Stephen Coughlin: Part 8 of the Red Pill Briefing — Apples and Oranges

The following video is the eighth section of the “Red Pill” briefing given by Maj. Stephen Coughlin to the Wiener Akademikerbund on May 23 under the auspices of Bürgerbewegung Pax Europa, following his participation with the team at the OSCE conference in Vienna. Previously: Parts 1 and 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7.

In his latest video, Maj. Coughlin continues his analysis of the Alinsky-inspired destruction of reason that has infected the “interfaith” movement. The syncretists who push “Chrislam” and similar conceits want us to think that we can believe in both Islam and Christianity, but that is simply not possible for anyone who retains the capacity to reason — we may believe in one, or the other, or neither, but not both at once.

Many thanks to Henrik Ræder Clausen for recording this video, and to Vlad Tepes for editing and uploading it:

Maj. Stephen Coughlin is a retired U.S. Army officer and the author of Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad, which incorporates material from the “Red Pill” brief, as well as much additional material on the Muslim Brotherhood’s penetration of Western governments, transnational bodies, NGOs, and the “interfaith” industry.

For links to previous articles about the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, see the OSCE Archives.

For more on the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, see the OIC Archives.

2 thoughts on “Stephen Coughlin: Part 8 of the Red Pill Briefing — Apples and Oranges

  1. I used the occasion of viewing this latest installment of Mr. Coughlin’s Red Pill Briefing to get back into “Catastrophic Failure,” opening it to Appendix One: Interfaith Outreach, as I have been curious to learn what’s up with certain mega-church leaders who are partnering with Muslims to do “good works” in Africa, etc.
    This section of the book is masterful in presenting how the unwary get suckered in.
    It occurred to me, however, that the non-Muslim partners are not so illogical after all in their participation (and really, one must read this Appendix, especially pages 522-523, in order to make any meaningful sense of my point); rather, these partners have given up their faith in order to join the “club,” (my term), the Dialogue. The Interfaith Dialogue itself has become their new God. I know that’s harsh, but that’s the way I see it. For they are required to leave their preconceived beliefs at the door in order to be “tolerant” and “charitable” of the Muslim members of the Dialogue. But the whole idea of the Dialogue is to “hollow out” the faith of the partners using as a pretext joint humanitarian projects.
    Suckers indeed.

  2. As a student we had a PhD who had been a Christian missionary in an Asian country tell us how he overheard a conversation. While he was travelling here in the West two Muslims involved in interfaith dialogue were discussing how the “dialogue” was proceeding. In their own language they were joking about how they were telling their Christian “dialogue” partners all sorts of nonsense to make them believe they were interested in closer relationships between the two Faiths while the discussion simply allowed them to continue with less interruption in their Dawa.

    When he spoke up and asked them about their statements, far from being embarassed as he imagined they would be, they strongly confirmed what they’d said earlier. They just tell their dialogue partners what they know they want to hear while they get on about their work.

    My lecturer probably wasn’t aware of the term, but this was my introduction to Taqiyya.

Comments are closed.