CLICK on any of the following to select a section.




CLICK on any of the following to view topic.

Back to Top



WE THE PEOPLE — by Robert Williams …. Jan 30, 2008

Popular sovereignty as rule of the majority was for about two centuries the cornerstone of American democracy and deeply rooted in the fiber, traditions, and behavior of the American people. The people wielded the ultimate power. They elected representatives to work the majority will in congress. Members of both political parties and presidents such as Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt opposed judges who interpreted the Constitution in defiance of popular will. Although it took some time to eliminate the tyranny of slavery and to gain equal justice for ethnic minorities, we pretty well got there. As much as Americans revered these principles they also revered the American flag as the consecrated symbol of those precious concepts. The sentiment of patriotism was universally accepted in American society as a heartfelt dedication to preserving our founding principles against all threats.

Unfortunately, popular sovereignty is always at risk from special interests. Around 1965 the rising influence of one particular minority increasingly sought to overturn majority rule in favor of elitist rule. The new-age elites ardently favored supremacy of the courts and interpreters of the law against popular sentiment. Elites of this sort infiltrated the law, the press, and education. They also managed to subvert some politicians to their ideology. These elites saw themselves as being “smarter” and having “better values” than the rest of the populace. They thought of themselves more as “citizens of the world” than citizens of America and convinced themselves they were better equipped than “the commoners” to rule America in the modern global arena. They introduced the idea of “political correctness”. They were against both the Vietnam and the Iraq wars and identified patriotism and the flag more with government policies they opposed than with principles of American Democracy.

A case in point is the decades long fight over protecting the American flag from willful desecration. Popular desire for this protection has never waned. Nevertheless in 1989-1990 the American Supreme Court struck down attempts to reinstate the cause of flag protection. The elitists and our Supreme Court saw the willful desecration of our flag as an act of free speech in opposition to policy rather than an act of rejecting American freedoms won by our forefathers with so much blood and sacrifice.

Another tragic outgrowth of this new elitism is the introduction of “multiculturalism”. An idea that all cultures deserve equal respect regardless of their behavior. An adjunct to this is a taboo against criticizing any religion even if that religion promotes tyranny and bloodshed. Another insane adjunct is the idea that no matter what aggression intolerant societies enact, one must not offend the practitioners and one must give equal American rights to all non-citizens and illegals regardless of what they have done or said. In the extreme, the new ideals even encompass a submission of our courts to “foreign precedents” and the surrender of our sovereignty to the World Courts and the United Nations.

To turn around this tragedy, we the people must take power and influence away from autocratic elitists and return it to the populace just as we originally did in 1776. This will take a lot of resolve, but hopefully not violence because the kind of people we will be opposing now are not soldiers of a King but mostly the lilly-handed so-called “cultured” persons of law and letters. Now is the opportune time to challenge all candidates for office to define their stance on these crucial issues of popular sovereignty, because if we lose popular sovereignty all else will be immaterial.

Back to Articles List



LETTERS ON THE RADICAL LEFT …. by Robert Denham and Michael Dennin …. September 2007

God, Family and Country, in that order. It could be reasonably argued that America was founded on these three principles; that by holding dearly to these values, America became, between 1776-1950, a world political, economic, military and cultural superpower. It’s also these three doctrines which have come under fire in the last 40-50 years. In that time, we’ve witnessed America’s rising indifference to our past and future, America’s crises of self-doubt, America’s cultural, spiritual and moral confusion.In 1947, a man named Whittaker Chambers turned his back on, later informing against, the American Communist Party. He later said that, by so doing, he felt that he was “coming over to the losing side”, but that his conscience forced him to do so. “The forces of patriotic conservatism”, he wrote, “could not hope to muster the fervent zealotry of anti-American liberalism” and its shadowy, Soviet Communist allies. Chambers knew wherefrom he spoke; he was once, after all, one of them. His actions, casting harsh light on this very real internal threat, sounded an alarm, helping purchase America another 45 years; time enough for those forces of conservatism to defeat the Soviets.

From Communists on the far left to Anarchists on the far right, there still exist those, inside this country, whose fondest desire would be to see America go the way of the USSR. People considering America to be deeply, terribly flawed, even evil, utilizing systems of government and economics which must be radically changed, or dispatched altogether. Wrapping themselves in the flag, falsely portraying themselves as patriots, they hide behind the First Amendment and altruistic, anti-racism and anti-war rhetoric. Groups like the ACLU, the Democratic-Socialist Party USA, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, International ANSWER and, actively work to dismantle the basic ideals of God, Family and Country; not only the doctrines on which America was founded, but on which it found success. These people are well-funded, well-organized and motivated, working to weaken the system that grants them the very rights they then turn around and utilize so treacherously. Scorning the ballot, knowing their ideals could never win majority acceptance, they use the media’s liberal bias, and too frequently the courts, chipping away the underpinnings of our nation; undermining the moral and traditional fabric of our flawed, yes—yet enormously good, noble and generous—society and culture. They have allies, also, in government; many of these write our policies and laws. Through misinformation, propaganda, demonstrations and marches, like wind and waves against a stone, they endeavor to erode the unity and spirit of a nation at war. They work especially hard against the hated US military forces, now engaged in direct combat, facing an insidious, barbaric enemy—savages, without honor—whose ultimate goal, declared by that enemy itself, is the destruction of America and our culture.

But have hope; positive, pro-American patriotism and honest debate; advancement of basic American ideals and interests. These are the ways to defeat America’s enemies working from within. Fight back, America—for God, Family and Country.

This next commentary is in response to Tyler Mays’ September 17 letter wherein he declares that “free market capitalism is a failure. In case the significance of the fall of the Berlin Wall has been lost on Mays and his “progressive” co-travelers in denial, it was the totalitarian Socialist experiment that was proven a failure upon the demise of the USSR and the Communist bloc in the last decade of the 20th Century, not the free market capitalism of the liberal democracies that prevailed in the Cold War. Nevertheless, despite the fact that Socialism has failed everywhere it has been implemented and cost the lives of approximately 100 million human beings since the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917, “progressives” continue to cling to their nihilistic faith. Far from delivering on its promise of “social justice”, Socialism produced the most monsterous system of mass murder, oppression and impoverishment that the world has ever seen, but don’t take my word for it. Ask Lech Valesa, Vaclav Havel, Wang Dan, Natan Sharansky, Jorge Luis Antunez, Father Thaddeus Nguyen Van Ly and the Dalai Lama how workers, artists, students, human rights activists and religious leaders are treated in the Socialist gulag. Ask former Soviet workers why, after 70 years of collectivist “development”, they earned less income in a year than the average welfare mother in the U.S. received in a month, and why their red meat intake was half of what a subject of the czar consumed in 1913.

I am blessed to have witnessed that spectacular night in 1989 when East and West Germans gathered together with their sledgehammers and rendered History’s verdict on Socialism by tearing down the Berlin Wall. For those who refused to bend their necks to the Socialist yoke, this triumph of human spirit and will remains a glorious victory to honor and rejoice, but for the “progressives” whose arrogant efforts to defy human nature and reinvent the world failed, it remains a bitter defeat to deny and despair. As former leader and apostate of the Socialist community of faith Leszek Kolakowski once stated, “Marxism is the fantasy of our century.” Judging from Mays’ declaration, the fantasy endures.

Back to Articles List



WHAT HAPPENED TO US? ….by Michael Dennin …. June 2007

“Americans love a winner and will not tolerate a loser…I wouldn’t give a hoot in Hell for a man who lost and laughed.”
General George S. Patton, May 31, 1944

“…this war is lost…the surge is not accomplishing anything.”
Senator Harry Reid (D-NV), April 19, 2007

What has happened to this country since George Patton addressed the U.S. Third Army a week before the Allied invasion of Normandy? How did we degenerate from a people who would not tolerate a loser to a nation that promotes a loser to majority leader of the United States Senate?

What happened to us?
Did we declare World War II “lost” after Pearl Harbor, the Philippines and Kasserine Pass? I don’t recall Americans even tolerating talk of defeat before the landings in Normandy, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa, much less declaring these operations a failure before they began or during their difficult initial stages.

It’s safe to say that George Patton wouldn’t give a hoot in Hell about Harry Reid and the other people in this country who not only tolerate defeat, but shamelessly encourage it. The eagerness of these people to throw the Iraqi people and the advocates of democracy and human rights in the Middle East to the terrorists and tyrants in the region is a cowardly disgrace to the honor of this Nation and our troops, who have NOT lost the war in Iraq. In fact, the diplomatic and military efforts of the United States have yielded significant results since last Fall. The Shiite militias and their leaders, including the Mahdi Army and Muqtada al-Sadr, have been marginalized. Al-Qaeda has lost the support of the Sunni tribes in the country and has been driven from its base of operations in Al Anbar province. New US sanctions in the world’s financial markets are weakening the terrorist-sponsoring regime in Tehran. If anything, this progress, and the fact that General Petraeus and his troops have no peers on the battlefield, is cause for cautious optimism and renewed determination, not a Chicken Little moment.

What happened to us?
Last Memorial Day weekend, reports out of the Orcas Islands in Washington state revealed that vandals had burned dozens of American flags placed over the graves of veterans, and replaced some of them with white flags bearing the Nazi swastika. This was just the latest in an increasing number of incidents involving the desecration of veterans memorials and cemeteries by the so-called “anti-war” movement in America. It was inevitable this would happen – it is merely the extension of the attitudes expressed by the leaders of this movement, such as Noam Chomsky, Ward Churchill and Cindy Sheehan. Monkey see, monkey do.

What happened to us?
Did we fall prey to the propaganda in our mass media and academic institutions? Diminishing standards of morality, decency and honor? Social disintegration? Nihilism? All of the above and more?
In the final analysis, we are all responsible for our own actions – there is no excuse for what happened to us. The reason things are different today than they were in 1944 is because the Americans who won World War II were winners – they were men and women who prevailed over adversity. The question before us today is whether or not we have inherited their mettle, and the answer to that question will have a profound impact not only on the United States of Anerica but every nation in the world. It’s about damned time that Americans back home, from the lowest vandal to the highest senator, started proving themselves worthy of the accomplishments and sacrifices of the valiant men and women fighting for them abroad. Our troops deserve better.

Back to Articles List




Copyright(C) 2007 American Patriot Council, Inc. NOTE: Permission granted to reprint this essay without changes provided American Patriot Council, Inc. Copyright notice is included and is listed as the source.

NOTE: The single most damaging ignorance in the non-Muslim world is ignorance about Jihad. Without an informed understanding of this most dangerous phenomena, we misunderstand the “War on Terror” and the reasons why it has to be fought.

JIHAD as it pertains to Islamist imperialism, is a struggle to conquer the world and impose Islamic rule and “Sharia” law on the entire human race. While all Muslims desire the spread of Islam, the Jihadist segment approves of its spread by every means including killing you, dear reader. Jihadists seek to take Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan and cement Iran (already a sham democracy) as a nuclear-powered Jihadist dictatorship.

Jihadists separate the whole world into themselves and everyone else. Every non-Muslim and every non-Jihadist Muslim is seen by the Jihadists as an enemy of their God “Allah”. A Jihadist is utterly dedicated to the eventual conversion or destruction of every man, woman, and child not already in the Jihadist camp. The Jihadists view their own aggressive totalitarian form of the Islamic religion as the only form fully sanctioned and supported by Allah. They see all others as apostates and sinners to be eliminated.

Jihadists view their position as utterly non-negotiable. They accept only unconditional surrender. That is not to say they see no advantage in temporary compromise. To achieve their long-term goals they use any pretense of diplomacy, deceit, infiltration, disguise, and even temporary alliance with their arch enemies such as the atheistic communists. One of their favorite ploys is to play the victim, blaming all the ills of their own failed societies on the rest of the world. Their historic ability to mollify and use appearance of innocence or other subterfuge to undermine social structures and weaken resistance is constantly being perfected and constitutes a greater danger than their overt violence. Jihadists sacrifice themselves willingly because they are thoroughly brainwashed to perceive that the only true happiness and glory can be obtained in an other-worldly Islamic heaven guaranteed as a reward for murdering or aiding in the murder of non-Jihadists. In contrast, we believe in liberty, freedom of religion, secular justice, and the pursuit of happiness right here on earth. That is exactly the state of affairs the Jihadists are dedicated to destroying and it is why democratic peoples of the world have such a hard time understanding Jihadist doctrine and motivation. Minor wars within their ranks are merely jockeying to determine which faction will lead our destruction.

Jihadist tools of religious fervor, brainwashing children, infiltration, propaganda, population explosion, disguised social welfare and the like, are all legal in democratic countries. These are thus ignored by non-Muslims in favor of arguing over the trifles of why America invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. Jihadists are perfectly content to fight us anywhere. Had we not preempted them in Afghanistan and Iraq they would have chosen their own concentrated battlefields. Our congressional efforts to hamstring our progress in Iraq greatly encourages the Jihadists to win Iraq and re-take Afghanistan in order to have control of oil revenue and bases from which to eventually take over nuclear Pakistan and oil-rich Saudi Arabia on their way to conquering all the Middle East, crushing Israel, finishing off Europe, and seriously affecting America’s ability to resist their onslaught. In this light, any premature weakening of our fight in Iraq would have catastrophic consequences that would make our current difficulties pale into insignificance. Widespread ignorance prevented us from preparing for Jihadist-sponsored internal conflict in Iraq intended to discredit and dismantle the newly elected government. As a result we consistently deployed insufficient forces.

Treating middle east wars as modern territorial disputes misses the crucial underlying truth. Jihadists made their decision to declare all-out war against non-Jihadists about 1400 years ago when the founding Muslims were convinced Allah was on their side because they escaped annihilation by the non-Muslim Arabs. The Jihad doctrine grew with sufficient aggressiveness to build several widespread Muslim empires, the last of which collapsed shortly after World War One with the fall of the Ottoman Turks. Emerging approximately in the 1920’s, modern Jihad has evolved in several branches; all making common cause to kill non-believers (Infidels) and fueled by vast oil revenues distributed by the Saudi Sunni “Salafist” branch of Jihad. Other branches are the Iranian Shia “Khomeinist” branch augmented by the Iran-backed “HizbAllah” movement, the “Wahhabist Muslim Brotherhood” based largely in Egypt, and the “Hamas” branch based in Palestine. There are other affiliated groups spread from Africa to Indonesia and there are cells of Jihadists and sympathetic infiltrators in America, South America, Canada, Europe, Australia, Russia and even China. It is hard to imagine a movement more globally dangerous than the Jihadist reality.

The non-Jihadist world has yet to declare all-out war against the Jihadist movement. We are not yet sufficiently convinced there is a global alliance arrayed against us rather than a few groups of “crazy criminals”. WE ARE NOT TAKING IT PERSONAL YET. We must make this transition of thought and declare our mobilization. There is a minority who have made the transition and have begun to take action. Among them are some Australian, American, African, and Indian leaders and a few scattered Europeans. The Non-Jihadist Muslims need no convincing because they have lived for centuries amongst the openly Jihadist elements of their societies, but they are currently too weak and disorganized to be effective. If the fledgling non-Jihadist representative governments of Afghanistan and Iraq and the “Cedars” rebellion in Lebanon are not prematurely abandoned by the rest of us, the anti-Jihadist movement in the Middle East can gradually grow and prevail. Therefore we must abandon defeatism, educate ourselves to the truth, and mobilize for long-term war on many fronts. American Homeland Security and our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan are a start, but they must be shielded from nullification by “political correctness” and legal manipulation by apologists and defeatists. The world must unite to defeat the Jihadists both militarily and ideologically. The Muslim Jihadist-supportive obfuscators and apologists in America and other nations must be recognized for the disguised “early Jihadist troops” that they are and nullified. In America we must revise our attitudes, abandon the weakening aspects of our internal “culture war” and while still protecting our right to diverse views, unite on fighting the Jihadist ideology that seeks to eliminate all our freedoms and rights by both non-violent and violent means including nuclear or biological attacks. The Jihadist movement has long-term plans in place. Losing some of their leaders means nothing to them because other Jihadists are available. Constant recruitment amongst the exploding Muslim population provides replacements for lost “martyrs”. They may pause at strategic moments and divert our attention, but they are totally committed. They do not wait on our convenience and if we wait on theirs, our delay will cause all the more catastrophic loss of life and liberty and will unnecessarily extend the duration of an already long conflict.

Denial of history or the facts unfolding before our eyes is like gazing at a crescent moon in the sky and denying the earth is round. Such denial may be common practice in human society but it is the road to disaster. Fiddling while Rome burns is not aptly applied to today’s’ conflagration; it is more like waltzing with our enemies’ enablers while the Jihadists scale our civil walls on ladders fabricated from the cowardice, guilt and self-loathing of our internal apologists and appeasers.

“Why We Fight: Moral Clarity and the War on Terror” by William J. Bennett(2002, Regnery.
“Future Jihad” by Walid Phares (2005) Palgrave Macmillan.
“Beyond Terror” by Ralph Peters (2002) Stackpole Books.
“Anti-American Terrorism and the Middle East” by Barry and Judith Rubin (2002) Oxford Press.
“Islamic Imperialism” by Efraim Karsh (2006) University Press.
“Funding Evil” by Rachel Ehrenfeld (2003,2005) Bonus Books.

NOTE: The Islamic Holy Book “Quran” is much debated by scholars and is undeniably valuable to non-Muslims as insight to the basis for Islamic thought and belief. Nevertheless it is not suggested here for initial reading because of its length and density of presentation.

Back to Articles List



…. January 2007

When I was asked to write an essay on America’s heritage, it seemed gratuitous in the extreme to belabor the fact that our Nation is founded on the Greco-Roman and Judeo-Christian philosophies of morality and order that synthesized here during the 19th Century and produced the American Enlightenment, Revolution and Constitution. However, after researching this subject and surveying it within the context of the post-9/11 world, it occurred to me how wrong it is to dismiss the importance of such endeavors. In part, the galling failure to define the enemy in the so-called “War on Terror” can be traced to a similar inability on our part to define who and what we are. Clearly, we cannot attack or defend what we cannot or will not identify, and this uncertain position is not one from which we can expect to successfully prosecute decisive military and ideological campaigns against the nihilistic aggression of Marxist and Islamist totalitarianism.


The subject of America’s Judeo-Christian heritage has become a source of intense conflict in recent years, as secular absolutists, multiculturalists and revisionist “historians” have waged a negationist war against the acknowledgement and presence of this heritage and its traditions in the United States. This reached the point of absurdity during the uproar surrounding the celebration of Christmas in 2005, when an unprecedented level of intolerance towards the public celebration of the birth of Jesus led to the widespread suppression of explicit references to this holiday, including displays of the benign image of Santa Claus. It was the year the politically-correct Grinch tried to steal Christmas, but that was only the tip of the iceberg. Beyond the media spotlight focused on this upheaval in popular American culture raged the core ideological conflict concerning the nature and history of this Nation.

In researching this subject, one encounters many arguments, of varying quality, denying the influence of Judeo-Christian concepts of morality and order on the formation of the guiding and founding principles of American governance and culture, however, history does not support these contentions. For example, the secular government established by our Forefathers is an extension, not a rejection, of the Judeo-Christian tradition. It is impossible to understate the impact of Jesus’ dictum to “render unto Caesar” upon Western Civilization. The political space between Church and State sanctioned by the central figure of Western Christendom unquestionably contributed to the establishment of secular law in America. In contrast, many countries and cultures outside the Judeo-Christian religious tradition reject the separation of religion from governance. For example, in Islam, there is no separation of Church and State. The Shari’a, Islamic holy law derived from religious scripture and jurisprudence, governs the affairs of state, religion, society and the individual. The concept of secular governance is completely alien to this and other theocratic systems of law.

As for the intentions and beliefs of our Founding Forefathers, it is clear that they sought to establish a secular government separating Church and State, however, they also made it clear that the guiding principles of the Nation were based on the values expressed in the Old and New Testaments. Our Forefathers explicitly noted that the distinguishing characteristic of the American Enlightenment was the confluence, not the parting, of Faith and Reason. As John Adams pointed out, “The highest story of the American Revolution is this: it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity.” Similar sentiments were expressed by George Washington, Patrick Henry and James Madison, amongst others. As President Harry S. Truman more recently and directly observed, regardless of whether we are talking about US criminal or constitutional law, “The fundamental basis of this nation’s law was given to Moses on the Mount. The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teaching we get from Exodus and St. Matthew, from Isaiah and St. Paul.” This is not an expression of chauvinism as multiculturalists and revisionist “historians” would have people believe, but a simple recognition of the fact why the American system of law is unique from those based on different cultural and religious traditions.


Of course, no discussion concerning American heritage, culture and law would be complete without acknowledging the fundamental contributions of Classical Greco-Roman Civilization. These contributions to science, philosophy, art, politics and the humanites would later be revived during the Renaissance, and refined during the Age of Reason and the Enlightenment. The liberal, democratic republic established by our Forefathers is based on the political and legal systems developed by Ancient Athens and Rome during the 6th Century B.C. From the Classical World America inherited the values of Reason, individual freedom, religious tolerance and the rule of law. The Greco-Roman marginalization of superstition and dogma would also evolve into the rejection of religious totalitarianism expressed in the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom and the U.S. Constitution. On a cultural level, Classical contributions to the arts, humanities and science remain as important and relevant to the Western World today as they were two thousand years ago. To this day we continue to emulate the timeless beauty of Greco-Roman sculpture and architecture, debate the arguments of Plato, Aristotle and Cicero and enjoy evenings of Sophocles, Aristophanes or Seneca at the theatre. In our schools, we still study the literature of Homer and Virgil, the mathematical theorems of Pythagorus and Euclid, the histories of Herodotus, Thucydides and Tacitus and the brilliance of Classical engineering and warfare. Of all the world’s formative civilizations, none have had a more profound and constructive impact on American cultural and political life than that of Ancient Greece and Rome.


Following the attacks of September 11, 2001, Americans began asking themselves the question “why do they hate us?” As it turns out, the key to unlocking this mystery is understanding the centrality of our cultural heritage in the so-called “War on Terror”. True to form, anti-American nihilists and Marxists have tried to frame this conflict in terms of class struggle, but as the Egyptian-born scholar of jihad and dhimmitude Bat Ye’or points out, “Bin Laden’s declarations emerge from an exclusively religious context and fit in with narratives of wars against the infidels to impose Islamic supremacy. It is not Israel and the West that is humiliating the Arab-Muslim world; what is humiliating is the very existence of these nations, their freedom and sovereignty that contradict the Islamist view of the natural order in which Islam must dominate and not be dominated. It is the frustration of this will to power that feeds the humiliation and violence, and not poverty or economic disparities which exist all over the world without provoking this type of hatred and terrorism.” Dr. Walid Phares, a terrorism expert at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies adds “It should also be understood that, given its ideology and history, jihadism, far from being a mere emotional reaction to American or other foreign policies, “is” by itself a movement with goals, strategies and changing tactics.” In other words, “they” – Osama bin Laden and his ilk – hate us because we continue to frustrate the jihadist imperative to destroy Western Civilization and the freedom and equality that are the crowning achievements of our cultural heritage. It is our continued defiance of their supremacistic attitudes and ambitions that fuels their murderous rage, not the ever-shifting mountain of grievances and demands that conceals their intolerance and aggression. Consequently, it is about time Americans rediscovered their moral acuity and stopped rationalizing and ennobling the xenophobia of Salafist and Khomeinist jihadists. What we are dealing with here is pure genocidal bigotry, and Americans of all political stripes must learn to recognize and fight this hatred. In the immortal words of Founding Father Samuel Adams, “The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil Constitution, are worth defending at all hazards; and it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors: they purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood, and transmitted them to us with care and diligence. It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy on the present generation, enlightened as it is, if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or to be cheated out of them by the artifices of false and designing men.”

Back to Articles List



RISE OF THE BLOOD DEVIL …. by Robert Williams …. December 2006

There is on the loose a ravenous Devil rising in power by drinking the blood of ever more humans. This Devil has completely possessed desperately power-hungry failed populations that have lost themselves in senseless carnage because they have mistakenly been led to believe it is their only way out of the abject misery that their bankrupt cultures have brought on themselves. But the more of their blood the Devil drinks the deeper their misery sinks and the more fervently they provide the blood. The Devil does not care whose blood it is; women, children, soldiers, militants, Westerners, Easterners, we are all prey for its feast.

And the Devil’s table is spreading — Afghanistan, Iraq, Darfur, Gaza, Palestine, Lebanon, Somalia — the list is rapidly growing.

And the world wrings its hands but does little. Great nations squirm in fear and indecision while the Blood Devil successfully defies armies of high-tech weapons, billion-dollar aircraft and naval vessels, battalions of tanks, and the best professional soldiers ever trained. What has this Devil got? Oil money and a surging mob of malcontents armed mostly with machine guns, old shells and rocket grenades. But the Devil has one weapon more powerful than nuclear bombs, the Western Self-defeatist Syndrome.

America, currently the greatest power on earth, technically the only true superpower, has turned its back on sturdiness and turned instead to sniveling. Sniveling about the details of an incredibly flawed and appeasement-saturated special commission report generated by wheezy old men who seem to have lost not only their minds but their souls as well. Sniveling in endless hearings about who is to blame for past events that cannot be redone. Sniveling about what sort of luxurious treatment of vicious psychopathic murderers should be outlawed as “cruel and unusual punishment”. Sniveling about supposed “American Constitutional rights” for non-citizens bent on our destruction!

When are we going to stop sniveling and stand up to the plate? Where can we find leaders who can unify the country and take the obviously necessary tough and speedy action? Will any president’s plan get sufficient support and be wise enough to get results? Will the Democrats wake up or will they pull America down to unthinkable defeat? When are we going to use the vast power that we have spent billions on? Blood Devils are subdued only by raw power. Only after the Blood Devil is destroyed can diplomacy repair populations torn by it. When a Blood Devil is loose an appeasement approach only leads to more blood. That is the lesson of two world wars and many lesser wars. But will we listen to history or will we snivel away our lives, our liberty, our greatness, and our hard-won civilization?

Back to Articles List



CONFRONTING ANTI-AMERICAN NIHILISM …. by Michael Dennin …. September 2006

“As to those in the World Trade Center…If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting…the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I’d really be interested in hearing about it.” — Professor Ward Churchill, University of Colorado, September 12, 2001.

“The only true heroes are those who find ways that help defeat the U.S. military. I personally would like to see a million Mogadishus.” — Professor Nicholas DeGenova, Columbia University, March 27, 2003.

“The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not ‘insurgents’ or ‘terrorists’ or ‘The Enemy.’ They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen…and they will win. — Michael Moore, filmmaker, April 14, 2004.

“The United States has lost the war in Iraq, and that is a good thing.” — Professor Robert Jensen, University of Texas, June 6, 2004.

What kind of morally depraved individual applauds the mass murder of thousands of his fellow Americans while dehumanizing the unfortunate victims as “little Eichmanns”? What kind of mealy-mouthed ingrate spits in the faces of the noble men and women who courageously put themselves in harm’s way to defend our own Life and our Liberty? What kind of vacuous idiot compares Saddam Hussein’s blood-thirsty minions to the men who defended the Cause of Freedom at Lexington and Concord? What kind of ignorant fool truly believes that it would be a good thing for al-Qaeda, the Baathists and Iran’s proxies to win the war in Iraq?

The despicable malcontents who made these statements are the vanguard of the nihilistic, pseudo-intellectual cults of hate that irrationally refuse to see, much less acknowledge, the redeeming qualities and accomplishments of our Nation and its People. These nihilists hold that our existing social, economic and political institutions are evil and must be destroyed in order to clear the way for a new state of society, and that employing terrorism and mass murder is justifiable in the pursuit of their utopian fantasies. Despite the fact that countless millions of people have perished in pursuit of their impossible worlds for an impossible humanity, these egotistic hate-cults irrationally insist, evidence to the contrary, that their social engineering actually works in practice, and that the inferior-minded American public should adopt their failed schemes and, of course, their failed leadership. At the black heart of their rage is the frustration accompanying the abject failures of their ideologies and the sting of the American people’s rejection of the designs made against their individual freedom, free enterprise and property ownership. For their failure and our rejection, we are rewarded with their hatred and vitriolic agitprop.

Despite claims to the contrary, the American people are not stupid. We are a practical people whose common sense has served us extremely well throughout our short History. We intuitively understand what Nobel-laureate William Faulkner articulated in his great literary works concerning the demise of the Antebellum South: Man cannot defy Nature with impunity. As Faulkner pointed out, the Confederacy was reduced to ash and ruin on account of the arrogance of men who believed that they could defy Nature, i.e., enslave their fellow Man. The collapse of the Soviet Union and the Communist system that Noam Chomsky and his Anarcho-Marxist acolytes idealize, is simply more of the same – another monumental human disaster attributable to the aspirations of power-hungry men who ignorantly and arrogantly defied Nature and enslaved their fellow Man to construct a doomed social edifice built on a lie. The projects of Khomeinist and Salafist jihadists are no different. In the attempt to establish their mythological Islamist utopias, they have brought the world nothing but death, destruction, poverty and oppression. Fortunately, most Americans possess the simple moral and intellectual wherewithal to recognize these facts, which is why our Country has steadfastly refused to appease nihilistic revolutionaries both at home and abroad. Our trademark vitality, confidence and optimism has also, in no small part, immunized us from this self-destructive behavior.

Clearly, now that Michael Moore’s “Revolution” has failed to deliver on its false promises of peace and prosperity, there is nothing left for its ideologues to embrace but their own nihilistic rage. Exposed as charlatans incapable of devising a viable alternative to our successful social, economic and political models, they have been reduced to furiously villifying America and its citizens in the worst terms imaginable – Ward Churchill’s characterization of the victims of the World Trade Center attacks on 9/11 is but the worst of many examples of this intellectually dishonest behavior. As the old saying goes, the first casualty in war is the Truth, and certainly things are no different in this particular propaganda war. Without fail, these disingenuous attacks are selectively and exclusively negative in the extreme, after all, it would be self-negating political suicide to present a complete and accurate picture of the United States that would fail to mobilize the mass hatred that leads to social violence and destruction. One need look no further than the attitude and rhetoric of imprisoned radical Lynne Stewart to illustrate the propagation and goals of this nihilistic agitprop: “To rid ourselves of the entrenched, voracious type of capitalism that is in this country that perpetuates sexism and racism, I don’t think that can come nonviolently…I’m talking about a popular revolution. I’m talking about institutions being changed that will not be changed without violence.”

It would be nice if we could simply dismiss this nonsense as the raving of a few diseased and delusional minds, but in this case, that is a luxury we can ill afford. First of all, Messrs. Churchill, DeGenova and Chomsky are tenured professors who are in a position to inculcate their poisonous political beliefs into the minds of young, impressionable college students who will one day rise to positions of power and influence in this country. By indoctrinating instead of educating students, our universities are not only setting future generations of Americans up for failure, they are setting America up for a distant leadership crisis. Secondly, patriotic Democrats should be mortified that cranks like George Soros and Michael Moore are assuming control of their party – this will surely drive moderate swing-voters into the Republican camp in droves, thus potentially weakening our two-party political system. Finally, there is the fine matter concerning intellectual honesty and Patriotism. Nicholas DeGenova, the professor who wished a million Mogadishus on our men and women in uniform, is hardly in a position to lecture anyone on Patriotism, yet he shamelessly couches his anti-American rhetoric in those very terms. “Peace is not patriotic…Peace anticipates a very different world than the one in which we live – a world where the US would have no place.” As we have seen with Professor DeGenova, Patriotism has come to mean anything but Love of Country – it has come to mean the cynical political expedient du jour.

The Truth concerning America lies somewhere between the falsehoods that America can do no right and America can do no wrong. An honest and healthy understanding of our country requires an acknowledgement of both our failures and our accomplishments, and recognition of the fact that America is a work in progress that has come a long way in the last 230 years and will continue to improve over the next 230 years. This is cause for optimism, not self-destruction. It is in this spirit that former President Bill Clinton declared “There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America.” Whether they are wearing Red or Green, it is high time that the anti-American nihilists in this country realized that fact. We don’t need or deserve their hate.

Back to Articles List



THE FACE OF ISLAM …. by Robert Williams …. August, 2006

It is a meaningless gesture to demand respect for a religion. Respect that is coerced is false because real respect can only be earned. That is simply a law of nature. The face of a creed or religion is what its practitioners put on it for the world to see. The practitioners are solely responsible. No one else. Muslims are practitioners of Islam and the face of Islam that Muslims have shown me is vicious, arrogant, and despotic in the extreme. It openly advocates the violent destruction of all that I hold as decent, fair, hopeful, compassionate, honorable, and worthwhile. Muslims have declared repeatedly that my family and I deserve nothing but violent death simply because we do not share their views about Islam. But I am not a pacifist to kneel meekly for beheading. When I am attacked, I counterattack.

In the face of such an unjust Muslim onslaught there is no room for concern about those who would take offense at my words. I have read the Quran and I have read what Muslims say around the world and I have studied what they do. I look at the face of Islam and this is what I see.

I see that it is not the West that mistreated or declared war on Muslims, it is Muslims that have without provocation declared world war on all beliefs other than their own tyrannical creed. It is Muslims that show extreme prejudice. It is they who have taken the dastardly art of suicide bombing to unprecedented depths, even using it against their own Islamic Mosques and other Muslim men, women and children.

I see that it is useless to talk about such things as “moral high ground” because Muslims have a totally alien concept of what is “moral”. The Islamic concept of morality is so different that there is no common ground between us with which to debate or negotiate. The fight is not primarily nationalistic or territorial because to a Muslim, nationalism has meaning only insofar as it can provide a piece of ground to promote the tyranny of Islam and spread its bloody death-cult to other peoples and other pieces of ground.

To understand this difference one need only read the Islamic Holy Book or listen to those who have gained insight into the real nature of Muslim beliefs and have interviewed suicide bombers and their families. Muslims believe in the absolute authority of their God Allah over all things in daily life. Thus an orthodox Muslim cannot abide secular democracy. Muslims consider all non-believing “Infidels” to be impure contaminants of the earth who will burn in Hell forever. Many times the Quran declares this burning in Hell of non-believers. Muslims frequently take it as their “moral” duty to rid the world of impure Infidels by any means possible including the most bizarre forms of violence.

There is a common Muslim belief that Islam will eventually take over the world and many Muslims long for that day because it will give them vast power. It appears that a large number of so-called “moderate” Muslims would just as soon not be embroiled in violence themselves and are willing to somewhat “accommodate” non-Muslims while waiting for their God Allah and Islam to achieve total dominance. But a great many others do not wish to wait so they resort to violence. It is easy to see why “moderate” Muslims are so reluctant to condemn those who won’t wait. After all, violence when it is effective can be a quicker way to gain the commonly desired supremacy. This explains the gleeful Muslim dancing in the streets when they heard about all the Americans killed on 9/11.

Many non-Muslims are reluctant to believe that generosity, fairness and diplomacy on the part of Infidels are seen by Muslims as only weaknesses to be exploited. Many non-Muslims keep stubbornly looking for Western mistakes, repressions, arrogance, and the like to explain the Muslim hate. In reality it is a hate born not of real grievances but of total disdain taught by Islam. This mass neurosis is maintained by the brainwashing of children, enforced ignorance, organized poverty, and the despotic rule of Islamic clerics whose only interest is holding on to their power. The only answer to this power hungry monstrosity is to wrestle it to the ground by determined and sustained resistance and unified defiance.

Back to Articles List



WORLD IN TRANSITION …. by Robert Williams …. October, 2006

To make any sense out of hardening Islamic intransigence and the propensity of Europeans to blame this hardening on America, one is forced to accept the reality of a self-generated crisis in Islam and a Europe in denial of their colonial mistakes, their Hitlers and Stalins, and their failed socialist policies. It is the nature of all failed societies to find an external scapegoat rather than make the necessary painful internal reforms.

America has had its ups and downs but has survived a devasitating civil war and two massive world wars to emerge ever more robust, inventive, and free-thinking. Our economic upheavals have self-corrected and left us strong enough to prosper in spite of heavy competition from an increasingly industrial Asia. This is clear historical evidence that in spite of errors and flaws our general social policies have been progressive. It is not surprising that our southern neighbors continue risking their lives daily to enter our land of opportunity.

We are the perfect scapegoat for disgruntled cultures that have failed to provide their people with similar success. Europeans delude themselves that orthodox Islam is somehow intrinsically worth protecting, so they cry out that “America must be prevented from destroying Islam”. Such delusion is actually counterproductive to the very cultures the Europeans think they are championing. It is not America that is attempting to destroy Islam, it is orthodox Islam that is destroying Muslims. For centuries the uncompromising rigidity of orthodox Islam has been the key to lack of social and economic progress in Muslim lands, including those enriched by oil.

The unfortunate truth is that “reformed” Islam capable of accommodating progress is currently the exception rather than the norm in the Muslim world. Rage accompanies the hoplessness of human failure. It is this blind rage that now expresses itself in Muslims killing Muslims and Muslims trying to kill Americans and Europeans. If one cannot compete then reduce those who can succeed to your own ruin. That is the human nature we must recognize and deal with. The extreme of this disease is the suicide bomber who destroys even himself in his zeal to destroy others. The cure for this disease is not supporting orthordox Islam but instead supporting Islamic reform while at the same time using force where necessary to prevent genocide and contain other bloody aspects of the disease.

Turmoil is the harbinger of transition. During this transition while the world is still split between the successful West and increasingly successful Orient and the failed civilizations of western Europe and eastern Islam, we must not lose sight of our American destiny as an example of the tested virtues of multi-ethnic democracy. At present we alone have the power to assist this currently bloody transition. It will be tricky and dangerous. The challenge will be to promote meritocracy and representative governing while at the same time not expecting other cultures to exactly ape our own form of democracy.

Back to Articles List



PRESIDENTIAL LEADERSHIP …. by Robert Denham ….March, 2007

Published in the Weirton (WV) Daily-Times 3/07—-

By early 1864, the third year of the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln had problems. He was often presented in the Press as a vastly unpopular President who was badly mismanaging the war. Lincoln suffered from the low opinions of many of his generals, and even his own Cabinet. His intelligence was often derided; in fact, Gen. George McClellan once privately referred to him as “the original ape”. Lincoln constantly drew fire from political opponents, like the pro-slavery Peace Democrats, who opposed him at every turn; they said that the increasingly expensive war was simply not winnable and that the Union was lost. They often made backchannel overtures to the Confederacy to stop the bloodshed, and tried to subvert the “tyrant” Lincoln’s “imperialist” and “dictatorial” polices. Hmmm, weird….does any of this sound familiar to anyone? Anything at all?

But, despite all these problems, Lincoln persevered. He hung on, staying true to his own vision. This “unpopular” President was re-elected that same year, and on April 9th, 1865, at Appamattox Court House, VA, Gen. Robert E. Lee surrendered his Confederate Army to Gen. Ulysses S. Grant. The Union, and a vindicated Lincoln, had won the supposedly unwinnable Civil War. Lincoln is looked upon now, 142 years after his death, as probably the greatest leader this nation has ever known. Why? Because he wasn’tafraid to lead the country. He took command, accepting the responsibility; he had a war to fight, and no one was going to tell him how to conduct it. He held the nation together, and did so his way. Despite predictions of overwhelming failure, despite calls for his resignation and even impeachment, he did as he saw fit.

Through many obstacles, both personal and political, he stuck to his vision of a re-unified United States of America; that the nation would be whole again, and free. He succeeded. Lincoln held his vision all through the Valley of the Shadow and its many inherent trials, and came, victorious, out the other side. Lincoln was a true leader. Now, George W. Bush is no Abraham Lincoln, and that’s for sure. But then, in 1864, neither was Abraham Lincoln. Today, though, who is he? He’s Abraham Lincoln, with all the integrity, ability and noble wisdom that name implies. He is acknowledged as the man whose tenacity saved our union, and a great leader of the American people. Perhaps THE greatest.

Americans spent eight years getting used to a President who led by following. He consulted opinion polls, the political pundits, newspaper editorials, whatever it took to find out the consensus, to see how the people felt about a given issue. To discern whatever song and dance he had to do at that particular moment to make the people, and Congress, happy, and to keep them voting and polling in his favor. To keep his numbers up. From this, we got the misguided idea that leadership meant always doing everything we say, so we stay happy. That’s not leadership. Sometimes, true leadership requires dragging the country in directions it may not want to go, but has to, for its own good. Sometimes, true leadership means making us unhappy, and risking that in the end we’ll understand, when all the drama has played itself out, and history has had a few years to pass a little of its own judgement.

It’s been seven years since the last President’s administration ended; so far, history has shown that all that singing and dancing produced little of lasting worth, or note. Indeed, there are whispers—unproven, granted—that some of the songs he sung and dances he danced may have led to the mournful dirges we sing now. George W. Bush, like him or not, does not lead by following, and seems to care little about the polls. He has his vision, and sticks to it, not letting the fickle, treacherous currents of public opinion sway him. This makes some people—those perhaps nostalgic for a President who always checked with them before making any move or decision at all—angry. But that’s a sign of leadership; staying on course despite the obstacles encountered, and doing what you think is right, despite the naysayers and critics around you.

It was good enough for Lincoln, for Franklin Roosevelt—who struggled mightily against widespread and vocal anti-war and Isolationist sentiment in the last few pre-war years—and for Reagan; three of America’s most beloved, and successful, Presidents. It seems good enough for Bush, as well. As a conservative, I have my qualms with George W. Bush. Nonetheless, I, for one, am glad to have a Lincoln-style leader in the Oval Office; especially now. For eight years, songs were sung and dances were danced…..and now, America, we’re paying the piper.

Back to Articles List

Back to Top




CLICK ON item in brackets to read…..

[ A PRESENTATAION ] — 2 pages — A poem and pictures dedicated to our armed forces.
[ COUNTERING DEFEATISM ] — several pages of responses to defeatist propaganda.
[ RESPONSIBILITIES OF FREEDOM ] — 1 page — our Constitution and Bill of Rights require responsibility.
[ THUMBNAIL HISTORY OF ISLAM ] — 3 pages — understanding Islamic history.
[ DHIMMITUDE AND ISLAMISM ] 6 pages —definition and history.
[ WORLD WAR III ] — 2 pages — WW-III began in November 1979
[ NATURE OF THE ENEMY ] — 4 pages —
[ UNBALANCED REPORTING ]— 1 page —What’s behind irresponsible reporting in the media.
[ EUROPEAN ANTI-AMERICANISM ]– 2 pages What’s behind European antagonism to the U.S.
[ THE GREATEST FREEDOM ] — 5 pages — What we should tell all Muslims.

Back to Top




I watched the flag pass by one day, It fluttered in the breeze. A young Marine saluted it, and then he stood at ease..

I looked at him in uniform, So young, so tall, so proud, with hair cut square and eyes alert. He’d stand out in any crowd.

I thought how many men like him Had fallen through the years. How many died on foreign soil How many mothers’ tears?

How many pilots’ planes shot down? How many died at sea. How many foxholes were soldiers’ graves? No, freedom isn’t free.

I heard the sound of Taps one night, When everything was still, I listened to the bugler play, and felt a sudden chill.

I wondered just how many times That Taps had meant “Amen,” When a flag had draped a coffin. Of a brother or a friend.

I thought of all the children, Of the mothers and the wives, Of fathers, sons and husbands With interrupted lives.

I thought about a graveyard at the bottom of the sea. Of unmarked graves in Arlington. No, freedom isn’t free.


Back to Information





NOTE: This article was also written for the web site “Sixth Column Against Jihad”

The great English philosopher Bertrand Russell once wrote , “Men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth — more than ruin — more even than death….Thought is subversive and revolutionary, destructive and terrible, thought is merciless to privilege, established institutions, and comfortable habit. Thought looks into the pit of hell and is not afraid. Thought is great and swift and free, the light of the world, and the chief glory of man.”

If ever there was a time for the voices of Objectivism to step forward, that time is now. At its core, the violence surrounding the Muhammad cartoon controversy represents more than an attack on freedom of expression and the press, it constitutes an all-out assault on the fundamental Enlightenment values of Individual Freedom and Reason. The nauseating spectacle of dhimmi Western leaders and pseudo-intellectuals prostrating the Free World to the totalitarian edifice of Islamism is no less shameful than Neville Chamberlain’s capitulation to the Nazis at Munich in 1938. As Winston Churchill observed of Chamberlain’s folly, “You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You have chosen dishonor, and you will have war.” Such is the case with the cartoon controversy. Surrendering freedom of thought, conscience and expression to appease Muslim mobs and the Organization of the Islamic Conference will not bring us “peace in our time”, it will only encourage more aggression. For that we will be rewarded with more violence and more demands at the expense of our ever-eroding freedom and security.

Throughout history, the eternal enemies of Individual Freedom and Reason have been people with pretensions to Absolute Truth. It is they who have destroyed entire civilizations and enslaved countless millions of human beings in the names of their gods, prophets and ideologies. It is to them we owe the infamous machinations of the Inquisition, the Dhimma and the Gulag. Today, the Islamist assault on freedom of thought and expression in the West reveals that we are once again fighting the 17th and 18th Century battles of the Enlightenment against the tyrannies of religious totalitarianism. Once again, we find ourselves struggling to thwart the violent attempts of the Faithful to impose their beliefs on the Non-Believer, and preserve the individual’s right to determine what is Truth for themselves. It is an act of naked intellectual aggression to state that a person is obligated to revere and respect the figures and articles of another person’s faith. One is no more required to honor the person and teachings of Muhammed than they are that of David Koresh or Marshall Applewhite. Deference to religious dogma is a matter of individual choice, not a right owed to the Faithful. The rights of Believers begin and end at their individual selves, just like everyone else – religion entitles no one to any special treatment or status. Anyone who claims otherwise is either a supremacistic bigot or an ignorant fool.

In addition to the groundless philosophical arguments that freedom of thought and expression should conform to the dogmas of religious groups, the reprehensible contention that the exercise of these rights should be curtailed on account of the potential for lawlessness only illustrates the rampant moral vacuity and irresponsibility of those who advocate rewarding violence with appeasement. What these people are actually proposing is the surrender of Civilization to Barbarity, in the vain hope that discarding the Rule of Law for the caprices of the Mob will bring the world peace and order. Furthermore, the individuals who parrot the claim that individual freedom should be stifled to maintain public order only echo the propaganda of totalitarian dictatorships whose illegitimate existences are directly threatened by freedom of thought and expression. In free and civilized societies, the maintenance of order is predicated on the defense of the individual against the forcible deprivation of their rights by other individuals and groups. When the State entertains and accommodates threats of violence, it abdicates its fundamental responsibility of enforcing the Rule of Law and becomes an instrument of Anarchy, thus ceasing to exist as a legitimate government that can be entrusted with maintaining public order.

Clearly, the philosophical and practical reasons for defending Individual Freedom and Reason have been lost on all too many people in the Free World, most notably the so-called political and intellectual “elite”. Having enjoyed the free exercise of our human rights for so long, we have become intellectually and morally atrophied to the point where we struggle to properly defend the principles that ensure not only freedom of thought and expression, but freedom of religion, as well. In 1786, Thomas Jefferson, acknowledgeing “the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavouring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world”, declared the revolutionary idea that “…our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry…”. It was this revolutionary, some say blasphemous, idea, encoded in the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, that shattered the chains that bound the hands and minds of Man to a violent, intolerant and ignorant past. Far from being a gratuitous assault on the eternally aggrieved sensibilities of Islamists, the production and publication of the Muhammad cartoons constitute a reaffirmation of the ideals that form the foundation of the Free World itself. The day we willingly surrender these ideals is the day we abandon all honor and embrace cowardice and slavery with open arms.

Patrick Henry said, “It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace– but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”

The following letter was written by Michael Dennin to the Editor of the Richmond Times-Dispatch in response to an article by syndicated columnist Leonard Pitts, an anti-war Leftist, following the July 7, 2005 terrorist bombings in London. This Letter earned Mr. Dennin the Correspondent of the Day award for August 25, 2005.

“Pitts Echoes 1864 Copperheads” By Michael Dennin. August 25, 2005

I am writing in regards to Leonard Pitts’ July 9 column “Feeling Safer Now? No, Didn’t Think So”. At a time when the British are still burying their dead and authorities on both sides of the Atlantic are trying to develop strategies to better protect the public from terrorists, it is disappointing to discover that all Mr. Pitts has to offer is the belittlement of the accomplishments and sacrifices of our troops in Iraq. Somehow, the lesson to be learned from the London bombings is not the deadly consequences of suicidally lax homeland security, but the preposterous notion that eliminating state sponsorship of terrorist organizations has nothing to do with defeating terrorism. Not content with his fanciful take on Operation Iraqi Freedom, Mr. Pitts abuses the privelege of his ignorance to launch an attack on the determination and will of the majority of Americans who understand that the war in Iraq and the War on Terror are one and the same.

This rhetoric is anything but new. During the American Civil War, anti-war Democrats, known as Copperheads, declared the Union war effort a “bloody and costly failure”. Exploiting the war weariness and wavering will of the American people, the Copperheads dictated the Democratic presidential platform of 1864 calling for a negotiated settlement with the Confederacy that would re-establish the Union based on the old pre-war order. During the grim year preceding the election, President Abraham Lincoln prophetically remarked that “The enemy behind us is more dangerous to the country than the enemy before us.” To their everlasting credit, the American people realized this as well. Dismissing the defeatist rhetoric of the Peace Democrats, they re-elected the Republican incumbent who later delivered on his pledge to see the war through to its successful conclusion. There is a lesson to be learned here, but don’t expect modern day Copperheads like Leonard Pitts and Ted Kennedy to figure it out. Plus ca change, plus c’est la meme-chose.

LIKE IT IS ….. commentaries by Robert Williams
Its always news when someone reveals the truth for a change. The following is an analysis of certain Leftist propaganda and is based on similar comments made by the author’s acquaintance, former United States Marine Ed Seagraves.

To say, “I don’t believe in war” is a confusing use of the word “believe” because it could mean you don’t believe in making war, or it could mean you don’t believe war exists (which it obviously does). A more articulate wording might be, “I believe humans should not make war”. This is still somewhat unclear unless circumstances are also specified under which war may or may not be justified (and that’s a whole other topic). See also the topic on Pacifists below.

Few would disagree with the statement, “I don’t like war”. Who does? Most soldiers don’t like it either. But if you mean you don’t like a particular war then that needs to be clarified, or the listener will be mislead. Most probably, there are a few people in the world who genuinely like war if it suits their purpose and they have the means to remain aloof from the sufferings of war. Examples are Osama bin Laden and other murder-fomenting extremist Islamic clerics who hide in the hills and the mosques.

If you say, “I believe this war is wrong” it is better to be specific. Why wrong? What facts support your argument, or is it just an emotional outburst without credible backup? If you mean that the current Iraq war is wrong because America attacked a “sovereign country” then think carefully about what you are saying. Technically, even brutal dictatorships can call themselves “sovereign” including the former Iraq under Saddam, Hitler’s Germany, Tojo’s Japan, and Stalin’s Russia. But is a nation whose people have no true representation in government truly “sovereign”? Think about it. The technicality that certain autocratic groups consider themselves “sovereign” does not make them any less evil, or any less dangerous, or their populations any less deserving of liberation from slavery.

As far as Iraq is concerned, the slogan, “No blood for oil” can be very misleading. What it essentially means is that the speaker believes that Saddam should have been allowed to take over all the oil-producing middle-eastern countries so that he could have a strangle hold on two-thirds of the world’s needed oil. Then he could have had the tools to not only cripple opposition but he also would have had the wealth to produce and use weapons of mass destruction in quantity. The 9/11 Report leaves no doubt about the al Qaeda eagerness to obtain and use WMD against America and about the overtures between the former Iraq regime and al Qaeda. The U.S. simply could not continue indefinitely to risk the truly enormous suffering such a situation could have caused. The fact that a few European countries refuse to recognize this does not make it untrue.

Some maintain that Iraq could have been left alone even after 9/11 because it was sufficiently “contained” by U.N. sanctions and WMD inspection teams and “no-fly” zones. Saddam had a known history of hating America, shooting at our planes, attempting to assassinate our president, attacking other nations, using WMD, and lying about everything — so when he threw out the inspectors and made us blind to his activities, he put us at great risk. The so-called “containment” did not prevent him from trading with Syria and Europe, diverting oil-for-medicines money to his military and his palaces, sending emissaries to uranium “Yellow Cake” areas, and financing Palestinian suicide-bomber families.

How can anyone claim to care about (support) a soldier’s person but condemn the same soldier for using weapons in self-defense. That is essentially what war is — firing in self-defense because the opposition won’t let you gain objectives without trying to kill you. It makes more sense to say you disagree with the initial reason to go to war. However, once a war has started, support for the troops has to include support for the war as well, because if you are against what the troops are doing then you are essentially against the troops themselves.

If a person living in the United States declares that America is an evil, imperialistic nation bent on dominating the world and forcibly imposing its capitalism on unwilling neighbors, then that person is dangerously ignorant of the true nature of America and Americans. He should get educated fast or be kicked out of the country because he is a very likely candidate for becoming a terrorist.

True die-hard pacifists and conscientious objectors are a small minority. Nevertheless, in their refusal to support fighting evil criminals or evil armies they do have a certain impeding impact on those who do fight. In the United States able-bodied pacifists and conscientious objectors enjoy all the benefits of military and police protection of our free society but they are not willing to share the onerous burden and suffering of resisting evil. Such a stance is not only unfair; it could justly be considered parasitic.

Back to Information




Whoever coined the phrase, “Your freedom ends at the tip of my nose”, must have been a thoughtful person. Just from a practical standpoint alone, a crowded society cannot function in the chaos of anarchy where every individual interprets freedom as the right to do anything at any time, regardless of who else it might effect. That means there have to be common sense guidlines to behavior, such as everyone is free to swing their arms around as long as that does not result in hitting someone else’s nose.

As it turns out, formulating common sense behavior guidlines in a society that values personal and political freedom is not an easy job. If you don’t believe that, just try it sometime. The framers of the American Constitution and then the Bill of Rights may not have done a perfect job but they came close enough to garner massive support for their suggestions that is still alive today. Maybe some group will eventually do better, but until then what we got deserves respect. Our Constitution has been a reliable test for our regular laws more often than not.

Because our regular laws are so often tested against the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, it makes sense to obey our regular laws even while trying to get some of them changed. The most precious freedom we have is the right to elect representatives to our legislatures so that they can change unpopular old laws and initiate popular new ones. That is freedom with responsibility.

No intelligent American would claim that everything is perfect in America. But we certainly do have the freedom to strive always for betterment. It makes sense to hold up our flag as a symbol of this striving — a symbol of all that is good about America, and all that is worth respect. In this sense desicrating the flag by burning it as an act of protest is showing complete disdain for our Constitution, our Bill of Rights, and all those who have given life or limb to defend our freedoms since 1776. Freedom to burn the flag is definitely not freedom with responsibility.

Back to Information




(based on the book “Islam, A Short History” )

Before the Industrial Revolution humans had to be sustained either by hunter-gatherer techniques or agrarian economies with sufficient surpluses to provide the leisure necessary for intellectual advancements and a sense of security beyond individual and family strength. Arid regions of North Africa and the Middle East made agricultural surpluses well nigh impossible. Nomadic Arabic clansmen in these areas were always just one step away from death by starvation or by the constant inter-tribal warfare over scarce resources.

The only security was in family or clan ties and what comfort could be gained from ritual appeals to multiple deities. By the 7th century, the Kabah, a place in Mecca housing a sacred black stone and originally dedicated to one of the multiple pagan gods, had become venerated as a shrine of “al-La” (Allah), a God considered higher than the rest. The deep sense of community necessary for nomadic survival, provided impetus to rule out inter-clan violence while pilgrims were in Mecca for worship at the Kabah. Such a truce nourished business relations and Mecca became a flourishing center for commercial competition.

Muhammad ibn Abdullah of the Quraysh tribe was a businessman who had not let greed entirely overcome common sense. He became concerned that the stampede in Mecca towards exploitive commercialism was undermining the old tribal values of the strong protecting the weak. Muhammad’s sister-in-law was Christian. Through her and other Christians and Jews he learned enough of their faiths to envy the sophistication of their monotheism and of their recorded scriptures compared to the Arab paganism that lacked any cohesive religious writings. He agreed with some of the Arabic sages who thought Allah was the same “one God” that the Jews and Christians worshipped and he accepted the Old Testament Prophets and Jesus as also Allah’s prophets.

Muhammad expressed his desire for a meld of Judeo-Christian sophistication with traditional Arabic communal values by reciting to his wife and sister-in-law a series of proposals that they thought of as “revelations” from God. These proposals emphasized the inadequacy of pagan polytheism, advocating total commitment to only one God, Allah. Muhammad suggested that piety, compassion, and community cooperation were more reliable for survival than reliance on material wealth. In a few years Muhammad had added to these recitations and as his words spread beyond his family, a collection of his insights was written down by literate followers and became known as the Quran (Koran). His philosophy became known as Islam. Those who accepted his views were called Muslims and those outside that faith were considered Infidels (non-believers).

Muhammad’s philosophy had appeal to the lower classes of Arabs but irritated the more conservative elite who came close to obliterating him and his followers. But the Muslims won some battles, settled near Medina away from Mecca, and grew in strength and numbers. They naturally attributed this “miraculous” reprieve from extinction to their faith in Allah and the teachings of His Prophet Muhammad. To gain Allah’s approval and all-powerful protection and eventually enter paradise, Muslims were required to adhere strictly to the maxims of the Quran, to give alms to the poor, and to prostrate themselves in prayer to Allah five times a day. Thus to Muslims, Islam became inseparable from daily life and it should not be surprising that Muslims do not readily separate their “way-of-life” religion from affairs of state.

Muhammad claimed it was wrong to amass personal fortunes without sharing the wealth with the less fortunate. He wanted society to have respect for the weak and protect the vulnerable. He believed that Allah expected humans to treat each other with justice and equity. There are similarities here with the teachings ascribed to Jesus and one wonders about the influence of Muhammad’s Christian sister-in-law.

But Muhammad gave Islam a distinctly Arabic flavor by insisting on the primary importance of building an equitable cohesive community. Rather than rejecting older tribal codes he incorporated and embellished them. He endorsed the annual pilgrimages to the Kabah and shared reverence for its shrine’s dedication to Allah. To complete this amalgam the Quran insists that Muhammad did not intend to cancel out the older religions, but rather that his admonitions about social justice and the worship of a single Almighty were the same as those of Abraham, Moses, or Jesus. Thus Muhammad did not advocate proselytizing Christians or Jews since he believed that God had granted them valid revelations of their own.

Muhammad was a true son of the desert so when his growing band became too large for the Medina agricultural lands to support, he condoned and sometimes led raiding parties in order to loot caravans on the Meccan commerce routes. It is not clear how Muhammad reconciled this outright thievery with his philosophy except insofar as he emphasized sharing wealth and it appeared at the time to be the only means for his own community and his Islamic faithful to survive. The Meccans of course retaliated, but after years of seesaw engagements, Muhammad’s group won a decisive enough victory to influence other Arabic tribes into joining his movement. By the time of Muhammad’s death in 632, his followers had captured Mecca and united most of Arabia, quelling all but minor tribal violence.

Unity of this large an area was new to the Arabs so there was a period of civil war to keep clans from again separating themselves. There was also controversy about who should succeed Muhammad. But Arabia was still arid, so there was the additional problem of support. It is not too surprising that the solution was found in the ancient Arabic tradition of raiding. This time unity was preserved by raiding non-Muslim lands instead of other internal tribes. The initial Islamic expansion included Iraq, Syria, Palestine, and Egypt. Eventually the whole of the Persian Empire and parts of North Africa and Iran and India were conquered. Although scholars will deny that such expansion by the sword was advocated in the Quran, it is easy to see why the Muslims gained a fierce reputation. Although the Muslims may not have insisted on conversion to Islam, some people would naturally find it “safer” to convert than risk offending the conquerors.

According to some historians, the primary motivation for this first expansion was not religious but to gain land and security. However, most Muslims took their military success as a sign that Allah was a divine presence in their practical lives. This had a powerful and lasting effect on how important Islam became to the very being of Muslims and especially Arabic Muslims who had arisen from backwater nomadic insignificance to an unprecedented glory. As with most empires, the crumbling of this first Islamic Empire began with power disputes and rebellions against centrist rule by Caliphs who became more or less indistinguishable from the luxury loving monarchs of non-Muslim jurisdictions.

By the tenth and eleventh centuries the first Islamic Empire was breaking up into more autonomous nation-states. The weakness of this disunity provided initial success for the first Christian Crusaders who took Jerusalem and other major cities away from the Muslims for a few decades. That brief incursion was overshadowed by a new power whose ferocity outdid even the Muslims. Under Genghis Khan and his successors the Mongol hordes achieved the necessary discipline and ruthlessness to conquer much of what had been the Islamic Empire and China as well.

Without a strong religion of their own, the Mongols were tolerant of all religions. After subjugating an area Mongols tended to build on local cultures. They assimilated Chinese culture in China and absorbed Islam in much of what was formerly the Muslim domain. By the end of the thirteenth century Mongols had predominately converted to Islam, becoming the major Muslim power in the world. They retained, however, an essential Mongolism in their administration, stressing imperial and military might.

Inevitably the Mongol power waned and as it collapsed the Ottoman Turks advanced a new Islamic Empire through the Balkans, deep into Eastern Europe, sub-Saharan Africa, the Eurasian Steppes, and Malaysia. At its peak this greatest Islamic Empire also extended into southern Russia, Afghanistan and northern India where it became known as “Mogul”. Under the Ottomans a body of developed Islamic law called the Shariah became the official law for all Muslims.

The Ottoman Empire began its decline because it failed to understand that primitive agrarian economies cannot support an unlimited population growth. Meanwhile, the Europeans were vigorously developing the kind of industrial economies that can support expanding populations provided ever more raw materials can be obtained in trade. It did not take Europeans long to discover that their technology and organizing ability made it possible for them to simply take over less industrially developed nations as colonies so that the Europeans could more fully control the raw material sources to their own advantage. This was a humiliating shock to the less developed countries; particularly to the Islamic nations that still remembered their past glory.

Separation of church and state was at least partly responsible for Western advances in technology because science and engineering was not under conservative ecclesiastical control. The opposite was true of Islamic countries. Affluence and easy living may come with technology but the political freedom to innovate is also accompanied by the freedom to develop cultural expression that will offend religious and moral purists. Thus Islamic culture became torn between envying the West’s power and affluence and despising some of the West’s cultural byproducts.

In spite of the oil riches enjoyed by their own Islamic political masters, life for most Muslims continued to be miserable even after the colonialists left. Unfortunately the newly independent countries were so short of native technological expertise they had to hire foreign technicians to develop and run the oil fields. Conditions became ripe for Islamic purists to agitate and for fanatics to find ways of twisting Muhammad’s original teachings into justifying a guerilla war using modern weapons they did not invent and financed with oil that Western technicians got out of the ground for them. Arabs like Osama bin Laden have made the goals of this war quite clear — kill all infidels in order to obliterate Western influence and to resurrect a pure Islamic Empire.

Back to Information



JIHAD AND DHIMMITUDE: Victimless Islamic Institutions? By Bat Ye’or and Andrew G. Bostom

NOTES: — Bat Ye’or, born in Egypt, is the world’s foremost researcher and writer on the condition (dhimmitude) of Jews and Christians in Islamic countries. She has contributed a significant amount of original scholarship to this field of study (see and is the author of “Islam and Dhimmitude: Where Civilizations Collide”.

Andrew G. Bostom is the author of “The Legacy of Jihad: Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims”.


For well over a millennium, across three continents – Asia, Africa,and Europe – non-Muslims have experienced jihad war ideology, and its ugly corollary institution, dhimmitude. Today, the debate among Muslim scholars regarding the theological “correctness” of “lesser” versus “greater” jihad are meaningless to the millions of non-Muslim victims- Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, Hindus, and Buddhists – of countless jihad wars. What is important is that after all this time, Muslims finally acknowledge the suffering of these millions of non-Muslim victims of jihad wars, as well as the oppressive governance imposed on non-Muslims by the laws of dhimmitude.

Thus far this brutal history has been completely denied, and even celebrated as “enlightened” conquest and rule. In this essay we will introduce, briefly, the rationale and historiography of these twin Islamic institutions, and provide evidence of their contemporary revival.

In the History of al-Tabari (Ta’rikh l-rusul wa’l-muluk), the renowned Muslim scholar’s monumental historiography of the Arab-Muslim conquests, we read the recommendation given by Caliph Umar b. al-Khattab to the commander of the troops he sent to al-Basrah, during the conquest of Iraq (636 C.E.):

“Summon the people to God; those who respond to your call, accept it from them, (This is to say, accept their conversion as genuine and refrain from fighting them) but those who refuse must pay the poll tax out of humiliation and lowliness. (Qur’an 9:29) If they refuse this, it is the sword without leniency. Fear God with regard to what you have been entrusted.”

Ibn Khaldun (d. 1406), ostensibly the pre-eminent Islamic scholar in history, summarized five centuries of prior Muslim jurisprudence with regard to the uniquely Islamic institution of jihad, as follows:

“In the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the (Muslim) mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force. ..The other religious groups did not have a universal mission, and the holy war was not a religious duty for them, save only for purposes of defense. ..Islam is under obligation to gain power over other nations.”

By the time al-Tabari died in 923, the Muslim empire had already expanded from Portugal to India. After al-Tabari’s death, the Muslim conquests continued in Asia, as well as on Christian eastern European lands. The Christian kingdoms of Armenia, Byzantium, Bulgaria, Serbia, Bosnia, Herzegovina, Croatia, Albania and parts of Poland and Hungary were conquered. The Muslim armies were stopped at the gates of Vienna in 1683 (September 12). The jihad lasted over a millennium. Jihad was pursued century after century, because jihad, which means “to strive in the path of Allah,” embodied a sacred ideology linked to a series of detailed regulations. Both were conceived by Muslim jurists from the eighth to ninth centuries onward. Briefly presented, the ideology of jihad separates the world into two irreconcilable entities: dar al-Islam (the land of Islam) and dar al-Harb (the land of war), controlled by the infidels. The duty of the Muslims is to impose the Islamic (shari’a)law on the whole world, either by persuasion or by war, and those efforts which imply sacrifices represent the “fight in the path of Allah.”

A triumphalist jihad literature emerged from a millennium of jihad war military successes. Countless descriptions by Muslim historians recorded in detail the number of slain infidels, the enslavement of the populations, the booty in captives, cattle and movable goods, the cities which were destroyed, razed or spared and taken by treaty and the countryside pillaged or set on fire. Battles and victories have been described from Portugal to India, from Budapest to Sudan. This information is not only available in Muslim sources, but also in Christian sources, which complement the Muslim perspective by giving the evidence of the victims of jihad wars. Those Christian sources are Coptic, Armenian, Jacobite, Greek, Slav, Spanish, Italian, etc. The jihad war conquests of infidel territories, which lasted for over a millennium across three continents, are richly documented. Thus, it is astonishing when this well-characterized historiography is largely ignored, or even denied, in scholarly writings.

In “The Laws of Islamic Governance”, al- Mawardi (d. 1058), a renowned Baghdadian jurist, examined the regulations pertaining to the lands and infidel (i.e., non-Muslim) populations subjugated by jihad. This is the origin of the system of dhimmitude. The native infidel population had to recognize Islamic ownership on their land, submit to Islamic (i.e., shari’a) law, and accept payment of the poll tax (jizya). In return they were granted the effective protection of Islamic law, which gave them security, limited religious rights, and self-administration in religious and civil law. Some of the more salient features of dhimmitude include: the prohibition of arms for the vanquished non-Muslims (dhimmis), and of church bells; the restrictions concerning the building and restoration of churches and synagogues; the inequality between Muslims and non-Muslims with regard to taxes and penal law; the refusal of dhimmi testimony by Muslim courts; the obligation for Jews and Christians to wear special clothes; and their overall humiliation and abasement. Furthermore, dhimmis, including those living under “enlightened” Turkish domination, suffered, at periods, from slavery (i.e., harem slavery for women, and the devshirme child levy for Balkan Christian males), abductions, and deportations.

Dhimmitude was abolished during the 19th and 20th centuries under European military pressure, or by direct European colonization. However we see now the return of the spirit of jihad, and its corollary institution, dhimmitude, in the wars in Sudan, the Philippines, Indonesia, Algeria, and, Israel and in global terrorism, including the 9/11 attacks directed at the United States. Non-Muslim minorities suffer from grave discrimination in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan and in countries, which apply the shari’a law or whose constitutions recognize that the shari’a is the main source of the law. The principles of “protection” and “toleration” integral to the system of dhimmitude are opposed to the values expressed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which stress the equality of all human beings and the inalienability of their rights. In stark contrast, the principles of “protection” and “tolerations” embodied in dhimmitude and shari’a law, emerge from a war of conquest. Only conditional, limited rights are conceded to the vanquished, and these rights can be revoked by the dominant group.

At present, unfortunately, the simple reference to the written rules of jihad and dhimmitude- which impose killings, slavery, deportation and “protection”/subjugation — according to specific contingencies — can provoke a violent reaction from those in the Muslim intelligentsia. Recently, for example, direct quotations from these Medieval laws — considered as obligatory for infidels — from highly respected Muslim writers, such as al-Mawardi, caused an uproar at Georgetown University, as well as slanderous accusations. There is a dire need for some courageous, meaningful movement in Islam to emerge that completely renounces the active Islamic institutions of jihad against the infidels, and dhimmitude, openly acknowledging the horrific devastation they have wrought on non-Muslims for well over a millennium, through the present. Nothing short of an Islamic Reformation and Enlightenment may be required, which completely secularizes Islam, and acknowledges non-Muslims as fully equal human beings, not “infidels”, or “dhimmis”.


Source: Wikipedia
Islamism is a set of political ideologies that hold that Islam is not only a religion, but also a political system that governs the legal, economic and social imperatives of the state according to its interpretation of Islamic Law.

The term “Islamism” first appeared in eighteenth-century France as a synonym for Islam. At the turn of the twentieth century, it was being displaced by the latter, and by 1938, when Orientalist scholars completed the Encyclopaedia of Islam, had virtually disappeared from the English language.

It attained its modern connotation in late 1970s French academia, thence to be loaned into English again, where it has largely displaced “Islamic fundamentalism.”

This usage is controversial. Islamists themselves may oppose the term because it suggests their philosophy to be a political extrapolation from Islam rather than a straightforward expression of Islam as a way of life. Some Muslims find it troublesome that a word derived from “Islam” is applied to organizations they consider radical and extreme. The terms “Islamist” and “Islamism” are used often in several publications within some Muslim countries to describe domestic and trans-national organizations seeking to implement Islamic law. The English website for Al Jazeera, for example, uses these terms frequently.


There is intense debate about the differences between Islam and Islamism. The controversy is rooted in differing answers to questions about how Muslims should live, the sort of governments they should support, and the proper role of Islamic symbols, ideas, and tenets in the modern world. Those who are called Islamists argue that Islam is inherently a political religion, and that the rules and laws laid out in Quran and Hadiths mandate Islamic government.

While many experts on Islam reject this notion, some, including Robert Spencer, Bat Ye’or, and Andrew Bostom, concur, arguing that political stances characterized as Islamist are actually central to Islam as a faith. They also question the validity of the terms “Islamist” and “Islamism” themselves. Some Muslims also deny that there is a difference between Islamism and Islam, saying “If Islam is a way of life, how can we say that those who want to live by its principles in legal, social, political, economic, and political spheres of life are not Muslims, but Islamists and believe in Islamism, not Islam”?

Like other religions, Islam promotes a vision of society and provides guidelines for social life. The Quran and the hadith provide some guidelines for Islamic government, including criminal law, family law, the prohibition of usury, and other economic regulations. A number of these topics are highly contentious in the Muslim world.

Scriptural claims aside, some Muslims disagree with the ideologies and activities of those identified as Islamists, while others support them.


The complex relationship between Islam and Islamism has intensified in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks. Since that time, Islamist movements, along with other political movements inspired by Islam, have gained increased attention in the Western media. Some Islamist groups have been implicated in terrorism and have become targets in the War on Terrorism.


Although Islamic states based on Shari’a law have existed since the earliest days of Islam, Islamism refers to modern movements that developed during the twentieth century in reaction to several forces. Following World War I, the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, and the subsequent dissolution of the Caliphate by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk (founder of Turkey), some Muslims perceived that Islam was in retreat, and felt that Western ideas were spreading throughout Muslim society, along with the influence of Western nations. During the 1960s, the predominant ideology within the Arab world was pan-Arabism which deemphasized religion and emphasized the creation of a socialist, secular state based on Arab nationalism rather than Islam.


In India, the Deobandi movement developed as a reaction to British actions against Muslims and the influence of Sayed Ahmad Khan, who advocated the Westernization of Islam. Named after the town of Deoband, where it originated, the movement expanded under the guidance of Maulana Qasim Nanotwi on the traditional methods of Fiqh (jurisprudence), Aqidah (theology) and Tasawwuf (purification of the heart – also known as Sufism). Now the foremost madrasah of traditional Islamic thought in the subcontinent, it lead to the establishment of similar Madaaris (plural of Madrasah) throughout India, Pakistan, Bangladesh. Deobandi thought is defined foremost by its adherence to the Hanafi Fiqh (and to a lesser extent by many scholars, the Shafi’i Fiqh) and by its emphasis on Tasawwuf.

The ‘Deobandi’ identity was initially thought important as a way of representing traditional Islamic jurisprudence and the purity of Aqidah and Tasawwuf from the increasing number of movements in India at the time that either aimed to Westernize Islam or introduce unorthodox beliefs such as grave-worshipping. In modern and more global times, use of this differentiation is given less and less importance with the view that with most differences of opinion with other schools of thought being arguing semantics, unity among Muslims is paramount.Though Deobandi thought has traditionally and continues to focus on purity of the heart, knowledge of Islamic tenets and jurisprudence and social cohesion and harmony,it does notin any way renounce resistance against occupation or oppression. Darul Uloom Deoband was in fact the strongest voice of opposition in India to British-backed movements that attempted to renounce the struggle against British occupation, with its leaders and students actively engaged in the military resistance to the occupation.


Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi was an important early twentieth-century figure in India, then, after independence from Britain, in Pakistan. Maududi faced harsh criticism from both the scholars of Deoband as well as others for disparging the characters of the Companions of the Prophet and, more seriously, Prophets themselves such as Joseph (Yusuf).


Maududi’s political ideas were a strong influence on Sayyid Qutb in Egypt, though Qutb rejected what he and other scholars throughout the word unanimously saw as baseless disparging of the Companions and Prophets. Qutb was one of the key philosophers in the Muslim Brotherhood movement after the assassination of its founder in 1949. The Brotherhood was established in Ismailiyah, Egypt in 1928 and was banned (but still exists) following confrontations with Egyptian president Gamal Abdul Nasser, who jailed Qutb and thousands of others for years. The Muslim Brotherhood (founded by Hasan al-Banna) advocated a return to Shari’ah because of what they perceived as the inability of Western values to secure harmony and prosperity for Muslims. Since only divine guidance could lead humans to peace, justice, and prosperity, it followed that Muslims should eschew man-made systems of governance and live according to divinely-inspired Shari’ah on the model of past Caliphates known for their harmony, stability and protection of Muslim lives, interests and global influence(“The Qur’an is our constitution”). The Brotherhood also advocated Jihad against the European colonial powers, particularly the British and the French, and their allies, who ruled over virtually all of the Muslim world during al-Banna’s (and much of Qutb’s) life time.


The first Islamist state (with the posible exception of Pakistan) was established not among Sunni but among the Shia of Iran. In what was nothing short of a major shock to the rest of the world, the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini led an Islamic Revolution of 1979 to overthrow the oil rich, rapidly Westernizing and pro-American secular monarchy ruled by Shah Muhammad Reza Palavi.

Khomeini’s beliefs were similar to those of Sunni Islamists like Mawdudi and Qutb: He thought restoration of Sharia law and imitation of the first Muslim generation was essential to Islam, that secular, Westernizing Muslims were actually agents of Western interests, and that “plundering” of Muslim lands was part of a long-term conspiracy against Islam by the Christian West.

But they also differed: As a Shiite, Khomeini had no interest in restoring the Caliphate but wanted the leading role in government to be taken by the ulama (clergy). His concept of velyat-e-faqih (“guardianship of the jurist”), held that the leading Shia Muslim cleric in society (which Khomeini and his followers believed to be himself) should serve as head of state to protect or “guard” Islam and Sharia law from “innovation” and “anti-Islamic laws” passed “by sham parliaments.”

Initial enthusiasm in Muslim world for the revolution wained — particularly during the course of Khomeini’s 8-year-long, enormously bloody and ultimately unsuccessful campaign to replace neighboring Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussien with an Islamic Republic. The Islamic Republic has also not yet achieved many of its goals: raising standards of living; ridding Iran of corruption, poverty, political oppression and Westernization, or even protecting Sharia from innovation, but it has been sucessful in maintaining its hold on power in Iran and creating like-minded Shia Islamist groups in Iraq (SCIRI) and Lebanon (Hezbollah,) (two Muslim countries that also have large Shiite populations). Currently, the Iranian government has enjoyed something of a resurgence in popularity amongst the predominantly Sunni “Arab street,” due to its support for Hezbollah during the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s vehement opposition to Israel and the United States.


While Qutb’s ideas became increasingly radical during his imprisonment prior to his execution in 1966, the leadership of the Brotherhood, led by Hasan al-Hudaybi, remained moderate and interested in political negotiation and activism. Fringe or splinter movements, however, did develop and pursued a more radical direction, perhaps inspired by final writings of Qutb in the mid-1960s (e.g. “Milestones,” aka Ma’alim fi-l-Tariq). By the 1970s, the Brotherhood publicly renounced violence as a means to their goals. The path of violence and military struggle was however taken up by such movements as the Egyptian Islamic Jihad organisation, responsible for the assassination of Anwar Sadat in 1981. Unlike earlier anti-colonial movements, Egyptian Islamic Jihad focused its efforts on “apostate” leaders of Muslim states, or those leaders who held secular leanings or introduced or promoted Western/foreign ideas and practices into Islamic societies. Their views were outlined in a pamphlet written by Muhammad Abd al-Salaam Farag, in which he states: “there is no doubt that the first battlefield for jihad is the extermination of these infidel leaders and to replace them by a complete Islamic Order” (It is important to note that ‘jihad’ means ‘struggle’ and comes in many forms- not just military. Eg, not giving in to temptation is a struggle, is a jihad). Another Islamic Jihad group emerged in Palestine as an offshoot of the Egyptian group, and began militant activity against the state of Israel, and consistently opposed itself to the policies of the secular Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and Yasser Arafat.


An influential strain of Muslim thought came from the Wahhabi movement in Saudi Arabia. The Wahhabists, who emerged in the 18th century led by Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, also believed that it was necessary to live according to the strict dictates of Islam, which they interpreted to mean living in the manner that the prophet Muhammad and his followers had lived in during the seventh century in Medina. Consequently they were opposed to many religious innovations. When King Abdul Aziz al-Saud founded Saudi Arabia, he brought the Wahhabists into power with him. With Saud’s rise to prominence, Wahhabism spread, especially following the 1973 oil embargo and the glut of oil wealth that resulted for Saudi Arabia. The Wahhabists were proselytizers and made use of their wealth to spread their interpretation of Islam. Mainstream Salafis are against modern political Islamism, and many have sharply criticized Islamist figures such as Sayed Qutb, Abu A`la Maududi and Usamah bin Laden. They have also been critical of Islamist groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood, and the methods they use, such as the political party system, and terrorism.


Islamism went through its major political and philosophical developments in the early part of the twentieth century, but it was not until the 1980s that it became active in an international arena and rose to great prominence in the 1990s.

The reasons for the rise of Islamism during this period are still disputed. The ideologies that had dominated the Middle East since decolonization such as Ba’athism, Arab Socialism, and Arab Nationalism had, by 1980, failed to attain the economic and political goals expected of them. By the late 1980s the distinct Shi’ite version of political Islam had been drained of its vigour in the Iran-Iraq War. During the conflict against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, many Islamists came together to fight what they saw as an atheist invading force and were heavily funded by the United States. In Pakistan, military dictators brought into power through coups (especially Zia-ul-Haq) exploited Islamist sentiments to consolidate their power, bringing Islamist political parties into prominence and all but destroying the traditional secularism that stemmed from the secular stance of the Muslim League and its leader Mohammad Ali Jinnah, founder of Pakistan.

In his book “Jihad: The Trail of Political Islam” Gilles Kepel argues that the central importance of Islamism in the 1990s was a product of the Gulf War. Prior to 1990 organized political Islam had been mostly associated with Saudi Arabia, a nation founded on Wahhabism and an ally of Islamist groups in Egypt and in Afghanistan. Saudi Arabia, as a close ally of the West and with a strong interest in regional stability, played an important restraining role on Islamist groups.

The Shi’ite clerics in Iran had long argued that Saudi Arabia was an apostate state, a puppet of the West that espoused a corrupted Islam. During the 1980s these accusations had little effect, largely because of their Shi’ite origin. However, Kepel argues that when Saddam Hussein turned on his former allies, he embraced this rhetoric, arguing that Saudi Arabia had betrayed its duty to protect the holiest sites of Islam. Kepel states that Saddam Hussein embraced Islamic rhetoric and trappings and tried to draw leading scholars and activists to his camp. Some of the main Islamist groups remained loyal to Saudi Arabia, but a number such as parts of the Muslim Brotherhood and Afghani mujahideen aligned themselves with Saddam. Far more groups declared themselves neutral in the struggle.

According to Kepel the rapid defeat of Saddam did not end this rift. As Saddam had likely predicted Saudi Arabia had found itself in a severe dilemma, the only way to counter the Iraqi threat was to seek help from the west, which would immediately confirm the Iraqi allegations of Saudi Arabia being a friend to the west. To ensure the regime’s survival Saudi Arabia accepted a massive western presence in the country and de facto cooperation with Israel causing great offence to many in Islamist circles.

After the war Saudi Arabia launched a two-pronged strategy to restore its security and leadership in Islamist circles. Those Islamist groups who refused to return under the Saudi umbrella were persecuted and any Islamists who had criticized Saudi regime were arrested or forced into exile, with most going to London. At the same time Saudi oil money began to flow freely to those Islamist groups who continued to work with the kingdom. Islamist madrassas around the world saw their funding greatly increased. More covertly Saudi money began to fund more violent Islamist groups in areas such as Bosnia and the former Soviet Union. Saudi Arabia’s western allies mostly looked the other way seeing the survival of their crucial ally as more important than the problem of more money and resources flowing to Islamist groups.

In the 1990s Islamist conflicts erupted around the world in areas such as Algeria, the Palestinian territories, Sudan, and Nigeria. In 1995 a series of terrorist attacks were launched against France. The most important development was the rise to power of the Taliban in Afghanistan in 1996. In the Taliban-ruled Afghanistan a number of anti-Saudi and anti-Western Islamist groups found refuge. Significantly, Osama bin Laden, a wealthy Saudi influenced by Wahhabism and the writings of Sayed Qutb, joined forces with the Egyptian Islamic Jihad under Ayman al-Zawahiri to form what is now called al-Qaeda.

A considerable effort has been made to fight Western targets, especially the United States. The United States in particular was made a subject of Islamist ire because of its support for Israel, its presence on Saudi Arabian soil, what Islamists regard as its aggression against Muslims in Iraq, and its support of the regimes Islamists oppose. In addition some Islamists have concentrated their activity against Israel, and nearly all Islamists view Israel with hostility. Osama bin Laden, at least, believes that this is of necessity due to historical conflict between Muslims and Jews, and considers there to be a Jewish/American alliance against Islam.

There is some debate as to how influential Islamist movements remain. Some scholars assert that Islamism is a fringe movement that is dying, following the clear failures of Islamist regimes like the regime in Sudan, the Wahhabist Saudi regime and the Deobandi Taliban to improve the lot of Muslims. However, others (e.g. Ahmed Rashid) feel that the Islamists still command considerable support and cite the fact that Islamists in Pakistan and Egypt regularly poll 10 to 30 percent in electoral polls which many believe are rigged against them.

An alternative direction has been taken by many Islamists in Turkey, where the Islamist movement split into reformist and traditionalist wings in 2001. The reformists formed the moderate Islamist Justice and Development Party (Ak Party), which gained an overall majority in the Turkish parliament in 2002, and has sought to balance Islamic values with the requirements of a secular and democratic political system. Some in the Justice and Development Party see the Christian Democrat parties of Western Europe as a model, which has led some to question whether it is a genuinely Islamist movement.


The foundation of modern Islamist thought is highly debated. Islamists, where they can be clearly identified, have many different positions. These perspectives can be defined in terms of their selection of sources from Islamic history and thought. Typically, an Islamist perspective will criticize certain periods of history and intellectualism, while expounding upon others. However, many Islamists combine two or more of these perspectives and formulate their own, unique reading of history and Islam.


Some perspectives, often considered radical, cite the source of their message as the early Islamic community founded by the Prophet. Proponents of this view hold only the central texts of Islam as important and tend to criticise centuries of scholarship and commentary. Thus, they identify themselves in opposition to a large body of history and theory (including the Fitna and Ottoman periods).

Other groups may seek a return to classical Islam, where religion played a dominant role in civil society and state affairs. These groups tend to cite sources and periods of history where Islam was the established social system. While this is historically typified in the Caliphate of the Ottoman Empire, Islamists who proport this view may speak of doing away with an empire and reforming the Caliphate according to new principles of governance (such as democracy).

Common among virtually all Islamists is their reliance on contemporary, authors (such as Qutb), to articulate their views and direct their activities.


The development of modern Islamism was also both a reaction to and influenced by the other ideologies of the modern world. Modern Islamism began in the colonial period, and it was overtly anti-imperialist. It was also opposed to the local elites who wanted independence, but who also supported adopting western liberal ideals. Writers like the Egyptian Sayyid Qutb and the Pakistani Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi saw western style individualism as counter to centuries of tradition, and also as inevitably leading to a debauched and licentious society.

In the years after independence the most important ideological current in the Muslim world was socialism and communism. This influenced Islamism in two ways. Much Islamist thought and writing during this era was directly addressed to countering Marxism. For instance Muhammad Baqir al-Sadr’s main works are detailed critiques of Marxism, paying much less attention to capitalism and liberalism. Another option was to try and integrate socialism and Islamism. This was most notably done by Ali Shariati. At several points Islamist and leftist groups found common cause, such as during the early stages of the Iranian Revolution, and several organizations, such as the Islamic Socialist Front in Syria, were both overtly Marxist and overtly Islamist. While most Islamists reject Marxism, the influence of socialist ideologies during the formative period of modern Islamism means that Islamist works continue to be infused with Marxist language and concepts. For instance Qutb’s view of an elite vanguard to lead an Islamic revolution is borrowed directly from Lenin’s Vanguard of the Proletariat.

During the 1930s a number of fascistic groups arose in the Middle East. Some such as the SSNP and the Kataeb Party were mostly supported by Christians and other minority groups, others like the Egyptian Misr al-Fatat were mainly Sunni Arab. The fascist method of seizing power did inspire Islamist Hassan al-Banna, who founded organizations directly based on the Brownshirts and Blackshirts to try and seize power. This method proved ineffective, and since then most Islamists have used the cell based structure commonly used by leftist groups. Ideologically there is little evidence that fascism had much influence on the development of Islamism.

Back to Information




U.S. Navy Captain Ouimette is the Executive Officer at Naval Air Station, Pensacola, Florida. Here is a copy of the speech he gave last month. It is an accurate account of why we are in so much trouble today and why this action is so necessary.

AMERICA NEEDS TO WAKE UP! That’s what we think we heard on the 11th of September 2001(When more than 3,000 Americans were killed) and maybe it was, but I think it should have been “Get Out of Bed!” In fact, I think the alarm clock has been buzzing since 1979 and we have continued to hit the snooze button and roll over for a few more minutes of peaceful sleep since then.

It was a cool fall day in November 1979 in a country going through a religious and political upheaval when a group of Iranian students attacked and seized the American Embassy in Tehran. This seizure was an outright attack on American soil; it was an attack that held the world’s most powerful country hostage and paralyzed a Presidency. The attack on this sovereign U. S. embassy set the stage for events to follow for the next 23 years.

America was still reeling from the aftermath of the Vietnam experience and had a serious threat from the Soviet Union when then, President Carter, had to do something. He chose to conduct a clandestine raid in the desert. The ill-fated mission ended in ruin, but stood as a symbol of America’s inability to deal with terrorism. America’s military had been decimated and downsized/rightsized since the end of the Vietnam War. A poorly trained, poorly equipped and poorly organized military was called on to execute a complex mission that was doomed from the start.

Shortly after the Tehran experience, Americans began to be kidnapped and killed throughout the Middle East. America could do little to protect her citizens living and working abroad. The attacks against US soil continued. In April of 1983 a large vehicle packed with high explosives was driven into the US Embassy compound in Beirut. When it explodes, it kills 63 people. The alarm went off again and America hit the Snooze Button once more.

Then just six short months later a large truck heavily laden down with over 2500 pounds of TNT smashed through the main gate of the US Marine Corps headquarters in Beirut and 241 US servicemen are killed. America mourns her dead and hit the Snooze Button once more. Two months later in December 1983, another truck loaded with explosives is driven into the US Embassy in Kuwait, and America continues her slumber.

The following year, in September 1984, another van was driven into the gate of the US Embassy in Beirut and America slept. Soon the terrorism spreads to Europe. In April 1985 a bomb explodes in a restaurant frequented by US soldiers in Madrid. Then in August a Volkswagen loaded with explosives is driven into the main gate of the US Air Force Base at Rhein-Main, 22 are killed and the snooze alarm is buzzing louder and louder as US interests are continually attacked.

Fifty-nine days later a cruise ship, the Achille Lauro is hijacked and we watched as an American in a wheelchair is singled out of the passenger list and executed. The terrorists then shift their tactics to bombing civilian airliners when they bomb TWA Flight 840 in April of 1986 that killed 4 and the most tragic bombing, Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in1988, killing 259. Clinton treated these terrorist acts as crimes; in fact we are still trying to bring these people to trial. These are acts of war.

The wake up alarm is getting louder and louder. The terrorists decide to bring the fight to America. In January 1993, two CIA agents are shot and killed as they enter CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia. The following month, February 1993, a group of terrorists are arrested after a rented van packed with explosives is driven into the underground parking garage of the World Trade Center in New York City. Six people are killed and over 1000 are injured. Still this is a crime and not an act of war?

The Snooze alarm is depressed again. Then in November 1995 a car bomb explodes at a US military complex in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia killing seven service men and women. A few months later in June of 1996, another truck bomb explodes only 35 yards from the US military compound in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. It destroys the Khobar Towers, a US Air Force barracks, killing 19and injuring over 500. The terrorists are getting braver and smarter as they see that America does not respond decisively.

They move to coordinate their attacks in a simultaneous attack on two US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. These attacks were planned with precision. They kill 224. America responds with cruise missile attacks and goes back to sleep. The USS Cole was docked in the port of Aden, Yemen for refueling on 12 October 2000, when a small craft pulled along side the ship and exploded killing 17 US Navy Sailors. Attacking a US War Ship is an act of war, but we sent the FBI to investigate the crime and went back to sleep.

And of course you know the events of 11 September 2001. Most Americans think this was the first attack against US soil or in America. How wrong they are. America has been under a constant attack since 1979 and we chose to hit the snooze alarm and roll over and go back to sleep. In the news lately we have seen lots of finger pointing from every high officials in government over what they knew and what they didn’t know. But if you’ve read the papers and paid a little attention I think you can see exactly what they knew. You don’t have to be in the FBI or CIA or on the National Security Council to see the pattern that has been developing since 1979.

The President is right on when he says we are engaged in a war. I think we have been in a war for the past 23 years and it will continue until we as a people decide enough is enough. America needs to “Get out of Bed” and act decisively now. America has been changed forever. We have to be ready to pay the price and make the sacrifice to ensure our way of life continues. We cannot afford to keep hitting the snooze button again and again and roll over and go back to sleep.

After the attack on Pearl Harbor, Admiral Yamamoto said”…it seems all we have done is awakened a sleeping giant.” This is the message we need to disseminate to terrorists around the world. This is not a political thing to be hashed over in an election year this is an AMERICAN thing. This is about our Freedom and the Freedom of our children in years to come.

Back to Information




SELECTED EXCERPTS FROM 9/11 REPORT, A condensation by Robert Williams

NOTE: This is a condensation of a 16-page segment of the 9/11 report. It was done for my own convenience mainly by omitting some paragraphs and sentences that I thought were less pertinent to the main points I was interested in. Some additional titles were added for clarification of the subject matter. The rest is pretty much verbatim.

In February 1998, Usama Bin Ladin arranged for an Arabic newspaper in London to publish a claim that America had declared war against God and he called for the murder of any American, anywhere on earth, as the “individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it.” Three months later, when interviewed in Afghanistan by ABC-TV, Bin Ladin further claimed it was more important for Muslims to kill Americans than to kill other infidels. Asked whether he approved of terrorism and of attacks on civilians, he replied, “We do not have to differentiate between military or civilian. As far as we are concerned, they are all targets.”

Islam is both a faith and a code of conduct for all aspects of life. For many Muslims, a good government would be one guided by the moral principles of their faith. This does not necessarily translate into a desire for clerical rule and the abolition of a secular state. It does mean that some Muslims tend to be uncomfortable with distinctions between religion and state, though Muslim rulers throughout history have readily separated the two. To extremists, however, such divisions, as well as the existence of parliaments and legislation, only prove these rulers to be false Muslims usurping God’s authority over all aspects of life.

Bin Ladin also relies heavily on the Egyptian writer Sayyid Qutb, a member of the Muslim Brotherhood executed in 1966 on charges of attempting to overthrow the government. Qutb mixed Islamic scholarship with a very superficial acquaintance with Western history and thought. He had an enormous loathing of Western society. He claimed that the world was beset with barbarism, licentiousness, and unbelief, and that humans can choose only between Islam and unbelief (in Islam), no middle ground exists in what Qutb conceived as a struggle between God and Satan. All Muslims-as he defined them-therefore must take up arms in this fight. Any Muslim who rejects his ideas is just one more nonbeliever worthy of destruction.

Bin Ladin (along with his followers and many sympathizers) shares Qutb’s stark view, permitting Osama and his followers to rationalize even unprovoked mass murder as righteous defense of an embattled faith. Many Americans have wondered. “Why do ‘they’ hate us?” Some also ask, “What can we do to stop these attacks?” Bin Ladin and al Qaeda have given their answers. To the first, they say that America had attacked Islam; America is responsible for all conflicts involving Muslims. Thus Americans are blamed when Israelis fight with Palestinians, when Russians fight with Chechens, when Indians fight with Kashmiri Muslims, and when the Philippine government fights ethnic Muslims in its southern islands.

America is also held responsible for the governments of Muslim countries, derided by al Qaeda as “your agents.” Bin Ladin has stated flatly, “Our fight against these governments is not separate from our fight against you.” These charges found a ready audience among millions of Arabs and Muslims angry at the United States because of issues ranging from Iraq to Palestine to America’s support for their countries’ repressive rulers. To the second question, what America could do, al Qaeda’s answer was that America should abandon the Middle East, convert to Islam, and end the immorality and godlessnessof its society and culture (meaning accept Bin Laden’s version of Islam). If the United States did not comply, it would be at war with the Islamic nation, a nation that al Qaeda’s leaders said “desires death more than you desire life.”

After gaining independence from Western powers following World War II, the Arab Middle East followed an arc from initial pride and optimism to today’s mix of indifference, cynicism, and despair. In several countries, a dynastic state already existed or was quickly established under a paramount tribal family. Monarchies in countries such as Saudi Arabia, Morocco, and Jordan still survive today. Those in Egypt, Libya, Iraq, and Yemen were eventually overthrown by secular nationalist revolutionaries.

The secular regimes promised a glowing future, often tied to sweeping ideologies (such as those promoted by Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser’s Arab Socialism or the Ba’ath Party of Syria and Iraq) that called for a single, secular Arab state. However, what emerged were almost invariably autocratic regimes that were usually unwilling to tolerate any opposition. Over time, their policies-repression, rewards, emigration, and the displacement of popular anger onto scapegoats (generally foreign)-were shaped by the desire to cling to power. Iran’s 1979 revolution swept a Shia theocracy into power. Its success encouraged fundamentalists elsewhere.

In the 1980s, awash in sudden oil wealth, Saudi Arabia competed with Shia Iran to promote its Sunni fundamentalist interpretation of Islam, Wahhabism. The Saudi government, always conscious of its duties as the custodian of Islam’s holiest places, joined with wealthy Arabs from the Kingdom and other states bordering the Persian Gulf in donating money to build mosques and religious schools that could preach and teach their interpretation of Islamic doctrine. In this competition for legitimacy, secular regimes had no alternative to offer. Instead, in a number of cases their rulers sought to buy off local Islamist movements by ceding control of many social and educational issues. Emboldened rather than satisfied, the Islamists continued to push for power.

In the 1970s and early 1980s, an unprecedented flood of wealth led the then largely unmodernized oil states to attempt to shortcut decades of development. They funded huge infrastructure projects, vastly expanded education, and created subsidized social welfare programs. These programs established a wide-spread feeling of entitlement without a corresponding sense of social obligations. By the late 1980s, diminishing oil revenues, the economic drain from many unprofitable development projects, and population growth made these entitlement programs unsustainable. The resulting cutbacks created enormous resentment among recipients who had come to see government largesse as their right.

This resentment was further stoked by public understanding of how much oil income had gone straight into the pockets of the rulers, their friends, and their helpers. Unlike the oil states (or Afghanistan, where real economic development has barely begun), the other Arab nations and Pakistan once had seemed headed toward balanced modernization. The established commercial, financial, and industrial sectors in these states, supported by an entrepreneurial spirit and widespread understanding of free enterprise, augured well. But unprofitable heavy industry, state monopolies, and opaque bureaucracies slowly stifled growth. More importantly, these state-centered regimes placed their highest priority on preserving the elite’s grip on national wealth. Unwilling to foster dynamic economies that could create jobs attractive to educated young men, the countries became economically stagnant and reliant on the safety valve of worker emigration either to the Arab oil states or to the West.

Furthermore, the repression and isolation of women in many Muslim countries have not only seriously limited individual opportunity but also crippled overall economic productivity. By the 1990s, high birthrates and declining rates of infant mortality had produced a common problem throughout the Muslim world: a large, steadily increasing population of young men without any reasonable expectation of suitable or steady employment-a sure prescription for social turbulence. Many of these young men, such as the enormous number trained only in religious schools, lacked the skills needed by their societies. Far more acquired valuable skills but lived in stagnant economies that could not generate satisfying jobs. Millions, pursuing secular as well as religious studies, were products of educational systems that generally devoted little if any attention to the rest of the world’s thought, history, and culture.

The secular education reflected a strong cultural preference for technical fields over the humanities and social sciences. Many of these young men, even if able to study abroad, lacked the perspective and skills needed to understand a different culture. Frustrated in their search for a decent living, unable to benefit from an education often obtained at the cost of great family sacrifice, and blocked from starting families of their own, some of these young men were easy targets for radicalization.

Most Muslims prefer a peaceful and inclusive vision of their faith, not the violent sectarianism of Bin Ladin. Among Arabs, Bin Ladin’s followers are commonly nicknamed takfiri, or “those who define other Muslims as unbelievers,” because of their readiness to demonize and murder those with whom they disagree. Beyond the theology lies the simple human fact that most Muslims, like most other human beings, are repelled by mass murder and barbarism whatever their justification. “All Americans must recognize that the face of terror is not the true face of Islam,” President Bush observed. “Islam is a faith that brings comfort to a billion people around the world. It’s a faith that has made brothers and sisters of every race. It’s a faith based upon love, not hate.”

Yet as political, social, and economic problems created flammable societies, Bin Ladin used Islam’s most extreme, fundamentalist traditions as his match. All these elements-including religion-combined in an explosive compound. Bin Laden’s expansion through building alliances extended to the United States. A Muslim organization called al Khifa had numerous branch offices, the largest of which was in the Farouq mosque in Brooklyn. In the mid-1980s, other cities with branches of al Khifa included Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Pittsburgh, and Tucson.

Al Khifa recruited American Muslims to fight in Afghanistan; some of them would participate in terrorist actions in the United States in the early 1990s and in al Qaeda operations elsewhere, including the 1998 attacks on U.S. embassies in East Africa.

Another scheme revealed that Bin Ladin sought the capability to kill on a mass scale. His business aides received word that a Sudanese military officer who had been a member of the previous government cabinet was offering to sell weapons-grade uranium. After a number of contacts were made through intermediaries, the officer set the price at $1.5 million, which did not deter Bin Ladin. Al Qaeda apparently purchased the cylinder, then discovered it to be bogus. But while the effort failed, it shows what Bin Ladin and his associates hoped to do. One of the al Qaeda representatives explained his mission: “it’s easy to kill more people with uranium.”

Bin Ladin was also willing to explore possibilities for cooperation with Iraq, even though Iraq’s dictator, Saddam Hussein, had never had an Islamist agenda-save for his opportunistic pose as a defender of the faithful against “Crusaders” during the Gulf War of 1991. Moreover, Bin Ladin had in fact been sponsoring anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan, and sought to attract them into his Islamic army. Bin Ladin continued to aid a group of Islamist extremists operating in part of Iraq (Kurdistan) outside of Baghdad’s control.

In the late 1990s, these extremist groups suffered major defeats by Kurdish forces. In 2001, with Bin Ladin’s help they re-formed intoan organization called Ansar al Islam. There are indications that by then the Iraqi regime tolerated and may even have helped Ansar al Islam against the common Kurdish enemy.With the Sudanese regime acting as intermediary, Bin Ladin himself met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994 or early 1995. Bin Ladin is said to have asked for space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but there is no evidence that Iraq responded to this request. As described below, the ensuing years saw additional efforts to establish connections. There is also evidence that around the time Bin Ladin (was establishing himself in Afghanistan) he sent out a number of feelers to the Iraqi regime, offering some cooperation. None are reported to have received a significant response.

According to one report, Saddam Hussein’s efforts at this time to rebuild relations with the Saudis and other Middle Eastern regimes led him to stay clear of Bin Ladin. In mid-1998, the situation reversed; it was Iraq that reportedly took the initiative. In March 1998, after Bin Ladin’s public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin.

Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban. According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq. Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides’ hatred of the United States. But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States.

The meetings between al Queda and Iraqi officials suggest a strong possibility that had Saddam sufficiently developed WMD, his hatred of the U.S. would likely have led him to sell Bin Laden some genuine WMD that Bin Laden most certainly would have used to kill large numbers of Americans.


On July 15, MSNBC’s “Connected” program discussed the July 7th London attacks.

One of the guests was Pierre Rehov, a French filmmaker who has filmed six documentaries on the intifada by going undercover in the Palestinian areas. Pierre’s upcoming film, “Suicide Killers,” is based on interviews that he conducted with the families of suicide bombers and would-be bombers in an attempt to find out why they do it. Pierre agreed to a request for a Q&A interview here about his work on the new film.

Q – What inspired you to produce “Suicide Killers,” your seventh film? A – I started working with victims of suicide attacks to make a film on PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder) when I became fascinated with the personalities of those who had committed those crimes, as they were described again and again by their victims. Especially the fact that suicide bombers are all smiling one second before they blow themselves up.

Q – Why is this film especially important? A – People don’t understand the devastating culture behind this unbelievable phenomenon. My film is not politically correct because it addresses the real problem, showing the real face of Islam. It points the finger against a culture of hatred in which the uneducated are brainwashed to a level where their only solution in life becomes to kill themselves and kill others in the name of a God whose word, as transmitted by other men, has become their only certitude.

Q – What insights did you gain from making this film? What do you know that other experts do not know? A – I came to the conclusion that we are facing a neurosis at the level of an entire civilization. Most neuroses have in common a dramatic event, generally linked to an unacceptable sexual behavior. In this case, we are talking of kids living all their lives in pure frustration, with no opportunity to experience sex, love, tenderness or even understanding from the opposite sex. The separation between men and women in Islam is absolute. So is contempt toward women, who are totally dominated by men. This leads to a situation of pure anxiety, in which normal behavior is not possible. It is no coincidence that suicide killers are mostly young men dominated subconsciously by an overwhelming libido that they not only cannot satisfy but are afraid of, as if it is the work of the devil. Since Islam describes heaven as a place where everything on Earth will finally be allowed, and promises 72 virgins to those frustrated kids, killing others and killing themselves to reach this redemption becomes their only solution.

Q – What was it like to interview would-be suicide bombers, their families and survivors of suicide bombings? A – It was a fascinating and a terrifying experience. You are dealing with seemingly normal people with very nice manners who have their own logic, which to a certain extent can make sense since they are so convinced that what they say is true. It is like dealing with pure craziness, like interviewing people in an asylum, since what they say, is for them, the absolute truth. I hear a mother saying “Thank God, my son is dead.” Her son had became a shaheed, a martyr, which for her was a greater source of pride than if he had became an engineer, a doctor or a winner of the Nobel Prize This system of values works completely backwards since their interpretation of Islam worships death much more than life. You are facing people whose only dream, only achievement goal is to fulfill what they believe to be their destiny, namely to be a Shaheed or the family of a shaheed. They don’t see the innocent being killed, they only see the impure that they have to destroy.

Q – You say suicide bombers experience a moment of absolute power, beyond punishment. Is death the ultimate power? A – Not death as an end, but death as a door opener to the after life. They are seeking the reward that God has promised them. They work for God, the ultimate authority, above all human laws. They therefore experience this single delusional second of absolute power, where nothing bad can ever happen to them, since they become God’s sword.

Q – Is there a suicide bomber personality profile? Describe the psychopathology. A – Generally kids between 15 and 25 bearing a lot of complexes, generally inferiority complexes. They must have been fed with religion. They usually have a lack of developed personality. Usually they are impressionable idealists. In the western world they would easily have become drug addicts, but not criminals. Interestingly, they are not criminals since they don’t see good and evil the same way that we do. If they had been raised in an Occidental culture, they would have hated violence. But they constantly battle against their own death anxiety. The only solution to this deep-seated pathology is to be willing to die and be rewarded in the afterlife in Paradise .

Q – Are suicide bombers principally motivated by religious conviction? A – Yes, it is their only conviction. They don’t act to gain a territory or to find freedom or even dignity. They only follow Allah, the supreme judge, and what He tells them to do.

Q – Do all Muslims interpret jihad and martyrdom in the same way? A – All Muslim believers believe that, ultimately, Islam will prevail on earth. They believe this is the only true religion and there is no room, in their mind, for interpretation. The main difference between moderate Muslims and extremists is that moderate Muslims don’t think they will see the absolute victory of Islam during their lifetime, therefore they respect other beliefs. The extremists believe that the fulfillment of the Prophecy of Islam and ruling the entire world as described in the Koran, is for today. Each victory of Bin Laden convinces 20 million moderate Muslims to become extremists.

Q – Describe the culture that manufactures suicide bombers. A – Oppression, lack of freedom, brain washing, organized poverty, placing God in charge of daily life, total separation between men and women, forbidding sex, giving women no power whatsoever, and placing men in charge of family honor, which is mainly connected to their women’s behavior.

Q – What socio-economic forces support the perpetuation of suicide bombings? A – Muslim charity is usually a cover for supporting terrorist organizations. But one has also to look at countries like Pakistan , Saudi Arabia and Iran , which are also supporting the same organizations through different networks. The ironic thing in the case of Palestinian suicide bombers is that most of the money comes through financial support from the Occidental world, donated to a culture that utterly hates and rejects the West (mainly symbolized by Israel ).

Q – Is there a financial support network for the families of the suicide bombers? If so, who is paying them and how does that affect the decision? A – There used to be a financial incentive in the days of Saddam Hussein ($25,000 per family) and Yasser Arafat (smaller amounts), but these days are gone. It is a mistake to believe that these families would sacrifice their children for money. Although, the children themselves who are very attached to their families, might find in this financial support another reason to become suicide bombers. It is like buying a life insurance policy and then committing suicide.

Q – Why are so many suicide bombers young men? A – As discussed above, libido is paramount. Also ego, because this is a sure way to become a hero. The shaheed are the cowboys or the firemen of Islam. Shaheed is a positively reinforced value in this culture. And what kid has never dreamed of becoming a cowboy or a fireman?

Q – What role does the U.N. play in the terrorist equation? A – The U.N. is in the hands of Arab countries and third world or ex-communist countries Their hands are tied. The U.N. has condemned Israel more than any other country in the world, including the regime of Castro, Idi Amin or Kaddahfi. By behaving this way, the U.N. leaves a door open by not openly condemning terrorist organizations. In addition, through UNRWA, the U.N. is directly tied to terror organizations such as Hamas, representing 65 percent of their apparatus in the so-called Palestinian refugee camps. As a support to Arab countries, the U.N. has maintained Palestinians in camps with the hope to “return” into Israel for more than 50 years, therefore making it impossible to settle those populations, which still live in deplorable conditions. Four hundred million dollars are spent every year, mainly financed by U.S. taxes, to support 23,000 employees of UNRWA, many of whom belong to terrorist organizations (see Congressman Eric Cantor on this subject, and in my film “Hostages of Hatred”).

Q – You say that a suicide bomber is a ‘stupid bomb and a smart bomb’ simultaneously. Explain what you mean. A – Unlike an electronic device, a suicide killer has until the last second the capacity to change his mind. In reality, he is nothing but a platform representing interests which are not his, but he doesn’t know it.

Q – How can we put an end to the madness of suicide bombings and terrorism in general? A – Stop being politically correct and stop believing that this culture is a victim of ours. Radical Islamism today is nothing but a new form of Nazism. Nobody was trying to justify or excuse Hitler in the 1930s. We had to defeat him in order to make peace one day with the German people.

Q – Are these men traveling outside their native areas in large numbers? Based on your research, would you predict that we are beginning to see a new wave of suicide bombings outside the Middle East ?

A – Every successful terror attack is considered a victory by the radical Islamists. Everywhere Islam expands there is regional conflict. Right now, there are thousands of candidates for martyrdom lining up in training camps in Bosnia , Afghanistan and Pakistan . Inside Europe , hundreds of illegal mosques are preparing the next step of brain washing to lost young men who cannot find a satisfying identity in the Occidental world. Israel is much more prepared for this than the rest of the world will ever be. Yes, there will be more suicide killings in Europe and the U.S. Sadly, this is only the beginning.

Back to Information



UNBALANCED REPORTING by Robert Williams 8-14-2004

The following synopsis is mostly my own words, but is based on similar ideas in an article by Karl Zinsmeister, editor in chief of “The American Enterprise” magazine (

FACT: Unbalanced reporting is inaccurate by omission and it can demoralize forces for good and encourage forces of evil. Jim Marshall, Democratic congressman and Vietnam Veteran returned from a trip to Iraq and said, “I’m afraid the news media are hurting our chances. They are dwelling on the mistakes [and] not balancing this bad news with the ‘rest of the story,’ the progress made daily …. The falsely bleak picture weakens our national resolve, discourages Iraqi cooperation, and emboldens our enemy.”

FACT: No one denies we are facing a long hard guerilla war in Iraq. As yet, however, it is not a mass popular revolt. The Shiite middle majority has been non-violent and patient. Ordinary Shia leaders have clearly opposed the power-grabbing violence of Moqtada al Sadr’s militia. Unfortunately the media has falsely blown up Moqtada’s activities as a general uprising that signals the beginning of defeat for our goals in Iraq.

FACT: There is also an ideological imbalance in the media. Two decades of studies have found that around eighty percent of journalists themselves vote for Democrats and liberals. This ideological imbalance inevitably shows up in the media’s sensationalistic emphasis on the negative aspects of the war on terrorism and its almost total reluctance to report anything positive for fear it will look like it is favoring the Republican Administration’s policies. But such negative journalism does not fool the public. According to the Pew Research Center, only thirty percent of the American population expresses confidence, “that the press is giving an accurate picture of how the war is going”.

FACT: None of the Abu Graib prisoners that were stupidly pictured in sexually humiliating poses suffered significant physical wounds or died as a consequence of their humiliation. By contrast, many detainees were wounded or killed by the repeated mortar and rocket attacks on the prison by Islamic extremists who knew full well they were harming their own people. But this simple important fact was completely ignored in the worldwide screaming about the humiliation photos.

FACT: In spite of repeated sabotage and violence against workers, Iraq now has more electricity than before the war. Saddam shunted fifty-seven percent of his country’s power to his capital, short-changing the rest of the provinces. Today it is distributed fairly, with Baghdad getting twenty-eight percent. Some of the previously privileged may have occasional shortages, but the country as a whole is far better off. There are continued improvements, but supply even in other countries would have a hard time keeping up with the current approximate sixty percent Iraqi annual economic growth — bursting with cars, satellite TV’s, refrigerators, washing machines, air conditioners, etc. Has this heroic twin miracle been reported or praised by the media? Hell no.

FACT: One of the most thoroughly planned military operations in history was the D-Day landings in World War Two. American soldiers accomplished the overall goal, but partly due to unforeseen events 4,649 died in just a few hours. By the impossibly perfectionist standards of today’s militarily under-educated media, D-Day would have been reported as an unmitigated quagmire of disaster sure to spell the doom of the allied efforts. Such thinking completely ignores the primary lesson of all war history, that wars never go according to plan but have to be won by bravery and on-the-spot improvisation.

FACT: Prestigious universities produce many journalists, but prestigious colleges are not known for having large numbers of participants volunteer for the military. This has the unfortunate result that many journalists with no personal military experience nevertheless love to pontificate and editorialize on subjects they know nothing about.

Back to Information




The following synopsis is mostly my own words, but is based on similar ideas in an article by Karl Zinsmeister, editor in chief of “The American Enterprise” magazine (

Mr. Zinsmeister explains that he was asked by the State Department to give a talk on American culture at a conference of European academics, government officials, and businessmen held in Warsaw, Poland. His panel was chaired by Reiner Pommerin, a professor at the University of Dresden, Germany.

Pommerin was aggressively anti-American. “Thank God we had the 11th of September,” he said–for this showed the U.S. how it feels to be humbled, (a blatant example of “schadenfreude”, joy at other’s misfortune). Pommerin went on to state the U.S. military was a hollow force, all show and no substance. Another European panelist declared that most American technologies are junky, and have come to dominate only through manipulative advertising. — A British professor insisted that America is going to be uncompetitive in biology because “hardly any U.S. college students accept the reality of evolution,” and science teaching in the U.S. “blinds students with dogmatism”.

To an American, these pronouncements seem ridiculously uninformed and might be overlooked, except for the callous disregard for 3,000 innocent American lives lost at 9/11, and the vehemence and envy and certitude that gave the conference an extremely ugly atmosphere. Unfortunately it wasn’t ignorance. To quote Mr. Zinsmeister, “It was animus, jealousy, and willful spite”. Not so surprising, then, that the German elections turned on vicious Yankee-bashing. Germany refused to supply evidence against Zacarias Moussaoui (the “missing” September 11 hijacker) because the Germans believed this killer of Americans might get the death penalty. Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder loudly vowed to obstruct further U.S. anti-terror efforts in the Middle East, with moves like removing Germany’s useful chemical-weapons-detecting vehicles from Kuwait.

Schroeder’s fervor was such that he announced Germany would resist any plan to disarm Iraq even if the U.N. fully sanctioned the effort. European politicians have found they can get public opinion points by practicing anti-Americanism. So what does that say about the European public? It says they resent our success and our power and all but a few are too young to care about the thousands of American lives lost saving their precedents from totalitarianism in World War Two. The British have also forgotten. Many of them disapprove of America’s war on terror and even consider the U.S. to be the world’s primary rogue state.

Mr. Zinsmeister comments that, “During his first trip to Europe in 2001, President Bush was hectored and attacked repeatedly by activists and politicians. When in the spring of 2002the President visited Berlin, tens of thousands of Germans gave him the cold shoulder in more than 25 large anti-U.S. demonstrations. The European press labeled our President a ‘murderer’ for allowing the execution of Timothy McVeigh. Euro politicians and reporters have taken to casually calling Americans ‘toxic,’ ‘ thugs,’ ‘imperialists,’ and ‘gangsters'”. Apparently we are the “thugs”, not the terrorists who murdered our citizens. This kind of psychotic twisted sentiment is now so prevalent in Europe it makes one wonder how a whole continent got so sick.

Mr. Zinsmeister further says, “— This simple reality needs to be faced squarely by Americans: In a great variety of areas–foreign policy, demography, religion, economics — Americans and Europeans are growing apart. While the September 11 attacks deepened American sobriety, patriotic feeling, and national resolution, in Europe they merely created one more flashpoint for division. European elites, already worried they won’t be able to keep up with America over the next generation, are now approaching panic as the U.S. coalesces, during its September 11 recovery, into an even steelier and more determined colossus. Some Europeans complain that the U.S. is more and more heading off on its own without them. They are right.”

Philosophical differences between Europe and America are growing in some important areas. Europe’s socialistic trend has diminished much of its economic dynamism with suffocating taxes and welfare statism. Europe has substituted an exaggerated confidence in diplomacy for military action. “The anti-American alliance,” noted Michael Gove in the London Times earlier this year, “resents American economic success because it reminds them that their preferred cocktails of protectionism, state regulation, subsidy, and intervention constrict growth. America’s practical success is a standing rebuke to their abstract beliefs.”

Another divergence is defense. Europeans put all their eggs in the basket of resolution-writing and collective diplomacy; a feeble concept they term “multilateralism”. Given so many recent failures of such diplomacy in places ranging from Iraq to Rwanda to Bosnia, it’s strange that Europeans would bet all future peace on parchment walls that any aggressor would punch through in a split-second. But that’s Europeans for you.

Mr Zinsmeister says of Europeans, “When they see the United States slaying dragons abroad–yesterday Afghanistan, today Iraq, tomorrow who knows who–they see a cowboy whose enthusiasms threaten to disturb the perfect order of things, best symbolized by the hushed paper-shuffling at the International Criminal Court.” At the same time they’ve bet the farm on Swiss-cheese treaties, the Europeans have pared their military spending to the point where the entire continent now has approximately the same force-projecting power as the Swiss navy. ”

Mr Zinsmeister further notes that “Roughly 40 percent of all global defense spending is currently put up by the U.S. That’s what wore out the Soviets. That’s what put Milosevic in handcuffs. That’s what got Kuwaiti oil flowing again. That’s what turned out the lights on the Taliban. That–and that alone–is what’s going to prevent a nuclear device from exploding over Tel Aviv or London”.

In the future it will probably be largely Asia and South America and parts of the middle east that will become more important as potential partners than Europe.

Back to Information




To me the greatest freedom is to choose my own beliefs and express them without adverse consequences from the authorities in power. This is a freedom guaranteed by law to all American citizens and it is the freedom most feared and hated by the power monger fanatics of the world because it is the freedom that most threatens their dictatorship. I believe that is what drives them to kill all who dare promote freedom and resist subjugation. It was such people who perpetrated the atrocities of 9/11. On 5-26-06 President Bush got it right when he publicly referred to them as “dictators” and “Islamic Fascists”.

“Fascism”, “National Socialism (Nazi-ism)”, “Communism”, “Wahhab-ism”, these are modern names for what amounts to an old and well established technique of enslaving by combining brainwashing and terrorism. The origin of this method is not clear but its evidence permeates all of recorded history. It was used and is still used by tribal chiefs and shamans. It has in one form or another been used and is still used by the elite of various religions, political factions, social movements, warlords, and the like. In the hands of determined experts the method is quite effective because it takes unfair advantage of what I choose to call “natural pack psychology”. More on that below.

Shortly after 9/11 I studied a history of Islam, by Karen Armstrong, and an English translation of the Quran (Koran) in an attempt to understand why the Islamic terrorists universally claim that all who do not share their particular convictions deserve death. In the Quran I found a typically ancient-times autocratic approach backed up with an insistence on absolute subservience, assurances of eternally burning in Hell for “infidel” non-believers, assertions of many earthy pleasures for the faithful in paradise, and a pervasive paranoia born out of the early persecution of Islam’s followers. All of this is phrased in ancient ways of expression now open to many interpretations for modern times.

But could this be the only influence responsible for the current explosion of Islamo-fascism? How could the radical brainwashers outweigh moderates and gain such power over so many? Although I am not a trained psychologist I perceived hints there could be a psychological basis for the astonishing effectiveness of this brainwashing. I could only explain it to myself by considering how instinctively we and our animal cousins seek safety in the family group, the social group, the pack, the tribe, a movement, or a nation. This seems particularly true under harsh and dangerous conditions such as nomadic desert life. In these conditions non-conformists are mistrusted and they risk being thrown out of the pack or eliminated with violence.

There is a strong instinctive tendency to be wary of “free thinkers” because they might disturb the norm and thus endanger the coherency of a group. Historically the survival of a pack has depended on a lack of confusion and a coherence cemented by capable leadership. In the dog-eat-dog world of water and food scarcity, the weak pack is not likely to survive depravations or the onslaught of another desperate pack. An individual pack member with aggressive genes and enough capability to outfox or outfight any competitor usually becomes dominant. Once this dominance is complete, the rest have to comply or face dire consequences. The power struggles now going on in Iraq are illustrative.

For these reasons and the intoxication of wielding power over others, autocracies were the norm throughout most of human history. Democracy that provides individual freedoms has had a hard time since its birth. When power is shared and leaders are elected for limited terms, decision making becomes lengthy and contentious. Policies are fragile because they can be changed often. Democracies are slower to respond in emergencies.

A dictator may find running a large nation complicated enough that he makes mistakes, but in the short run a dictator’s utter control over armies and resources means he can strike a chosen enemy with stealth, blinding speed, and without scruple. Hitler proved this could be done with his nation under thrall and Osama bin Laden proved it could be done with a few individuals under thrall, even without a national structure.

Of course the more successful and powerful a democracy becomes the more it is feared and hated by the power mongers, so they devise all sorts of ways to brainwash their slaves into thinking first that they are not slaves and second that they are obligated to defend with their lives the power mongers themselves along with whatever they are preaching. In the case of societies whose daily life is permeated with a single official creed, that creed can become a powerful tool to keep the population in-line and convince the people that all democratic forms of life are evil because such forms and practices are a threat to the creed. The power mongers go all-out to keep their creed precious to the people, essential to life itself, and impervious to criticism or free thought of any kind.

The incredible power of such brainwashing was made evident recently by the enormous Islamic uproar over the publishing of a few cartoons. Never mind that a God by definition is not a God if incapable of self-defence and therefore needs no human help to smash offending cartoonists. If the religion does not originally contain such extreme intolerance the power mongers make sure that it is twisted to demand intolerance. Dictatorships can survive only by the inculcation of extreme intolerance for freer ways of life.

I mean no offence or disrespect when I assert that unfortunately for the followers of most religions, the Holy Books written in ancient and very different times are relatively vulnerable to manipulation by power mongers. There is enough in all these writings that is either honestly restrictive, “Thou shalt have no other God before me”, or smack heavily of the autocratic thought so prevalent in those times. I have had personal experience that to get around this requires a rather wrenching adjustment for the believer and a willingness to “democratise” a religion by not taking everything literally and by “interpreting” in ways that may seem to compromise belief in the absolute veracity of books considered the word of God. Opportunity abounds for power mongers to insist the only way to believe is the “absolute truth” of their particular definition. Tolerance goes out the window and incessant war is the result.

Power mongers have been successfully brainwashing followers for many centuries. They do it by convincing people that they have a monopoly on wisdom. They do it with constant repetition of propaganda, forcing children to study only in schools controlled by the brainwashers, restricting exposure to any other culture, and getting their supporters to severely punish any spark of “free thinking” that shows up in their societies. The Islamic clerics of Afghanistan recently swore to kill a former Muslim who voluntarily converted to Christianity. Even more recently the fanatics killed two Iraqi tennis Olympic hopefuls and their coach simply because they were wearing shorts. If these brainwashers stay in power long enough, they keep their societies backward, ignorant of other cultures, and enslaved to a single impoverished way of life. The power mongers don’t do any fighting or any work but they are never impoverished. Their bodies as well as their causes are supported by slaves.

In the last few decades the leaders of Islamic fundamentalist enclaves had ever increasing trouble locking out modern influences and quite naturally became desperate to preserve their power before it was too late, so they used the influence they had built up over centuries to start a last-ditch war on all freer societies. Their fighters behave like cornered tigers, lashing out even at their own kind.

There seems to me incontrovertible evidence that the Islamo-fascists have now engaged in this war with such determination and vigour that the only effective response is a sustained military and psychological campaign until their power to brainwash and make war is substantially diminished and eventually nullified. The terrorists of the world have repeatedly proven they are incapable of responding to reason. That is of course the inevitable result of brainwashing in an absolute doctrine and cannot be changed once embeded. They have been far too thoroughly brainwashed. The immediate solution is to dig out and kill such implacable murderers. The long term solution is to defang the power mongers. It will have to be done in a way to avoid being seen as generally anti-religion. That poses a problem. It is simple to strip a power monger of power by ignoring him or her. But it is difficult for autocratic societies to seemingly betray their leaders by ignoring them, especially when these leaders make sure the public believes that a powerful God will strike down or condemn to eternal fire any opposition to the leadership.

Defanging is ideally done by the people, as was recently done to certain miscrients in the Catholic church. But if this is unlikely in the case of Islamic power mongers or would take too long then it will have to be done by worldwide determination. The increasing availability of weapons of mass destruction make the situation just too urgently dangerous to wait a century or two.

Unfortunately for the continuing slaughter of innocents, neither internal pressure on power mongers nor worldwide determination against them is rapidly forthcoming. This is most blatantly demonstrated by the current situation in Darfur. In fact, if the nay-sayers multiply sufficiently the needed measures against terrorism may be guaranteed not to happen at all. It is astounding how many of us either misunderstand or subscribe to imbicilic denial of the truly horrendous consequences if the power mongers win by our own default.

Shortly after 9/11, the majority of Americans agreed that the atrocity could not be ignored. We went to war in order to teach the perpetrators they were not immune to retaliation and to prevent a repetition. However, there has been continuing confusion about why we experienced such vicious attacks in the first place. Currently the stubborn “insurgencies” in Iraq and Afghanistan have shown us that as mentioned above, something with roots deeper than just ordinary thuggery has been going on for a long time.

We have made an agressive start but we are far from united enough for a long-term decisive victory. 9/11 has not been entirely forgotten but its impact has been steadily watered down by an increasing number of loud voices calling for immediate unilateral cessation. The cries are, “give up” — “pull out now” — “its not worth it” — “it was a mistake in the first place” — ” our own policies caused the uprising against us” — “we should apologise for our arrogance” — “we can never win” — “we should rely on diplomacy”, etc. etc.

My freedom of choice gives me the right to disagree with those sentiments; not because I glorify war or even desire it, but because I have lived long enough to have personally experienced the tragic consequences of appeasement failures. If a viper invades your home and strikes, then if you have any regard at all for your family you do not politely ask it not to strike again. You kill it quickly before it does further harm because historical evidence shows it will not understand or respond to your polite plea.

It should be vehemently pointed out to all Muslims that as a group they can never hope to gain any respect in the world if they don’t aggressively subdue those in their midst who approve of such things as murdering tennis players for wearing shorts or wives and sisters for suspected indiscretions. There is simply no place for such outlandish barbarism in the modern world and we have to loudly tell all Muslims that we will not tolerate it. The fanatics and brainwashers have to go — NOW! But Muslims in general are in such fear of the terrorists and fundamentalists among them that it will take considerable pressure to make them act. A wimpy approach will not do it. We have to threaten Muslims with perpetual disdain and ostracism. This has nothing to do with Islam. Tennis is not mentioned in the Quran.

Back to Information List

Back to Top




The Holy Qur’an — Noor Foundation International

America: The Last Best Hope (Volume I) by William J. Bennett

New Glory: Expanding America’s global supremacy by Ralph Peters 2005, Penguin Books Ltd.

Beyond Baghdad by Ralph Peters

1776 by David McCullough 2005, Simon & Schuster

To America: Personal Reflections of an Historian by Stephen Ambrose 2002, Simon & Schuster

American Jihad:The Terrorists Living Among Us by Steven Emerson 2002, Free Press

Anti-American Terrorism and the Middle East: Understanding the Violence by Barry Rubin and Judith Colp Rubin 2002 Oxford University Press

Between War and Peace: Lessons from Afghanistan to Iraq by Victor Davis Hanson 2004, Random House

Beyond Terror: Strategy in a Changing World by Ralph Peters 2002, Stackpole Books

Bin Laden: Behind the Mask of the Terrorist by Adam Robinson 2001, Arcade Publishing

The Case for Democracy: The Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny and Terror by Natan Sharansky (with Ron Dermer) 2004, 2006, PublicAffairs

The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order by Samuel Huntington 1996, Simon & Schuster

The Crisis of Islam: Holy War and Unholy Terror by Bernard Lewis 2003, Random House

The Foreigner’s Gift: The Americans, the Arabs and the Iraqis in Iraq 2006, Free Press

Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed and How to Stop It by Rachel Ehrenfeld 2003, 2005, Bonus Books

Future Jihad: Terrorist Strategies Against America by Walid Phares 2005, Palgrave Macmillan

Hatreds Kingdom: How Saudi Arabia Supports the New Global Terrorism by Dore Gold 2003, Regnery Publishing

Imperial Grunts: The American Military on the Ground by Robert Kaplan 2005, Random House

Infiltration: How Muslim Subversives and Spies Have Penetrated Washington by Paul Sperry 2005, Nelson Current

Islam and Dhimmitude: Where Civilizations Collide by Bat Yeor 2002, Farleigh Dickinson Press

Jihad: The Trail of Political Islam by Gilles Kepel 2002, The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press

The Legacy of Jidad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims by Andrew Bostom 2005, Prometheus Books

The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East by Barry Rubin 2006, John Wiley & Sons

Love, Poverty and War: Journeys and Essays by Christopher Hitchens 2004, Nation Books

The Middle East: A Brief History of the Last 2,000 Years by Bernard Lewis 1995, Scribner

Never Quit the Fight by Ralph Peters 2006, Stackpole Books

Onward Muslim Soldiers: How Jihad Still Threatens America and the West by Robert Spencer 2003, Regnery Publishing

The Patriots: The American Revolution Generation of Genius Edited by Virginius Dabney 1975, Antheneum

The Shia Revival: How Conflicts Within Islam Will Shape the Future by Vali Nasr 2006, W.W. Norton & Company

The Spirit of Seventy-Six: The Story of the American Revolution as Told by Its Participants Edited by Henry Steele Commager and Richard B. Morris 2002, Castle Books

Tehran Rising: Iran’s Challenge to the United States by Ilan Berman 2005, Rowman & Littlefield

They Just Dont Get It: How Washington is Still Compromising Your Safety – And What You Can Do About It by Colonel David Hunt 2005, Crown Forum

Tower of Babble: How the United Nations Has Fueled Global Chaos by Dore Gold 2004, Crown Forum

Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left by David Horowitz 2004, Regenery Publishing

War Footing: 10 Steps America Must Take to Prevail in the War for the Free World by Frank Gaffney (and Colleagues)2006, Naval Institute Press

Warrior Politics: Why Leadership Demands a Pagan Ethos by Robert D. Kaplan 2002, Vintage Books

What Went Wrong: The Clash Between Islam and Modernity in the Middle East by Bernard Lewis 2002, Perennial

While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam Is Destroying the West from Within by Bruce Bawer 2006, Doubleday

Why We Fight: Moral Clarity and the War on Terrorism by William J. Bennett 2002, Regnery Publishing, Inc.

Back to Top


Posted August 7, 2010 by Patriot76

%d bloggers like this: