Tuesday, August 01, 2017


Recently, James White said the primary threat to freedom in America isn't coming from Muslims but from secular progressives. But there are several problems with that claim:

i) If we continue the status quo immigration policy, combined with the fact that Muslims have higher fertility rates than most natives, the threat that Muslims in American pose to our Constitutional republic will rapidly expand. (BTW, I don't object to big families.)

ii) White erects a false dichotomy between Islam and the liberal establishment. Yet it's well-known that the Left protects Islam. A recent example is how Berkeley canceled the scheduled speech by Richard Dawkins. 

iii) Ironically, Islam is using secular academia as a front organization:

Another example how Brandeis disinvited Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Secular academia facilitates sharia and jihad by acting as a buffer between Muslim activists and their critics.

iv) In addition, the major internet providers and search engines are censoring criticism or information about Islam. For instance:

Stop to consider the implications of that. The Internet is now a major source of news. Perhaps the major source of news. People do online searches to get information about Islam. But if search results now filter out evidence that Islam is dangerous, then the general public won't be able to fact-check Islam. Likewise, social media has become the primary means of sharing information and mobilizing social activism. If that is blocked, what's the recourse? These are powerful, insidious ways to silence and shut down opposition.

What we have, then, is an emerging alliance between Muslims and the liberal establishment. A silent revolution. 


  1. It's ironic that James White thinks it's OK to practice armed self defense of his house, but he's not very concerned about the defense of our nation against terrorism. (See his interview with Janet Mefferd.)

    He rightly criticized John Piper for being pacifistic about self defense, but Dr. White thinks that it is mere "politics" to be concerned about national security.

    PS disclaimer: I have listened to at least 95% of White's Dividing Line broadcasts and to about 25% of all his debates, so I have a decent perspective on his viewpoints.

    1. In my opinion, that is not what Dr. White communicates - to say "he's not very concerned about the defense of our nation against terrorism" is your opinion; but, to me, all he has been saying is any potential terrorist or Muslims involved in "civilizational Jihad" (using our gracious laws, political correctness and alliances with liberals) STILL needs the gospel first, and since as a minister it is our primary job of evangelism & missions; Dr. White did not wait around for 50 more years for the potential 'Civilizational Jihadists" to start doing violence if they become a majority at that time, etc.

      I have heard him say on the DL about the need to take out Muslim terrorists - like the ones in Lybia who beheaded those Coptic Christians, with a hell-fire missile", etc. (going by my memory here).

      All he was saying is that Yasir Qadhi and the Muslims there in that community also need the gospel first. If Spencer (a Byzantine Roman Catholic who does not care about Biblical gospel - evanagelistic issues ) and law enforcement people are right; they should use the evidence to bring charges and prosecute, but Dr. White's point is that we as Evangelical Christians can still witness to them before knowing all the details of their connections and background, etc.

  2. I may actually agree with him, in part because of just these observations. If we don't stem liberalism, then we get both liberalism and Islam.

    1. I'm kind of leaning Brett's way too. I guess the issue is how "primary" is defined. To me, if it weren't for the rampant PC culture being pushed by "progressives" as a whole (and I wouldn't limit it to just secular progressives) then I think there would be a reasonable response, by and large, to Islam in America. In other words, I don't think there would be a large *actual* Islamophobic response, nor do I think Americans would sit back and let radicals kill everyone, if it weren't for the progressive pressure to do both right now.

      And yes, I maintain that progressives cause actual Islamophobia, both through the "soft bigotry of low expectations" and because it's natural for people who are told objectively stupid things to over-react to the opposite extreme.

    2. It think I agree with Peter and Brett as well. The immediate threat is really progressives. The longer term threat will be Islam. Now in Europe, progressive have so conditioned Europeans with their pluralist nonsense that Islam poses perhaps the greater threat now that the damage by progressives has already been done.

    3. Brett wrote:
      If we don't stem liberalism, then we get both liberalism and Islam.

      yes; exactly !!

      It is the whole liberal secularist agenda with the media and political correctness, etc. that allows Muslims to do the "civilizational Jihad".

  3. Brett

    "I may actually agree with him, in part because of just these observations. If we don't stem liberalism, then we get both liberalism and Islam."

    Actually, if we don't stem liberalism, then we get Islam, which will eventually eradicate liberalism once given enough power.

    And if we don't stem radical Islam, then we get nothing but Islam. We won't have anything else left. Neither liberalism nor conservatism. Not even Western democracy.

    Think this can't happen in the United States? Just witness the history of Islam wiping out Christians and Jews (among others) in the Mideast, N. Africa, Byzantine Empire, Spain and Portugal, parts of Eastern Europe (e.g. Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina), and many other places.

    Just witness Islam subjugating others in places like sub-Saharan Africa (e.g. Sudan, Nigeria), parts of India, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines.

  4. Apparently Google/YouTube "locked" Jordan Peterson's account for a time.

    Not to mention they've done the same with other conservatives in the past. Such as Prager, Crowder, etc.

    If I recall, they once removed all of William Lane Craig's videos.

    That's why conservatives, especially Christians, should always backup their stuff, I think.

  5. The recent short video that some one put together, IMO, vindicated Dr. White against the accusations of Steve Camp and Janet Mefferd that Dr. White's dialogue was some kind of liberal IFD or some kind of Rick Warren / Common Ground / Common Word / Yale Reconciliation type of dialogue.


    1. To my knowledge, Camp has no particular qualifications for ministry. That was a second career for a has-been Gospel music star.

  6. I don't think Dr. White made the false dichotomy, because (as you point out), it is the left wing secularists and Social Justice Warriors, political left, political correctness, left wing media that allows Muslims to abuse our gracious laws and form coalitions with liberal agendas.

    If the left wing secular agenda is more and more exposed and stopped; the dangerous Muslims won't be able to do civilizational Jihad very effectively. Meanwhile, we as Evangelicals, can share the gospel with Muslims, and Robert Spencer also has the freedom to investigate and expose their agenda, which I have also learned a lot from him too.