A War America Can’t Win, Part Three


Prof. Paul Eidelberg

If it is true, as I maintain, that “Islamic fundamentalism” is authentic Islam (now resurgent), and if international terrorism is merely a manifestation of Islam’s war against Western civilization, then it should be obvious that multicultural America is incapable of winning such a war.   Never mind the enormous economic interests of the United States in the Islamic Middle East.  There are some 50 Muslim states and more than one billion Muslims on this planet; they are not going to be cowed by America.

To win this war, America would have to bring about a Protestant Reformation in Islam.   Muslims would have to renounce the ethos of jihad.  Islam would then cease being a militant, expansionist, and proselytizing creed.  It would have to recognize, as one may see in the Bible of Israel, that God creates nations as well as individuals, and that the independence of diverse nations, above all Israel, is to be respected so long as they observe the Seven Noahide Laws of Universal Morality.

Moreover, Islamic autocracies, without becoming secular, would have to become commercial republics.  On the one hand, they would cease to be corporate states in which the individual has no unalienable rights.  On the other hand, the rights of individuals would not be exalted at the expense of religious-based morality.  Accordingly, the state would introduce an ethical market economy.  This would promise an end to the poverty endemic in the Islamic world.  It would promote creativity and the development of a middle class, a precondition of a moderate and stable republic.

From this it should be obvious that American democracy, to the extent that it has departed from the principles of the American founding fathers, is hardly a model for the Islamic world.  To mention present tendencies:  Its unrestrained freedom spawns licentiousness; its indiscriminate egalitarianism undermines deference and respect for parents and lawful authority; its form of capitalism promotes avarice and materialism; its pop culture fosters vulgarity; its university-bred doctrine of moral relativism breeds atheism and cynicism.

If Islam has to undergo a “Protestant Reformation,” America has to undergo a Judeo-Christian Restoration.☼

A War America Can’t Win, Part Four


Prof. Paul Eidelberg

The following Op-ed was published in: Arutz Sheva – Monday, January 19, 2015 12:50 AM

 

The West Cannot Win this War

The West doesn’t want to make the changes that will allow it to win

100 img506208
Giulio Meotti The writer, an Italian journalist with Il Foglio, writes a twice-weekly…
More from this writer

Take another look at the video filmed under the Charlie Hebdo’s building, the black car of the terrorists who had no fear of death and are advancing by shooting, while the white car of the policemen is forced to retreat.

We are capitulating.

The West cannot win this war. Take the last French mass rally with dozens of heads of states from around the world: it was a silent march, a mute show where nobody took the podium. As if these people didn’t know what to say. As if these Western leaders didn’t really believe in what they were doing in Paris.

A few days ago, Martin Wolf in the British daily Financial Times gave voice to the deep estrangement of Europe’s élite. He suggested using massive doses of multicultural recognition of equality between different cultures in order to combat Islamism. Mr. Wolf is implicitly saying that we must surrender, that we cannot win, that we have to contain terror and finally find a way to coexist with it.

The French horror doesn’t lie in the killings per se. A few hours later, in Nigeria, Boko Haram destroyed many villages and burned hundreds of people to death. Europe’s horror lies in the fact that the terrorists came from the heart of the continent. The Chouaci’s brothers, the British bombers and Theo Van Gogh’s killer didn’t came from Raqqa, in Syria, or Al Qaeda in Yemen. No, they were born and raised in European democracies.

Europe gave everything to these terrorists: schools, education, entartainment, sexual pleasures, salaries and freedom. The French terrorists rejected the French values of liberté, egalité and fraternité; the British suicide bombers rejected British multiculturalism, while Dutch terrorist Mohammed Bouyeri, who slaughtered the film maker in Amsterdam, rejected the Dutch mute values of moral indifference.

A few days ago, I was talking with Flemming Rose, the Danish journalist who first published the cartoons in 2006 and now lives protected by the police. He told me the shocking truth nobody wants to hear:

“I am pretty pessimistic about the future of free speech, though I am delighted that so many people came out to support Charlie Hebdo”, Rose told me. “I knew several of the cartoonists who were killed, and I was a witness in a criminal case against CH in 2007. My fear is that this supportwill not translate into real decisions and changed behavior when we get back to our day-to-day life. We have seen that before. Madrid 2004, Theo van Gogh 2004, London 2005, Kurt Westergaard 2008 and 2010 (one planned attack and another real attack in which he was nearly killed). Every time lots of support and solidarity with the victims, but very little has changed in reality, quite to the contrary, apart from CH no European newspapers have dared to publish Mohammed cartoons since 2008”.

They speak theology, we reply with logic. They use bullets, we march in the streets.

Charlie Hebdo’s journalists were brave people, defiant, but if they are the Western heroes, we have already lost. “Charb” and the other cartoonists didn’t believe in anything.

A few years ago, at my newspaper in Italy. I suggested we publish a letter that Mohammed Bouyeri released from his Dutch prison. Bouyeri says he does not feel remorse for what he did. The tone of the letter is marked by a kind of puerile candor. Bouyeri never mentions Van Gogh, but he makes it clear that he has fulfilled a religious duty by killing him.

The West cannot win this war. The price it would have to pay is the loss of European values: reducing the civil rights of many people, deporting them, declaring a war of values, sending boots on the ground in the Middle East, imposing Western civilization on them. Europe will never do that. Europe itself doesn’t believe in these values anymore. This is also one of the reason why Europe hates Israeli Jews who daily confront evil and fight it, so deeply.

The terrorists of Charlie Hebdo talk a religious language and use terms like honor, faith, prophet and loyalty, while the West replies to them with words such as freedom, democracy, rights, respect and tolerance. They speak theology, we reply with logic. They use bullets, we march in the streets.

It is a sad joke. The truth is that people in the West are relieved that they don’t have to fight, that we are surrendering, that life goes on as usual. Hurray, we are capitulating!

Islamic state spread into Lebanon as ‘rebel’ groups join Isis


None of what this Administration started here when Obama pulled out all US troop is going to be good! The opening that Obama gave them has been exploited and will continue growing until it results in an outright war!

Bias at the BBC


By Tabitha Korol

imagesMT92PU5K

When interviewing a Jewish woman at the unity march in Paris, BBC Reporter Tim Willcox had the temerity to admonish her, “Many critics of Israel’s policy would suggest that the Palestinians suffer hugely at Jewish hands as well.” This was a woman who herself might have been murdered in that very supermarket earlier that day. Clearly, this man lacks sensitivity and benevolence, and could never have visited Israel. He evidently attended the march not as a reporter of events, but as one whose ideology was to challenge its purpose where Jews were concerned.

The march was called and attended by more than 40 world leaders because Muslim terrorists killed 17 people – 13 for what they did (publish a satirical newspaper) and four for what they were, Jewish; Willcox attempted to justify the murder of the latter. His later retraction of the comment and explanation did not evidence an understanding of the Middle East with respect to Islam’s 1400-year history of carnage in the name of their god, conducted with the intent to establish a worldwide Caliphate and Sharia law. The Jews have always stood against tyranny and inequality, from the Biblical days of Pharoah to the present. Where Israeli law specifies liberty and equality for all, Islamic law specifies subjugation and inequality. Willcox, who has drifted into bigotry before, doesn’t get it, or doesn’t care to.

Even now, when Africa is afire with burning churches and villages and the streets are strewn with thousands of dead Christians, Willcox cannot focus on the offenders. European cities are being flooded with armed forces in search of jihadi cells that are priming to kill, but Willcox’s only conclusion is that Jews are the cause. Apparently, if not for the Jews who live quietly from day to day, and work and contribute to their country’s welfare, Europe would be safer. Similarly, if not for Israel, where Jews have become among the most innovative on the planet to create new products and discover cures for mankind’s diseases, the Middle East would be calmer. Indeed, if not for the Jews who are morally and legally entitled to their one one-thousandth of the magnitude of land controlled by Islam, there would be Utopia on earth. And by the same perverse logic, if not for the Jews, Islam would be a religion of peace… Well, except that then, less distracted, the Muslims could turn their full demonic attention on the rest of the ‘infidels” of the world.

Is Willcox aware that Muslims have killed about 400 million people over 14 centuries, and the number increases daily? One arm of Islam alone, Boko Haram, only recently razed the village of Baga, Nigeria, slaughtering 2,000 people. They massacred more than 10,000 people just last year, in 2014, displaced about a million within Nigeria, while hundreds of thousands fled to neighboring countries, Chad and Camaroon. This is Islam, and this is the same Islam that wages war against Israel and preys upon the West.

The problem lies not with the Jews but with a culture that seeks to dominate and impose Sharia law in every nation in the world. It lies with the countries, such as France, England, Germany, and Sweden, that made multiculturalism their nationality; whose political leaders welcomed immigrants who could never qualify for citizenship, and had no intention of assimilating, embracing their new land, learning the host language or customs, Rather, these immigrants brought their heritage and culture with them in conquest, and were permitted to alter our textbooks and classrooms, our laws and, hence, the lives of the native populations.

The problem also lies with French President Francois Hollande who hosted an anti-terrorism march while inviting known terrorist par excellence, Mahmoud Abbas, whose credentials include bankrolling the infamous Munich Massacre, instigating Palestinian terrorism and martyrdom, and the custom of celebrating Jewish deaths by providing new homes for the martyr’s parents and distributing sweets to the townsfolk. In fact, only one day after Abbas participated in the anti-terror march, his Fatah party memorialized one of the worst Palestinian terror attacks in Israel’s history, the 1978 Coastal Road Massacre, when terrorists attacked a bus, brutally murdering 37 Israeli citizens and wounding more than 70.

To Willcox, these crimes are defensible because he mistakenly believes that an invented people (the Palestinians that never existed before 1967) decreed land for themselves, and it suits his predisposition to siding with known extremists rather than what he would term, under any circumstances, the Jewish Lobby. His position clearly is to damn all the Jews for the acts of the Israeli government under circumstances that he cannot or will not understand.

It has been suggested that the BBC adopt a definition of anti-Semitism into its editorial guidelines, so that their journalists may grasp that their insensitive, unsympathetic statements and reporting may be very destructive and may incite more readers to join the jihadi mentality. The time has come for the BBC and its staff to be held accountable for their biased reporting that is strengthening the growing onslaught of Islam against the Jews. They also need to understand that once the Jews are silenced, full attention will then be turned upon the Christians, Hindus, Buddhists and, oh yes, upon the free Western Press.

What then, Tim Willcox? What then?

Teen Muslim Girls Face Arrest in Malaysia for Hugging K-Pop Boy Band


Muslims are not a very tolerant people for the most part! It will be interesting to see what happens for the penalty for what they did could include death.

Israel is looking to reduce dependence on western European markets and focus on Asia as ‘Wave of Islamisation’ is sweeping Europe


The EU and America are sliding into more and more support for the Muslims so it would make sense for Israel to move more to other more reliable friends.

Focus on Nigeria: The Baga Massacre – Boko Haram Islamic Terrorists Control 6 Times More Territory Than ISIS


Why isn’t Obama doing anything about this evil? They are of his race and being slaughtered in mass? could it be that since he is a Muslim and those being slaughtered are Christians he doesn’t care? I would say that is the only possible reason!

How Intellectual Suicide has Created the Modern Islamist Crisis


Islam’s Demotion of Reason
by FATHER C. JOHN MCCLOSKEY 01/16/2015

A few years ago, Robert Reilly wrote a book (The book is listed at the end of this post) that may offer the key to understanding the advance of Islamic terror against the West: The Closing of the Muslim Mind: How Intellectual Suicide Created the Modern Islamist Crisis.

Reilly is a senior fellow at the American Foreign Policy Council and a well-published writer with substantial government service, including a stint as director of the Voice of America and senior adviser to the Iraqi Ministry of Information in 2003.

In this book, Reilly explains “why the restoration of reason to Islam is the only antidote to the spiritual pathology driving young men to attempted terrorist acts.”

He marshals convincing historical evidence of the likelihood that the Christian West and the Muslim countries will remain incompatible — because we believe in man’s power to reason, and they don’t.

And barring some sort of “Islamic Reformation” (which theologians such as Michael Novak do not rule out as impossible), jihadist Islam and the Christian West will remain in mortal conflict, as we have intermittently in the past.

The difference now, however, is that Islamic nationalists may already be capable of using nuclear weapons, or else are on the verge of that capability, whether in war or as instruments of terror. Most worrisome, they have the will and the irrational theology to use them. In short, dialogue is not possible with those who are incapable of religious tolerance.

At the heart of Reilly’s book is his argument that the “denigration of dialogue is due to the demotion of reason that took place in the ninth-century struggle between the rationalist theologians, the Mu’tazilites and their anti-rationalist theologians, the Ash’arites. Unfortunately, for those who prefer dialogue, the Ash’arites won.”

He writes, “The Ash’arites’ position was that reason is so infected by men’s self-interest that it cannot be relied upon to know things objectively. What is more, there is really nothing to be known, because all created things have no nature or order intrinsic to themselves, but are only the momentary manifestations of God’s direct will. Since God acts without reason, the products of his will are not intelligible to men. Therefore, in this double disparagement, reason cannot know, and there is nothing to be known.”

All of this may prompt memories of the Islamic world’s outrage when the just-elected Pope Benedict XVI told his audience in Regensburg, Germany, that not only is violence in the service of evangelization unreasonable and therefore against God, but that a conception of God without reason or above reason leads to that very violence. Then-Cardinal Ratzinger, in his 2005 address in Subiaco, Italy, said:

“From the beginning, Christianity has understood itself as the religion of the ‘Logos,’ as the religion according to reason. In the first place, it has not identified its precursors in other religions, but in the philosophical enlightenment which has cleared the path of tradition to turn to [the] search of the truth and toward the good, toward the one God who is above all gods.”

Reilly writes, “Ultimately, this theological view developed into the realist metaphysics of Aquinas, which became the metaphysical foundation of modern science, as Father Stanley Jaki, a Hungarian theologian and physicist, explained in his voluminous writings on the origins of modern science. Jaki laid out, as well, the reasons modern science was stillborn in the Muslim world after what seemed to be its real start.”

Father James Schall of Georgetown University, states: “Jaki saw much of the rage in modern Islam as due to its failure or inability to modernize itself by its own powers.”

Reilly asks, “Are [the Islamists of today] something new or a resurgence from the past? How much of this is Islam, and how much is Islamism? Is Islamism a deformation of Islam? If so, in what way and from where has it come? And why is Islam susceptible to this kind of deformation?”

You will have to read his book to find the answers.

The Closing of the Muslim Mind also draws on British author Hilaire Belloc, who is increasingly being rediscovered as a prophet for our times in areas including economics, marriage and family, but most notably, here, in foreseeing the return of militant Islam.

Belloc wrote in his 1938 book The Great Heresies, “Since religion is the root of all political movements and changes, and since we have here a very great religion physically paralyzed but morally intensively alive, we are in the presence of an unstable equilibrium which cannot remain permanently unstable.” Later in the book, Belloc writes, “[Islamic] culture happens to have fallen back in material applications; there is no reason whatever why it should not learn its lesson and become equal in all those temporal things, which now alone give us our superiority over it — whereas, in faith, we have fallen inferior to it.” Perhaps Belloc intuited something like the control of a commodity like oil and the financial power that comes with it or the possession of some fantastic weapon such as the atom bomb.

Reilly argues that “the denigration of reason and the primacy of force that developed within Islamic thinking after the suppression of the Mu’tazilites are what have produced the dismissal of dialogue.”

Bin Laden quoted his spiritual godfather, Abdullah Azzam, in a November 2001 video released after 9/11: “Terrorism is an obligation in Allah’s religion.”

Reilly’s analysis is that “the restoration of the status of reason is the only antidote to the spiritual pathology behind this remark; it is also the only foundation in which real dialogue can begin — dialogue within Islam among its contending factions, and between Islam and the West.”

However, Reilly doubts that this restoration is possible, or at least likely. Therefore, those who are considered as enemies by jihadist Muslims must act accordingly, using their God-given gift of reason. Could it be, however, that the question of faith is even more important than that of reason? Unquestionably, there are millions of adherents of worldwide Islam willing to die for their faith. In what is left of the once-Christian West, are there as many Christians willing to be martyred? I have my doubts.

The Closing of the Muslim Mind
How Intellectual Suicide Created the Modern Islamist Crisis
By Robert R. Reilly
To order: ISIbooks.org 244 pages, $18

Judge Jeanine Pirro gets it and would make a much better President than Obama, Jeb Bush or Mitt Romney


Opening Statement – Obama Releasing Gitmo Detainees Despite Paris Events “Be A Friend”

Like Mohammed, Paris Killers Believed in Allah AND Molesting Little Girls


There is a direct relationship to being a Jihadist (meaning a “radical” Jihadist which is redundant)and ones strength of belief in Islam. The stronger the belief that Mohammad gave them the exact word of what God (there Allah) wanted them to do, the more likely they belief that they must kill anyone that doesn’t become a Muslim. That also gives them the “right” to rape behead plunder and do every other 7th century evil that most of the rest of us have given up. There has never been a more barparic belief system in the world.