To stop it, means those in charge would have to come to the conclusion which Mr. Robert Spencer, Mr. Raymond Ibrahim, Ms. Pamela Getter, and most of the readers of this site have come.
After recognizing that it’s out to make us all submit or they will murder us, then begin to stop apologizing for telling the Truth; stop responding with apology for claims of the ‘phobia.’
Arrest and charge the clerics and members of islamist groups who preach “death to America.”
Look to charge the members of cair according to RICO and don’t allow anyone who objects, to change it.
Apply the Laws on the books regarding death threats, and any other laws which muzlims break and then whine when caught.
Prosecute those who commit crimes, deport any non-citizens, and any naturalized who are preaching hate and making death threats.
Deport any and all who have lied to the government on any application or to Congress (like i elmi, alias omar)
gravenimagesays
+1
Rebekah Lohnessays
Emulate Israel and do not allow a political Islamists to have citizenship and vote, only allow residency of any Islamist provided these members of political Islam pledge allegiance too and are compliant with western nonIslamic national laws.
Rebekah Lohnessays
Your hypothesis sounds great until the Islamists outbreed and then out vote us. Which they are rapidly doing in Europe. They have babies at like 3-4 times the rate westerners do. They are already openly saying that this is their plan.
Meanwhile we should ban abortion on every front and encourage marriage and large natural sized families, and utterly destroy the leftist myth that the world is over populated(which they only preach to JudeoChristian westerners). If leftist educators actually believed their own lie abt over-poplulation they would never bring big Muslim families in droves into our JudeoChristian countries. Your plan will only hold them at bay til they breed us out, then they will vote their Sharia in and we will be able to do nothing about it because we will be the minority.
Dwaynesays
Yes, if we wouldn’t be jailed for it. Our MISleaders are the problem.
Anne Nichollssays
I totally agree with “some history” in the earlier comment. No one should break the laws of another country and get away with it. Westerners would not be allowed to do that in an Islamic country. If you are a guest in someone’s home, you are expected to abide by the customs therein or expect to not be invited back. Rules are rules. If you can’t live with them, don’t come.
somehistorysays
Thank you, Anne. All you wrote is true.
࿗Infidel࿘says
Good discussion, but I was left w/ mixed opinions about Mr Rahul Sur. On one hand, he’s quite aware of the biases of the UN, and how it has rarely condemned excesses by muslim countries. Otoh, he seems to have a lot of faith in the UN, mining their documents and using them to prove his assertions. Essentially, an organization that collects a lot of data to conclude exactly the opposite of much that they say
I also think he needs to do something about his branding. While “islamofactism” sounds good, it sounds too close to “islamofascist”, which is a weaselly term that people on the Right who don’t wanna tarnish islam, or who are afraid of being branded “islamophobes”, use. It would be good to come out w/ a more catchy synonym for his term than the one he came up w/, but one which doesn’t have such a close similarity w/ something that trends in the opposite direction. I did like his “islamostat” though (or one can call it “islamoscale” or “iscale” or something like it) of a 0-10 scale, where an Afghanistan would be an 8 and a Kazakhstan a 2 or thereabouts, w/ Saudi Arabia going down from a 9 to a 4
I also liked Mr Jha’s formula of the 3Vs – votes, violence and victimhood. It’s a beautiful orchestra that the mohammedans came up w/, which has served them well. I do agree w/ RS that there has to be a critical mass of people who’re not afraid of being cancelled by charges of “islamophobia”. There is a song by a rap artist Bob MacDonald that runs “You can’t cancel all of us”, and while he wrote that in support of the based population, it would apply to the “islamophobes” as well
On the Mamdani discussion, I was surprised to hear Mr Jha say that Adams went from (R) to (D) to (I). I looked it up on Wikipedia, and actually, he was a (D) before that, and it was only briefly in 1997, as a protest against failed (D) leadership, that he switched parties for 4 years before switching back again to (D) in 2021. Also, in 1990, he worked w/ the Nation of Islam & Louis Farrakhan, so by itself, that would be a pretty major black mark against him. Except that he’s running against someone who’s a very proud jihadist supporter of both Hamas and Iran
Rahul Sursays
A little bit more on Islamofactism to follow up on Infidel. The world seems to have lost an acceptable way to discuss Islam without being accused of Islamophobia. Hence we need a new way out as there is a linguistic battle also raging. He with the ‘best’ word, wins. And right now “Islamophobia’ is winning. Hence we need a ‘word weapon’ against it. The best and most neutral sounding I could come up with was Islamofactism. Do popularize it along with Islamostat. In my analysis of UN documents, there is an astonishing about of data than can be used to press the case against them. Use that as well as International law. No hate, no harassment but facts and then comments on the basis of facts. Hence Islamofactism. Does that answer your question Infidel? Thanks again
࿗Infidel࿘says
Thank you Mr Sur for your response
I understood and don’t question the rationale behind your term “islamofactist”. What I do think skidish is the fact that it sounds too similar to another term used here in the US called “islamofascist” – as in “islam + fascism”. making it a branding pitfall. One thing about brand labels is that they need to, aside from being catchy, which yours definitely is, is steer clear of similar terms w/ opposing meanings. People who use the term “islamofascist” are, like you & anyone who uses “islamofactist”, not pro-islam per se, but differ from you in an important way:
⮞ Islamofactists are people who point out the ugly facts about islam, ending up showing it in a bad light
⮞ Islamofascists are jihadists and dawa artists (think Zakir Naik), who are described that way by people in the US Right who want to create distance b/w some “true, real islam” and this “islamofascism” that the jihadists follow
That’s why your name is, for no fault of your own, a branding mess, which is why it would be useful to think of an alternative. I tried to think of one, but haven’t found a good alternative. Unless “islamofascist” suddenly becomes a radioactive term that nobody dare use
Islamostat is great, even if I like islamoscale better, given what you described
England Invadedsays
One of the few places which can. Generally armed, the will to use such is needed. The rest of us don’t even have that option easily.
Rahul Sursays
Dear Infidel, thank you for your feedback. The United Nations documents are essential precisely because the data on which they are based can hardly be challenged by Islamists. In short, while the OIC exercises an enormous influence on what the UN says about Islam, their data tells a very different picture. In legal terms, you can consider a kind of “admission.”
࿗Infidel࿘says
Dear Mr Sur
I get you, but like you or Robert pointed out, the OIC being the single largest bloc in the UN has pretty much rendered it worthless when it comes to tackling crimes committed in the name of islam. I’m therefore of the opinion that people, particularly on our side, who try to influence, much less pressurize, the UN into recognizing the excesses of either muslim countries (Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Iran, Qatar…) or jihadist groups (ISIS, al Qaeda, HTS, Hefazat in Bangladesh, islamic jihad in Gaza, Boko Haram in North Africa,….) are wasting their time. You might as well try lobbying the OIC in Jeddah or the Arab League in Cairo
Your intentions are noble: it’s just that the UN is the wrong institution to place one’s trust. Instead focus on the foreign ministries of the countries under attack to have them consolidate forces. India’s EAM would be a good starting point, given how enamored Jaishankar seems to be w/ countries like Qatar, Iran, the Palestinian Authority & Turkey. India’s current foreign policy seems little different from what it was during Nehru
billsays
The Muslim supremacist aim is to force Islam on the non muslim part of the world. The number of Muslims is a little over 26 % of world population, we do not know the levels of commitment of all those people. Or the numbers who do not actuallu consider themselves Muslim still. The combined population of China and India is over one third of the world population, of course there are Muslims in India also. if the Supremacist muslims think that can force the Chinese to give up pork and the Hindus to give up their religion I think they are delusional. Also people are not going to accept sharia or a ban on music etc. etc. I think the term juggernaut is not really suiiable to the situation with Islam.
Dr Ksays
The only way to stop the islamic takeover of Western Countries is to DISCRIMINATE against muslims.
Can you see our legal system allowing that to happen ?
No …they will bend over backwards to prevent that.
It’s going to take violence .
Crusades#2; Incoming
࿗Infidel࿘says
💯
Discover more from
Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.
somehistory says
To stop it, means those in charge would have to come to the conclusion which Mr. Robert Spencer, Mr. Raymond Ibrahim, Ms. Pamela Getter, and most of the readers of this site have come.
After recognizing that it’s out to make us all submit or they will murder us, then begin to stop apologizing for telling the Truth; stop responding with apology for claims of the ‘phobia.’
Arrest and charge the clerics and members of islamist groups who preach “death to America.”
Look to charge the members of cair according to RICO and don’t allow anyone who objects, to change it.
Apply the Laws on the books regarding death threats, and any other laws which muzlims break and then whine when caught.
Prosecute those who commit crimes, deport any non-citizens, and any naturalized who are preaching hate and making death threats.
Deport any and all who have lied to the government on any application or to Congress (like i elmi, alias omar)
gravenimage says
+1
Rebekah Lohnes says
Emulate Israel and do not allow a political Islamists to have citizenship and vote, only allow residency of any Islamist provided these members of political Islam pledge allegiance too and are compliant with western nonIslamic national laws.
Rebekah Lohnes says
Your hypothesis sounds great until the Islamists outbreed and then out vote us. Which they are rapidly doing in Europe. They have babies at like 3-4 times the rate westerners do. They are already openly saying that this is their plan.
Meanwhile we should ban abortion on every front and encourage marriage and large natural sized families, and utterly destroy the leftist myth that the world is over populated(which they only preach to JudeoChristian westerners). If leftist educators actually believed their own lie abt over-poplulation they would never bring big Muslim families in droves into our JudeoChristian countries. Your plan will only hold them at bay til they breed us out, then they will vote their Sharia in and we will be able to do nothing about it because we will be the minority.
Dwayne says
Yes, if we wouldn’t be jailed for it. Our MISleaders are the problem.
Anne Nicholls says
I totally agree with “some history” in the earlier comment. No one should break the laws of another country and get away with it. Westerners would not be allowed to do that in an Islamic country. If you are a guest in someone’s home, you are expected to abide by the customs therein or expect to not be invited back. Rules are rules. If you can’t live with them, don’t come.
somehistory says
Thank you, Anne. All you wrote is true.
࿗Infidel࿘ says
Good discussion, but I was left w/ mixed opinions about Mr Rahul Sur. On one hand, he’s quite aware of the biases of the UN, and how it has rarely condemned excesses by muslim countries. Otoh, he seems to have a lot of faith in the UN, mining their documents and using them to prove his assertions. Essentially, an organization that collects a lot of data to conclude exactly the opposite of much that they say
I also think he needs to do something about his branding. While “islamofactism” sounds good, it sounds too close to “islamofascist”, which is a weaselly term that people on the Right who don’t wanna tarnish islam, or who are afraid of being branded “islamophobes”, use. It would be good to come out w/ a more catchy synonym for his term than the one he came up w/, but one which doesn’t have such a close similarity w/ something that trends in the opposite direction. I did like his “islamostat” though (or one can call it “islamoscale” or “iscale” or something like it) of a 0-10 scale, where an Afghanistan would be an 8 and a Kazakhstan a 2 or thereabouts, w/ Saudi Arabia going down from a 9 to a 4
I also liked Mr Jha’s formula of the 3Vs – votes, violence and victimhood. It’s a beautiful orchestra that the mohammedans came up w/, which has served them well. I do agree w/ RS that there has to be a critical mass of people who’re not afraid of being cancelled by charges of “islamophobia”. There is a song by a rap artist Bob MacDonald that runs “You can’t cancel all of us”, and while he wrote that in support of the based population, it would apply to the “islamophobes” as well
On the Mamdani discussion, I was surprised to hear Mr Jha say that Adams went from (R) to (D) to (I). I looked it up on Wikipedia, and actually, he was a (D) before that, and it was only briefly in 1997, as a protest against failed (D) leadership, that he switched parties for 4 years before switching back again to (D) in 2021. Also, in 1990, he worked w/ the Nation of Islam & Louis Farrakhan, so by itself, that would be a pretty major black mark against him. Except that he’s running against someone who’s a very proud jihadist supporter of both Hamas and Iran
Rahul Sur says
A little bit more on Islamofactism to follow up on Infidel. The world seems to have lost an acceptable way to discuss Islam without being accused of Islamophobia. Hence we need a new way out as there is a linguistic battle also raging. He with the ‘best’ word, wins. And right now “Islamophobia’ is winning. Hence we need a ‘word weapon’ against it. The best and most neutral sounding I could come up with was Islamofactism. Do popularize it along with Islamostat. In my analysis of UN documents, there is an astonishing about of data than can be used to press the case against them. Use that as well as International law. No hate, no harassment but facts and then comments on the basis of facts. Hence Islamofactism. Does that answer your question Infidel? Thanks again
࿗Infidel࿘ says
Thank you Mr Sur for your response
I understood and don’t question the rationale behind your term “islamofactist”. What I do think skidish is the fact that it sounds too similar to another term used here in the US called “islamofascist” – as in “islam + fascism”. making it a branding pitfall. One thing about brand labels is that they need to, aside from being catchy, which yours definitely is, is steer clear of similar terms w/ opposing meanings. People who use the term “islamofascist” are, like you & anyone who uses “islamofactist”, not pro-islam per se, but differ from you in an important way:
⮞ Islamofactists are people who point out the ugly facts about islam, ending up showing it in a bad light
⮞ Islamofascists are jihadists and dawa artists (think Zakir Naik), who are described that way by people in the US Right who want to create distance b/w some “true, real islam” and this “islamofascism” that the jihadists follow
That’s why your name is, for no fault of your own, a branding mess, which is why it would be useful to think of an alternative. I tried to think of one, but haven’t found a good alternative. Unless “islamofascist” suddenly becomes a radioactive term that nobody dare use
Islamostat is great, even if I like islamoscale better, given what you described
England Invaded says
One of the few places which can. Generally armed, the will to use such is needed. The rest of us don’t even have that option easily.
Rahul Sur says
Dear Infidel, thank you for your feedback. The United Nations documents are essential precisely because the data on which they are based can hardly be challenged by Islamists. In short, while the OIC exercises an enormous influence on what the UN says about Islam, their data tells a very different picture. In legal terms, you can consider a kind of “admission.”
࿗Infidel࿘ says
Dear Mr Sur
I get you, but like you or Robert pointed out, the OIC being the single largest bloc in the UN has pretty much rendered it worthless when it comes to tackling crimes committed in the name of islam. I’m therefore of the opinion that people, particularly on our side, who try to influence, much less pressurize, the UN into recognizing the excesses of either muslim countries (Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Iran, Qatar…) or jihadist groups (ISIS, al Qaeda, HTS, Hefazat in Bangladesh, islamic jihad in Gaza, Boko Haram in North Africa,….) are wasting their time. You might as well try lobbying the OIC in Jeddah or the Arab League in Cairo
Your intentions are noble: it’s just that the UN is the wrong institution to place one’s trust. Instead focus on the foreign ministries of the countries under attack to have them consolidate forces. India’s EAM would be a good starting point, given how enamored Jaishankar seems to be w/ countries like Qatar, Iran, the Palestinian Authority & Turkey. India’s current foreign policy seems little different from what it was during Nehru
bill says
The Muslim supremacist aim is to force Islam on the non muslim part of the world. The number of Muslims is a little over 26 % of world population, we do not know the levels of commitment of all those people. Or the numbers who do not actuallu consider themselves Muslim still. The combined population of China and India is over one third of the world population, of course there are Muslims in India also. if the Supremacist muslims think that can force the Chinese to give up pork and the Hindus to give up their religion I think they are delusional. Also people are not going to accept sharia or a ban on music etc. etc. I think the term juggernaut is not really suiiable to the situation with Islam.
Dr K says
The only way to stop the islamic takeover of Western Countries is to DISCRIMINATE against muslims.
Can you see our legal system allowing that to happen ?
No …they will bend over backwards to prevent that.
It’s going to take violence .
Crusades#2; Incoming
࿗Infidel࿘ says
💯