The Oasis for
Rational Conservatives

Member Login

You are not currently logged in.








» Register
» Lost your Password?
Hidden Holy Land 2
Hidden Central Asia
TTP Summer Retreat
Wheeler Expeditions
Member Discussions
Article Archives
L i k e U s ! ! !
TTP Merchandise

Daniel Greenfield

OBAMA WANTS TO DEFEAT AMERICA, NOT ISIS

The truth is, Obama has no plan for containing ISIS, much less defeating it. Nor is he planning to get one any time soon. That’s because Obama doesn’t win wars. He lies about them.

Obama and his political allies believe that crime can’t be fought with cops and wars can’t be won with soldiers. The only answer lies in addressing the root causes, which means blaming Islamic terrorism on everything from colonialism to global warming. It doesn’t mean defeating it, but finding new ways to blame it on the West.

The unspoken idea that informs his strategy is that American power is the root cause of the problems in the region. Destroying ISIS would solve nothing. Containing American power is the real answer. Obama does not have a strategy for defeating ISIS. He has a strategy for defeating America.

Read more...

WHY ISLAM IS A RELIGION OF WAR

"He it is who has sent His Messenger (Mohammed) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islam) to make it victorious over all religions even though the infidels may resist." Koran 61:9

Islamic violence is a religious problem. Islam derives meaning from physical supremacy, so war becomes an act of faith. To believe in Islam, is to have faith that it will conquer the entire world. And to be a true Moslem, is to feel called to aid in that global conquest, whether by providing money to the Jihadists or to become a Jihadist.

The fulfillment of Islam depends on the subjugation of non-Moslems so that violence against non-Moslems become the essence of religion.

Anything that suggests Islam is not absolutely superior becomes blasphemy. When Moslems explode into outbursts of violent rage over seemingly petty things like a cartoon or a video, it is because to them, any loss of face for Islam is the worst kind of blasphemy because it challenges its supremacy. Truth and power in Islam are identical. It is not a religion of the oppressed, but of the oppressors. Jihad is the force that gives Islam meaning. It is the deepest expression of faith.

Read more...

THE INVISIBLE ENEMY OF RADICAL ISLAM

As the cleaning crews were mopping up the dried blood from the stage and the seats of the Bataclan concert hall in Paris, a depressing act appeared on stage in distant Iowa.

Saturday night (11/14) the three contenders for the Democrat Party’s presidential nomination took to the stage in Iowa for a debate. The moderator asked them whether they would be willing to use the term “radical Islam” to describe the ideology motivating Islamic terrorists to massacre innocents. All refused.

Like her former boss, President Barack Obama, former secretary of state and Democrat frontrunner Hillary Clinton not only refused to accept the relevance of the term. Clinton refused to acknowledge what radical Islam stands for.

But of course, it is easy to understand what motivates Islamic terrorists. They tell us all the time. They want the world to be run by an Islamic empire. When they are in charge, they will kill, subjugate, convert or enslave all non-Muslims, except Jews. The Jews will be obliterated.

The operational consequences of America and the West’s refusal to acknowledge the nature of the forces waging war against it have been disastrous.

Read more...

HUMANITY’S BEST DAYS IN THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE

Munk Debate, Toronto, 6 November 2105

I took part in a Munk debate on 6 November, in which Steven Pinker and I argued that "humanity's best days lie ahead" while Malcolm Gladwell and Alain de Botton argued against us. It was entertaining.

Here's the text of my opening statement:

Woody Allen once said:

“More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly.”

That’s the way pretty well everybody talks about the future.

Read more...

THAT SCIENCE NEEDS GOVERNMENT SUPPORT IS A MYTH

Innovation is a mysteriously difficult thing to dictate. Technology seems to change by a sort of inexorable, evolutionary progress, which we probably cannot stop—or speed up much either. And it’s not much the product of science.

Most technological breakthroughs come from technologists tinkering, not from researchers chasing hypotheses. Heretical as it may sound, “basic science” isn’t nearly as productive of new inventions as we tend to think.

The linear dogma so prevalent in the world of science and politics—that science drives innovation, which drives commerce—is mostly wrong. It misunderstands where innovation comes from. Indeed, it generally gets it backward.

 For more than a half century, it has been an article of faith that science would not get funded if government did not do it, and economic growth would not happen if science did not get funded by the taxpayer. This is a myth. In fact, there is still no empirical demonstration of the need for public funding of research and that the historical record suggests the opposite.

Read more...