THE SERVANT GENERAL
ASSAULTS ON FAITH, FAMILY AND LIFE
CULTURAL JIHAD AND ISLAM
April 7, 2018
Liberals, leftists and secularists are wreaking havoc on Judeo-Christian
society and values, and are seeking to overturn them. And
just as they promote the threat to faith, family and life
coming from those who advocate sexual licentiousness, homosexuality,
gender ideology and all other such diabolical works, they
would embrace Islam as well, together with sharia law.
leftists, and secularists enabling cultural Jihad in the West
6, 2018 (turningpointproject) – As I’ve often
observed, if Islam ever succeeds
in subjugating America it won’t be primarily through
force of arms, but through cultural jihad (aka stealth jihad).
For cultural jihad to succeed,
however, it’s necessary that there are enough people
in the target culture who are willing to ignore it or even
to facilitate it. Put more bluntly, there
have to be enough people who are either too complacent to
notice the threat or so stupid that they mistake the spread
of Islam for a positive development.
Islamists can’t do the
job of subversion all by themselves. They need help. Other
people have to prepare the ground for them. Luckily for the
Islamists, liberals, leftists, and secularists have been busy
preparing the ground for yearsin schools, in academia,
in the media, in government, in the corporate world, and elsewhere.
Conservative pundits often warn that if we continue along
our current path, our society will be changed beyond recognition.
But much of the Orwellian future they predict has already
arrived. Large chunks of the leftist agenda are now accomplished
facts. The left controls the
narrative about many key issues, and the narrative that they
have wovena mix of multiculturalism, relativism, and
identity politicscreates an ideal environment for stealth
jihadists to ply their trade.
In their response to eventsparticularly those that involve
race, religion, ethnicity, or gendermany are no longer
guided by facts, or by experience, or even by the evidence
of their own eyes, but by “official” narratives.
Even if the narrative is the inverse of reality, it takes
precedence over reality. If the narrative says the Emperor
is clothed, that’s the end of the discussion. If the
narrative says the wolf-at-the-door-is actually a sheep, you
must agree. Moreover, if you’ve been well-conditioned
you’ll agree with enthusiasm.
Cultural jihad is more difficult to resist than armed jihad.
To make the point, I used to ask, “Who’s going
to stop ‘em?” In various columns I made the case
that the Army, the police, the FBI, and Congress are not well
equipped to deal with the phenomenon of cultural jihad. Now,
it might be more appropriate to ask, “Whose side are
they on?” The various cultural groups and institutions
that might be expected to counter cultural jihad seem to have
embraced it instead.
It’s easy to harbor the hope that if push comes to shove,
the vast majority would drop their illusions and rally to
the defense of their country and their heritage. I’m
not so sure. A good part of
the left’s cultural demolition campaign is devoted to
demonizing our cultural heritage. Thanks to our leftist-controlled
education system, tens of millions are convinced that this
is a rotten society, based on rotten principles.
It’s so bad, they’ve been taught, that only a
fresh start will do. Moreover, they’ve been conditioned
to believe that almost any other system of government, morals,
and religion would be preferable to what we have now. Socialism?
Communism? Islam? Why not give it a chance?
What brings these thoughts to mind is a news story I read
recently about the Library Department at Simmons College in
Boston. The librarians at Simmons have issued a new guide
on “Anti-Islamomisia.” (Yes, it sounds like the
term will never catch on, but that’s what we used to
think about the word “Islamophobia.”) The guide
warns Christians against saying “Merry Christmas”
or “Happy Easter.” The reasoning behind the prohibition
is that these expressions of “Christian supremacy”
constitute “micro-aggressions” against Muslims
by reinforcing “the assumption of one’s own religious
identity as the norm.” Who could have guessed that the
“Silence please” sign on the librarian’s
desk would one day take on Orwellian overtones?
The chief aim of cultural jihad
is the imposition of sharia law. And one of the key features
of sharia is its blasphemy laws. Where sharia
rules, criticism of Islam or its prophet is a crime. It may
be hard to imagine blasphemy laws being introduced to the
U.S., but criticism of Islam is already a crime in
much of Europe. If blasphemy laws did come to the
U.S.if it became a crime to criticize Islamwhere
would the Simmons librarians stand? Whose side would they
take? Would they suddenly think, “This has gone too
far. I never realized where all this would lead”? Not
likely. If you think “Merry Christmas” is a micro-aggression
against Muslims, you’ve already got one foot planted
in the sharia camp.
Of course, the librarians of Simmons College are a small group.
But it’s easy to imagine that much larger groups in
our society would go along with a law limiting the right to
question Islam. Take registered Democrats, for instance. That’s
a pretty big group. A 2017 Rasmussen poll showed that “Democrats
are more likely to think that Muslims are mistreated in America
than to think that Christians are persecuted in the Islamic
world.” Considering that 90,000 Christians
died for their faith in 2016 compared to a reported 127 Muslim
victims of assault in the U.S., that’s quite a disconnect
from reality. But of course, it’s
not reality that rules in much of modern America, it’s
the narrative. For many Democrats, anti-blasphemy laws would
be seen as simply another form of affirmative actionjust
compensation for years of hatred against Muslims.
How about the universities? Whose side are they on? Here’s
a headline from the AP: “Music professor who said Muslim
women safer in US forced out.” It seems that Clifford
Adams, a professor at the University of Cincinnati, didn’t
get the message about how well people are treated in the Islamic
world. He was placed on administrative leave and will retire
at the end of the semester for having said in class that women
and girls are safer in the U.S. than in any Middle Eastern
country. That’s a demonstrably true fact, but these
days truth is no excuse for uttering politically incorrect
statements. Whose side would the universities
take? Judging by their rigid speech codes, the colleges would
have little problem with imposing additional restrictions
on freedom of expressionespecially if the request came
from a certified victim group.
The media? Where do you think the Democrat voters got the
idea that Christians are better off in the Muslim world than
Muslims are here? One of the media’s favorite themes
is the supposed epidemic of anti-Muslim hate crimes in the
U.S. If a young Muslim women is yelled at by three drunks
in a New York City subway, it hits the national news and stays
there for a week. Even if it turns out that the young women
admits that she made up the story (as she did), various activists
groups will still list the “incident” in hate
crime reports long after the retraction. As with the subway
story, dozens upon dozens of hate crimes turn out to be “
fake” crimescrimes that never happened, or else
crimes that turn out to have been committed by Muslims. It’s
a good bet that many of the 127 assaults on Muslims reported
in 2016 never happened. But no matter how many stories fall
by the wayside, the narrative still stands. Whose side would
the media choose? To all intents and purposes, the media has
already chosen sides.
How about feminists? Shouldn’t feminists be deeply concerned
about their downtrodden sisters in Muslim lands? Wouldn’t
they want to prevent the spread of sharia to our shores? Apparently
not. Linda Sasour, one of the leaders of the women’s
march on Washington is a key figure in the women’s movement.
She is never seen outside without her hijab and she is a strong
advocate of sharia. Yet for some strange reason, feminists
consider her to be a champion of women’s rights. The
only prominent feminist who has criticized Islam’s blasphemy
laws and its harsh treatment of women is Phyllis Chesler.
As a result, most of her former feminist colleagues have broken
their ties with her. The number
one enemy for feminists is not Islam, it’s Christianity.
If feminists are faced with the choice of defending the free
speech of Christians or the right of Muslims not to be offended,
it’s not difficult to guess what side they’ll
How about big business? In the past, businessmen were thought
to be conservative. That may still be true of many small business
owners. But big business is
now only a shade to the right of your average left-leaning
university. Corporate speech codes are almost as irrational
as the campus variety, and talking about your faith or wearing
Christian jewelry at work can have serious repercussions.
Would the corporate giants favor cultural jihadists over their
critics? They already have. If
you run a counter-jihad sitethat is, if you expose the
activities of cultural jihadistsit’s only a matter
of time until YouTube restricts you, Facebook suspends you,
Google makes your site virtually inaccessible, and PayPal
blocks your account.
On the other hand, Facebook has been positively protective
of Muslims. Shortly after the Paris and San Bernadino attacks,
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg wrote:
If you’re a Muslim in this community, as the leader
of Facebook I want you to know that you are always welcome
here and that we will protect your rights and create a peaceful
and safe environment for you.
a similar vein, Facebook Vice President, Joel Kaplan, told
Pakistan’s interior minister that Facebook will “remove
… hateful and provocative material that incites violence
and terrorism.” This was
not meant as a promise to remove Islamist terrorist sites,
but as a promise to remove criticism of Islam that might incite
“violence and terrorism.” In response,
the interior minister told Kaplan:
entire Muslim Ummah was greatly disturbed and has serious
concerns over the misuse of social media platforms to propagate
blasphemous content… Pakistan appreciates the understanding
shown by the Facebook administration…
In short, Facebook has shown itself quite willing to enforce
Islam’s blasphemy laws.
To the ordinary person, this may seem like taking sides. But
to the giant corporations the whole idea of loyalty (other
than to the company) must seem quaint. They are, after all,
global entities. You might as well ask the UN whose side it
is on. Global entities don’t take sides. They consider
themselves to be above all that. But, since all mankind is
their business, they feel perfectly justified in adjusting
the balance between different faiths and ideologies as they
see fit. And if part of the adjustment requires that counter-jihad
sites be dropped down the memory hole, it’s all for
the best. After all, we don’t want to incite violence.
The beauty of these algorithmic adjustments is that hardly
anyone will notice. And after a while the whole question of
taking sides will be moot. That’s because only one side
of the “debate” on Islam will be presented. Eventually,
it will be taken for granted that there is and always has
been only one side.
This article originally appeared in the March 21, 2018
edition of Crisis and is re-published with permission of the