The Non-Intelligent Response
Or, the Salvation of the West
by Phanarath
The West has become a very civilized place.
We have become used to dealing with people of reason and good morals. So even when we have enemies we tend to look for something good in them, something they would like to happen, something that would make it worth their while to make peace with us. We think that a reasonable deal can usually make things better for everyone involved.
And this is because we are clever and civilized. We don’t run around attacking people for no other reason than that they are unknown to us. We try to talk to them, thinking that a common understanding will benefit all parties. However, we didn’t arrive at this way of doing things in a peaceful manner. We had to fight many wars and share many stories with our former enemies before these ideas dawned open us.
Now all that is behind us, and we are civilized. We are a peaceful and happy people. People who get unhappy can go to a doctor and get it fixed. We are the last people, as Friedrich Nietzsche predicted in Also Sprach Zarathustra (1885), those who blink with their eyes and claim to have invented happiness.However, we seem to fall somewhat short when dealing with Muslims. It seems that all the resources and the justifications tend to fall their way.
But when empires were still around there was another way of dealing with things. From the Romans to the Nazis (in eastern Europe and Russia) it was the custom to execute a number of civilians whenever a soldier was killed by what might be a fraction of the local population. The British empire had the same way of dealing with such things. If a British soldier was killed ten or a hundred would be swinging on the gallows indiscriminately the next day.
Today we know that this kind of punishment is immoral and unjust. But back then people counted on it. And it became the natural order of things. So when the Romans, the Brits, or the Nazis killed off a village, people would tend to blame those that had made them angry.
I would love to be a “good” person. But at the same time I have come to understand that morals are no good if they don’t do any good.
When we try to respond intelligently to the threats the Western world is faced with today, we ignore the fact that we are dealing with barbarians. Any of the old empires would have done a lot better then us. The danger we face is Muslims, and they are not as civilized as we would like them to be. They have no self-interest that we can try to understand, not as a group anyway.
The intelligent response will not work. It will only be exploited.
- - - - - - - - - -
The US is sometimes accused of being imperial, and so is the rest of the West for that matter. But look at what the Headquarters United States Marine Corps has to say about the purpose of the US Marines (pdf format):
Today’s Marines operate within a continuum of force where conflict may change from low intensity to high intensity over a matter of hours. Marines are also engaged in many military operations other than war, such as peacekeeping missions or noncombatant evacuation operations, where deadly force may not be authorized. During noncombative engagements, Marines must determine if a situation warrants applying deadly force. Sometimes Marines must decide in a matter of seconds because their lives or the lives of others depend on their actions. To make the right decision, Marines must understand both the lethal and nonlethal close combat techniques needed to handle the situation responsibly without escalating the violence unnecessarily.
It sounds very reasonable. But does it sound like the soldiers of an empire? No way, not by a long shot.
Soldiers of an empire would be expected to kill any commoner who looked at them in a wrong way. They would only be held responsible if they happened to kill someone “important”. The USA is not behaving anywhere near the way an empire would. So basically the US especially, and the West in general, is getting all the blame for being an empire without getting any of the benefits, and it is not working very well for us.
What will work is a predictable response to any Muslim offense, and the response must be repeated every time the offense happens. And I suppose that the time for killing innocent people is past.
But there are other ways. Imagine if European countries started to expel ten Muslims every time Muslims raped or killed a European. Just ten random Muslims sent to the Middle East. After a while even Muslim communities might start to speak out against killing and raping infidels. And even if this isn’t possible, we could subtract ten Muslims from the people allowed to enter the country — the important thing would be that the rapist or the killer knows now that ten of his brothers can’t get in because of what he did. And everyone knows that this is an automatic response.
Imagine that Israel, every time there was an attack by Palestinians, simply went in to the Palestinian areas and pushed people out of a piece of land, put up fences and incorporated the territory into Israel, naming it after the dead Israeli. Everyone would whine for a while, but after this has been done a few times, people will start to see it as the natural order of things. And Palestinians would start blaming the terrorist for the loss of land.
If a rocket is fired from a school area, and the school is important for the local community, the Israelis can say that they are very sorry to take it over, and that they know how important it is to people and that they wish there were another way around this, but the rules are the rules, so we are really sorry and we hope you can get by. The important thing is to do exactly the same every time no matter what. Always the same response.
So, in summary, I think that a non-intelligent or automatic response is what can save us.
I understand, of course, that this is very far from what is possible at the moment politically. But things may change faster then we would like.
17 comments:
Excellent idea!
Let's also point out a muslem-committee that has to pick the ones having to be extradited. That will bring it home to them that a nasty thing is happening to them and that the actions of some reflect on their whole community; something they seem to have trouble understanding
Phanarath:
There you go, making good common sense again. A some fine suggestions they are. Several of your proposals are first rate, like the notion of throwing out ten muslims every time one of them rapes an infidel. And 'fire a rocket --- lose your land': that's a good one. Kudos to you for that one.
Let us view this as an experiment for the time being, and thereby keep our sense of humor and pleasant attitude.
Let us assume our enlightened and tolerant liberal leaders in Canada, the US, and in western Europe are correct. Let us assume the waves of muslim immigrants will finally recognize and accept our repeated gestures of acceptance, tolerance and accommodation by becoming good people and assimilating into our societies.
Let us see how the experiment plays out.
I ran my own little experiment when I was younger with a 55 gallon aquarium. The aquarium was home to a variety of interesting and compatible fish. When I learned of the aggressive ciclid fish variety I became interested and introduced pairs to my aquarium. I brought in Convict Ciclids, Jack Dempseys and Firemouth Ciclids who made themselves right at home. They hollowed out their own little turf areas among the rocks and guarded their territory.
I soon became aware that the original gentle fish had congregated and isolated themselves in a small upper corner of the aquarium. They stayed there for fear of their lives. I did not expect this outcome. Silly me.
My theory on this muslim immigrant experient is that you don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out how it will turn out. A child with an aquarium can tell what the outcome will be.
Perhaps liberals don't experiment with their aquariums. Or perhaps they care more about separating incompatible species of fish than they do in protecting their own people. Perhaps.........
I don't agree with your premise that we in the West are "civilized". We have sanitized our barbarism. We call it "termination of pregnancy". Take a look at "late-term abortion" for another definition of "civilized".
If, however, you mean that we are "civilized" because we don't get overly excited about horror anymore then yes, perhaps we are "civilized" after all.
I'm sorry, but I think you're wrong about this one.
Thank for the kind comments. The aquarium analogy is good, I had one myself as a child and have often thought about our problems in "aquarian" terms :-)
Ron, I was going for sarcasm. I don't think cultural suicide is civilised. I was trying to mock the explanations we use to justify our lack of self preservation, while we completely ignore, that common understanding is the foundation of our polite ways of dealing with one another. Then when we are faced with a complete lack of common understanding, we claim that our own civilized behavior can somehow magically make things better, all by it self. And by we, I mean the voices most heard in the west.
I common example is the often said sentence: "We have to be better then them".
No one ever bothers to explain why we have to better then anyone or what good it would do us. Its some kind of Jesus wannabe-syndrome, if you ask me. And its a shameful one at that, since the people who would say such a thing, are usually not the ones getting sacrificed.
Some time ago a somewhat forgotten autor, George Sorel, write a book about this matter, reflexions sur la violence . It is in french but smewhere there must be an english translation.
Pharanah is correct, we act on a to predictible way.
And because that predictible way they take on actions on us that we have forget it can happens.
Take the case of the Danica White. Our predictable comportement says that we wil grundle, make some empty threats, negociate a not very humiliating way of paying this blackmail, maybe less than demanded first but we will pay.
And be prepared to pay next time.
The other solution is send destroyer with a marine platoon to take this ship, try to save the sailors, have all these sea pirates killed and sent an heli to sink some somali boats around that refused to be inspected. Next time they will think twice.
Or the way our eunuchs are going to pay that ranson to kadafy. If he has a doubt that he can get the money or an air stryke maybe this had not happened.
But he nows far to well the kind of jerks we got to govern us.
We must introduce a bit of irrational in our behavour. Maybe we must learn a mob behavor.
When paardestaart says "something they seem to have trouble understanding" he is wrong. I can assure you they will understand quite well.
About the "We have to be better then them". What means "better"? For me it means "We have to be better then them at survival".
I agree with this in principle, but I think it overlooks one major point: Muslims don't think like us. They've embraced the culture of victimhood in ways that nobody else has.
Every action taken against them is "islamophobia". Start expelling them (which the courts would, of course, halt within a matter of minutes), and they'll not only not understand the basic point- that it's retaliation for the actions of their own cohorts- but it will radicalize them even more.
How often do we see or hear of Muslim leaders actually saying "this is about our fellow Muslims attacking innocent people. They're using our religion as a weapon, and it's wrong"? Rarely. More often, they use attacks by fundamentalists as a weapon to gain more "equality", i.e. the right to live under Sharia rather than the laws of the country in which they reside. Or they use it, as was mentioned ages ago in the first GoV post I ever read (I believe it was called "Why we can't rely on moderate muslims") as a way to position themselves as victims.
So while I think there's some merit to this idea, it's not realistic, in any sense of the word.
Phanarath’s assertions about the brutishness of the erstwhile empires and the efficacy thereof are unsupported by history. As Bat Ye’or wrote in “Islam and Dhimmitude: Where Civilizations Collide” (p. 354), “It was Muslim ‘opinion’ in the colonies which had determined the dual policies of cover-up and nonintervention during massacres of Christians and even a genocide of Armenians.” In “The Decline of Eastern Christianity,” (p. 198), Ye’or noted that the Turkish, Arab and Kurdish Muslims who perpetrated the latter in the Ottoman Empire during World War I were “exonerate[d]” due to “the international context and the will of the colonial powers to to follow a policy of appeasement toward their Muslim populations. These powers – Russia, Britain, France, and Italy – ruled over millions of Muslims in the Caucasus, Asia, the Indies, Egypt, the Levant, and the Mahgreb; consequently, they tried to minimize this tragedy.” Moreover, on the eve of World War II Britain cravenly kowtowed to Muslim hatreds by shutting off Jewish immigration to Palestine: “Neville Chamberlain declared, with all the authority of his Premiership, that it was of ‘immense importance’ from the point of view of strategy, ‘to have the Moslem world with us,’ and he added: ‘If we must offend one side, let us offend the Jews rather than the Arabs.’” (Martin Gilbert, “Exile and Return: The Emergence of Jewish Statehood,” cited in Ye’or, “Islam and Dhimmitude,” p. 355.) As to the notion that “when the Romans, the Brits or the Nazis killed off a village, people would tend to blame those that had made them angry,” did this happen when the latter obliterated the Czech town of Lidice after the assassination of Heydrich? Assuredly not. The atrocity became a rallying cry for the Allies and stiffened their resolve to persevere until Germany was overrun. Nor have I noticed the Palestinian Arabs blaming Hamas or Fatah when Israel turns its D-9s on the houses of families of terrorists.
Nostalgia for the days when “Whatever happens, we have got / the Maxim gun, and they have not” or fantasies about plans for reprisal expulsions are not what the Counterjihad needs at this time. What is needed – most desperately – is a thorough and accurate exposure of the jihad dogma of Islam and its inimical effect on the Rights of Man, both throughout history and in the present day – and of the collusion of our governmental, academic, and media elites in Islam’s resistance to such exposure. That and that alone will in due course elicit a truly intelligent response.
I've quoted you and linked to you here: http://consul-at-arms.blogspot.com/2007/07/re-non-intelligent-response-or.html
I say they will understand.
In the Suez crise, when Nasser nacionalized Suez canal and french and british invaded Port Said, the french paratoopers and marines, who where veterans from Indochine and Algerie, took much harsh atitude toward civilians than british and got situation under control until they left.
Paul Green's proposal does not solve the problem. The problem is there is strong muslim population in some europeans countries and, for what I know about Islam, we cannot afford to let them remain there. Thinking that "a thorough and accurate exposure of the jihad dogma of Islam and its inimical effect on the Rights of Man, both throughout history and in the present day – and of the collusion of our governmental, academic, and media elites in Islam’s resistance to such exposure." is just a wisefull thinking that will not affect the masses, the jihadists or muslim elites.
French General Pierre Marie Galois have a site where you can find some french stuff, among that a little study to show that there is a muslim strategy to take Europe throught imigration. I dont believe such an exposure led them to abandom something that took them so much time and money, when the are near to achieve a sucess.
unless my total knowledge of Islam has been misenterpreted, I was under the impression that It was not only a religion but, a way of life. It taught them how to prepare their food when to have sex and when not too, etc etc..It is not just a religion but a way of living. seperate and apart from others. These were poor Bedowin type people with little or no education. This Prophet lifted them up and told them they were great people. Christianity also started that way with many many deviation from what we know today. It was culmanated by Constintine In Constantinoble, present day Istanbul, Turkey in the 4th century when he himself became a Christian. The big Changes throughout History with Christianity, is it did change with time. Islam didn't. I ramble,,,,Good post
This is the link to that article.
Poul Green
I have regretted using the Nazis as an example. The fact that Nazis killed millions just to make more room for Germans, made the strategy of the Romans and the Brits pretty useless for them. Its important also that people can have some trust in, that they will be left in peace when they don't make trouble.
You seem to know more about history then I do. And you say that The Brits and Romans where not as brutal as I describe them to be. But isn't it true that if a soldier was assassinated in a colony, it would be taken out on local civilians ?
If it isn't true, then maybe you can explain what would normally happen in such a situation.
As far as I know, the Brits and Romans where able to control huge areas and populations with many different cultures. And they did it with relatively few troops. The Brits had this taken to the level of the absurd, when a single British officer, could be in charge of several hundred thousand people on the Indian subcontinent.
I would love to hear how you think they did this. I may very well be wrong and I am not a historian. But I think its something we should know about and try to understand and learn from. I mean, they clearly did something right and we are not doing so well today.
Both the British and the Roman Empires created long periods of peace and prosperity. They didn't run amok all over the place being extremely brutal everyday. It was usually enough that people knew about the potential for brutality.
Geraldo.
I agree with your writings. About Danica White and similar situation, I think our first priority should be to punish the pirates. And when Somalia cannot control their territory, that should forfeit their sovereignty. It is absurd that ships cannot follow the pirates into Somali waters when the Somalis themselves do nothing. They are in reality protecting those pirates.
Paying Ransom to pirates, kidnappers or terrorist, should be considered a serious criminal offence since it directly supports very serious problems. Paying ransom to enemy combatants should be considered high treason. We should restore "Pay back time" to its original meaning :-)
Tapline
Thanks
2 Paul Green
I agree with your point. It is useless to cry "why can't we be as terrible as we think we are". There must be some reason for not being what we think we are, because everything has its reason. And it is useless to always blame elites. They are not so much different from ourselves. The have inflated ego, but we all do. And that is the reason why we are powerless against Islam. Islam is perfectly designed for people with inflated ego. And all of them will finally be posessed by Islam. They won't even know how. So, the best one can start with in his struggle against Islam, is to deflate his ego. Don't dream all the time how powerful we are. Don't propose distruction. Just look at yourself and understand how miserable a creature he is.
2 Ypp and Paul Green:
What you said could work if we had not allowed them to settle in growing numbers in our countries and have the clock running against us.
2 Geraldo
I don't mean that's all we should do. But that's what we must start with. Without that, we won't be able to do anything real, only cry and complain.
It seems that it really begins.
It is really funny.
Geraldo,
Cool link. Great site. Immediately bookmarked it. I recommend it to everyone!
Post a Comment