Things Don’t Go Better With Koch - A Short History Of The Anti-Jihad Movement


April 19, 2018 - San Francisco - CA - – It has been 17 long years since 19 Muslim terrorists hijacked 4 commercial jet airliners and then used them to topple New York’s Twin Towers and shortly thereafter cause significant carnage when one of the jets was flown into the Pentagon...and what have we learned?

The answer to that question varies as there are two competing explanations for exactly where we are culturally and socially, one of which - perhaps unintentionally - perpetuates the conditions necessary for furthering the global jihad started on September, 11, 2001 and the other, which would swiftly end the threat to Western Culture, has intentionally been suppressed by the very way things work in the DC/I95 Corridor.

[Note: arguably we could date the inception of the Islamic war against the West to November 1990 when El Sayyid Nosair assasinated firebrand Orthodox rabbi Meir Kahane in Manhattan, or 1993 when imam Omar Abdul-Rahman’s terror cell (which included Nosair) partially succeeded in bombing the Twin Towers, or 1996 when Shaykh Osama bin-Laden issued his, Declaration of War Against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places] an 8,000 word document detailing the Qur’anic basis for issuing the fatwa against the “Crusaders and Jews.,” which was subsequently republished in 1998 ]

In DC, money is a particularly addicting form of power, and that power is used to further the goals of those doing the funding.

Now under the long accepted political theory of democratic constitutional republics - pluralism - though few individuals have the resources to have direct access to the levers of power, all citizens can be represented through associations [or, in the non-pejorative sense, pressure groups] who then can petition the government to address concerns, redress grievances or merely lobby for policy initiatives.

But in the real world things aren’t quite so clear cut and the details can be messy in execution...more about this later...

Post 9/11 there emerged a number of groups who represented themselves as carriers of the anti or counter-jihad flame. Some of the largest of these groups had been in operation for some time but shifted resources to deal with the prospect of building a narrative counter to that of the new terrorism.

One might surmise that wouldn’t be so difficult, but that isn’t how things have worked out.

Developing the nuts and bolts was relatively easy as some of these organization had a great deal of experience in the Middle East, which proved to be invaluable assets to getting the opposition up to speed.

But the threat posed by jihad was very different from any challenge the modern West had ever seen. Whereas fascism, communism and other predatory ideologies can be attacked intellectually [as well as physically if it comes to that] jihad was an entirely new world since “fighting in the way of Allah” is one of the central most aspects of Islam...and as George W. Bush told us all just weeks after that awful September morning, “Islam is a religion of peace.”

That declaration got Bush some kudos on both the right and left, as it was seen as a defusing of President Bush’s previous reference to our new military presence in the Middle East as being a “Crusade,” which raised a considerable kerfuffle.

But the younger Bush was also in for criticism from another angle, because in judging the nature of Islam he in effect took upon himself somewhat the role of imam, something for which he was totally unprepared especially given his fairly recent conversion to Evangelical Christianity.

It was at this point that serious observers saw the lines of cleavage that would develop.

Working within the Western notion of religion one would quickly discover a lack of tools whereby to attack the many precepts of jihad since they were firmly lodged within the bosom of Islam’s holiest texts, the very texts Bush 43 had declared peaceful.

At this same time the United State’s Muslim Brotherhood front groups such as CAIR and ISNA mounted a very clever campaign in which opponents of Islamic jihad were branded as “Islamophobes” - and few wanted to deal with the social and professional ostracism attendant to “bigotry.”

So for far too many years those working to defeat the jihad bent themselves [and still do] into tragi-comic pretzels trying to thread the infinitesimal eye of this to effectively criticize jihad without condemning the “last prophet” Mohammed and his Qur’an which he claimed to be the directly revealed word of the Almighty.

Unsurprisingly, euphemisms emerged, each more tortured than the, Islam was peaceful it was just the “radicals” “supremists” “nutjobs” and “Islamists” that represented the problem not the religion itself which claims well over a billion believers.

What the West started to discover was that in the context of an already ugly culture war, the very language that might prove effective in the war of ideas against the jihad was ruled out of bounds by every Western head of state, again deathly afraid of being labeled “haters.”

But rather than challenge an orthodoxy that was really nonsensical, the foreign policy think tanks in and around DC - wherein the counter-jihad movement operated - came to accept the ridiculous assertion that attacking a belief structure that was primarily an ideology of domination, violence and extreme intolerance was off limits.

It is at this point where we circle back to the idea of pluralism, because think tanks require funding to carry on their work and as we know people do not spend large sums of money in Washington to advance anything other than the ideas of those writing the checks.

But those who were spending considerable amounts to fund these organizations were wedded not only to the mindless insistence that Islam is not the problem, but also favored almost limitless immigration, which allowed alien cultures [including that of the Muslims] to flood the United States upon the silly argument that the resultant amalgam - a supposedly fairer “multiculture” - would still be consistent with classical liberal society.

We are not going to name names; that is speaking out of class and something we simply don’t do, but when organizations take to the airwaves with seven-figure ad buys FAVORING the canonization of “the dreamers,” [‘ Dreamers Are Among Our Best and Brightest:’ Koch Brothers to Push Amnesty with Seven-Figure Ad Campaign ] they self identify with anti-Western movements, which is why the coming pro-immigration campaign funded by the Koch brothers is so problematic.

With nearly endlessly deep pockets this type of money has tainted the anti-jihad movement, largely castrating it and turning it into a parody of what genuine research should be.

Let us be precise, we are not charging anybody or any organization with being influenced in this way by the erstwhile Koch brothers, but baby constantly needs new shoes and those willing to spend of their fortunes on such enterprises are few.

It is our fervent hope that those running these foreign policy houses will start to assert their will over the process or they will end up at best, toiling for nothing and at worst, playing directly into the hands of enemy ideologies whose only purpose is to destroy Western society.

Just 100 years ago President Theodore Roosevelt realized the threat that what was then colloquially called Mohammedenism, presented to liberal cultures and sought to ban immigration by those who “believed in polygamy,” a central tenet of Islam.

But we as a society no longer think this clearly, instead allowing ourselves to be obstructed by silly word games that doom efforts to protect the West and until the funding nexus is dealt with, those who might be best equipped to provide wise counsel on these matters will be relegated to the status of carnival side shows, despite the best of intentions.

End note:

Bashing the Koch brothers by the left has grown into a cottage industry, despite the fact that the two entrepreneurs are socially very liberal [as noted above, supporting massive immigration and gay marriage for example]. However what the left will never disclose is that Charles and David Koch’s charitable giving totals over $1 billion, spent on “ public television, medical research, higher education, environmental stewardship, criminal justice reform and the arts .” They also donated $10 million dollars to start a clinical research program at Stanford’s Children’s Hospital . Hence rather than being manifestations of Satan, the two brothers are on many levels the embodiment of socially responsible corporate governance.

©2018 LLC, William Mayer. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of the author except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical reviews and certain other noncommercial uses permitted by copyright law.