A guest post by Juggernaut: “Thoughts on feminism”

The following is a guest post by Juggernaut, where he shares his thoughts on feminism.  While I may not agree with all he says, I do think it is thought-provoking:

I think feminism is often misunderstood, and no matter what stance you take on feminism, there is a degree of controversy. Hardcore feminists will probably see me as a chauvinist or misogynist. Hardcore anti-feminists will probably see me as an emasculate wuss indoctrinated by leftist propaganda. In the end though, there are merits to feminism, but some feminists do go to unhealthy extremes in their beliefs.

There does seem to be an aura of belittlement and disrespect toward women in our culture (a.k.a. much of our movies and music). When feminists mention a human history where males have forcefully dominated and cultural barriers have prevented women from excelling in careers by giving them the expectation to be stay-at-home mothers, I listen and openly accept these criticisms. The guys who automatically write off feminists and see these concerns as silly, do seem to be in an overall state of justified ignorance. A person who doesn’t feel threatened or guilty will gladly welcome even more questioning and probing.

Men, instead of taking offense and immediately jumping to conclusions and saying something like “well, if it were a man, then ____”. Openly listen, and who knows, you two may actually be on the same page.  This is in the same way that some feminists need to be more open in taking criticism.

There are gender roles in our society. And there are two kinds of traditions. Some traditions are useful. Other traditions are not so useful. My belief is to adopt the useful traditions and abandon the less useful traditions. Everyone has different needs and a different lifestyle. If women want to adopt male gender roles and men want to adopt feminine gender roles, I have no problem with that. In some cases, it’s best for a woman to work and in other cases, it is best for a woman to be a stay-at-home mom. In the end, it’s a woman’s choice (as well as a man), in what she wants to be and what she wants to do with her life. Whether the traditional gender roles of women cooking/cleaning and men doing handiwork are adopted into a family or not adopted into a family, I respect their decision. Live and let live. Everyone has their own choice, and I won’t judge them.

Keep in mind that feminism is not a church. There is not one set of tenets you have to believe in order to be a feminist. And there are different kinds of feminists. Some of them happen to be the most extreme feminists (and I’m not condemning their lifestyles at all; but I will start to ask questions when they start condemning others). Some people believe in feminism and support feminism, but it isn’t their entire life. Other people eat sleep and breathe feminism. They spend a lot of their spare time protesting and they study feminism in school. A good amount (but not most) of the latter kind are found in colleges. And some of them are very extreme. If you go to college, you may hear a lot of feminist protests and feminist professors, and therefore conclude that most or a lot of women are like that.

But the most hardcore feminists are only a minority, and don’t represent most women at all!

I have a lot of respect for feminism, but not the extremists. That is in the same way I have respect for people in pursuit of their religion, but not the extremists.

Here is what I don’t like about the most hardcore extreme feminists:

1. They are more judgmental on women than men are. If a woman likes to live a lifestyle that is in line with what women have traditionally living, they will see those women as being brainwashed, as if they didn’t have the capacity to make a decision themselves. Basically “all women should be like ____. if you aren’t like ____, then there is something wrong with you.”

So, if a woman actually likes living within the gender roles, and actuallys want to be a stay-at-home mom, she should not be seen as brainwashed or too intellectually inferior to make her own decision. Her decision should be respected because she is intelligent enough to decide what she personally wants.

2. They are overly politically correct, take things too literally, and have no sense of humor. If they hear a joke that is mildly inappropriate, they will act uptight and decide the joke to be misogynistic. These people are much harder to have fun with, especially if you have a broader sense of humor. You can’t have casual small talk with them about having a long philosophical discussion about feminism. Everything leads to feminism and they sound like a johnny one-note. You can’t listen to the radio without them giving you a complete dissection of every lyric.

They don’t grasp the difference between words and actions. Actions matter more than words. If you say an off-color joke, it doesn’t represent who you are or what you think of women. It’s how you treat people that truly matters.

Again, these aren’t all feminists. Just maybe the minority of the most extreme feminists, who are ironically the most vocal. Most people who believe in feminism, believe in it, but they don’t commit the time to attend feminism events every week, they don’t study feminism and they don’t talk about feminism constantly.

Why is this bugging me?

Because some men are being trained to tailor themselves to the most hardcore feminists, thinking that those extreme beliefs represent ALL women.

Generally, I’d say dedicated feminists are no more than 10% of women, but 90% of women don’t subscribe to all of the things that hardcore feminists believe. That’s what angers me. A minority of women can’t speak for all women! The same way a minority of black people can’t speak for all black people. Or the same way a minority of muslims don’t speak for all muslims.

Most women do generally believe in feminism, but they are far from the hardcore extreme branch of feminism.

Most women actually don’t feel like them being a woman is restricting them in any way.

Most women actually like an inappropriate joke now and then. A lot of women will laugh hard at them. They can laugh at a “thats what she said” joke. They like being teased every once in a while. They do not mind at all having the passive role of waiting for the man to call and wanting the man to set up the date. Most women expect all of that! They don’t want a man who is boring, play-it-safe, over-apologetic or politically correct all of the time.

When it comes to sexuality, some women are more sexual than others. Some women resent the idea of pre-marital sex (and the idea of one night stands). Some women are perfectly okay with pre-marital, if it is with a guy they are attracted to. Women neither deserve to be labeled as a slut or a prude.

I say this to both men and women, don’t ever feel like you are doing something wrong by feeling attracted to someone. Don’t ever feel guilty about wanting sex, if that’s truly what you want. There is a huge difference between treating someone like a sex object (with no regard to anything else) and appreciating someone as a whole (including sex).

Most women WANT a man who is traditionally masculine, rather than boring, neutral or effeminate. They want a masculine man who is assertive and acts in a leadership role. This does not mean bossy, intrusive and manipulative. What I’m saying is that they want men to be the initiator, a protector that can provide a feeling of security.

A guy may talk to or get to know a woman who is a die-hard feminist, and therefore tone down his masculine qualities, in belief that he is belittling or insulting a woman by being traditionally masculine. But in the end, that is what most women like and are attracted to.

If you are surrounded in an isolated atmosphere of a vocal minority, it is easy to see a distorted view of what women are like. But in the end, each woman is different. There is no one formula that can be agreeable with all women. Some women are non-traditional and other women are more traditional.

In the end, accept people for who they are and let them make their own choices. And don’t get pressured into making a lifestyle choice just because someone doesn’t like what you are doing.

The 3rd Annual Free Thinking Film Festival

A treat for those of you either living in Ottawa, or planning a visit here during the festival.  This is the official announcement, which I received via email today:

September 25, 2012
3rd Annual Free Thinking Film Festival!!!

We’ve got an amazing Festival this year!

The Festival will feature four major events:  On November 1st, the Festival will open with “Losing Our Sons”, a poignant tale of two fathers who have lost their sons – one through terrorism, and one through indoctrination.  On November 2nd, the Festival features the Canadian premiere of “Death by China”, a film about the increasingly destructive economic trade practices of a rapidly rising China with author Greg Autry in attendance.  On Saturday, November 3rd, Producer Michael King will be on hand to introduce the film, “The Rescuers” about diplomats who saved Jews during the Holocaust, and the Festival will end with a tribute to Raoul Wallenberg – a celebration of his 100th birthday in association with B’nai Brith Canada.Other films include “The Invisible Men,” about the plight of gay Palestinians; “Windfall,” about the pitfalls of wind power; “Freedom’s Fury,” a look at the “blood in the water” water polo match between the Soviet Union and Hungary at the Olympics in 1956; “Their Eyes Were Dry,” a film about the massacre of teenagers in Ma’alot in Israel by Palestinian terrorists in 1974; “Occupy Unmasked,” a hard look at the Occupy movement; “21 Brothers,” a Canadian film about World War I; “The Red Chapel,” a comedy that exposes North Korea’s totalitarian system; “Putin’s Kiss”, a documentary on the brutality of the Putin regime; “Winston Churchill:  Walking With Destiny,” examines why Winston Churchill’s legacy continues to be relevant in the 21st Century; “Why Is It Hate?,” Martin Gladstone’s film on why Queers Against Israeli Apartheid bring a message of hate to Toronto’s Gay Pride; and many, many other films.

In addition, three authors will be in Ottawa to launch their books.  Bruce Bawer, the acclaimed American author, will read from his new book, “The Victims Revolution:  The Rise of Identity Studies and the Closing of the Liberal Mind;” Pierre Desrochers will present on two of his books:  “The Locavore’s Dilemma: In Praise of the 10,000-mile Diet”, and “The False Crises of Rachel Carson:  Silent Spring at 50”, and Arpad Szoczi will present his book, “Timisoara – The Real Story Behind the Romanian Revolution.”

Trailer - 3rd Annual Free Thinking Film Society 2012
Trailer – 3rd Annual Free Thinking Film Society 2012

The complete list of events can be seen at www.freethinkingfilmfest.ca

Festival passes are available for $75 and can be purchased either online or at the following retailers – Compact Music (785 Bank, 190 Bank), Collected Works (1242 Wellington), and Ottawa Festivals (47 William Street).  Day passes will also be available for sale.

Some Amazing Speakers Coming to Ottawa for the Festival! 

  • Martin Gladstone, Producer of “Why Is It Hate”, a documentary about how Queers Against Israeli Apartheid bring a message of hate to Toronto Gay Pride.
  • Yariv Mozer, Director of “The Invisible Men”, a documentary about the plight of gay Palestinians who have run away from their families and are hiding in Israel.  CANADIAN PREMIERE.
  • Greg Autry, Author of the book, “Death By China” will be here to talk about his new documentary of the same name.  CANADIAN PREMIERE.
  • Michael King, Producer of the film “The Rescuers” in which historian Martin Gilbert teams up with a survivor of the Rwandan genocide to interview diplomats who saved Jews during the Holocaust.
  • Pierre Desrochers, Professor at the University of Toronto, will be presenting on his two new books:  “The Locavore’s Dilemma:  In Praise of the 10,000 mile Diet” and “Silent Spring at 60:  The False Crises of Rachel Carson”.
  • Bruce Bawer, acclaimed American Author, will be in Ottawa to launch his new book:  “The Victim’s Revolution:  The Rise of Identity Politics and the Closing of the Liberal Mind.”
  • David Matas, attorney for the B’nai Brith and Human Rights Activist, will be presenting the latest research on the fate of diplomat Raoul Wallenberg – the Swedish diplomat who saved thousands of Jews during the Holocaust in Hungary.
  • Clayton Garrett, Producer of 21 Brothers, a Canadian film about life in the trenches during WW1.  Shot in Kingston, Ontario.
  • Marc Lebuis, author of the website pointdebasculecanada.ca will be in Ottawa to present on the Muslim Brotherhood in Canada.

 
Major announcement on the Festival next week!

We’ve got yet another book launch for the Festival which we will announce next week.  Stay tuned…this one is going to be a ton of fun.

 
Macdonald-Laurier Institute
The Great Canadian Debates

Our friends at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute are holding some debates that you should probably attend:

The Great Canadian Debates, a series of four provocative debates exploring some of the most compelling issues to Canadians. Each debate will be presented at the Canadian War Museum and will feature well-known personalities and a moderator. Audience members are invited to get involved by posing questions during a Q&A session and voting for the winning argument. Following the debate, the evening also includes private access to the War Musem’s special exhibit.

We’ll have a table at their next debate which is on October 4th on the CBC.  Come visit us, please!

 

Free Mobile Applications!


By the way, we now have an Android application and an iPhone application. Just click here to download our Android application (it’s free).

You can click here to get our free iPhone application.

Sincerely,
Frederick Litwin
Free Thinking Film Society

P.S.  I plan to donate at least one of my paintings, ‘Aisha’ (inspired by the fate of Aisha Ibrahim Dhuhulow), to be auctioned off during the festival.

‘Innocence of the Muslims’ – Toronto Style

Last Saturday, there was a ‘multi-faith’ protest against the blasphemous movie, ‘Innocence of the Muslims’.

In so many parts of the worlds, these protests have been extremely violent and, well, deadly.  And not just from the primary rioting:  in many places of the world, Muslims who were not deemed to be sufficiently ardent in protesting have faced violence.  In one famous example, a man who declined to close his shop in order to join the riots in Pakistan has been charged with ‘blasphemy’ and is facing life in jail or a death sentence.  In another example, journalists whom the rioters suspected of not giving their riots sufficient coverage (or casting them in positive enough light – depending on which sources you read) were violently attacked and barely escaped with their lives.

So, I am very happy to report that the Toronto protests were all peaceful.

Well, peaceful in the sense that the people protesting did not riot – and that is a good thing.  That some of the protesters called for violence – and even the death of the moviemakers – that is less good.

Here are some videos of both the protest and the coverage thereof by Sun Media:

Ezra Levant with Raheel Raza:

If you’d like to check it out – Muslims Facing Tomorrow website is here.

Michael Coren’s (who made it to the protest personally) coverage is here:

BTW – I oppose the laws that forbid the denial of the holocaust.  Not because I don’t thing it happened – my mother, as a small child, guided by her mother – actually sneaked food to Jewish concentration camp inmates when they were on a work detail in her neighbourhood.  My grandmother saw, with her own eyes, a prisoner, dive onto a compost heap to eat some potato peels – and how, for this, he was beaten to death by his guard…using a beam with a nail in it…  Yes, I know it happened and I have heard 1st person testimony of just how nightmarish it was.  That, of course, is not the point:  even if they are vicious lies, people must be free to say them, and say them publicly. To me, freedom of speech is absolute.

BlazingaCatFur – who was also there – asks some very basic questions:

SDAMatt2a, who also attended the event in order to report on it, captured the protester’s assertion that ‘Islam condones racism’.  In case you think this is a linguistic error, please, do consider that the Koran itself considers the supremacy of Arabs over other races (and the Qureshi tribe is given supremacy over other Arabs) and that under Sharia – even today, it is not just illegal for any non-Muslim men to marry a Muslim woman, it is also illegal for non-white Muslim men to marry white Muslim women, it is illegal for non-Arab Muslim men to marry Arab Muslim women and it is illegal for non-Qureshi Muslim men to marry Qureshi Muslim women.  That is recognized by ALL the ‘schools’ of Sharia and women whose wali (legal guardian) who agrees on their behalf to a marriage contract (as women cannot agree on their own – that power is reserved for their guardian alone) to a man in contradiction of this race-based rule have the right to sue for divorce on the grounds of having been married ‘below their racial status’.  All schools of Islamic jurisprudence recognize this and side with the race-based ‘status’.  I personally think this is wrong – but I do not have any influence over Sharia…

Sad.

So sad…

 

 

 

Flag-burning: OK, let’s!

Burning a flag is a very clear way of sending a message: fuck you and the horse you rode in on!

Or, for the more dainty among us:  we reject you and what you represent.

OK, fair enough.

Except the hose bit – cruelty to animals is never OK.

The sentiment, however, is validly expressed by the burning of the flag that represents the despised ‘rider’.

Sure, it is not a pleasant sight to see the symbol of one’s culture (and, by extension, values) so unambiguously rejected.  But, that is rather the point, isn’t it!

As is burning someone in effigy:  it is an unambiguous rejection of who they are and what they stand for.

As a political statement, flag-burning is not only a valid form of expression, it is one that must be protected at all costs, whether it is directed at us, our allies or our enemies.  Regardless of whoose jimmies it rustles!

What is not valid is violence against actual people and property damage (unless, of course, it is your property you are damaging – then that is your business entirely)!

For clarity’s sake – raping and murdering a country’s ambassador falls into the ‘not OK’ category…it being an act of war and all.  As is raiding a foreign embassy, ripping down their flag and putting yours in its place.  After all, every embassy is legally the soil of the country of that embassy, so using violent means to enter the embassy grounds and replacing its country’s flag with your own quite literally means the conquering of a part of that country’s sovereign territory and annexing it to your political entity, as symbolized by your flag.

In other words, storming an embassy and replacing its flag with your own is also an unequivocal declaration of war.

Pretending otherwise is past naive.  It is criminally negligent or actively complicit or a host of other unpleasant things, but it is past even wilfully naive.

Luckily, you and I are not the people who have to make the call about what is an appropriate response to an act of war – against your country (if you are an American) or that of your allies (if you are part of the Western World) – we are just the people who will have to live with the aftermath of whatever decisions those in power will make.

And, this is certain:  whether you are an American, a Westerner or live in another part of the world – whatever the response (or lack thereof) is, you and I will have to live through the consequences.

A war has been declared.

Whether or not those in power send it the troops (literally or figuratively), it is happening…

What is within our power, however, is to let our leaders know what our opinions are.

In order to do that, in order for the mesage to cut through the clatter and chatter, in order for it not to be misunderstood or misinterpreted, the message has to be clear, visible and unequivocal.

I suggest that at all the anti-Islamism protests planned in the Western world, we include the burning of the Islamist flag.

Remember, this flag does not represent Islam in general:  it represents exclusively political Islam.

And, as it was the flag raised over the US Embassy in Egypt, it is fair comment to burn it here, during our protests, in order to send the clear and unambiguous message that we rejcect it and what it represents.

After all, flag-burning is a message that is understood by all.

It’s about time we started sending it!

Daniel Hannan: The looters are now in government

And, in the meanwhile in Europe:

 

On the topic of freedom of speech…and ‘scapegoating’

Many people think that it is a reasonable limitation on the freedom of free speech to prohibit someone from yelling ‘FIRE!’ in a crowded theatre – provided, that is, that there is no fire.

That little caveat – provided that there is no fire – is often forgotten by those who wold consider this to be a reasonable limitation of free speech.  This, indeed, is not surprising – failure to recognize real warnings of danger and simply treating unpopular statements equally, whether they are true or not, is symptomatic of the individuals who most loudly profess that this limitation on the freedom of speech is somehow ‘reasonable’.

According to these people, giving a warning of a real ad present peril (like, say, a fire in a crowded theatre) is worse than letting everyone sit complacently until they burn to death.

I must admit, there was a time when I was persuaded that if there indeed were no fire, then shouting a warning of it ought not happen.  OK, I still think that it ought not happen – but not because there are laws against it.

To explain my change of mind, I have to digress a little bit to some examples on utilitarian morality from philosophy.  Not that I am particularly versed in philosophy – my ideas are mostly self-reasoned, but a little education has made me widen the scope of my reasoning.

There is that classical moral dilema question:  if you see an uncontrollable train going down some tracks where it will hit six people, but there is a lever you can pull that will divert that train onto another set of tracks, where it will only kill one person, should you pull the lever?

Most ‘utilitarians’ will say that yes, you should, because one death is less tragic than 6 deaths.

I don’t think this is anywhere near as clear cut.

If the train stays on its original track, you (presuming the uncontrollable-ness of the train is not your fault to start off with) are not responsible for the deaths of those 6 people.

If, however, you do pull the lever, you will be the direct cause of the death of that 1 person.

People are not cogs, interchangeable for each other.  We are individuals.  And, if you pull that lever, you will indeed be guilty of causing the death of that individual.  What is more, since you have had time to consider it, that constitutes premeditation.  You would therefore be commiting murder.

This means that the question itself is improperly formulated.

Rather, it ought to ask if you could pull that lever and save the 6 people – but in the process murder 1 person, with all the legal consequences this carries, should you still pull that lever?

Because that is the real question:  is saving the lives of 6 people worth murdering someone – and, perhaps, spending the rest of your life in prison as a result!  After all, real actions have real consequences…

Similarly, the person who shouts ‘FIRE!” in a crowded theatre has not actually killed anyone.

It is the people who act before checking whether their actions are based on fact or not, and those who put their lives above others by trampling them to death to save themselves, who are guilty of, well, the trampling.  Not the person who – rightly or wrongly – shouts ‘Fire!’

It is always the tramplers who are the ones guilty of the trampling.

But, because there are many of them, and  our moral compass has for too long been corrupted by the profoundly immoral Judeo-Christian doctrine of ‘scapegoating’,  of ‘vicarious redemption’, that we are willing to put the blame of the many ‘tramplers’ onto the one who may not, indeed,  have done any ‘trampling’ at all!

It is precisely this predisposition we have of shifting the blame for the actions of the individuals who actually carry them out  onto a scapegoat who is said to have ’caused’ their bad or immoral behaviour that is going to be the downfall of our society!

It is precisely this scapegoating which is at the heart of political correctness and the erosion of the freedoms which we ought to be able to exercise unfettered.

How have we improved our lot if we have liberated ourselves from Christian religious dogmas, if we permit its worst shackles to still imprison our morality, albeit under the new name of ‘political correctnes’?

So, now, I agree with Christopher Hitchens on this point:

 

A few words on recent events in Lybia

OK – I have been avoiding commenting on the happenings in the Muslim world lately.

That is because I feel like a Cassandra…

And it’s only going to get worse.

Much worse!

There is a guide as to how a country will be affected by Islam based on what percentage of the population is Muslim.  The lower the percentage, the more easy-going and moderate the Muslim population is.  As the percentage increases, so does the aggressiveness of the messages being preached in Mosques and so does the aggressiveness of Muslim’s demand for accommodation and eventually for the supremacy of their way of life.  I have seen it in many variations at different places, but here is one scale that is typcial:

As long as the Muslim population remains around or under 2% in any given country, they will — for the most part — be regarded as a
peace-loving minority, and not as a threat to other citizens.
At 2% to 5%, they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities
and disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from the jails and
among street gangs.
From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to
their percentage of the population.  For example, they will push for the
introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing
food preparation jobs for Muslims.  They will increase pressure on
supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves — along with
threats for failure to comply.
At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow
them to rule themselves (within their ghettos) under Sharia, the Islamic
Law.  The ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish Sharia law over the
entire world.
When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to increase
lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions.  In Paris, we
are already seeing car-burnings.  Any non-Muslim action offends Islam and
results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam, with opposition
to Mohammed cartoons and films about Islam.  Such tensions are seen
daily.
After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad
militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian
churches and Jewish synagogues.
At 40%, nations experience widespread massacres, chronic terror
attacks, and ongoing militia warfare.
From 60%, nations experience unfettered persecution of non-believers
of all other religions (including non-conforming Muslims), sporadic
ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon, and Jizya,
the tax placed on infidels.
After 80%, expect daily intimidation and violent jihad, some
state-run ethnic cleansing, and even some genocide, as these nations
drive out the infidels, and move toward 100%.
100% will usher in the peace of ‘Dar-es-Salaam’ — the Islamic House
of Peace.  Here there’s supposed to be peace, because everybody is a
Muslim, the Madrasses are the only schools, and the Koran is the only
word.
Unfortunately, peace is never achieved, as in these 100% states the
most radical Muslims intimidate and spew hatred, and satisfy their blood
lust by killing less radical Muslims, for a variety of reasons.

This is true – more or less, let’s put our political correctness in its place and face reality for a while – within individual countries.

Currently, the World Muslim population is at over 20 percent – and climbing fast…because uneducated and subjegated women tend to have way more children than educated, emancipated women do. And, because we stil don’t protect children from being brainwashed into their parents’ religious prejudices…

So, keep in mind the 20% description:

After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad
militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian
churches and Jewish synagogues.

Please, keep this in mind when you consider world events these days:

And that is why I have not really been commenting on current events…

Reason TV: How ‘Pro-Choice’ are Democrats?

Young people…

Young people…

Wonderous creatures, arent’t they?

Today, the day after Labour Day, is the ‘going back to school’ day in my neighbourhood.

My older son is starting another semester at University today.

My younger son just came home from his first day in High School.

So perhaps you’ll forgive me if my thoughts are turning towards our youth and the future they will build.

One absolutely amazing young person has recently given a TEDx talk in  Richmond Hill (Toronto).  I do not know her personally, but my trusted source informs me that she is just 18 years old and speaks 17 languages fluently…

I will embed the full TEDx video at the end of this post, but because it includes many talks and is several hours long and the presentation I was so impressed by starts 2 hours and 2 minutes into the video, I think it worth posting a link here that cues up nicely to the start of her talk.

Watching young people like Sophia Glisch is inspiring…

One of the first things I had thought of after seeing this video was what she would make of this linguistic performance:

Here is the full video of the TEDx talk:

UPDATE:  this post has been edited to correct the spelling/insert full name of the seventeenlingual genius, Sophia Glisch

Note:  this post has been edited to remove some potentially inaccurate information

A few hours of lectures by Stephen Coughlin on our ineptitude on ‘the war on terror’

Yes, this lecture series is a little long – but very, very informative.

If you have read the Koran and the Hadith, and if you are familiar with Shariah, you  will be impressed by the depth of Stephen Coughlin’s background knowledge – but there is still a lot of new material there for you because he draws the connections between the beliefs rooted (rightly or wrongly, but demonstrably held by the majority of pro-Sharia Muslims worldwide) in these and the decision-making and behaviour of Islamic political entities.

For example, he is one of the few people to have predicted the ‘Arab Spring’ months before it happened and accurately described it as a Muslim Brotherhood-driven action.  He also accurately predicted other events many had considered ‘unpredictible’ – and in this lecture series, he walks us through the steps that made the events predictable.

If you are unfamiliar with the underlying doctrine, Stephen Coughlin provides an accurate grounding in their belief system and demonstrates its doctrinal roots.  He also explains the very  different concepts meant by Islamic political bodies when they use terms we consider familiar:  words like ‘human rights’ (Sharia), ‘terrorism’ (killing of a Muslim without Sharia approval), and ‘freedom’ (freedom from ‘the laws of man’ in favour of the laws from Allah alone), ‘religion’ (Islam and Islam alone as Muhammad’s revelations abrogated all other religions) and more.

What is quite appalling, however, is his description of the depth of willful ignorance of all this by the politically correct decisionmakers who are directing the ‘war on terror’…  His frustration is plainly visible and his Cassandra complex and the accompanying frustration are, at times, palpable.

Yet, it is precisely this willful ignorance among our decisionmakers and intellectual elites poses a clear and present danger to protecting our culture, our society and our very basic human rights.

Stephen Coughlin, Part 1: Lectures on National Security & Counterterror Analysis (Introduction)

Stephen Coughlin, Part 2: Understanding the War on Terror Through Islamic Law

Stephen Coughlin, Part 3: Abrogation & the ‘Milestones’ Process

Stephen Coughlin, Part 4: Muslim Brotherhood, Arab Spring & the ‘Milestones’ Process

Stephen Coughlin, Part 5: The Role of the OIC in Enforcing Islamic Law