Are we going to fight the fascism of Islam in our day or are we going to roll over and take whatever we get because we just will not rouse ourselves to defend our world against barbarians? Is Islam fascism? Look in the archives here and you'll see careful and documented essays proving it so; and we will continue to prove it so from more and various angles. There cannot be any question of the veracity of the claim that Islam is fascism, and yet there is utter denial that this is true--in spite of the facts, and in spite of the dead.
We have argued in the archives that the West is facing a civil war between those allied with fascism and those opposed. Bynam writes on the causes of our conflict. Be low that we'll see some comments from Moslems and their sympathizers, their enablers, their fascist dhimmi supporters, the so-called ecumenical religious liberals, the multi-culturalist, the let's-all-hold-hands-in-peace idiots. And we can compare that sentimentality and cowardice to the comments of Islam from the mouths of Moslems themselves. Not all Moslems are fascists, you say? I say you are wrong, because we have documented proof in the archives here that prove you wrong, and you can find it in any Koran of your choosing: Islam itself is fascism, pure and simple, and those who are Moslem are by practice fascists. Like it or not, a Moslem is by definition from the Koran, the Hadiths, and the Sira, a fascist. Look at the written evidence. And then compare that to the absolute shite below in the New York Times and the Christian Science Monitor, two dhimmi rags we can turn to for evidence that we are losing the war against fascism because we will not even identify it by name. Shame! Shame! Look at the news coverage even now--before the dead are buried in London. Not a word on the front page of the Google news page to do with the dead. And the last line of the CSM claims the extreme Right is picking up support because they are the only ones seemingly in favor of fighting fascism. Shame! Shame! Shame!
Bynum: War Zone World
Jihad Watch News Editor Rebecca Bynum reflects on the slowly encroaching dhimmitude that threatens to do us all in:
Islamic doctrine refers to lands as yet un-conquered by Islam as the "House of War." In the Islamists' view, this area consists of the entire world at this point, since "pure Islam," much like "pure communism," has yet to be achieved in modern times. Accordingly, all of us live, move and have our being in a gigantic war zone which our Islamist enemies can make a bleeding, screaming reality any time they want to.
Many Muslims in the West are instructed by their religious leaders to believe they are living "behind enemy lines." Islamists scoff at our old-fashioned notions of national boundaries as relics of a corrupt, colonial past, an interruption of Islam's march toward world domination. Islamists envision a future in which the nation-state is no more.
Western leftist intellectuals also deeply despise nationalism: in their minds, nationalism is one of the leading causes of war. Leftists seek a war-free world. Islamists, despite their designation of the world as the House of War, seek the same: they strive so that the House of War will shrink away and ultimately disappear, so that only the House of Islam, that is, the House of Peace, should remain. In that House all peoples are "protected" – none less than non-Muslim dhimmis, or "protected peoples," who must labor under a system that despises and discriminates against them and then calls itself "tolerant." The rallying cry for both the Islamists and the Left is "peace and social justice." The result is that leftists all too often appease the fascism that now comes to us in the form of Islam.
The Left refuses to acknowledge Islamic fascism precisely because it comes from the left side of the political spectrum. The intellectual Left is so entirely focused on the possibility of fascism's entry from the right that they refuse to see the comprehensive Islamist strategy for what it is. The thinking seems to be that if various Muslims support leftist political causes, then all is right with the Muslim world. Most people on the Left and the Right, still think that accommodation of at least some Muslim demands is necessary and appropriate. A lot of people buy into the notion that the enemy can be appeased -- by pulling our forces out of Iraq for example. They don't understand that pulling out of Iraq in response to Islamist demands would only embolden them, not pacify them.
The history of those formerly Christian or Jewish capitulators was then slowly distorted and destroyed by the conquered peoples themselves, who preferred not to remember. They preferred to think what they had chosen was better, and refused to acknowledge what they had lost. According to the incomparable historian Bat Ye'or, "the civilization of dhimmitude does not develop all at once. It is a long process that involves many elements and a specific mental conditioning. It happens when peoples replace history by myths, when they fight to uphold these destructive myths, more than their own values because they are confused by having transformed lies into truth. They hold to those myths as if they were the only guarantee for their survival, when, in fact, they are the path to destruction. Terrorized by the evidence and teaching of history, those peoples prefer to destroy it rather than to face it. They replace history with childish tales, thus living in amnesia, inventing moral justification for their own self-destruction." The popular idea that Islam is a peaceful and a harmlessly beautiful religion is one of these childish tales. A childish tale nonetheless preferred, because to admit the truth of our truly dire situation would be too overwhelming and would make us feel too helpless in the face of it.
The question, according to Derbyshire, should be this: "Is the United States willing to fight this war the way it needs fighting, with grim ferocity and cold unconcern for legalistic niceties? To lay waste great territories and their peoples, innocent and guilty alike, to level cities, to burn forests and divert rivers, to smite our enemies hip and thigh, to carry out summary execution of captured leaders? Of course not — how barbaric! And yet (whispers the ancestral, tribal voice in our heads, and in British heads too) if not, then what's the point? War is a tribal affair, one tribe exterminating another, or reducing it to utter impotence and ignominious surrender. That's what war is, and it isn't anything else. We know this in our bones, from a million years of tribal living and fighting. If we are not willing to fight a war like that — which apparently we are not, being much too civilized — then we should not be too surprised if our allies turn and cut deals with our enemies. At least they'll have a quiet life, for a while."
And yet how can we fight a war like that when neither the British nor the Americans have come to terms with who our enemy really is? Andrew Bostom decries "the complete failure of Western intellectuals to study, understand, and acknowledge the heinous consequences of the living Islamic institution of jihad war," and Muslim intellectuals are only too happy to feed our denial with some of their own.
The truth that we do not wish to face is that we cannot guarantee peace and freedom for the majority our citizens while playing host to a minority who value not peace and freedom but their opposites. Until we face this, we will continue to living in a war zone world, while the clamor for "peace" through gradual surrender will only grow. Barbarism cannot be fought with "hope and compassion," not with love and understanding. Barbarism must be fought with will, with strength, and with war -- war and more war.
It's a war zone world. Get used to it.
Show of Resolve as Religious Leaders Try to Cool Tensions
By ALAN COWELL
Published: July 11, 2005
LONDON, July 10 - A World War II commemoration on Sunday became a show of nostalgia and defiance, while Britain's religious leaders held a meeting to help thwart any violence against Muslims following Thursday's terrorist attacks.
In a sign of the authorities' desperation for clues, the police appealed to citizens to hand over any images taken at the sites of the attacks with cameras or cellphones because they might contain crucial information. At least 49 people were killed and more than 700 wounded in the attacks on three subway trains and a double-decker bus, the worst terrorist attack in Britain in decades.
[Where are the Moslems in the English communities who claim Islam is a religion of peace? Why aren't they turning in the conspirator? how can men plan and carry out six bomb attacks without the community knowing something to help the police? Instead the Moslem population cries that they are victims of racism.]
"The terrible thing today is that we don't know our enemies," said Dennis Jardine, an 81-year-old veteran in a wheelchair outside a memorial service at Westminster Abbey. "I knew who my enemy was because we all had our uniforms. So what can you really do against it?"
[We can start by admitting that Islam, fascism itself, fascist Islam, is our enemy; that Left dhimmis are enabling it, collaborating with it; and that the Right is as much to blame as is the filthy Left.]
While rescue workers toiled deep underground to retrieve bodies from one bombed subway tunnel, the country's most senior Christian, Jewish and Muslim leaders gathered, anxious to head off religious tensions caused by the attacks, which the authorities have said bear the hallmarks of Islamic extremists. A number of retaliatory acts against Britain's Muslim population have been reported since the attacks.
The religious leaders sought to distinguish between Islam as a faith and as a label for the terrorists.
[There is no difference. Islam is fascism. Look at the archives. Reigious leaders are dhimmi scum if they refuse to admit the fascists are Moslems.]
Sheik Zaki Badawi, head of Britain's Council of Mosques and Imams, said: "Anyone claiming to commit a crime in the name of religion does not necessarily justify his position in the name of that religion. People do things in the name of Islam which are totally contrary to Islam."
[This is a lie they tell over and over. We have proven in the archives that this is a lie. If one doesn't believe that then why think of anything at all? Why not go to the grave and save the Moslems the trouble of murdering you?]
He was speaking alongside other religious leaders - Sir Jonathan Sacks, chief rabbi; Rowan Williams, the Anglican archbishop of Canterbury; Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Westminster; and David Coffey, the moderator of the Free Churches.
Each took turns to read from a shared statement urging what Dr. Williams called "the continuing efforts to build a Britain in which different communities - including faith communities - can flourish side by side."
At St. Pancras Parish Church, close to Tavistock Square where 13 people died in the Thursday bombing of a No. 30 double-decker bus, Paul Hawkins, the vicar, urged 100 congregants to "name the people who did these things as criminals and terrorists, but we must not name them as Muslims."
Charles Clarke, the home secretary, said he was "very optimistic" that the bombers would be captured. But, like other officials, he warned of possible future attacks. "Our fear is, of course, of more attacks until we succeed in tracking down the gang that committed the atrocities. That is why the No. 1 priority has to be the catching of the perpetrators."
Sir John Stevens, the former head of the Metropolitan Police, said in a newspaper interview on Sunday that the bombers were "almost certainly" British. "I'm afraid there's a sufficient number of people in this country willing to be Islamic terrorists that they don't have to be drafted in from abroad," he said.
He said the probable suspects would be "highly computer literate; they will have used the Internet to research explosives, chemicals and electronics."
He said he believed that the suspects would be "apparently ordinary British citizens, young men conservatively and cleanly dressed and probably with some higher education."
"They are also willing to kill without mercy - and to take a long time in their planning," he said.
"We believe that up to 3,000 British born or British-based people have passed though Osama bin Laden's training camps over the years," he said. "Plainly, not all went on to become active Islamic terrorists back in the U.K., but some have. "
Waterstone's bookshop in London scrambled to cancel print advertisements for "Incendiary," a new novel written in the form of a letter to Mr. bin Laden by a woman whose husband and son died in a London terrorist attack, the BBC News reported.
But some of the ads were irretrievable, including posters already hung in the London Underground, where three of the four bombs went off.
[The only question remaining is what we will do in response to the governments of the West refusing to deal with the issue of the war on Modernity. What are we going to do?]
Souad Mekhennet and Jonathan Allen contributed reporting for this article.
A defiant Islam rises among young Britons
Thursday's attacks turn attention to a group alienated from British society.
By James Brandon, Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor
LONDON – Thursday's coordinated terrorist attacks that killed at least 49 people have underscored competing forces within Britain's Muslim community: a minority that advocates violence against Western targets, and those who want to coexist peacefully with Britain's multifaith, multiethnic society.
Since the bombings, the media and Muslims have been at pains to explain that most of the country's 2 million Muslims are peaceful. "The Muslim community in Britain has a long history and is enormously diverse," says Anas al-Tikriti, a member of the Muslim Association of Britain.
But the attacks are turning attention to the increasing numbers of young British Muslims who are rejecting their parents' traditional culture in favor of a radical and expansionist Islam. This strikingly Western version of Islam combines an independence of thought with a contempt for established traditional scholarship and a theme of teenage rebellion.
"Getting involved in radical Islam is an emotional thing rather than a rational decision," says Abdul-Rahman al-Helbawi, a Muslim prayer leader. "And it's not a matter of intelligence or education - a lot of these radicals in Britain are very well-educated."
In Dalston market in north-east London on Thursday, "Abdullah," a Muslim watch-mender and evangelist, was in a pugnacious mood.
"We don't need to fight. We are taking over!" he said. "We are here to bring civilization to the West. England does not belong to the English people, it belongs to God."
Two days later in a prosperous West London cafe, Mr. Helbawi pondered the attacks. "It's not a surprise but I am still shocked," he said. "How can they do this? London is a city for all the world. This is not Islam."
Hours after the bombings, Helbawi logged onto an Internet chat room run by British Muslim extremists. "They were all congratulating each other on the attacks," he said. "It was crazy. They were talking about how they had won a great victory over the infidels, as if they had just come back from a battle."
Although so far, there is no evidence that British Muslims were involved in the bombs, there is little doubt that many British Muslims feel that Britain "deserved" the attacks for supporting the US invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.
"Because Muslims explain the conflicts in Iraq, Kashmir, and Israel through Islam, every Muslim feels involved," said Helbawi. "People watch television and see Palestinian women being hit and pushed around by Israeli soldiers, and get angry and feel that they have to do something."
But beyond anger, a sense of alienation often drives radical Islam. Many second- and third-generation immigrants find themselves cut off not only from their parents' cultures but also from a British one that includes alcohol and looser sexual mores.
"If you don't drink, it really cuts you off from English society," says Ummul Choudhury, a London-based Middle East analyst for the Gulf Centre for Strategic Studies. "The view of the older generation is also that you do not integrate. If you do, you are told you are betraying your culture and religion."
The resulting isolation makes it easier for young Muslims to develop a contempt for British society.
"There is also a lot of racism toward white British people," says Ms. Choudhury. "It's not really something that people want to talk about, but there are definitely some things that Muslims say between themselves that they would never say in front of white people."
For frustrated and isolated young Muslims, radical Islam is not difficult to find. Girls in particular are often prevented from going out at night and can be easily drawn into online Muslim communities where they come into contact with other disillusioned Muslims from across Europe.
One leading analyst of the Islamic diaspora even compares the lure of extremist Islam to 1950s teens listening to Elvis in an attempt to shock their parents. "The son of a Pentecostal preacher in Brixton was recruited by the radical Muslims," says Nadhim Shehadi, acting head of the Middle East program at Chatham House.
"This young man initially tried to upset his parents by becoming a rapper," says Shehadi. "But when his parents stopped objecting, he became a jihadi instead."
The antiestablishment nature of this new Islam and its apparent status as an alternative to capitalism and secularism is also winning converts among native Britons.
"People come to Islam from all walks of life. It's not just middle-class people but also electricians, judges, and taxi drivers," says Sara Joseph, the editor of "Emel," a lifestyle magazine for Muslim women, who converted to Islam at age 17. "The main catalyst for conversion is often going out with a Muslim, although the primary factor is usually a search for spirituality."
While the estimated 1,000 British Christians, atheists, and members of other faiths who convert to Islam every year are often attracted by Islam's clearly defined teachings, this minor trend is overshadowed by Muslims' highbirth and immigration rates, which to many Muslims promises increased political and social influence in the future.
Indeed, taking advantage of Britain's rapidly expanding and increasingly Muslim population are new parties that aim to promote ethnic and religious agendas. One is Respect, a left-wing party founded by former Labour MP George Galloway, that aims to unite Muslims and socialists around opposition to American foreign policy and globalization.
Linked to the desire for increased political power are attempts by some radical Muslims to begin a process of Islamicizing British cities.
Last month, Muslim groups in Glasgow petitioned the City Council to ban an Italian restaurant from serving alcohol to diners seated at outside tables. Hospitals in Leicester considered banning Bibles from hospital wards to avoid offending Muslim patients. In Birmingham, a group called Muslims Against Advertising began a campaign of painting over billboards that they deemed offensive to Islam - targeting ads for Levi's jeans, perfume, and lingerie.
But these small campaigns are polarizing public opinion along ethnic and religious lines - and creating support for Britain's far-right groups, who present themselves as defenders of Britain's hard-won freedoms.
The West will, in a few more years of this, resemble Jugoslavia during the war. The treal tragedy is that we will be at war not only with Moslem but against ourselves. We are facing a civil war between those who will become fascists in response to the threat of Islam and Islam itself and its collaborators. The final showdown will be between Modernity and the last lunge of primitivism. To win our future for Modernity's continuance we might well be forced to go insane.