Friday, July 17, 2020

The Message (July 2020)


To the American Church,
“He that hath ears, let him hear,” (Matthew 11:15). This message I would have assumed would have been delivered through the mouths of such men as Dutch Sheets, Lou Engle, Perry Stone, Rick Joyner, or others. I feel a weight to say it, and a duty to tell you to carefully discern whether or not to listen to it. I have two great passions in life, the Word, and politics (political theory/philosophy to be more precise.) I have moved across the country and started over more than once, based on wanting to follow the Anointing, follow spiritual authority. I have felt at home in only one church. This church however no longer exists. I have gone to amazing Spirit-filled churches, but never belonged. For ten years I have been in the wilderness. For ten years I have been fed through close friends, online studies (thank you Damon Thompson, Ravi Zacharias (rest in glory sir), and others) and a deep abiding love for truth. Let me say this again and be clear. I have not set foot in a church building for the last 10 years. I say this as a warning, so you are not quick to affirm what I am about to say.
This letter is a collaborative effort. The following is the culmination of a series of discourses, debates, discussions, and conversations I have had with my friend and counterpart to this letter. While I am the primary source of the authorship, this letter, this message could never have been adequately expressed without his support and feedback. While this letter is written in the first person, we will address when my friend speaks as the primary author of content.
It is the nature of our friendship that makes the core emphasis of this message resonate and hold such an essential place in the days to come. I am a non-denominational Christian, born again into a Pentecostal tradition and a charismatic church. He, raised in a formal Lutheran faith, fallen away for years, then reconverted to Catholicism where he remains devoted to the biblical and universal tradition through Catholicism. Our two traditions, Protestant, and Catholic, have experienced persecution through each other’s hands throughout the last two thousand years. We believe our friendship was created by God, for many purposes, but at least one was to write this letter. My friend is currently working on his PhD at a prestigious Christian University. I am preparing to enter the teaching profession, either in community colleges, or in high schools, where the message of why America is such an exceptional nation is sorely lacking. Our differences are overcome by the weight of the need for this message, we urge you to listen.
We initially hesitated to disclose our credentials, but felt corrected by the Lord’s words to Moses, who would not speak because of how he would be perceived, “go; I will help you speak and will teach you what to say,” (Exodus 4:12). Our credentials were allowed by God, and God chose us to articulate this message. Credentials aside, if you were to know either of us, Duck Dynasty would be more towards the front of your mind than elitism. We are united on this front, and in our friendship, but as has been established we are not alike. An introduction having been made; we go forth with our message.
The following is not going to be in whatever ‘normal’ prophetic message format some of you have likely seen or been accustomed to. I have little love for the catchphrases, and the lingo that goes along with being in certain circles. You will not hear me say “thus saith the Lord,” mostly because saying such a thing terrifies me (as it does my friend.) The people that overuse the phrase “thus saith the Lord,” show their lack of Fear in the Lord. While I freely admit I am worried about being inaccurate in this letter. I must speak because I am terrified that I am correct in its contents. I am foreseeing on the horizon a day coming that will radically alter the way the Western American Body of Christ ‘does’ Church.
America as a Christian Nation and the crisis of Marxism (Written primarily by my friend)
To warn of danger without a cause would be meaningless and empty rhetoric. The cause is political, and it is motivated by a particular political ideology. That Ideology is seeking to change the core of America. The change sought by this revolutionary ideology is intentionally destructive of Christianity. The destruction of Christianity will come about with three levels of attacks against Christianity, with the intensity of the attacks increasing over time. Initially, as we are already seeing, there will be an assault on Christian Imagery. After the assault on imagery will come an assault on Church buildings, and after the buildings we will see an assault on Christians themselves.
America is directly attacked because America is a Christian nation. America was founded on Christian Covenants. The American Constitution is a result of political thought developed through Covenants as foundational documents. The Declaration of Independence was written as a covenant (as proven by Daniel Elazar). Even the more secular influence on the founding, John Locke, based his property theory on God, “Men being all the Workmanship of one Omnipotent, and infinitely wise Maker; All the Servants of one Sovereign Master, sent into the World by his order and about his business, they are his Property,” (John Locke, the Second Treatise of Government, Chapter 2). This status as a country of and for Christianity has given the church a powerfully protected country to thrive in, but the days of safe Christianity are rapidly coming to an end. The current and active hostility against Christianity and America is designed to replace the core idea of America, to replace Christianity.
The anti-American and anti-Christian sentiment is the core of the ideology driving these attacks, that ideology is Marxism. Most in the church probably know Karl Marx’s thought that religion was a comforting drug of compliance to stop class warfare. What the church may not know is that the human nature the Church endorses: that of gender, the traditional family, a monogamous procreative marriage, and general rules on behavior are understood as “politics, laws, morality, religion, metaphysics," all working together to support what he (Marx) thought was an oppressive economic system. Marx called these philosophic conspiracies “superstructures” and understood them to be the power tyrannizing people into accepting capitalism. Let us say it again. Those things which you hold dear, you hold sacred, you hold indispensable to the livelihood of not just yourself, but your family and your community are the systems which must be attacked and toppled in order to bring you liberty under the Marxist model.
Marxism, though initially economics based, is now the foundation for Black Lives Matters, The Homosexual Agenda, and radical feminism. Radicals in the 1960’ reconstituted the Marxist model to include racial politics and thus generated “critical race theory.” Other radicals took the same approach regarding gender, sex, and sexual orientation, and created the new left. They are Marxists, and they think their pet oppression (racism, sexism, “homophobia,” and all the other nonsense) is brought about and reinforced by Christianity. Black Lives Matter, the homosexual agenda, the transgender movement, feminism, and the modern state university are attacking Christianity to “liberate” society. Attacking Christianity is an inescapable conclusion to the Marxist premise of their ideology. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn once said of ideology, that in order for a human being to do truly barbaric and monstrous things, they have to believe that what they are doing first is, good. Marxists, high on their own moral superiority, are now operating in the major cites under the ideology of “by any means necessary.” This modified version of Marxism is driving the movement against America and against the Church.
The Warning for The Church After Marxism
As a consequence of Marxism, I am foreseeing on the horizon a day coming that will radically alter the way the Western American Body of Christ ‘does’ Church. Gone will be the days of building-centered churches. Today is a time of preparation for what comes next. And what comes next is a time of relationships. A relationship-centered church. This will look radically different than you might think though. Even the term relationship-centered does not convey the severity of what I am about to describe. I say relationship-based because everything will depend on association. Nothing will be left to take for granted. And we take MUCH for granted right now. Right now, this warning is being sounded because we are in a period of preparation. This is the same kind of time that Joseph was sent to prepare for. We may not see famine. But it will certainly feel that way. And it will only be through local, and personal relationships that the Body of Christ in America survives and thrives.
The Changing Needs of the Church
In order to express what I see, I need to use the following illustration to make it concrete, rather than an abstract concept. Within education there is a principle developed by a scholar named Maslow. He asserted that human beings required certain needs, and only after certain needs were provided or assured, would there be an emphasis on something else. I do not want to spend too much time on this, it is the graphical illustration I feel the absolute urgency to convey to you. Maslow did not incorporate God into his hierarchy and while I am not here to split hairs on where Maslow erred concerning this, suffice it to say, what we are about to see, is the stripping away of two to three tiers in this hierarchy. So, if you consider yourself to be squarely in the self-actualization phase of Maslow’s theory, soon you will be in the safety needs category. I cannot stress this enough. For decades, we in the church have heard prophets use Hebrews 12, and the subsequent passage that alludes to “whatever that can be shaken will be shaken.” It has become something of a favorite for travelling prophets, eager to invoke this passage to cause believers to pay attention or to give in an offering. This next season will strip away anything and everything that is not foundationally important to you and your family.
Because America has stood for many generations as the unrivaled global superpower, it is hard to imagine a day in which this could no longer be the case. And this is pride, to assume that real substantial troubles, struggles, and turmoil would continually be deflected away from us. Because of our comfort, we have indulged in and been influenced by materialism. Materialism is not just something born into, but we are raised in its culture. I am not here to demonize air conditioning, or the internet. But most of us take it for granted. We assume it will be there tomorrow. We expect it.  Few of us actually pay attention to people like Dave Ramsey. We give no thought to savings, or investment. Because we live in a microwave culture, where whatever we desire we can acquire without much work, we have lost the discipline and the discernment to plan for the future. Proverbs 29:18 “Where there is no vision, the people are unrestrained, But happy is he who keeps the law.”  Again, we expect tomorrow to be better than today. But those days are running out. Prepare now. Store up now. Invest Now. Because the investments you make now, will be the insurance your family has then.
Cities and Food
In the coming days after this phase of preparation, it will be important to understand logistically how and what allows you and your family to survive and thrive. While this list is by no means exhaustive, there really are only four things pushing on my heart to reference. Escaping the Cities, the Food Supply, Home Churches, and Protection. First, I need to discuss why I say escape the cities.
If you read headlines, pay attention to politics, turn on the TV, listen to the radio, or surf the web, you have doubtless been informed there is unrest in the cities. The turmoil we are seeing in the cities is not however what it appears. These cities are being attacked not because of perceptions of injustice, nor are they inspired by the love for the American ideal. These political movements have been co-opted by Marxist elements whose only concern is the destruction of the spirit of America. This has even been admitted to, where headlines (from the Smithsonian) now assert that traditional families, hard work, individualism, intimacy, written tradition, and even being polite, is an effect of ‘whiteness.” Make no mistake about this. Intersectional politics is fully within the vein of Marxist thought.
I want you to consider these large urban metropolises. People living on top and underneath each other. In a city that houses millions, how long do you think food stores will last if those trucks no longer bring food on a daily basis? What do you think crime will look like in these cities, if food starts to be lacking? We have seen the breakdown and the effects of police demoralization and, as of this writing, (July 2020) Atlanta, Chicago, New York, Seattle, Portland… have seen homicides and crime explode by 400%. And this…. this is with a stable food supply.
My friend insists I add an additional warning to this section. He wants me to remind you that in such cities, your ability to live and act as free Christian people, will be increasingly limited. We are now seeing in California, a governor who has, by fiat declaration, banned church gatherings, along with many businesses reopening. Other governors are saying you can go to church, but it is illegal to sing in church. Of course, they do this for your own good. That’s the line isn’t it? Police wait in a church parking lot in order to write tickets, church gatherings are prohibited, but the Marxist protests…. Not only are these allowed, they are often endorsed. So I ask you. How long in these cities, before your neighbor is allowed (or encouraged) to report you for your devotion to God? (Insert the story of Daniel here). Before you assume this is a bridge too far, consider this, Marxism (and more broadly speaking, the illiberal left) have pushed onto our nation the notion that “speech is violence.” We are now steeped in cancel culture. How long before the next log in the dam adds devotion to God as being hateful, violent, an attack on the liberties of society? For your own sake, and the sake of your family, prepare now, and get out of these (and any large) city. Not just because of the anti-Christian sentiment, but also because soon these cities will crumble due to being unsustainable. And we are already seeing the fracturing taking place on live TV.
Most people are not aware of the logistical chain and process that ends up putting food on their plate each day. Bananas spend but a few days on boats and trucks before ending up in a refrigerated warehouse where they wait transport to another distribution center, before finally being sent to the grocery store. This chain requires consistent predictability concerning the money supply (else why would these workers work these jobs?) Instability in the money supply (or even in the perceived value of paper money) can and will cause these chains to disappear. You need to prepare and move closer to the origination of the food supply chain. The importance of being close to those who actually grow/produce food cannot be overstated.
Home Churches:
It may seem strange, being talked to about the importance of church from someone who has admitted to not being in a church for more than ten years. But consider this. What is church? Instinctively we all know the answer, it’s the Body of Christ. It’s the people. The chosen. The saved. The sanctified. The….. ohh, its 12:30 pastor, time for you to wrap this so we can have Sunday fried chicken and watch football. Or it’s the knowledge that fellowship is realistically more one sided than we care to admit. Or it’s the time of week when we dress up in ways we normally don’t, and go to a building so people can see us all dressed up, acting as pillars of the community even though we have never invited any of them into our dining rooms. Or, it’s the predetermined amount of time we gave the worship team, to sing from a stage, with more lights and effects than a rock concert, playing instruments meant to get the hands in the air, rather than hearts prepared. Or…. It’s the time after the sermon, when we give an alter call to save the lost. Making sure no one looks around, and making sure confessions of faith are private, so that we can get a little card saying someone accepted Jesus (and can be added to our mailing list), and this collection of cards is how we determine how we are affecting the Kingdom of Heaven. God help us.
Years ago, I asked a somewhat random question to the man who was (and is) my spiritual father. “What do you think the first century church was like?” His answer, though basic at the time, started us on a depth of reflection that still resides in me (and I am sure in him) to this day. This seemingly innocent question turned into months and years of lessons and preaching on the topics of love, love for one another, and absolute devotion to God. In recent years, a follow up observation has been piercing my heart. And this leads me to now talk about what church might look like in the coming years. I think sometimes we get so caught up in what is, we sometimes forget that it was not always like this.
We need to understand the history of home churches to understand the preparations that need to be made. Concerning the 1st century church, a few key observations must be made, and allowed to take root. First, these believers did not have the luxury of being as vocal and as open as we are about our faith today. The church back in the first century was actively being persecuted. Believers met in homes, not having a formal building or a sign next to the road. They had to be careful, and discerning in who they invited into their homes, because the simple fact was, if you carelessly invited a spy into your home, not only did you risk your own and your family’s safety, you risked all those in association with you (for it was a home church.) The Chinese underground church knows this very well, even today. We however take it for granted. We complain and expect, the freedom to say what we want without risk. Yet when the church is asked to speak on matters of virtue, on matters that hold political sway, the church claims “we are in the world not of it.” We have lived off the sacrifice of others without truly ever risking anything to preserve it. Those days are coming to an end.
The first churches were relationship based. The first century church operated in each other’s homes. They knew each other. They ate with each other. They prayed with each other. They worked with each other. They loved each other. This was actually much like what the colonists did when settling America. There was no police, no fire department, no PTA. Just a body of believers who invested and sacrificed for each other, because that was the only way to make it. If your house was on fire, your neighbors rushed to help, because if their house was on fire, you would do the same. If you were assaulted or robbed, the militia came (because you yourself were also part of the militia.) These successful models are essential for us to understand and imitate. Heed my words. How we operate in churches today is not sustainable. If we are going to thrive in the coming years, we must cultivate the same associations that the first century church and the American settlers developed.
(This is another area, where my friend and I differ a little bit. But I believe it is paramount for you to hear the context of that which I speak.) It is important to note, that Christian “churches” were not even a thing until the Roman emperor Constantine. Constantine legitimized Christianity and turned it into a structural organization. I think we have lost something essential in that trade off. Think back to the portion of scripture that says the people ‘laid their possessions at the feet of the disciples.” (Acts 1-5). Do not be fooled to think this endorses socialism. They chose to invest in each other. Because in investing in each other, they themselves were invested in.
The way America does ‘church’ is about to be radically altered. Church buildings will not be able to assist people in their needs. They certainly will try. Take a mega church for example. When this turmoil hits, and food stores and supply chains break, these churches will expend what they can in order to assist their congregation. (Commendable, right?). But because their model is tied to the building, they will not have the infrastructure or the relationships to truly help people long term. Once their “food pantry” is empty, it will not get filled again.
Take this time and introduce yourselves to your neighbors. Break bread with them. Have a cookout, just your neighbors. Because your friends across town will be too far away to adequately serve one another. This is not to say your friends do not matter. In a relationship-based Christianity, your first mission field, has always been your neighbors. Gone is the time of building-centered Christianity. We are about to enter relationship-based Christianity.
Relationship based Christianity is a community-based organization, and all communities are centered around values (so says Aristotle.) One of the most under-preached books in the Bible is Song of Solomon. And when it is used, it is usually because a pastor feels the need (or is pressured) to reference God-honoring union and intimacy. It is usually an awkward sermon. But there is a core lesson held in this book. And it will be the cornerstone of relationship-based Christianity.
Let us take a moment and consider Song of Solomon. In Songs chapter 5, verse 6 it says that the bride, looking for her beloved, finds Him missing. The first reason for this, is because Jesus loves the LOST. So, we have to go where THEY are. Because that is where He is. This is the search for Jesus. Our communities must constantly be turned to Christ and His word in a search for Him. By building our community around Christ we hope to bring the Word to those without, as is shown by The Song of Solomon. “When the bride goes out to search for the bridegroom, those in the city chastise and assault her,” (Song 5:7). Notice this, Songs says they struck her, and wounded her, and removed her shawl. This is not a simple insult. This is an assault. How does the bride respond? It was her love and devotion to the bridegroom and her depiction of who He is that softened their hearts and caused them to wonder who this bridegroom was. It was through her depiction of who Jesus was that those that struck her then said, “where is your beloved turned, that we may seek him with you?” (Songs 6:1) This is relationship-based Christianity, this is how we evangelize to a world where we must discern who we allow in influential positions with access to our families and our associations.
Protection:
You need to hear this and consider it well. In the coming days, and today as well, it is your responsibility (as stated in the Bible) to provide for your household. You (and your kids) rely on your neighbors, as they (and their kids) rely on you. As such, you need to seriously consider buying, owning, and training with firearms.
If you truly desire to be a pacifist, nothing I say here will change your mind. Go in peace, and God watch over you. Truth be told, I think I would have an easier time being a pacifist if I were only concerned about my own health. I am willing to bet this sentiment is similar to many other’s belief in the same. But this is not biblical. One of the most interesting passages in the Bible is John 18:10-11. We have heard this passage preached many times. Jesus heals the ear of the High Priest’s servant. We, however, often miss what is right before our eyes. Jesus did not rebuke Peter for owning or carrying a sword. He only rebuked him for raising it in HIS defense.
If the community described above is to exist, it must be protected. With the current assault on Christianity, the physical protection of these people may only be secured by you. Owning a firearm does not make you a killer. It only makes you responsible for your family, your kids, your neighbors. If you say, “I don’t need one as my neighbors already have one.” I say this, how dare you. How dare you expect your neighbor to raise their weapons in your defense if you are not willing to do the same for them? Association requires mutual investment, in the spirit, in food, and in security. If you are participating in association, without defending it, you are degrading it.
How This Comes About:
The precise details of how the above described turmoil will materialize are unknown. I see many things and many possibilities that could play out over the course of the next years. I am relatively sure that the election in Nov 2020 will play a pivotal part. A word about that however. I see many Christians who make their President of choice into some form of Christian warrior. If you are basing your ideas of Christianity on the shoulders of any President, I pray you gain more discernment. I am not suggesting you do not or should not pray for the President. Praying for those in authority is needed and is biblical. But you rest your hopes in a false hope by assuming that the President (any President) is somehow spiritually pushing back on the forces of darkness.
No matter who wins the election in November 2020, the stage is already being set to contest the election. If Trump wins the left will yell corruption. If Biden wins, the right will claim voter fraud. All these headlines are plants to make you think that whoever wins, there is illegitimacy in the White House. And the left (predominately in the cities) will riot. And the riots will make what we have seen in June/July of 2020 look pale in comparison. Consider this carefully, the Marxist elements we have discussed in this letter are much less worried which candidate wins the election than they are that this is their time for a revolution in the streets.
My friend points out that this may have many similarities to what happened during the time of troubles in Ireland with the IRA. Certainly Marxism (fueled by the spirit of lawlessness) acts like its own religion, convincing its adherents that what they do, they do for society’s good. This was the reference we draw from Solzhenitsyn. And that turmoil, in the cities, matched with the unsafe conditions for those driving supplies into these urban areas, will freeze all supply lines into those cities. My friend would like to insist I pay close attention to the anti-Christian rhetoric and assaults that will take place in these cities. And while he is not wrong, it should be pointed out, that these attacks from the left will not solely be only Christian targets. There will be fallout, there will be nonbelievers swept up in the mob’s rage. Anyone daring to suggest an alternative to the mob’s mentality, will be a target, and will be cancelled, or worse.
There have been rumors and whispers of civil war in America. I need to tell you, that for the first time in my life, I am genuinely and truly worried about the future of this great nation. Benjamin Franklin once remarked, concerning what type of government the Founders were giving us, he said “A republic, if you can keep it.” For too long, the church has misused, and abused the notion that we were “in the world, not of the world.” We used this phrase, this biblical truth, to imply that we ought not to be caretakers, or stewards over the political reins in this country. And now, we, the descendants of those great Christian men, will preside over its sunset.
Libraries:
The following is my own personal admonition. I take great reflection in Hosea 4:6. If you would heed the warnings in this letter, make provision for adding a library of books for yourselves, your kids, and your neighbors. Aristotle, Locke, Rousseau, de Tocqueville, Burke, Aquinas, Augustine, Plato, Shakespeare, Cicero, The Federalist Letters, Machiavelli, C. S. Lewis, and others. Yes, make sure you get your biblical libraries in order; a concordance, a Vine’s, an interlinear, multiple translations (heavy emphasis on word for word literal), but do not neglect the above philosophers and political thinkers. Of personal note, also make time to read Solzhenitsyn and Dostoevsky. In the coming days it will be important to be the primary educator for your families and your children. As I begin to walk into the teaching profession, let me adjure you…. Education is more than simply making a more hire-able employee. This, however, is how we currently look at education. Even our education system is steeped in the notion that materialism (monetary success) is the primary validation for being educated. Part (a large part) of why we have allowed our great nation to fade into its sunset years, is because we have abandoned virtue as the essential part of education for the next generation. Education must be first and foremost about preserving and cultivating that which makes each of us, a human being, and made in the image and likeness of our Creator. Knowledge is key. Cultivate the gifts of the Spirit, and do not neglect the part the brain plays in the Body.

In Christ,

Your Friends and Neighbors

Friday, May 6, 2016

Dear Libertarians:

Dear ‪#‎Libertarians‬:

‪#‎Libertarianism‬ has a real opportunity right now. And it should not be taken lightly. With Ted Cruz dropping out of the presidential race, more and more people feel disenfranchised by the GOP and the corrupt 2 party system that has for too long held power in close to complete control. Many people have turned to looking into libertarianism as a way to voice opposition to the nonchoice of Hillary ‪#‎Clinton‬ or Donald ‪#‎Trump‬. ‪#‎Google‬ has stated searches for “‪#‎libertarian‬” have doubled since the Ted Cruz suspension. This offers a unique opportunity to those that want to truly grow the libertarian party and make it a viable alternative.

But there is also an inherent danger in this opportunity as well. Anytime someone who is trying to learn more about liberty, more about libertarian policy comes here to ask questions, gain knowledge, what ends up happening is that inevitably someone comes to the conclusion that since the person asking questions is not lining up with 100% of what libertarians believe (at least in the minds of those individuals) the one asking questions is labelled a STATIST, or a neocon. Libertarians… you are your own worst enemy.

“Directional Libertarians”: Those of you/us that want liberty… and will take whatever ground we can get so long as it advances that cause. I would group people like Michael Munger, Matt Kibbe, Andrew Napolitano, Rand Paul, Justin Amash, and others into this group. No bill is perfect, but so long as it moves us in the right direction (that being liberty) we can sign onto it… and then keep fighting for the ground yet to be won.

“Destination Libertarians”: Those of you that want liberty, and it’s an all or nothing deal. Everything is a poison pill to destination libertarians. As soon as someone voices any objection or question, or comment that doesn’t line up with your view of what liberty is…. You label that person and demonize them…. You squelch any kind of rational debate that could lead to big gains for the progress of liberty.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGmGi2-9x78

Please thoughtfully consider what the future COULD hold for libertarians if the opportunity to grow the party is not ruined by SHOOTING the people that come to learn more about it…..

Thursday, May 5, 2016

Dear Liberals

Dear ‪#‎Liberals‬.... (and I cannot believe I have to say this)... as someone who is ‪#‎NeverTrump‬ I feel like I need to address WHY you will lose to Trump if you keep on the way you are....
You have so overused the words ‪#‎RACIST‬, ‪#‎BIGOT‬, ‪#‎HOMOPHOBE‬ that they have literally lost their meaning in today's colloquial language. You have tossed the accusations around as a way to silence your opposition. Guess what? We on the right have not been duped by your tactics.... but guess what else?...
To those that will likely vote for ‪#‎Trump‬ (again, I am #NeverTrump) every single time you drop a "racist, bigot, homophobe" accusation you will only INCREASE the fervor of Trump's supporters. They see you as bullies, and so they will wear those accusations like a badge of honor. Everytime you call Trump one of these words, you only INCREASE his popularity.
But this is all you have left isnt it? You are so used to railing accusations against those who disagree with you that you have forgotten how to ‪#‎DEBATE‬ on the issues! You look at me, and my belief that government in its current form, oppresses more than it liberates, and you don't weigh your own argument... you call me a racist. You call people like the Reverend C L Bryant a sellout. Well guess what?
Now you have Trump.... which is immune to your accusations. (just like a disease builds up a tolerance to antibiotics.... Trump is the strain that is resistant to political correctness.) So go ahead... you created this monster (and yes, he is a monster). You created it.... now you get to deal with it. So keep on throwing out words like Racist... Bigot, Homophobe..... you are only increasing the chances of hearing Donald take the oath of office.....
But since you are likely about to nominate Hillary (who should be in jail not running for office) I doubt you will heed my advice.....
Why do I bring this up? Because while I cannot and will not bring myself to vote for Hillary, I at least will not worry that she might nuke Belgium while having a TrumperTantrum. She is a sellout, but at least she is not mentally imbalanced...

Tuesday, May 3, 2016

Shattered Beliefs

Can I admit something? The reelection of Barack Obama in 2012 shattered my conception of the "rational voter"... Up to then, I honestly saw the best in people, that the assumption was a sane one, in that a typical voter would act in a rational way (regardless of who they voted for)

But it is this election cycle that is shaking me even further. 2012 shattered my conception of a rational voter. But 2016 is shattering my conception of a mentally sane voter... We are literally looking at symptoms of mental illness from one candidate.... where he spews nothing but empty rhetoric into the air, capturing nothing more than the emotional frustration of (and I hate to use this word), the masses.
We are spinning towards the premise of the movie "Idiocracy". We seem to be slamming on the gas, and the brake has long been grinded to nothing.... 

In the 1910's the world proclaimed that we had reached an age of enlightenment.... that war was a thing of the past, and that we had evolved past such things..... then in 1914 WWI started.
We have learned nothing since then. We have assumed that since we have all this technology, that we don't need to critically think anymore. We have told ourselves that politics is not important enough to concern ourselves with.

Well you damned well better be concerned by it! Politics affects everything you do in life. Your taxes, your private property, your investments, your ability to shop somewhere you choose to. Your individual rights, liberties, and freedoms (they are all distinct).

In the rush to turn towards other things, in the desire to relegate politics to something we only give cursory awareness to every 4-8 years, your very identity has been stripped from you.

We now have 4 people running for President. One openly advocates war crimes.... is by all accounts an egomaniac, and at BEST should be deemed an opportunist. Another will say just about ANYTHING in order to convince you to vote for her. Still another is truthful about his desires to wed government to business..... making every sector of our lives, in one way or another, under the control of government. And a fourth, who is so demonized that all the other three have said just about anything in order to make him look like a liar, a zealot, a theocrat, a statist, a snake oil salesman, a misogynist, and whatever else you can come up with.....

Im not trying to get you to vote for the person I vote for...... I just want people to REASON and critically THINK about more than what slutty outfit the Kardashians are wearing right now.... Be more concerned with your RIGHTS, than you are about your LICENSE. For God's sake, WAKE THE FUCK UP!

Sunday, October 11, 2015

Our current State of Law Enforcement

This may come as a shock to a lot of my fellow conservatives.... (and thats okay, I piss off people on the right (hopefully) as much as I piss off people on the left.) That being said:
I do not side (automatically) with law enforcement (just because they are law enforcement.)
 
Why you may ask?

For the same reason I don't automatically trust government. (the people that run government (and law enforcement) are corruptible people.... This is to say they CAN be corrupt. (Only Jesus was perfect.)

It is easy to demonize the police. It is equally easy to demonize the general public and label them (thugs, criminals, etc). We have in this country the presumption of innocence. Unfortunately, many people (and many cops) have forgotten this. This is not only important when it comes to those (thugs, criminals, etc).... it is the PRINCIPLE of the matter. It is important when dealing with thugs, criminals, etc BECAUSE it is important when it comes to the single mother who is assaulted in her own home, stripped naked and handcuffed in front of her own daughter.... yet NOT told why she was being arrested (when in fact the cops entered her house WITHOUT a warrant or probable cause (she had just gotten out of the shower.)

It is important that Freddie Grey retain the presumption of innocence, BECAUSE it is equally important for Cindy Hahn a mother who asked a cop a question, called to complain about the officer, the SAME officer minutes later pulled her over and harassed her, leading to her detainment.

We as a society must get back to principles. If it is wrong to do X when its one person... it should be wrong to do X when it's a different person.

Sadly, when it comes to issues like the Rule of Law, (most) cops are woefully ignorant of the law themselves. This has become apparent when the issue of recording/video taping police comes up.

Cops (like normal people) usually do not like being challenged on the issue of their supposed authority. But as pressing as this video shows the abuse of probable cause to be, take a look at how these cops (in Northern Florida) are dressed, and the vehicle they are patrolling the streets in.

 The truly sad part? We cannot even have the CONVERSATION about how some people should not be cops..... Check out this video, a man, in his own driveway, holding a camera, when a cop stops, and TERRORIZES this man for videotaping him. Ask yourself, should ANYONE step out of a vehicle and pull out their sidearm in this manner? What this cop did was an act of terrorism. (I do not throw that word out lightly.) Put yourself in this homeowners shoes....

What happens when you can be arrested for resisting arrest?
What happens when cops have no fear of openly killing a citizen?
How many cops does it take to shoot a man confined to a wheelchair who DIDN'T have a gun?
What recourse do you have, when cops can illegally search your property, without a warrant, and in doing so, shoot and kill, your family dog?

If we cannot be real, and identify that our CURRENT law enforcement is GROSSLY abusive of their authority, and ILL equipped and POORLY trained.... what hope do we have?

As Andrew Napolitano has been quoted, "It is dangerous to be right, when the government is wrong"...

Some of you might say, these are isolated incidents..... that I cherry pick the bad examples.
I do. I admit it. I cherry pick the bad examples JUST LIKE some will cherry pick examples of GOOD cops. Go take a look at other examples of bad cops.... and tell me if it as isolated as you claim... 






Friday, May 1, 2015

The Muslim Brotherhood






The Fractured Faces of the Muslim Brotherhood:
Double Identity, Single Vision







Robert Wilson
Eastern New Mexico University
May 1, 2015 




       With possible exception, no other group in the Middle East has garnered more attention in the last few years than the Ikhwan, or the Muslim Brotherhood. The Brotherhood has long been the focus of both Egyptian government crackdowns, planning multiple political assassinations, as well as having been empowered as an Egyptian political party. While the Brotherhood has gained immeasurable support from around the globe, they have also alienated just as many, if not more, through tactics and goals that at times are hard to nail down.
       Today the Muslim Brotherhood is seen by some to be a moderate secular organization, whose political ends, although heavily advocating Islamic “Sharia Law,” are also largely peaceful, while others view the Brotherhood as a terrorist organization, whose ideology has made way for the creation of various hardline Islamic groups (i.e. Hamas, ISIS, Al-Qaeda, and Islamic Jihad.) How can one group convey both a moderate secular political motivation, while at the same time be seen as a group that in many ways is the father of modern terrorism? According to Mamoud Fandy, an Egyptian born American scholar and expert on the Muslim Brotherhood, “The Muslim Brotherhood had twin strategies, the first strategy is its public face, which is a political organization, with charitable organizations. But the core of the organization and the master plan of the organization is a sense of world domination. Their ambition is limitless.” 
       This paper will take an in-depth look at the history and ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood and will attempt to answer many questions as to the many faces of the organization, as well as broaden the scope of just what the Muslim Brotherhood’s goals are, not only in Egypt, but across the Middle East, reaching as far as, but not limited to, urban areas of the United States.
This research paper will be divided up into four main parts. Parts one and two will take an in-depth look at a different Muslim Brotherhood leader(s), and will extrapolate their ideology based on both their writings and their actions while in leadership roles with the Brotherhood. The first section of this paper will look at Hassan al-Banna, the founder and first “guide” within the Brotherhood, his motivation in forming the group, as well as his goals for what he wanted to see in the future. From there, this paper will move to the (supposed) split that happened within the Brotherhood after al-Banna’s assassination in 1952. On the one side of the Brotherhood, under the guidance of Hasan al-Hudaybi, the group appeared to attempt to make inroads with the Egyptian government in the hopes of working with the secular Egyptian government. On the other side, the Brotherhood turned more violent and radical under the leadership of Sayyid Qutb, commonly known as the “father of modern Islamic fundamentalism.” The concluding segment of this paper will cover the Brotherhood in contemporary terms, and will attempt to make sense of the seemingly fractured image of the multi-faceted organization.

Section I: The Founding and Hassan al-Banna

       “You should yearn for an honourable death and you will gain perfect happiness. May Allah grant myself and yours the honour of martyrdom in His way!” -Imam Shaheed Hasan Al-Banna

       Founded in 1928, the Muslim Brotherhood (Ikhwan, hereafter referred to as the Muslim Brotherhood or the Brotherhood) was the idea and creation of an Egyptian schoolteacher named Hassan Al-Banna. At its founding the Muslim Brotherhood was likened to a youth club, a place where members would preach to any who would listen about the need to reform Muslim society away from the non-Muslim West and return to a more Islamic focused revivalism. Soon after its inception the Brotherhood expanded and Al-Banna shifted the organization’s focus onto the restoration of a Muslim Caliphate. Al-Banna created the credo for the Brotherhood, “God is our objective, the Koran is our Constitution, the Prophet is our leader, struggle [jihad] is our way, and death for the sake of God is the highest of our aspirations.”
       While Al-Banna, reportedly, gravitated towards a more extremist and xenophobic form of Islam from an early age, the Muslim Brotherhood did not move to a more violent front until the “Great Arab Revolt” in 1936-1939 (though there is evidence to suggest that Al-Banna “was directly involved in the organization of the 1929 riots which destroyed the 3,000-year-old Jewish community of Hebron.” ) During this time, a Muslim Brotherhood leader, Hajj Amin al-Husseini, incited his followers to a three year war against the Jews in Palestine (modern day Israel.)
       While the Brotherhood had approximately 800 members in 1936, its ranks swelled during the Revolt to an estimated 200,000 in 1938, with more than fifty branches in Egypt alone. Soon after the Brotherhood began developing a network of underground cells, acquired weapons (many stolen), trained fighters, created sleeper cells that infiltrated the ranks of the Egyptian government and military, and then waited. One notable characteristic about Al-Banna was his affinity and admiration for Adolf Hitler and the German Reich. These two organization shared quite a bit in common, including subordination to a central power, a focused aggression towards the Jewish people, and an anti-nationalistic belief. While both organizations were focused on global dominance and racial supremacy, the commonalities allowed the two parties to form at first practical interactions, and later on a full-fledged alliance. Al-Banna had written to Hitler on more than one occasion requesting assistance in fighting the British in Egypt and what he believed was a westernized regime in Egypt’s King Farouk.
       During this time the Brotherhood utilized its own internal intelligence agency in order to provide the Nazi’s with information on members of the regime in Cairo, as well as British troop movements. While Al-Banna believed in the supremacy of Islam and desired a global Caliphate, one could argue that he saw an alliance with the German Nazi party as a means to an end, one that would allow the destruction of a common enemy (the Jewish people) while at the same time push back on “Western” powers in the Middle East (and the British occupation of Egypt.) In 1948, when the United Nations took up the issue of Palestine and the formation of a Jewish State, both Al-Banna and Amin al-Husseini urged the unification of the Arab world against what they saw as “Jewish world conspiracy.” 
       One interesting and often confusing aspect to the Brotherhood was the British partnership and financing of the organization (which was heavily aligned with the Nazi party and Hitler) beginning in the early 1940’s. According to Mark Curtis, “The first known direct contact between British officials and the Brotherhood came in 1941, at a time when British intelligence regarded the organization’s mass following and sabotage plans against the British as ‘the most serious danger to public security’ in Egypt.”  Why then did the British meet with, negotiate with, and begin financing the Brotherhood starting in 1942? According to Curtis, the British government felt that the Brotherhood was dangerous but had weak leadership and tried to find ways to divide the group from the inside. 
“Thus, by the end of the Second World War, Britain already had considerable experience of colluding with Muslim forces to achieve certain objectives, while officials also realized that these same forces were generally opposed to British imperial policy and strategic objectives: they were temporary, ad hoc collaborators to achieve specific goals when Britain lacked other allies or sufficient power of its own to impose its priorities.” 
       While this strategy was employed by the British, it seems logical that al-Banna saw the usefulness in allowing the Brotherhood’s enemies (the British) to fund and support them while the Brotherhood progressed towards its own goals. This is where we potentially see the first double identity within the Brotherhood. The Brotherhood, aligned with Hitler and the Nazi’s, was funded by an Allied power, but could turn its own militarized wing on the British when convenient. In the last 1940’s al-Banna reportedly lost control of “al-Nizam al-Khass” (the Secret Apparatus), which was the militarized arm of the Brotherhood.  This came during an increasing anarchic political environment. While the Brotherhood had been passing information to the Egyptian government on the growing influence of communism (names, etc) in the area, it is doubtful that the dual identity the Brotherhood had between the rank and file members, and the British occupiers, had nothing to do with al-Banna’s power struggle with the secret apparatus.
       In 1948, Egyptian Prime Minister Mahmoud an-Nukrashi Pasha disbanded the Brotherhood at the national level, seizing the organization’s assets, while arresting and incarcerating many of its members. Pasha had been concerned that the Brotherhood (according to rumors) had been plotting to overthrow the Egyptian government, and worried by the Brotherhood’s rising influence and popularity. Less than three weeks later, Pasha had been assassinated by a member of the Brotherhood.  Interestingly, it was Pasha that acted as a liaison between the Muslim Brotherhood and the British government in 1942. Less than two months after the assassination of Pasha, Hasan al-Banna was shot and killed in a crowded Egyptian marketplace (speculation points to an Egyptian government agent.) Al-Banna died February 12, 1949.
Al-Banna’s ideology would continue (and evolve) through two others that would take his place at the head of the Brotherhood. In many ways, these two leaders encapsulate al-Banna’s double identity single vision focus.

Section II: Sayyid Qutb and Hassan al-Hudaybi

       The years following the assassination of al-Banna also ushered in a time of persecution for the Brotherhood under the new President of Egypt, Gamal Nasser, who had seized power from King Farouk in 1954. During this time, the Brotherhood elected a new general guide, Hassan al-Hudaybi. Hudaybi was not known as a violent proponent of terrorism. Hudaybi was a long-time friend of Hasan al-Banna, though much of his time as al-Banna’s personal advisor has been secretive. It is interesting to note that while Hudaybi was elected to lead the Muslim Brotherhood (as a general guide), he never truly gained control of the organization (this will become important as the apparent theological differences between Hudaybi and Qutb is explored.) Hudaybi believed that in order to achieve their goal of an Islamic state, it would be best to work with the Egyptian government instead of being at odds with it. Hudaybi (some would attest to inaction) created an ideological gap in the Brotherhood however.
       “Given the Brotherhood's desolate situation at the beginning of the mihna [test.persecution], it is not surprising that a stringent ideology was absent. Al-Hudaybi left hardly any guidelines that Brothers could hold onto in this situation. The few official addresses and rasd'il (statements) he issued between 1951 and 1954 made explicit references to political developments of years of relative collaboration with the regime. They did not provide any long-term strategies, policies, or spiritual advice”
       Hudaybi’s actions (or inactions) as a leader quickly gave rise for the Brotherhood to look elsewhere for a moral compass. The organization found this in Sayyid Qutb. Qutb was an Egyptian teacher who studied in the United States in-between 1948-1950. During his time in the U.S. he wrote about a growing disgust with what he perceived was American materialism. “How much do I need someone to talk to about topics other than money, movie stars and car models,”  he wrote to an Egyptian friend. He also said “Nobody goes to church as often as Americans do. . . . Yet no one is as distant as they are from the spiritual aspect of religion.”  In this, Qutb came to the conclusion that “I am afraid that there is no correlation between the greatness of the American material civilization and the men who created it. . . . In both feeling and conduct the American is primitive (bida’a).”
Upon his return to Egypt he quickly gained influence in the Brotherhood and would become the organization’s chief theological writer and was placed in charge of the Brotherhood’s propaganda section.  This gave Qutb a spring board from which he could easily disseminate his material and teachings. Some would argue that he was propelled into power within the Brotherhood because of the growing political and religious changes that the organization found themselves in while many of their leaders were incarcerated in Nasser’s prisons. According to Zollner, “one of the Brotherhood's most famous propagandists, 'Abd al-Qadir 'Awda, reemphasized that it is a religious duty to actively oppose state control if its leadership is not subscribing to sharia (Islamic law).”  For many in the Brotherhood this meant a direct conflict with Hudaybi’s notions of trying to affect change from within the secular system.
       While Qutb (and the Brotherhood) were in favor of Gamal Nasser’s coup against the Western aligned King Farouk, the relationship soured quickly as it became obvious that Nasser was implementing a secular nationalist government where Qutb wanted a strict Islamic Sharia based rule. Sources say that Qutb would host Nasser at his house, sometimes for 12 hours a day while they discussed what Egypt should look like in a post-monarchial age. What Qutb did not know however was that Nasser was using Qutb. While Nasser would meet with Qutb he also had his “Free Officers” work towards setting up an organization called “Tahreer” (Arabic for freedom.) When Qutb discovered this plot he distanced himself from Nasser and realized that Nasser was implementing a secular government. While Nasser attempted to bribe Qutb with any governmental position he wanted (excluding its kingship), Qutb rejected every offer. Soon after, Qutb and the Brotherhood began planning an assassination attempt on Nasser.
       Nasser quickly cracked down on the Brotherhood and jailed many of its members and some leaders, including Qutb. While Hudaybi served as the official guide for the Brotherhood (a position that members in the Brotherhood emphasis was never taken away), the organization asked Qutb to act as their spiritual guide.  Qutb used Organization 1965 (which was a core group of Brotherhood members who had either escaped prison under Nasser, or had been released from prison) in order to set up an educational agenda. With this in place, Qutb began disseminating his own writings to the Brotherhood. This is one place where the apparent separateness of Hudaybi and Qutb is interesting. Many sources assert that while Hudaybi never stepped down as general guide for the Brotherhood , he was in fact consulted about the direction that Qutb was taking the organization and the formation of Organization 1965. While some would argue that such a consultation does not necessarily mean approval, what is apparent was that Hudaybi chose to stay in the background during this time, and did not object to Abd al-Fattah as the group’s (Organization 1965) operational head. While some may assert that Hudaybi was not aware of such changes in the Brotherhood, Qutb’s ideological positions were no secret. It stands to reason that Hudaybi knew, and chose to abdicate the Brotherhood’s direction to Qutb. 
       Qutb was released from prison in 1964, but was rearrested eight months later on charges that he was plotting to overthrow the state. Given what some would consider to be a show trial, he was hung along with other leaders of the Brotherhood on August 29, 1966.
       Qutb’s theological stances and political positions were expressed in his writings, among which was his book “Milestones.” Qutb believed deeply that man should not be enslaved to another man, and he viewed government as a system by which men are subjugated to the will of others, which he considered to be “un-Islamic.”  Rather, Qutb expressed a political belief much in line with that of modern day anarchists. That instead of rule by a pious few (whether it be elected or a dictatorship,) men should rather voluntarily chose servitude to Allah. Such an enslavement was to put a man on the same level as god and thus was in violation of god’s sovereignty. In order to bring about this freedom from man to servitude to god, Qutb believed that in order to fight Jahiliyyah (ignorance of god’s sovereignty) a two-fold approach must be used. This included preaching in order to enlighten, and the abolishment of obstacles by “physical power and jihad.”  At his core Qutb believed that Islam and jihad were not meant to be defensive, but rather strictly offensive concepts.
       After Qutb’s death, there was once again an ideological vacuum within the Brotherhood. In seeking to capitalize on this vacuum, those close to Hudaybi began internal investigations into some Brothers who were a part of Qutb’s Organization 1965. The Brotherhood went through quite a bit of internal debate during this time as many of those jailed (old generation brother who ascribed more to Hudaybi, and Organization 1965 members who were very close to Qutb) under Nasser’s second wave of persecution were incarcerated in the same areas.
       A split became apparent between two opposing points of view. A radical faction, which was internally known as al-Qutbiyyun (the Qutbists), because they claimed to follow Sayyid Qutb's line of thought, stood in clear opposition to the old leadership guard, still with al-Hudaybi as the head. Proponents of this radical faction, among them Mustafa Shukri, effectively broke away from the Brotherhood and, from that point on, refused any association with their former Brothers. A significant number of Brothers appeared undecided. At stake in their decision was not only which account of second-wave persecution events they should trust, but also ultimately whether they should pledge allegiance to al-Hudaybi. A further issue was whether the future direction of the Brotherhood should rest on a radical activist ideology or on some form of conciliation with a regime that was essentially still seen as illegitimate.
       During this period, Hudaybi was also imprisoned under Nasser’s crackdown. While the debate separated the two factions, Hudaybi came out distancing himself from Qutbian’s Organization 1965.  While the Qutbians insisted that they were the true heirs of his (Qutb) legacy, they resisted Hudaybi’s call towards a conciliatory approach. Hudaybi targeted those brothers who were yet undecided between the two factions. While in prison Hudaybi finally finished Du'at la Qudat in February of 1969, which many deemed his answer and refutation towards Qutbian thought. Although not published until after his death in 1977, Du'at la Qudat emphasized preaching but not judging. Whereas Qutb believed that it was appropriate to implement takfir (the practice of declaring a Muslim a non-Muslim, effectively excommunicating them) Hudaybi resisted this push in his writings. Du'at la Qudat effectively criticized radical activism in three ways. These selected points are clear contradictions to three central concepts of radical interpretations (in Qutbianism), namely politicized takfir (charge of unbelief), the persistence of jahiliyyah into modern time, and hakimiyyat Allah (God's "absolute" sovereignty.)  What is interesting to note is that even though Hudaybi seems to contradict core principles of Qutbian doctrine, Du'at la Qudat does not actually mention Sayyid Qutb. Even more interesting are some of the questions raised by the work Du'at la Qudat. For instance, many scholars actually suspect that the book was not authored by Hudaybi at all. Regardless of its ultimate authorship Zollner concludes that
       “Evidently responding to the Qutbists, Du'at la Qudat is the product of an effort by the Brotherhood's leadership to regain control over the membership body. While the internal conflict reached its height, the 1967 war broke out. Brothers then faced the immediate question of whether to support the regime in the event of an external threat. Arguing that Nasser's regime was guilty of apostasy and was therefore the prime enemy, Qutbists took the position that the state system had to be opposed by any means. The war, and the devastating losses of the Egyptian army, brought to the fore the long overdue discussion on principles, objectives, and strategy. Ducat la Qudat was the long overdue directive on the guidance of the organization and suggested a conciliatory alternative to the vision of Qutbists. As its content and aim are not immediately directed against Qutb's work, no mention of him is necessary.


Section III: The Modern Day Brotherhood:

       Backtracking for a moment, one of the questions this paper has sought to elaborate on was the notion of a double identity but single vision for the Brotherhood. While many scholars seem to place the Brotherhoods retention of the Qubtists as an implication of the 1967 war, the pattern that is shown from al-Banna to present day Egypt has shown two faces that seem to be opposed (albeit in name only) to one another. What is not clear, and where many sources differ, is whether or not the split in the Brotherhood (which never actually “split”) was or was not by design. From its formation the Muslim Brotherhood has espoused peace and moderation, while taking part in political assassinations and advocating jihad in an offensive way. Hasan al-Banna allowed British funds and support to come into the Brotherhood coffers, yet sided with and aligned itself with Hitler and the Nazi party . The “Secret Apparatus” which largely operated as an autonomous entity, yet always at the ready for the mainstream Brotherhood. The Brotherhood, largely split by very different ideologies, yet one moderate leader abdicates his role and could be seen as merely a puppet-head. Even in present day terms, the Brotherhood has opened community hospitals all around Cairo and meets with American leaders at the White House , yet calls for more violence and more resistance amidst the Egyptian military trying to restore order to a politically unstable nation.  How can these two faces both be true? Are they two separate entities? Or have they continued something that Hasan al-Banna adopted with the British?
       What has the Muslim Brotherhood produced through this strategy? According to Ecaterina Matoi, Hamas (Harakat Al-Muquwama Al-Islamyya) (a terrorist organization as identified and designated by the United States Government) started as the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood.  Osama bin-Laden was identified through Ayman Al-Zawahiri as a member of the Muslim Brotherhood.  In 2006 Rajab Hilal Hamida, a Muslim Brotherhood member serving in Egypt's parliament said, "From my point of view, bin Ladin, al-Zawahiri and [the late radical Islamist] al-Zarqawi are not terrorists in the sense accepted by some. I support all their activities, since they are a thorn in the side of the Americans and the Zionists."
       To know where the Brotherhood’s ideology is now, simply listen to what they have said. Today’s image for the Muslim Brotherhood is a hand where the fingers have been replaced by AK-47 rifles.
According to Dr. Tawfik Hamid one of the ideologies of the Muslim Brotherhood was to use a non-Islamic idea against non-Muslims. He explains that,
       “Somewhere in the “middle” was the Muslim Brotherhood. Their flag illustrates their philosophy. It depicts two swords and beneath them, the Arabic word Wa-Aiidu (“prepare”), based on the following verse:
       Prepare for them (the Infidels) whatever military power you have, so that you insert fear in the hearts of the enemies of Allah.   {Quran 8:60}
       They sought to infiltrate politics on the grassroots level and then use democracy to end democracy. 

       This statement holds the key to understanding the ideology and roadmap with which groups like the Muslim Brotherhood and many groups inspired or started by the Brotherhood will employ in order to see their vision fulfilled. Some have been duped into thinking that the Muslim Brotherhood is a secular moderate non-violent group whose aim is to bring stability, peace, and rights to its members. This has been brought about by the fact that many of the radical elements of “radical Islamic fundamentalism” have condemned the Brotherhood for its views on allowing its members to vote in state elections, and advocating working within the system to affect change. However, while contemporary reports are showing that radical elements and starting to fight each other (ISIS and the Taliban) it should be noted that these groups represent different factions of Islam. ISIS is a Sunni group, whereas the Taliban is a Shia group. No such declaration of hostility exists between the Muslim Brotherhood and the other radical Sunni elements (ISIS, Al-Qaeda, Islamic Jihad, Hamas, Al-Nusra Front, Boko Haram.)
       The author of this paper once held the thought that the Brotherhood was what their public face portrays. Truth be told, at the beginning of this research project it was the opinion of this author that the Brotherhood was caught in an internal struggle between a moderate majority, and a radical minority who wanted to distort the central theme of the Brotherhood. But once the research is looked through, and once the history of the organization comes out, its double natured but single destination focus cannot be overlooked. It is like a driveshaft that has two different sized gears attached to it. The driveshaft powers both gears, but the speed at which they move is different. In the same way, the Muslim Brotherhood has one destination (Islamic Sharia Law), using two speeds (moderation and radicalism,) and one engine (the Qur’an) to get there.



Bibliography
Curtis, Mark. Secret Affairs: Britain’s Collusion with Radical Islam. Serpent's Tail. 2010.
Fandy, Mamoud, interview by Investigative Project on Terrorism. A Brief History of the Muslim               Brotherhood 2012.
Isseroff, Ami. "Sayyid Qutb." Encyclopedia of the Middle East. 2008.
Matoi, Ecaterina. Academia.edu. May 23-25. 2013. Accessed May 1, 2015.
       http://www.academia.edu/3523995/_The_origins_of_Hamas_An_offshoot_of_Muslim_Brotherhood_or_a_result_of_the_PLO_s_moral_corruption_.
Meir-Levi, David. "“The Nazi Roots of Palestinian Nationalism and Islamic Jihad,”." Discover The        Networks. 2007. Accessed April 2015.
Qutb, Sayyid. Milestones. Maktabah Publishers. 2007.
Spencer, Robert. Front Page Mag. December 18. 2009. Accessed May 1, 2015.                                    http://www.frontpagemag.com/2009/robert-spencer/sayyid-qutb-and-the-virginia-five-by-robert-spencer/.
TV, Memri. Eman Nabih. September 27. 2012.
Zollner, Barbara. "Prison Talk; The Muslim Brotherhood's Internal Struggle during Gamal Abdel Nasser's Persecution. 1954-1971." International Journal of Middle East Studies 2007. 411-433.