Ground Zero Mosque Protest

Stop Islamization of America poster 
for the planned rally against the 
Ground Zero mosque,
with event schedule

[Click on image to see a larger poster]

Kudos to Pamela Geller, of  Atlas Shrugs and Stop Islamization of America, who has organized a rally today to stop the "Ground Zero" mosque that is planned. Even the pathetic CBC is reporting on it, and mentioned her organization SIOA by name. Their argument is that this mosque is being built by moderate Muslims, who need a place where they can practice their religion of peace in peace, since they are nothing like their radical counterparts who blew up the Twin Towers. Therefore, these CBC geniuses conclude, these conservative (read evil, here) movements need to be stopped.

The Spiritual Source of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: Allah vs. God

Bat Ye'or and Sam Solomon, two prominent scholars and chroniclers of Islam, were the speakers at yesterday's event organized by the International Free Press Society- Canada, and the Free Thinking Film Society. When I went to the venue, which was at a synagogue in the northern limits of Toronto, my only concern was that I wouldn't be able to get there on time due to the heavy traffic exacerbated by road construction. I made it in ample time. But the synagogue became more significant than just a venue. Bat Ye'or started her presentation by saying that this is the first time she has given a speech in a synagogue. Sam Solomon's speech was titled, "Islam and its eternal enmity towards the Jews." So, a synagogue was infinitely appropriate for this very important conference, where both Bat Ye'or and Solomon repeatedly reminded the predominantly Jewish audience that Muslim enmity towards them is very real, and growing daily.

Sam Solomon spoke first. I dutifully took my notebook and pen at hand, to jot down his words. But, after his first sentence, it was clear that we were in front of a formidable orator, and it was better just to listen. Solomon, a former Muslim, is now a Christian. He was a Muslim scholar and sharia law expert. His introduction to the majority Jewish audience was to plead forgiveness for having condemned and maligned them in his former days while a devout Muslim. Then he plunged  right into Muslim hatred of Jews and Israel, which he says is inaccurately attributed to the creation of modern-day Israel. He explains that this deep-seated hatred goes to the origins of Islam, when the Jews rejected Muhammad's newly-created religion, and he condemned them for it. Solomon has a new book out, which bears the same title as his presentation: Al-Yahud: Eternal Islamic Enmity and the Jews.

The extraordinary effect of a former Muslim, who cites chapter and verse of the Koran in Arabic in order to gets his message across, is mesmerizing. Solomon has an incredible oratory voice despite his slight build; a voice which could have easily traveled across the large room without a microphone. His citations in Arabic conjure up images of a Muhammad throwing out these phrases in fits of fury (or Allah's fury, to acknowledge Muhammad's source). The harsh guttural sounds of Arabic almost need no translation into English; we know that these words are not said in love or compassion, but in hatred and destruction. Jew hatred, in Islam, is not an incidental affair resulting from border skirmishes. It is deep-seated in the psyche of Muslims who read (or listen to) Muhammad's words, words which are set in stone in the Koran. Muslims are mandated to hate Jews (and Christians).

This spiritual connection between Muslims' hatred of Jews and Christians is further elaborated by Bat Ye'or. Despite her quieter demeanor, this small lady is no less extraordinary, if nothing for her meticulous description of Islam's infiltration into European society, and now the world at large. She too has a new book coming out which is titled, Toward the Universal Caliphate: How Europe Became an Accomplice of Muslim Expansionism. She explains that her new book will delineate the global network that bodies like the Organization of the Islamic Conference are building in order to finally construct their worldwide Ummah.

One of the most significant insights I got from her presentation was her explanation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in spiritual terms. Informed people understand that the conflict has been manufactured by Muslims and Muslim apologists in order to find a basis for the destruction of Israel. But, Bat Ye'or says that the efforts behind the Palestinian concept is to separate Christianity from its Judaic roots to facilitate the Islamizaton of Christianity, and to render the whole region Islamic. Israel and the Jews can then be destroyed through a united Muslim front, as the Jews' natural allies, the Christians, become Islamicized. The end goal is to replace Israel with Palestine, rendering the whole region Islamic, and where Jerusalem takes its seat as the center of Islam.

For Christians, Israel and Jerusalem culminate with Christianity (through God's final design of bringing all His people under His wing through His Son Jesus Christ). Muslims have their alternate "Jesus," whom they call Isa, and to whom attribute prophetic rather than Messianic characteristics. This alternate Jesus is inscribed into the Muslim and Palestinian "narrative." Israel has occupied a land that rightfully belongs to Muslims, who have both spiritual and historical claims to this land. Thus, those "disputed" territories are neither Jewish, nor a Holy Land for Christians, but belong to Muslims and Isa. This Isa came to Jerusalem not to promote the Judeo-Christian God, but the Islamic Allah. Palestine is where Muslims fight their ultimate spiritual battle against Christians and Jews, the land which their Isa has proclaimed for them and their people.

Not many people describe the Palestinian and Jewish/Christian conflict in these spiritual terms. Even devout Muslims explain it in terms of territorial claims. But, Bat Ye'or, by peeling away at the layers has, I think, come up with a strong spiritual argument for why the Palestinian question consumes the whole world at such a visceral level. It is a matter of Isa vs. Jesus, Allah against God. Truth battling falsehood.

"Pluralistic" Aga Khan Dedicates Ismaili Centre to Islamic Art

Canadian citizenship is for the giving and the taking. Conrad Black is a recent (ex) Canadian who gave away his citizenship to become a British Lord. Then he wanted it back when he faced jail time in the United States. He is still in a U.S. jail.

The Ismaili philanthropist Aga Khan, who is the current Imam of the Ismaili Muslims, recently received an honorary Canadian citizenship. Partly, it is to honor his activities around the world, where he says he advocates for pluralism, tolerance and equality. "You sound like a Canadian" declared Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper while bestowing the citizenship.

The other reason for the honorary citizenship is to commemorate his "gift" to Canada in the form of a multi-million dollar Ismaili Centre in Toronto. There is nothing pluralistic, tolerant or equal about this center. It is simply and clearly an Ismaili Centre. Aga Khan stresses that the centre will be dedicated to Islamic art.

Imagine a situation where a Canadian philanthropist were to be given an honorary citizenship in a non-Western country. Say it is a Muslim country, since despite their insistence that they are the most moderate of the moderate Muslims, Ismailis are still Muslims (note the dedication to Islamic art for the center in Toronto). True to his Canadian nature, this Canadian philanthropist would genuinely build a pluralistic centre, praising the wonderful multicultural country he comes from. Forget about him promoting a center so culturally specific that it would be "dedicated to Christian art." The only religion this Canadian would promote is Multiculturalism. And this would suit his hosts fine, since no Muslim country would allow any kind of dedication to Christianity anyway.

Harper's liberalism bypasses all these realities to yet again let another intolerant (naturally it's exclusive) group set up shop in Canada, benefiting from the generous Multicultural Policy, and weakening whatever is left of the true, traditional Canadian culture. The Aga Khan looks like a nice guy, and at some point he must wonder at this strange cultureless country, where anything and anyone is welcome.

I Take it All Back - On "Everybody Draw Muhammad Day"

Ezra Levant exposed the Muslim bully 
tactics when he published this cartoon 
by Kurt Westergaard in his magazine the 
Western Standard. Levant later went through 
three years of Human Rights Commissions 
abuses (including financial loss), before he won the case - 
or more like, the case was dropped by 
the Muslim complainant.

A couple of days ago, I posted some negative comments about the "Everybody Draw Muhammad Day." My point was: Why should we engage in adolescent-style behavior by antagonizing Muslims, when we could work on some serious strategic issues.

Then, it hit me yesterday that if every Facebook, every blog, every pundit published a drawing each, what could Muslims do? Stage World War III? We are in fact reducing their behavior to absurdity. It's not even, "Come and get us," although that could happen later. What we are saying is, "This is our land, our civilization, our culture, so just shut up."

I imagined, in this moment of lucidity, that for every mosque that comes up, we could send a peel of church bells on a daily, regular basis, so that Muslims will feel so accosted that they cannot build, let alone pray, in those edifices. Reactionary aggression can sometimes be a good thing. Bullies, which is what I think Muslims are, often break down when they realize their target isn't just going to take it sitting down anymore.

Swedish Cartoonist's Home is Set on Fire

Yet another Scandinavian cartoonist is under attack by Muslims. Lars Vilks’ cartoons depict Mohammad as a dog - the most reviled creature (after pigs?) in Islamic culture. First he was attacked during a speech he made at Uppsala University. Then, there was an arson attack on his home a couple of days ago.

Lars Hedegaard, President of the International Free Press Society says (via Diana West's blog):

How was possible for these murderers to gain access to Vilks' house only a few days after a mob assaulted him at Uppsala University? What are the Swedish police and political class up to? As far as I know not a single Swedish politician has had a word to say about the attack in Uppsala. Is the truth that Swedish power-holders prefer to see Vilks killed in order to send a message to other critics of the Swedish multicultural idyll?

Now is the time to demonstrate practical solidarity. We can all do that by purchasing the drawing [below] his would-be murderers are so angry about.

As Mr. Hedegaard articulates, it is atrocious that no Swedish politician mentioned this incident. Yet, he and other counter-jihad writers*, including James Cohen at the International Free Press Society, suggest a public drawing spree of cartoons in defiance of Muslims' blasphemy beliefs. Then selling these cartoons, or wearing them (on t-shirts) in public.

No one suggests that more important than performing short-lived rebellious acts (against Muslims?!), is the strategy to remove Muslims from Western society, so we don't have to periodically live through these kinds of incidents.

I understand what I am suggesting is beyond the "practical solidarity" about which Mr. Hedegaard writes, but surely bringing it up is a step in the right direction? Simply attacking Muslims on our turf, is a never-ending exercise. Muslims will never tire of this tactic, which is in fact part of their long-term strategy to wear us out, so that we slowly accommodate their demands, and make our countries more hospitable for them.

* The diligent counter-jihad blog Gates of Vienna proposes a similar solution. I suspect the take on the incident is similar throughout the blogosphere.Yes, it is [1,2, etc.].

Wilders and His Astute Political Strategies to Win Back the Netherlands

I have blogged about the necessity of bringing the grass-roots counter-jihad movements closer to political realities. Not everyone is a politician, and not all politicians should hold political posts, especially counter-jihad ones. That is why it is incumbent upon us to look for, and attract, the very best.

It is a pleasure to see what an astute politician Geert Wilders is, as reported by Paul Belien in this article "The Wilders Momentum."

One of the moves that Wilders made during the recent municipal elections was to avoid overreach, as Belien explains here:

Rather than concentrating on quantity and fielding candidates wherever he could, even if he was not sure about the candidates’ background and talents, Wilders concentrated on quality.

He ran in only two municipalities, and his strategy was a resounding success, where his party won in Almere and came second in the important city of The Hague.

Reforming the Islamic presence in the West is a major role to accept. It might cost the politician his life. Therefore, whoever agrees to (or qualifies for) this position will have to be brutally honest, politically shrewd (and seasoned), and work with a lot of wisdom. I think the Netherlands found such a man in Wilders.

"We are here for the Netherlands, we are here for the people"

In my previous posts, I discussed the potential for counter-jihad movements in Canada. I later expanded the subject to discuss how grass roots efforts that deal with Muslims' increasing power could be channeled into a broader political spectrum.

Geert Wilders is the quintessential leader of grass roots sentiments, who is also the leader of his political party, the PVV, in the Netherlands. Below are excerpts from his speech in Almere, one of the municipalities his party is predicted to win when elections are held this week, after the recent fall of the Dutch government. The English translation is provided by Gates of Vienna.

The Party for Freedom (PVV) has a breakpoint for negotiations for a Cabinet. We say: it is good to talk with us. We are here for the Netherlands, we are here for the people...

People, you know the PVV to be a caring party. We see that the backbone of the Netherlands is formed by the teacher, the nurse, and the policeman. All people who ensure that the Netherlands will be able to keep going.

In recent months, Raymond de Roon [PVV's justice spokesman in Parliament] has been meeting with quite a lot of people in this city. And those citizens over and over told our candidates: provide lower taxes for us; bring down those burdens! What they earn themselves, they also want to keep themselves. And thus the PVV is also setting to work on that right here in Almere: lowering the property tax, cutting the parking fees in half, and throwing out the sewage and waste disposal tax...

The Party for Freedom has been pursuing a marvelous campaign in recent weeks...Look, that is true PVV policy. Not counting policy reports, but helping citizens...

And I still have other good news for you. I heard from our party leaders in Almere and the Hague [the other city where the PVV joins the municipal elections], Raymond de Roon and Sietse Fritsma, what the main effort will be for the [coalition] negotiations in Almere and the Hague after March 3 [the municipal elections]: That will be a ban on headscarves in municipal bodies and all other institutions, foundations, or associations, if they receive even one penny of subsidy from the municipality.

Dear people, we here in Almere will go against the flow for a great result on Wednesday [the municipal elections]. I am convinced that not only in the Netherlands, but also in Europe, many will be watching the PVV. You can make the difference. You can let this be known to the entire Netherlands on Wednesday: Almere chooses the PVV. Almere chooses for the future.

And you then will also do something else. With a resounding victory, you will lay the basis for the success of the PVV in the general election — when on June 9 hundreds of thousands, perhaps even millions of people throughout the Netherlands will vote for the Party for Freedom.

From his sequestered life, shielded by body guards, Wilders is able to speak to the grass roots of Dutch society, securing votes and a new way of dealing with the crippling politics that has resulted in an erosion of his country.

This is how grass roots movements should work.

Grass Roots Counter Jihad Movements Need to Be Channeled into Politics to Effect Real Change

Geert Wilders discusses in one of his many speeches that ground level organizations are important in exposing the raw views of dissatisfied ordinary people. But that such discontent cannot remain at the grass roots level.

Mike Church and Larrey Anderson show in their recent American Thinker article, "Who will lead the TEA Party?" that leaders of the original Tea Party movement were officials in local governments, who were trying to diffuse the controls of the central (British) government. Ironically, they were in fact trying to uphold the Constitution of the time, which was English Constitution of 1688.

These original Tea Party members were not some anarchic, anti-government groups with haphazard radical protesters. Church and Anderson write, "these men were united in opposition to Parliament's usurpations of their liberties," and their leaders were "the equivalent of our finest state legislators, mayors, city councilmen, etc."

The current Tea Party movement is also not devoid of its government, or former government officials. Freedom Works, an organized body which influences the movement, has Dick Armey as its chairman. Armey is a former house majority leader, who makes statements like, "Let’s not leave them [the GOP] to their own devices."

Influencing and changing negative government authority should certainly be the ultimate aim of grass roots activities. This requires that their leaders be familiar with politics, with the intention of entering and leading in such a political environment, if not influencing that political environment from powerful external groups (as Freedom Works is doing).

If one does a survey of counter-jihad activities around Europe, there is a similar pattern. Grass roots discontents are channeled into politics and the formation of political parties, or political representatives. Wilders’s PVV in the Netherlands, Filip Dewinter of the Vlaams Belang Party in Belgium, Stop the Islamization of Denmark, the Sweden Democrats, all originated from movements or leaders who were sensitive to the agitated public whose grievances weren’t addressed by the major political parties.

A similar approach is necessary here. Counter jihad groups should form alliances with seasoned, and like-minded politicians. If there are none, then the onus is on these groups to form an appropriate leader. As the original Tea Party movement has shown us, a revolution has to mature and evolve into something substantial. People cannot live on slogans and marches alone. Concrete changes can only be made when leaders are also involved in politics.

The Only Individual Who Writes "Stop Muslim Immigration" Can Still Say and Write More; And This Is How:

One of the impressive things about Kathy Shaidle is that she openly writes about stopping Muslim immigration. No other blogger or writer has yet done so, as far as I know.

Although this is a first good step, my concern has been that Shaidle’s approach is simply a dramatic slogan, and that repeatedly posting such a statement will either go stale, or it will frustrate her readers (as I wrote in this email to her).

My suggestion to her has been that she argue her position more, showing people the practical and feasible approaches to eliminating the Muslim influence. This not only involves closing the doors on immigration, but a myriad of other steps as well (such as finding ways to reduce the already high levels of Muslims through some kind of out-migration policies).

By substantiating her slogan with concrete proposals and statements, she will have a better chance of allowing Canadians to understand the issues. Shaidle, in the past few months, has been asked to speak at numerous venues on Islam and related issues. So, her audience is bigger than those who read her blog.

I believe it is the responsibility of individuals, who have spent time studying and understanding Islam, to be as comprehensive as possible. This is not only for the benefit of the crowd which is in agreement, but for those who would benefit from well-presented and well-established information. The better the argument, the more converts.

Finally, the issues surrounding Muslims seem best solved through policies – of immigration, of multiculturalism, and even of rights and freedoms (of religion, for example). Therefore, counter-jihad groups and individuals have to consider attracting politicians and helping them to understand the issues involved, so that they can make effective policy changes such as "stopping Muslim immigration." Shaidle has an aversion for politicians, as she frequently states on her blog. But, ultimately, such a national catastrophe can only be resolved through national means.

Anarchy and grass roots can only go so far. Geert Wilders has certainly shown that movements from the ground up can end up in parliamentary halls.

Is There a Counter-Jihad Movement in Canada?

I'm trying to figure out if a genuine counter-jihad movement exists in Canada. I thought there was a potential for one with Ezra Levant's retaliation to the absurd Human Rights Commissions complaint against him for publishing Kurt Westergaard’s Mohammed cartoons.

I wrote extensively on this, and even set up an independent link on the side panel titled: Humand Rights Commissions. I felt that this was Levant's chance to turn the issue of freedom of speech and expression, as he is wont to do as a journalist, into the underlying factor that caused his three years of misery. And that would be Islam.

Levant, although he does talk about radical Islam, and writes scathing commentary about individual Muslims, has never connected the dots between the high levels of Muslim immigrants and the treatment he received. He believes it is just a small contingency of radical (and irrational) Muslims which is problematic. But, he never writes about the silent Muslim majority, which never denounced his three-year ordeal simply for publishing cartoons of their prophet. By their silence, these Muslims were in effect supporting their "radical" brothers. And this is surely the example for future events.

Other bloggers which have placed some priority to the Muslim issue are Kathy Shaidle, Kate McMillan, Jay Currie, Wendy Sullivan and bloggers who go by Blazing Cat Fur and Dr. Roy. There may be more, but these are the most vocal. All of them take Levant's stance that jihad is mostly a problem of radical Muslims.

But one of them, Kathy Shaidle, has started periodically to post "Stop All Muslim Immigration" on her blog. I recently sent her an email (posted here at my blog) telling her that it might help her readers if she elucidated further on her headline style postings. With the email, I also sent her links to Lawrence Auster’s articles on strategies to combat Islam, including stopping Muslim immigration, containing the Muslims that are already here, and finally finding ways to remove Muslims from our societies. It is a practical and feasible guide.

She returned my email by saying she would read these articles. But her next exclamatory "Stop Muslim Immigration" appeared on her blog without any qualifying statements just a few days ago. And I’m afraid she is not willing to pay much attention to my advice.

Despite their vocal protests against radical Muslims, and Shaidle's occasional headlines to stop Muslim immigration, I don't think this group of bloggers has identified itself as a counter-jihad group.

So, that leaves us with the newly formed Canadian branch of the International Free Press Society. I am familiar with their new President, Bjorn Larsen. In fact, he invited me up to New York City last September to participate in Kurt Westergaards U.S. tour (here are my follow-up posts on my trip). IFPS-Canada is still in its infancy, so I will wait and see what proposals its members make. Until then, I can safely say that there is no counter-jihad movement in Canada.

Commentary on the Activities Planned by the Freedom Defense Initiative

Yesterday, I posted on a new counter-jihad organization, the Freedom Defense Initiative, started by Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch and Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugs.

Here is discussion of that organization at View from the Right, with useful commentary by Lawrence Auster on the various activities the organization plans to undertake.

Starting a New Counter-Jihad Organization Is Not the Solution to the Problem

A new organization has just recently been formed by two counter-jihad individuals, Robert Spencer from Jihad Watch and Pamela Geller from Atlas Shrugs, called the Freedom Defense Initiative. Almost half (or ten) of their twenty-three planned activities involve actions towards or against Islam. Although they don't call themselves a counter-jihad organization, these activities indicate that Islam is their main focus.

There are two other major organizations which, based on their activities, can also be considered counter-jihad: The International Free Press Society, and Act for America.

All these organizations are commendable. It takes a lot of energy to form a structured body for a cause. But, the FDI seems a combination of Act for America and IFPS. Therefore, I don't understand the necessity for building another organization if the issues have not been satisfactorily resolved (or are not in the process of being resolved).

The champion of these organizations, Geert Wilders, has already articulated the solution to the Islam problem. His main point is to remove the problem, not simply to defend ourselves against it. In other words, Muslims have no place in the West. And they can only be part of the West if they don't practice the sharia-based, jihad-supporting variant of Islam that is attempting to have a stronghold over the West.

As far as I can tell, none of these organizations has articulated the removal of Muslims who threaten Western civilization, and closing the immigration doors on all Muslims. They focus instead on a defensive rather than a proactive approach. This is ironic, since two (FDI and Act for America) publicize themselves as activists.

And Wilders’s positions have been articulated by another individual. Thus, both Act for America and the FDI actually have a mentor closer to home.

Lawrence Auster has proposed his points in a speech he gave for the conference Preserving Western Civilization, a year ago, and in many other articles he has published on the Islam problem.

In his speech "A real Islam Policy for a Real America" he makes the following propositions:

- With the exception of immediate family members of U.S. citizens, diplomatic personnel, and temporary visitors for business and other legitimate purposes, all entry into the United States of foreign persons known or determined to be followers of the religion of Islam, whatever their nationality or country of residence, shall cease.

- Any Muslim person with a temporary visa for business or diplomacy who advocates or promotes jihad shall lose his visa.

- Any resident alien who openly espouses jihad or who participates in any pro-jihad activities or organizations will lose his residency status and be deported.

- No resident alien who adheres to, or who on investigation is reasonably suspected of adhering to, the doctrine of jihad, will be naturalized as a U.S. citizen. In order to be naturalized, Muslims will be required to state under oath that they totally reject the doctrine of jihad and have no association with pro-jihad activities and pro-jihad persons.

- Naturalized citizens, whether they were naturalized before or after the passage of this law, who associate with jihad supporters or participate in pro-jihad activities, have shown that their oath of loyalty to the United States was fraudulent. Their citizenship shall be revoked and they shall be deported.

- All mosques, Islamic centers and schools that promote jihad or sharia in any form will be closed.

- The United States shall encourage the voluntary departure of Muslim naturalized citizens and their native-born descendants by offering all Muslim persons over the age of eighteen $50,000 each in a one-time fee to give up any claim of U.S. residency or citizenship, to return to their native land, and never to seek to return. The federal government will assure that departing Muslims will receive a fair market price for their real property, investments, and other property that they must sell prior to leaving the United States.

It is counter-productive to repeat the same things over again, without any clear progress. I’m sure that the FDI, the IFPS and Act for America have dedicated counter-jihad members, who really do go out on a limb endangering their lives and livelihoods for the cause they're fighting. But, it is surprising that they hardly pay attention to the methods their mentor Geert Wilders clearly enunciates, and Lawrence Auster, closer to home, has clearly outlined.

I will be bold and say that starting a new organization is not the solution to the problem. Starting a new organization with the mandate to solve the problem effectively, is the solution to the problem.

No News Might Really Mean No News

No news from Rebekah of The Miss Marprelate Tracts regarding my email to her asking about Bjorn Larsen's presentation at the recent Free Speech and Liberty symposium in Ottawa. I find that making specific recommendations of reducing Muslim immigration to solve the "free speech" problem that has escalated in the Western world often is met with silence or with resistance by bloggers and other writers (including Islam experts - see here my email interview with Robert Spencer).

I attribute this partly to the severity of the solution, and that most Islam experts are liberals at heart when it comes to discriminating against groups of people. Many excuses are presented, including the timing is wrong, and that we need to educate people more about Islam before taking drastic measures that many might disagree with.

I think it is also some kind of addictive need to keep talking about the problem, and hoping it would go away just with the rhetoric.

Anyway, since it looks like Rebekah did such a thorough job presenting the speakers' speeches to us on her blog, there is no need to think that she may have left information out. Which holds that Larsen, despite his time with prominent counter-jihad groups, and his many interactions with Geert Wilders who is one of the main proponents for the reduction of Muslim immigration into the West, did not present that solution in his speech. Dare I say that he might be a "Semi-Usual Suspect?"

Comments from Counter-Jihad Groups on Minaret Ban Shows Thinking Processes

It is interesting to go around the American and Canadian blogosphere to see what the outspoken counter-jihad groups are saying about this latest development on the Islamic front.

My reaction, especially after reading the "European" news via Spiegel Online on the Swiss ban on minaret construction, was to think how the Canadian populace could be galvanized into making such a decision. I conclude that it shouldn't be that hard. Ordinary people are the ones who are confronted daily and viscerally with these changes. They are more than likely to vote "no" against such encroachments.

Here are some reactions from very vocal and active counter-jihad blogs.

Gates of Vienna writes: "So what happens next? What can the 'world community' do to teach Switzerland a lesson?" The focus for Gates of Vienna is not on learning from this bold and refreshing vote, but on how negative forces will conspire to punish the Swiss.

Atlas Shrugs' Pamela Geller says: "I wonder how the religion of peaceniks will react...in their usual tolerant and pacifist manner?" No extrapolation of the behavior of the Swiss onto that of Americans', as in: "Can Americans behave like the Swiss?"

Jihad Watch's Robert Spencer predicts (quoting a Times Online article): "Vengeance, boycotts, retaliation ... this clash with Islam could cost dearly." Don't resist Islamic supremacism! It might make the Islamic supremacists angry!

Why this focus on the negative sensationalism? Why not learn from this small country which took a stand for itself against many odds?

I think many of the counter-jihad groups have become so consumed by the negative stories of Islam they write about, that when something refreshingly positive such as the Swiss decision occurs, they cannot pull themselves out of their habitual pessimistic view which underlies much of their writing. This is not a good frame of mind for developing solutions to these problems.

I once thought, and I have to return to that view again, that their lives are so intertwined with Islam and its negativity, that if the definitive solution to Islam were produced, they would have nothing left to do, nothing left to write about. Sub-consciously (am I being too generous here, and is their behaviour actually much more deliberate?), they are sabotaging the counter-jihad movement for the sake of their continued activity.

Ezra Levant Awarded Prize For Which He Isn't Eligible

Ezra Levant has been awarded the blogosphere honor of Best Overall Canadian Infidel Blogger. But he has never written extensively about Muslims and their collective contribution to the Mohammed Cartoons censorship, which led to his three-year ordeal with the Human Rights Commissions. (Here is one brief article where he is much more direct, but I've never come across similar articles before or after this one). Sure, he blamed individual Muslims for this disruption to his life and to freedom of the press. But his whole battle was focused on the Human Rights Commissions' censorship agenda, rather than on the Muslims' strategic moves to change Canadian society to fit their sharia-based Islamic worldview.

Making such unequivocal connections between Muslims and the Mohammed Cartoon censorship case would of course lead to a drastically different direction in his battle against censorship. It would make him question the multicultural system that allows Muslims to openly declare their religion and mode of governance within a non-Muslim country like Canada. It would also require him to at least think about what to do with these specific culprits. As I've written many times on this blog, after (if) the HRCs are shut down, then what? Muslims will still be here. They will follow their Koranic mandate to instil a Muslim-based society. They have found many ways to infiltrate Canadian culture without the aid of quasi-illegitimate agencies like the HRCs. They may have used the HRCs to dissuade Canadians from satirizing Mohammed, but they can use a myriad of other strategies, including suing people like Levant in real Canadian courts, whenever they feel their religion and culture is being diminished.

This is the future Levant can look forward to, and until he consciously and deliberately connects these dots, his fight against the HRCs will have been in vain.

More Writers Talking about Leaders for the Counter-Jihad Movement

There is a long interview of Filip Dewinter, Belgium’s leading politician of Vlaams Belang party, which is equivalent to the Netherlands’s PVV led be Geert Wilders. Diana West has posted most of the interview, but the full content can be read at Gates of Vienna.

Diana West comments on this interview and on its leader Filip Dewinter:

Americans tend to shake their heads and cluck over Europe's dire struggle with Islamization as though the continent were already lost even as they complacently luxuriate in the thought that It Can't Happen Here. Well, it is happening here, as this blog repeatedly catalogues, and we have no one of the calibre and courage of Dewinter (or his political counterpart in Holland, Geert Wilders) in public office to stop it.

What a difference Dewinter makes compared to the EU lackey Herman Van Rompuy - another Belgian politician now President of the United States of Europe. Paul Belien writes about his trajectory from a conservative Catholic to the leader of a godless organization that is working towards the destruction of Europe.

Back to Diana West and her comments on the need for a counter-jihad leader in the US. I wonder if she is reading this blog, as I wondered about Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugs who made the very same observation about needing a national leader a couple of weeks ago?

Perhaps it is the forces of nature (or of Islam) conjoining finally. The interesting thing about Dewinter and Wilders is that they are seasoned politicians - Dewinter has been in politics for 25 years and Wilders for about twelve.

I have suggested Tom Tancredo for the U.S., and am still short of a name for Canada, although I thought that Ezra Levant could have played that role having been in politics for many years and currently battling the government installed Human Rights Commissions. Levant doesn't cut it, so I'll have to go digging some more.

But, Tancredo now writes regularly for World Net Daily, where he's written a few articles on Islam.

Why a Political Leader is Necessary for the Counter-Jihad Movement

This is very sad. Robert Spencer, while on a panel at New York University titled "The Jihad Still Threatens America," was attacked three times by members of the audience: Once by a man yelling at him, a second time by having pies thrown at him, and a third time by someone trying to physically attack him.

It is good to know that Spencer does speak out directly against Islam despite this extreme hostility. But I'm afraid he is just wearing himself out. That is why I've said that a specific political leader is required. These speeches, panels and demonstrations are not enough. They are not a concerted effort. It is all haphazard, with no decipherable goal rather than to speak against Islam. This gives Muslims and pro-Muslim groups ample chance to disrupt, discourage and diminish such efforts.

The counter-jihad movement has to think seriously about the direction of its activities, after the terrible information on the Fort Hood jihadist have now been revealed.