The Key to Your Listener’s Inability to Confront the Disturbing Nature of Islamic Doctrine

[rangerrebew]

The Key to Your Listener’s Inability to Confront the Disturbing Nature of Islamic Doctrine
Wednesday

Someone left the comment below on The Islamization of the West and it reminds me of many similar comments I've gotten over the years, and similar feelings I've had:

"I am at a complete loss as to why CAIR, ISNA, ICNA, MPAC or this NMLA is even allowed to exist in America?? Are some Americans so dumbed down that they don't see the enemy right in front of them? Is this or any political party in government so stupid that they just turn a blind eye to what's happening?"

Can you feel the commenter's exasperation? Have you had this feeling before? We are in a strange situation: We try to simply share new information we've learned, and we find ourselves unable to share it — not because we are incapable of articulating it, but because our listeners do backflips trying to invalidate the information. They contort themselves into impossible cognitive pretzels in order to reject simple, factual information. It has been baffling to many of us. I know. I have heard from hundreds of our fellow counterjihadists about this.

And I know how it feels. I sometimes want to write off my fellow non-Muslims as idiots, but I know many of them are not stupid, so what is going on? What could be the cause of their seemingly stubborn stupidity on this subject?

https://www.citizenwarrior.com/2011/05/key-to-your-listeners-inability-to.html

[DefiantMassRINO]

The corollary I can think of is the Soviet Union's propagation of Communism (Marxist-Leninism-Stalinism).  It was a violent revolutionary sedition posing as a poltical theory.

In our secular political society, how do you balance security and a religion with a political ideology?  In the Middle East, politics and religion are the same thing - both Judaism and Islam are experienced through a poltical lens, as well as religious.

Earleir in European history, especially during the Crusades, Catholicism was a poltical force as well as religious.

This is why the Founders wanted the Western Hemisphere to be a 'New World' free of the historical entanglements of the 'Old World'.

The Middle East is an albatross around America's neck.  During the Cold War, America back filled a collapsing British Empire to prevent the Soviet Union from filling the void.

Does America really need, or benefit from, maintaining a protectorate in the Middle East, as the French and British had done after World War I?  They buy protection from our elites, but the average American does not see the benefit.

Thousands of American lives, 20 years' time, and trillions of dollars were wasted to build an American protectorate in Afghanistan that collapsed, and did not have long-term benefit to the American People.

Our Founders knew that elites were more likely to engage in foreign wars of adventure than the citizenry.  This why War can only be Declared by Congress.

[berdie]

The only positive that I see from allowing these groups to exist in this country is their ideology is kept out front, instead of hiding an agenda.

[Fishrrman]

From the original article:
"I am at a complete loss as to why CAIR, ISNA, ICNA, MPAC or this NMLA is even allowed to exist in America?? Are some Americans so dumbed down that they don't see the enemy right in front of them? Is this or any political party in government so stupid that they just turn a blind eye to what's happening?"

There's a very simple reason why they continue to exist:
The United States Constitution. It provides them with a shield behind which they can work to destroy the Christian West.

I'm on record in this forum for stating numerous times that the Constitution -- as it was written by the Founders -- is no longer capable of protecting or sustaining the USA as a nation.

It desperately needs a "RE-Constitution".

Because... as that document exists now... it provides our sworn enemies (such as islam) the same legal protections as the rest of us. They will use such "protections" to build strength until that time they can wrest the grasp of power into their hands, and once they have it they'll destroy "what was", Constitutional "protections" for the dhimmis be damned.

Since I became a member of this forum, I've read posts every day that complain that things are wrong, but few posters if any have ever made concrete proposals on how to address them.
I have.

To deal with the quoted frustrations above, THIS is how we address such problems:
Change this:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

to THIS:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. The followers of muhammed and the followers of marx are specifically excluded and denied the protections of this amendment along with any and all other Constitutional protections. Neither the United States nor the Several States will offer such protections or liberties to the followers of muhammed or to the followers of marx."

[Smokin Joe]

From the original article:
"I am at a complete loss as to why CAIR, ISNA, ICNA, MPAC or this NMLA is even allowed to exist in America?? Are some Americans so dumbed down that they don't see the enemy right in front of them? Is this or any political party in government so stupid that they just turn a blind eye to what's happening?"

There's a very simple reason why they continue to exist:
The United States Constitution. It provides them with a shield behind which they can work to destroy the Christian West.

I'm on record in this forum for stating numerous times that the Constitution -- as it was written by the Founders -- is no longer capable of protecting or sustaining the USA as a nation.

It desperately needs a "RE-Constitution".

Because... as that document exists now... it provides our sworn enemies (such as islam) the same legal protections as the rest of us. They will use such "protections" to build strength until that time they can wrest the grasp of power into their hands, and once they have it they'll destroy "what was", Constitutional "protections" for the dhimmis be damned.

Since I became a member of this forum, I've read posts every day that complain that things are wrong, but few posters if any have ever made concrete proposals on how to address them.
I have.

To deal with the quoted frustrations above, THIS is how we address such problems:
Change this:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

to THIS:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. The followers of muhammed and the followers of marx are specifically excluded and denied the protections of this amendment along with any and all other Constitutional protections. Neither the United States nor the Several States will offer such protections or liberties to the followers of muhammed or to the followers of marx."

While Christianity and Judaism certainly have influenced our laws, they do not write them. Our legal system remains secular,as does our Government.

Islam is not just a religion, but an entire system of governance, cloaked in religious garb. Simply declare it to be what it is: a conflicting government model, just as the Communists and other totalitarians are, designed to subvert the Government the Founders set up.

No more than the followers of Marx enjoy the protection of the First Amendment as a religion, should the followers of Muhammed, despite the fervor they may display, agitation they provoke, and destruction they wreak in the name of their respective "prophets".