Christianity is The Only Force That Will Destroy Islam. Secularism Or Conservatism Will Always Fail


By Walid Shoebat (Shoebat Sunday Special)

Trying to please everyone is by far the worst disease the West contracted. Today, critiquing any other religion besides Christianity is considered a sin while mocking Christianity is applauded. I argue that anyone who tries to combat anything without using biblical concepts is an idiot no mater how ‘brilliant’ society thinks they are. A Christian will always be attacked no matter what they say. I as a Christian could type any sentence and instant objections will arise. I could even publish a single line article that says: “Mankind does good and evil” and someone will object.

You will never please people. Brilliant-idiots like Richard Dawkins and Peter Singer would object to using the word ‘mankind’ as inadequate since we supposedly progressed to learn more through what they term evolutionary process that we are all human-animals since according to such view we all belong to the animal family.

To please Dawkins and Singer I would have to change my sentence to say, “The human animal does good and also does evil”.

Do animals do evil? What evil does my German shepherd do? My dog likes to kill rodents that come to our yard. Could my dog have ‘rat phobia’? Do I need to take my dog to Cezar Millan the Dog Whisperer for treatment?

What does Dawkins mean by “human animal”? If we are all animals, should we walk naked and mate in the open as animals do? Peter Singer suggests we even mate with animals.

They even spread strange ideas that Christianity is a danger to animals. Peter Singer is a Princeton University professor and animal rights pioneer, who is commended by Richard Dawkins and his ilk who focus so much to destroy the story of Creation writing that “Human beings are here seen as special because they alone of all living things were made in the image of God.” Singer writes that Jesus “appears never to have addressed the question of our relations with nonhuman animals” and that this is in contrast to “the teachings of Buddha.”

Singer sees Jesus as anti-animal rights because he cursed a fig tree in “a fit of anger at finding no figs” and also for doing an exorcist and casting the devils “into a herd of pigs.”

He scorns biblical traditions as the reason why “western ethical thinking singled out human life” and therefore it is common western thinking that to “end a human life is to end the life of a being made in the image of God.”

The major environmentalist and population control fanatic, Harvard professor Singer champions infanticide and euthanasia in the name of saving the environment, romanticizes Islam as an environmental remedy: “Muslims clearly understand non-human animals to have souls.” Muhammad, according to Singer, was also a champion of environmentalism, a man who “compared the doing of good or bad deeds to other animals to similar acts done to humans.” On the Qur’ân, Singer writes that “Qur’ân 17:44 notes that nonhuman animals and the rest of nature are in continuous praise of Allah, although humans may not be able to understand this.”

So why do these reprobate brilliant-idiots and Islamists always unite against Christianity unless a devil exists?

To save this environment, Singer advocates that America should contribute more to world poverty: “America is taking far more than our fair share;” and that population growth will ruin the environment. Singer, in all his writing, openly views the Bible as an enemy: “Christianity is our foe. If animal rights is to succeed, we must destroy the Judeo-Christian religious tradition.”

Did you read this? “destroy the Judeo-Christian religious tradition”.

In an article titled Heavy Petting, that is ‘heavy petting’ in having sex with animals, Singer comments:

“In the Judeo-Christian tradition – less so in the east – we have always seen ourselves as distinct from animals, and imagined that a wide, unbridgeable gulf separates us from them. Humans alone are made in the image of God. Only human beings have an immortal soul.”

In his work A Companion to Ethics it reads: “Christian ethics is intolerant and breathes intolerance.” In his article Heavy Petting, Singer explains:

“Heard anyone chatting at parties lately about how good it is having sex with their dog? Probably not. …The existence of sexual contact between humans and animals, and the potency of the taboo against it, displays the ambivalence of our relationship with animals.”

Singer supports the infanticide of children who are born ill or who have ill older siblings in need of the infant’s body parts.

An interviewer questioned him: “What about parents conceiving and giving birth to a child specifically to kill him, take his organs, and transplant them into their sick, older children?”

Singer replied: “It’s difficult to warm to parents, who can take such a detached view, [but] they’re not doing something really wrong in itself.”

When Singer was asked if there’s “anything wrong with a society in which children are bred for spare parts on a massive scale?”

Singer replied with “No.”

He also reaffirmed that it would be ethically O.K. to kill 1-year-olds with physical or mental disabilities, although ideally the question of infanticide would be “raised as soon as possible after birth.”

Ironically, Singer’s mother suffered from Alzheimer’s disease and he spent considerable sums on her care even though she wasn’t human by his standards.

What about eating animals? Wouldn’t it be immoral to kill and eat our animal-brethren? And if it is ok to eat animals why not eat human-animals?

This alone would cause a war since many human-animals will defend themselves to prevent from being eaten by other human-animals. Gun stores will even become busier than ever for both the hunters and the hunted. I had thought these wanted gun control.

Some indigenous tribes in the Amazon do this already. You might be shocked to find out that humanity went that route on all continents without having brilliant-idiots teach cannibalism. We have well documented what is behind cannibalism. Modern cannibals like Armin Meiwis or Jeffrey Dahmer and Jihadis and fatwas from Al-Azhar imams disturb us.

Why do they disturb us? We live in a Christian culture whereas cannibalism was an accepted norm in many cultures in ancient times and now thank God to Jews and Christians it is not.

These days, we debate the issue of gay marriage, as if two men mating isn’t enough, just by that simple edit of my statement calling mankind “human-animals” we will eventually have to deal with marriage between human-animals and regular animals. Some might even argue that this would definitely help us in our population explosion. Would Dawkins and Singer prefer to live in the Amazon naked? No. Even Dawkins loves Christian Vivaldi and Handel’s Messiah and Singer would not execute his mother (he refused to euthanize her) but does not mind you executing yours.

Who then is qualified to set up moral standards? Science never has all the answers. Which god sets up such standards – we have a swap meet of tyrannical gods from Shivalinga to Allah, so we all must choose wisely.


No matter how you look at it, switching to any God besides the biblical God is tyranny.



Even the brilliant-idiot has a trinity: I am God, Prophet and Captain Chaos all in one.

No matter what the anti-Christian crowds tell you about God, truth is, they will always follow some brilliant-idiot who leads them to believe that he is their true God and that he can also prophesy while promoting himself with oxymoronic titles. This week I had oneconservative Hindu out of all things. His name is Eric Allen Bell. He was telling me that I should not be on what he termed “The Counter Jihad Movement” team because I believed in biblical prophecies and called for punishing homosexuality. He teaches that “God is within you”. The brilliant-idiot even set up a debate with us moderated by Susan Olsen, the actress from The Brady Bunch on June 6th next week.

But to say that “you are God” is the spark of all tyrannies. From Pharaoh to Hirohito, these are men who thought they were gods and caused some of the worst mass suffering in history and caused human slavery.

So let us switch the word ‘God’ on everything and put ‘Man’ instead since man has become God.

Our coins would say “In Man We Trust” or “In Obama We Trust” and we would sing “Man bless America” or perhaps even, “The human-animal bless America”.


Some might argue that switching names from ‘God’ to ‘Man’ or even to “The Human Animal” should be no big deal! God after all does not exist; we cannot see Him and human animals do exist since we see man.

So if we rename “God” to “Man”, why should it matter? Perhaps this is “change we can believe in” as our God Obama says – we are all gods – the super animal. Let us take ‘God’ out of the equation. Perhaps we should even remove the Ten Commandments from every building. Why not sue schools that teach the Declaration of Independence with “God” all over it? Why not go further and sue the Normandy American Cemetery Memorial and remove all crosses of our valiant soldiers who died to protect the Constitution? How far do we go with this? After all, matters of faith are of a spiritual nature and are hardly scientific. Spiritual matters cannot be proven under the scientific lens.

Such arguments assume that science is the standard we follow for everything, including the issues that we do not know about. Even science at times has no answers regarding scientific matters. At times we observe science yet we cannot explain what we are observing. Dawkins argues that science is advancing and will give us answers to issues we do not know. He says that in 200 years we will look back on how we treated animals.


But even Dawkins’ declarations are of a predictive nature, therefore they are prophetic.

In other words only they can prophesy failed predictions and become gods while we cannot use God’s true and proven prophecies.

Some scientists predicted forty years ago that they would eradicate all disease. The prophecy was later proven false. Today the pharmaceutical industry cannot keep up with the ever-changing microbes. New resistant strains of old diseases are springing up. That means that patients are suffering and dying from illnesses that science predicted forty years ago would be wiped off the face of the earth. The scientists were wrong. Before science catches up with the microbes many more people will die.

The prophecy made by evolutionists who say that science will prove evolution is actually proving the reverse, the more we study the DNA, the more we are baffled and extend the time for the evolutionary process to more billions of years. In this world there will always be prophets, false prophets or true prophets. Show us what prophecy has mankind made on his own which is not false and we will show you a thousand prophecies God made that came true.

Man using science fails in all his attempts to successfully predict the future, and today he wants to shelf God as an icon of antiquity.

This would remind me of totem blocks and since science tops everything, the top block would have the word ‘science’, the other under it would say ‘philosophy’, another under that one would say ‘law’, another under “law” would say ‘morality’ and another at the bottom would say ‘God’.


A child comes along and pulls the bottom block. Then the whole thing collapses. As this child grows and understands physics, he becomes aware of the nature of things. He still does not fully comprehend gravity but can recognize it. Even when he grows and completes his PhD in physics he still cannot fully comprehend the cosmos, how they interact or how they relate to issues of life. Science does not have all the answers. Spiritual matters are not scientific and explaining them is like answering, “sugar” when children ask, “what is sex?”

No one can even fully comprehend how we are made male and female or what factor existed to determine the cycle of life continuing through a relationship between the two. At times the only thing we can recognize is the end result – we love but we cannot fully comprehend love, even as we marry and procreate. The dynamo is set despite our will since we all have urges that compel us to multiply.

At times we think that we can intervene in this cycle to only create chaos. So we offer scientific methods to stop pregnancy thinking that we can pursue joy without the responsibility of rearing children. Perhaps we can even pay for sexual pleasure without love or commitment. Any interjection into this cycle seems to bring only more misery. Prostitutes seem more depressed and inclined to resort to drugs as their pimps gladly sell their bodies for money. Neighborhoods are destroyed. Moral decay creeps in and misery results when Muslims come into Christian lands to fill the gap of needed labor since the majority are elderly and rape increases with all the crime that Islam brings with it. Someone might argue that free sex does not need the mafia of pimping, but even legalizing that brings disease regardless of condom use since today we have STDs likePapilloma that are caught by having skin around the genitalia simply touch. One would have to have sex in diving suits and a condom in order to prevent this disease.

History proves beyond any doubt that we go through such cycles of rebellion to only conclude that we need to follow biblical standards that there is a difference between love and pleasure. Yet we cannot fully comprehend love or how God ordained history through prophecies He declared from time immemorial.

What then is love? Is it the love of money, self, the earth? Mankind simply does not have answers, only if we understand that we are created in the image of a supreme being can we comprehend these issues by instructions from above.

What about sacrificial love? What about a fireman who might go out of his way to save you? Wouldn’t that be love? What about loving the ones that do not agree with us? How far can we love? What are the limits for love? To what extent do we love? And what is the ultimate love? Who in history has ever expressed the ultimate love? Who sets the standards for what love really is?

Even death cannot fully be explained. If something as simple as a light bulb, interjecting into its source of energy removes the light. We know that the energy simply returns to its source. Yet, we still cannot fully explain death – what happens to the dynamo of life? Who interjected in its path? What source does it go back to? What happens to this dynamo? Why is mankind unable to answer such simple questions?

Our body somehow runs on its own, like an automatic watch; yet even an automatic watch must have someone moving it every now and then to keep it charged and going. No battery lasts forever – all must be recharged by an external source. Nothing is in motion on its own – life is what sets everything that moves.

“Sure”, you might say, “but why should I believe in something I cannot see”?

You already believe in many things you cannot see that we can always detect. We cannot see electromagnetic waves but we can detect them. Evidence for any case does not necessarily mean that we have answers for every single bit of data – but having ample facts to conclude it beyond a shadow of doubt. Court cases do not get resolved by having every piece of evidence. We require enough evidence or even a single piece of evidence if it is strong enough like DNA.


We can only examine what we can fathom. Not to try to fully comprehend how they function, but perhaps we can examine what the results would be by interjecting in the process.

Even if we all believe that everything has been set in motion through the Big Bang, life is not only about the cosmos – what about moral values or understanding spiritual matters? Man in fact is unable to invent any new religion, he simply recycles the old ones. We all choose a religion even if we choose not to choose. We have many religious sources. Does the Bible hold the answer? The Qur’ân? The Bhagavad-Gita? The Book of Mormon? How about no book at all? We only have a handful of choices.

What about creating a new religion and not even calling it religion? We can create a new philosophy altogether. We can call it “The New Man” or “The Overcoming Man.” We can perhaps rewrite history and transform our nation from a Christian one into a nation based on the ideology of man. Will we be better off? Will it work? Or will it be like the child who did not understand gravity and pulled the base block? Perhaps you can write your own Ten Commandments. Perhaps everyone can write his or her own Ten Commandments. What if someone wants a hundred commandments? Then we decide that everyone can follow their own commandments and that they are not bound to anyone else’s.

Even if we go such route, eventually one of these groups will defeat the others and enforce their multi-commandements on others to follow.

No matter what anyone argues that the Bible is an old writ from thousands of years ago and that we should modernize and advance civilization, life will never workout without biblical ethics. History actually tried this many times over and mankind failed – every single one of them failed – ‘the Bible’ with its ‘Ten Commandments’ are the answer.

While it is true that mankind advances in his knowledge of scientific matters it is also true that mankind’s moral character never advanced.

Progressives would counter – mankind with God never advanced at all in his moral character either. Or how about – mankind’s moral character has always advanced without any God.

Again, the brilliant-idiot will always cause chaos! Without God mankind always experiences moral decay and only advanced in his moral accomplishment most when nations began to use Biblical morals.

The Ten Commandments did not come from Charlton Heston or Moses, they came from God. Just remove “Honor your father and your mother” or “Thou shall not bear false witness” from our courtrooms and justice system, this alone would demolish our legal system completely. Others argue that moral values are embedded in all of us – we all know when we do ‘good’ and we all know when we do evil. Even if we keep the Ten Commandments as a human invention, this will not satisfy the brilliant-idiot.

So who after all is qualified to set up the standards of what is ‘good’ and what is ‘evil’? Why do we do good and evil? Where and when did we become corrupt? Who or what embedded a sense of right and wrong within our conscience? Does Darwin’s ‘reciprocal altruism’ explain why we do good and evil? Perhaps we concluded certain moral values through trial and error. Have we? If so, why do we seem to repeat the same experiments? Every time we think that we have overcome and desire to strive to be supermen we simply degrade others who are not interested in becoming supermen like us. We then begin to think that they are less worthy than us and we simply kill them. Experience and history prove that every time the superman accuses others of being vermin, it is this superman who ends up acting like vermin. Nazis treated Jews as vermin and Nazis became the vermin. We treated fetuses as leeches and we became the leeches. We murder collectively and dump human beings like sewage. No animal behaves in such a way. Why then should we if we become vermin be elevated to the top of the food chain? We in fact ended up massacring the Nazis and the Japanese and we were in the right. Not all massacres are equal.

Yet whenever we attempt to elevate ourselves we end up doing the reverse. It is as if we must remain on a certain level and that like gravity, what goes up in pride must come down in death. Every time we think we’ve reached our ‘supermanhood’ we actually are being degraded to ‘animalhood’, or even worse, for animals do not do what we do; they have no abortions and generally do not declare war on other animals. They kill almost entirely out of necessity.

Evil is the process of us governing others without allowing God to govern us. We all can make choices – we can either believe that God exists or He simply is nowhere to be found. But the moral law stands, which we shall prove here – that if we remove God, the government will always become God, 100% of the time. The government, not the individual will become the temple of worship and thus we will live in tyranny. Man can never become a god so to compensate; evil men must attempt to elevate a collective tyranny into a god.

Either God becomes king or a tyrant becomes king.

All systems that exchange all facets of Biblical ethics and displays of God seem to be loaded with spirituality. Even the most ardent progressives have no problem with spirituality, since the struggle is over issues that are spiritual. The goal is simply the end of Christianity and the advent of man focusing on himself as the absolute creator of good or more accurately, evil in the name of good. And since evil masquerades as good – how then can man prove beyond a shadow of doubt, that his path to spiritual enlightenment in conjunction with his morals are indeed good?

Tyrannies are not in the eye of the beholder. Everyone sees tyrannies. Liberals would argue that Christians are tyrannical. In reality there are only two religions, God or Tyranny.

The world already experienced Communist Russia, Hinduism, Islam, Paganism from Shintoism to Aztec … everyone of these ended up becoming tyrannical. Everyone of these sacrificed millions upon millions, yet mankind seem to still elevate these. All these horrific massacres add to the billions of human beings yet as soon as you bring out this fact, the other side instantly declares that Christianity had the Crusaders and the Spanish Inquisition. Tyranny always finds specs while forgetting their logs.

In fact, tyrannies always demand we solve our differences through dialogue. Cain asked able to roam the field for a dialogue to only deceive him and kill him. Tyrannies usually end through forced dialogue – Japan surrendered and so did Nazi Germany. Others dissolved from within after much decay and failure. It is thereby crucial to see the difference between nations that overcame tyranny and others that continue living under it. Americans love the dialogue with evil as if evil will simply give up. Drug epidemics never end by dialogue but by sheer brutal force.



The only way to fight radical Islam is Christianity using the two swords of Peter, the physical sword (Christian militarism) and the spiritual sword (spreading Christianity). Any other solutions that come from brilliant-idiots will make zero positive difference in history. And to prove my point, I will bring in very educated idiots who oppose this statement. Educated idiots are the main culprits whose only purpose for existence is to represent Lucifer’s interest and bring in daily deluges with all sorts of sophist arguments. A dialogue with brilliant-idiots will always result in endless accusations against anyone who opposes them. They apply politics no different than the very Islam they combat. They, like the Muslims, represent nothing more than the spirit of the very accuser who sent them. They are however worse than the Muslims in one way, they are divided. So divided they are that their core principle is to simply point at Islam while ignoring any other evil.

Their main weapons are labels. Thats all. They come up with all sorts of twisted arguments. They divide calling their divisions “different views” when in fact they are destructive views. For example, critiquing Islam, some of them say, can alienate secular Muslims so they accuse you of Islamophobia. In order to cement the necessary alliance with “traditional” Muslims, Dinesh D’Souza, a ‘conservative brilliant-idiot’ who claimed to be Catholic once warned:

“the right must take three critical steps. First, stop attacking Islam. Conservatives have to cease blaming Islam for the behavior of the radical Muslims. Recently the right has produced a spate of Islamophobic tracts with titles like Islam Unveiled, Sword of the Prophet, and The Myth of Islamic Tolerance. There is probably no better way to repel traditional Muslims, and push them into the radical camp, than to attack their religion and their prophet.”

He offers no prescription for how his “traditional Muslims” can repel the appeal to violence upon which jihadists everywhere base the teachings of “their religion and their prophet.”

Others in this movement argue for secularism and divide with the likes of D’Souza. Egypt’s secular government, these say, defeated the Muslim Brotherhood. Really? Did this moderate brand of Islam also defeat anti-semitism? No. When we address evil, we do not segregate, evil is evil no matter what color it comes in be it anti-semitism or anti-life from abortionists to homosexuals. All civilizations spring from the union between man and woman who give birth to all civilization. To stand with these and only be Muslim focused makes these very movements just as evil as the very Islam they combat since their goal is to allow these same evils which destroy civilization. 

Brilliant idiots always appear when its too late building on what others accomplished. They are the Johnny come lately. They hate true Christians and only promote secularists. The Counter Jihad Movement for example get excited anytime someone writes a secular book on countering Islam. Ivan Rioufol, a French journalist for the newspaper Le Figaro in his new book predicts “The Coming Civil War” in France and everyone thinks this brilliant-idiot is only brilliant. They only conclude in the end, when it is too late what prophecies already foretold, not by complex scholars, but by unknown nuns and monks:

“Revolution will break out in Italy almost at the same time as in France.  For some time, the Church will be without a Pope.  England, too, will have much to suffer” (The Ecstatic of Tours, 19th century)

“… Then will the people of the half-moon of the tribe of Agar … will stay three years destroying everything.  Yet, in the third year, will one of the unconquerable Eagles who reigns over the enlightened nation between the Rhine and the North Sea” [France].

The biblical prophets spoke of Muslim nations threatening Christendom even defining their theology as “denying Father and Son” (1 John 2:22) and “honoring a god of fortresses (war)” (Daniel 11) and even included every single Muslim nation that threatens Jews and Christians.

Now here comes the modern prophets, the Johnny come lately, Rioufol‘s  introductionwe translated from French his book “The Coming Civil War” seems to reflect what these prophecies already foretold:

The Coming Civil War details the dangers posed by the “apocalyptic ideology” of radical Islam in Europe. Everything must be done to prevent in France the civil war that radical Islam would sow to impose the caliphate, the new totalitarianism. The error would nevertheless be to circumvent the test by putting up with this new totalitarianism and its employees. The danger is not the National Front, which is only an expression of the anger of an abandoned people. This is the outburst of an apocalyptic ideology that needs to stop while there is still time.

Why then do people not heed to the prophets and instead wait for some scholar to reveal the reality? Better yet, why not heed to what these prophets want us to do, return to Christianity, but instead we try to respond to this Muslim epidemic with only secularism while defending every evil in secularism?

They think we can do this without God. Secularism complains that Islam prohibits religious liberty. But so does secularism, it too closes the gates to Christianity and open them only for every other cult. Fighting Islam for the sake of secularism is simply fighting to replace one tyranny with another.

Even in the so-called conservative circles, everyday I read these days the same-old same-old mantras, that Islam is the problem, but that the solution is not Christianity, it is secularism, democracy, moderate Islam … anything but Christianity.

I even had the freak of nature, the so-called conservative witch named Bell come up to chat on Facebook foaming at the mouth that I should not be on what he termed “The Counter Jihad Movement”.

Why I asked? He initially accused me of being a “fraud”. After he put a shoe in his own mouth when I debunked his claim that I was not a “fraud” he began to attack my Christian approach to combating Islam and even manipulated some dear friends in the movement.

“What year did you begin to address Islam” I asked?

The man shows up out of nowhere in 2012 and just because he was on Fox once he claimed that we who were pioneers from 1994 need to “step aside” or “cease speaking about Christianity” as the only way to combat Islam. Of course, I told him, Middle Eastern style, to drink the sea in Gaza and “to go get a haircut” this disgusting looking witch looks like a mop and all he needed was a cone hat and a broom.


Show me where Islam was defeated without Christianity? We are the pioneers. Never in history did anyone defeat Islam without Christianity. Thats it. There is no need to argue any further. The hell with dialogue.  Great Britain defeated the Ottomans under General Allenby where Protestants and Catholics finally united against this common enemy. Dare a witch and a mop-head approach the general and tell him to “step aside” he would have his head shaven bald, thrown into tar and rolled with feathers. Communism in Russia had its own counter Islam, but it also countered Christianity as well with a heavy hand killing millions upon millions. So here comes an excrement belaboring that we should no longer express our faith and our convictions against pedophiles deserving death. We do not believe in vigilantism, we believe in executing certain offenders by passing laws. Throughout the history of Christianity, the laws were on our side. Now, even the so-called conservative is against us. These are not ‘conservatives’, these are impostors.

The exclusively ‘counter Islam’ movement is evil for its silence on all other agendas from the homosexual movement to anti-Christian restrictions.

Without Christianity we are useless.

For example, Robert Spencer, a Christian, while he writes eloquently on combating Islam, he dares not speak of his faith since his boss at Front Page Magazine is Jewish (David Horowitz). These are not particularly interested on how Christianity played the major role in combating Islam. These would rather critique and speak on how Christianity persecuted Judaism in the Spanish Inquisition. While there were evils done in the Spanish Inquisitions, there were also evils by Jews who were glad to collaborate with Islam against Christians.

I even have emails from Brigitte Gabriel who expressed her disdain for Christianity when in fact she is funded primarily by Christians. I even have an email sent to me by journalist sent by Daniel Pipes who called me a “Machiavellian” while Robert Spencer sent emails calling us “opportunists”.  Such movements are filled with back-stabbing, gossip and endless slanders.

But unlike Spencer or Gabriel, we chose to say ‘no’ to our Jewish funders and we were blessed financially ten fold to be exact. These funders objected that I write on Pope Pius XII and his rescue of Jews and objected vehemently on our fight against the homosexual movement calling for death penalty for pedophiles and boy-love pushers. They wanted nothing to do with what good Christians had to offer.

But ‘loving Israel’ has its limits and no one owned us. While I love Jews, I will never love them over Christ. The first commandment in freedom should be to let Jews be Jews and let Christians be Christians. John Hagee dares not proselytize to Jews because all the major contacts will flee.

They call this movement which it was us, the Christians who pioneered “The Counter Jihad Movement”. While these stand behind Islamophobia, these denounce homophobia and abortion-phobia and every other phobia you can think of. They made the movement to only have one common denominator: Islam.

How that works is quite amazing that if a Muslim kills they are all over it but if a homo kills or rapes it is completely ignored. So they get excited when the German pilot committed suicide thinking he was a ‘convert to Islam’ when he was not, but when they find out he was a homosexual, the drumbeats die out, quickly and silence prevails. They are truly sick because they abandon Christianity.

While we the Christians were the pioneers sounding the trumpets of prophets before us, here arrives these Johnny come lately speaking like scholars on why we must only be ‘secular’.

But is critiquing any evil system a phobia? Is fighting homosexuals homophobia? In fact the defense for Islamophobia would use the same elements and arguments for homophobia. Homosexuals believe, like Islam, that they are superior. Evil is evil. It has different faces but the results is the death of man.

I do not believe in all these ‘phobias’ which are simply arm-twisting deterrents to silence the Christian.

Certain Jewish writers critique the New Testament and do not believe in Christian dogma. This would not constitute phobia but an attempt to defend their flock from going to the other side. I know of a Toviah Singer who runs a program called Jews for Judaism. While Toviah protects adherents to remain in the Jewish faith, Christians would not label him as phobic. Writers that address fundamental Islam can never be ‘phobic’ since phobia constitutes unnecessary fear. If one has a phobia of heights or tunnels, would they be ‘phobic’ if they face head on such fears? Phobias arise from a combination of external events and internal pre-dispositions that create unnecessary fears of a subject or situation. How could someone who fears the rise of Islamic fundamentalism be ‘phobic’, especially if such persons are confronting such a subject head on? Would someone phobic of heights write a manual on air gliding and take tours that involved jumping off mountaintops? Could a Muslim that exposes certain Crusader actions be Christian phobic? Hardly.

Philosopher Piers Benn suggests that people who fear the rise of Islamophobia foster an environment “not intellectually or morally healthy”, to the point that what he calls “Islamophobia-phobia” can undermine “critical scrutiny of Islam as somehow impolite, or ignorant of the religion’s true nature.”

Benn has a valid point. The notable Islamophobic acts that are recorded hardly constitute any phobia; desecrating a Muslim gravesite or vandalism of mosques is racism not phobia. Yet the core of notable acts of Islamophobia has been applied to everyone exposing Islamic fundamentalism and the jihadist ideology from financial terrorism to mass murder. Could it be possible that such usage of labels as Benn suggests be Islamophobia-phobia?

Using the term ‘phobia’ to apply to racism, prejudice and discrimination is fallacious. Tovia Singer can never be ‘phobic’ of Christians since he invites so many of them on his radio program. Dennis Prager, another radio talk show host who is himself Jewish also welcomes Christian guests. Both Singer and Prager are Old Testament believers and while they differ on matters of theology with Christians, they find the Old Testament Bible to be a common ground for both faiths. Both realize that neither side can fully please the other so they unite in their efforts to fight tyrannies. But then there are also limits, is critiquing Judaism a phobia?

However, Islam is an infestation. And I ask: does anyone call a ‘scholar’ to solve an infestation problem?

Islam is an infestation and needs the owner of the house to realize that you cannot talk to people who behave like cockroaches even if the cockroaches learned how to speak English. You have government kill the cockroaches and we need to raise Christians ready for war. Thats it.

He who lives by the sword must die by the sword and he who lives believing a lie must be converted only with the sword of truth: Christianity.

These brilliant-idiots tell us that he who lives by the sword must be converted throughsecular democracy. The Muslim counters that our democracy has crime, rampant abortion and rampant immorality and he is right. He tells us already that Communism persecuted him too in the southern republics of Russia and he is right. Both Muslims and Christian even agree that Communism is a disease and so is secularism. Muslims and Christians do have common enemies, but so what. They hate the Resurrection, the Crucifixion and the Trinity. The secularist wants us to undermine what we believe in order to uplift what religion they believe in which is nothing. There is no telepathy, six sense, yoga or Shivalinga.

The West is diseased and hordes of Muslim viruses are but willing to invade a decaying body. Did not Christendom also invade the Sick Man of Europe, the Ottoman Empire?

Bell the witch, says that “God is You”. We argue that only one God in Trinity is the true God. You as God or any other God besides the one revealed in the Bible represents nothing more than tyranny. This has been proven throughout history. In fact we can prove it, you are either for God or you are a control freak like Bell and the rest of these ‘funders’.

In other words, you could be anti-Yahweh, anti-Allah, anti-Shiva or anti-all gods but dare you be for Christ and Prophecy.

The whole crux of our researches at is providing through ample evidence that nations that abandoned historic Christianity all ended up in tyrannies. This includes all pro-homosexual societies. So why must we only focus on Islam exclusively? We must also focus on healing this sick society where men are poking each other, the youth get brainwashed while we all sing Kumbaya exposing only the Muslim.

No matter what your choice in life is, you are either sheep or shepherd, liberal or conservative – you will be led and you will deal with the consequences. Active or inactive, you will end up participating. You follow tax laws, traffic laws, and regulations. You will end up following whichever regulation set by whichever administration be it liberal or conservative, pro-God or not. And just in case you are anti-war, let me remind you, there is always a war. If it were not a world war, it would be a cold war. If it is not a cold war, it might be a political war, a social war, or even a racial war. No matter what label you choose for yourself, you will always suffer being a casualty of one of these wars. Just ask a German minding his own business how he feels about the Muslim hordes invading his country.

But he too is guilty. He wanted secularism to solve his problem instead of crusaders.

Everyone fears the war of labels and name calling in which we fling sticky-labels. They accuse us daily of xenophobia, bigotry, racism and an array of inflammatory accusations against anyone who attempts to critique a specific religion, despite the critique of religion being allowed by our Constitution. I am to open debate over religion; everyone should be entitled to critique religion – any religion.

The war to win can never be done by exclusively being anti-Islam. Progressives, leftists or liberals are all puritan diehards. Even what some term “Christian liberals”; these would be anyone proclaiming the Christian faith, yet they too believe in liberal values such as allowing homosexual pastors to take the pulpit and permitting gay marriage. These can also be labeled as extreme. Yet they are not, only we are.

In conclusion, secularism and even what the West titles as conservatism can never defeat Islam since these will divide over their differences and will only unite on the lowest common-denominator while abandoning their moral compass. It is not only Muslims who do evil. The homosexual movement, the evolutionists, socialists, secularists and every other religion besides Christianity if it takes hold it will always promote tyranny. Such focus only on Islam will cause us to be silent on all other evils in the name of unity. But unity with what? Unity with evil. Christ said “deliver us from evil”. He did not categorize evil as only the Arian Hersey, but also Sodom and all disobediences to God. In the end, even the witch Bell will bow and Allah will stoop with him. They are both enemies. Secondly, I am not phobic, I am the people. I am a Christian.