The conspiracy, in writing

When are Christians (and Jews) finally going to stand up en masse and declare, "Your God is not our God"? That we think we must tread softly around the perimeters of this world religion, as not to offend the moderates among it or incite the excitable, troubles me. Sooner or later somebody's got to speak the truth. Loudly. This really is a matter of life or death, freedom or conquest.

Dear Rod,

There is a very simple solution to the problem of infiltration:

Stop buying their f***king oil.

Every time you put gas into your car, you are supporting the jihad you claim to be against. And that goes for the rest of you.

"Stop buying their f***king oil."

Yes, this will surely stop Muslim immigration and activism. We can also just stop using oil. *eyeroll*

As uncouth as it may sound, there is something to the "Don't buy their oil!" remark. Does anyone know how much Saudi money is invested in this Brotherhood?

>>It sounds like a crazy conspiracy theory ... but this is their own document!

Those two things are not mutually exclusive.

>>The strategy document goes on to say that the goal should be to bring all Islamic groups into the conspiracy, and to lead them from local Islamic centers, which serve as the "beehive" for the coordinated plan to undermine the United States and turn it into a Muslim state -- and ultimately to make it part of global Islamic government.

And I have a goal of winning the lottery. And the American Communist Party had a goal of bringing the US under Soviet influence. And the Black Panthers want a Black separatist State. And the Aryan Nations want a White separatist State. We've seen this sort of thing before and we aren't really all that worried about it because their goals are not realistic.

>>The document lists the "friends" of the Muslim Brotherhood, including:

Well, do the groups listed return the friendship?

>>Muslim Brotherhood people do not mean well,

I agree with you one hundred percent.

>>and they are running the show for much of institutional Islam in this country.

I have not seen enough evidence presented to accept that statement as being correct. But even if they are, just how realistic is the idea that Muslims in America could force America to convert to an Islamic theocracy?

John, you really need to read that Chicago Tribune story. Many of the top Muslim groups in the US -- ISNA, CAIR, NAIT -- are deeply connected to the Muslim Brotherhood. It's a serious matter -- the evidence is there if you wish to see it.

I don't care that the MB, or any Muslim, wants the US to become Islamic. It's perfectly natural that a faithful Muslim would want that. What deeply concerns me is that the MB, according to that document, sees Muslims settling in this country as the first stage in jihad -- a jihad by which they mean to overturn our civilization and make all religions in this country subject to Islam. The MB are extremely well funded, and their intentions are malign. We are in a war on Islamist terror. These people are our enemies. And some of them -- Hamas, for example, which is the Palestinian branch of the MB -- are prepared to use deadly violence to achieve their goals.

During the Cold War, it was important to keep an eye on the Communist Party USA, and to isolate it socially and otherwise. This is why anti-communist socialists and labor leaders were very clear to push the Stalinists of the CPUSA aside, and to fight them, even from the left. We need Muslims to do the same thing here. We need a Muslim Whittaker Chambers.

mm, I think it's important to point out that the MB doesn't speak for all Muslims. In fact, there are some anti-Islamist Muslims who are risking a lot to speak out against the Islamists. I'm going to be involved later this year in a project with some of them. Good people, and a lot braver than I could ever hope to be.

Mr. Dreher, by calling them "brave", you imply that they are a small, barely audible minority within Islam who, quite possibly, fear for their safety.

Certainly, over the years, you have publicly decried "their" (i.e. moderates') lack of widespread convincing condemnation toward acts of terror. Are you saying a potential fatwa is the reason why? (Which does make me wonder why anyone would ascribe to a religion whose leaders would just as well kill you from within...)

If so, do these moderates have any real confidence in Islamic reform given the overwhelming evidence to the contrary?

Or, do I have it completely wrong and this is more of a general coalition against cultural degradation?

Oh no, the CONSPIRACY REVEALED:

http://christianexodus.org/

"ChristianExodus.org is moving thousands of Christians to South Carolina to reestablish constitutionally limited government founded upon Christian principles. It is evident that the U.S. Constitution has been abandoned under our current federal system, and the efforts of Christian activism to restore our Godly republic have proven futile over the past three decades. The time has come for Christian Constitutionalists to protect our liberties in a State like South Carolina by interposing the State's sovereign authority retained under the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution."

Well, did you get your answer, Rod? I hate to give you the bad news, but despite your repeated calls to “wake up”, America is not going to wake up.

America is brainwashed by liberalism, and the highest value of liberalism is non-discrimination. Not individual freedom, not freedom of conscience, not freedom of political dissent, not the economic freedom that permits one to make self-determinations about their lives, but non-discrimination.

Two things need to happen for America to recover: 1) The brainwashing must stop; and 2) America must be “deprogrammed”. Neither is going to happen. (I use the term “brainwashing” as a metaphor for the way the mass media communicates in this country. Some will regard it as inflammatory, but I think it’s rather accurate considering the level of cohesion in the message.)

I remember in the days following 9/11 calling for the cessation of Muslim immigration on an internet discussion board. I was greeted with snarky comments like, “So, you think the reason Muslims are coming here is to take over the US?” Typical dumb white liberal attitude about third-worlders: that they all just want to be like us. (The smarter leftists know that that is false, and they see the actual purpose of third world immigration as destroying traditional American culture.)

There’s nothing really new about this. The people who have warned about the “Suicide of the West” beginning in the middle of the last century are being confirmed in that judgment with each passing year.

Wow, I make a point that have groups trying to institute a theocracy in the U.S. for DECADES and this might not be so easy, and Rod insists that this point is nothing but an attempt to criticize Christians or blame them for Muslim behaviour. Beautiful.

That's exactly what you're up to. No serious person believes that those theocratic Christians are anything but a tiny minority, and certainly there is no evidence that they seek to resort to violence to achieve their goals. The Muslim Brotherhood is a large international organization with vast financial resources, openly committed to violent change. Ayman al-Zawahari, al-Qaeda's No. 2, got his start there. The late Sayyid Qutb, whose books MB members are required to read, preached violent world jihad to establish totalitarian Muslim rule. Whether or not you or I think they could succeed in the US doesn't matter nearly as much as whether or not *they* think they can succeed, and are prepared to do things to forward the goal of Islamic revolution here.

But this is quite beside the point. For quite a lot of people, as long as there is one crack-brained Christian theocrat somewhere in these 50 states, that will be enough for them to draw a moral equivalence, so they don't have to face unpleasant facts.

"No serious person believes that those theocratic Christians are anything but a tiny minority, and certainly there is no evidence that they seek to resort to violence to achieve their goals"

You were wrong about the war, Rod, and you're wrong about this too. Wake up before you spread more disinformation.

Bush's own personal minister, Franklin Graham, has called Islam "evil and very wicked." He has said, "Let's use the weapons we have, the weapons of mass destruction if need be, and destroy the enemy."

Anon-

When the crazy Christian cult in South Carolina flies an airliner into an office builidng, shoots some Jews, plots to bomb bridges, subways and tunnels, tries to purchase SAMs, plans an attack on an Army base,etc.(and I'm sure we could add a few hundred more examples) get back to us with the details.

When the extremist Muslims commit criminal acts to further the cause of Islamic revolution, they will be arrested, convicted, and punished for their crimes.

So when the bombs go off that kill a thousand here and a thousand there, we'll arrest the perps and put them away. (Assuming of course that we'll maintain control of the criminal justice system.)

Well, I'm felling better already.

Sorry for posting this in two places but I get the feeling the blog entry just below has probably come to an end.

Sorry I couldn't jump back in yesterday, but I had to leave work early yesterday.

I prefer the positive definition of liberalism that is advanced by Paul Berman in his book, "Terror and Liberalism."

That is, "Liberalism wanted to carve life up into different slices and keep each of those slices in its proper spot. The churches, from their place in private life, would be free to bestow blessings and curses. But they would not be able to enforce their blessings and curses by calling out the police.

The state, by contrast, would be free to call out the police, but would not have the power to bestow blessings and curses. The idea of maintaining a separation between material powers and spiritual powers was wonderfully practical, but also more than practical...

It held out a vision of freedom not just for one group of people and their favorite doctrine, but for everyone..." ("Terror and Liberalism," page 80)

That's the kind of liberal I would be proud to be called. But I feel that many of the liberals I know are not waking up to the Islamist threat to precisely this kind of freedom.

FYI, Bill's comments are being deleted for the time being. It is not acceptable to come onto this blog and accuse your host of advocating murder. If you want to do that sort of thing, get your own blog.

"Tom Cruise" said:

"You toss out these acts of terrorism as though they were performed by a singular group with a single, consistent set of goals. Do you think the 9/11 hijackers wanted to start a violent Islamic revolution? Or that ANY of these attacks had the goal of creating an Islamic state in America? There's no proof of that and assuming they did, they've certainly set their cause way back as much of America now is not very well-disposed towards Islam."

I suggest reading Osama Bin Laden's own writings, because they directly contradict what you say in the above statement.

What Rod and others are saying, IMO, is that the Islamists are very blunt about their belief that Islam shouldn't be relegated to the private, personal sphere of life, because there is no separation of Church and State permitted in Islam, and eventually Islam should be over all.

I also suggest reading Paul Berman's book, "Terror and Liberalism," particularly the chapter on "Wishful Thinking," which talks about, among other things, why progressive and liberal people in the U.S. supported Stalin for years after word began to come about the mass murders in Stalinist Russia. He's not dismissive of them: he says they were extremely well-intentioned and thoughtful people who didn't want to believe something as irrational as the Stalinist purges could really be occuring. Lo and behold, they were.

"FYI, Bill's comments are being deleted for the time being. It is not acceptable to come onto this blog and accuse your host of advocating murder."

So, advocating the bombing of Mecca and Medina, is advocating what, remodeling?

I'm really grateful that the true intentions of some of these groups are being exposed - I'd just like to caution against ascribing too much importance to the roll of the Muslim Brotherhood and other like minded organizations in our current troubles. In my opinion, Islamic supremacy is not the result of a grand conspiracy concoted by the Muslim Brotherhood, but an organic feature of the religion itself . . .

"I'd say Baghdad, Tehran and Riyadh should make the list, tout ensemble, and maybe even Damascus. As for Mecca, well, it would feel good, but..."

I'd consider bombing cities full of people as far worse than bombing religious sites. Kinda a side issue but I was wondering why did you put Baghdad as the first city on the list and why is there a list at all? If your going to nuke someone shouldn't it at least be a country that had something to do with the attack on America , not just some list of old grudges that can now be settled.

Peter said:

"I'd consider bombing cities full of people as far worse than bombing religious sites."

Peter, I think you are right on the money. I find the destruction of pieces of a nation or region's cultural and historical heritage to be tragic and appalling.

But, I've often thought that I'd just as soon see old Jerusalem, for instance, razed to the ground if it would stop people from fighting about religion. Unfortunately, I don't think it would, since it is humans who invest inanimate objects (ie. the Western Wall or the Dome of the Rock) with the meaning that they have.

If people can fight over religious books, and if Shiite Muslims can be criticized as idolatrous because they use pebbles or small stones in their worship, I don't think getting rid of the holy shrines would change a thing. "The fault is not in our stars, but in our selves..." and so on.

"I was quite clearly responding out of an interest in strategic deterrence."

I'm sure it was quite clear to you, Rod, but to someone who lives in those cities you wanted to destroy, I'm sure it would make no difference if their cities and lives were destroyed out of strategic deterrence or pure malice. Nor would it really matter.

"It was still a bad call, for moral reasons, but it was not an Islamophobic one. You should know better." The real issue is that inflammatory rhetoric like yours is really no different from inflammatory rhetoric from a radical Islamist; the effects of those words live on past their utterance. A bad call is a bad call.