Political Islam Is All of It

Here is one of Bill Warner’s new videos, “Hijra, Islamic Migration”.

But it is so much more than that. With each of his expositions you can learn something new, sometimes with his charts, sometimes just with his ideas, often with his Socratic questions.

The progressive map showing the conquest of the Arabian Peninsula followed by the subjugation of other areas once they moved in, is sobering. That’s one reason Dr. Warner says he never talks about Muslims as individuals (except for Mohammed). His interest is jihad and sharia, i.e., ISLAM. By coincidence, that’s a habit I began about ten years ago. There is no point in naming names when the ultimate goal is saturation of a culture by Islam via the various forms of jihad.

Dr. Warner notes that the American media and academia attack his character, calling him “unbalanced” – I presume they mean he’s mentally unbalanced. However, he observes that when he visits Europe and is interviewed, the whole of the program is simply aired – no personal attacks.One wonders if it is a courtesy extended to him as a guest; I cannot imagine the EU permitting such a discussion by its own people.

Even if you think there’s nothing new here, or perhaps especially if you do, a careful reading of his material is sure to give you new ideas. For me, it was the three pillars holding up sharia law. Yes, I know what they are, but to see them visualized is a help.

Bill Warner is a born teacher…and I love his Tennessee accent.

62 thoughts on “Political Islam Is All of It

  1. Dr. Warner IS a wonderful gentleman, and his understanding of Islam is well-worth study.

  2. I think that Bill Warner will be remembered by history as a modern day prophet. I wish he was wrong, but I think he is right. And it is sad.

    • So what is this education we seek if at
      the end of the day so many ‘educated’ canno tell Schmidt from Sunny O’Lala? Barry from Barak

  3. You’ve read my mind and articulated my thoughts. The light of The Statue of Liberty shines a bit brighter in New York Harbor this morning. Thank you.

  4. Islam is so limiting to the intellect that I regularly see public art in Algeria which has no grasp of graphical perspective, which was defined and mastered by Brunelleschi in early 1400s Florence, Italy.

  5. In 7:46 Bill said I do not discuss Muslim, I discuss Islam. He wants us to do the same. It is similar to the one advise from Ali Sina: attack Islam, not muslim. There is an error in that argument. Islam does not migrate, moslems do. It is absurd to talk about migration by attacking something that CANNOT migrate. Ideas do not migrate, people do. Please be more careful in advising.

    • I think I can see both side of the argument. Obviously we cannot take the muslims out of the equation. But also I can see how Dr Warner do not want to bring this down to the personal level, starting into the tired argument of some taqiyya: “I am a muslim and I never hurt a fly in my life speech”, rather target the ideology and bring it to conclusion: even if someone personally does not hurt another being, still can be guilty of subscribing into this sick ideology (and maybe supporting it with financial ways like zakat (tax) which used for jihad.

      • Exactly. Ali Sina has presented the similar argument when debating with moslems. He wrote that not all Germans joined Nazi at WW2. But (almost) all Germans agree with what Nazi did, and enjoy the result of ‘looting’. Almost all Germans who disagree with Nazi at that time, did nothing. This makes them (Germans not officially joined Nazi) guilty as well. My focus is not germans now. My point is about the parallel that can be drawn for moslems. Again, thanks.

        • >> Almost all Germans who disagree with Nazi at that time, did nothing.

          Your insight may be enhanced by spending an entire day inside the Dachau Museum – following the historical unfolding of the concentration camp system. Don’t simply go stand in front of an oven and then virtue/empathy signal by shedding tears. Try to get some real understanding of how the sequence of events and measures followed one another. [The wiki page is a bit wanting in this regard.]

          Dachau was initially run by the “civil” police. Its original purpose was to re-educate thought criminals – brutally but not fatally – and then release them back into the population as a warning. The camp and its activities were purposely NOT shrouded in secrecy.

          So, by the time the Nazis had taken over . . . there was no more room for open disagreement. Let this be a warning. Do not wait for tomorrow to speak up.

          [It was only later that the SS incorporated the camp into its slave labour industry and final solution distribution. Things do not all happen at once. Evil encroaches in increments.]

          • And, one must never forget the originators of the concentration camp way of dealing with large numbers of prisoners – it was the British under Lord Kitchener and during the Boer War in South Africa who introduced the concept that was later utilized by the Nazis.

          • My grandmother would later tell me about her time as a 12 year old girl in one of those camps, but she did not like to talk about it much, and I – regrettably – cannot recall much of the details.

          • When we’re young we don’t realize how much the generation of grandparents have to share. It’s something the parents have to encourage both sides to do. Our son is busy collecting family remnants’ stories because the main actors are long gone.

    • What you say is not practical. Neither is it right, to malign all people because of what they presumably believe. The opprobrium needs to go toward Islam, and the harm Islam has done and is doing. Ideas migrate even without people migrating. To smack Islam is simple, effective and satisfying, and ducks all the objections I have heard of.

      If folks have an argument for the other side, I’d like to hear it.

      • I think it is perfectly valid to malign people based on what they believe! Did you ever heard about the goodness of moderate Nazis? No?! Here you go!

        • Would it have been perfectly valid to malign all Germans? That’s more to the point. Besides, you don’t see into the human heart as to what exactly they believe… sometimes people don’t themselves know what they believe.

          There is nothing to gain by maligning Muslims. You don’t win anybody’s mind and heart by maligning them, as people. (Maligning the malign Islam, that a whole other kettle of fish.) I for one am grateful for every Muslim who questions their allegiance to Islam or gains distance from it, even if they continue to call themselves Muslim.

          Bret below mentions Spain. In those days, yes, they could push Muslims out, but even so it took them hundreds of years. We don’t have hundreds of years, and the situation is nearly global, the numbers massive. We gotta be smart. We may not get many chances from now on out.

          • I just know if an allied soldier walking from Normandy into Germany and someone jumps in front of him screaming “I am a moderate Nazi”, he would get shot in second!

            As for muslims, you forgot that it is not a RACE, not a NATION. These are people who believe in a political doctrine. You mentioned Germans which is not a good comparison at all.
            To clear it up for you, in my example:
            ALL MUSLIMS = NAZIS
            People of Middle East descent = Germans
            Not all Germans were Nazis, but whoever said he/she is a Nazi, were subscribed (granted in different level) to the doctrine. So they were guilty, even they were not in the high command ordering the death of thousands of people!

      • In Reconquista, the Spain push Moslem, not Islam. It was practical. Trump wants to vet Moslems. It was deemed practical by many voters. He gets elected. Ali Sina attack Moslem, starting first with Muhammad (as fictitious as he may be), then the Moslems who debate him. It was practical. Even if ideas migrate, it’s because the people holding it migrate; and by the way Islam does not migrate, pls don’t. play words.

        • It is more than simply semantics – i.e., play[ing with] words” – to make that distinction, at least for those who write about Islam all the time.

          As many apostates have shown, one definitely can take Islam out of the muslim…in fact, a number of imams have admitted that if the death penalty were not in force for apostasy, Islam would be dead in a generation or so.

          Most apostates convert to atheism once they finally make the move. Some small percentage convert to one of the Christian sects. I doubt that the leavers ever feel entirely safe. That’s built into the system.

          For some practical purposes – e.g., Trump’s promise to ‘vet’ Muslims – there is a need to keep it individual as one asks each person to make an either/or choice: either allegiance to the Constitution or final obedience to Sharia Law.

          In particular, when an authority like Bill Warner is teaching this subject it is imperative to be meticulous regarding word use…

          …I stand with his choice and it goes far beyond “playing with words”. When a teacher like Warner speaks he has to maintain watertight doors between individual Muslims and the political doctrine that is Islam. Teachers are in the business of persuasion; through experience and study, he’s become meticulous about the use of words to persuade his listeners.

      • What can we say about Churcil; did he attack Moslem or Islam? He let Moslem stay in Britain, and even gave Moslem area (Jordan) greater than to Jews. With all his understanding, by not attacking Moslems inside Britain at that time; the seeds were kept growing and we see the result today.

    • I think you are right. Islam is abstract. Islam get real when muslims having islamic rules in their heads make it real. In order to combat islam, you must combat the propagation agents, muslims. If you attack only islam as doctrine, muslims will just get more angry and violent. And they have also takiyya, they know the best of islam, not we. They are born and educated in this “science”. So, in order to stop the virus, destroy the propagation agent. As long there are muslims, there is islam. You can’t call yourself muslim, without knowing what islam is and want.

      • Agreed. I don’t know how one can safeguard a nation without discussing the impact of the believers/agents of the threat against the nation.

        As for the common mantra heard around the apologist’s world of not wanting to “malign all Muslims” when all Muslims share the same one and only Islam. Muslims revere Islam and Islam hates the kafir without so much as a how-do-you-do!

        Hilariously, kafirs (!), yes kafirs are supposed to provide the benefit of the doubt to self-identifying believers of a doctrine that undoubtedly provides no benefit, specifically for the kafir! Are we at peak madness yet?

        If, one day we get serious about Islam, perhaps the most certain thing our society could do to let Muslims know we understand Islam fully and completely, is to insist Muslims live under a reversed Sharia with all the rights unafforded to kafirs in Muslim lands. That would be the price of trying to expand the footprint of Islam in Dar al-Harb. Dr Warner had a video with the original suggestion but I cannot locate it.

        Re: the Hijra, Islamic migration
        Conducting oneself as a Muslim, to expand Islam in a non-Muslim nation obligates Allah to provide you a place in his afterlife SkyBrothel. The second and third generations have no such path to *paradise* and thus the indulgence of violence is among the few paths left open to them.

    • Romania do have a small minority of muslims for about 150 years…the old turks from Ottoman Empire taken prisoners. During the communism, the koran in Romania has been modified, in order to comply the communist view of a cult. So the muslim generations grown up during the communism, in Romania they drink alcohol and eat pork meat. There was no imam to say this is wrong…militia was watching..If the families wanted to keep their islamic rules at the beginning of communist era, during the communism, they changed. I do remember in the army, muslims (really few…Romania has about 60 000 muslims at that time) didn’t had problems eating beans with pork meat or schnitzel, drinking with us vodca, palinca or wine during the night parties in the club.

  6. The idea of registering the religion of individual makes so much sense. I guess it is the leftists that are very much opposed to it. By requiring people to fill their religion column, the religion of the perpetrators can (and should) be revealed. This gives us ammunition to ‘attack’ moslems. Countries such as Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia require filling the religion column. Western countries should do that. What if the moslems perform taqqiya? There’s another solution for that. Right now it’s urgent for us to have some ‘weapon’ to ‘attack’ Moslems (not Islam) USING FACTS/statistics.

    • Revealing one’s ‘religion’ can be a double edged sword. It was once compulsory to identify whose Church you belonged to, and this info in some hands was used to weed out those who were not thought to be suitable for the position that they happened to have applied for.

      I was once a victim to it myself and without even realizing it.

  7. This video is simply superb. Logical, scientific in its methods and if any moronic liberal would listen to such things not their feelings, then islamic conquest would be much harder for the muslims. (all lowercase were intended).

  8. Is it a good tactic to assume that there was a real Moe, though, given that we’re now pretty sure he’s as fictional as Bugs Bunny?

    • Garr: what’s the latest on that? I am skeptical, but most historians, and all popular writers, speak as though all that stuff is real. I mean, look at Bill Warner. His presentation is based on dividing the Koran into Meccan and Medinan, as though the stories told were actual history.

      Anybody know where to look, do you recommend any books on this?

    • It depends on your audience. For the Mo-skeptics, I recommend a book on our sidebar, written by a German scholar. His publisher convinced him this would be a winning title in English.

      What the Modern Martyr Should Know: Seventy-Two Grapes and Not a Single Virgin: The New Picture of Islam


      If you have a Kindle, you can read it for free at the moment.

      I recommend scrolling down to the comment section on this book. Lots of information in the reviews.Here’s part of the first review from that section:

      This book was originally written in German under the title “Goodbye Mohamed” and published by Verlag in December 2009. The “Inarah Association”, the leading group of Islamic scholars, has recommended the book, which is based on some of their work about the true origins of Islam. Pressburg lays out the facts based on extensive original source research buttressed by archeological findings and authenticated historical archives. The genesis of the manuscript is the result of the work done by historians, classical linguists, archaeologists, numismatists and Islamic scholars whose efforts, since the 19th century, have begun to shed light on Islam trying to separate facts from fiction. The book suggests that Islam sprang from the Nestorian sect, a deviant of Christianity that rejected the divinity of Jesus, and was invented as a separate religion in the 9th century.

      Nowadays it is thought that, based on serious non-biased academic research, that the Holy Qura’an was compiled around the 9th century, during the reign of the Abbasids, from texts written in Aramaic/Syriac, of Nestorian Christian origins. According to members of the “Inarah” (Enlightenment in Arabic) such as Christopher Luxenberg and Karl-Heinz Ohlig, the Qura’an contains about 25% of errors of translation from the original Aramaic, Hebrew, Persian and Greek original sources into Qureishi Arabic. This contradicts the traditional belief that the Qura’an is verbatim the word of Allah as dictated by the Angel Gabriel to the Prophet over a period of 23 years. The author offers examples of the mistranslations such as “Qeryan” (Qura’an) a Syrian Christian book of liturgy, “Huris” (white grapes) became Virgins and “Hijab”, a girdle, in its original ancient Persian dialect.

      Read more >

      And finally, a book review done by a reader:


      I miss that reviewer very much. He wasn’t well back then and things may have gone downhill since. His opinions were always careful.

    • That may be so, but what difference does it really make?
      It doesn`t change the rejection of Islam by Islamcritics.
      And it certainly doesn`t influence the belive of Muslims in their faith.

      I mean it`s interresting from a historical perspective and if someone is interested in the study of religions.
      But other then that?
      The only value we can hope for is that it may give some potential converts to Islam something to think.
      But conversion to Islam has rarely to do with rational thinking.

  9. One of the best. Well articulated and comprehensive without being over done. Everyone in Western societies best listen to this and understand the end point of the BHO agenda – that being your grand daughters learning how to put on makeup so that the latest beating isn’t noticeable or just simply wearing a burka. And your grandsons using the K-bar to sever the heads of the kafir – in downtown Anywhere, USA.

    Tell me this isn’t your vision for ‘Merica BHO, tell me.

  10. I followed JihadWatch.org and FrontPagemag for a few years and found the information presented far more plausible than what was presented by the main stream media. Comments at JihadWatch by the Baron and Dymphna brought me to GatesofVienna and Fjordman (as well as others) but these are the initial sources of believable, logical information I initially took to heart. Yet it wasn’t until 2007, when this specific quote from Dr. Warner presented at FrontPageMag – likely linked from any of the above sources as well – which satisfactorily addressed the issue of Islamic contradictions once and for all (for me) . . .

    “Our first clue about the dualism is in the Koran, which is actually two books, the Koran of Mecca (early) and the Koran of Medina (later). The insight into the logic of the Koran comes from the large numbers of contradictions in it. On the surface, Islam resolves these contradictions by resorting to “abrogation”. This means that the verse written later supersedes the earlier verse. But in fact, since the Koran is considered by Muslims to be the perfect word of Allah, both verses are sacred and true. The later verse is “better,” but the earlier verse cannot be wrong since Allah is perfect. This is the foundation of dualism. Both verses are “right.” Both sides of the contradiction are true in dualistic logic. The circumstances govern which verse is used.” link

    On my bucket list – take the time to personally meet and thank Dr. Warner, the Baron, Dymphna, Fjordman, Robert Spencer, Hugh Fitzgerald, and many others for their determined persistence to unveil the deceptions foisted upon humanity by Islam and Islamophiles. -HRW

  11. Great video. The part on Sharia in America is especially interesting. Sympathy for Islam is found in the most unlikely places! I was taught to love Islam even at my small, private Christian college in the Midwest. (This was ’05-’09). We weren’t blatantly told to love Islam, but we got the idea that being truly “educated” meant loving it as much as our professors did. Christians who disagreed with Islam were just sheltered rednecks, Jewish people and Israel are evil, the violent actions of Muslims were always someone else’s fault. I struggled with these ideas, because in order to be considered educated, I couldn’t have a different opinion. This reverence for Islam was so ingrained that did not learn how to think for myself until after graduating college. Warner is right. Today, American universities are simply institutions that push an agenda. Islam has found a way to tap into a source of hegemonic power.

    I recently returned to this school for another degree, and my very first class was on multiculturalism. We were taught that being white means being a natural-born racist. At the same time, we were taught that there is no such thing as race. (What?) Too many are swallowing multiculturalism hook, line, and sinker. Absolute fertile ground for Sharia. It’s difficult to argue against people who will call you names just for disagreeing, but this website has helped me formulate a response. Great work.

    • What used to mean education now it reduced to Facebook memes and Instagram images… Soundsbites are an easy way to indoctrinate and lead the sheep masses.

  12. Here is a comment on the veracity of Islam by the reviewer I mentioned above:

    Chiu ChunLing
    on October 12, 2013 at 7:46 pm said:

    There probably was an original Islam, which originated in relation to the Bedouin tribes and provided a uniting element that had previously been lacking, making their raids against civilized settlements both more frequent (due to the new prohibition against attacking co-religionists) and more successful.

    That Islam as we know it was explicitly redesigned as a “warrior religion” is fairly evident. When exactly this happened is difficult to pinpoint because it apparently has been an ongoing process, and it probably started with Mohammad/Qutham himself, it may even have been his original intention (making him something of an L. Ron Hubbard of his day). But there has not been an unbroken line of succession, Islam has been repeatedly “hijacked” and taken in new directions by relatively new converts or upstarts at the expense of existing power structures. The ideological emphasis on conquest and militancy makes this an inevitability, along with the rejection of reason in favor of will, or the jurisprudence of arbitrary convenience (to the jurist, at least) rather than fixed principles of impartial law.

    Still miss that guy.

    • Sounds wonderful. I will get it right away. I ignored the book because of the silly title.

      “Islam has been repeatedly “hijacked” and taken in new directions by relatively new converts or upstarts at the expense of existing power structures.”

      So that is what we are seeing now, as the globalists have glommed onto Islam in their quest for planetary power! Now it all makes creepy sense…

    • Islam has been hijacked by bad moslems. Bad moslems are moslems that do not practice Islam/Quran. Good moslems, the ones that commit violence; never hijack Islam. If the author implies the hijackers are the ones who put emphasis and conquest and militancy (by violence), he was wrong. I don’t know why you like his writing D. The writing you quote is too complex and not helpful for me.

  13. A fine piece of well founded information again by Bill Warner.
    With one little exception.
    Jihad does not mean effort.
    Effort means Ijtihad.

    In Arabic every Noun is based on a Verb.
    The Arabic Verbs for fight or struggle on one hand, and effort on the other are almost identical, but not quite.

    From the Verb ﺟﺎﻫﺪ jaahada – fighting/struggling, ﺟﻬﺎﺩ derives the Noun Jihad (Fight).
    But from the Verb ﺟﻬﺪ jahada – to make an effort, ﺍ ﺟﺘﻬﺪ derives the Noun Ijtihad (make an Effort in faith – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ijtihad )

    From this follows:
    Mujahid (ie. Jihadi) – a person who fights for Islam (against kufar and against his own weakness in faith)
    Mujtahid – a person who makes an effort for finding a solution in a question of Islamic jurisprudence.

    *Arabic terms of course have to be read from the right to left.

    • I heard that ijtihad means interpretation. (?) Cf. the “gates of ijtihad” being closed or open.

      • And since we are talking translations, what is the best translation of “kufir”? Vile truth denier?

        • kufr means unbelief — that is, the denial that there is no god but Allah, or that Mohammed is his messenger, or both.

          kafir means one who practices kufr, i.e. an unbeliever.

          kuffar is the plural of kafir; i.e. unbelievers.

          takfir is the accusation of kufr by one Muslim against another.

          All of these are based on the consonantal stem KFR. Adding the “ta” as a prefix means, roughly, “call to”. In a similar process, takbir is “ta” + KBR, the stem of “greater”, which is seen in allahu akhbar, “Allah is greater”. Thus the takbir is the call to proclaim that Allah is greater.

          • And since there are not analogues for every term in other languages – Kabir also means Old.
            So Allahu Akbar means – Allah ist the greatest and oldest (in the sense of the first).

            Arabic also has only two comparison forms (I hope that`s correct in English).
            In German or English you would say:
            great, greater, greatest (groß, größer, am größten).
            In Arabic it would only be:
            great, the greatest

            One could argue that this ressembles to the exaggeration Muslims and Arabs tend to.

          • Baron, I am told that using the word “unbeliever” does not give the real sense of the word Kafir. I am told it is a pejorative word, and some translations do speak of truth deniers. Maybe even “truth denier” is too mild? People who begin studying Islam do not know this…

          • It’s hard to convey the meaning, because the crime of kufr is so heinous, such a great offense against the community. A truly accurate translation would have to adumbrate “atrocity”, “high treason”, and “crime against humanity”.

            Muslim thinking is very different from that of the West. Even after long years of studying it, I can still only observe it, but not really understand it.

      • That is the function of Ijtihad as part of Tafsir (which then truly means Explanation, Interpretation, also in the sense of Exegesis).
        But the meaning of the term Ijtihad itself is Effort.

        Ijtihad as part of Tafsir consists of Idjma`a (Consent of a majority of Mujtahid or in other form educated Islamic scholars) and Qijas (comparison or analogy circuit in Islamic law).



    True Nature of islam. What is the real islam? Dr. Bill Warner shows us objectively and fact based why islam is not just a PERSONAL religion. Islam has religious, legal, political, economic, social, and military components.
    The religious part of islam is only about 18%, so islam is not just a religion with things you can just do for yourself like fasting and praying. It has many more elements, like the sharia which will affect every detail of social life for both muslims AND non-muslims.

    If you want to inform yourself about what islam is, the dangers of islam, the background of islam, the goal of islam, and why islam is DIFFERENT than any other religion, you should read this page and watch the videos on it:


    • And realizing that Islam isn’t a religion, it’s a juridical utopian supremacist scheme for control. It’s a soviet dragon with a pretend god facemask tacked onto it.

        • It is both… but the political side is much bigger. And their god seems more like satan, in what he demands.

          I love your definition, Dymphna.
          A utopian supremacist scheme for control!

  15. I don’t intend to paint Germans from the generations after WW2. I was talking about most germans at the WW2. It’s a different time, implies different people. And I wrote ‘almost all’, not all; I account for exceptions. Please don’t get me wrong. I didn’t write about the germans now when drawing the parallel that Ali Sina wrote.

    As to idea vs people. If we read the comments in various online media, many have been aware of what Islam really is. I think it has been at least a decade. If we continue just addressing Islam and avoid addressing moslems, I think progress will be too slow. I suggest we start addressing moslems (in addition to Islam), especially in the countries when moslems are not yet the majority. Start addressing their aggressive, intimating behaviour, taqqiya, etc. Start publishing using the word ‘muslim’. Then I think, even if the progress is slow, it won’t be too slow.

  16. Unbalanced? I’d be very suspicious of any such opinion. Dr Warner provides facts.

    Exceptionally cool accent, although in my ignorance it sounds similar to Texan…..sorry Dymphna.

  17. All true, but there is one aspect that jars. Dr Warner says he doesn’t talk about Muslims but it isn’t true. He talks about Muslims a lot, and throughout this video….just one example “Muslims come to a country with the intention of dominating it”.

    Personally I don’t see how you can restrict your criticism to Islam. As other posters have said, Islam cannot do anything by itself but only through the agency of its believers. Shouldn’t we aceept that if we regard Mohammed as our enemy then we should regard Muslims as our enemy to the extent that they take Mohammed’s teachings and example seriously?

    Yes, I know, not so easy to tell, hence the precautionary principle we should apply with regard to all things and people Islamic.

    • I don’t regard Mo as my enemy. I do regard Islam as enemy ideology, because this ideology has declared war on me. I regard Muslims as dangerous carriers of this ideology. They are like virus carriers. The virus often victimizes them, and many of them victimize others under the influence of the virus. And all are like “typhoid Mary,” spreading the virus far and wide. But typhoid Mary wasn’t the enemy. Typhoid was. When the doctor who discovered her and the well from which she was spreading the illness, he did not shoot Mary. He broke the handle of the pump that tapped the contaminated well. We need to find such a handle.

      • Your analogies don’t stand up.

        1. An enemy ideology without an enemy? An ideology cannot do anything at all by itself. It was Mohammed who declared war on unbelievers and his followers who perpetuate it. In 1940 would you have considered the ideology of Nazism as your enemy but not Hitler?

        2. No, of course Typhoid Mary wasn’t the enemy, nor was typhoid which is just a bacterium trying to make a living in the environment it finds itself in. It harbours no enmity against its hosts, it doesn’t even know they exist.

        Comparing an illness to hostile action by people who mean you harm is no different to those claims that we shouldn’t be worried about jihad because more people die of car crashes or bee stings or collapsing furniture.

        • There *is* an enemy. It’s the mind virus. I accept that typhoid is not actually aware of attacking us, but it attacks us nevertheless. The little boy who was just shown to shoot a prisoner on a vile islamic video, is he aware? Does he know what he is doing? Not likely. It’s the mind virus that is the evil, not the little boy.

          I do think that once you have an ideology that justifies anti-social behaviors, then many psychopaths and fellow travelers will flock to it. Most people don’t want to think of themselves as antisocial creeps. An ideology that provides self-righteous cover draws them like a moth to flame.

          My way of thinking enables me — and apparently a seasoned counter-jihad warrior like Warner too, which makes me feel I am on the right track — to wage counter jihad. And it does not prevent me from knowing that many of those infected by Islam do wish us harm. I would hesitate to say ALL of them wish us harm, but my analogy allows me to say, also, that the virus itself behaves in ways that shows it a threat in even otherwise mild mannered people who don’t set out to harm.

          I don’t think that Islam is quite the same as a disease. We tend to excuse people’s behavior if they are ill. I simply mean it as an analogy with explanatory and persuasive power. There is no need for it to be useful to everyone, and I wish you well in finding what works for you.

          Here is another analogy. Ardent devotees of Islam are like zombies. They attack, they seek to destroy non-zombies. But the real enemy is the black magic that drives the zombie, not the zombie itself. The zombie will fall apart into dust once the driving force no longer animates it.

          Since Islam is a cult, maybe this analogy works better… black magic and cults are not that far apart, and there is a sense of menace. What do you think, Dymphna? 🙂

    • A bit late in the “life” of this post and the comments but here’s my two cents on this string –

      Agree with ECAW that Dr. Warner certainly does talk about muslims. Furthermore, I would, after obtaining the knowledge I now possess, go on to postulate that it is nonsensical to separate (1) islam the doctrine and (2) muslims – if you have the (1) doctrine without any (2) followers, then you merely have a collection of ideas and stories, bound in three volumes, sitting on a shelf collecting dust. Essentially, you then have “nothing” and nothing leads to nothing. It, nothing, does not lead to a situation where you have a man driving a large vehicle through a crowd of jubilant celebrators on the Mediterranean coast or etc, etc, etc, ad nauseam.

      Let us now stop the intellectual contortions the BHOs of the world have so purposefully foisted upon us and entrapped us in. We have a (1) doctrine and we have (2) people who believe in it. We know that the doctrine is completely and totally intolerant of everything not of its own as in, Dar al Harb vs. Dar al islam. We know that the people who believe in this doctrine will, in various ways, work for the destruction of everything not of its own. The choice is quite simple – do we allow and even abet the people who believe in this doctrine of complete and total intolerance to expand throughout the globe, or not?

      And finally, the analogy with Typhoid Mary is not correct. First off, the characterization of her not being the enemy, and everybody accepting that she wasn’t, is wrong. Geez, the woman was quarantined twice in her life, the first time for three years (she then got out on legal grounds) and then the second time for the last 22 years of her life! They knew she was the problem, the enemy. Would we only be able to do the same for “Typhoid muslim”.

      Maybe strong stuff here but I’ve had it with the [odious substance].

Comments are closed.