Those who know anything about Islamic expansionism will be aware that the Saudi Arabian based Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) holds the largest block vote within the UN, and that they are working hard (and spending a lot of money) trying to stop any criticism of Islam in the West.
The OIC, in accordance with sharia law, deems all criticism of Islam to be invalid. It does not matter if it is true or untrue; the mere fact that it is critical is simply not allowed. Period. The buzzword they have come up with to negate our defence against their extremist ideology is ‘Islamophobia’ which of course means an irrational fear of Islam.
This is very clever. By utilising the word Islamophobia they manage to pigeonhole any critics of Islam as being of questionable mental equilibrium – which may not be true initially, but may well be the case after a few years, simply because trying to make sense of this madness must surely drive us slowly insane.
All of which can be found at the website of Liberty GB, which seems to be a new political party forming up in the United Kingdom. I wish these people all the luck in the world.
One of the things I have noticed over the years is that Left always gives itself away, revealing its own hidden motivations and agenda by projecting them onto others. If find it totally unsurprising that the Left’s unspoken totalitarian aspirations should embrace the most totalitarian religion on the planet. No one would dare say, though, that the people who are pushing this islamophobia meme are themselves suffering from either Christianophobia or Christophobia. Well, OK, I would.
This clip of Andrew Breitbart confronting protesters is classic Breitbart and is illustrative of a successful counter to the typical manufactured demonstrations of the Left. I am no expert on Alinskyite tactics, but I see several things he did to confront and shame the protesters.
- He assumes that the protesters are there at the behest of an organizing entity and are not representing themselves as individuals. The makes that claim and challenges the crowd on it in two ways: a) He asks for the identity of the organizers and b) calls out the obedience of the crowd to directives by some individuals who seem to be in charge.
- He challenges individuals in the crowd to explain the message they present by providing an instance of or an explanation for the statement. N.B. demanding accountability is a powerful way to delegitimize someone, especially when they can’t answer coherently.
- He does the same when he is personally insulted, then proceeds to demand that someone apologize for the insult.
- When someone does apologize he goes on the attack again and starts demanding more answers.
- He points out that the crowd is doing the very things that they claim they are protesting and demands that they notice that.
- He is loud, repetitive and insistent and does not back down.
The nice thing is that in this mode it is not necessary to attempt to educate the crowd, only to challenge them.