Quote of the Day: The Greatest Killing Machine In The History of Mankind

The enormity of the slaughters of the "religion of peace" are so far beyond comprehension that even honest historians overlook the scale. When one looks beyond our myopic focus, Islam is the greatest killing machine in the history of mankind, bar none.

--Mike Konrad, The Greatest Murder Machine in History

Remember that when someone criticizes "Islamophobia."

A River in Egypt: Denial Among the Apologists for Islam

I have been having a debate with a dogmatic apologist for Islam, one D. Charles, who insists that Islam is no more violent than any other religion, and that Islamic terrorism is not supported by Islamic holy texts like the Koran or the Haddith.  Charles has more excuses for Islam than Islam has severed heads...and that's a lot.

If you want to follow the arguments, see the comments section for this blog post.

Meanwhile, Lawrence Auster of View From the Right supports my position in his blog post here.  Larry points out an even more extreme case of denial in one Karen Armstrong.  He writes:

Inspired by the reflexive anti-American fallacies of Ron Paul and his intellectual mentor Robert Pape, the blogger Stogie has coined a term that I will need to add to my catalogue of non-Islam theories of Islamic extremism: the Blowback Theory of Islamic Extremism.

I see that some of Stogie's commenters [i.e. D. Charles] are still in Standard Denial Mode. Thus one argues that the Barbary pirates had nothing to do with Islam--they were merely pirates who happened to be Moslem, along with lots of non-Moslems in their ranks. Evidently the statement by Tripoli's ambassador in Britain to Adams and Jefferson in 1786, in which he justified the piracy on purely Islamic grounds of divinely mandated aggressive jihad against all non-Moslems, made no impression on this commenter.

Karen Armstrong has of course similarly argued that the vast Moslem conquests of the seventh century had nothing to do with Islam; the armies that swept across Palestine, Syria, Mesopotamia, Persia, and northern Africa and subjected them to Islamic rule were merely conquerors who happened to be Moslem. And then consider the fact that probably the majority of America's "intellectual" class follow Armstrong's ideas.

Such is the continuing power (I'm almost tempted to call it a supernatural power, though of the dark kind) of the modern West's suicidal denial of the truth about Islam.

 But why the denial in the face of overwhelming evidence that Islam is a violent, aggressive form of tyranny, that it is so by its very nature?  We have 14 centuries of Islamic history and aggression to draw from, the statements and bloody example of the "prophet" himself, the ongoing wars and terrorism in the world today, the statements of the terrorists, Imams and Islamic leaders, and of course, the Islamic holy texts themselves.  Amidst the mounting death toll, it would seem sheer folly to disbelieve that Islam is inherently violent, intolerant, hateful and evil.  In spite of this, D. Charles and other apologists continue to insist that Islam is benign.  Who are we to believe, D. Charles and Karen Armstrong, or our own lying eyes?

I think there are some, mostly those on the left, who are unable to face the unpleasant reality of "the clash of civilizations," that our future is likely to be one of war for survival against a determined foe, or one of dhimmitude and darkness.  So they go into denial.  The worst of these deniers is the 9/11 "Truthers," who insist that the 9/11 attack on America was "an inside job," and not perpetrated by Muslims at all.

However, denial and wishful thinking will not alter basic reality, no matter how fervently the Islamic apologists wish it would.

Why Support the Left Wing Publication "Charlie Hebdo"?

Charlie Hebdo is a very left wing publication and continually insults Christianity and Judaism in very egregious ways. Nevertheless, we should support their right to free speech, as we claim the same right for ourselves.

It is interesting to note, however, that one of the left's most prized ideals -- that of cultural and ethnic diversity -- has come back to haunt them in the Charlie Hebdo flap. Diversity, as it is conceived by the left, is a very bad thing for pluralistic democracies. The only "diversity" that works is one that is rather superficial. "Diversity" that allows in a hostile culture dedicated to opposing our most cherished values is one we should strenuously oppose.

Some of the values we refuse to abandon are these: our opposition to murder and our opposition to ethnic and religious hatred (like anti-semitism). Others include our support for freedom of expression, the equality of women, and democracy.

In this regard, we must thank Charlie Hebdo for providing us with more proof that we are right about Islam: it is an undesirable presence in western civilization. To infect pluralistic and tolerant democracies with an intolerant, hostile and violent ideology makes no sense, and the danger from this ideology will only increase with time.  Let's hope this incident has awakened some on the left.

Muslim Inventions: For the Record....

The Los Angeles Times' Specious Editorial on Anti-Jihad Bloggers

The Los Angeles Times displays its anti-logic regarding the alleged role of anti-jihad bloggers in the Norway shootings.  Their specious reasoning is as follows:

What Spencer failed to address is the fact that his site, and others cited by Breivik such as The Gates of Vienna, make a habit of blaming all Muslims for the actions of a minority of violent jihadists. As an example of Spencer's thinking, he wrote in November that the Transportation Security Administration should profile and give extra screening attention to Muslim males at airports, because this is the likeliest group to commit acts of terrorism. One could as easily argue that special attention should be paid to white males. In the wake of the Oklahoma City bombing, the Unabomber's reign of terror, the Tucson shootings and, now, the mass murder in Norway, this population also appears prone to terrorist violence.

This editorial is seriously lacking in fairness and logic. First off, the Gates of Vienna, Jihad Watch and many other sites are not remotely responsible for the actions of a lunatic. Secondly, the anti-Islam sentiments of these sites are grounded in irrefutable proof that Islam is a highly intolerant and violent religion, that mass Muslim immigration into the west is undesirable and dangerous and has many negatives and few (if any) positives. These sites have nothing to apologize for.

Third, the Times mischaracterizes their opposition, saying that they oppose all Muslims when only some Muslims are violent. What they oppose is an ideology, namely, Islam itself, which does indeed preach violence and even murder as necessary to enter heaven. Read the Koran and the Haddiths -- I did. Since it is the religion itself that is violent, any Muslim could become violent at any time by deciding to get serious about his religion.  Many have.

White males are decidedly not terrorism suspects in the same light as Muslims. The former do not believe that martyrdom will buy them a ticket to heaven, whereas the latter do. The L.A. Times writer's logic on this subject is decidedly shallow and specious.

The Los Angeles Times continues to embarrass itself:

Conservative pundits are getting back some of what they've been dishing out for years, finding themselves being unfairly blamed for the actions of those who share their ideology but take it to violent extremes. Will this inspire them to treat Muslims more fairly? A defensive post from Pamela Geller, who writes the anti-Muslim Atlas Shrugs blog (also cited by Breivik), points to the answer. While failing to acknowledge an iota of responsibility for spreading distrust of even moderate Muslims, she instead blames the "Sharia-compliant media" for attacks on her and her site. Opportunity lost.

Again, a very specious conclusion.  It ignores the fact that it is the religion itself that is violent, intolerant and hateful.  Further, distrust of Muslims is based on the actions of Muslims, not bloggers who point out the unpleasant truths about Islam.  There was, remember, 9/11, Beslan, Madrid, London, Mumbai and Fort Hood, to mention only a few Muslim atrocities that were committed in the name of Islam.  After those horrific mass murders (by Muslims against non-Muslims), no one needs a blogger to tell them how untrustworthy the "Umma" is.  It is a truth well established by Islam itself, both in its written words and its recent deeds.

Read the Times editorial here.

Hat tip to Reflecting Light for the quote about Islamic immigration having "many negatives and few positives."

Update:  I decided to do a word search through Breivik's manifesto, and sure enough, he quotes the Los Angeles Times!  He quotes an L.A. Times article describing Muslim desecration of a Cathrolic church, the Hagia Sophia.  Et Tu, Brute?  Ah, the L.A. Times must have inspired mass murder with its truthful article about Islamic atrocities.

Fictitious Islam vs. Real Islam: Time to Stop Kidding Ourselves

Ever so often we have a break-through moment when we see things in a new light.  Understanding floods our brains and we replace a faulty paradigm with a better one.  I think this article does that for me.  It's time to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan.  Our "nation-building" missions there are a fool's errand.  After all the blood and treasure invested, we will be left with what we started with:  a barbarian society ruled by sharia law.

We must devise better strategies for dealing with the Islamic threat.  Ending Islamic immigration into the U.S. would be a first step; isolating the Islamic nations would be a second step; and making a concerted effort to become energy independent would be an important third step.

Andrew McCarthy on "Imagining Islam":

If only the fantasy were true: If only there actually were a dominant, pro-American, echt [genuine] moderate Islam, an ideology so dedicated to human rights, so sternly set against savagery, that acts of terrorism were, by definition, “un-Islamic activity.” Imagine an Islam that, far from a liability, proved an asset (indeed, an indispensable asset) in combating the threat against us. Imagine that we could accurately call the threat mere “extremism” — no “Islamic” (or even “Islamist”) modifier being necessary because the “extremists” truly were a tiny, aberrant band, fraudulently “hijacking” a great religion.

Such an Islam, over nine long years, would have risen up and made itself heard. It would have identified by name and condemned with moral outrage the imposters purporting to act in its name. It would have honored America’s sacrifice of blood and treasure in the liberation of oppressed Muslim peoples. It would have said “thank you” to our troops. It would have joined America, without ambiguity or hesitation, in crushing terror networks and dismantling the regimes that abet them. It would not have needed trillion-dollar American investments to forge democracies; it would naturally have adopted democracy on its own.

What excruciating truths have we yet failed to grasp on this ninth anniversary of 9/11? The first is that such an Islam does not exist. The second is that, despite this fact, American foreign and domestic policy continues to proceed as though it does exist — and as though it were the only real Islam. That is, nine years after Islamists made their commitment to our destruction as unmistakable as possible...our national-security strategy is still steeped in fiction.

Read it all here.

New Must-See Video on the Nature of Islam and Sharia Law

Here is a video that explains basic facts to the multitudes who believe that Islam is just another religion. Hat tip Another Black Conservative.

Stogie Unveiled Ahmagenocide's Jewish Roots Three Years Ago!

This past week a story originated in the U.K. that Mockmood Ahmagenocide had Jewish roots.  Ahmagenocide (also known as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, President of Iran) could not be reached for comment, presumably as it was his day to bake the Matzo.

Unfortunately, the story was later claimed to be erroneous before someone pure in the Islamic faith had a chance to kill Ahmagenocide, thus claiming his 17 virgins by offing a Jew.

Well I beg to differ.  Mockmood is indeed Jewish.  I proved it a full three full years ago with photographs of Ahmadinejad conducting secret Jewish temple rites in Iran.  See my photographic proof here.

Now waddya say, Mockmood?  HMMMM?

Update:  I just received an angry email from Mockmood Ahmagenocide claiming that my photographic evidence is a FAKE, "nothing more than a cheap Photoshop."  OH SURE, THAT'S WHAT THEY ALL SAY!

Dutch Supreme Court Decision Bodes Well For Geert Wilders

Dutch Freedom Blog has just translated a court decision in the Hague that is relevant to the Geert Wilders case. The Court has cleared a man who publically criticized Islam. Dutch Freedom writes:

In November 2004 [the defendant] had placed a poster before his window with the text: “Stop the Tumour that is Islam”. [I don`t think Wilders ever went that far]. Earlier the same man had been convicted by the District Court and the Court of Appeals in Den Bosch. According to the highest court in the land, there is not sufficient ground for a conviction if someone solely engages in defamation of a religion as such. Whether or not the adherents of a religion feel insulted is irrelevant.

Read the whole thing here.

The key point here is that Wilders didn't defame any religion, he merely told the truth, showing videos of the carnage wrought by Islamic extremists and linking them to key passages in the Qur'an which commands such atrocities.

This does not settle the Geert Wilders case, but it bodes well for him.

Pat Condell: "Shame on the Netherlands"

Pat Condell tells off the Netherlands over the political persecution of Geert Wilders. He also states some highly quotable opinions about Islam and the nature of that evil ideology. H/T the Jawa Report.

This one is worth watching, particularly if you're a liberal who just doesn't get it. If you're a history major from UCLA you may want to watch it twice and take notes.

Deepak Chopra Shoots Self In Foot Over Mumbai

Deepak Chopra is an MD with a practice in Boston. He is a spiritual guru who is into eastern mysticism and writes books with spiritual themes. I first learned of Chopra while I was listening to tapes by Tony Robbins some years ago. Intrigued, I bought and read three of Chopra's books: Ageless Body, Timeless Mind, The Seven Spiritual Laws of Success, and How to Know God : The Soul's Journey into the Mystery of Mysteries.

I found Chopra's books intellectually stimulating and even daring, particularly Ageless Body, Timeless Mind. However, I couldn't completely buy into them. Nevertheless, it is good to have one's perceptions challenged and stretched, and in that regard, Chopra's books were useful.

Chopra discussed "Magical Thinking" in one of his books (I forget which one). Magical thinking is our desire to fool ourselves that we can change the nature of reality with just our thoughts. Thinking young is a useful philosophy, but it can't actually make you young or reverse the aging process. In all philosophy and spirituality and the nature of existence, reality refuses to be abolished and must inevitably be taken into account. Reality can be a pain in the ass.

I was grateful to Chopra for pointing out the nature of "magical thinking" so I wouldn't be tempted into believing in fairy tales. At the same time, however, it is worth noting that we human beings do not have the complete picture of what reality is and how we fit into it. Not believing in fairy tales is one thing, but it is healthy to have an open mind about the universe and the nature of existence and our place in it. The sum total of reality is more than our perceptions born of our five rather limited physical senses. That's where Chopra shines, I think, in that he likes to probe the boundaries of what is known and what is yet unknown but possible. Basically, he's a good and decent man. I am disappointed that he has associated himself with the moonbat left of the Huffington Post.

Deepak Chopra may understand what "magical thinking" is, but he is not immune to it. Chopra is a liberal and liberals are prone to magical thinking. It explains all their well-meaning policies and projects that don't work and that do more harm than good. Chopra wrote a book that I haven't read and do not wish to read: Peace Is the Way : Bringing War and Violence to an End. When dealing with enemies who can kill you and who hope to do just that, magical thinking can be fatal. Having a peaceful philosophy or having peace in your heart, or meditating on the Kama Sutra, or burning incense, or chanting, or whatever Chopra recommends in Peace is the Way won't magically bring peace.

Liberals seem to think that we can control hostile enemies by how we think, what we believe and by holding loving and peaceful thoughts and intentions. This is magical thinking. It holds that if our intentions and attitudes are right, this will magically transform our enemies and change their enmity into love and trust. In other words, our internal thoughts and feelings control outer reality.

It isn't true.

Islamic violence isn't born of a big misunderstanding between the Muslim world and the non-Muslim world; it is born of Islam itself. Islam is a violent ideology that is built upon a violent, cruel and ruthless god, Allah. Islamic scripture clearly teaches that Muslims are to violently conquer all non-Muslim peoples and forcibly convert them to the faith, or to kill them, with one caveat: if the non-Muslims will accept a humiliating status called dhimmitude, they may be allowed to live among Muslims as third-class citizens. They are required to pay a high tax for the privilege of drawing breath and may be abused, even murdered, by Muslims for almost any reason. In other words, they live on the level of slaves, in a constant state of humiliation, deprivation and anxiety for their very lives.

Recently, Deepak Chopra voiced the opinion that the Mumbai masscre by violent Muslims was the result of the War in Iraq. It was what they call "blow back." Never mind that the War in Iraq liberated millions of Muslims from a ruthless dictatorship and greatly improved their lives in the process. However, the point is moot. Muslims have been murdering Indians for centuries, particularly Hindus, and U.S. foreign policy had nothing to do with it. Hindus, not being Muslims, were an automatic target. Anywhere from 60 to 80 million Hindus have been slaughtered by Muslims over the centuries. Mumbai was just another installment in the continuing saga of Islam.

The truth is that Deepak Chopra's opinion was based on his personal politics, not on his informed knowledge of facts. It was intellectually dishonest. It had an agenda other than truth. He referred to the Iraq war as "disasterous." It has proven disasterous only to al-Qaeda.

For these reasons, Chopra has deserved the flood of criticism his comment invoked.

Disturbing Facts About Islam and Muslim Immigrants

Foehammer's Anvil lists several disturbing facts about Islam:

FACT #1:
The goal of Islam is the subjugation of the entire world to Islam through the establishment of a global Islamic rule and the eradication of all non-Islamic populations, cultures, religions, thoughts, knowledge, symbols, traditions and ways of life. This goal is non-negotiable in fundamental doctrines of Islam and in the eyes of true Muslims.

FACT #2:
Islamists will not stop their assault (open or clandestine) on the non-Muslim world as long as they have not achieved Islamic rule.

FACT #3:
IN ISLAMIC TEACHING, THE END ALWAYS JUSTIFIES THE MEANS: Islamists have no respect for the rules, laws or values of the non-Islamic world, to them only the rules of the Islamic world are legitimate. In their mind, when they destroy the non-Islamic world then the rules will change to Islamic rules, laws and values.

Read the whole list here.