Print Page - The Religion Barrier

The articles on this page describe the fundamentals of Islam, as Islam presents them and as we truthfully counter Islamic presentation.

WHAT ISLAMISTS CLAIM ISLAM TO BE

Basics of Islam (I)

“Know thine enemy,” remains essential to defeating any enemy. Fortunately, our enemy, Islam and its Jihad, is simple – really simple, which is one reason for its success. Before we can address what is wrong with Islam, we need to get to common ground about what is Islam.

All quotes to follow come from The Noble Qur’an, the Saudi version. (Translated by Muhsin Khan and Al-Hilati, Darussalam Publications, Riyadh, ISBN: 9960-740-79-X, 1996), pages 916-922. The Appendix to this Qur’an presents the essentials of Islam as principles.

Islamists call Islamic Monotheism, Tauhid. Tauhid holds three principles as axioms:

1. Lordship of Allah. “To believe that there is only one Lord for all the universe and He is, its Creator, Organizer, Planner, Sustainer, and the Giver of security...”

2. Worship of Allah. “...None has the right to be worshipped...but Allah.”

3. Names and Qualities of Allah. “We must not name or qualify Allah except what He or His Messenger [Muhammad] has name or qualified Him [to be and have].” Further, Muslims must believe in all qualities of Allah mentioned in the Qur’an or exactly as alleged to have been stated by Muhammad, without deviation or interpretation.

Muslims must believe in Allah, his angels, his messengers (particularly Muhammad), his revealed books (principally, the Qur’an), the Day of Resurrection, and Al-Qadar. This sixth element of faith, Al-Qadar, refers to predestination, i.e., that whatever Allah has ordained, must come to pass; Allah has preordained everything. Muslims must perform “righteous deeds” without regard to any personal benefit and perform them in accordance with the Sunnah (the legal ways, orders, acts of worship, and statements of Muhammad).

Allah has extraordinary attributes which are to be accepted without question. Allah created and rules “all that exists.” Further, Allah is the organizer and planner of all that happens in “all that exists,” i.e., the universe. Allah gives life and death. Allah hears all, sees all, knows all, and Allah is everywhere, aware of all. Allah is unknowable (they assert that the Qur’an proves Allah has hands, but no one has ever seen Allah’s hands because no one has ever seen Allah.

The take-home lesson is that Muslims must believe Muhammad who provides the sole account of the words and will of Allah. Allah, according to Muhammad, revealed his words to Muhammad, which became the the Holy Koran. As the direct words of Allah, the Koran may never be changed. The entire body of evidence derives from what one man said, i.e., Muhammad, with no witnesses, no substantiation, no documentation, and no evidence whatsoever. No doubt, no questioning of validity, no appeal for evidence have ever been tolerated in Islam.

These principles allegedly come from Allah via Muhammad. We will next look at the founding documents of Islam, and later on at other principles and commandments of Islam.

Basics of Islam (II)

In Basics of Islam (I), we stated:

The take-home lesson is that Muslims must believe Muhammad who provides the sole account of the words and will of Allah. Allah, according to Muhammad, revealed his words as the Holy Koran to Muhammad. The entire body of evidence derives from what one man said, i.e., Muhammad, with no witnesses, no substantiation, no documentation, and no evidence whatsoever. No doubt, no questioning of validity, no appeal for evidence have ever been tolerated in Islam.

Now, we need to look at the founding documents of Islam, and later on at other principles and commandments of Islam.

Keep in mind that documents establishing Judaism and Christianity are long and deep. They originate from many sources and have been cross-referenced many times. Even the Dead Sea Scrolls found early in the second half of the 20th century overap and corroborate some common period of religious history of Judaism and Christianity.

Nothing establishes Islam other than a few documents written long after Muhammad died and which relied for source material on oral accounts. These accounts used the technique of the isnad to establish “facts.” Isnads are strings of "he-said-she-saids," such as, for example, “I got this from Joe who got it from Bill who got it from Jack who got it from Martin who got it from Allan...” No one got anything first-hand because there was no documentation for a very long time for Islam.

The Qur’an was first written many decades after the illiterate Muhammad died. The major sources were descendants of Muhammad’s original band and those few of the originals left who had not been killed in battle. Even the early fragments and Korans differ in style and content substantially from the "official" versions. Islamists deal with this problem by proclaiming the Koran to be the revealed word of Allah, and one must accept this without question or face horrible punishment. That has tended to keep Muslims quiet and devoid of curiosity. No aspect of the Koran, according to Shariah, Muslim law, can be changed because it is the word of Allah; change constitutes blasphemy and results in death.

The next entry into the cadre of founding documents came 120 years after the death of Muhammad. Ibn Ishaq wrote the first biography, the Sira al-Rasul, available today under the title of Life of Muhammad. Not only were there no documents to study or first-persons to interview, but Ibn Ishaq’s original biography no longer exists. After Ibn Ishaq, another writer, Ibn Hisham, “modified” the biography, explicitly to make it more acceptable. Many wonder what Ibn Ishaq’s original biography was like, truly, since the picture of Muhammad in the modified biography is that of a blood-thirsty terrorist who plundered the lives and property of others as livelihood and as a means of forcing others to adopt his creation, Islam.

In the 8th and 9th centuries A.D., the final founding documents were written. These include The History of Al-Tabari and the Ahadith. A hadith is a collection of the purported sayings, entreaties, behaviors, customs, and so on, attributed to Muhammad, the last prophet. Scholars consider the Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim to be the most reliable of the Ahadith, although there are several others. Again, all Ahadith come from oral sources, way, way downstream from founding events and persons.

Ibn Ishaq’s Sira, The History of Al-Tabari, and other Ahadith establish the Sunnah, as it is known. While the Sunnah are not considered the revealed words of Allah, they are considered divinely inspired. Doubts or questions about validity constitute blasphemy. The Koran, of course, joins the Sunnah as founding documents.

By 900 A.D., clerics closed Islam to any further change or discovery. The Koran and the Sunnah became THE founding documents of Islam, and no others. The only further product was the shariah, or Islamic law, which codified the details from the founding documents into hard and fast rules governing every aspect of life at all times for Muslims. Fundamental change ended for Islamia from about 900 A.D. to this day.

In terms of documentation, Islam began with what someone named Muhammad said had been revealed to him. He said his god demanded total obedience and acceptance of whatever Muhammad said and did. Muhammad and his cohorts were illiterate, and none of what became the Koran was written down for decades. All of Islam is based on what someone has been alleged to say, and upon what others distantly removed from Muhammad allege he did and said. Islam stands on hear-say, and nothing more.

Islam succeeded initially by means of volunteers whose motives and behaviors put Ali Baba’s forty thieves to shame. Islam has always attracted power-lusters. Islam succeeded initially with others because it was forced on non-volunteers at sword point until they volunteered. Eventually, Islam became the culture, thus self-perpetuating. These are not intended as any but incomplete statements about the natural history of Islam; the reasons for its success come later.

For further details, consult Mark Alexander's The Dawning of a New Dark Age, the two books by Robert Spencer, Ibn Warraq's Why I Am Not A Muslim, and Craig Winn’s Prophet of Doom.

Next, we will explore Islam and disbelief. No one makes more of disbelief than Muslims because Islam can tolerate no doubt or independence of thought.

cont'd

Basics of Islam (III)

Is resistance to Islam “futile?” Many will recognize this question as a paraphrase of what the Borg told absolutely everyone who resisted their “assimilation” on the Star Trek movies and television series.

The answer for most Muslims is “Yes!” The answer for apostates is always “No, but you are in great danger.” Islam has successfully dealt with resistance to it for almost 1400 years, and this accounts in part for its success. Few try to escape its clutches, and those apostates who do are marked for death which may be performed by any Muslim.

“Islam” means “submission.” Ostensibly, it means submission to Allah and Allah’s wishes and plans for that Muslim, an acceptance of one’s fate, although they never put it that way. A Muslim is one who submits. Islam is a one-way street. You may become a Muslim, but you may not leave Islam, ever, for any reason, or face death. Nor must you ever doubt Islam in any way if you are a Muslim, or face death.

Those who were Muslims but have renounced Islam are known as “apostates.” Those who have not accepted Islam are “infidels” or “kaffirs.” The state of disbelief in Islam is “kufr.” Nobody makes a bigger deal out of disbelief than Muslims. Their war on disbelief is in proportion to the flimsiness of the arguments for Islam: Doubt, once starting to spread, would end Islam quickly and permanently as a world issue.

Muslims go crazy over polytheism and disbelief. They call polytheism, “shirk.” If you are religious, but you are not worshiping Allah, you are committing shirk, the “unpardonable sin.” All “disbelievers in Allah and the Oneness of Allah, polytheists, pagans, and idolaters, ... in Hell will they abide. The Fire will burn their faces, and they will grin with [disfigured] lips.”. [Quotes are from The Noble Qur’an, pages 916 - 924), referenced in part one of this series.] Christians commit shirk because they believe in the Holy Trinity.

Islamists get very detailed about shirk. Doubt is anathema.

1. Major Shirk

a. Worshiping deities other than Allah.
b. Any actions in support of any deities other than Allah.
c. Obedience to any not authorized by Allah (such as rabbis, monks,
Mary, Jesus, etc.).

2. Minor Shirk, they define, as religious behavior where world benefit results.

3. Inconspicuous Shirk happens when one is at odds in any way with one’s status and life which Allah has preordained for one.

Kufr means disbelieving in any of the six articles of Islamic faith.

• Allah
• Allah’s angels
• Allah’s messengers
• Allah’s revealed books (Qur’an, etc.)
• Day of Resurrection
• Predestination

Major disbelief nullifies one’s status as a Muslim.

1. “Disbelieving in the Divine truth or denying any of the articles of Faith.”
2. Rejection as disobedience to “Allah’s commandments after prior conviction of their truth.”
3. Doubting any of the six articles of faith.
4. Any deviation from the dictates of Islam.
5. Hypocrisy.

These sins subject one to death.

Minor disbelief is lack of gratitude to Allah. Minor disbelief does not excommunicate or decapitate a Muslim.

It is worth citing one more list to illustrate the grip that Islam has on Muslims who must fear Allah and fear Islam all of the time. A synonym for submission with regard to Islam is “obedience.”

Hypocrisy in belief puts one into the worst that Hell can provide.

• Denying the Messenger (Muhammad)
• Denying anything alleged to have been said by Allah
• Hating Muhammad
• Hating anything Muhammad allegedly said
• Enjoying any difficulties Islam may experience
• Displeasure at the victory of Islam

These are the cardinal sins of Islam.

As anyone can see, Islam is mind control. Children in Islamia are born Muslims. Islam takes their minds early in childhood and never lets go. Bodies follow minds.

LIES OF ISLAM

While exploring the nooks and crannies of Islam, I have been concentrating on its principles, figuring out what makes it "tick." Little, by little, I began noticing what I can call, for want of any better term, the propaganda of Islam. We can just as well call them the lies of Islam.

Islam tells us some whoppers. It must; until it hooks someone into being or becoming a Muslim by conversion, and then scares the metaphysical hell out of them so they will not dare consider leaving Islam, Islam must market itself. Part of Islam's "marketing system" consists of putting the best foot forward while blurring out the other foot. To that end, it relies on true believers, scads of apologists, and, above all, ignorance. True believers believe the lies. Apologists try to make you believe the lies. The ignorant prefer to believe the lies, since they are less threatening than the truth.

Islam lies both by omission and commission. Some facts get left out or greatly minimized. Other "data" are outright fabrications.

Islam cannot and does not prosper in a rational world. Reason and Islam are opposites. Islam must lie to create the appearance of making sense. By contrast, reason makes abundant sense. Islam uses enormous energy to sustain a status quo. To this end, it directs itself to its biggest enemy: The human mind.

I have collected a number of Islamic lies, but by no means all of them. I intend not to bother with or collect lesser lies --for example, the one where the Koran and Ahadith say that Allah created Man from slime mud or clay or blood clots or semen, depending on where in the Koran you are reading. I have focused only on the more important lies, the ones that involve the basic operating principles of Islam.

I am certain that some will quibble with my choices and my phraseology I am using my own words, not Islam's. I do not regard Islam to have any value as a religion. Obviously, it is a religion, but the importance of Islam lies foremost not with Islam as a religion but with Islam as a philosophy, where it does its real damage. Its religiosity becomes important when looking at how Islam propagates itself, how it motivates its followers -- based on its philosophical principles.

This presentation lists without elaborations. We have been elaborating in our articles thus far and will elaborate much more in the future.

LIES ABOUT ISLAM

* Islam comes from Allah, revealed through his prophet,
Muhammad
* Islam is original
* Islam is a religion of peace
* Islam must be distorted, hijacked, in order to be used
to justify terrorism
* Islam promotes love and fellowship, not just for Muslims,
but for non-Muslims as well
* Islamic Heaven is just exactly as Muhammad described
it in the Koran
* Islamic Heaven, or Paradise, actually exists

cont'd

LIES ABOUT ALLAH

* "Allah" means "God"
* Allah is God
* Allah exists
* Allah created the universe
* Allah is omnipotent, omniscient, and infallible
* Allah is all good and merciful
* Allah is unknowable
* Allah revealed all knowledge as the Koran
* Allah was not a pagan god, the moon-war-sword god,
who lived in the rock (meteorite?) housed in the Kaaba
* Nothing about Man's life is predetermined or predestined;
Man retains full choice about living his life.

LIES ABOUT THE KORAN

* The Koran is the revealed and exact word of God (Allah)
* The Koran is holy
* The Koran cannot be translated
* The Koran can be understood only in its original religious Arabic
* The Koran has never changed
* The Koran cannot be changed
* Heaven, Hell, Satan (Iblis) exist and are exactly
as described by the Koran
* Even though the Koran was never written by
Muhammad because of his illiteracy, and even though
the Koran was never written for some 100 years
after the death of Muhammad, the oral traditions
remembered it exactly as Muhammad spoke it,
without any loss whatsoever.

LIES ABOUT JIHAD

* "Jihad" refers solely to the personal struggle of Muslims
for perfection
* Jihad does not mean "holy war"

LIES ABOUT MUHAMMAD

* Muhammad was God's (Allah's) prophet
* Muhammad was the last prophet
* Muhammad was a holy man
* Muhammad received the content of the Koran
from Allah via the Angel Gabriel
* Muhammad accurately spoke the revelations of Allah
* Whatever Muhammad said about anything is
the truth because he said it
* Muhammad's claims that he received revelations
from Allah are indisputably true

LIES ABOUT MUSLIMS

* Islam is never at fault: only Muslims, who fail to follow
Islam consistently, might be at fault. But infidels
are always at fault and are the source of all evil
* Good Muslims follow the Koran, Sunna, and sharia consistently
* Non-Muslims are inferior and evil
* All non-Muslim religions are inferior and evil
* Muslims must rule the world, under Islam
* Muslims are the chosen people
* Most Muslims will go to Islamic Heaven
* Good wives go to Islamic Heaven

Islamic Deception Practices

If there was any good way to tell in advance which Muslims intend to kill me, mine, and my America, I would truly feel sorry for them. Why? Islam kills Muslims off in the worst possible way, by destroying their humanity at the earliest possible age in life. From my perspective, their lives are living hells.

Consider the double bind Islam forces them into. On the one hand, they are supposed to have allegiance only to Islam and the ummah, which is the world community of Muslims, and they are supposed to be strict practitioners of Islam. Both make them detestable human beings. Some rebel. They want to live and let live, and to enjoy life on this earth. They are “bad Muslims, by Islamic criteria.” Suppose they express their desires to join the Family of Man instead of killing and conquering the Family of Man? Who could trust them?

From where comes this distrust? It comes from Islam itself, which has built into itself all sorts of ways to trap Muslims permanently in its morass. “Good Muslims,” who are “bad guys” to us because they are consistent practitioners of Islam and want to destroy us, use all sorts of official Islamic techniques to fool us into believing that they are seeking congeniality to share life on earth. All the while, these bad guys are fooling us, to take us off guard,
so they can kill and destroy us.

A Muslim with truly humane intentions endures the distrust engendered by the deceivers. He can’t win, inside Islam or out. The best course for him is to renounce Islam completely and follow up his public renunciation with consistently benevolent behavior over a very long time. We may still be fooled by some Muslims who pretend to renounce Islam to use the renunciation as deceit and are willing to be long term “sleepers.” However, all of life entails risk. We must start somewhere.

It is worth exposing the tactics of deception practiced by Islam, as we find them. I am indebted to Counter Intelligence, Counter Espionage, and Counter Terrorism (http://www.ci-ce-ct.com/Feature%20articles/02-12-2002.asp), for the following excellent material, in “Taqiyya and kitman: The role of Deception in Islamic terrorism.”

“Tradecraft. Persona. Deception. Disinformation. Cover: Western operational terms and techniques. But, Islamic terrorists have their own terms: taqiyya (pronounced tark-e-ya): precautionary dissimulation or deception and keeping one's convictions secret and a synonymous term, kitman: mental reservation and dissimulation or concealment of
malevolent intentions...

cont'd

“Taqiyya and kitman or ‘holy hypocrisy’ has been diffused throughout Arabic culture for over fourteen hundred years since it was developed by Shiites as a means of defence and concealment of beliefs against Sunni unbelievers. As the Prophet said: 'he who keeps secrets shall soon attain his objectives.’

“The skilful use of taqiyya and kitman was often a matter of life and death against enemies; it is also a matter of life and death to many contemporary Islamic terrorists. As so often in the history of Islam, a theological doctrine became operational.

“During the Spanish inquisition, Sunni Morison attended mass and returned home to wash their hands of the ‘holy water’. In operational terms, taqiyya and kitman allowed the ‘mujahadeen ’ to assume whatever identity was necessary to fulfill their mission; they had doctrinal and theological and later jurisprudential sanction to pretend to be Jews or Christians to gain access to Christian and Jewish targets: ‘the mujahadeen can take the shape of the enemy’.

“Taqiyya is common to both Shiite and Sunni Muslim discourse and has significant implications for understanding Islamic fundamentalism and terrorist operations. The theory and practice of counter terrorism would be counter productive, indeed pointless, and even harmful, without reference to taqiyya and kitman and the crucial role of deception ranging from Islamic jurisprudence to Al Qaeda training manuals, which carry detailed instructions on the use of deception by terrorists in Western target countries.

“According to Christian ethics lying is a sin; In Islamic jurisprudence and theology, the use of taqiyya against the unbelievers is regarded as a virtue and a religious duty.

“Like many Islamic concepts taqiyya and kitman were formed within the context of the Arab-Islamic matrix of tribalism, expansionary warfare and conflict. Taqiyya has been used by Muslims since the 7th century to confuse and split 'the enemy’. A favored tactic was ‘deceptive triangulation’; to persuade the enemy that jihad was not aimed at them but at another enemy. Another tactic was to deny that there was jihad at all. The fate for such faulty assessments by the target was death.”

We must never forget, as we expose the truth about Islam, that their best theorists and practitioners lived in, and still live in Iran. Iran is Shia Islam territory. Shiites broke off from Sunnis about 900 A.D. and the two factions have been in competition since. While there are differences between Sunni and Shia Islam, they are trifles, at the level of basic principles and practices. At the root level, they are the same.

The best theorist of Islam has been that “fun-loving,” Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. He deposed the Shah of Iran and set up an Islamic theocratic totalitarian state in Iran. With his approval, our embassy personnel were taken hostage in 1979. He popularized the saying that America is the “Great Satan.” He also issued a fatwa, a religious edict, calling for the death of Muslim author, Salman Rushdie, because he wrote a novel about Muhammad’s alleged
encounter with Satan. The relevant Koranic verses are known as the Satanic Verses, as was Rushdie’s novel.

Few who write about Islam note or quote Khomeini. In fact, Iran seems to be “under-the-radar” far too much. Amir Taheri, an Iranian journalist, wrote about Khomeini’s decades long struggle to seize power over Iran, as a stepping stone to seizing power over the world. Khomeini practiced deceptive techniques masterfully. In addition to taqiyyah and kitman, Khomeini employed:

Khod’eh, “which means tricking one’s enemy into a misjudgement of one’s true position. Khomeini did not tell direct lies but used many half-truths based on well-established khod’eh tactics.” One of his many pledges was for female equality in Iran, which he qualified with phrases such as “in accordance with Islam.”

Tanfih, “which means misleading everyone about one’s true beliefs in a hostile environment.” These are the promises, such as UN nuclear regulatory compliance, made these days.

(From Amir Taheri, The Spirit of Allah: Khomeini and the Islamic Revolution, Adler and Adler, ISBN: 0-917561-04-X, 1985. Unfortunately, this book is out-of-print.)

The Koran and other Islamic documents sanction Muslim deception against infidels (non-Muslims). Our take home lesson should be obvious: Believe nothing Islamists say or state in any form. Particularly, never believe any promise from them. Whatever they say or do may serve to you in, so that you will drop your guard: Many of Muhammad’s targets were murdered in just this way. Dedicated Islamists are true “shape-shifters,” a la Star Trek.
They use these strategies and tactics on us continuously.

Be vigilant always.

Fundamental Ideas Needed to Turn Normal People into Muslims
(A 6-Part Series)

Part I: Introduction and Metaphysics

Introduction

Islam and war have always been inseparable and indivisible. Islam's history is one of conflict. These days, almost all global hotspots involve Islamists "acting out" pure Islam.

Islamic bellicosity comes from its content, its basic principles. The rot starts at its very roots and works itself into all of the rest of Islam.

In sum, Islam is a war on philosophy:

* War on reality (metaphysics)
* War on reason and the human mind (epistemology)
* War on the self (ethics)
* War on human freedom (politics)
* War on life itself (esthetics)

The terms in parentheses are the names of the five major branches of philosophy. "Philosophy studies the fundamental nature of existence, of man, and of mans relationship to existence. As against the special sciences, which deal only with particular aspects, philosophy deals with those aspects of the universe which pertain to everything that exists. In the realm of cognition, the special sciences are the trees, but philosophy is the soil which makes the forest possible." [See Ayn Rand's, Philosophy: Who Needs It, Signet Books, 1982.] (Emphasis is mine). In short, when one assails philosophy as Islam does, there can be no more fundamental attack, with no more devastating consequences.

Islam's 1400 year existence convinces many Muslims that Islam is superior and is winning its goal of conquering the world. There are easily understood reasons why Islam has endured and why it is attractive to some people these days and why it is currently so active in the world. These will be dealt with later on.

Islam, however, is not winning. It is in the fight for its life. It faces extinction, and Islamists know it. But, few of them -- or us -- know the real reason why Islam is starting to fail, and will fail completely in time. It comes down to a very simple principle: No one can make war on reality indefinitely. Anyone warring against reality may win battles, but cannot win the war. Reality always wins in the end.

If we get into the basic roots of Islam, we can see what makes it "tick," so to speak, as well as contrasting it with Americas philosophy as it operates in ordinary Americans and use our knowledge to accelerate Islam's demise. Some technical terms must be used, but they will be used sparingly here and there. A few must be defined and clarified in the interest of understanding.

Philosophy can and must be understood by the average citizen, because it is so vital to the life of each and every one of us. Philosophy has five major branches, all of which can be studied independently, but which are integrated in real life.

The five branches of philosophy are:

* Metaphysics: This is the most fundamental branch of the five. It deals with the most basic laws that govern reality, i.e., absolutely everything that exists. For example, physics, which is the science which studies matter, depends on the basic principles and facts of metaphysics; but, metaphysics, which is much more basic than physics, does not depend in any way on physics.
* Epistemology: Epistemology studies what constitutes knowledge and how people acquire knowledge.
* Ethics: Everyone has some acquaintance with ethics, i.e., the principles of right and wrong, good and evil. Ethics is the evaluative branch of philosophy and depends on metaphysics and epistemology.
* Politics: Politics concerns how individuals should live together in a society. Politics is ethics applied to social behavior.
* Esthetics: This branch deals with beauty (art), a crucial factor in human existence, and depends on metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics.

These are snap-shot descriptions. They should become much clearer as this multi-part set of articles wends its way through each branch as each pertains to Islam.

Root Rot (Part 1, Metaphysics)

Everything starts somewhere. Certain facts are so basic that they underlie absolutely everything. They are so basic that they cannot be avoided or refuted. In fact, one has to use them while trying to refute them. Philosophers call these basic facts and principles metaphysics, and metaphysics is the most basic branch of philosophy.

To get the "flavor" of Islamic metaphysics, it helps to note that Islam condemns life on earth and enjoyment of life on earth. It denies pleasure, joy, and happiness during life, but provides them to those who make it into Islamic Heaven or Paradise. Islam values the afterlife and the death needed to reach the afterlife. Islam replaces this world, the one people perceive directly, with another world, one they do not know and cannot know.

If you ask people at random what reality is, people will look around and point out, with great sweeps of the arms, all of the "thises" and "thats" which are readily obvious. Reality is this, they point out. Ask them if they can provide any evidence for any other reality, and they may try but really cannot.

Islamists claim that reality is Allah, who is their god, and Allah is the source of all that exists and all that happens. Any Muslims raison d'etre is service to Allah on earth and joining Allah at death. In fact, the highest form of living is warring on behalf of Allah, i.e., Jihad, and dying in the process as a martyr, ubgone19.

Human beings, according to Islam, were created solely to worship and work for Allah. However, human life and fate have been pre-determined by Allah, while each person is in utero. One may not change ones course of life or fate; the best one may do is to accept ones pre-determined fate with grace.

According to Islam, Allah exists in an unknowable state, having created the universe and its contents, and determined all actions in the universe. Allah has extraordinary qualities of omniscience, omnipotence, infallibility, and being all good. Islam owes this part of its metaphysics to Platonic and Neo-Platonic influences.

The practical effect of this mystical metaphysics comes from the fact that it separates Muslims from reality. What Muslims perceive, Islam disvalues. Non-life, Heaven, Hell, and Allah and his qualities are what Islam values.

Islamic "reality" is populated by unknowable spirits, who create a nightmare universe, starting with the chief spirit, Allah. Allah employs angels and jinni. The Jinni create pain and suffering in human lives. Lurking about is the evil eye also, just to keep Muslims paranoid, I suppose. Lastly, there is the chief baddie, Satan, also known in Arabic as "Iblis." Guess who runs Hell? Is it Satan? No, it is Allah himself! Allah personally manages Hell, and he rises to his creative excellence in the numbers and varieties of Hells punishments he can inflict on mankind.

It is worth noting that Allah, the jinni, and the evil eye come from pagan sources. Iblis and angels come from pagan as well as Christian and Jewish sources. These spirits were imported whole cloth into Islam by a superstitious Muhammad. Allah was a moon god who lived in the black meteorite in the Kaaba and was one of 360 pre-Islamic gods.

In all things, Allah acts by whim, to do or to undo anything, at anytime, independent of human understanding, wishes, prayers, or desires. Allah wants doubters and apostates of Islam killed by decapitation. Allah demands full obedience by Muslims, or He will punish them severely. Threats, punishments, Hell, Fire, and torture consume Allah's attention, and create the mood of Islam for Muslims.

The Islamic world is malevolent, and it is filled with fear and terror. It is run by unknowable spirits who can make anything happen to anything at any time. Nothing is stable. Nothing is predictable. Surprise horrors can come unsummoned. Any deviation from obedience to Allah by deed, by thought, or even by desire or dream merits severe punishments. If you are illiterate and ignorant, as most Muslims are, the Islamic world runs rife with bizarre and unpredictable identities and events. Such a universe creates chronic, inner terror.

Contrast this view of Islamic metaphysics with a truly reality-based metaphysics. Technically, this is called the primacy of existence metaphysics. In this real reality, identities are inherent in each thing and things are caused by the entities acting only as their identities or natures allow, not by some spirits whim. The primacy of existence metaphysics means that reality, existence, i.e., all of the universe, reigns supreme over any entity's desires, whims, wishes, will, etc., i.e.., consciousness. Reality is first, last, and always. Reality is everything, and it is all there is it is the universe. There is nothing outside the universe. There is nothing which is unknowable or omnipotent or omniscient or infallible or all good. What is, exists, and if it exists, it has some specific identity. Nothing that exists is without identity, without a specific nature; as Ayn Rand stated, "To be is to be something specific." If it has an identity, it can do only those actions which its nature permits.

cont'd

America is a culture based on a primacy of existence metaphysics, which, of course, includes mans nature. America fulfills Aristotle's famous dictum: A is A, which was his way of expressing the metaphysical Law of Identity. Sir Francis Bacon, hundreds of years ago, made the statement: "Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed." Capitalist America and Americans have followed Bacon's law better than anyone. Contrast America to Islam, to any of Islam.

Islam has a very different metaphysics. Islam takes Aristotle and twists his saying into something like, A is not necessarily A; it can be whatever, whenever. For Islam, existence is not stable. Identities shift worse than sand dunes; they are like lava lamp contents. The only consciousness that counts is that of Allah, which accounts for absolutely all of everything. Technically, this is called the primacy of consciousness metaphysics.

Allah is unknowable, has no identity, and has qualities which are mutually contradictory as well as internally contradictory. Islam creates a nightmare universe which succeeds beautifully in instilling metaphysical terror in Muslims. That is its goal.

Such metaphysical terror serves the important purpose of paralyzing Muslims minds in order to make them tractable. The purpose of Islam is to rule mankind. First, mankind needs to be made rule-able. Islam starts by rendering man's ties to reality useless to him. Only then will men shift conscious control over themselves to something outside themselves.

But, Islam has just begun. It shakes man's certainty by shaking his reliance on reality. This step is necessary, but it is not sufficient. What must be done next is to destroy is only tool of survival: his mind. Islam attacks man's mind by means of its epistemology, which we will cover next.

[Any short article, such as this, which deals with such a complex subject as the metaphysics of Islam must leave out a number of points. In addition, many arguments for Allah, such as First Cause, and elaborations of Allah's extra-ordinary qualities must be saved for more detailed presentations. The single best recommendation for further reading is Leonard Peikoff's, Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, Meridian Books, 1991.]

Broken Tools (Part 2, Epistemology)

The principles underlying Islam are only the beginning of the process of creating Muslim robots out of normal humans.

In Root Rot , we showed how Islam substitutes Allah's nightmare universe for the normal one that any Muslim can look around and see, touch, smell, taste, and hear in short, experience directly on his own skin. This step is necessary, but it is not sufficient; it is just a beginning. To make Muslims truly tractable, Islam must take over Muslims' (human) means of survival their minds, the greatest of all threats to Islam. To achieve this, Islam attacks knowledge and the means by which it is acquired.

Those things which constitute knowledge and how it is acquired make up the second branch of philosophy, which is known as "epistemology." In the real world, knowledge is solely a product of human consciousness, and it always begins with sensory input.

By contrast, Islam asserts that knowledge comes from Allah by revelation, a claim which bypasses every human means of acquiring knowledge and understanding. Revealed "knowledge" arrives by some unknown and some unknowable means. As a result, no human brain can make sense of revelation. Revelation bypasses reality.

Revelation requires faith, which requires acceptance of that for which there is no evidence or proof. Faith and reason are opposites. Islamists cover their behinds by saying that such faith illustrates the mysterious and wonderful ways that Allah works.

Most Muslims are brainwashed by Islam during childhood in order to derail normal childhood mental development. Normally, babies deal first in early life with metaphysics: What is, what is not; object constancy; etc. As they acquire language, their emphasis shifts to learning. They love asking and getting the answer to "What is this?" They identify everything.

Their knowledge starts with data from the world, including themselves, taken in through their senses. When mature enough, children create concepts, i.e., information, out of the data they take in. As they get older, they increase the complexity of concepts, thus increasing their knowledge. Their minds use processes summed up under the term "reason," which is the exclusively human means of acquiring and using knowledge.

Since philosophy was first systematized by Plato and Aristotle, there have been two radically different approaches to knowledge. Aristotle's has been correct, but Plato's has been the more influential throughout history. Aristotle started with humans born without innate knowledge. To gain knowledge, humans explore the real world, gather sensory input, and turn data into information or knowledge.

The other approach came from Plato. To Plato, all knowing was fundamentally a process of "remembering." I.e., humans are born knowing, but not knowing that they know. People undergo a life-long process of "remembering." Knowledge itself exists in another, unknowable world (a world of forms, he said). As nuts as that is, it greatly influenced Islam. Islam's variation was that all knowledge came from the other world by revelation from Allah to a human prophet, Muhammad, who then passed it on to other humans.

Islam's greatest enemy is the unfettered human mind. Such minds inquire, deliberate, debate, compare, doubt, and validate, among many other mental operations in short, they reason, i.e., correctly identifying and integrating input from the senses. All operations of reason threaten Islam. So flimsy are Islam's structure and content that inquisitive minds can quickly cause it to collapse. Nobody feels that more than Islamists, and exposing Islam was a favorite sport of free-thinkers in early Islamia. Thus, Islamists have dedicated themselves to undercutting the human mind in their fellows.

Recall that Islamic metaphysics start by devaluing reality and valuing unreality. In that unreality are Allah and other unseen spirits, who create a controlling, unpredictable, unknowable nightmare universe. Accepting an idea like this builds fundamental doubt into Muslim believers. If people can be made to doubt reality, or at least lose certainty, that doubt can be extended to the uniquely human means of survival the mind and its ability to reason.

Spirits, like Allah, angels, jinni, and Satan, make people doubt their senses: Anything can be anything else, and nothing is necessarily what it seems. Revelation is unlike anything people know or understand. Revelation by-passes the senses. It is a product of some "unknowable" source. No human mind works this way; revelation negates human cognition.

Islam assails the validity of the senses, but it leaves its biggest assaults for human thinking, its greatest danger.

By 900 A.D., reason had been banished from Islam. Islamists forbade all doubt about Islam. Apostasy was met by death, then and now. All forms of doubt and most manifestations of hypocrisy met with death as well. Islamic doctrine has always required Muslims to spy on each other and report any intellectual deviance, which to this day meets with swift, severe punishment.

Fear of force, particularly death which is metaphysical extinction -- is used to shut down Muslims' minds, and to shut them down on principle. It works quite well:

cont'd

"The virtue of rationality requires one to think, and then to be guided by his conclusions in action. Force clashes with both these requirements. Force used to change a man's mind acts to stop his mind (and thus make it inoperative as the source of his action). Force used to change a man's action shoves his mind (and thus its process of cognition) into the junk heap of the purposeless. In the one manifestation, the brute works to detach his victim's consciousness from reality and therefore from life; in the other, from life and therefore from reality."[1]

Fear of the universe, fear of using one's mind, and fear of those who might turn one into authorities who in turn will inflict severe punishment, including death, haunts any Muslim who dares to thinks. If he does not think, he lives at a sub-human level of function, and misses all that life has to offer. If he thinks, he lives in chronic fear of discovery. Hell in the afterlife meets Hell in this life: All Muslims live in fear, whether they admit it or not, and fear paralyzes the mind.

Apostacy is the greatest sin of Islam. Speaking critically of any aspect of Islam is a close second. Even if one escapes Islamia, literally and physically, one may have a fatwa (a legal warrant) issued for ones death for apostasy. Leaving Islamia provides no safety, if they want to find you bad enough. Fatwas for death, carried out in non-Islamic countries, merit ostentatious reward back home in Islamia. The method of Islam is to sustain fear world-wide.

Ignorance and illiteracy add to this attack on the mind. Education is valued in Islamia only as a means to render one able to carry out the dictates of Islam. Too much education endangers Islam because such is likely to induce the educated to think.

For centuries, Islamists have claimed that the Quran holds all knowledge possible. Anyone who is not an apologist for Islam and who has read any version of the Quran sees the lie in this assertion. But Muslims do as they are told: They believe. They have no need for curiosity their minds have been Islamized.

Now all Islam needs to complete creating its robots is a code of action for each Muslim robot (an ethics) and social code to guide the mass of Muslim robots (a politics).

[1] [From Leonard Peikoff, Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, Meridian Books, 1991]

Obedience Training (Part 3, Ethics)

Nobody can escape the need to "feel right" about what he does. Nobody can escape the need for ethics. Ethics is the study of what is "good." It helps people choose a moral code, a set of values to guide thinking and behavior. Of all of the five major branches of philosophy, ethics is the most important on a personal level -- it does not matter if someone knows nothing whatsoever about philosophy, ethics, or for that matter, whether he or she can even read or write: No one escapes the power of ethics.

Islam's philosophy is not consistent with the demands of reality. Islam commands Muslims to behave in certain ways, whether these ways help them in life or not. The Islamic moral code requires that Muslims be obedient to Islam, even at the expense of themselves. The ethics of Islam creates Muslims who serve and defend Islam as their sole raison d'etre.

Islamic ethics imposes an identity on Muslims that makes them see themselves as part of a large "Muslim collective." Being part of the "collective" is the only identity possessed by each individual. The individual has no identity outside the "collective." Individual moral choices are forbidden by Islam.

Islam's code is burned into the minds of children very early and with great intensity until it crowds out everything else, and the brainwashing continues throughout life. It is reinforced five times a day through ritual behavior of prayer. It reignites Muslims' raison d'etre when the imams refresh Muslims' purpose in life every Friday. Emotional fuel comes from creating scapegoats to hate. Every day and in every way, Muslims reinforce each other, in families, tribes, and what passes for society. Belonging to the greater community of Islam is everything, AND deviance from Islamism is too terrible to contemplate. Compliance is bliss.

Islam's personal code tells Muslims (1) to follow Islam's rules without deviation in order to further Islam, and (2) to protect Islam at all costs. An individual has value only with regard to these two guiding principles. Compliance requires complete obedience and forbids questions. Every thought and every activity of daily life must be carried out solely to serve Islam; how to serve Islam has been spelled out in excruciating, micro-micro-managerial detail.

One's life has no value beyond one's unquestioning service to Allah. This is the GOOD. Everything else is EVIL. The most honorable, most morally pure action a Muslim can perform is self-sacrificial service to Islam. The glorious end, which is venerated by all Muslims, is ubgone19, or martyrdom, or, death while fighting for Allah. That is why loony mothers in Palestine feel such pride when their children complete their missions as suicide bombers. Everybody glories in their actions. Upon receiving news of his death, the parents really believe that the blown-up kid has joined Allah in Paradise where he is as drunk as a skunk and is fornicating his brains out with all the houris. Great social honor befalls the family. And, note: the family questions only whether their teenager was assigned too soon, whether the Jihadists should have waited until he was a little older. Beyond that, the parents are just pleased as punch that their son has disintegrated himself.

Second only after Allah, Muslims pay service to and allegiance to other Muslims, and no one else under any conditions. This "community of Muslims" transcends all nationalities and races as well as geographical locations. It is called the ummah. Selfless, in fact, self-sacrificial, service to Allah and the ummah = the Good. Everything else = the Evil.

In a reality-based ethics, man's life is the standard of value, and the life of each individual is his purpose. The "good" is that which is consistent with the requirements of that which furthers life. Reason, purpose, and self-esteem are the cardinal values, with corresponding virtues of rationality, productivity, and pride.

Compare these values and virtues to those of Islam. Reason and rationality are anathema to Islam. As for purpose and productivity, remember that this value-virtue set applies solely to the support of Islam, not the life of the individual. To see their philosophy in action, look at Islamia: It makes almost nothing, and it perpetuates squalor and backwardness.

As for self-esteem and pride, members of Islamic societies reflect none. Islamia is populated with "wall-to-wall," unhappy, frustrated Muslims. They have been made that way by Islam, but they are brainwashed since early childhood to blame others, not Islam or the ummah, for their plight. That is why they never correct anything. To have self-responsibility, one must begin with self.

Many people confuse what they see in Islamists with self-esteem and pride. What they see are poor substitutes for the real things. Theirs are "pseudo-self-esteem" and variations of "false pride." In fact, the Arab-Islamic "code of Honor: Shame," viewed psychologically, reflects that these are the shallowest people on earth. They experience "shame" and "dishonor" over any offense, whether real or imagined. Their mentalities scan the environment for anything that might be interpreted even as a slight offense. Anything interpreted as an offense results in a rage response and a quest for revenge. It goes back and forth endlessly. Honor, the other side of the same coin, comes from how their fellows regard each other.

In the Arab-Islamic culture, honor and shame depend on the consciousnesses of others, not on one's self-evaluation: "If you like me, then I am worthy; If you slight me, then I am unworthy unless I kill you or my family or tribe extracts blood revenge to restore face with my fellows." These are the ethical standards and psychodynamics of intellectual midgets. Such midgets have no concept of self, no self-esteem, and certainly no rational pride.

Islam decides what constitutes good and evil. Whatever Allah does is good. Obeying Islam under all circumstances is good. Islam itself is quintessential good, because it is the will and word of Allah found in the Qur'an, the Ahadith, and in the Shariah (laws). Everything else is evil -- absolutely everything else. As astonishing as this seems, it is how Islam operates, and over a billion Muslim robots obey because they believe.

cont'd

Ethics exerts enormous power over all humans, and Islamists know this implicitly from the experiences of their lives as Muslims. The power of ethics comes from the profound human need to be morally right. People must feel that they are living right, behaving right, and are right with life at large. Islam replaces life as the standard by which humans should determine the "good." As a result, all of Muslim thoughts and actions function to support Islam, not life. Whatever system of ethics someone adopts, he uses it to feel right by its standards. This is why a rational ethics is needed so badly. In America, their ethics explains so much of why liberals do what they do, and why conservatives do what they do. Not many people are aware of epistemology and metaphysics, but they are all aware of ethics -- of right and wrong, of good and evil. Whether anyone understands his moral code explicitly or whether his code is a blur of implicit principles which he cannot articulate, he will follow it, and it will be his life-imperative.

We have seen that Islam's metaphysics isolates Muslims' minds from reality. Islamic epistemology shuts down Muslims' minds. This allows Islam to program intellectual-emotional robots, who will live lives of self-sacrificial obedience.

The robots have been created. All they need are instructions telling them what to do en masse, as a collective. The next branch of philosophy, politics, explains what that is.

Muslim Identity and Purpose (Part 4, Politics)

Humans live gregariously; we are "herd animals." We prefer to live among our own kind, even when we treat each other poorly. There is a problem with living in groups, however. It is the fact that, as individuals, animals (including human beings) compete with each other for resources, whether it is food, territory, or mates. When animals live in groups, there must be some means of moderating the competition so that the group can function in an orderly manner, without unremitting chaos.

In a wolf-pack, the moderation is accomplished by a strict mating hierarchy. Among humans, there also exists a hierarchy: A president, prime minister, or monarch, for example, is at the top, with other individuals filling a variety of mutually advantageous functions, from CEOs to doctors to day-care workers.

Human beings achieve the moderation of disruptive competition through politics. Politics is one of the five major branches of philosophy.

Politics applies ethics to social behavior. For example, if you are alone on a desert island, you would need an ethics, but you would have no need for a politics. But, let at least one other person come to that island, and you would both need guiding principles for living together successfully. You would need to apply ethics to social behavior. You would need a politics.

Politically speaking, Muslims identify themselves as belonging to a global collective known as the ummah. This collective transcends all nationalities, races, and geographic boundaries. The ummah includes all Muslims, everywhere, as a single unit. The ummah has value, according to Islam, but the individual Muslim is expendable. He has value only with respect to his ability to serve the ummah. Muslims owe allegiance first to Islam and second to the ummah.

It is a one-way system one-for-all, and all-for-all. Islam is pure collectivism. It is structurally identical to communism and the "organic theory of state." In this "organic theory," the group is the "organism," while the individual is the "cell." The organism survives at the expense of the cell.

Islam concentrates its collective power in a three-way political-social-religious triangle. Whatever state exists throughout Islamia (dictatorship, Islamic "republic," etc.), that state is totally fused with and subordinate to Islam. Shariah, Islamic law based principally on the founding documents of Islam, is the only system of law. Islam is a complete system: It is the state; it is the politics of the state; it is the religion.

Life in all of its details -- is totally fused with Islam. Not one single aspect of Muslim life, down to the tiniest detail, including the proper way to clean yourself after defecating, escapes Islamic control. Life must contort itself to fit into Islam, not the reverse. Life exists to serve Islam; Islam does not exist to help life.

Muslims have no rights. In Islamia, people live only by permission. In America, our rights are recognized as being derived from our nature as human beings. The fundamental rights are the rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

In America, individual citizens live because it is their right to live; it is the government that exists by permission. In Islamia, religion, which is the state, has all of the power, while the individual has none.

Americans have the freedom, freedom to exercise their rights on their own behalf. As long as they do not transgress the rights of anyone else, Americans are mostly free to do whatever they want. Muslims have only the freedom to do what the clerics and warlords permit them to do, and almost every detail of how each Muslim is to live his life has been spelled out by Shariah.

Islam is at war against rights. Since rights are part of the very nature of human beings, Islam wages war on human nature. Islam is a closed circle of death; it is anti-life and anti-human being. Or, as one of the most evil men who ever lived, Ayatollah Khomeini, said:

"We must break those pens that teach people there is something other than divine law. We must smash those mouths that tell the people they are free to say whatever they please, regardless of right and wrong with commands of the Almighty." [Amir Taheri, Holy Terror, Hutchinson, 1987, p. 204]

cont'd

And,

"We have to wage war until all corruption, all disobedience of Islamic laws cease [throughout the world]. The Qur'an commands: War, war unto victory." [ibid, p. 113] (All emphases are mine).

"Pagan" America threatens Islam severely by its very existence, since Americans exercise their rights. Others around the world find that rights and freedom are very attractive, to say nothing of the happiness and prosperity which protection of rights permits. The reason they find these attractive is, quite simply, because they are consistent with the nature of life and humankind, and support rather than suppress them.

What is the purpose of the Islamic collective? It serves Allah, as spelled out in Islam's founding documents. Imams mold objectives by stressing one Islamic commandment over another, and there are many commandments. What, then, does Allah want Muslims to do individually and collectively?

The overarching commandment requires that Muslims fight for Allah. They are to spread Islam where it is not, and to keep Islam pure where it is. They are to engage in continuous "holy" warfare or "Jihad." They are to be completely selfless, so that they may thrust themselves fully into Jihad without consideration of their own desires, plans, or lives.

Death in Jihad makes a Muslim a ubgone19, or martyr. Islam, as someone once indicated, is the only religion which requires death of the worshipper in order to reach martyrdom, which is his ticket to Paradise. Death has resulted for followers of other religions, but death was not the goal of the other religions. Allah, Muslims are told, takes them straight to Paradise as their reward for ubgone19. Muslims, we must note, live their earthly lives in a nightmare universe, where life on earth has been declared evil, yet where worldly temptations abound. Fear destroys the integrity of their minds, then gives them purpose as cogs in the wheel of a political entity. Death gives them Paradise, an endless reward.

Beings in a malevolent universe, forbidden to use their minds, blindly obedient to Islam and stripped of their identity as humans, these are the Islamic robots primed for self-sacrificial service. [Please note: "Sacrifice" means giving up something of greater value for something of lesser value. Thus, sacrifice is not a good thing.] Since no individual has value, many individuals must merge into a mass, like the cells in an organism, to achieve any meaning or identity. The mass, the collective, fights for Allah. If one individual Muslim falls during the fight, another selfless servant steps forward. They are the Army of Allah, and they live only to die. Islam makes them dependent. Then it gives them a reason for being alive: Jihad.

As a group-living species, humans always create hierarchical social orders. Islam does this as well, but, as it does with so much else, the hierarchy impedes life. In Islamia, men count, and almost every concern of Islam focuses on men. Muslim women can count for no more than one-half the value of Muslim men. If they are unmarried, their value approaches zero. Muslim men are the only Muslims eligible for Heaven, or Paradise, relatively freely. Muslim women may go to Muslim Heaven if they have been wives, and if, as wives, they have never displeased their husbands not even once. Even the Qur'an indicates that some three-quarters of Muslim women are bound for Hell, no matter what. According to the metaphysics of Islam, women are human beings only by permission of men.

Slaves -- yes, slaves -- count no more than one-half the value of Muslim women, and the value of the slave is further degraded by gender. At the bottom of the hierarchy is the non-Muslim. Non-Muslims count for nothing. They are "low-hanging fruit," so to speak, to be conquered, enslaved, robbed and pillaged, murdered and raped. Slaves, particularly sex slaves, bring good money, and Muhammad gave the green light to Muslims to go "get em." Whatever Muslims do to non-Muslims, well, who cares?

Muslims can admit conquered non-Muslim religious persons into dhimmitude, if the Muslims are so inclined and do not want to use the conquered peoples for anything else. These dhimmis may keep their religion, but must pay a stiff head tax, jizya, which supports Muslim goals. Dhimmis may practice their religion, but they must do so discretely, more or less out of sight, and in near secrecy. At all times, dhimmis must obey Muslims as their lords and masters, who hold all power over them. In fact, dhimmis are subject to mass extinction by Muslims for almost anything, including a single whim. Talk about a nightmare universe!

Islamic ethics gives Muslims the moral authority to do all the horrors we read about, see, and hear about in the news today. According to their moral code, these acts, which we consider atrocities, are virtues. All of these atrocities are not only excused and permitted by Islam but are actively encouraged.

Americans' preeminent political-social system is capitalism. In that social-political system, individuals are supremely important, and each has rights which its government has been chartered to protect. America values life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These are the values of people who love life on this earth, in this world. Americans are free, prosperous, and happy.

Islam is a theocratic totalitarian system that combines the worst features of fascism and communism, both of which are collectivist systems. Only the collective counts, and individuals have value only through their sacrificial service to the collective. They have no rights, no freedoms, and no personal liberty. Muslims live by permission of the Islamic state. Islam hates life on earth and worships death as a gateway to another, ineffable, world. Muslims live as sub-humans because of ISLAM.

Thus far, in this series, we have presented how Islam makes war on each branch of philosophy, and produces the indescribably horrible culture of Islam. Islam makes wars on reality, reason, self, and liberty. What could be left for Islam to make war on? The answer is that there is one door to the human spirit that has not been bolted shut. This door concerns the role of art in the lives of humans, and Islam conducts war on it also, because it is life itself. It shows too much. It shows life as it could be, and as it should be.

cont'd

Erasing Life (Part 5, Esthetics)

Art speaks volumes about a culture, particularly about its dominant ideas, its philosophy. In this regard, Islamic "art" screams the agony of that culture.

The primary function of art is not to teach, but to show. While teaching us is not art's primary purpose, it is an unavoidable by-product of what happens when it "shows."

The following statements[1] summarize the functions of art that we need to know in order to diagnose what Islamic art teaches us:

"An art work tells man that something is important." (p. 424)
"...Art is a need of the mind." (p. 414)
"The basic purpose of art is to hold up to man a concretized
image of his nature and his place in the universe."
(pp. 422-423).
The role of art is " to provide man with a definite experience
of seeing 'This is what reality is like.'" (p. 423)
"Art converts abstractions into the equivalent of concretes
open to direct perception." (p. 419)
"[Man] needs a concrete that can become an object of
direct experience while carrying with it the meaning of
his whole view of life." (p. 417)
"...A man needs the integration, the all-embracing sweep,
the vision of the universe." (p. 416)
"The result is a universe in microcosm." (p. 417)

Before we can apply these principles, we need to identify what passes for art in Islamia:

* In literature, there are few, if any, novels.
* Some poetry exists.
* In the visual arts, there are few human subjects.
* In sculpture, there are few, if any, human statues.
* Music is largely a monotonous cacophony.
* Islam's greatest expression of beauty is its architecture, and there are some lovely buildings.

The most conspicuous aspect of Islamic art is its poverty.

Note the absence of anything human. In fact, note the absence of anything living. Islam has strong prohibitions against representing living things in art.

Art, by its very nature, defies Islam. Literature requires stories about people who have volitional consciousnesses and face choices. Such freedom is impermissible in Islam. The visual arts produce canvases and murals capturing profound values of the artist, for contemplation by the viewer. Islamic visual art finds expression solely in things like colored tiles having various geometric designs. However pretty these may be, they are no more than skilled crafts.

Music bypasses most of our intellectual mechanisms to reach our emotions directly. Islamic music is at best boring, and, at worst, unpleasant.

Architecture allows the greatest artistic expression in Islam, and even that is greatly truncated. One can only imagine the incredible frustration that builders and artisans -- the descendents of the engineers, architects, and artists who created such structures as the famed "Hanging Gardens" -- must have felt over the centuries about having the expression of their talents, interests, and creativity held down to the level of decorations.

Islam killed art when it killed philosophy around 900 A.D, and both were killed for much the same reason. Both art and philosophy stimulate the mind, and active human minds threaten the very existence of Islam.

Islamic art barely exists at all, and, as we have indicated, what does exist is devoid of anything living: There are no paintings of people, no novels about human values and conflicts, no statues, and no music that celebrates life.

However, living beings value life. Human beings need art to present life's deepest values. Art puts these profound values in a form that enables you to see, to experience, and to contemplate them. For example, we cannot directly see "justice," but we can use art to represent it, often with a statue of a blindfolded woman holding a scale. In this way, we can contemplate the essence of "justice." Humanity's need for art is deep and real, and it is not an "extra," not "fluff."

But, what about all of those photographs of mullahs carried by teeming Muslims in demonstrations? They offer human representation, don't they? Aren't they art? Photographs may present human images, but they are not art. The definition of art is that it is a selective recreation of reality, according to the artist's metaphysical values[2].

Today in America, we have much terrible art that reflects modern philosophy: It is terrible in its choices of subjects, terrible in artists' deepest values, and terrible in qualities of presentations. Too many movies emphasize violence, sex, and special effects, instead of value clashes. Too much popular music is noisy, puerile, and amateurish. Too much painting and statuary are "non-objective," i.e., without fundamental value. Too much literature and movies are "slice of life," and they slice lives not worth knowing about. Too much contemporary art in modern America blunts the appreciation of the best that is possible in life. Life, however, has not been banned from mainstream American art, and it is flourishing anew in non-mainstream American art.

Consider the following works of Western art. Compare them to any equivalent category in Islam.

* Literature: Compare Gone with the Wind, a soaring, tour de force novel about the entire value-base of a culture and its permanent destruction over a few short years, necessitating huge value reformulations. Where in Islam is there such a profound clash of cultural and personal values?

* Painting: Compare Botticelli's Birth of Venus to what in Islam? Islamic painting hardly exists. There is, however, one Western painting which captures the metaphysics of Islam (and maybe the thieves have taken it to Islamia): Edvard Munch's The Scream. This painting is great art. Everyone who sees it immediately experiences the values that the artist wants to communicate -- fear, tension, anxiety, helplessness, and feelings of being lost. As art, it is light years ahead of anything in Islamia.

* Sculpture: Compare the elegant, uplifting Victory of Samothrace to what in Islamia?

* Music: Compare the thrilling works of Rachmaninoff, John Williams, Bach and so many composers to the annoying sounds of Islamic music.

* Architecture: Here we can compare vast numbers of Western buildings to Islamia, but we recognize that Islam has a structure second to none: the Taj Mahal.

In Islamia, art -- sparse, poor in quality, and dull -- presents non-life. It is as though life does not exist, but, it is worse than that. Islam disvalues life, and its esthetics reflects the hatred for life. Islamic art tries to wipe out all traces of life itself.

In the articles of this series, we have discussed how Islam makes war on anything important to human beings:

* War on reality, existence, this world
* War on senses and knowledge, on reason, on the human mind
* War on values, individuals, and the self
* War on freedom of action, of voluntary assembly, on a society which protects its citizens from the initiation of physical force
* And, war on life itself.

What could possibly be more evil than this?

In Islam, the mind exists at subsistence level. All avenues which can offer men and women the way to a human level of existence, at the conceptual level, with progress, productivity, prosperity, and happiness, have been cut off by Islam.

Islam is totally evil.

[1] Leonard Peikoff, Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, Meridian Books, 1991, Chapter 12 "Esthetics."
[2] ibid

cont'd

Summary: Pulling It All Together

In this series, we have examined what Islam contributes to the five branches of philosophy which are known as metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics, and esthetics. To minimize any difficulty for readers who are new to this type of analysis, only the most basic themes of each have been presented, and these have been stripped to skeletal form.

The themes in these five presentations show why Islam is what it is, and they show how Islamic philosophy creates Muslims out of normal human beings. Later, we will use these principles to demonstrate how Islam produces those killer robots (kill-bots) known as "jihadists."

In practice, the branches of philosophy Islamic or otherwise -- do not act as five independent units. They work together and depend on each other, and they have produced Islamia in its entirety -- the culture and its practitioners, the Muslims.

Philosophy is intensely practical, and all of its elements fit together. The philosophies we refer to are the philosophies actually adopted by people, not some academic gobbledygook, which is taught in so many universities. In fact, philosophies are not only intensely practical, but they are absolutely unavoidable.

How each person comes by his philosophy is usually sadly haphazard and totally implicit. People pick up their philosophies from their parents, schools, and culture, and most people leave these vital guiding principles in their unidentified, and often contradictory state. Muslims as well as Americans reap the consequences of the ideas they have accepted, whether they know in so many words what their ideas are -- no one can escape his or her own philosophy. This is unfortunate, since philosophy is not "self-evident," and like any other discipline, can and should be taught, just as mathematics, literature, or biology can and should be taught.

What we view, hear, and read about the state of Islamic culture today describes Islamia as it has been for fourteen centuries. Islamia is dreadful because its ideas -- its philosophy -- is dreadful. It is Islamic philosophy that manufactures jihadists, not the usual liberal-Marxist excuses of poverty, lack of opportunity, and environmental conditioning.

The facts which underlie absolutely everything are called "metaphysics." When philosophers refer to "metaphysics," they do not mean any of the stuff which "New Agers" call "metaphysics." New Age "metaphysics" is nothing more than low quality mysticism, contributing nothing to anyone's understanding of anything.

Everything in the universe -- absolutely everything, all of existence -- depends on these basic metaphysical facts, and people adopt either a realistic or an unrealistic relationship with them.

The realistic relationship accepts the universe "as is." Whether they think about it at all or not, realists know that the universe is what they see, touch and feel, taste, hear, and smell. This relationship permits the acquisition of knowledge, and it has made possible the many benefits of Western civilization.

Islam devalues this relationship with reality. It attributes everything in the universe to its unknowable "super-entity," named Allah.

Allah instills fear and uncertainty. The universe, all of existence, is portrayed as something unpredictable, uncertain, and incomprehensible to the human mind. Allah runs the universe solely by means of whim. He is a mean, jealous, and utterly sadistic being. In fact, he runs Hell all by himself and punishes and punishes and punishes. Muslims, cut off from reality, live in abject fear of Allah and of life.

Islam views human kind as corrupt by its nature: Everything that promotes joy and pleasure on this earth is regarded as evil, as a "temptation," a distraction from their "true" goal, the spread of Islam.

This Islamic approach to life, to existence, and to all knowledge, pulls the rug out from under the Muslim mind. It replaces a knowable universe with a demon-infested maelstrom of Allah, Iblis, jinni, angels, and evil eyes. Islam gives Muslims an unknowable, unpredictable, and terror-filled world because their minds have had reality, their frame of reference for everything, taken from them. Islam detaches Muslim minds from reality.

Islam goes on next to attack the human mind through its mystical epistemology. It does so by asserting that knowledge comes from Allah by means of "revelation." "Revelation" refers to knowledge attained by mystical, non-sensory, non-cognitive means. However, in reality, no one learns or knows anything whatsoever by means of revelation. In fact, there is no such thing as "revelation." To prevent exposure of the truth arising by those who would question Islam, it outlaws reason, and it literally orders the death of anyone who dares to question.

To be a Muslim, you must abandon reason and accept faith, which means that you must shut off the uniquely human characteristic, the reasoning mind.

We are through only two of the five branches of philosophy, and Islam has already accomplished the feat of destroying reality and reason for its believers. Such believers would be helpless, as Islam intends for them to be, and would be desperate for some way to guide their lives. In fact, the Islamic assault on reality and the mind renders Muslims ready to be programmed according to the requirements of Islam. They are given the ethics of Islam, which are so detailed that they govern every aspect of every Muslims life "24/7." There are "rules" on everything from the proper time and way to trim one's nails, to how to wipe oneself after defecating.

Islamic ethics holds self-sacrificial service to Allah and Islam to be the highest good. Surrender, submission, and obedience prepare the Muslim to be programmed to die for Allah. No choice is possible for the Muslim, according to Islam.

In three branches of philosophy, Islam takes reason and reality away from Muslims, and its ethics takes away any individuality. Duty and sacrifice replace choice and individuality. Still, the Muslim is an empty vessel. Islam takes this empty vessel, and, through its politics, turns him into a something altogether inhuman.

Islamic politics fuses Islam with every detail of the state and even life itself. Islam builds a collective of all Muslims, called the ummah. Muslims must practice allegiance to Allah, to Islam, and to the ummah. The collectivist politics of Islam designs and constructs an identity for believers, and blends them into a seamless mass, a syncitium.

To this collective, this mass, this syncitium, Islam provides not only an identity, but also a purpose in life for Muslims en masse. That purpose is perpetual jihad, or holy war, waged against all non-Muslims globally. The goal of jihad is to create a Muslim planet, a totalitarian Muslim collective, which Islamists intend to run. The methods Islam has used to attain this objective have been conquest, murder, theft, pillage, rape, and enslavement, facilitated by the Islamic belief that non-Muslims have no value. Death during jihad for one of these Muslim "killer robots" means that he has achieved Islam's highest value, and he goes to join Allah's Paradise in the unknowable world which he has accepted on faith.

The final major branch of Islamic philosophy, esthetics, pulls together all of Islam's importance for Muslims and it reflects what our lives would mean under Islamism.

Art should show what might be and ought to be in life. However, Islamic art is devoid not only of anything human, but it is devoid of anything living. Islamic art is lifeless. This is because Islam is anti-life in every important way, and humans do not even register so much as a flicker of importance in Islam, except as cogs working on behalf of the collective. No beauty, no fun, no celebration, no grandeur are allowed in Islam, and its art reflects Islam's sterility. It is the stillness of death.

Islam is the great destroyer, and its philosophy causes the destruction. Millions of humans over 14 centuries have had their lives sterilized and squandered by Islam. The luckier ones died or were killed early in their existence. All the rest have endured living hell.

These are the main currents of the ideas we must fight with better ideas. Our ideas and our civilization are superior in every way. If we do not come to appreciate this superiority and to use it shamelessly for our own good, we could well succumb to the evils of Islam. We cannot fight with political correctness, cultural relativism, multiculturalism, epistemological and ethical relativism, or by embracing any of the collectivist political philosophies we find ourselves sliding into by default.

Our cause has not been lost. It just has not been won.

[This presentation of Islamic philosophy and its contrast to ours has been kept intentionally short. Much additional material about this subject deserves discussion. For that, I strongly recommend Leonard Peikoff's, Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, Meridian Books, 1991.]

cont'd

Why Islam Is Untrue: The Real Reasons

Every body of ideas derives from a foundation of specific principles. Islam is no different in this respect, and it makes its basic principles particularly clear. We can put them to a validity test: If Islam’s axioms are valid, then Islam is valid; if they are not, then Islam is not valid. Whether Islam should be taken seriously depends on the outcome of this test.

An excellent source of Islam’s basic principles can be found in the Saudi Arabian edition of the Koran, called the Noble Qur’an (ISBN: 9960-740-79-X, 1996). This version of the Koran is orthodox Sunni Islam and orthodox Wahhabism. It is published by the Fahd family through its Dar-Us-Salaam Publications.

“Tauhid (Islamic Monotheism) has three aspects”:

1. “To believe that there is only one Lord for all the universe and He is, its Creator, Organizer, Planner, Sustainer, and the Giver of security, and that is Allah.”

2. “To believe that none has the right to be worshipped…” in any form “…but Allah.”

3. “Oneness of the Names and the Qualities of Allah… To believe that:

· We must not name or qualify Allah except with what He or His Messenger has named or qualified Him;

· None can be named or qualified with the Names or Qualifications of Allah…

· We must believe in all the Qualities of Allah which Allah has stated in His Book (the Qur’an) or mentioned through His Messenger (Muhammad) without changing their meaning or ignoring them completely or twisting the meanings or likening them… It is also essential to follow Allah’s Messenger, Muhammad.” (pp. 917 – 918)

Islam is simple, and this is one of the reasons for its success. However, as simple as the statements from the Noble Qur’an are, they must be put into essential elements:

· Allah exists, and, as supreme entity in the universe, must be worshipped, and Muhammad must be revered, as Allah’s earthly representative.

· Allah has essential qualities: omniscience, omnipotence, infallibility, being all good, and is unknowable.

· Allah caused the universe and all actions within it.

Implied, of course, is the need to worship Allah without reservation.

These three principles interlock like the sides and angles of a triangle. All three must be true for Islam to be valid. If any one of them is untrue, then the other two are untrue, because of their fundamental interdependence.

Let’s start with the assertion that Allah exists. What is the evidence for the existence of Allah?

Allah created all we see and causes all we do as well as all that has ever existed and ever been done, Islamists say. What is the evidence for this assertion? Look around, they retort, it is self-evident. But, is it self-evident?

When I look around, I see many things, and I see things causing other things to happen. I see nothing that I can say is evidence for the presence of an Allah. No matter how hard I press Islamists for answers, I get their assertions that everything I see, feel, taste, hear, and smell came from Allah.

When I say that my senses gather no data that I can logically interpret as evidence for Allah, the Islamists retreat to one of several fall-back positions. They say that I cannot perceive Allah and his actions, and no human can.

If that is so, I ask, how can I find evidence for Allah? Islamists will now back up further to assert that Allah works in mysterious ways, and we cannot know these mysterious ways. Then, how, I ask, do you know them? They back up once more to their biggest cop-out: faith.

You must accept Allah on faith, they tell me.

Faith is the claim to knowledge obtained by “extraordinary” means. By “extra” and “ordinary,” I mean that faith claims knowledge based on means other than that derived from the nature of human knowledge and the means by which humans gather this knowledge. Faith is the belief in something in the absence of evidence or proof. They say, we know, because we have faith. That statement would be a show-stopper if I did not know what they mean, but I do. When they assert faith, they are asserting a feeling. They “know” because they can “feel it” to be so.

In reality, no feelings, or emotions, are a primary means to knowledge, by their very nature. Emotions are psycho-physiological responses to evaluations, and those evaluations are lightening fast calculations based on previously established thoughts. The prior thinking might be good, so-so, or poor in quality, but whatever quality that thinking has, it will become the calculus for the ensuing emotions. The emotion might be valid or invalid, depending on the quality of the previous thinking. That is just the way emotions are, and they are the end of the cognitive chain, not the beginning.

Faith, then, is a feeling. It is a feeling about a feeling. “I know it because I feel that it is so,” means nothing more than “I feel that my feeling is correct.” Faith requires no evidence, just acceptance. As such, faith by-passes thought and acts as a short-circuit to thinking. Worse yet, it tells us nothing about Allah.

The next, and probably last, backup position is the Islamists’ claim that Allah revealed all knowledge to Muhammad, his final prophet on earth, and those revelations constitute the Koran.

cont'd

With Muhammad, we reach the weakest point of Islam.

Muhammad may have been an historical figure, but accepting him as the sole recipient in all of history of the words of God, putting near to divinity, and accepting the Koran as divine revelation require super-mega faith because the facts do not support any role Muhammad might have had with God or the divinity of the Koran.

From what is known about Muhammad, he is supposed to be the sole source of what Islamists call the Koran. Allegedly, Allah revealed all of the Koran to Muhammad through the angel Gabriel. Because he was illiterate, Muhammad wrote down none of these revelations, and there was no other source of any kind at any time. People took what Muhammad said as true, on faith. They just took his word for it all.

Stop for a moment to ponder the history.

Absolutely everything about Islam comes from the say-so of one person, Muhammad. He claimed to have received revelations from Allah, and he wrote none of them down. In fact, the Koran was many decades getting into print after Muhammad died. Islam is all hear-say, without a shred of evidence or any other input, other than what Muhammad said it was and what some people “remembered” many decades later.

Islam has as much validity as my claiming to have received revelations from a super-entity, and then requiring people to accept my claims as the sole evidence.

What are “revelations?” They are claims to knowledge arising from non-human means. A séance thrives on the pretense of revelations. Revelations by-pass the need for evidence. They require acceptance on faith just as surely as the medium of a séance requires faith that the subject’s spouse is speaking from the spirit world. Let’s face it: There are no such things as revelations.

Not only did Allah not give revelations to Muhammad through Gabriel, there is no evidence for the existence of Gabriel or Allah. Allah is as valid as a séance, and Muhammad is no more valid than a medium.

To rephrase, Allah does not exist; Muhammad was not his messenger; and the Koran is not the revealed word of Allah.

If there is no Allah, how can there be any Islam? The answer is that there cannot be any validity to the claim that Islam comes from Allah, since there is no such entity. Thus, one side of the Islamic axiomatic triangle disappears. In fact, Islam, right here, falls apart totally, and nothing can fix it.

We could stop here because we have invalidated Islam. We will not, however, because we want to demolish it completely.

The second principle states that Allah has extra-ordinary qualities: omniscience, omnipotence, infallibility, omni-benevolence, and unknowability.

If we had not already invalidated an Allah, we would do it in a heartbeat with the quality of Allah being “unknowable.” What does “unknowable” mean? If I do not know how to build a submarine, does this mean that building a submarine is unknowable? Of course, it does not. It means that building a submarine is unknown to me. Since there are submarines, there are people who do know how to build submarines. If I said that building submarines is unknowable, you would properly scoff at me because you would immediately recognize that my not knowing differs fundamentally from my never being able to know on principle.

To be unknowable means that no one can know anything at all about building submarines. It also means that no one can know such a category as “building submarines,” since even the name is unknowable. “Unknowable” means incapable of being known in all respects.

Using elementary logic, how can someone claim something is unknowable and still talk about it? How can that someone ever talk about any aspect of it, including its existence? The answer to both questions is, it cannot be done. You can blow those who assert such arguments out of the water by asking them how they know something that is unknowable.

If this Allah is unknowable, then no statements can ever be made about Allah at any time, even the name of Allah. If statements are made, then Allah is not “unknowable.” That would bring us back to the lack of evidence for the existence of Allah.

Let us examine the other extraordinary qualities of Allah: omnipotence, omniscience, infallibility, and omni-benevolence.

What does “omnipotence” mean? Literally, it means “all powerful.” This is power unlike anything known in the universe. It can do anything, just by will. Islamists like to say that Allah makes something exist or cease existing or do something just by saying “Be.” Allah, they say, can turn tigers into tadpoles, bring people back to life, and even create a universe. Allah can make anything be something else or make anything behave any way Allah wants.

The notion of omnipotence utterly destroys the universe, because it makes the impossible become possible. The Law of Identity, one of the metaphysical pillars of existence, says that everything that exists is something specific. If a tiger is a tiger, then a tiger is a tiger, and a tiger is never a tadpole. Death is the destruction of life, and it cannot become life. The other basic law of the universe is the Law of Causality. It says that entities (those things that exist) cause actions, and the actions possible to each entity depend entirely on the nature of the entity (i.e., its identity). There can be no action without some entity to act. There can, for example, be no “eating” or “sitting” without there first being something capable of eating or sitting.

Tigers, for example, cannot ever become tadpoles any more than death can become life. A world where anything can be anything else and things happen without cause cannot exist on the one hand. On the other hand, if it could exist, it would be a nightmare universe of unpredictable terrors.

Humans know perfectly well that things cannot switch identities, nor can things happen opposite to the nature of these things. Islamists, however, will resort again to faith. Regarding accepting the unnatural, Tertullian, one of the early Christian theorists in Rome, once said: “I believe it because it is impossible.” Tertullian stated nothing useful about the nature of the universe and any of its parts. He did point out how fallible the human mind can be, but that fallibility does not change the laws of Identity and Causality one whit.

However, if Allah is omnipotent, can he make a square circle? Can he kill himself? Can he take away his own power? Any being possessing ALL POWER can do ANYTHING. Can that being do these? Of course, Allah can, say the Islamists; Allah can do anything, but Allah chooses the time and place to do what Allah does. Allah chooses not to do any of these things. Islamists want no limitation on Allah’s power.

Yet, if Allah can do the contradictory and does not, what is Allah’s purpose? Allah has no purpose, they say. Purpose imposes a human limitation on Allah. Yet an entity without purpose is an entity without identity and causality. An entity without identity and causality does not exist.

To quote G. H. Smith, Allah, “…an unknowable being—does things in an unknowable way through some unknowable nonprocesses.” (Atheism: The Case Against God, Prometheus Books, 1979, pages 72-73). Allah’s “omnipotence” violates every tenet of the universe.

What is “omniscience?” It means knowledge without limits, past, present, and future, i.e., knowing all, and the Koran stresses this attribute as much as Allah’s omnipotence. One aspect of Allah’s omniscience is the predestination of all humans, which Allah causes, so Allah knows the outcome of each life.

Omniscience, however, contradicts Allah’s omnipotence. If Allah knows the future with certainty, then he cannot change it. If he cannot change it, then Allah is not omnipotent. Allah’s alleged omniscience means knowledge, a human concept, derived totally by non-human, and unknowable, means. We are back to unknowability again.

cont'd

If Allah does not know the future with certainty, then he is not omniscient. If he is not omniscient, then he is also not omnipotent since his omnipotence necessitates omniscience.

How did Allah come by his knowledge? If Allah acquired it, then he began without omniscience, thus was not omnipotent. If Allah “just has” knowledge, without acquisition, then Allah acts by means not of this universe. Actions extra to the universe mean no identity and no causality for Allah, and these mean, no Allah.

What is infallibility? It means, to be incapable of error. Allah, thus, can make no mistakes. He is, after all, omniscient. However, if Allah can make no mistakes, then Allah cannot be omnipotent. If he makes mistakes or creates errors, then he cannot be omniscient. Allah just cannot be at all.

What does omni-benevolent mean? It is just another way of saying that Allah is all good. In short, whatever Allah does is absolutely good.

If Allah is all good, why does he run this place called Hell, and why does he predestine so many humans to end up there in eternal torture? After all, Allah created Hell, and Islam makes it clear that Allah runs it. The Koran makes clear that some 70,000 to 80,000 humans will enter Paradise, while all of the rest will enter Hell; and, only 25% of all married women have any chance for Paradise at all. When you die in Islam, you will ultimately end up either in Paradise or Hell. Those are the only choices.

Smith puts this one well, “To be omnibenevolent, [Allah] must be capable of evil but always choose the good. If [Allah] deliberately chooses evil, he is immoral.” (p. 80). Can an omnibenevolent being be immoral? If he cannot, he is not omnipotent. If he can, and if he chooses such, then he is not good or benevolent. If Allah is all good, why is there so much evil in the affairs of humans, and so much suffering through the world? If Allah does not know about the evil and the suffering, then Allah is not omniscient. If Allah knows but permits them, then Allah is not all good. If Allah is either not omniscient or all good, then he is not omnipotent.

If Islamists retreat into Allah’s unknowability in order to escape the fallacies involved in omniscience, omnipotence, omni-benevolence, and infallibility, then Allah ceases to exist—because he has lost his identity.

Let us take up the third principle of Islam. This one claims that Allah created the universe, all entities within it, and all actions within the universe.

For the moment, let us suppose that the universe required a creator. Opening that door a little opens that door fully. If the universe requires a creator, and if Allah is that creator, it means that everything requires a creator. If so, then, who created Allah? While struggling with that question, any of us can see quickly that we force the need for something to have created Allah, then to something else creating the something that created Allah, and so on. Logicians refer to this as the “problem of infinite regress”: Every creation requires a creator. This goes on without end, which is preposterous. And, if the universe was created, how does claiming that Allah created it explain anything? It does not.

Commonly the next question asked takes the form of, well, if Allah did not create the universe, who did? The answer usually blows peoples’ minds: No one did. The universe was not created.

People have grave trouble with the metaphysical fact that the universe was not created. The trouble, I believe, comes from hand-me-down religious influences in the culture and complete lack of philosophical education of children and adults. Once anyone catches on to the nature of metaphysics, then one is freed from this thinking trap forever.

So, let us demolish this thinking trap.

What is the universe? It is everything, absolutely everything, without exception. Call it “universe” or call it “existence” or call it “reality.” These are synonyms for everything that is.

Another question here exposes one of the great problems causing the thinking trap. What is outside the universe? Or, given some of the “science” fiction, what other universes are there? The answer to both is “none.” Nothing is outside the universe, and there are no other universes.

To grasp this, recall that the universe is everything, with nothing left over. That is the identity of the universe, and there is no other identity. To say that the universe is finite is just another way of asserting the fact that the universe has identity, but it does not allow opening the door to stepping outside the universe. Reality is sovereign. There is no “outside” to step into. Nothing is nothing, not just some variety of something. Every something exists in the universe. Said another way, if something exists, it is in the universe. There are no other universes or alternative realities and no evidence for any.

Doesn’t the Big Bang Theory prove me wrong? No, it does not. First off, the Big Bang Theory is just that, a theory. Physicists are playing with this notion, seeking to prove it and thus far have not. Evidence lines up for and against the theory. We have much to learn about the nature of the universe. But, even if the Big Bang Theory were true, it would be no more than a part of the identity of the universe.

There is nothing outside the universe. In fact, there is no outside to the universe.

The universe “just is.” It was not created. It exists. It is just there, and it just is what it is. The only thing we can do is to learn as much as we can about its nature which includes those things in the universe.

One of the commonest mental hang-ups concerning the universe is the notion that things are too orderly for there not to have been a master plan. This is the Argument from Design, as it has been known historically.

Look at the beauteous wonders in the heavens; look at all of the complexities of everything, even look at life itself. There’s just no way this could just happen. There had to be a designer, and that designer is Allah.

Why should we give Allah credit for the things being what they are? Things are what they are, and they do what they do, because they are what they are. Things behave according to their natures. They can do nothing else. That restates first the Law of Identity, then the Law of Causality. The order, the beauty, and the complexity are all statements about the natures of all the things under consideration.

We must be very careful here not to let ignorance cloud our thinking. For example, how life arose has not been answered yet by scientists, nor have all the facets of the nature of life been explored. There is much about life that we do not know right now. However, not knowing does not authorize anyone to substitute a false something where there is not yet an explanation. “I don’t know,” applies to much in the universe that humans have not had time, knowledge, and means to learn enough about. Life is just one of those insufficiently delineated things. However, saying “I don’t know,” does not provide any basis for substituting Allah as an explanation of identity and causality for anything whatsoever. Allah explains nothing, particularly life.

Allah is nothing. There is no Allah. Allah did not create the universe because there is no Allah, and the universe was not created. Allah’s extraordinary qualities are internally self-refuting and mutually contradictory, because they do not exist, because Allah does not exist. Muhammad was never the prophet of Allah because there has never been an Allah, and Muhammad did not receive revelations from Allah because revelations do not exist, and because Allah does not exist.

We have invalidated the axioms of Islam. We invalidated each of the three separately, knowing that invalidating any one makes the other two invalid as well. Historically and in terms of reality, Islam has no validity, no truth to itself, no adherence to reality, and is in fact nothing more than self-serving statements originated by a self-serving warlord to justify his actions and to recruit fellow scoundrels.

For some 1400 years, ignorant Muslims have been mired in this mental La Brea Tar Pit called Islam. They have died and continue to die for this fiction, which shows how powerful ideas are in human affairs. To believe in Islam, a normal human being has to surrender stewardship of his most valuable possession and his sole means of survival, his mind.

A television commercial comes up and applies to those who accept Islam: A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

cont'd

MERICA’S EXTREME VULNERABILITY TO ISLAM: THE RELIGION BARRIER

Americans could lose their struggle against Islamic Jihad or be forced into an extreme, mutually-destructive, war, if they do not correct their most serious, and most under-recognized, vulnerability. This is the vulnerability non-Islamic Americans share and can be called their "religion barrier." It means that they accord Islam the same respect that they accord Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, etc. simply because Islam is a religion. Americans need to reprogram this aspect of their thinking in order to see Islam for what it is and to be able to deal with it definitively.

Americans religion barrier permeates our culture.

Here is a paragraph of President George W. Bush's commencement address to the Air Force Academy, on 3 June 2004, illustrating the problem:

"History is once again witnessing a great clash. This is not a clash of civilizations. The civilization of Islam, with its humane traditions of learning and tolerance, has no place for this violent sect of killers and aspiring tyrants. This is not a clash of religions. The faith of Islam teaches moral responsibility that ennobles men and women, and forbids the shedding of innocent blood. Instead, this is a clash of political visions (emphases mine)."

This short passage fully captures this very serious, and potentially fatal, flaw in American thinking, and take note--meaning well but staying ignorant will get us all killed.

Let us set some context for understanding the problem and then correct it.

The "Cloaking Device" That Islam Is

Islam is a global movement, the goal of which is to bring every living human being on the planet under its crushing totalitarian rule, the likes of which has never before been seen. Some of Islam is obvious and easy to identify. Some of it, however, lies beneath the surface, like an iceberg. The true nature of Islam sports a remarkable disguise.

No other movement, not even Fascism or Communism, has been so determined to conquer the world and rule with such rigid, detailed, complete control over the day-to-day activities of the lives of everyone on the planet. Islam has a multi-pronged plan in place to accomplish this goal, and it is being implemented with increasing success throughout the world. Islam seeks to make the rest of the world become just like it: squalid, backward, and primitive.

Wherever it interfaces with populations it has not yet conquered, Islam destroys buildings, blows up men, women, and children, and imposes tight controls on people's lives. Islam is nihilism personified. Most of the worlds wars and conflicts are due to aggression caused by Islamists, fueled by Islam's evil doctrines. Islam brainwashes its own children, as well as the children of the conquered, in order to assure that future generations will continue carry out Jihad. This has been going on for 1400 years, yet the movement remains unopposed in any meaningful way anywhere in the world to this very day.

Why is Islam meeting with so little effective resistance?

The most important reason for its success today is that it has a very clever "cloaking device." It calls itself a "religion." The evils of Fascism and Communism, the one passively allowing Christianity, and the other openly rejecting all religion, were much more visible to the world. These clearly political movements were content to call themselves just that: "Political movements." They did not attempt the intellectual fraud of calling themselves "religions."

For most of the world's population, a religion is an institutionalized set of beliefs relating to the divine, and its purpose is to act as a spiritual guide in the personal lives of its followers. Most of the world's religions embrace, at least to some degree, the laissez faire attitude of the Golden Rule: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Judaism and Christianity do not serve as action plans for world conquest; their sacred documents are not war manuals that describe some of the cruelest, most inhumane strategies and tactics ever devised; they receive no divine marching orders to bring the world's population into submission.

Most of us subscribe to the principle that whatever philosophy we choose as roadmaps for our lives, be it related in some way to a divine source or not, is a matter of our personal choices. We can talk to each other about the pros and cons of each others belief systems; we can try to persuade each other to adopt our views. That is where it ends. Force plays no role here. For Islam, there is just one acceptable religion and way of life: Islam. Force is indispensable to the implementation of Islam's agenda.

Since Islam claims about one billion adherents, it is often called one of the "three great religions," along with Judaism and Christianity. Americans, accepting Islam as one of the big three, accord Islam the same respect they give to Judaism and Christianity.

I once shared some of these confusions about Islam. Stripping Islam of its "cloaking device" that makes it fully visible to everyone has made it easier for me to see Islam clearly. For example, I feel no self-consciousness about thinking about Islam divorced from any association with a deity. Freed, I cannot stand by, seeing so many good, patriotic Americans utterly paralyzed in so much of their thinking about Islam, simply because they cannot cross this "religion barrier."

How Americans View Religion

What blinds religious Americans to the realities of Islam? Part of the answer lies in how they regard religion per se.

From early childhood, most Americans are taught that religion is a personal matter and not a subject of polite conversation (unless you know someone well enough to know that you will not tread on toes by having such a discussion). You learn that religion must be accorded "special handling," and that religion is "above criticism." By the time they reach adulthood, many people have developed a powerful aversion to regarding any religion as anything other than basically good. It goes like this: Religion is good; Islam is a religion; therefore, Islam is good.

Muslims exploit this Achilles heel in Americans. Groups such as the Council for American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) follow the pattern of the civil rights industry. Any whiffle of critical questioning or criticism of Islam brings the cheap suits of CAIR to full throat. As a result, many critics of Islam, infected with political correctness, back down. Were they secure in their positions, critics would stand up to these pressure groups to defend their values. Islamic pressure groups, meanwhile, masterfully exploit the confusion by playing this "religion card," along with racial, cultural, and immigrant cards, all of the current tools of "victimism."

Jihadists wreak death and destruction over and over, in a global "ring of fire" all around the world, wherever Islam meets non-Islam. Their fellows create mayhem inside America, paralyzing its citizens with doubts about their relationship with Islam. They do it for Allah and Islam. In the sense that Muslims get away with their bullying and their demands for special treatment, privileges, and unfair, undeserved advantages, it all means that we are not only accepting, but reinforcing Muslim bad behaviors and assertions. This makes us our own worst enemy.

The goal of Islam is to force all of the world's people to submit. "Submission" is the meaning of the word "Islam." Submission will be accomplished through force or by voluntary conversion. (I must add here the extremely powerful attraction of Islamia to Nazism when the latter "flowered.")

For this reason, we need to close off all avenues exploited by Islamists, from immigration to deception to intimidation. But, before we can do that, we must strip Islam of its "protected" status as a "religion" in the minds of good Americans.

cont'd

Can Islam Pass Evidence Tests?

(1.) Sources of Islam

A billion believing Muslims do not make Islam true just because they believe it. Muslims believing that Islam is a religion must provide some evidence for their claims to have any credence. They point to the Koran and the books of the Sunnah, as though these books offer self-evident proof of their assertions. Few have ever called Islamists' bluff to show how these same books actually totally invalidate Islam rather than substantiate it.

Islam is the complete fabrication of a man named Muhammad, who lived in the seventh century A.D. Muhammad was an illiterate who proclaimed that Allah revealed Islam to him through the Angel Gabriel. How do we know? Muhammad said so. That's it: He said so! Millions of Muslims have surrendered their lives to the soul-destroying Islam solely on a say-so. Judaism and Christianity have done far, far better than this to substantiate their faiths to their believers.

You and I could do what Muhammad did. We could make up some documents and sermons, proclaim them to be revelations from a deity, give components special names, and declare all of it a religion. It would be true because we say it is true. Our ad hoc religion has exactly the same validity as Islam's claims. If huge numbers believe us, and accept our religion, does it make it true? Of course not. Islam gets its credit as a religion because so many people believe in it. If a billion people believe in the Religion of the Great Pumpkin, do their large numbers make it true?

I cannot improve on the proof of Islam's fraudulence more than that provided by Craig Winn in his new book, Prophet of Doom (Cricketsong Books, 2004). He makes a complete case, using founding documents of Islam, and objective scientific research sources. Ibn Warraq's outstanding book, Why I Am Not a Muslim, makes the same case, but uses a different, equally valuable approach. Together, they are unassailable.

Qusayy, Muhammad's great, great, great grandfather was a pagan, of course. He ran a religious scam in Mecca, which centered about pagan Arabs' worship of pre-Islamic gods in the rocks of the Kaaba, the large cube in the allegedly holiest spot in Mecca. One of the pagan gods at the time of Qusayy was named "Allah" ("god" in Arabic is a different word, "ilah," which sounds quite a bit like "Allah" to our ears), sort of like "Joe" or "Sam." Allah was one of 360 gods. He wore three hats. He was a moon god whose special interest was agriculture, as well as a god of the sword and war. He was selected as Muhammad's favorite because of the last two hats. His symbol was the crescent moon, a familiar sight atop many a minaret.

Qusayy was the Meccan "conventioneer par excellence," promoting and controlling the ceremonies, rituals, and all activities of pagan Arabs coming to Mecca on ubgone86 (yes, it was going on with exactly the same rituals many decades before Islam) to worship the stone gods of the Kaaba. He ran concession stands, facilities for room and board, transportation, and regulated rituals, procedures, and all access to the Kaaba. This religious scam was Qusayy's livelihood at least 80 years before Muhammad was born, and it was apparently profitable. Even Qusayy invented little; he used the customs, practices, and superstitions of the tribalists. Qusayy's genius was in his conventioneering.

After Qusayy died, his family inherited Qusayy's Meccan religious scam. Muhammad, a sort of adoptee, was kept out of inheriting any of the business by Qusayy's descendents. In time, Muhammad took Qusayy's "five pillars" Kaaba concession from his descendents by force. He then claimed these practices and sites as original to his own invention, which he named "Islam," and he cemented his position by having his soldiers annihilate anyone who objected. He kept the black stone god, Allah, and used the sword to ban all the other pagan gods. (POD, page 94) "Allah and the Kaaba predated Muhammad by five generations. He didn't invent them. Nor did he conceive the pagan rituals, fairs, holy months, fasts, prostrations, taxes, and pilgrimages that made these things worth owning."

Muhammad initially had a series of gods. His first god was nameless. His second god was named "Ar-Rahman," which he used interchangeably with "Lord." Later, he used "Lord, Ar-Rahman, and Allah." Allah shows up as Mohammad's sole god much later, in his final phase in Medina, after he had already become a full-blown terrorist.

Only Muhammad ever "heard" any of Allah's "revelations," and gave only his say so as evidence of these revelations. The entire Koran is only what he said it was.

Muhammad was illiterate. His deity made "revelations" which conveniently appeared whenever he wanted something, including the wives of others, booty, or death sentences. Muhammad made up Islam as he went along, changing what he claimed was the "unchangeable word of his god" to fit current needs and "abrogating" earlier, usually more benign, revelations from the same alleged god. His claim to be a prophet was just that, his claim, having not a shred of evidence, much less proof.

(POD, p.58) "Islam was derived in part from an offshoot of the religious scam concocted by Nimrod in Babylon" (POD, p107). "Islam isn't the religion of Abraham or the doctrine of the prophet Muhammad. It is the religion of Qusayy." You can read it for yourself, in the founding documents of Islam, or in modern synopses, or in the masterful collection in Prophet of Doom.

Another Islamic lie is that Allah revealed the Koran in Arabic so that "knowledgeable Arabs" could understand it. At the time of the illiterate Muhammad, Arabic was a language still in its infancy in its birthplace in Syria. It did not achieve widespread use in Arabia, where Mohammad lived, until a century or two after Muhammad's death. Few, if any, in Muhammad's time knew any Arabic. So few knew any reading or writing at all, that none of the Koran was written for decades after the death of Muhammad. Instead, it was transmitted orally, which was a strong tradition among illiterate peoples. Certainly none of it was ever written by Muhammad, who was illiterate, like so many of his fellows. There are claims that some followers wrote verses on leaves and the like -- not the sort of material likely to survive for long periods. Nothing of the sort whatsoever survives, with little wonder.

The language question is just one of a seemingly infinite number of questions casting doubts on the validity of the Koran as it has been purported to be. Even more questions cast doubt all of the rest of Islam.

Might there have been a few other Muslim cooks making up the stew of Islam? Following stunningly successful conquests by Arabs of what used to be large portions of the Roman Empire, Islamic clerics collected and codified the Quran and other Islamic doctrines. (POD, p. 100) Until the Koran was first written some 100 years after the death of Muhammad, and for the next 200 years after that, Islam existed only as oral traditions, fashioned to retain some material, eliminate others, and to add yet other material to get a desired result, which we now call Islam (POD, p. 61). "[T]he Islamic clerics in Baghdad who fleshed out the Quran in the eighth century attempted to make it seem more religious by usurping myths and fables from the Talmud, uninspired Jewish folklore." "Every Islamic doctrine and ritual existed before the Quran, Muhammad, or even the first Muslim graced our world. As Ishaq [Muhammad's first biographer, about 120 years after Muhammad's death] has correctly explained, Islam was practiced in all of its glory before the Islamic prophet was born." (Emphasis mine.)

Koranic errors, lies, and contradictions run rife; other Islamic founding documents fare just as poorly. Islam gets away with it for two reasons. The first reason is that Islamists' proclaim the Koran and supportive works to be the Word of Allah, thereby making any change blasphemous and punishable by death (stoning, beheading, whatever). The second reason comes from the power of Islam to shut down all inquisitiveness in its believers, who are made to fear to think.

cont'd

(2.) Muhammad

Muhammad himself was a thoroughly evil man. Quoting Prophet of Doom (p. 3), "He became a pirate, dictator, and terrorist leader. He used Quranic scripture to justify horrific behavior: pedophilia, incest, rape, torture, assassinations, thievery, mass murder, and terror all in an unbridled orgy of sex, power, and money." This picture of Muhammad comes from the founding documents of Islam. Nobody has to make up anything. The founding documents themselves tell all.

Once he had gathered enough followers, Muhammad changed from evangelist to conquistador. He was a barbaric savage, claiming Islam as the authority for his behavior. He was the first "Islamic terrorist," and he set the standard which Islamists follow to this day.

Muhammad competed with his contemporaries, Maslamah and Zayd, who preached the pagan Hanif doctrine in the local culture. Hanif was almost identical to Islam; Muhammad incorporated these beliefs whole-cloth into Islam, even stealing Zayd's poetry. Muhammad became the dominant prophet after winning a huge battle in which he destroyed his competition.

He lived among Jews, and spent a lot of time interacting with them, prior to killing them. He "lifted" liberally from their traditions. Islam plagiarized big-time from Judaism and the Bible, and capitalized on their terms, such as God, Prophet, Angel Gabriel, Satan, Heaven, and Hell. Islam has never been more than "Judeo-Christianity-Lite" at best.

Every time he wanted something, Muhammad said that Allah gave him the "revelation" that authorized his actions. Muhammad made up each and every one of these alleged revelations. One authorization allegedly given Muhammad by his "Allah" was for wife stealing, later topped off by his marriage to a six-year-old girl. This wonderful fellow, however, waited until she was nine to consummate the marriage. Does this Muhammad remind you of Jesus and his Apostles or of the great leaders of Judaism?

(3.) Jihad

Jihad was created by Muhammad to justify his power lust and that of his followers. He justified his terrorism as the most efficient means of spreading the faith. Remember, Islam exists solely to justify terror and bloody conquest by its adherents. To this day, it faithfully retains its original agenda, and all the means it adopted to implement it. It exists unchanged since its invention almost 1400 years ago.

Muhammad intended for "Jihad" to be a bloody instrument of conquest, looting, and enslaving. He led many genocidal missions. His personal cut of the booty was 20%, which he said Allah "told him" to take. He ordered murder on a wholesale basis which Hitler, Stalin, and Mao could only hope to emulate centuries later. Mohammad's life was a horror story on the grandest of scales.

In the West, Islam gets away with so many lies (deception is an official weapon in the Islamic war chest) because so many Westerners remain so ignorant about it. Too few pick up the easily available, well-written materials which shine the spotlight of truth on Islam. For example, if anyone wants a "quick fix," read Ibn Warraq's Leaving Islam. This book presents "real life stories" from those who left Islam. No one could begin to make up the real difficulties these people endured. This book is a great start into understanding Islam.

Says the Prophet of Doom, "While the Islamic holy books aren't historically reliable, they are Islam, not a version, interpretation, or corruption of Islam, but the essence of the religion. Muhammad can be no different than those books depict him."

Here, then, is a summary of some of what we know about Islam thus far:

1. "Allah" is a proper name. It is not the translation of the Arabic word for "God." Allah never existed as a supreme deity, then or now. He was a pagan moon-sword-war god in the pagan Arab pantheon that existed long before Islam was invented, and he "lived" in a black rock, in the Kaaba.

2. Allah did not "reveal" the Koran to Muhammad; Muhammad made it all up. Muhammad was not Allah's apostle or prophet. The reason he claimed revelations from an omnipotent deity was to grant himself the moral authority to act as his narcissism demanded.

3. Muhammad stole every bit of what eventually became "Islam" from various existing sources in local culture, and ineptly plagiarized the Jewish Talmud, Jewish religious documents and practices, and the Christian Bible. At best, Islam is Judeo-Christianity-Lite.

4. The SOLE evidence for the validity of Islam comes from Muhammad's own mouth.

5. All of the founding documents of Islam were written from 100 - 300 years after the death of Muhammad, and all came from oral sources. Despite what Muslims believe, these founding documents raise many doubts about their authenticity, validity, and "holiness."

6. Muhammad created Islam as a means to achieve power over Arabia and to plunder it; he also used it as a means to effect revenge on those who opposed him. Muhammad was one of the bloodiest terrorists and conquistadors in history. He acted out all of his profound evil in the name of his creation "Islam" and called the process "Jihad."

7. Islam is a political movement and a scam, a con game, run by clerics and warlords for their personal profit and to keep and expand their power base.

What we really know about Islam is that it is a set of lies, confabulations, and above all, justifications for totalitarianism. It is immensely attractive to those who feel incompetent and lack self-confidence because it provides them a psychological and moral "exoskeleton," superficially masking their inadequacies. It is as alien to the spirit and teachings of most other religions as though it had come from an extraterrestrial source. If it did not have the 1400 year history of acceptance by millions of adherents, it would be held in the contempt and ridicule is deserves, and summarily discarded by all humans who become aware of it. The success of its continuing presence and influence comes from how Islam is culturally transmitted, a story for another time.

How do Judaism and Christianity deal with criticism of their faiths? They offer arguments in their defense. They do not issue "fatwas" against the critics (a "fatwa" is a religious edict with the power of law).

How does Islam take criticism? It does not. Official doctrine condemns critics to death. In some cases, Islamists provide the non-Muslim critic with an opportunity to convert to Islam. If he refuses, he may be condemned to death. If the critic is a Muslim, then criticism brings him death. No one is allowed to question the truth of Islam, even where contradictions are obvious. One must accept, submit, believe, or face horrendous, Koranic-style punishment.

Islamists regard "good Muslims" as those who are fully consistent practitioners of Islam. Wahhabis from Saudi Arabia and Khomeinists from Iran are the best of these "good Muslims." All other Muslims are considered evil because they do not practice Islam consistently. Therefore, they are as much targets of the "good Muslims" as Americans and other infidels are.

What does Judaism or Christianity do when one of their faithful renounces his or her faith? The Church or Synagogue attempts to persuade, or even pressure, the person, friends, and family to stop this person from becoming an apostate. They may disown or shun him. In the long run, however, apostasy has no more impact than dropping a magazine subscription. Such is not the case for Islam: If you renounce Islam, you are condemned to death. This is not negotiable. This is Islam, the Islam that tries to call itself a "religion."

cont'd

Naming Islam for What It Is

Let us make the emotional leap, a leap that is really a small, intellectual step: Stop regarding Islam as a "great religion," worthy of your protection it from scrutiny and criticism.

Call it a religion, if you must, because it uses your religion's language and has many believers. But, recognize it for the political evil that it is and its unremitting agenda of world-wide conquest. Your life, the lives of your loved ones, the existence of your country, and of all your values depend on it. You will never be able to stop Muslims and their apologists from proclaiming Islam to be a great religion. They will always demand that you respect it and give it a blank check. You cannot reason with them, so stop trying. Reason only with yourself and other rational human beings. Stop buying into Muslim psychopathology.

Start calling Islam what it is.

Call it a toxic ideology, a death cult, even your death sentence. In fact, Islam, among other things, is a vicious political movement, which gives itself a mantle of respectability and gets away with its actions only by providing itself with the "cloaking device" of religion. Islam is totalitarianism. It wants to conquer you, and kill you and yours. It wants to destroy everything you value.

If you do not withdraw your sanction of Islam, you will play right into the Islamists' hands. This is happening right now at the highest level of government. We watch our highest officials bowing and scraping to their future Muslim killers, while reassuring our people that Islam is peaceful, that Islam is a great religion, that Islam is wonderful, and worst of all, that Islam has been hijacked by some bad guys who twist it to their uses. Don't be played like a Wurlitzer. Islamists are selling you sanitized Islam while practicing the real thing. It is terribly important to remember that lying and deceit are among Islam's most valued weapons.

Jump over the religion barrier. Keep your own peaceful religion, which teaches that the initiation of force is wrong, but that self-defense is right. Recognize and reject Islam, which has as a central commandment to erase the Infidel -- that's you -- from the face of the earth.

cont'd

SERIES: GETTING INTO THEIR MINDS

Part I: The Arab Mind

Review of Raphael Patai’s, The Arab Mind; Hatherleigh Press; ISBN: 1-57826-117-1; Revised Edition, 2002.

As I dug ever deeper into Islam after the events of 11 September 2001, I realized that my understanding of Islam needed something to supplement it, to make it more complete. Of course, I had needed to understand Islam itself. For this, I turned, among other places, to the books of Robert Spencer (Islam Unveiled and Onward Muslim Soldiers), Ibn Warraq (Why I Am Not a Muslim), and others. As valuable as these were, and they were, and are, magnificent, I needed something else, something qualitatively different.

After I read Raphael Patai's, The Arab Mind, I knew that I had found an exceptionally important explanation of the other component of the Islam problem: the Arab mind itself. In Dr. Patai, I had found an explanation of how Islam works on the Arab mind to produce its characteristic persona. In fact, I had found a key to being able to develop an explanation of how Islam takes normal human beings and turns them into killer robots (kill-bots) set relentlessly onto jihad. I regard this book as one of the most important books I have found about Islam and Arabs.

It is not a new book. Written in the 1970s, it was last revised by Dr. Patai in 1983. Until recently, it lay out of print. Just as it found new life for Operations Desert Storm and Desert Shield in 1991, it finds new life for our war on Islamic terrorism since 2001. A few demographic statistics might be dated, but the heart, the brain, and the very flesh of this book are as fresh as if it had been published yesterday afternoon.

Dr. Patai became interested in the Middle East and its inhabitants in his native Hungary in pre-adolescence. He continued these studies in Germany and Hungary through the university level. He became, among other accomplishments, a scholar of the Arabic language. In 1933, he traveled to Jerusalem for further studies. He steeped himself in the living language, society, and culture of the Middle East and Arabs. After World War II, he returned to the area now known as Israel. In the ensuing years, he devoted his attention to learning all he could about conceptualizing how Arabs think, feel, and act.

Throughout his life, he said "When it comes to the Arabs, I must admit to an incurable romanticism; nay, more than that, to having had a life-long attachment to Araby." He poured his loving scholarship into this one-of-a-kind volume, one of the very few books available today on the subject of how Arabs use their minds, and perhaps the very best. Although loving the people, he remained objective about them and their culture. Dr. Patai died in 1996.

In my experience, forewords to books add too little that is worthy of comment. The forward to The Arab Mind is an exception. In November 2001, Army Colonel Norvell B. De Atkine wrote an unusually useful, post-11 September 2001 commentary to the present edition. He corroborates the contents and presentation of The Arab Mind from the perspective of his own special interest and study in the same field, and his twenty-five years of living in the Middle East. Using his own knowledge and experience along with this book, he taught many U. S. military leaders and soldiers how to view the inhabitants of the Middle East correctly. Like Dr. Patai, he does not engage in political correctness and cultural and moral relativism. As does Dr. Patai, he stresses the central power of the Arabic language in the shaping of Arabic behavior. Soldiers returning from the Middle East report that what they found exactly matched what Dr. Patai had written about. Without this book, our military personnel across many years would have been lost trying to understand the Arab mentality.

The Arab Mind is almost 500 pages in length, but the meat of the text is only some 333 pages. The rest is comprised of notes, a postscript on the development during the ten years following initial publication of the book, extensive tables, and two appendices. It is worth citing the titles of the chapters as a handy way to get a snapshot grasp of the scope of the book:

1. The Arabs and the World

2. The Group Aspects of the Mind

3. Arab Child-Rearing Practices

4. Under the Spell of Language

5. The Bedouin Substratum of the Arab Personality

6. Bedouin Values

7. The Bedouin Ethos and Modern Arab Society

8. The Realm of Sex

9. The Islamic Component of the Arab Personality

10. Extremes and Emotions, Fantasy and Reality

11. Art, Music, and Literature

12. Bilingualism, Marginality, and Ambivalence

13. Unity and Conflict

14. Conflict Resolution and "Conferentiasis"

15. The Question of Arab Stagnation

16. The Psychology of Westernization

cont'd

Conclusion

Dr. Patai wrote before the disease of "political correctness," spawned in the philosophical sewers of the 1960s and 1970s, had taken hold. Nowadays, he would be accused of racial stereotyping by writing about the Arab personality. However, he defined his subject and the boundaries of his examination. He asked, "What can be common to a group is a specific feature, or a set of specific features, that social psychologists and anthropologists have reference to when they talk about national character or modal personality?" He adds, "The basis of modal personality or national character studies is the observation that human beings who grow up in a common environment exhibit, beyond their individual differences, a strong common factor in their personality."

It is this modal personality or national character that he addresses. "I would, therefore, venture to define national character as the sum total of the motives, traits, beliefs, and values shared by the plurality in a national population" (his emphasis). That is why and how he can identify, study, and conceptualize the Arab mind, and he is as correct today as he ever was, regardless of the tenor of our times. This is the basis for our recognizing and separating peoples as belonging to nationalities, races, genders, and so on, based on common characteristics, and none of this involves the devaluation of any member because of it. The context of who is an Arab is very simple: "Persons whose mother tongue is Arabic may be brought up in a non-Arab culture (e.g., in French culture in North Africa), and still consider themselves Arabs and be so considered by others." Identity comes from language for these people. Islam and the Arabic language are seamlessly fused: Islam shaped Arabic; Arabic shapes Islam; and both shape Arabs.

This book is so rich with material that it cannot be contained in any review. Only a few of its many treasures can be alluded to. It is extremely well-written and merits study. For this review, I will focus on some of the key elements of the book which opened my mind to the nature of the Arab.

Arabs put exceptionally high value on their language, and they are exceptionally influenced by it. Dr. Patai likens Arabic to music because of how extensively is the language linked to the emotions of Arabs. Arabs tend to be wordy, or, as Dr. Patai says, they engage extensively in "rhetoricism." Linked seamlessly to rhetoricism is their proneness to verbal exaggeration and overemphasis. If we wish someone a "speedy recovery," the Arab will tend to say "May there be upon you nothing but health, if Allah wills." Our mutually exchanged "Good Morning" becomes something like "May your day be prosperous," and you likely will receive in response, "May your day be prosperous and blessed." During the Arab-Israeli War of 1948, the Iraqi Prime Minister proclaimed to the Arab joint chiefs that all they needed were a few brooms to drive the Jews into the sea. We know, however, what really happened.

Dr. Patai explains this exaggeration as the mental phenomenon "... n which the desired event is represented as an accomplished fact." This is pure primacy of consciousness epistemology which says something is so because I want it. Baghdad Bob was a shamelessly typical user of Arab exaggeration and overemphasis [in essence, "Pay no attention to those American tanks behind me. There are no Americans in Baghdad, and we have vanquished the infidels totally."]. He sounded comical to us, but Baghdad Bob was deadly serious. If we do not learn how Arabs think, we can never deal with them effectively.

Another predilection is for repetition. Listen to Arabs fluent in English and note how they cover the same material over and over in most of their statements. Furthermore, words do not have the same meaning as concepts to the Arab. Dr. Patai cites how our American economy of expression "...may sound weak and even doubtful to the Arabs who read it." In America, we joke when a hardhead wont take no for an answer by asking, "What part of 'no' don't you understand?" An Arab requires increasingly elaborate overstatement and repetition, with embellishment, before he accepts "No." "Yes" and "no" have indefinite meanings to Arabs.

Another characteristic of Arabs is how they substitute words for actions. Dr. Patai quotes an Egyptian official's response to a Time Magazine interview in 1971:

"When Arabs argue, they start on opposite sidewalks and shout at one another, 'I will carve you into pieces!' and 'You'll never live to see another sunset!' Then, after ten or 15 minutes, they walk away and nobody gets hurt."

The Arab does not intend to carry out his threats, demands, or even his intentions. Expressing them serves to relieve emotional tension, and by uttering them, it is as though these acts had been actually carried out. Intentions, or going only to the first step toward doing something, "... serve as a substitute for achievement and accomplishment." Arabs characteristically substitute words for actions. This is one of the reasons they get so little done.

Another Arab characteristic which is part of Arabic language is the lack of a sense of time. Dr. Patai explains the linguistic reasons for this and points out why the historical timing in the Koran is so "off." “... [T]o the mind of Muhammad, the Exodus of the Children of Israel from Egypt (thirteenth century B.C.) and the foundation of Christianity were practically simultaneous events." On a more mundane level, "being on time" does not mean the same to Arabs as it does to us. For example, two delegations from two Arab countries joined a pan-Arab meeting for the first time on the day of adjournment. They were not considered late.

Arabic as a language arose in Syria just slightly ahead of the formation of Islam, and it was truly in its infancy during the time of Muhammad. It grew up with Islam, and it became the official language for all Muslim conquered peoples. You can see that Islam and Arabic fused seamlessly, and they have reinforced each other.

Arabs were mostly Bedouins, and Bedouin culture became integral to Arabic and Islam. One of its characteristics is hyper-emotionality, including emotional intensity. Little has changed among the Bedouins to this day. "Groupism" is everything, as are certain personality traits such as bravery-cowardice (honor-shame, humiliation), aggressiveness-peacefulness, or manliness-meekness, and the need for blood revenge. See if this sounds familiar these days: "The Bedouin temper is characterized by sudden flare-ups, which can easily lead to violence and even murder, followed by remorse and long periods of tranquility, inactivity, almost apathy." In our culture, this style of tension build-up and release through action occurs frequently among wife and child abusers and serial killers, among other sub-populations.

Dr. Patai devotes a chapter to the Islamic component of the Arab personality. He stresses the fusion of Islam with each Muslim Arabs mind and each’s literal acceptance of Islam without question. This relationship makes Islam a potent shaper of the personality and life of each Muslim Arab.

He adds other Islamic influences usually not sufficiently emphasized in many works. The first is "predestination," which is as old as the Koran itself, he states. "Whatever man is or does and whatever happens to him is directly willed by Allah." Christianity and Judaism held the same belief way back then, but it was mitigated through reformations. Islam retained determinism, and it has had a profound impact on the Arab personality. "All references to the future, to what one plans to do or hopes will happen, contain the expression In shaa Ilah ("If God wills")." Think of what the pervasive belief in determinism does to anyone. Says Dr. Patai, "The smallest everyday event or activity is believed to be determined by His [Allah’s] personal decision." Another name for this is "fatalism." Allah provides, they say over and over so, why work? After all, nothing whatsoever is in your control (even whether you attain Paradise), and it doesn’t matter whether you want something, love something, or want to better yourself. Inshallah!

cont'd

Add to this, improvidence. "For the tradition-bound Arab mind, there is even something sinful in engaging in long-range planning, because it seems to imply that one does not put ones trust in divine providence." Such a belief has been central to centuries of impoverishment.

Any deterministic belief "... inclines the Arab to abdicate responsibility for improving his lot or providing for his future." The Arab blames his foibles and that of his society on fate or the devil, or to imperialism. When castigated for passivity or corruption, he shrugs and claims that he is forced by uncontrollable forces to be and do as he does. This is one of the biggest reasons why self-responsibility is so lacking.

Dr. Patai closes this chapter with an eloquent paragraph:

"The fact remains that under traditional Islam, efforts at human improvement have rarely transcended ineffectuality. In general the Arab mind, dominated by Islam, has been bent more on preserving than innovating, on maintaining than improving, on continuing than initiating. In this atmosphere, whatever individual spirit of research and inquiry existed in the great age of medieval Arab culture became gradually stifled; by the fifteenth century, Arab intellectual curiosity was fast asleep. It was to remain inert until awakened four centuries later by an importunate West knocking on its doors."

This is the mechanism by which Islam stifles and squanders human minds. Few seem to know that Islamists formally banned reason and philosophy by about 900 A.D. and forbade its citizens to think outside the Islamic box.

The last section of this outstanding book that I want to cover is its final chapter, called "The Psychology of Westernization." I want to reemphasize that I have had to select mere tidbits from a vast banquet presented in this book. Anything I have left out must not be presumed to be unimportant: No one wants to read a fifty-page review. This book is worth being kept as a valuable reference for your library, to be read again and again, and never allowed to go out of print.

We have two major populations today in America regarding the Middle East. One is composed of those who will not identify the Middle East, Islam, and Arabs for what they are for a host of reasons, none of which are good. The other is a much larger population of people who are simply lazily ignorant about these three areas, even after 11 September 2001. These people make too little effort to erase their ignorance, even though so much good material is available these days at such affordable costs. Both populations subvert our efforts to defend America, which begins with identifying these agents provocateurs coming from Islamia. The first population cited wring their hands that we, America, have caused Islamists to hate us; it is all our fault. The second population are perplexed about why these fanatics are trying to annihilate us. Why do they hate the West and America?

I find Dr. Patai, in answering this, to be right on target with the basic facts and principles. However, he simply did not grasp the intensity of jihad as we are experiencing it, although he clearly defines many of the elements which are responsible for it. During the decade of the 1970s and early 1980s, when the period this book was published and revised, jihad had not yet reached the intensity and action focus that it has today. We must fill in where Dr. Patai left off.

He approaches the problem in this final chapter, which deals with how the Middle East and Arabs have related to the West. Colonialism passed, and nationalism failed to take hold fully. “... n most parts of the Arab world, decrease in political dependence on the West came to be accompanied by an increase in Western cultural influences." They interpreted this influx of culture from the West as increasing their cultural subservience to the West. Demonizing Israel worked in their cultures, so they began demonizing the West as well.

But the Arab mind, stuffed with its characteristic contents and processes, has never been able to adapt to the process of modernization represented by the West. "It has often been observed that the Arabs are willing and even eager to accept whatever the West offers them in the way of machinery and gadgetry. The problem arises in connection with the production aspects of technology. The foundations on which technology rests remain unexplored, and the making of machines and gadgets, as distinct from their use, remains alien." “ ... The traditional Arab disdain for manual labor constantly militates against such a course [of developing them]."

How a mind works depends on the ideas that feed it. Note how Saudi Arabia still depends on Westerners to get its oil out of its own ground and exported. By now, Saudis should have been able to manage all aspects of their own oil production. But, you are only as good as the ideas you hold. Arab societies are not called "the immovable East" for nothing.

Another such anti-Western element worth mentioning here is the Arab inclination to personalize problems. A Swiss Arabist remarks that this mental process causes Arab countries to harbor the view that the technical difficulties of learning and adopting elements of Western civilization, instead of being part of learning curves, result from human malevolence. As such, the "difficulties" constitute a humiliation [part of the honor-shame responses utterly controlling Arab minds]. How often have we heard this response? Even a defeat in elections results in such humiliation for the loser that he often takes up arms against the victor and the government, while allying himself with those who promise victory next time. "The intrusion of impersonal, objective factors into his world makes the Arab feel impotent in overcoming defeat, and diminishes his gratification from a success which now appears as not having been the result of his ability to overcome personal antagonists."

As we know, the Arab-Islamists look at their pitiful lot, and then project their guilt and hostility onto us. They blame us for everything, which absolves them of any responsibility and thus any ability to change. They feel that the very existence of the culture of Western civilization threatens Islam itself; it shakes these totally insecure people into fearing metaphysical oblivion. Their hatred for us is in direct proportion to their fear.

Three elements come together to give Americans a deep understanding of the entire problem of Islam, in every respect. The factual works of Ibn Warraq, Robert Spencer, Craig Winn, and others make up the first arm. The second arm comes from philosophy; adequate understanding of Islamic philosophy provides the ability to think about the problem of Islam in terms of principles. The third arm comes from this book by Raphael Patai. It shows how the history, facts, and philosophy produce the Arab psychology; it is the Arab mind in the Arab body killing people through jihad.

If we follow all the arms, we will preserve our lives and our civilization. Once we know the Arab-Islamic mind, we can construct an effective remedy.

cont'd

Covert Jihad

We will win the war against Islamic terrorism known as “jihad.” This war kills people and breaks things, and we are engaging the enemy overseas to prevent engaging the enemy inside America. Right?

Is there something wrong with the notion of jihad just stated?

Yes, there is. We are taking our eyes off the prize, but the Islamists are not. The overt war form of jihad is distracting us from the BIGGER jihad, the one that is much more effective for the enemy and much more final and lethal for us.

We can separate out these two forms of jihad so that we do not take our eyes off the prize, which is America. The soldier versus jihadist war is the OVERT JIHAD. What follows next in this article, we will call COVERT JIHAD. It has the possibility of winning without firing a shot.

1. IMMIGRATION

The covert jihad succeeds by IMMIGRATION. Islamists flood into our country, as they are doing in Canada and Europe, and live Islamism. In time, they reach critical mass, and, using the peaceful political means of democratic countries, they take them over. In the final step, they convert the country to an Islamic state.

The process is intentional and involves steps, some of which are sequential and others of which require no particular order.

The process begins with immigration. Immigration does not require legal immigration, and many Muslims arrive and remain in country illegally. They come in at whatever rate the receiving country will allow – or not detect. They stay in proportion to the tolerance of the host country and its failure to control legal and illegal immigration.

Europe is becoming “Eurabia.” Muslims have been pouring in since World War II, and European countries have permitted the flood tide. Canada has a 5 – 10% Muslim population. France has a 10 – 20% Muslim population. Belgium runs close to 50%. I have no figures yet for the USA. Neither Canada nor Europe restricts the influx, and their cultures are changing right before their eyes. Politicians kow-tow to Muslims at the expense of the indigenous population in these countries, despite the enormous problems these Muslim enclaves cause.

All of these countries including the USA have people in gate-keeping positions of power whose minds have been totally consumed by multiculturalism and “political correctness.” They do not mind offending the dominant populations of their respective countries, including trampling on their rights, but they become pretzels trying to avoid offending selected minority populations, including Muslims. As a result, Muslims get away with murder, literally, and get a free pass to be and do whatever they want and not conform to the mores and laws of the host countries. All of these countries are welfare states, so the lives of these Muslim immigrants become cushy indeed. Islam gets preferential treatment, even deference, while Christianity and Judaism, the dominant religions, are forced to take a back seat into dhimmitude.

Muslims, once in these countries, send for their enormous extended families. It is all legal. It is all wrong, also.

2. NON-ASSIMILATION

If you think education is expensive, try ignorance, someone once said. Politicians and populaces bask, well, wallow, in profound ignorance about Islam. All have some preconceived notion about Islam, including the notion that Islam is good, but there are some rogue Muslims who do bad things. This is pathological psychological blindness. People are not seeing Islam for what it is because they do not want to. It is either not interesting enough; or it is just too much trouble because it involves reading books; or they just don’t believe the bad things said about Islam, just because… They join those who do not want to accept any negatives about Islam because they are fifth columnists, working un-American and anti-American agendas. For those in this group, they recognize that Islamists hate America and Islam is fundamentally incompatible with America, thus they like it because that is how poorly they regard our country.

Accepting Islam and Islamists at face value is proving as deadly as has been predicted. Reading as few as one, two or, at most, three basic books about Islam (two by Robert Spencer, Islam Unveiled and Onward Muslim Soldiers, and one by Ibn Warraq, Why I Am Not A Muslim) opens the minds of any except those who want to evade the truth. These books tell the conscious reader something very important about Muslims: They will not assimilate.

Islam declares all Muslims to be one global community, called the ummah. For Muslims, it is all for Islam and Islam only. Islam forbids allegiance to any nationality or any other body of ideas. Muslims are ordered to protect each other, not to mix with non-Muslims, and to overwhelm by any means non-Muslims to force them into converting to Islam.

France has a huge problem because its millions of Muslims cling together in Muslim ghettos and will not mix. They do not recognize the validity of any laws that are not Islamic. They regard all non-Muslims as fodder for them to rape, steal from, attack, etc., i.e., to regard the indigenous population as inferior and unworthy of any human consideration. They hate non-Muslims, and they want to wipe them out, to extinguish them from the earth. And France, serving as the perfect example, has bent over to kiss the asses of its Muslims, only to find itself hated by Muslims who stick together and plan how to take over France. Whenever they do, they will murder the French.

Islam teaches and enforces non-assimilation. Islamists consider that assimilation potentially weakens Islamic values.

3. Populate

The average Muslim family has seven children. The average American family has two children. In countries which practice welfarism, these litters receive subsistence, medical care, and every benefit the government can bestow. The Koran tells Muslims to go forth and multiply, to turn the earth into one huge Muslim domain, with Muslims in charge of all of the earth. Muslims dutifully follow orders.

I have seen many comments indicating that demographic studies show that Europe will become Muslim this century at the present rate of Muslim immigration and breeding. Many European birth rates are below numbers which ensure status quo, of parents just replacing themselves.

Even in the Middle East, the median age is about 20 years. I.e., the populations are young and demonstrate so many of the problems of youth dominance. They have too few schools, too few jobs, too few upward mobility means, and too many of them have too much money (from oil). They are bitter and spoiled. They look for scapegoats, and they find America to fit their needs along with the Jews. Al Qaeda and similar groups recruit these callow youth quite easily.

Similarly, over-breeding and non-assimilation create large pools of callow youth in Europe. These youth grow up in Islamic cultures with Islam deforming their minds from Day One. The only philosophy for living they know comes from Islam, so problems breed more problems. Islam successfully closes their minds back in the old country as well as in the West.

cont'd

4. Convert

Conversion applies not just to converting non-Muslims to Islam. It also applies to converting peaceful Muslims to violent jihad. One of the biggest sources of poison in the West lies in the mosques and their imams. In the USA, some 80% of mosques are Saudi Arabia funded and preach the uniquely Saudi Arabian Wahhabism. Mosques receive faxed sermons from Wahhabists in Saudi Arabia to be used for Friday prayer services. Wahhabis hate the West, particularly America, and want to return the world to the Islamic orthodoxy of the 7th century A.D.; the world Wahhabis want would make our Puritans seem licentious.

Wahhabis are Sunni Muslims who are the majority of Muslims world-wide. The other large group of Muslims is the Shiites, centered predominantly but hardly exclusively in Iran. Iran pumps up its USA mosques with Khomeinism coming from the world-conquest vision and preaching of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who single-handedly has ignited the violent jihad across the world. Wahhabis and Khomeinists hate each other, but their great similarity and anti-Americanism and anti-Westernism presents a formidable front.

Islam attracts young people to its violent side. Young men want to become mujahadini, doing what they envision to be heroic deeds against us. Islam has prepared them to be susceptible because it impairs humans by deforming human capacities against human nature. They grow up hating because Islam has made them so deformed and ineffective. Clever that it is, Islam also teaches them to deny their roles in their own state as well as the role of Islam which Islam tries to make them believe is all good. Islam teaches them to displace and project their misery onto sources outside themselves and Islam. Thus, they blame us.

Finding others feeling as bad as they do, they tap the pool for recruits to violent jihad.

But, growing up deformed is not unique to Islamic cultures. We grow our own as well. Our own callow youth look for a place to belong and an identity to adopt. They become recruits to Islam. Some commit violence; others find answers to why they hate so much.

Young women find Islam fits them as well, for the same reasons. Sour academics and others find that Islam speaks to their inner states as well. Some others convert out of fear caused by Muslims.

Conversion ends potential resistance in the converted, and these Westerners tend to be better true believers, who tend to evangelize and proselytize. Islam expands.

5. Subvert

Subversion is one of the least recognized, thus one of the most effective, methods of the covert jihad. The Muslim Student Association, Council for Arab-Islamic Relations, ISNA, and numerous other groups have sprung up to undermine our societies, and they have been far too successful.

CAIR, for example, follows very closely the Jewish Defamation League and black civil rights groups in vigilance and action whenever a real or imagined anti-Islamic incident occurs. CAIR contacts by phone, email, newspaper, broadcast media, and any and every other means whenever anything comes up that it turn to its advantage. Whether the incident reflects defamation of Islam or not is less important than whether it can be twisted to appear to be defamation. Like Jesse Jacksons, they rise up in high dudgeon bleating about the alleged nastiness of some one or some group perpetrating against Islam. They and similar Islamic groups lobby Congress and other politicians at all levels. They run “institutes” and all sorts of Muslim charities.

These groups intimidate through the threat of adverse publicity. They exploit human character and philosophical weaknesses which abound in politicians and public figures. They play the race and victim cards to the hilt because these cards play so well in our cowardly culture of the present.

They gain influence through money as well. Behind many of these groups are Saudi Arabian oil dollars. Money creates influence, and they play to politicians to get what they want, and what they want is to replace America’s Constitution with the Koran and Shariah. On campus, they scare the holy hell out of the cowardly administrations and professors who will do anything to appear “politically correct.” They threaten those they cannot buy, and they buy the rest.

Their subversion goes ceaselessly, extending to the web as well.

6. Exploit Western values and weaknesses to Islamic ends

It disgusts me to see how well Islamists play so many Americans like the proverbial harp. Two aspects of Islamists get insufficient recognition by Americans. First, they have a completely alien ethics, and it is this ethics which guides them to do what they do. Second, many of these people are quite intelligent which enables them to figure out how to use us to achieve their ends.

We have given a partial explanation of Islamic ethics (add web address here). Our standard is life and our goal is the optimization of our own, individual lives. Their standard is death (going to Paradise), and their goal is self-sacrificial service to Islam. No two ethics could be more polar opposite. They live to serve and they live in service of Islam. The cultures they arose from have been steeped in Islam for 1400 years; thus their every breath, whether first or fifth generation, takes in and exhales Islam and its values. As a result, they see our happiness, pleasures, prosperity, and freedom to be both sins and weaknesses. Never forget this: THEY DO NOT WANT TO TAKE OVER WHAT WE HAVE – THEY WANT US TO LOSE WHAT WE HAVE. Everything that is us and that we value is anathema to them, and they see our destruction as achieving ethical excellence.

Second, our values and behaviors stand out in bold relief to them because they are so different from theirs. They become big targets for them. They can study them, and they do. Then they seek to exploit them to their own advantages. They do it quite well.

To date, I have not catalogued all of the ways they play us against ourselves. I can, however, indicate some of the ways.

One of the biggest problems I call “government versus the people.”

We have immigration laws and regulations. Were these enforced properly, we would have fewer problems by far. We do not apply these laws fully or uniformly. Islamists see the holes and dive through them.

Take racial profiling, for instance. While all Muslims are not terrorists, all terrorists are Muslims. These Muslims come from Islamia where people have a radically different physiognomy from the modal American. Geography and physiognomy couple with history to identify race and religion as violently anti-American. Racial profiling would force probable culprits to pass through a tight filter and be caught.

Take illegal aliens, as another instance. IF the INS and Homeland Security Department actually detect these people, they are either ignored or they undergo perfunctory handling. Too many are adjudged to require deportation. Sappy judges give them several months, in their own recognizance, to get ready and reappear in court to be sent back. Guess what? They become nowhere to be found.

Another problem is the religiosity of Americans (put web address here). Most Americans have grown up with mental programming that makes them regard all religions as fundamentally good. Few make the effort to learn the truths about Islam in part because they regard Islam as one of the great religions of the world, thus it could not possibly be bad. Most in government harbor such deformed thinking, including the president of the USA. Islam gets pass after pass.

Liberals adore equality. Theirs is egalitarianism. It is equality, not under the law, but in behavior and result. No extenuation circumstances, no facts of reality, and no applications of reason can be permitted to dilute this equality. Thus people who vow to destroy us get the same rights and benefits as the patriotic population. A small example concerns the town of Hamtramck, Michigan, where Muslims played the town council like a Wurlitzer to get permission to assault the ears of the townspeople with the cacophony of the muezzin call to prayer over giant loudspeakers six times a day, compared to a time or two a week for church bells. The list goes on and on.

Islamists see the profound cultural weakness and poison of “political correctness” and multiculturalism. These people, who abhor the concept of rights and who have no rights for anyone in Islamia, play Americans like fools to get their “rights.” Were the question one of “rights,” there would be few questions. They see how government uses the anti-concept of “rights” to mean “entitlements.” Islamists barge into line and belly up to the entitlement bar. The anti-American liberals rush them to the front of each line for preferential treatment, in schools, laws, government dispensations, welfare, etc.

cont'd

The list seems endless.

As a result of all of these processes going on, the covert jihad marches onward, meeting no resistance. Should one of the indigenous population object or get in the way, the government steps in to put the Muslim in front of the line.

Where does it end? If unopposed long enough, Muslims will reach critical mass and take over, a la Hitler. Hitler was elected, by the “democratic” process of voting. Not a shot was fired.

Islamists know that they must build up an electorate, and then move in for the kill. Shortly thereafter, their Koran will replace our Constitution, which Muslims believe that we, the indigenous population, won’t defend.

Lawrence Auster, in How to Defeat Jihad in America , in Front Page Magazine, 26 May 2004, offers valuable thoughts and recommendations. He quotes Robert S Leiken of the Nixon Center: “The sole source of the growth of jihadism and terrorism in the West is Muslim immigration.” After elaborating about this problem, Auster goes on to make five recommendations for stopping and then reversing the Islamicization of America.

· End all mass immigration of Moslems into the United States, whether from Moslem countries or elsewhere. He would admit Muslims highly selectively, those who are compatible with the rational self-interest of the USA. Extended families would not be waived through any longer.

· Deport all Moslem illegal aliens. Existing laws must be enforced and reinforced with modern technology to know exactly how long an alien has been in country and where this person is. That would purge newer incomers, and the threat would cause a mass exodus of those already in country in violation of laws and regulations. I would add that all illegals go into internment for quick deportation from their status of being in custody. We need a tough-as-nails and completely non-compassionate attitude toward illegals.

· Deport all legal resident aliens with ties or loyalties to radical Islam. None are citizens, and all who fulfill this criterion are enemies of America. They go into detention until deportation, which should happen quickly.

· Remove the citizenship of and deport all naturalized and native-born citizens who are supporter of jihad. To quote Auster, “We have no obligation to harbor within our country people who are religiously committed to the destruction of our country.”

· Publicly renounce and abjure multiculturalism as a societal philosophy. Yahoo! The reinstitution of the concept and practices of the Rights of Man will wipe out multiculturalism. We are better. Our culture and civilization are better. Let us selfishly uphold this. It is in our rational self-interest.

cont'd

Review: UNHOLY ALLIANCE:

Radical Islam and the American Left

By David Horowitz

(Regnery Books, N.Y.; 2004; ISBN: 0-89526-076-X)

What happened to the Nazis and Nazism after the collapse of the Third Reich? Did they go away, or just go underground? What happened to communists and communism after the collapse of the USSR?

David Horowitz*, in Unholy Alliance, tells us.

He does not address the Nazis as much he does the Reds, but his presentation allows inclusion of both.

And the answer is that their intellectual heirs are living and well in America and Europe. Just as the Nazis and Communists in Pre-Nazi Germany were two sides of the same coin, so they are here as well. Remember that “NAZI” stands for NSDAP, which means “National SOCIALIST German Workers Party,” and remember that fascism, including its Nazi variant, and communism come from the same intellectual root stock: SOCIALISM.

All of these virulent socialists have reemerged from the collapse of the old left and old communism to form what Mr. Horowitz properly calls the “neocommunists,” or “neocomms.” The neocomms, however, have devolved from their pining for the new world order of old communism to raw nihilism—destruction of everything. Their goal is to destroy America and everything it stands for, and now they have new partners.

The new partners are the Islamic jihadists, who want exactly the same thing: The destruction of America and all it stands for. This is the hardcore FIFTH COLUMN, with many strap-hangers along for the ride. This is the UNHOLY ALLIANCE David Horowitz presents. And, hold your hats, the Unholy Alliance is WINNING. If we don’t get off our derrieres, we are going to be herded into a totalitarian state worse than any of those in the 20th century, and we will be bowing to Mecca five times a day.

The Unholy Alliance members are organized, and they are speaking with one voice, from one sheet of paper, as the expression goes. We Americans are not organized, nor are we speaking from the same sheet of paper. We are divided, in part by the effect of our own ignorance, direct effects philosopher John Dewey unleashed on American education (from K-12 and through all of the teachers colleges, and into the university system), and the total takeover of academia and all media by neocomms. In short, we are facing a principled and consistent leftist alliance combating US, an under-principled and very inconsistent America and West. If we do not become fully principled, and very consistent in their application, we will lose to this new Fifth Column.

Unholy Alliance rips the scab off the neocomm-jihadist fusion and exposes it to the light of truth in a short, easy to digest, and potent book. You cannot read this book and stick your head in the sand again. You cannot read this book and try to find middle ground or otherwise compromise with your destroyers. You can read this book and get up fighting mad and ready to fight effectively for America.

David Horowitz grew up in a household with American communist parents, and he became a communist. In the 1960s, he became one of the neocommunists and remained one into the 1970s until he got a blinding flash of reason and realized the logical consequences of his allegiance and behavior. Because of his past, however, he knows these people in and out. He can tell the tales better than anyone else around. When David speaks, we should listen.

American intellectuals embraced communism and the Soviet Union in the 1920s and 1930s with a blind adulation that makes me want to vomit. World War II killed communism as a movement, and Stalin’s excesses grossed out even the communists and comsymps or fellow travelers. Communism after WWII ceased as a movement. Subsequently, the failures of socialism around the world became obvious even to the left, and it died also as a movement but not as a force still exerting influence by default. The death of old communism left many ideologically homeless. These homeless did not blame the failed ideologies at all. As Ed Asner said on the radio, they said that the practitioners had failed, not the ideology—the ideology had not been practiced correctly, they firmly believed and believe. This is a major thought disorder neocomms have in common, and they cannot be persuaded from it by reason any more than a schizophrenic can be reasoned out of schizophrenia.

These ideologically homeless coalesced into the New Left, or neocommunists. They retained their love for totalitarian (“utopian”) ideas and their hatred for America and capitalism. Their practice became “creative destruction,” a concept stolen from capitalism and perverted to mean “nihilism.” They hate the present and live in the future. They want to destroy the present world. They hate reality—the world as it IS. They actually believe that they have to destroy America to make it well, which is warmed over Marxism. Believe me, there is nothing original with these people. Their primary goal is NIHILISM, destruction for the sake of destruction, sweetened with some pie-in-the-sky future fantasizing about eventually finding their utopia of no needs, no wants, no differences, no poverty, no wealth, no disruptive progress, and just static ecstasy— like Islam’s Paradise. For now, they want nihilism, hating the good for being good, like Islam.

Neocomms began populating academia in the 1970s, becoming a major influence in academia in the 1980s. By the turn of the 1990s they had taken over the academic fountainhead. It was they who launched “political correctness” and “multiculturalism.” It was they who played the race and gender cards in every contest, no matter how inappropriate. It has been they who took over the minds of the "humanities" graduates, journalists, and politicians. They have successfully bullied the morally uncertain, who now bend obsequiously to political correctness, to get their way. That is why we have this epistemological, moral, and political relativism mess today.

Neocomms really believe that they had been given a green light during the tenure of the Clinton administration, when they felt their kind had come into their own, in and out of office. They proliferated during this period, inserting themselves into every nook and cranny in America that they could. (A Kerry presidency would have utterly revitalized them, and they would have had carte blanche to damage us terribly during his presidency). They took over the Democrat Party and began converting it to what it appears to be today which looks more day by day like America’s Nazi party, replete with Brown Shirts and Brown Skirts, even involving a number of rank and file Democrats who became “Kristallnachters” during the 2004 election season, and even after the election. They have sought and crave power wherever it could and can be begged, bought, or stolen. Like jihadists, they need raw physical power to survive.

Meanwhile, in 1979, Khomeini in Iran launched the jihadism we face today, financed by Iranian oil, aided and abetted by the Sunni Wahhabists in Saudi Arabia, with the consent and funding of the Saudi regime. Islamic nihilism burst onto the world.

Since 11 September 2001, the neocomms and the jihadists in America fused to achieve the same symbiotic end. The two are almost indistinguishable in content, rhetoric, and behavior. As a result, we have a ferociously dangerous FIFTH COLUMN in America and throughout the West. We have organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union, National Lawyers Guild, and Center for Constitutional Rights, ANSWER, Not In My Name, Code Pink, AFCSME and other unions, and many others, linking with the United Nations, Council for American-Islamic Relations, Muslim Brotherhood, Muslim Students Association, Hamas, Hezbollah, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and many others. Some of these names are from the book, and others I have added because of their obvious neocomm-jihadist orientation. Joining them are strap-hanger Fifth Columnist comsymps in the Democrat Party such as Al Gore, Jimmy Carter, and the Democrat Party dumpling, Michael Moore, as well as almost half the U. S. Senate. The bulk of American journalism—print and broadcast--vibrates in sympathy and support, and almost all of American education at all levels dances to the neocomms-jihadist tunes. This is not “conspiracy theorizing.” It is fact, and Horowitz proves the case.

cont'd

EXPOSING AMERICA'S FIFTH COLUMN:
NAZISM, COMMUNISM, AND ISLAM
PART I

Less Than Three Decades after Weimar

Come with me, back to 1959-1960, when I was in college. I was given an opportunity to sneak a peek at Weimar (a name taken from the German governmental and cultural period between the end of World War I and the final conversion to Nazism) culture in America. Our college president bought in what he called the “avant-garde,” particularly in the arts, i.e., a glimpse of what art and thought would be like in the near future. At the time, I was much too naïve and unsophisticated to analyze conceptually what I was seeing:

* A philosopher with a lot of initials and possibly the last name of Schiller spoke at convocation. He was pridefully and militantly unintelligible. Nothing he said made any sense. Although naïve, I did not make the usual mistake of assuming he was “too deep” for me to understand. I knew that he simply made no sense, period.
* A famous inventor spoke in neologisms. Years later, when in psychiatry residency, I reflected on this inventor’s talk, and I was struck by how similar was his language to that of a schizophrenic. Eventually, I was told by a colleague who professed to know that the inventor was, in fact, schizophrenic.
* Plays in the college theatre dispensed with every rule and custom of drama in order to be “free” from displaying anything recognizable, thus understandable. No two productions of the same play were alike. All of them were, however, very crude and vulgar, and nothing about them made any sense.
* Then came the piece de resistance as new, great music. Two men almost destroyed a grand piano. They beat on the keys, raked the strings, pounded the piano case, and slammed the bench lid repetitively while also using sundry other objects to make what I could only describe as noise. It was discordant and cacophonous in the extreme. But, you had to see the accompanying dance group. Their “dance” was “choreographed” to the “music.” Dancers used “profound symbols” while running about the stage in a manner reminiscent of chickens whose necks have been wrung. Their “symbols” consisted of boat cushions and pieces of picket fence. The dancers were painted gray and wore shredded gray costumes. They danced under dark gray-blue light so that their individuality faded away.

The music and dance were the last of this “glimpse into the future” that I could tolerate. During the music and dance presentation, I left. I had seen a living hell of complete intellectual bankruptcy—of nihilism--and I wanted none of it. I went to an empty student union to join a fellow science major. I tried to describe what I had seen, but I convulsed in laughter for a very long time instead, guffawing as I had never done before or since.

I am proud of myself. I knew no philosophy then, but I had soundly rejected American Weimar culture as absurd. In retrospect, however, I now realize that this so-called “avant-garde” exposure was coming just 30 years after the peaking of Weimar culture. It was coming just 14 years after the end of a world-wide effort to destroy the Third Reich. It was just one year away from the era of the 1960s.

What I saw in 1959 at my college, and much, much worse, you, my fellow taxpayer, and I must pay for today through the National Endowment for the Arts, as well as the hosts of “educational” and “research” government grants. The principles behind what was avant-garde then are now revered among the “intelligentsia” as the ideal: nihilism.

The Weimar Republic, Weimar Germany, and Weimar culture disappeared when Hitler became dictator of Germany in 1933. The ideas of Weimar did not go away any more than Nazism as an ideology went away in May of 1945. Both came to America.

So, here in 2004, let us take a cultural snapshot:

· Painting: All conceivable means of throwing and streaking paint on canvas, as long as thought is not involved; animals “painting”; total disregard given to new artists whose works reflect objectivity and values.

· Sculpture: Randomly placed junk, welded in place; human figures too crude even for prehistoric artists.

· Literature: A wasteland, a value blank.

· Music: Nihilistic hip-hop, gangsta rap, heavy metal, grunge and other productions of noise, made tolerable only by listening while in a drug-induced fog.

· Movies: Rare good ones vastly outnumbered by a plethora of special effects/action/violence, without plot or values, spiced up with sex+sex+sex+foul language+subhuman behaviors by nihilistic anti-heroes extolling raw hedonism.

· Television: Some good dramas outnumbered by anti-valued, so-called “reality” programs and endless banality.

· Computer games: Raw hedonism of the extremely nihilistic variety involving rape, violent murdering, and destruction for the sake of destruction.

And, let us not leave out social institutions:

· Law: Activist judges “creatively interpreting” law and legal principles in order to perform social engineering by nullifying values and valuers, particularly on the Right.

· Special interests: For example, the American Civil Liberties Union representing anyone as long as the issue is some attack on the values of America and Americans.

· Primary and secondary education: All out war on American values, families, cognition, and morality, using all sorts of tactics including banning of Christmas and Halloween, but not banning extreme violence, gang behaviors, rapes, drugs, extortion and theft.

· Universities and colleges: Ceaseless war on all forms of achievement such as capitalism, individualism, rights, knowledge, America and its institutions, and even successful countries such as Israel.

· Paris Hilton as cultural poster child.

What I witnessed back in college and today is the culture-wide phenomena of the inmates having escaped, after locking the rest of us into the asylum. The same phenomena are literally permanently “deforming” America—but to what end?

cont'd

A New Civil War Approaches

It should frighten the living hell out of you to realize that, in America, right now, you are living in a cultural milieu horribly similar to that of the Weimar Republic, which made the ascendancy of Adolf Hitler and the Nazis inevitable. If this does not frighten you, then ask yourself whether you can afford to remain ignorant any longer.

America’s culture today comes from its fifth column, made up of America’s Left and its more recent allies, the jihadists. This fifth column intends to bring down America. If you do not understand these groups and processes, you will live to see America’s collapse and its conversion to a totalitarian state, quite possibly even an Islamic one.

Fortunately, there is a cure.

In this article, I emphasize the book, Ominous Parallels: The End of Freedom in America (by Leonard Peikoff; Stein and Day; New York; 1982; ISBN 0-451-62210-3). The author is a professional philosopher with a gift that enables him to speak and write so that intelligent people, not formally trained in philosophy, can understand him and apply what he says directly to their lives.

This truly great book spells out what happened to Germany and above all, WHY it happened. It also spells out how and WHY America has been following Germany’s path and grows dangerously close to the immediate pre-Hitler period of the Weimar Republic. It is these “whys” that make this book uniquely and extremely valuable, and it is the quality of its ideas and their presentation that separates it from all other books which have unsuccessfully tried to account for the reasons for the rise of Nazism.

The current Democrat Party of the USA, straight out of Ominous Parallels, has bedded and wedded the new totalitarians, the ones described so well by David Horowitz recently in Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left (Regnery; New York; 2004; ISBN 0-89526-076-X). [On this website, I have recently reviewed the Horowitz book. BOTH BOOKS COMPLEMENT EACH OTHER WELL.]

Pre-election and post-election 2004, mini-instances of “Kristallnacht” (Crystal Night, when in 1938, Nazis destroyed stores of Jews, breaking the plate glass store fronts) broke out daily in America, and have been perpetrated almost 100% by Democrat Party supporters. All of these actions protested the election of President Bush and those who supported his reelection: campus demonstrations, protest marches, vandalism, personal assaults, shutting down speakers as well as calls for revolution, destruction, and, in effect, “jihad.” These new totalitarians want to take by force what they cannot yet win by the ballot. Their violence gets worse by the year as the nihilism originating from the university campuses diffuses throughout faculties and administrators, and is fully accepted among impulse-dominated students who are willing to vandalize, threaten, and physically attack other students who disagree with them. Having learned nothing from the 2004 election, Democrats are calling for much more of this nihilism which the neocommunists, who dominate that party, have been inflicting on America.

Some cultural commentators have referred to the essence of today’s cultural theme as “nihilism.” Literally, “nihil” means “nothing,” and “nihilism” refers to an ideology embracing nothing, i.e., nothing-ism. The Encarta Dictionary gives four definitions: (1) total rejection of social mores, particularly morality and religion; (2) belief that nothing is worthwhile, life as pointless and human values as worthless; (3) disbelief in objective truth; and (4) belief in destruction of authority, the belief that all established authority is corrupt and must be destroyed in order to rebuild a just society.

These are accurate statements about nihilism except for the one referring to the honorable motive of rebuilding a “just society.” Nihilists have no concept of “justice,” and the society they envision has nothing in common with justice, fairness, freedom or any related concept. What they do is destroy. They do not want to build anything because they are not capable of building anything; they do not want anything constructive in life to exist.

Examples of nihilism abound. Here are just a few. Singers at glamorous awards galas routinely show up looking like homeless bums needing new clothes, baths, and shaves. Even, Johnny Cash, an unquestionably patriotic American, in his famous ballad, “Folsom Prison Blues,” expressed nihilism, about the man who “shot a man in Reno, just to watch him die.” Democrats and the Left do not want our soldiers to win in Iraq; the journalistic media love only bad news about the war, the economy, or anything else going wrong for anyone. The Left do not want America to be productive, successful, creative or free. They do not want citizens to keep the money they earn. In the 2004 presidential election campaign, the Democrat Party and its supporters from every walk of life manifested such extreme nihilism that it caught the attention of every commentator, each of whom could only describe it, because none could explain it. The predominant attitude among Democrats and Democrat supporters was hatred, hatred for Bush and all Bush stood for, even the fundamental principle upon which America was founded. They even hated their own candidate, John Kerry, but they accepted this inept senator, candidate, and human in hopes he and they could destroy Bush and Bush-supporters. They did not want just to defeat Bush; no, indeed, they wanted to DESTROY Bush and what he symbolized: AMERICA.

American colleges and universities breed and protect nihilism. This is hatred of the good for being good and the overpowering desire to destroy something valued (the good) just to destroy it. THAT IS NIHILISM. The examples are almost endless these days.

Islam is nothing if it is not extreme nihilism. Islamists want to destroy the world and rule what is left, in whatever state of degradation it will be found after jihad. THAT IS NIHILISM.

What are the Republicans doing about this virulently destructive, anti-American war being waged on America by the nihilists? Like the Social Democrats of the Weimar government, they are trying to compromise and “make nice.” They are paralyzed by their own desire to compromise, and by political correctness and multiculturalism. The latter two, as Horowitz points out, were started and spread here in America by the Left. The Republicans feel like Americans and they want to be Americans, but the principles they fall back on are those of faith, which are not sufficient in the struggle against the Left. Faith does not permit them to understand either the American Left or the Islamists. Their militantly anti-philosophical folksiness blinds them to the former, and their reliance on faith over reason blinds them to the latter. They are morally uncertain in the face of their adversaries who are morally certain, although very wrong and very evil. Conservatives, who make up most of the Republican Party, are engaged solely in a holding action against the unholy alliance between Islam and the Left. They have been retreating steadily because they either know how to win and won’t, or because they do not know how to win and refuse to find out.

America may well be headed for another civil war. For sure, some of us will not surrender this country to either the Left or to the Islamists. The best possible outcome of such a civil war would be a restorative Second American Revolution, but that requires a level of philosophical sophistication like that of our Founders.

The worst possible outcome would be the establishment of a totalitarian state in America. That could happen here (recall Sinclair Lewis’, It Can’t Happen Here), and, if it does, it will be based on the principles and practices existing in American culture right now. Not one new principle would be needed; they go way back--these are the same principles which made Hitler possible.

America right now stands exactly where Weimar Germany did just before Hitler took over. The equivalents of his brown-shirted Sturmabteilungen (SA) are on every campus in America. Had John Kerry been elected, these “SA” might well have concluded that they once again had the “green light,” just as they did in the Clinton era, as described by Horowitz. Certainly it is likely that they would have been willing to don American equivalents of the black shirts of the Schutzstaffeln (SS). If the cultural drift is not stopped soon, these equivalents of the SA will “don black shirts” in the foreseeable future.

David Horowitz writes about these new SA and SS of America as “neocommunists” or “neocomms,” while Leonard Peikoff writes about Weimar Germany pre-Nazis. Please note that the relationship between these groups is the fact that they are two sides of the same coin. To illustrate, one German writer compared Nazis to beefsteaks: brown on the outside and red on the inside. Nazis and communists were, and are, very much alike, having no fundamental differences, only superficial differences in style. Hitler knew how close the Nazis and communists were, and upon taking power, he immediately ordered that any and all communists seeking to join the Nazis be immediately admitted to membership.

cont'd

The Meaning of Nazism

“Nazi” is a shorthand designation for National Socialist German Workers Party, or NSDAP, as one sees on many of their banners. Communism is also socialism. The socialist axis spawns Nazis, all other fascists, communists, social democrats, and those with similar names. With these variants of socialism, it is like looking at the same cake, with each slice having a different color icing. Too many people think of Nazism as totalitarianism of the right and communism as totalitarianism of the left. IT IS ALL LEFT, BABY!

Peikoff reminds us that Nazis were not a tribe of prehistoric savages. “Their crimes were the official, legal acts and policies of modern Germany—an educated, industrialized, civilized Western European nation, a nation renowned throughout the world for the luster of its intellectual and cultural achievements.” (15) Furthermore, the Nazis were elected by Germans of every socio-economic and educational level: “The Nazis did not gain power against the country’s wishes.” (15)

Peikoff quotes from a leading spokesman of fascism, Alfredo Rocco, “For Fascism, society is the end, individuals the means, and its whole life consists in using individuals as instruments for its social ends.” (17) This could have been said on the floor of the U. S. Senate or in the 2004 presidential primaries, or, indeed, in any primary, secondary, or university educational institution today, as an ideal to be pursued. The only difference would be the substitution of some fuzzy term or phrase for “Fascism.” Fascism is socialism, and “’Socialism’ for the Nazis denotes the principle of collectivism as such and its corollary, statism—in every field of human action, including but not limited to economics.” (19)

Intellectual Roots

How, then, did Germany, this “land of poets and philosophers,” come to accept National Socialism so easily? “The Nazis could not have won the support of the German masses but for the systematic preaching of a complex array of theories, doctrines, opinions, notions, and beliefs. And not one of their central beliefs was original… [T]he men in the streets heard and recognized and sympathized with and embraced those beliefs, and voted for their exponents.” (22)

Germany was indeed ideologically “ripe.” All of the necessary intellectual groundwork had been laid. Nazism came from one source: Philosophy. The same philosophy which made Nazism possible has largely become America’s philosophy, progressively replacing the philosophy of our founding. Joining forces with these American Nazis and neocomms are the Islamists. The many comments by Islamic leaders favoring Kerry, including Osama Bin Laden, should come as no surprise. The philosophy of Islam is super-imposable over Nazism; thus, it is also no surprise that historically, Islam has had a strong affinity for Nazism. Saddam Hussein studied Hitler’s Germany (as well as Stalin’s USSR), and his Ba’ath Party was patterned on Nazism, as all Ba’ath Parties have been.

Dr. Peikoff disabuses readers of erroneous ideas about philosophy and its value:

* “To understand the state of a society, one must discover the extent to which a given philosophy penetrates its spirit and institutions. On this basis, one can then explain a society’s collapse—or, if it still has a chance, forecast its future. This is what can make intelligible the fact of Hitler’s rise, and the possibility of America’s fall.” (140)
* “Because philosophy deals with broad abstractions, most people regard the subject as detached from life. They regard philosophy as they would a political-party platform—as a set of floating generalities unrelated to action, generalities which are part ritualistic piety, part rationalization or cover-up, and part rhetorical hot air.” (139)
* “In every field, the source [of developments] of the choices men make, which rest ultimately on their basic choices. Knowingly or not, those choices flow from men’s basic ideas and values. The science of basic ideas is philosophy.” (Emphasis mine, 139]
* “If a man is skeptical about the role of philosophy in life, [l]et him observe the concretes of his society’s cultural life—its politics, its economics, its education, its youth movements, its art and religion and science.” (139)

The intellectual chain of transmission to Nazi Germany began with Plato, then Kant, on to Hegel, and finally to Hitler. These thinkers were connected by many lesser links in the long chain.

Without a doubt, the major blame goes to the German philosopher Immanuel Kant, who can be accurately portrayed as the destroyer of the modern world. He was the third of the great philosophers who developed full systematic philosophies. The systematic philosophers have had the greatest influence throughout history. Plato and Aristotle were the only others before Kant.

Kantian apologists abound, trying to make people think Kant was a great and benevolent man, but he must be known by the products of his philosophy. Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia are his historical monuments, the fullest logical consequences of his philosophy; they were created by Kant’s intellectual descendents. Hegel, another major German philosopher, also played a very visible role in Marxism which was a part of Nazism.

Kant launched the most successful assault on reason ever conceived by mankind. Kant’s explicit intent for destroying reason was to “save faith.” He was as effective at turning men’s minds against themselves as are the Islamists, and his intellectual descendents took his rejection of reason all the way to 20th century totalitarianism and the present state of dominant European and American intellectual and cultural ideas. The “neocommunists,” about whom Horowitz writes so eloquently, are also Kant’s intellectual heirs, and they are as much Nazis as they are communists. Cultural nihilism traces right back to Kant. Kant was German, and Germany adopted the essentials of his system. Weimar Culture was a full manifestation of Kantianism.

Nazis specifically and explicitly attacked reason. They wanted obedience, not thought. Peikoff quotes Hitler, “We must distrust the intelligence and the conscience and must place our trust in our instincts.” (46) Hitler regarded the general population (“the masses”) with the same disdain that America’s various Leftists do: “The masses are like an animal that obeys its instincts. The do not reach conclusions by reasoning.” (47)

To unseat reason, Kant, much like Plato had done over 2000 years before, divided reality into knowable and unknowable realms. He designated the world which no one could know to be the real world, similar to Plato’s world of forms. The reality which humans know and live in, Kant declared to be unreal, a fiction created by the minds of people. Thus, Kant invalidated man’s mind because mankind could know only the “world of appearance,” which was not real, and could never know the “real world” which was unknowable except by faith, not reason. If trying to make sense of Kant’s nonsense gives you a headache, remember that Kant has given the entire civilized world two centuries of intractable migraines of the intellect, and these notions continue to the present. Kantianism, however, is a spent force intellectually; it persists and continues its destruction only by passive acceptance by means of default. Fortunately, the world is ready for the antidote.

Kant reduced mankind to the level of the mindless and unreasoning, a status known by every savage and every devout Muslim.

Kant’s ethics became Nazi ethics--line, chapter, and verse. Nazi ethics can be heard on any street in America today. Here are some samples: From Mein Kampf, “[T]he wishes and the selfishness of the individual must appear as nothing and submit…” i.e., a human must “…renounce putting forward his personal opinion and interests and sacrifice both…” (68) Said a popular German slogan of the time: “Gemeinnutz geht von Eigennutz” = “The common good comes before private good.” (69)

“Sacrifice” does not refer to some action taken by others to achieve some good end. It means forsaking something of higher value for something of lesser value. To illustrate, the expression, “The pain of sacrifice,” has the meaning it does because giving up the more valuable thing hurts. In exactly the same way, “altruism” in its philosophical meaning does not mean helping one’s fellow man out of one's goodness—no one could object to that, except nihilists. “Altruism” here refers to the obligatory self-sacrificial service to others as an ethical primary, including giving up that of greater value to others under force—this is the ethics of totalitarianism, not fellowship.

Nazism rose, not because of numbers and actions of criminals, writes Dr. Peikoff. “The reason [for the rise of Hitler] was the millions of non-thugs in the land of poets and philosophers, the decent, law-abiding Germans who found hope and inspiration in Hitler, the legions of unhappy, abstemious, duty-bound men and women who condemned what they saw as the selfishness of the new Weimar Republic, and who were eager to take part in the new moral crusade that Hitler promised to lead. The reason was the “good Germans”—above all, their concept of “the good.” (70)

cont'd

Compare Weimar culture to our current American cultural coarseness, excesses, and the overwhelmingly prevalent vulgarities on television, on CD, on radio, in films, in music, in computer games, in books, in classrooms, and expressed daily by the legion incivilities and lack of manners among citizens at large. They are indistinguishable in principle. Look how many “good” Americans long to escape from the presence of these “selfish excesses.” The protestors of these “selfish excesses,” in large measure, come from the so-called “Red States,” i.e., people who compare favorably to the “good Germans” described by Dr. Peikoff.

In this context, “selfish excesses” cause people to long for unselfishness and self-sacrifice as a moral alternative and ideal, often seen in religion. However, today’s self-sacrificial ethics comes not predominantly from religion, but from Kant. Kant picked up the principle from Augustine and his ilk. Writes Dr. Peikoff: “Kant is the first philosopher of self-sacrifice to advance this ethics as a matter of philosophical principle, explicit, self-conscious, uncompromised—essentially uncontradicted by any remnants of the Greek, pro-self viewpoint.” (78)

This morality of pre-Nazi and Nazi Germany walks the streets of contemporary America and lives in many households:

“A man is morally the property of others—of those others it is his duty to serve—argue Fichte, Hegel, and the rest, explicitly or by implication. As such, a man has no moral right to refuse to make the requisite sacrifices for others. If he attempts it, he is depriving men of what is properly theirs, he is violating men’s rights, their right to his service—and it is, therefore, an assertion of morality if others intervene forcibly and compel him to fulfill his obligations. ‘Social justice’ in this view not only allows but demands the use of force against the non-sacrificial individual; it demands that others put a stop to his evil. Thus has moral fervor been joined to the rule of physical force, raising it from a criminal tactic to a governing principle of human relationships. (The religious advocates of self-sacrifice accept the same viewpoint, but name God, not the group, as the entity whose wishes must be enforced.)” (91)

Kant’s ethics destroyed individuality and the human sense of worth, his sense of self-esteem. When Kant dispensed with reason, he reduced man to the level of a savage. When he enshrined the ethics of self-sacrifice, he produced a savage who could now be ruled. Man had become the equivalent, via Kant, of the “good Muslim.” This is why there is such a sense of alliance between Nazism and Islam. With reason and ego gone, blind force was all that was left.

~~~~~

EXPOSING AMERICA'S FIFTH COLUMN:

NAZISM, COMMUNISM, ISLAM

Part II

(Click here to reach Part I of this article.)

Converting an Entire Culture

What is so frightening is knowing exactly how America is being Nazified and watching it move closer, inch-by-inch, with so few people either sufficiently aware of the process or even giving a damn, perhaps feeling secure in the notion that “It can’t happen here.” Others actively push us to the left, seeking to destroy America and take us over.

Here is how it was done in Germany:

“Wherever the German turned—to the left, to the right, to the center; to the decorous voices in parliament or to the gutters running with blood—he heard the same fundamental ideas. They were the same in politics, the same in ethics, the same in epistemology.

“This is how philosophy shapes the destiny of nations. If there is no dissent in regard to basic principles among a country’s leading philosophic minds, theirs are the principles that come in time to govern every social and political group in the land. Owing to other factors, the groups may proliferate and may contend fiercely over variants, applications, strategy; but they do not contend over essentials. In such a case, the country is offered an abundance of choices—among equivalents competing to push it to the same final outcome.

“It is common for observers to criticize the “disunity” of Weimar Germany, which, it is said, prevented the anti-Nazi groups from dealing effectively with the threat posed by Hitler. In fact, the Germans were united, and this precisely was their curse: their kind of unity, their unity on all the things that count in history, i.e., on all the ideas.” (160)

Role of Education

Of all of the ominous parallels, the most dangerous comes from education. “Progressive education” almost single-handedly took down Germany, just as it is taking down America.

Remember that the progressive education of America came from John Dewey, one of the founders of the profoundly destructive American philosophy of Pragmatism. Most people say “pragmatism” and think this means something good, such as being practical; however, its meaning is very different and very much worse than that. Dewey came from Kantian and Hegelian intellectual roots. In the following quotation, do not be thrown off the Nazi ideology by the name of the school, the “Karl Marx elementary school”; recall that almost every form of socialism is interchangeable in terms of fundamental ideas with any other form, regardless of name:

“In the most famous Progressive institution of the Weimar era,…, the group (the child’s peers) became the arbiter not only of freedom but also of morality and truth. Objective standards of performance were dropped. ‘The judgment of the group is the standard by which the work and conduct of the individual is measured.’ As to any nonconformists in attendance, they soon discovered how much “peaceful tolerance” they could expect from their classmates. In the Karl Marx school, notes [a writer], ‘anything but radical socialism among the pupils was for several years punished by the other pupils with violence and boycott.’

“The socialists’ plan for undercutting the educational establishment was to replace one set of Hegelian disciples by another: to fight brutal, mind-deadening authoritarianism a la Bismarck by means of gentle, mind-deadening subjectivism a la Dewey; to fight elitist romanticism by means of ‘democratic’ anti-intellectualism; to eradicate passionate collectivism (of a nationalist variety) by instilling in the children passionate collectivism (of a socialist variety).” (171)

Does this make you think of American education today? It should.

Consider these also when thinking of education.

* “The harbingers of the era to come were the university students.” (218)
* “The Weimar students practiced everything they had learned. Believing that objectivity is impossible, they did not try to reason about political questions.” (224) Did you hear even one Kerry supporter able to articulate any reason for his support for Kerry? I heard nothing but some vaguely defined FEELINGS.
* “Committed to action based on feeling, they responded to disagreement by unstopping their fury.” (224) Bush-supporting students have been mobbed and beaten, and their signs, displays, and materials have recently been literally destroyed by the unholy alliance on several campuses. Leftists have linked arms with Muslims in pursuit of the same nihilistic ends.

Weimar university students, almost all of whom were pro-Hitler, disrupted university classrooms, intimidated professors and students, and brawled openly. The universities ceased to be centers of learning during the Weimar years because of their students. As for the teachers, they were in fundamental agreement with the student thugs. They and the administrations defended the students. They took the low roads of political correctness and moral relativism. Does this not sound familiar to American campuses? Even by 1922, one German writer acknowledged, the German youth were “saturated with hatred.” (225)

cont'd

Hatred Prevails

When the abandonment of reason leapt from the ideologically corrupt German schools and universities to dominate the culture, guess what prevailed? Emotionality. And, what was the dominant emotion? HATE. Think of present day America as you read this:

“The poor hated the rich, the rich hated ‘the rabble,’ the left hated the ‘bourgeoisie,’ the right hated the foreigners, the traditionalists hated the new, and the young hated everything, the adults, the Allies, the West, the Jews, the cities, the ‘system’.” (188)

Theirs became, just as ours is becoming, a culture of HATRED. The name that describes their culture, and now ours, is “nihilism.”

Does the following seem familiar to you if you think of current American culture? “The essence and impelling premise of the nihilist-modern is the quest for destruction, the destruction of all values, of values as such, and of the mind. It is a destruction he seeks for the sake of destruction, not as a means, but as an end. This is what underlies, generates, and defines ‘Weimar culture’.” (207)

Stop right here and let this sink in. Think of the 2004 election campaign and its aftermath in America. Think of how all of those on the Left, almost exclusively in the Democrat Party, used psychological projection to scream incessantly at the Right, constantly accusing the Right of exhibiting extreme hate. Yet the Left, in their statements, in their behaviors, and in their writings, from nihilists on campus, to the journalistic media, to the Senate of the United States, are the ones who actually spew hatred, then and now. Post-election, none of this has gone away; it has only paused--to catch its breath.

Nihilism is so ubiquitous that it cannot be avoided. While writing this, I saw a clip on television news of a well-known, though mediocre, female pop singer accusing President Bush, Republicans, and Americans in the Red States of being “Nazis.” We hear the same all the time from the Left even though the election was settled decisively and fairly. Talk about psychological projection!

Think here of one other very important parallel regarding nihilism. Think of Islam, Muslims, and jihadists. Islam is pure nihilism and hatred. Think of how jihadis and Leftists have been working overtime to make our culture look just like their nihilistic souls.

“It took over a century for the ideas of the Kantian axis to be implanted in the German mind. It took fourteen years for Hitler, relying on this preparation, to rise to the position of Chancellor. It took six months for the new Chancellor to transform the country into a totalitarian state.” (229) The take-home point here is that America is almost out of time to prevent a similar disaster.

The German Intellectual Plague Comes to America

How did the ideas of Weimar Germany come to America? They came long before the birth of the Weimar Republic.

Kantian ideas had been leaking into America as early as the time of Ralph Waldo Emerson. They were meeting little opposition. Why? America’s founders were philosophically sophisticated, but they were not philosophers. Instead of leaving a good, systematic set of philosophical principles for America to use, they left the end products of good principles, best represented by our Constitution. What we needed was and is a full, explicit, basic philosophy that makes an America, creates its Declaration of Independence, and makes the Constitution of the United States possible.

The critical mass came after the Civil War when German philosophy was imported almost wholesale into America. With the rising prosperity of industrial America, families sent their youth to Germany for “finishing” for a year or so. The youth in turn brought German philosophy back to America. They became professors and intellectuals who created more like themselves, a process of intellectual cloning. Indeed, they had been “finished off” very well.

These new intellectuals developed a sense of fundamental guilt about the nature of America and spread it around. Their European ideas led them to conclude that America was morally wrong and must be reformed. Rights, capitalism, and of course, the individual came under ceaseless attack. These were post-Kantian, post-Hegelian “true believers” who adopted collectivism and self-sacrifice as moral imperatives. Marxism was part of this German philosophical porridge.

America’s defenders were tongue-tied. They had never had a complete philosophic foundation to begin with. They were no match for the true believers in German philosophy, especially Kant’s complete system. The philosophical defenders of capitalism, such as they were (Bentham, Mills, Spencer), utterly destroyed any possible rational defense of capitalism, thereby hastening capitalism’s demise by making “capitalism” a dirty word, instead of the only truly virtuous system on the planet.

Altruism originally came to us from Augustine and Aquinas via both the Catholic and Protestant churches, and it was refined in the 19th century by the French philosopher Auguste Comte. From there, it made its way into common German culture where it predominated. Altruism had long been a part of cultures everywhere. Post-Kantians turned it into a crusade.

Transforming American Culture

American universities developed Pragmatism as a philosophy, and Pragmatism enjoyed a destructive heyday from the latter quarter of the 19th century into the early 20th century. Although not an ideological force for many years, pragmatism has dominated American politics and education for many decades, right down to the present.

“Progressives” arose as a movement late in the 19th century. They embodied an amalgam of German philosophy, altruism, and Pragmatism. So called “progressives” today melt in “moral” joy just thinking of all the so-called “reforms” of the late 19th century into World War I, including the bogus anti-trust movement (which has almost destroyed American business), the Food and Drug Administration, and a whole host of other so-called “reforms.” They even elected their own “modern liberal” president, Teddy Roosevelt, who converted America to an imperial state and whose modern liberal cousin, FDR, converted America into a welfare state.

The first of those to experience “progressive education” in the 1920s and 1930s matured to become the USSR-worshippers of the 1930s and 1940s, and the parents of the “goon generation” of the 1960s, the so-called “radicals.” These 1960s radical nihilists now dominate the universities, deforming students and cranking out insipid primary and secondary “teachers.” In addition, they clone themselves intellectually to keep the universities populated with their ideological fellows.

This is how and why America reversed direction.

Opposition?

Did anyone oppose these modern liberals? The conservatives say they did, but they were and are pathetically ineffective. They implicitly accepted the fundamental principles motivating the so-called “reformers,” particularly the ethics of self-sacrifice. That made them philosophically impotent to oppose the rise of statism. They retreated into faith as their defense and abandoned reason, which was their sole means for mounting an opposition. As a result, modern liberals have had their way for decades, coming ever closer to the full, logical implementation of their ideas, with no intellectual opposition.

With the collapse of socialism as an ideal and as a “cause” by mid-20th century, modern liberals’ ideas still did not go away. They simply morphed from a moral crusade for communism and socialism into ever deepening nihilism, by passive drift and default, dragging the country down with them.

cont'd

Deforming the Great American Subconscious

The great danger of the persistence of the American Weimar culture is that it progressively deforms the American character over time. The longer it goes on, the more it strangles the residual good American character (the “great American subconscious”), which is its total opposite. It has already drastically degraded America. The only apparent “opposition” comes from so-called “neoconservatives” who just want their own version of big government and big statism, or old time conservatives who long for a theocracy. Thus, collectivized unreason on the Left opposes collectivized unreason on the Right. Now, adding to the mix are the Muslims with their virulent totalitarian, Nazi-like Islamic philosophy which tries to pass itself off as some benign religion by means of its well-known tactic of deception called taqiyya.

The 20th century philosophers of the West reached the complete logical terminus of Kantianism. Philosophy completely disintegrated into schools of trivia and babble on the one hand and the total nihilism of existentialism on the other. Philosophy made itself extinct as a functional academic discipline. Today, our culture reflects the state of 20th century philosophy with its roots extending back across two centuries to Immanuel Kant.

Intellectually bankrupt philosophy’s progeny are, however, living and well in America and Europe. They are university professors and administrators, the elementary and high school establishment and unions, the print and broadcast journalistic media, entertainment media, and most politicians and bureaucrats. They feed the populace cultural slop every minute of every day. They are deforming America into their evil image. After all, they have been fully “Nazified.”

Never forget that about half of American voters voted in the November 2000 and 2004 elections for Al Gore and John Kerry respectively. Both are perfect Pragmatists and Leftists. For half of us, America is almost out of time.

David Horowitz reminds us that it was the “neocomms” who infused the culture with the “race card.” Now, “racism,” to hear the Left tell it, is everywhere, in everything, dominating the entire nation and culture. Racism enters every public discussion, and Muslims exploit this with great enthusiasm. They work the intellectually corrupt Left and the morally uncertain middle and Right the way a skilled organist plays the Wurlitzer. As a result, Islam is gaining the toehold in the culture that communism did in the 1930s. Lawmakers and courts uphold those who charge racism, particularly Muslims, and always do so at the expense of American citizens.

While preparing this paper, I witnessed one of the worst examples of raw racism I have seen. President Bush nominated his National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice to become the next Secretary of State of the United States of America, to succeed Colin Powell. Both are black. Ms Rice rose from the deeply segregated southern United States to become a concert pianist, a provost at a large California university, and National Security Advisor—because of her native intelligence and its determined rational application. The American Left, who have pompously arrogated to itself the repository of concern for all matters racial over the past few decades, have attacked her as a big-lipped, stupid and ignorant, pick-a-ninny, even in political cartoons. Have the Democrats and the rest of the Left condemned these overtly racial attacks? Nothing has come from the self-important Congressional Black Caucus. Nothing has come from the National Association of Colored People, although its former president properly condemned these attacks. Nothing has come from the self-appointed but truly alleged black leaders. The largely white Left journalistic media have been silent as have all of the Left senators who profess “brother-love.” Through their silence, they assent. All actively or passively seek to tear down Ms Rice in a flurry of hatred—because she is good. That is nihilism.

For the record, racism as any sort of government enforced policy has long been dead in America. Power-lusters try to keep it alive by intimidating the morally uncertain, of which there are far too many.

“Political correctness,” multiculturalism, “social justice,” ubiquitous “racism,” hate, and the like were started by the Left, and their acceptance by the populace serve as excellent measures of cultural deformation. Sadly, these ideas have percolated down to the level of the hamburger flipper and the “homeless.” Schools at all levels have become paralyzed, and court and police functions are not far behind.

What astonishes me is that although Ominous Parallels was published in 1982, it is as fresh as if it had been published yesterday. Unholy Alliance was published in 2004 and will be read for years. Both books belong on your shelf and in your minds.

They tell you how your country is being taken from you.

It Can Be Stopped, Reversed, Even Cured

There is a permanent cure.

Getting to the correction of our drift as American Weimar into American Nazism, Leonard Peikoff states:

“What fundamental truths did the Nazis and the American collectivists and all their sources in the history of philosophy struggle to evade and annihilate? The answer is contained in two concepts, with everything they include, lead to, and presuppose: reason and egoism. These two, properly understood and accepted, are the immovable barrier to any attempt to establish totalitarian rule.

“Reason destroys fear; egoism destroys guilt. More precisely: reason does not permit man to feel metaphysically helpless; egoism does not permit man to accept unearned guilt or to regard himself as a sacrificial animal.” (302)

Dr. Peikoff identifies Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand, as the antidote; she is the first completely systematic philosopher since Kant, and only the fourth in human history. Hers is the only fully defined system of philosophy advocating reason and egoism, the only weapons effective against totalitarianism, including the foul pre-totalitarian Weimar-style culture and Islam, and the only ideas effective for a free society.

If you want that antidote, start with Ayn Rand’s tour de force philosophical novel, Atlas Shrugged, and Leonard Peikoff’s, Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand.

If you want to oppose and defeat American Weimar; if you want America out of American Weimar; and if you want to defeat this terrible Fifth Column, this unholy alliance that is destroying you, your loved ones, your future, and your country, then go to the antidote and follow the words of Alexander Pope:

“A little learning is a dangerous thing;

Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:

There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,

And drinking largely sobers us again.”

cont'd

DECONSTRUCTING THE FIFTH COLUMN LEFT

REVIEW: Explaining Postmodernism:

Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault

By Professor Stephen R. C. Hicks[1], Scholargy Publishing, Tempe, 2004;

ISBN: 1-59247-642-2

Postmodernism, and its favorite process called “deconstruction,” runs rife throughout contemporary culture, but much more visibly in academia. It is the major impetus for the nihilistic atmosphere in contemporary culture. These are the people working the “unholy alliance” with jihadists against America.

Nothing provides a taste for something like a living, breathing example. A history student at UCLA provided an arch-typical example in Front Page Magazine, 17 February 2005. Describing his history professor, Mary Corey, the student said, in part:

What I found in Corey, however, was a woman completely untouched by objectivity, or the desire to achieve it. In her first lecture, she said, “If you think I’m going to be neutral, I’m not going to be.” And in keeping with her testimony, Corey spent the next ten weeks giving a socialist rendition of history, with no regard for the many other sides of the account.

Her bottom-line version of recent American history was some cocktail of male hegemony, racism, class systems, and the vast right-wing Republican conspiracy. Early in the quarter, she went on a rant against capitalism and the market system, which she defined as “the weird faith that everything will work out fine.” “Capitalism isn’t a lie on purpose. It’s just a lie,” she lectured us, “It’s easy for us to look back and say these people [who believe in markets] (sic) are dorks.” And for the climax, “[Capitalists] (sic) are swine…They’re bastard people.”

The elements of postmodernism can be found in this student’s account, if you know what to look for.

Were this some obscure academic’s discontents, we might disregard the student’s account. However, this professor is not alone, and she “teaches” our young. People of her philosophy dominate America’s universities and colleges, both on the faculty and in the administrations. Tenure protects these soul-destroying “teachers.” The recent kerfuffle about the University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill exposed another glaring example. From these postmodernism-stuffed teachers, destructive thinking infects every discipline in our universities and colleges, including the “teachers colleges.” From there, the toxicity percolates through the elementary and high schools.

Their influence extends deep into contemporary culture. For example, have you wondered about questions like these?

* Why are so many professors and universities so profoundly anti-American?
* Where did “political correctness” and multiculturalism come from?
* Why is there so much negativism, including anti-Americanism, in journalism?
* Why are modern liberals the way they are?
* What happened to America’s founding principles?
* Is there any hope for the future of our country and Western civilization?

After reading Dr. Hicks’ book twice—and both readings were utterly fascinating—I found answers to some and the route to answers for the rest. Cultural corruption became more understandable than it ever had been to me. Few books create intellectual excitement, but this one does. Its contributions are so important that I have added it to two others to complete a triad of highly recommended books for those who want to understand the toxicity of contemporary culture and what to do about it. The other two books are: (1) Leonard Peikoff’s, Ominous Parallels and (2) David Horowitz’s, Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left, books reviewed on this site. Two of these writers are professional philosophers, and the other is a professional writer who abandoned his Leftism decades ago to expose it.

Setting the Context

History is philosophy teaching by example. (Lord Bolingbroke)

To understand postmodernism, it is necessary to do as Dr. Hicks does, begin with the philosophical revolution which caused postmodernism. Happily, Dr. Hicks makes the central philosophical ideas of very difficult-to-understand philosophers easy to follow. Readers should consult his book for details.

The history of the West is the history of the status of reason. [Reason is the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by the senses, using processes of inductive and deductive logic.]

If you think philosophy is dull, impractical, and irrelevant, Dr. Hicks will disabuse you of these notions. You cannot digest this book and not open your eyes to a crystal clear view of much of current culture; you cannot still think that philosophy (or ideas, if you will) is not personally relevant to you and the lives of everyone you know.

Dr. Hicks begins with the Enlightenment which spanned most of the 17th century and all of the 18th century and gave birth to the Industrial Revolution, capitalism, science and technology, and America, the monument to Enlightenment ideas. The Enlightenment raised reason to cultural dominance, a prominence not seen since Aristotle. As reason spread, faith receded in cultural influence and importance. The Enlightenment had been ignited by the Renaissance, which had been ignited by the rediscovery of the works of Aristotle, which unleashed reason into Western civilization. Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1626) and John Locke (1632-1704) were among the most powerful of a large number of Enlightenment intellectuals.

The advocates of reason found themselves unable to think their way out of philosophical criticisms of their opposing and seemingly irreconcilable positions: (1) Knowledge from external sense data only (empiricists) versus (2) knowledge from only the internal mind (rationalism). Anti-reason forces began interpreting this apparent breech as representing chinks in the armor of the defenders of reason, and providing an opportunity to re-enthrone Faith (acceptance of a belief in the absence of evidence or proof). The opportunity took form within Europe in the latter half of the 18th century and became known as the Counter-Enlightenment movement.

In France, Jean Jacques Rousseau attacked reason, civilization, rights, and freedom. He hated the Industrial Revolution and capitalism, and his writings inspired the worst phase of the French Revolution (the third, “guillotine” phase, 1793-4), it should be noted. Rousseau, reminiscent of Islam, advocated putting non-conformers to faith and the state to death. Rousseau’s notions of freedom and living the proper life pre-date the amusing anti-concepts of Orwell’s 1984, and it could have been Rousseau who inspired the inscription over the Auschwitz gate, Arbeit Macht Frei [Work makes you free], although almost any German philosopher could also be credited.

Rousseau strongly inspired the single most important philosophical figure of the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries, Immanuel Kant. Except for Rousseau, the Counter-Enlightenment came solely from German philosophy of the latter 18th century and all of the 19th century. Kant’s role cannot be overstated. His philosophy lives today in the hand-me-down philosophies of the 20th century to the present, including postmodernism. Note, however, that contemporary philosophers cannot think their way out of Kant and his descendants. That fact exposes a huge chink, and a very real one, in their intellectual armor and augurs well for the future.

cont'd

Both Rousseau and Kant wanted to destroy reason in order to make room for feelings; Kant specifically wanted to restore faith (an emotional belief in a God, for which there is no evidence). Kant launched a completely irrational set of ideas which he cleverly clothed with the appearance of rationality. German intellectuals, who had never been warm to Enlightenment ideas, bought Kant hook, line, and sinker. Kant gratified their deepest anti-Enlightenment feelings and wishes.

Kant stated (but never proved) that one cannot know real reality through reason. Reality, he said, can be known only highly indirectly by faith. Reason can know only the world it creates in the human mind. In short, reason, or mind, subjectively creates the phenomena that we seem to be aware of, but this is not reality, according to Kant. Our minds make it all up, whole cloth. Truth becomes what we agree to as being “true” (collective subjectivism)—you have heard it often in the form of something like, “20 million Frenchmen cannot be wrong.” In short, what we “know,” is not real; what is “real,” we cannot know. Kant destroyed reason to make room for emotions, whims, desires, wishes, and, of course, faith. He did this because he wanted to believe. From Kant to the present, this primacy of emotions dominates philosophy. Kant came along at just the right time to provide just the rationale the anti-Enlightenment intellectuals needed; he gave them a weapon as well as an excuse. Since no one on the other, pro-reason side fought back, in time the anti-reason crowd won out among intellectuals.

Kant begat Hegel, who got rid of reason to make room for a universe made up of contradictions, all in conflict, all striving to achieve oneness with God (the Absolute); Hegel and Kant begat Marx. Schopenhauer enshrined a basal emotion he called "Will," "...a deeply irrational and conflictual Will, striving always and blindly toward nothing" (Hicks page 54, 55). Nietzsche enshrined power over men. They changed thinking in the intellectuals who, in turn, changed the thinking of their populations. Thus, they paved the way for Communism, Nazism, and all forms of socialism in the 20th century. Just as Islam makes Muslims want Islam and jihad, these Counter-Enlightenment philosophers made people want Hitler, Stalin, and collectivism. These same ideas gave birth to postmodernism many decades later, which explains why the thinking of so many of today’s intellectuals so closely resembles that of Islam, Hitler, and Stalin.

This toxic German philosophy began trickling into America starting as early as 1810. By mid-century, young adults journeyed from America to Germany for intellectual and cultural “finishing” (pun intended). They returned stuffed with Counter-Enlightenment philosophy. In America as in Europe, there was no organized pro-reason philosophy to counter these toxic ideas. The influence of Enlightenment ideas had been incorporated into the powerful dynamism of the Industrial Revolution in America; as it gathered steam, its progress slowed the growth of the influence of German philosophy until the end of the 19th century. By then, and subsequently, German philosophy had gathered enough influence to dominate American philosophy. For example, the American philosophy known as “Pragmatism” is fundamentally rehashed Kant and Hegel. It died as a philosophical movement in the 20th century, but it survives in almost “pure culture” in today’s politicians.

The Counter-Enlightenment philosophical fundamentals had a political-social-economic child born of them, named “socialism.” All Counter-Enlightenment thinking extolled some form of the “group” or “social aggregate” (the collective) in preference to the individual. Kant extolled the human specie over the human being himself. Hegel enshrined the State. Marx enshrined the Masses. Herder enshrined the Volk, while others enshrined religion. In all cases in their thinking, the collective was always more important than the individual. The role of the individual was reversed from that of the autonomous man in Enlightenment thinking to becoming a servant of the group, or state, or whatever social aggregate of whatever sort. All Counter-Enlightenment thinking fully accepted the only ethics which could make socialism possible, namely altruism—the self-sacrifice of the individual in service to the collective. “Altruism” came from a socialist 19th century philosopher, Auguste Comte.

Kant’s intellectual offspring marched through the 19th century and deep into the 20th century. Like evil “Johnny Appleseeds,” they sowed destructive seeds of a metaphysics that replaced reality with an unknowable, preposterously imaginary “unreality,” which could be changed at will by the consciousnesses of people. It replaced the objectivity of reason, which deals with matters of knowledge, with completely subjective, arbitrary, intuition which has no relationship with reality. Knowledge, they believed, cannot exist. Wishes and whim took the place of what reality is. In place of rights and rational individualism, they extolled either religious or secular versions of anti-individualism and self-sacrificial service to the collective. All of them united in hatred of capitalism. They all wanted socialism instead. Socialism was, and still is, their ideal.

When you rid yourself of reality and reason, you soon run out of the ability to think, as well as anything to think about seriously. That happened to academic philosophy in the first 50 years of the 20th century. It trivialized itself. It got rid of the kind of thinking that began with philosophy in Ancient Greece. As a result, nihilism took over—the hatred of values and those who hold values, and the wish for “everything to become nothing.” Germany stepped up to the plate once more to provide the perfect philosopher: Martin Heidegger. It is hard to understand how such absurdity could actually become a philosophy that was taken seriously, but Heidegger found the way, and he set the stage for postmodernism. His audiences wanted to believe him.

What finally tipped intellectuals over into postmodernism was the crisis of socialism. Despite every prediction from Marx and similarly minded anti-capitalists, capitalism thrived, and more and more people, from the highest to the lowest socio-economic levels, benefited. Capitalism (“a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned,” courtesy Ayn Rand, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal) and individual freedom went hand-in-hand. Their successes utterly frustrated and befuddled the intellectuals. One of their last great hopes for the realization of socialism was the Great Depression of the 1930s. Capitalism did not die; it came back better than ever. Then National Socialism (Nazism) also totally failed, as did all other forms of fascism (fascism is a variety of socialism). By the end of World War II, the U.S.S.R. was a social and economic basket case, and even the “red lovers” could not escape that truth. At no time did the intellectuals ever question their own premises about socialism. They wanted it, and that was enough. When Stalin’s atrocities became public in the late 1950s, the Soviet Union died as an intellectual ideal, some 30 years before it died existentially. It was unavoidable fact: Socialism had failed everywhere it had been tried, without exception. The closest they ever came to explaining the failure of socialism, and you hear this even today, is that socialism had never been properly implemented; it was the fault of the “socialists,” not socialism.

Did the intellectuals abandon socialism as their ideal? Hardly. They continued to worship it as postmodernists. They did something inconceivable to rational men. Since their original philosophy had failed to support socialism, they changed their philosophy so that the new one would support socialism (“Postmodernism is a result of using skeptical epistemology to justify the personal leap of faith necessary to continue believing in socialism,” Hicks, page 181). You have to be totally divorced from reality and have no respect for reason to be so shamelessly arbitrary. It is like watching the Super Bowl and changing the rules after the game has ended so that your team wins instead of losing.

Why would they do such a thing? Oswald Spengler, a darling of the 20th century collectivists, nailed it: “Socialism means power, power, and more power.” (Hicks, p 128; emphasis mine)

cont'd

So then, what is postmodernism?

The leading philosophers of the postmodernism movement should be mentioned for completeness. Three are French (Michel Foucault; Jacques Derrida; and Jean Francois Lyotard), and the other is American (Richard Rorty). Dr. Hicks provides particulars, if anyone wants to know more about them.

Understanding any intellectual movement requires a specific type of analysis, and postmodernism is no different. Dr. Hicks first provides the following preamble:

Any intellectual movement is defined by its fundamental philosophical premises. These premises state what it takes to be real, what it is to be human, what is valuable, and how knowledge is acquired. That is, any intellectual movement has a metaphysics, a conception of human nature and values, and an epistemology. (Hicks, pages 5,6)

He then explains postmodernism this way:

· Metaphysics: Postmodernism is anti-realist, meaning no one can speak meaningfully about an independently existing reality. Postmodernism substitutes language for reality (“social-linguistic constructions”).

· Epistemology: Postmodernism states that reason or “any other method” cannot acquire objective knowledge of reality. Subjective creations of consciousness must become accepted by others as knowledge.

· Human Nature: Postmodernism claims that individual identities come from “social-linguistic” groups, varying according to the influences of sex, race, ethnicity, etc.

· Ethics and Politics: Postmodernism holds that all of society is a seething cauldron of groups in conflict. Postmodern ethics and politics require identification with and sympathy for these groups, which are perceived to be oppressed in the conflicts. Because of all of the conflict, the only solution is the use of physical force by these oppressed groups: homosexuals, women, blacks, those of other races, non-white males, Muslims, American Indians, liberals, the aged, children, the “poor,” etc.

All of postmodernism amounts to nothing but elaborations of arbitrariness, driven by feelings. It contrasts with “modernism,” by which Dr. Hicks means reality, reason, human autonomy, individualism, and “liberal capitalism.” These are the values of the Enlightenment and “neo-Enlightenment.” Unfortunately, elements of these ideas exist largely in fragmented form today.

With postmodernism, language does not connect with reality. Language is entirely a subjective tool, used to accomplish specific goals. “… [T]o most postmodernists, language is primarily a weapon.” (Hicks, page 178, emphasis mine).

Postmodernists are not original. The irrational seldom are. Postmodernists are rewarmed Sophists from Ancient Greece of 2400 years ago: “… [W]ill and desire rule [over reason], society is a battle of competing wills, words are merely tools in the power struggle for dominance, and all is fair in love and war.” (Hicks, pages 182, 183).

“Postmodernism is … first a political movement.” (Hicks, page 186) At root, it carries the spirit and influence of Marxism. “ … [E]verything is relative … nothing can be known … everything is chaos.” (Hicks, page 189) “ … ltimately nothing matters.” (192) “Nihilism is close to the surface in the postmodern intellectual movement in a historically unprecedented way.” (192) Hatred for America and Americans unites postmodernists with jihadists, locking them together by their desire to destroy the West, America, and capitalism. Every time we see news reports of anarchists (WTO, Seattle, 1999; Inauguration, 2005, and many, many other examples) destroying, attacking, and burning down research laboratories (E.L.F.), we see postmodernism in action. To see who these are, consult David Horowitz’s new website, DiscoverTheNetwork (http://www.discoverthenetwork.com/).

Postmodernists revere Nietzsche, who wrote the soul and emotions of the postmodernist. The Left feel weak compared to the capitalists, a combination of self-loathing and envy, which leads to their need to lash out destructively. However, since they are weak, they mostly use words as weapons. (Emphasis mine) Hatred and nihilism define their chronic state. “Everything is … gotcha2.” (Hicks, page 1970).

Postmodernists use “deconstruction” as their favorite buzz-word. “Deconstruction has the effect of leveling all meaning and value …” and “I cannot be special unless I destroy your achievement first.” (Hicks, page 199). Iago in Shakespeare’s Othello used words as weapons to destroy the relationship between Othello and Desdemona. Postmodernism invented political correctness and multiculturalism, two of its most successful tools against their morally uncertain opposition. When you hear radio talk show hosts say that the only news “good” to the Left is that which is bad for the rest of us, you are hearing the truth about postmodernist nihilism. Says Dr. Hicks (page 200):

The contemporary Enlightenment world prides itself on its commitment to equality and justice, its open-mindedness, its making opportunity available to all, and its achievements in science and technology. The Enlightenment world is proud, confident, and knows it is the wave of the future. This is unbearable to someone who is totally invested in an opposed and failed outlook. That pride is what such a person wants to destroy. The best target to attack is the Enlightenment’s sense of its own moral worth. Attack it as sexist and racist, intolerably dogmatic, and cruelly exploitative. Undermine its confidence in its reason, its science and technology. The words do not even have to be true or consistent to do the necessary damage.

And like Iago, postmodernism does not have to get the girl in the end. Destroying Othello is enough.

The art of today, whether in painting or the other formal esthetic disciplines, or throughout the entire entertainment industry of music and movies, has become a paean to postmodernism. Rap music and movies devoid of plot but full of gratuitous violence and impulsivity reflect the influence of postmodernism. None of us can afford to take postmodernism lightly.

My complaints with this marvelous book by Dr. Hicks are few. I wish he had been much more liberal with definitions. He assumes common knowledge about terms whose definitions are unknown or unclear to most people, such as “reason,” or terms commonly used so loosely in the culture that one wonders exactly which of several possibilities the author meant, such as “liberalism” and “collectivism of the right” versus the left. Some undefined terms tax the reader here and there when trying to figure out which meanings lead the author to some conclusions.

Another complaint is how the book ends. Dr. Hicks would have made his points clearer by citing myriad cultural examples to illustrate the tenets of postmodernism. And, after what seemed like a perfunctory two paragraph summary conclusion, he abruptly ends the book, which left me wondering where the rest of the book may be obtained.

Finally, Dr. Hicks incompletely addresses the future of contemporary philosophy and the neo-Enlightenment ideas which serve as postmodernism’s antidote. He is currently writing about postmodernism and the arts; perhaps these and future works will take Explaining Postmodernism the full distance. He is a talented thinker and writer, and is well worth reading.

At the beginning of this essay-review, we raised a few questions:

· Why are so many professors and universities so profoundly anti-American?

· Where did “political correctness” and multiculturalism come from?

· Why is there so much negativism, including anti-Americanism, in journalism?

· Why are modern liberals the way they are?

· What happened to America’s founding principles?

· Is there any hope for the future of our country and Western civilization?

cont'd

Explaining Postmodernism either answers, or makes it possible to answer, these and many others. Certainly this reviewer looks forward to taking on some of these contemporary “conundrums,” now better armed by Dr. Hicks’ book.

We have a long way to go to return reason to its proper role in human lives. Such ideas take time to percolate into a culture and to effect change. At least we have a full, reality-based, pro-reason, pro-individualism and rights, and pro-capitalism philosophy to use (Objectivism) and philosophers trained in it taking positions in universities. This philosophy answers Kant, et al, resoundingly.

We must not flag, however, in our own efforts right here and now while waiting for new ideas to take hold throughout the culture. We can use our own individual reason today and tomorrow to fully to set examples and to effect change.

One of the easiest ways for us to be effective is to begin the purge of the institutions of higher education and the teachers colleges of the postmodernists. As alumni, we can exercise enormous influence over an alma mater. Look what alumni and donors did to Hamilton College which wanted to host Ward Churchill. Those successful enough to be big donors can do even more. We can terminate the tenure process so that professors must demonstrate positive reasons for them to retain their positions. We can also influence what we and our corporations donate to and endow. It is horrifying to see lists of duped big donors supporting foundations like the Ford Foundation, which exist solely to fund postmodernists, other nihilists, and keep the tenured soul-destroyers funded as well as in business in universities. These awful foundations also keep Leftist activist groups funded.

Great efforts are afoot to right the ship of America, and these efforts are meeting with success. The toxic Left are howling in pain and fright. They do not like the sunshine exposing them. They do not like the blogs, websites, and other modern media exposures, including talk radio, that they are getting. Their rage belies deep fear and insecurity. Their time is over. They are out of gas, out of ideas, and now out of time. They are running. Let’s keep them running—until they are all gone.

[1] From the book cover: Stephen Hicks is Professor of Philosophy at Rockford College, Illinois. A native of Toronto, Canada, he received his Ph.D. from Indiana University. He is co-editor of Readings for Logical Analysis (W. W. Norton & Co.) and has published widely in academic journals and other publications such as The Wall Street Journal and The Baltimore Sun.

cont'd

Playing Us Like a Wurlitzer

No, we do not have an Islamic mafia in America yet, to the best of my knowledge. Furthermore, the comparison might be more accurately made to the Sturmabteilungen, Brown Shirts, rather than the families of La Cosa Nostra. In fact, the two might emerge together as one. For the moment, I will stick with Mafioso.

Red flags pop up frequently now. For example, the Council for Arab-Islamic Relations (CAIR) sues for any claim it can for defamation. It is one of the most litigious groups in America. It has learned to play the American legal system like a Wurlitzer to intimidate others in order to get its way. It publishes pabulum about its peaceful intentions and the desire to serve as protectors of the poor, discriminated against, and oppressed Muslims in America. The gullible believe this stuff. Of course, CAIR is not alone. There are many, hostile, anti-American Muslim groups in America whose sole goal is the destruction of America as we know it, and to erect an American Islamia in its place.

Litigation and the threat of litigation take a lot of money. Where do these anti-American groups get theirs? Over and over, as we learn from publications in the public domain, Saudi Arabia funds groups like CAIR, as well as many others. Saudi Arabia has oil from which it gets money to work its will. Who else has substantial oil money? Iran does, of course, and it is one of the two premier terrorist-sponsoring nations. Which is the other terrorist-sponsoring nation? Saudi Arabia. All of this is common knowledge.

The crude kind of physical jihad occurs mostly deep within Islamia today, in places such as Iraq, Lebanon, “Palestine,” Chechnya, Sudan, and so on. This is the overt, or “blood jihad” of bombs, kidnappings, beheadings, murder, and destruction of infrastructure. Other than sporadically, it has not been a big feature in the West since the events of 11 September 2001.

However, jihadists have not been inactive in the West, as we noted in a 2004 article, “Covert Jihad,” published on 6th Column Against Jihad (see archives section), “The overt war form of jihad is distracting us from the BIGGER jihad, the one that is much more effective for the enemy and much more final and lethal for us.” This “covert jihad” has the potential to make great gains in the war of Islam versus America without firing a single shot. This is the jihad engaged in by these Saudi Arabian-supported and Iranian-supported fifth column groups in America, and they will keep being covert and successful as long as they meet no resistance or quickly vanquish any resistance they encounter, as is happening here right now.

In “Covert Jihad,” we outlined seven steps essential to the success of the American jihad:

1. Immigrate

2. Do not assimilate

3. Populate

4. Convert

5. Subvert

6. Exploit Western values to Islamic ends

7. Reach critical mass and take over

All of the first six steps act simultaneously, each meeting varying degrees of success compared to the others. The “mafia” stage involves steps five and six.

Seeds will not germinate unless conditions are right. The “context” for the seed includes germinating medium, water, nutrients, protection, and temperature. Each of these factors must be within a set range to enable the seed to be able to germinate and grow. Gardeners lump these conditions under terms like “preparing the soil.” In the wild, seeds have proper conditions much more rarely suitable and bad odds for germination. However, gardeners can ensure germination every time because they control the conditions by “preparing the soil.”

This analogy extends to the covert jihad as well. People like Sami al-Arian of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad are fifth columnists as is his organization. They prey principally on Muslims and wealthy non-Muslim American dupes. Without another huge fifth column element, these more obvious Islamists would be like seeds in the wild, with some succeeding while others do not.

However, others in America have been preparing the soil for the jihadists, and very successfully too. Islamists would really only have had only to exploit the state of our culture, but they have had active help in the form of anti-American activists and their ideas emanating from American universities to pollute the culture. This context has been detailed in “Deconstructing the Fifth Column Left” on 6th Column Against Jihad in the form of an essay-review of a brilliant book by philosopher Stephen Hicks, Explaining Postmodernism.

“Postmodernism” is the name for the nihilistic, anti-American political activism coming from very foul philosophy in American and foreign universities. The name “postmodernism” does NOT reflect “something later than” modernism. It rejects “modernism,” which consists of reality, reason, objectivity, human freedom and self-determination, ethics of individualism, and the social-political-economic system of capitalism.

Postmodernism is the bastard spawn of two centuries of foul philosophies beginning with Rousseau and Kant, extending into Schopenhauer, Hegel, Marx, Nietzsche, the collapse of 20th century philosophy, and into Heidegger who paved the way for the current intellectual crowd calling themselves “postmodernists.” To illustrate that philosophy is powerful and practical, note that this way of thinking affects almost 100% of our colleges and universities, their liberal arts departments, their administrations, and extends through their graduates into journalism, entertainment, politics, and, sadly, down to the working populace. This is a major poison which has prepared the ground for the seeds of covert jihad.

Some of the postmodern fifth columnists are active anti-Americans, and they make the news regularly by assaulting cameras and microphones with their vitriolic nihilism. Postmodernism considers language to be a weapon and the postmodernists use extreme, bellicose language as their means to intimidate people and get their own way. They have no problem calling the president of the United States an Adolf Hitler, for example. Language is a weapon. The language of Democrats in the senate of the United States and the Democrat Party has become a distillation of postmodernism.

Two very serious products of postmodernism have been “political correctness” and “multiculturalism.” These have percolated through all layers of American society and now utterly dominate primary and secondary schools. Covert jihadists could not be happier, because both of these processes have made their subversion of America very easy, as we will show. Those who are not anti-American activists but who have the disease of postmodernism have abandoned reason in favor of groupism, with its political correctness and multiculturalism.

These people resist any criticism or objective evaluation of Islam and Muslims for any reason. They seek to nullify American cultural traditions such as Christmas, Passover, Easter, etc., because they believe someone who is not Christian (or Jewish), might be “offended” in some way by those who follow dominant cultural observations. It has reached such a monstrous level of absurdity that the Harvard student newspaper, Crimson, decries the entrepreneurial activities of a dorm cleaning service, started and run by students, since not only can some not afford it and might have their feelings hurt by the disparity of the rich versus the poor, but it bestows a low “social status” on the students performing the service.

Thanks to postmodernism, we have a culture fragmenting along the lines of races, genders, ages, countries of origin, religions, gender orientations, degree of prosperity, types of work, and so on, ad infinitum. Such pressure groups used to seek shelter in the Democrat Party, but now they have so much power that they have taken over the Democrat Party and function almost autonomously. Muslim pressure groups are right in there, exploiting the new “unmelting” pot.

Anyone with a group can caterwaul about anything, and the unsuspecting ballast, the passive postmodernists, ardently believe that they must be heard seriously. Both the activists and the passivists morph the First Amendment to Constitution mean that everybody must pay to provide a platform for anyone from any of these pressure groups, however irrational they are. The Islamic “pressure group business” could not ask for better working conditions.

cont'd

The issues of political correctness and multiculturalism form a bridge between those who call themselves “liberal” and those who call themselves “conservative,” or Left and Right, politically speaking. Each side responds characteristically to pressure. The Left turns to groups, from lobby groups to the United Nations, because these groups make up the reality, truth, and morality to the Left. The Right turn to religion. Both processes, which substitute non-rational input in place of relying on reason, paralyze the culture and open the doors for the covert jihad to work in broad daylight.

The Right live almost 100% on the assumption that RELIGION IS GOOD. They believe it down to their toes, and they mean ALL religion because it comes from the One God who presents in many forms and goes by many names around the world. In fact, they will and do argue that without religion and God, the world would be total chaos, and they generally point to the godless Left as examples. They will not permit consideration of any alternative between God or no-God, Good and Evil, order or chaos, with no other ways possible. Because of this point of view, they make the work of the covert jihadists unbelievably easy.

Consider, for example, the current President of the United States, George W. Bush. He is archetypically religious and possesses all of the unthinking rigidity that goes with this position. As a result, he is the best friend the covert jihadists have. He wages war on the overt jihad but is totally blind to the philosophy which makes possible both the overt and covert jihads: Islam. He and all of the other Rightists, or conservatives, twist their minds like pretzels to avoid any rational, objective knowledge of, understanding of, or pronouncements of truth about Islam.

In fact, Pres. Bush has repeatedly characterized Islam as a “religion of peace,” that it is one of the “three great religions of the world,” and that it is “all good” because it is a religion. To Mr. Bush and to all who believe as he does, only a small number of scoundrels, just a small percent of Muslims, have taken a “great religion of peace,” Islam, and “distorted” it to dark purposes. Happy to exploit the president’s profound ignorance about Islam, Muslim cleric bigwigs have access to the White House, the military, the prisons, and gears of government. In government today, Pres. Bush is not alone in militant ignorance and willful evasion; such fellow travelers form a legion.

Not only do the Right follow political correctness and multiculturalism, but they militantly add the dimension of whitewashing Islam. The postmodernist Left do not whitewash it; they egg it on because Islam is virulently anti-American.

American culture is sick from bad philosophy working its will on Americans and their institutions. Moral certainty has been abandoned by the Left and become scarce on the Right, unless it has something to do with religion. Courts belong to the Left and are thoroughly postmodernist. Journalists belong to the Left and have been deeply influenced by postmodernist thinking. Politicians wallow in the uncertainty and look for short-range advantages that accrue them power. The public education system, from K through 12, has been corrupted by products of teachers’ colleges utterly infested with seeds of postmodernism falling on intellectual soil prepared by American Pragmatism.

How do Islamists evaluate American culture? They view it as deliciously weak. They have discovered that they can manipulate its institutions, particularly its legal system, and get what they want with minimal effort. They have moved in on the universities, intimidating them into extremely easy submission to their Islamic radicalism. In turn, universities compliantly brainwash the unformed minds entrusted to them and ferociously attack any who dare to step outside the prescribed box of “correct thinking.” Politicians kiss the behinds of Muslim pressure group money bearers and compliantly favor Islamists at the expense of American citizens. Journalists in general will not speak the truth about Islam—most have become “investigative-less” reporters. Talk radio hosts, mostly Rightists, will permit no discussion about the facts of Islam or any caller criticisms of it. Governmental agencies, such as the State Department, utterly twist in the wind to accommodate noisy Muslim pressure groups, and the White House and State Department do nothing about Saudi Arabia and Iran and their funding of the subversion of America. The Border Patrol deny that our porous border is a problem and are almost willing to put out their own eyes rather than profile likely subversives that might be Muslims. The FBI, under profoundly weak and politically correct leadership at the very top cannot find any al-Qaeda cells in America or identify anyone who is a danger to America if that person is Muslim. The head of the Department of Transportation fires people who even suggest profiling.

In the front lines of the threat from the covert jihad stand the American people. Happily, a growing number are awakening to the dangers from Islam, but far too many carry out their daily lives uncritically under the sway of cultural influences from both the Left and Right. The biggest fault of the American public is their inertia. Too many show no interest in learning about Islam and discovering that they are facing peril. Their ignorance is all the covert jihadists want, and they have it.

[Anyone wanting the proper directions for understanding the truth about Islam may go to the Recommended page on our website, 6th Column Against Jihad to find books and websites which tell the truth.]

The seeds of covert jihad cannot grow without some effort on their part, and they hold back no effort. Their focus has been and probably will continue to be subversion through exploitation of weaknesses in our system. Here are a couple of illustrations that make the points:

First, an article from the Tennessean, Muslims reach settlement with Dell on prayer at work - Friday, 03/18/05.

31 employees will be reinstated, managers to get training

Muslim contract employees at the Dell Inc. plant in Nashville reached a settlement with the company on issues related to a dispute over prayer in the workplace, a national Islamic civil rights advocacy group announced yesterday in Washington.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations said the 31 Muslim employees, who left work last month in a disagreement over Islamic prayers, will be reinstated, receive back pay, and be granted religious accommodation. Managers also will also receive additional training on existing religious accommodation policies and practices.

There are a couple of levels of meaning to this newspaper report. Had this been a simple political correctness cave-in, it would have nauseating. However, it goes much farther beyond a “cave in” and is ominous for our country. The very simple principle is separation of religion from commerce of any kind. That means that people are free in this country to adopt any religion, but it is never more than an individual matter. It is incumbent upon the individual to find ways to practice his religion that do not interfere with his contractual obligations, such as providing a day's work for a day's pay. Islam, Christianity, Judaism, scientology, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc.--you name it—should stay outside when the worker enters the job work area. He can pick it up again after work. It is not incumbent upon the employer to be "sensitive" to any religion for any reason at any time. It is incumbent upon the employee not to inflict his religion on the employer. Clearly, the employer has the right to set up prayer rooms and provide religious accommodations should he wish, but not the obligation to do so.

This ruling was meant to intimidate Dell and all of the other corporations in the area and as far and wide as possible. It did just that.

But, there is something worse in this Dell settlement, much worse. Note that CAIR is involved. Muslim pressure groups, of which CAIR is just one, push around corporations, courts, television networks and production studios, politicians, journalists, and all others that have power and legal force behind them. They are following a role-model familiar to most adult Americans.

Postmodernism gave America all sorts of “pressure groups” of fractionated Americans with fractionated names, like “African-Americans.” Under the influence of postmodernism, certain groups of blacks became a “racial discrimination and civil rights” industry. Their job was not to “right wrongs.” They had no interest in getting rid of the “plantations” filling America, as they erroneously claimed. They just wanted to change ownership of the plantations. Liberal American government could not wait to throw billions of dollars and pass special privilege laws and regulations favoring these pressure groups. These “uncivil rights groups” took federal largess and federal power to turn themselves into a tyranny, with the help of their actively and passively compliant black “subjects” who had been stuffed full of hate and an unending sense of entitlements. Progress of black Americans stopped and regressed. Only now do the best of them throw off the yoke of the civil rights industry and succeed on their own out of the grasp of the tyrants. However, the tyrants and their compliant moochers make every effort to instill guilt into these men and women who dared to succeed.

cont'd

The lesson was not lost on Muslim pressure groups. They had been doing much of this already in Europe, and Europe was much more easily cowed. With the growing numbers and successes of influencing governments to favor Muslims over the indigenous populations, these pressure groups grew increasingly stridently nasty, and eventually openly hostile. They now advocate hostile takeover of European governments by force while their gangs rape and pillage in European cities almost with impunity.

Well, stand by, because they are coming to America with the same acts. Right now, they are working our laws and regulations to their advantage with great success. The morally uncertain join the spineless and the philosophically impaired to give them their every demand. With every success, Muslim pressure group power, daring, and stridency grows, mimicking the rise of organized crime in America.

The same process also took place in pre-Nazi Germany (see Exposing America’s Fifth Column: Nazism, Communism, and Islam).

Muslim pressure groups are on our campuses. They have their own schools and institutes. They lobby our politicians. They soft-soap our president, and they work tirelessly to gain advantage over us by legal and any other means they can get away with. Opposition is either slight or non-existent. When anything that could be construed as opposition appears, these pressure groups insult and threaten law suits, even imply future violence. They are capitalizing on what they learned from postmodernism: Language is a weapon. With Saudi Arabian and Iranian money, they can sue anyone into bankruptcy. Many Americans and American businesses fold in fright, at the mere thought of opposing them.

Were moral certainty about America and being American prevalent in the culture, Americans would not submit to this intimidation. This is the escalating terrorism of the covert jihad, and it will not stop unless it is stopped.

At some point, these Muslim pressure groups will encounter opposition from the heartland of America. When that happens, and their intimidation fails, threats of physical force and violence will follow inevitably. Take another example, this time from the AIM Column - Federal Money Goes to Controversial Muslim Group - March 15, 2005, by Sherrie Gossett, March 15, 2005.

· …A controversial Muslim group accused of having an association with an extreme form of Islam has also been getting federal funds. The group, the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), considers itself moderate and mainstream but has sponsored conferences in the past that included speakers known for violent anti-Jewish rhetoric.

· ISNA describes itself as moderate in outlook but some journalists who have examined the organization contend that it is linked it to Wahhabism, the extreme form of radical Islam that gave rise to Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda movement.

· Mary Jacoby and Graham Brink, writing in the St. Petersburg Times, describe ISNA as "subsidized by the Saudi government" and the "main clearinghouse for Wahhabism in the U.S.” The New York Times has described ISNA as the umbrella organization for 300 Muslim groups and about one-third of the mosques in the United States.

· Sayyid M. Syeed, Secretary General of ISNA…Syeed was Director of Academic Outreach (1984-1994) at the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT) and currently sits on the International Board of the institute which is located in Herndon, Virginia.

In part, this group has grown strong through bottomless Saudi funding. It has numerous subgroups under its umbrella, most, if not all, of which are militantly Islamic. It does not like the exposure to the disinfecting sunshine of truth. In some unusual, even rare cases of journalistic courage, ISNA is finding unbending resistance, and it is not used to it. But, it has a plan to deal with them. Continuing from the AIM article:

· Syeed told me, "You will be hurt, you will be pained by this if you continue to write such things.” He closed the conversation with this comment, "I am sorry if I sound harsh. But I stand by every word I said."

· While Syeed terms AIM's coverage of Islamic radicalism "scandalous" and "criminal," it is the failure of many in the media to report such issues truthfully that is the real problem. Reporters should not be intimidated from reporting the facts.

You can almost hear a caricatured German accent from a grade B movie involving Nazis, “Ve have our vays.” If you look at the history of Islam and follow current events, and you will see the ways.

Then to underscore his power: “Syeed emphasized that ISNA is a mainstream organization and he invited AIM to meet with them at their headquarters and to get involved. “ We would be very pleased to host you," he said, indicating individuals from various organizations have offered workshops at their conferences.

And, for the piece de resistance, he added, "We are only getting bigger," he said, "You have to work with us."

Subversives do not yet have to resort to mafia-like techniques beyond implied and explicit threats. Too often, our government is on their side.

Physical force comes when power is sufficient, and they think they can get away with it against ordinary Americans. If they get away with making us such “offers we cannot refuse,” they can move into overt jihad, like the Sturmabteilungen.

You do not make an enemy go away by acquiescing to him. The school yard bully does not volunteer to give up his status, influence, and power, nor does the totalitarian dictator, including theocratic tyrants of Islam. Capitulation is not a sign of strength. Appeasement earns no positive entries in history textbooks, except those written by postmodernists. Weakness, above all weakness with Islam, will not be read as some Christian “virtue” by Muslims. Weakness will be read by them as our willingness to have our gooses killed and cooked. And, if that happens, we will subside into dhimmitude and slide out of history as the greatest nation that might have been.

~~~~~

WELCOME THIS NEW MEMBER OF THE FIFTH COLUMN: NATIONAL REVIEW

Welcome one of the newest members to America’s Unholy Alliance*, National Review, and its malleable editor, Rich Lowry.

As we pointed out in Playing Us Like a Wurlitzer, you can have membership in the jihad in two forms: overt jihad and covert jihad. Overt jihad members wreak physical havoc, while covert jihad members conduct “psy-ops.” Going farther, the latter, covert jihad, goes on very actively in America today and recruits two types of members. One type is active covert jihadists, while the other type is passively non-resistant. The passive covert jihadists may not join directly but, rather, attain membership by what they do not do. National Review is a passive type.

As well outlined on Jihad Watch in the waning days of March 2005, National Review earned its membership through spineless retreat. To summarize briefly, the National Review Book Service offered a reprinted book from the early 20th century called The Life and Religion of Mohammed by a Catholic priest named J. L. Menezes. The owner-publisher of Jihad Watch, Robert Spencer, had written a review which was used by the National Review Book Service. The great “sin” of the book was that it told the truth about Muhammad, giving the very same information written by Muslims in holy Islamic documents, which are easily available these days to anyone who takes the time to read them. Just as Ibn Ishaq, Muhammad’s first biographer did, Fr. Menezes recounts the behavior of a man whose behavior, according to Muslim holy documents, too much resembled that of Hitler and Genghis Khan.

That great “injustice collector” organization, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), found out that National Review was carrying the Menezes book with Spencer’s review, proclaimed it “anti-Muslim hate literature,” and incited its robotic followers to inundate National Review Book Service with complaints and to inundate Boeing, the airplane manufacturer, with disapproving communications about its advertising with National Review. Why? Because of two books carried by the National Review Book Service, both of which “slandered” Muhammad, according to CAIR. As sure as night follows day, Boeing caved immediately to CAIR’s demands. Shortly thereafter, National Review caved and removed the Menezes book from its sales.

Robert Spencer does a crackerjack job of documenting what Menezes wrote about Muhammad, and cites evidence from Islamic holy documents to support these statements. As Mr. Spencer reports, Fr. Menezes was very pro-Muslim and simply used what the Islamic basic documents say about Muhammad to make the case that Muhammad was not a prophet of God. Spencer’s articles on the 30th and 31st of March 2005 on Jihad Watch are very informative as is much of the related commentary from readers of Jihad Watch.

On 31 March 2005, the CAIR website offered the following articles:

· National Review Removes Books Attacking Prophet Muhammad

· National Review Silent on Anti-Muslim Hate

· Ask National Review To Repudiate Anti-Muslim Hate

cont'd

On the same page were three more:

· Thank Dell for accommodating Muslims religious rights

· AMEX, Home Depot Withdraw from FL event linked to Modi

· Thank State Department for denying a visa to Narendra Modi

We covered the Dell situation in Playing Us Like a Wurlitzer while Jihad Watch and Front Page Magazine cover the Modi situation. Modi is from India and is not fond of Muslims, given what horrendous treatment Muslims have inflicted on India and Indians.

Editor Rich Lowry’s actions with regard to the Menezes book (and if he follows by removing the Trifkovic book which CAIR also complained about) are more important to an organization like CAIR than overt jihad. Lowry is even more important than Dell, Boeing, AMEX, and Home Depot, all of whom have tucked their tails and retreated to their corners to quiver. The importance of his capitulation and that of National Review are so important because of what both represent to groups like CAIR.

To many on the Right, National Review and Lowry represent the “GREAT CONSERVATIVE BULWARK” against all things anti-American, a reputation much relished by National Review. Here in one organization is THE big voice of American conservatism, one which supposedly stands up for the “little people” in the red states and is bullish on God, patriotism, and Superman’s “American Way.”

However, that loud, blatant voice of American conservatism, National Review, caved without a fight, whimpering off to join Dell, Home Depot, and that tower of gelatin, Boeing.

Lowry and National Review are also the group that threw out Ann Coulter, one of the most worthwhile voices and writers on the Right, because she does not sugar-coat writings about the people she exposes to disinfecting sunlight. After all, we must be nice, and never, never be extreme, even if we are right—let’s not be selfish, now.

So, let’s all welcome National Review and Editor Lowry to the Fifth Column. As passive players, they won’t get front row seating, but, on the other hand, they won’t cause trouble. That is all CAIR wants—for now--and that is what it got, without firing a single shot.

This is what is grievously wrong about much of the American Right today. It has no more moral certainty than does the American Left. It stands tall and strong for America, yes—until the first breeze comes along.

Modern conservatives made a huge error decades ago. They turned from classic liberalism and its advocacy of reason, rights, freedom, and capitalism, to religion as their sole tool for thinking. In doing so, they conceded the appearance of reason to their enemies on the Left (this so-called “scientific” socialism, etc.), even though the Left had abandoned reason two centuries ago and were never able to make socialism “scientific,” or make rational any of their positions.

National Review was founded by William F. Buckley, whom many conservatives have elevated to the status of a deity. Buckley, more than almost anyone else, completely entrenched unquestioning faith as the full explanation for the nature of and existence of America, rather a psychological fusion of faith and state. Rich Lowry succeeded Buckley, and has continued the same explanation for America. National Review is pro-conservative, not pro-America, as it would have people believe. It is aground on the rocks and shoals of its own making, and will not rise to the proper level of principled defense of America under its current leadership—as this example with CAIR illustrates.

You can just see folks at the National Review twisting in agony as those CAIR-instigated faxes rolled in. Muslims had gone public with the possibility that those at National Review were “politically incorrect” because they were criticizing another’s religion. After all, say the Rightists, all religions are good and are above criticism. Even the one that seeks to destroy us is immune from criticism, despite the fact that it has destroyed millions, if not billions, of people over 14+ centuries.

Judging from what Robert Spencer wrote on Jihad Watch about Lowry’s comments, Lowry regards people like Robert Spencer as troublemakers on the Right, perhaps FAR Right. Lowry did not use these words, but that is the impression I took away from Mr. Spencer’s comments. Lowry also pushed the blame—yes, “blame”—for the Menezes book situation onto an editor who allegedly did not read the book in advance of putting it up for sale.

Meanwhile the beast in our midst has grown stronger. CAIR relishes its victories and must be drunk with delight over the capitulation of National Review, that now defanged former bastion of the Right. National Review has some very good writers, and they are still worth reading, but the magazine and the organization are morally weak.

These Muslim pressure groups care nothing for the truth. The truth of Fr. Menezes’ remarks never entered into CAIR’s arguments against National Review and Boeing. CAIR isn’t about truth. CAIR is about intimidation. Hitler would have been proud, since his SA used intimidation as well as more physical tactics for the recalcitrant. Right now, America is not ready to accept Muslim pressure groups using raw physical force. However, these capitulations to them are getting us ready, one company and organization at a time.

We have to hand it to CAIR, however, and to similar groups. They studied the civil rights industry’s methods and adopted them whole cloth. They have mastered intimidation. We explain why the intimidation methods are so successful in contemporary culture in Playing Us Like a Wurlitzer.

We need to master the same techniques. At the snap of a finger, obedient Muslims fax, email, telephone, send letters, and picket, in whatever numbers these pressure groups order. In addition, these obedient Muslims send cash, loads of cash, to CAIR. CAIR is also bankrolled by Saudi Arabia. These unlimited funds are what make it so powerful, because it can sue them into bankruptcy. It be easily damaged because it cannot be sued into oblivion because of the relatively unlimited funds.

The closing paragraph from our website article seems well worth repeating:

You do not make an enemy go away by acquiescing to him. The school yard bully does not volunteer to give up his status, influence, and power, nor does the totalitarian dictator, including theocratic tyrants of Islam. Capitulation is not a sign of strength. Appeasement earns no positive entries in history textbooks, except those written by postmodernists. Weakness, above all weakness with Islam, will not be read as some Christian “virtue” by Muslims. Weakness will be read by them as our willingness to have our gooses killed and cooked. And, if that happens, we will subside into dhimmitude and slide out of history as the greatest nation that might have been.

It remains only for to wish National Review, Boeing, and all the rest, HAPPY DHIMMITUDE!

* The “Unholy Alliance” refers to the title of David Horowitz’s latest book, The Unholy Alliance: The American Left and Radical Islam.

The tenants of islam in no way resembles those of Christianity. Allah in no way resembles God.

The tenants of Christianity is love. In fact love is the primary commandment of Christianity. Love our brothers, love our neighbors and even to love of our enemies. Islam teaches hate, violence and to subjugate or kill others. Christianity teaches us to love all.

Do want to know what it is like to be able to experience that kind of love? Come to Jesus today, believe in Him the one true God.

Rom 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
Rom 1:17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.

Salvation, salvation from death under the law by God's perfect grace.

Rom 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
Rom 3:11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
Rom 3:12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

Rom 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Rom 3:27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.

Rom 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
Rom 5:9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.

Rom 2:4 Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?

Rom 3:22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

Rom 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

Rom 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

Rom 4:21 And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform.

Rom 4:24 But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;

Rom 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:

Rom 10:10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

Rom 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

ChristiansUnite Forums

Entertainment => Books => Topic started by: Soldier4Christ on December 01, 2007, 01:21:37 PM