The Peace of Islam

Oh look, the islamists have yet another spokesthing!

The Prince of Wales will try to persuade George W Bush and Americans of the merits of Islam this week because he thinks the United States has been too intolerant of the religion since September 11.

The Prince, who leaves on Tuesday for an eight-day tour of the US, has voiced private concerns over America's "confrontational" approach to Muslim countries and its failure to appreciate Islam's strengths.

The ever-more unuseful Princeling

has done more than any other member of the Royal Family in history to understand Islam. He said in 1994 that when he became Supreme Governor of the Church of England, he would rather be "defender of faiths" than "defender of the faith".

Odd thing to say for someone who is supposed to be, oh, I don't know, the Head of the Church of England and the very embodiment of Britain personified?

A year earlier Prince Charles made a speech, acclaimed throughout the Arab world, on relations between Islam and the West. He urged the West to overcome its "unthinkable prejudices" about Islam and its customs and laws.

Sory, my prejudices are well thought-out. Islam's customs and laws are an abomination.

Care to disagree, chuck?

He spoke warmly of the West's debt to the culture of Islam and distanced moderate Muslims from misguided militants. "Extremism is no more the monopoly of Islam than it is the monopoly of other religions, including Christianity," he said.

Oooo, deep.

Not.

That statement is FALSE.

Documentary proof is being kept at the site, The Religion of Peace.

Look at the list of islam-motivated murders they just found in the media, perpetrated against ordinary people in non-combat operations by muslims, for reasons of their ideology.

Around the globe.

Around the clock.

For example, on September 12th, the jihadists gathered sacrifices for their demongod in Bangladesh, Chechnya, India, Pakistan, Iraq, and Thailand. The next day they struck in Afghanistan, Russia, India, and Algeria. The day after that it was back to Pakistan, Iraq, Chechnya, and Afghanistan.

And so on and so on and so on.

Today in Indonesia,

Three Christian 16-year-old girls on their way to school are attacked and beheaded by six Muslim gentlemen, who leave the headless bodies in the street and carry the heads to a different location.

Gosh, well if only Indonesia's policies in the Middle East didn't favor Israel...oh, wait...

Well if only Indonesia hadn't invaded Iraq...oh, wait...

Well if only those girls hadn't been infidels...yeah, that's it.

How much more evidence is needed to prove the problem is with islam?

And it's worse than that. The site explains,

We usually don't include action that occurs in combat situations, such as Iraq and Afghanistan, unless it involves particularly heinous terrorist tactics. Unprovoked sniper, drive-by or roadside bombing attacks on military personnel serving normal police duties are sometimes included depending on the circumstances.

Unfortunately, this list of Muslim terrorist attacks barely scratches the surface of atrocities committed in the name of Islam that occur world-wide each day. For that reason, we don't tally up the dead and dismembered.

Now for the coup de grace, the site destroys Prince Chucky's comment about all religions being the same with respect to monopolies on violence -- never minding the fact that it is islam alone that explicity preaches the opposite of the Golden Rule -- with the following observations:

More people are killed by Islamists each year than in all 350 years of the Spanish Inquisition combined.

Islamic terrorists murder more people every day than the Ku Klux Klan has in the last 50 years.

More civilians were killed by Muslim extremists in two hours on September 11th than in the 36 years of sectarian conflict in Northern Ireland.

19 Muslim hijackers killed more innocents in two hours on September 11th than the number of American criminals put to death in the last 65 years.

Sources are linked at the site.

And if that long, long list of murders in the last 12 months isn't enough, they have archives for 2002, 2003, and 2004.

Of course, this exercise could be carried back for the last 1400 years, without pause.

The site asks,

Are you burning with the Peace of Islam?

Random Outrage

There are so many to choose from.

Here's one from Australia:

POLICE are being advised to treat Muslim domestic violence cases differently out of respect for Islamic traditions and habits.

Officers are also being urged to work with Muslim leaders, who will try to keep the families together.
...
Police are told: "In incidents such as domestic violence, police need to have an understanding of the traditions, ways of life and habits of Muslims."

They are told it would be appreciated in cases of domestic violence if police consult the local Muslim religious leader who will work against "fragmenting the family unit".

This helpful bit of indoctrination comes from the Australasian Police Multicultural Advisory Bureau.

Do they even listen to what they're saying?

But wait -- it gets better!

The guide also advises officers not to hold interviews with Aboriginal suspects or set court hearings during Aboriginal ceremonies involving "initiation, birth, death, burials, mourning periods, women's meetings and cultural ceremonies in general".

They are told to interview Baha'i suspects only after sunset in the fasting month.

And they are cautioned that when a Sikh is reading the Sikh Holy Script -- a process that normally takes 50 hours -- "he should not be disturbed".

The 50,000 handbooks instruct police to take shoes off before entering Buddhist and Hindu houses and mosques, and remove hats before entering or searching churches.

They are warned that taking photos or samples from Aboriginal suspects could raise fears they could be used for sorcery and spiritual mischief.

A good first effort, perhaps, but it's not yet complete:

Mr Daniells said the next edition would include Maori spiritual beliefs and practices.

I can't wait.

Can you?

Understanding Leftists

Many of us have wondered in puzzlement why it is so hard for the left-wingers to think logically and see the real threats we face.

What is the strange appeal of their irrationality?

Interestingly, I have found an explanation in the self-help literature!

And perhaps we will learn some insights on how to more effectively take on their delusions.

The local paper recently carried a piece on how to be successful in self-help programs, such as weightloss or quitting smoking. The article quoted gurus such as Dean Ornish and James Mapes on the keys to being successful in making long-term change.

And what they say in this regard speaks directly to why it is so hard to get the left to change its incorrect world-view, and why little changed even after 9/11.
For example, the article discusses the nature of change, pointing out that

Study after study has shown that 90% of heart bypass patiens can't change their lifestyles, even at the risk of dying.

Hmmm, seem familiar?

And,

The first myth is that change is motivated by fear. Simply not true...most people will simply resist the change or go into denial when confronted with what terrible things may happen if change doesn't take place.

It seems the "right" on this issue is composed of those few who were able to comprehend Wretchard's Three Conjectures without going into denial.

Another myth is that crisis creates permanent change...but [it] will never sustain change long-term.

So that's why we're letting 10,000 Saudi radicals students into the country again, that being the entity which is the very source of Wahabbist fascism, the spider at the center of the web.

And,

The third myth is that baby steps of gradual change will do the trick...Most people believe others will change their behavior if presented with enough solid facts and data...Another myth. Facts do not create change because if they do not fit into our belief system, we dismiss them as stupid, foolish or irrelevant.

So that's why our well-reasoned arguments do not resonate.

But how does the left gain converts to its ridiculous theories? They bring people into the fold by using the techniques of Dean Ornish to essentially trick them! It's essentially cult-like:

Neuroscience tells us that the mind relies on frames and it is through our unique frame that we see the world. A frame acts as a kind of filter. Facts that do not match this wiring of our brain are filtered out. Change the frame -- change the reality.

Ever been over to Democratic Underground? Talk about filtering!

How do the commies achieve this?

Change a person's frame requires a vision a story that is "simple, easy to identify with, emotionally resonant, inspiring and evocative of positive experiences."

Well isn't that just the whole left-wing program? With its utopian vision of a radically-altered egalitarian society? With its victimization politics that aligns with the apparent underdog, right or wrong? All based purely on appeals to emotion?

This works because

"Joy is a more powerful motivator than fear."

But that's not all! Ornish also claims that

large, radical sweeping changes were easier for the people than small, incremental ones...Big changes often create immediate, positive results.

Thus the appeal of Revolution.

It gets more insidious; the last component is to provide "on-going support", which is the Political Correctness enforced by fellow travelers of the MSM, academia, and the entertainment industry.

If we are to win, we must take a page from their playbook. We should strive to follow these keys to success:

Know that presenting the facts as to 'why' people should change is a very small piece of the puzzle.

Create a clear powerful, emotionally-charged, positive vision of the future...

Make large, radical changes.

Let's get this memo to Bush!

Keeping Track

Very good terrorist scorecard.

It provides a wealth of information about who's who, and who's where.

Read and Learn

One Cosmos is on fire with a series of fantastic posts.

The man is a genius!

His most recent half-dozen or so postings are required reading. A snippet:

But most importantly, radical secularism fails as a religion because it has no God, only demons: George Bush, Christian fundamentalists, Israel, tax cuts for the rich, stolen election, Halliburton, Fox News, Abu Ghraib, Karl Rove, corporate profits, disparities in wealth, strict constructionists, parental notification, talk radio, guns, and so many more. On the other hand, the sort of classical liberalism to which I ascribe--now embodied in the modern American conservative movement--recognizes that politics must aim at something that is not politics, something higher, not lower.

Another:

There is nothing quite so intoxicating and bracing as the lifting of the superego's usual sanctions against violence, so that primitive sadism may be expressed in an entirely unencumbered, guilt-free way. And there is no one so alluring and infectious as the demagogue who puts our conscience to sleep with the vital lie.

People never feel quite so alive as when the conscience has given them a green light to engage in sacrificial violence. Just ask the nazis. Ask the inquisitors. Ask the Islamists. And ask the crusading liberal media, who take so much moral satisfaction in instructing the grazing multitude on whom they may joyously burn at the stake.

This is why truth is the most important societal value.

Emphasis mine. This reminds me of an odd episode I experienced as a student at Princeton. One day I was approached by a trio of fellow students with a camcorder, apparently doing some kind of project. They fired the question at me, "Which is more important: Love, Truth, or Justice?"

I immediately answered, "Truth!"

I had in the back of my mind a scene from Boorman's Excalibur, in which Arthur asks Merlin what is the greatest knightly quality. At first he attempts to sidestep the question, saying they are all important, like the metals used to alloy a strong swordblade.

But Arthur presses him for a firm answer, and annoyed, Merlin scolds back, to the best of my memory, a reply to the effect of:

Truth! Yes, that's it; you should know that!

The students, with the camera on me, then asked me to justify my answer.

It had just seemed self-evident to me.

So at a moment's notice, I couldn't really explain why; it was intuitive.

When I said I couldn't explain why, they unconsciously ironically replied, "well at least you're honest."

After a few minutes of reflection I had a good answer, but they had already gone off somewhere.

Clearly, Love and Justice are both desireable, but they both require as a necessary precondition the existence of Truth, which is the bedrock on which they lie. It's more fundamental.

And that's why I always intuitively despised, without knowing exactly why, the "deconstructionists" who rejected notions of Truth, for without that pillar everything in Civilization crumbles.

One wonders what it is these people really want.

Their infantile narcissistic demands will destroy us all.