
dissimulation. The only thing his fifteen-minute, nineteen-hundred word spiel
reassured us of was that he wasn’t going to change his policy towards ISIS (aka
ISIL) or his determination to protect Islam. Let’s examine the speech.

The first paragraph was a howler.
Good
evening. On Wednesday, 14 Americans were killed as they came together to
celebrate the holidays. They were taken from family and friends who loved them
deeply. They were white and black, Latino and Asian, immigrants, and American
born, moms and dads, daughters and sons. Each of them served their fellow
citizens. All of them were part of our American family.
Actually, Obama wasn’t so much talking “with us” as
he was talking down to us. Also, he
failed the bean-counting test. He forgot to mention that the victims were also
someone’s cousins, nephews, nieces, uncles, aunts, and in-laws. But,
apparently, there were no Muslims among the victims. What a relief! Well, to
Obama it was a relief.
Tonight
I want to talk with you about this tragedy, the broader threat of terrorism and
how we can keep our country safe….
Tragedy?
Everyone else realizes it was an attack by Islamic jihadists. Pearl Harbor was not a “tragedy.” The St. Valentine’s
Day massacre was not a “tragedy.” The Holocaust was not a “tragedy.”
Destructive natural catastrophes are “tragedies.” When people lose their lives
and property to tornados, earthquakes, and floods, those are tragedies. The
term tragedy is preferred in this
context because it lessens the sense that it was just another instance of jihad, of a continuation of Islam’s war
on the West. It misdirects one’s attention away from the ideological culprit: Islam.
The term tragedy has no human face.
It’s something that just happens, and no blame can be attached to any human
action or design.
Natural disasters do not discriminate between men,
women, and children.
But neither does Islamic jihad. American civilians are legitimate targets of Islamic jihad. “Allah is an enemy to unbelievers.” (Sura -2:98) “Slay them
wherever ye find them and drive them out of the places whence they drove you
out, for persecution is worse than slaughter.” (Koran – 2:191) “Believers!
Make war on the infidels who dwell around you.” (Koran – 9:123) Farook’s
coworkers were near him. Enough said? The Koran
is replete with such bloody-minded injunctions.
The
FBI is still gathering the facts about what happened in San Bernardino, but here’s
what we know….
Our dhimmified
FBI
, 48 hours after the San Bernardino attack, finally conceded it was an
act of terrorism. At the time, Obama was still suggesting it was an instance of
workplace
violence
.” The FBI, as of the date of this writing, is still fossicking
around for a motive. Last night Obama finally admitted that the attack was an
act of terrorism, carried out by Muslims. Well, by “renegade” Muslims. It must
have wrenched his gut to have to admit that. Facts, however, may be suppressed
as inconvenient if they incriminate Muslims, and contradict one’s assumptions, and
must be suppressed as long as possible before they must be acknowledged.
So
far, we have no evidence that the killers were directed by a terrorist
organization overseas or that they were part of a broader conspiracy here at
home.
“We” now have evidence Syed Farook and Tashfeen
Malik were in
contact
with parties designated by the FBI as “persons of interest” in this
country and overseas.
 But it is clear that the two of them had gone
down the dark path of radicalization, embracing a perverted interpretation of
Islam that calls for war against America and the West. They had stockpiled
assault weapons, ammunition, and pipe bombs.
There’s that hoary old chestnut of Islam, that it’s
a peaceful religion, as peaceful as an Amish barn-raising get-together,
and that Islam had been “hijacked.” It’s one of George
W. Bush’s
most noteworthy gaffes, addressed exclusively to Muslims shortly
after 9/11. Obama owes George W. Bush so much, you have to wonder why over the
years he has blamed the man for so many problems. Moreover, you can no more
“radicalize” Islam than you can “radicalize” Nazism or Communism. You can’t
“pervert” a death cult like Islam or put a worse “interpretation” on it than the
one it already flaunts. It is what it is. Applying the term “extremist” to
Islam’s consistent practitioners is an exercise in myopic epistemology. It’s
tantamount to calling Venus’s
atmosphere
extremely lethal” to
human life. It’s lethal, period.

As Daniel Greenfield noted in his December 6th
column about Syed Farook’s father, “Moderate
Muslim Dad to San Bernardino Terrorist: Soon All the Jews Will be Dead
,”
….Farook’s family was only
“moderate” by the standards of ISIS. And that’s the problem with the
myth of the moderate Muslim. It’s a relative definition, not a moral one. And
since there’s an endless spectrum of Islamic Supremacist brutality, being
moderate means very little. Like the average in a population of murderous
psychos or serial rapists, a halfway point in evil doesn’t mean much.
ISIS’s ranks of “fighters” and terrorists in Syria,
in Europe, and in America are filled with once “moderate” Muslims. Syed Farook
and Tashfeen Malik were unassuming, “moderate” Muslims, until they exchanged
their civilian clothes for combat gear, and then locked and loaded. Obama
claimed that:
Our
nation has been at war with terrorists since Al Qaeda killed nearly 3,000
Americans on 9/11….
Come again? What about the Barbary
Wars
in the early 19th century? Or are looting and enslaving pirates not to
be classified as terrorists? Muslims terrorized European coast lines for
centuries.
Intelligence
and law enforcement agencies have disrupted countless plots here and overseas
and worked around the clock to keep us safe.
Our
military and counterterrorism professionals have relentlessly pursued terrorist
networks overseas, disrupting safe havens in several different countries,
killing Osama Bin Laden, and decimating Al Qaeda’s leadership….
No thanks to Obama with all the actions he has
taken to cripple our intelligence gather efforts against ISIS, Iran, Al-Qaeda,
and other terrorist outfits, such as ordering the redaction
of Islamic
and Muslim terms from the FBI training documents . No thanks to
his budget cuts on the military. You really have to credit Obama for his brazen
effrontery to tell lies to the American public about all he has accomplished in
the “war against terror.” It was his policies in Iraq and Syria and Libya that
sired the birth of ISIS. He has accomplished anarchy and enabled the growth of
ISIS.
 And as groups like ISIL grew stronger amidst
the chaos of war in Iraq and then Syria, and as the Internet erases the
distance between countries, we see growing efforts by terrorists to poison the
minds of people like the Boston Marathon bombers and the San Bernardino
killers.
But the minds of Farook and Malik, together with
those of Johar
and Tamerlan Tsarnaev
, the Boston Marathon bombers, were already drawn to
terrorism, poisoned by Islam. Islam severs any rational link between morality
and action. It sanctions violence and death. This is true for your average,
unassuming, non-violent Muslim and the gun- and bomb-wielding apostles of an
Islamic apocalypse. This is true for those born into the cult and raised in it,
and for those drawn to it for their own skewed psychological reasons to be
converted. Because Islam claims that all infidels – Jewish, Christian,
Buddhist, and so on – were born
Muslims
,  anyone adhering to another
faith or religion, or to no religion at all, is fair game for killing or
enslaving. I kid you not. Here is an imam’s own explanation:
In
His infinite love and compassion, God gave all humans this fitrah, which
pulls them back towards Him through the message of His prophets which was
finalized and preserved with the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).
However,
some people may either ignore the call or are so steeped in the falsehoods of
their ‘given’ religion that they ignore their fitrah guiding them back
to the One and Only God. This fitrah is that still small voice that
‘whispers’ to you the difference between right and wrong and makes you question
the doctrination of the corruption in religion today.
That “small voice” that “whispers” into your mind
is the little “birdie” I describe in “The
Ugly American Muslim
” about Farook and Malik. One day Farook and Malik are
shopping for Pampers and baby food for the toddler. The next day they’re taking
delivery of automatic weapons and bullets, and assembling pipe bombs. The
Farook family
lawyer
, David S. Chesley, is in
denial
that Farook and Malik were really vicious killers. He suspects a
“setup,” an entrapment, a conspiracy of some kind. Or something. The National
Review
on December 4th  reports on
his CNN interview with Chris Cuomo. Not quite sounding like Mr. Magoo, Chesley said:
There’s
a lot of disconnects and unknowns and things that, quite frankly, don’t add up
or seem implausible…. You
know, no one has ever seen Syed with any of the things that they, I mean – with
some of the things we found on the scene, they haven’t seem [sic] them with them…
We sat with the FBI for three
hours and they tried to identify some characteristics or some affiliations that
he [Farook] might have had, that could have led to him acting this way. They
couldn’t find anything. They were totally stumped, totally frustrated….
It’s
a real head-scratcher, David. But, you went to law school, just
like Obama
, so I’m sure you’ll figure it out some day.
From here on Obama’s remarks about what to do about
ISIS and terrorism, what he will do to “defeat“ ISIL, how he’s forming an
alliance with the U.K., France, and Germany (!!! You mean the same Germany that
invited
millions of Muslims
to invade Europe???, to exchange the swastika for the
crescent and star???), how he’ll order a review of how the immigrant vetting
process to prevent “bad” Muslims like Tashfeen Malik from entering the country
– are just so much taqiyya-sugared palaver
we’ve all heard countless times before. Snoozers.
As Diane West
remarked in a “tweet” soon after Obama was finished “reassuring” the country:
The Crux of Obama’s speech was a pitch to
re-repress a growing understanding that the more Islam there is in our society,
the less freedom, the less safety.
Obama presses
on with his insipid recommendations.
Next,
we should put in place stronger screening for those who come to America without
a visa so that we can take a hard look at whether they’ve traveled to war
zones. And we’re working with members of both parties in Congress to do exactly
that.
As Pamela Geller of Atlas
Shrugs
“tweeted” soon after the hot air session:
BHO: “I’ve ordered a review of the
visa program” the SB terrorist used – but he’ll bring in hundreds…thousands
of “refugees” infiltrated by ISIS.
The bulk of the balance of Obama’s address is how
we mustn’t hold Islam or Muslims responsible for Paris and San Bernardino and
any other atrocities committed in the name of Islam. There mustn’t be a
“backlash,” we mustn’t discriminate against Muslims, we mustn’t hold Muslims
responsible for the actions of other “troubled” Muslims, even though the latter
commit their crimes in the name of Islam and for the sake of the Umma, of which
all those “peaceful,” passive Muslims are members.
Of course, Obama had to get in a word or two about his
desire for more gun controls on top of what already exist.
We
also need to make it harder for people to buy powerful assault weapons, like
the ones that were used in San Bernardino. I know there are some who reject any
gun-safety measures, but the fact is that our intelligence and law-enforcement
agencies, no matter how effective they are, cannot identify every would-be mass
shooter, whether that individual was motivated by ISIL or some other hateful
ideology.
What
we can do, and must do, is make it harder for them to kill.
So, just to be on the safe side, we need to disarm everyone, even those who find it
necessary to defend themselves against terrorists. We must wrest weapons from
the hands of our own gun-clingers. Of course, we all know that criminals will
acquire guns of all kinds especially in contravention of existing gun control
laws, and that “gun-free zones” experience the highest rate of mass killings,
but you folks out there will just have to chance it. Never mind that I’m
surrounded by guns wherever I go.
The
strategy that we are using now — air strikes, special forces, and working with
local forces who are fighting to regain control of their own country — that is
how we’ll achieve a more sustainable victory, and it won’t require us sending a
new generation of Americans overseas to fight and die for another decade on
foreign soil.
Obama’s formula for fighting terrorism seems to be
that we Americans must fight and die on our own soil, as well. Because that’s
in the cards if he succeeds in bringing in countless ISIS-approving
Syrian “refugees.”
However, above all, and this is the chief thrust of
his address:
Here’s
what else we cannot do. We cannot turn against one another by letting this
fight be defined as a war between America and Islam. That, too, is what groups
like ISIL want. ISIL does not speak for Islam. They are thugs and killers, part
of a cult of death. And they account for a tiny fraction of a more than a
billion Muslims around the world, including millions of patriotic
Muslim-Americans who reject their hateful ideology.
Moreover,
the vast majority of terrorist victims around the world are Muslim.
If
we’re to succeed in defeating terrorism, we must enlist Muslim communities as
some of our strongest allies, rather than push them away through suspicion and
hate.
That
does not mean denying the fact that an extremist ideology has spread within
some Muslim communities. It’s a real problem that Muslims must confront without
excuse.
Perhaps it’s a real problem that Obama and John
Kerry and others must confront. Yes, ISIS speaks for Islam, in its purest,
undiluted form, and also for its mild-mannered form. From a Muslim victim’s
viewpoint, such as that of a woman stoned to death for adultery, or of a gay
tossed from a rooftop, or of an American Muslim girl honor-killed for rejecting
an arranged marriage or Muslim garb, the two versions are indistinguishable.
Muslim
leaders here and around the globe have to continue working with us to
decisively and unequivocally reject the hateful ideology that groups like ISIL
and Al Qaeda promote, to speak out against not just acts of violence, but also
those interpretations of Islam that are incompatible with the values of
religious tolerance, mutual respect, and human dignity.
But
just as it is the responsibility of Muslims around the world to root out
misguided ideas that lead to radicalization, it is the responsibility of all
Americans, of every faith, to reject discrimination. It is our responsibility
to reject religious tests on who we admit into this country. It’s our
responsibility to reject proposals that Muslim-Americans should somehow be
treated differently.
Muslim leaders in this country and around the world
aren’t going to “reject” their ideology, they aren’t going to campaign for religious
tolerance, mutual respect, and human dignity. Oh, they’ll say the right things
to the West and quite the opposite to their brethren and mosque-filled flocks.
That’s the nature of taqiyya. Obama is
quite good at it himself. Islam is the most intolerant creed on the planet, it
will not respect other creeds, and its notion of human dignity is exampled in Muslim
gang-rapes of Muslim women and of infidel kaffirs, raising their rear-ends en masse on Western streets, and
referring to Jews and Christians as no better than apes and pigs.
“Religious tests”? Say, rather, ideological tests
that would screen out those who wish to make war on this country and its government?
Islam is a totalitarian ideology garbed in the vestments of a brutal, primitive
religion. Islam was political from Mohammad’s git-go. But, Mr. President, Muslims
in this country expect to be treated
differently – to be deferred to, to be treated as a superior, special class, to
claim the right to impose Sharia on non-Muslims as a default submission to
Islam.
Because
when we travel down that road, we lose. That kind of divisiveness, that
betrayal of our values plays into the hands of groups like ISIL.
Obama has reigned over and caused the divisiveness
wherefore he speaks – in race relations, in religious and ethnic relations, in
our politics, in the economy. And to which values is he referring?  
Muslim-Americans
are our friends and our neighbors, our co- workers, our sports heroes. And,
yes, they are our men and women in uniform who are willing to die in defense of
our country. We have to remember that.
I don’t know that Muslims are our friends. Muslims don’t
solicit my friendship, and I certainly don’t solicit theirs. I don’t want them
as neighbors. You never know when they’ll be struck by “sudden jihad syndrome”
and start brandishing a knife or a machete. Call me an “Islamophobe.”
Muslims should not be allowed in our military
forces. Ask Major Nidal
Hasan
. Nor should our military be obliged to observe or respect Muslim customs
and holidays. Nor should this country.
In sum, Barack Obama’s startled no one but the New
York Times
and the Washington
Post
with a 180-degree turnaround in his so-called war to end terrorism,
protect the country, and end ISIS. Those two newspapers drooled over his “refreshing”
change of tactic and for grasping the terrorism bull by the horns.
But it was mostly bull that Obama offered the
country – again. The fellows at ISIS must be amused.

Page 1 of 2

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén