Not a word of this is true, but for once the New York Times bought everything George Bush said.
George Bush went to the finest schools all right. He went to the same schools as the editors of the New York Times and was taught the same material. On 9/11, we found ourselves not only with some destroyed real estate, but a bankrupt academy and intellectual class. We had been lied to by the people who should have been protecting our backs. And so we were left with nothing but the lie of the Muslim brotherhood who had infiltrated the universities 30 years before 9/11, and through Saudi money, had corrupted the universities. George Bush did exactly as he was taught.
Now some others and I began to realize that it was a lie because we went to the source materials of Islam – the Koran, the Sira and the Hadith and found that none of the Bush/university/media version of the Islamic doctrine is true. Since 2001, there’s been a remarkable intellectual revolution in the United States and abroad. In the 18th century there was a remarkable intellectual development amongst amateurs. In England and even in America, amateur scientists created the modern scientific revolution by use of a technique called critical thought. In America and the rest of the world, men trained in other areas – physics, medicine, and other intellectual areas used critical thought and applied it to the doctrine and history of Islam.
Using critical thought, we have now created a foundation of the true doctrine and true history of Islam. So we have built an intellectual foundation. We have books and we have websites. It is not enough. If we had ten times as many books and a thousand more websites it won’t work. We have only established a foundation.
Where are we now? We are losing on every front.
I just returned from Denmark where I spoke at the Parliament Building at a conference about the Euro-Mediterranean Treaty. People asked me how it went and I have two responses. For me it was a joy personally, but while I was there, I woke up in the middle of the night gripped with cold fear, wanting to cry. I’m a fairly gutsy guy. But what I learned in Europe was chilling. Example: in Sweden they were having a problem with Muslims raping women. Now this is not actual rape, that’s what we call it. From the Sunnah of Mohamed, this is simply jihad.
Well, the Swedes have solved their rape problem. The police are now forbidden to collect any information that would lead to any ethnic or religious identification of the perpetrator. They solved that nasty little problem of Muslims raping Swedish women. By law there is no longer a possibility of a Muslim being accused or a woman identifying the man who raped her.
The Swedes come over to Denmark to drink because the Swedes in their nanny state keep up with how much you drink, and if you drink too much, you’ll be cut off. So they come to Denmark to drink and are achieving a reputation of being drunks.
Now let me tell you something that’s chilling. If they want to discuss Islam with someone from Denmark, here’s the body posture. They look left, right, lean forward and talk in hushed tones. Like they were going to discuss child pornography.
A Dane ran a club and was a Leftist. There was a mosque built in the area and he started getting threats, insults and shouts from the Muslims. Finally a fire was set in an attempt to destroy the club. He talked to the media and talked about the problem of who did this. He was declared an extreme right-wing racist in the papers. In European media, the Left is normalcy and morally good, while all who don’t like Leftist politics are called extreme right-wing Fascists and evil.
The Euro-Mediterranean Treaty, which is being negotiated so that North Africa and Europe would basically be one state, contains clauses that speech that offends other religions and ethnic groups will be a one to three year prison sentence. Arrest warrants will be issued. The media will exert self-censorship on the issues of race, ethnicity and religion. They’ve already had their first training shop for the media. They chose Russia. I think the Russians have already been down the road and know how to do this.
We are at a watershed. We now need to move into a whole new area that will require a new kind of mind and a new kind of person. The scholarly approach is not enough. We must now move into the area of grassroot politics and I’m talking real grassroots because we will receive no help from anyone who has any power or any authority.
[Dr. Andrew Bostom, author of The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism, delivered the talk before mine.] Andy’s book is a perfect illustration of the problem we have. His work is a massive work of brilliance. It contains that everything that every Jew needs to know about Islam. Now let me tell you the problem. It’s not Andy and it’s not the book. There are almost no rabbis, or Jewish political leaders who know anything about this. The ADL (Anti Defamation League) talks about Islam and anti-Semitism. Orrin Segal is the ADL’s top expert on Islam and talks about who did things and where it occurred, but he never once mentioned a single “why”. He does not know anything about the doctrine and history of political Islam.
What are we going to do? Well, we have to move from thinking to doing. That is the necessity. We’ve been thinking about it enough. And by the way, we have now excellent foundation to work from.
The best political group now working against Islam in the United States is Brigitte Gabriel’s Act for America. Let me explain to you something about waging ideological war. In war you seek allies not friends. Your allies will always have shortcomings. You’ll always have things that irritate them. Churchill said his second biggest burden in the Second World War after Hitler was de Gaulle, an ally.
So with our allies we need to take them for what they can give us and ignore what doesn’t work for us. I recommend that everyone join ACT. Their basic political plan is a grassroots organization that wants to exert political influence and so, therefore, it needs, a large body of people. I like what they’re doing. It is a strategic approach.
The things I’m going to discuss next which are more speculative in nature are what I call a tactical approach.
We have to form small groups; we can no longer work as individuals. As a thinker all you need is a small quiet spot. But to do political action you can never do it alone.
We have two weapons. The first weapon is the doctrine and history of Islam, which has been laid out by our scholars. The other is critical thought. Now we need to be clear here. Critical thought is a rare being. In the media we see authoritative thought. From the government, we hear authoritative thought. That is -- things are simply decreed without a basis in fact.
One of the nice things about critical thought and the reason that I use it when I’m discussing Islam is that critical thought allows any question to be asked. So when you explain to somebody that we’re going to be using critical thought it, means that you have broken the bounds of political correctness. Political correctness is simply a social Marxism that says what you can and cannot do and is an authoritative form of thought.
Let me give you a real easy test. A litmus test can determine whether you dealing with authoritative thought or critical thought and that litmus test is humor. Critical thought enjoys humor. Authoritarian thought cannot have humor at all. As an example, in 1400 years we’ve had almost no Mohammed jokes.
I have found this in my personal life. When 9/11 happened many of my friends are what you would call liberals, progressives, and leftist, and when we started having discussions, their point of view was political correctness and multiculturalism – “can’t we all get along?” No.
But I found that by using the doctrine of Islam, its history and critical thought, I turned every single one of my liberal, progressive, leftist friends, not from being pro liberal – they still want open borders and they think that an adopted child should be raised as a transsexual, and not even be able to speak English. But on the subject of Islam, they have a small corner in which they can reject Islam. I am advocating the use of critical thought and the use of the doctrine as a method of turning people’s minds. Indeed I have found it so powerful that I think of the use of critical thought and the doctrine and the facts of it as a killing field in an ideological war.
Muslims are not our opponents in this ideological war, because when we look and see how things are done, it is the dhimmi who harms us. When a textbook is adopted which gives the usual crap about Islam, it is not Muslims who publish that textbook. It is not Muslims who approve it. It’s the dhimmis.
So the target of our ideological war is the dhimmi, not the Muslim. Now this creates a large degree of relaxation in our potential combatants. Allah is the God of fear; over 300 times in the Koran, it says to fear Allah. And indeed Islam is the culture of fear. So it’s a little hard to get folks to go up against Muslims. But who needs courage to up against a dhimmi?
So it’s the dhimmi that we go to war against. We must bring the dhimmi to the killing field of fact and logic. It works. I’ve seen it work again and again. As a matter of fact what I dream of best is simply to get a dhimmi in front of me who will engage on the issue.
So how do we do this? Well now we enter into speculation. We’re going to have to become creative in how we deal with preachers, priests, rabbis and politicians and the media. And I do not know how to bring each and every one to the killing field of reasoning and facts. Sometimes it’s a simple invitation of: “wouldn’t you like to learn?”
We need a certain efficiency in our political methods. We must pick the critical dhimmis. For instance, I’ve already mentioned leaders within the religious community. We do not have as many enemies as we might think. When you look at those dhimmis who serve Islam in the media, politics and religious, we are dealing with a small number, in the few thousands here in Tennessee. It not infinite number, but a small finite number of dhimmis who need to be turned into kafirs.
There are many approaches to people. Ask the question: “Wouldn’t you like to learn the actual facts about political Islam. Or: “I would love to debate with you on this issue.”
Over time I’ve developed a technique which I find to be very effective in argument and debate. When I’m with someone and I realize “Oh, we’re going to get to discuss Islam.” I step back from the question and develop a larger point of view. I always point out to them that I’m going to be using critical thought based upon the facts of the doctrine of Koran, Sira Hadith.
I point out that both of us are kafirs. Now this is something you always want to bring into the discussion with any kafir. They need to know some of the dirty details about being a kafir and by stating to the person you’re getting ready to argue with or debate with or reason with, you’ve already established a bond. We have a sameness here, which you did not know about.
I then point out one last thing. There are three views of Islam. There are always three views of Islam. The first view is that of the believer and I point out to my opponent that when I say believer everything in the Koran and the Sunna is what they believe. Now this is something that’s difficult for a liberal to understand because they don’t really believe in adherence to any sort of doctrine. But it’s very important to establish that Muslims completely and totally believe in the doctrine found in the Koran, Sira and Hadith.
I then establish that I will be talking about Islam from the kafir-centric point of view, not the dhimmi-centric or believer-centric view.
So we now have established with the person that I’m getting ready to argue with that we share something in common, being kafirs, that as a critical reasoner I’m capable of exploring all avenues of question, and that there is a firm foundation in the Koran, the Sira and the Hadith. At this point the whole argument is on now unfamiliar ground and there’s a certain queasiness in the sense that we have, to use Sun Tsu’s idea from The Art of War, we have shaped the enemy. We have shaped the battle and we have shaped it to our needs. We have escaped the surly bonds of political correctness and multiculturalism. We’re now ready to use fact-based critical reasoning about political Islam.
Those are the ways that I shape a debate. Then no matter what the question that’s going to follow is, we have shaped it. It is now on my killing field and I prevail. Not because I’m good but just because I have some discipline and have learned some things.
Also when you debate people on this issue there seems to be only about 12 arguments for Islam. And once you have heard them all, you realize this is easy. It’s not that hard at all.
Now to this point I think that one of the things we’re going to have to do in our new political game is trainings so that we can train large groups of people how to debate and argue, for instance. We also have to convert some large groups because – let me point out something to you about human behavior. Individuals are not very brave on their own but you put them in a group, all of a sudden, they’re all a little braver. What’s my point? If we could just take change one large group, say one mega-church that has 5,000 people in it and if 2,000 of those people could become skilled at debate and know something about the actual facts of Islam, we would achieve unpredictable results.
I do not know what would happen if we had an entire community trained as ideological warriors. It is speculation, because in the history of humanity we have never had such a thing. We’ve always had individuals laboring on their own and in isolation. We will not win that way.
Another way that we could approach this ideological war is what I call the Curriculum Project. We must seize control of how Islam is taught in our schools. First, the key is to attack the university. Forget about high school and secondary schools. What I want to do is to choose state schools here in Tennessee. I then want to do an audit of how they teach Islam, exactly what are they teaching? Then I want to bring about a curriculum reform that does not challenge what is taught. No. What I want instead is the entire doctrine and history of Islam taught. Right now you can go to Vanderbilt University, a fine school. But you can graduate with a degree from Vanderbilt in Middle East Studies and never have read the Koran, never have read the Sira and never have read the Hadith. And you will know nothing of the history of Islam except it was glorious and led to a Golden Age in Baghdad and Spain.
Vanderbilt University cannot explain to anyone how Greek, Christian Anatolia became Turkey and 99.7% Muslim. There’s nothing in their coursework that will explain the history of the dhimmi.
So what I want to do is to do an audit of each of the state schools. Because at the state school I can establish a legal standing. I’m a taxpayer therefore I have reason to make comment about what is taught. What I want to do with the Curriculum Project is to bring about the teaching of the complete Sira, Hadith and Koran. I want the students who graduate from state schools in Tennessee to know how Egypt was transformed from a Coptic Christian nation, how it became a 90-95% Muslim nation. I want students in Tennessee to know that a Copt, who was from the lineage of the Pharaohs, got his tongue cut out if he spoke Coptic in front of his new Arabic master. These facts must be taught in our schools.
Now notice again, I’m not contradicting anything that’s taught now. I want more Islam.
We need to start thinking not in terms of what is the doctrine of Islam, but what is the doctrine of the dhimmi. How do we bring the dhimmi to the killing field of critical reasoning and the doctrine and history of political Islam? How do we change them from a dhimmi to a kafir?
We must teach people how to be proud to be a kafir. It’s a political process. We know enough. We have to go to ideological war.