A discussion has emerged here in a couple of threads that touches on the sensitive issue of extreme measures as a response to the Great Jihad. People have strong feelings about this issue, and some see a choice between stark extremes: a harsh, no-holds-barred response on the one hand, and submissive capitulation on the other.Zonka and whiskey_199 exchanged opinions on the issue last night. Whiskey_199 said this:
Zonka — my problem with your comment is that survival not principles are at stake. This is a common confusion among leftists.
SURVIVAL trumps all else.
And Zonka responded:
If survival is all that matters and principles can just be thrown in the dump, then I suggest that we all convert to Islam, and be done with it!
Don’t like that solution? Then what are you fighting for besides your life?
And the real fights haven’t really begun yet, and still a lot of people are calling up the end-game scenarios, where we ditch all principles, ethics, morals, etc. and just go for pure bloodlust… If that is your commitment to freedom and democracy, then it is sad indeed!
I added my own two cents’ worth:
If survival were all that mattered, we’d have surrendered in 1941 (if we’re American) or in 1939 (if we’re British).
If survival were all that mattered, we’d have paid the stamp tax and never said a bad word about King George.
If survival were all that mattered, the plantation owners in Mississippi would have kept their slaves, and the mills in Massachusetts would have continued to receive their cheap cotton.
If survival were all that mattered, no hydrogen bombs would have been built and the Red Army would simply have strolled from the Elbe to the Bay of Biscay.
There are things worth dying for. Human beings have proved that time and time again.
Sometime’s it’s a piece of real estate people die for — Virginia, Schleswig, or Bessarabia.
Sometimes it’s an ideal.
We have our ideals. That what distinguishes us from the enemy.
The big question in this argument is: How many ideals are we willing to let go of in order to win the battle?
If the answer is “all of them”, then there’s no point in fighting in the first place.
This topic deserves further elaboration.
There are two main points mitigating against the “extreme measures” school of thought:
- - - - - - - - -
| 1. | It’s a false dichotomy. Extreme measures and complete surrender are not our only available responses. Even in the most Islamized parts of Europe, other options are still open. It hardly does justice to the situation to describe it as a choice between mass slaughter and saying the shahada. Given the incendiary nature of the topic, taking a deep breath, stepping back, and looking at the other options would seem the best approach. | |
| 2. | It doesn’t apply to our current situation. The basic premise of our war-gaming effort is that we approach the Counterjihad as ordinary citizens, without the capability of controlling or influencing government policy to any significant degree. Our strategic thinking limits us to the weapons at hand, and the moves that are open to us in the near future. Even in the United States, where we are blessed with the Second Amendment, and even in a place like Dearborn, it’s not a realistic option to walk into a Middle Eastern neighborhood and start shooting Muslims. Even if you could justify it morally — which I can’t — it’s not an option that is realistically open to us. So why discuss it? Maybe it provides an adrenalin rush to discuss what’s happening as an actual battlefield scenario, but I don’t see that it serves any useful function. The best strategy is to keep a cool head, be patient, and evaluate our choices both in terms of what is doable and what will have the best effect. |
There are additional reasons for steering the conversation away from such incendiary topics.
We keep this blog at the sufferance of Blogger, which is now a subsidiary of Google. The latter, in its infinite wisdom, has set up mechanisms through which alert readers can report violent, obscene, and hateful blogs, which Google may then choose to close down.
I know that we have lurkers here who are less than sympathetic to our cause, and who would relish the chance to do us harm. These are the people who maliciously subscribe me to lefty mailing lists and report Gates of Vienna to WebSense as a “social networking” site. I’m sure the same folks wouldn’t hesitate to turn us in to Blogger for violating our terms of agreement.
I value the free flow of ideas in the comments as much as you do. But I don’t know exactly what the limits are, and I don’t want to find out by having our blog pulled out from under us.
Please exercise discretion, tact, and indirection. If you must broach sensitive topics, consider carefully what you’re saying and follow the guidelines I have outlined previously. Judicious and temperate phrasing will do wonders to facilitate a broad-ranging discussion.
Zonka’s got the right idea.
73 comments:
It isn't so much survival as an individual, it is survival as a culture/ Gene pool.
For the former, Dhimmitude, playing the "SonnerKommando" etc would be functionally OK (but cowardly and self-defeating, in the long term). For the latter, doing more than just bitching about it is required. Think you can out-talk a muslim extremist with a dedicated, pathologically "jewicidal" lawyer behind him?
Good luck. The argument that if you kill your enemy before he kills you makes you him is one for mental children. There is no moral eq. to striking out at those who would bind our hands for the decapitators and enslavers.
I recommend an Anti-Sharia Amendment to the Constitution which permits the govt to take any and all action regardless of any other constitutional limit but regulated by statute by Congress.
This would include the prohibition of speaking against the Antisharia law.
With clear provisions that any action that would normally have been unlawful must be strictly contained to anti-sharia activity, with severe penalties to any govt abuse.
Also the Amendment would have to have an automatic sunset period... like maybe 5 years... that way the law will revert to what it used to be and there will be no need to for politicians to grandstand to get them repealed.
Either do it now.. informing the public of what is stake, or wait till 10 of our cities are nuked and do it without any notice at all.
I want to expand for a moment on the moral equivilency thing.
About 50% of muslims want to convert us by bloody force, or would support those who do.
No door-to-door Mormon, Witness, nor any group on the Christian side approaches 1% in the same boat, unless you hunt down asshats like the Wicheta Phelps family.
That being said, self defense is a natural right. Animals have it. People have it. The US constitution recognizes it.
If someone is gathering arms to march over the hill and kill you, and you know in advance, to attack them first, when they are in disadvantagious terrain, is still only self defense. Liberals and assorted statist prosecutors would dissagree, but tough sh*t.
The muslim hordes have told us clearly what they plan for us. They intend to destroy our culture, and leave behind a world for our progeny that is too horrible to think about. Would you curse your worst enemy to have grandchildren (particularly grand-daughters) in Yemen? Or Somolia?
If you had to whack some people who, out of mere foolishness, were paving the way for an entire world like Yemen and Somalia, would that really make you "just like them"?
If a judge ordered the silencing of anti-jihad speech, and the end result of that could well be a world-wide caliphate, or even just widespread bombings and murder, is it any worse to put lead into him than it would be be put lead into Osama Bin Laden? Of course, I am only speaking in theoretical terms, from a "what would our founding fathers do" perspective".
wink
PS, funny how liberals are supposedly the champs of free speech, yet they are the ones who make all the complaints and attempts to silence others.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for tough measures, but measures that are rooted in the principles that we fight for. If we ditch our principles then we have lost our way, regardless of what our enemy does or doesn't do.
If that leaves us at a disadvantage, then so be it, it wouldn't be much good to fight one anti-democratic system just to replace it with another, and that is the result if we abandon our principles.
Originally my comments were about the usage of assassinations as an effective means of cutting the head of the Jihadi movement, which I think is inefficient, stupid and morally wrong. Inefficient because the Jihadi movement is not a unified front but a lot of small cells that works autonomously kill one leader and another cell takes over or another cell is created. Stupid, because it doesn't work -- it will only serve to bolster the backing, popularity and legitimacy of the enemy. And morally wrong, as assassination outside of a legitimate war-zone is premeditated murder, and a crime under the "Rule of Law", and even in a declared war-zone the tactic is a bit shady.
I can understand if somebody is becoming frustrated over the seemingly impotence of the Counter-Jihad movement, as we don't have the ears of our government, most of the population doesn't seem to care or are mis-informed about the situation... And in such a situation it is easy to jump to simplistic and/or draconian solutions such as assassination, “Nuke Mecca" or similar memes, none of which are realistic at the moment nor something to wish for.
And yes the situation is dangerous, but it is far from being desperate, there is still time to turn this around, but we most likely have to live through some more hardship before it starts to get better. And in the meantime what we can do is to organize ourselves, prepare for the day when the general population awakens and the politicians are forced to act. At that time they will need our network, they will need our resources to be able to fight back efficiently.
Until that day comes, what we can do is to inform and keep the principles and values that we hold dear, even though we might be the only ones. We can make our networks as wide as possible to get to the ears and minds of those who may be or become sympathetic to our course, and become stronger in a viral sense.
And in the worst-case scenario, we will become the last line of defense for the values and principles that we hold dear. But we are far from that point still, and there are still other work to be done and other options to explore.
We are not at the brink of extinction either as a people or a culture, although we are under attack, but so far it's only mosquito bites, they hurt but aren't life-threatening. And like mosquitos, numbers can be deceiving, superiority in numbers doesn't mean that you will automatically win.
I am under the impression that some comment posters are perilously close to incitement to violence which is quite clearly over the line legally speaking just about everywhere.
Agent provocateurs, perhaps?
In any case, caution is advisable.
The business of keeping discussion within reasonable bounds in order to avoid being "reported to Google" has obvious dangers.
For starters, that's the high-road to self censorship because nobody in their right mind would imagine that given minor victories in shutting down free and open discussion, the jihadis and their sympathisers (and I include the EU and the U.N.) would stop at that.
They'd widen the definition of "hate speech" to include anything they disapprove of and don't count on any constitutional guarantees to stop them--our courts here in the West are filled with activist lefty judges.
And Baron, whatever happened to the idea that free speech is only free speech if people are free to say that which we may disagree with? Caving in to leftist or islamist complaints--even before those complaints are made--isn't my idea of free speech.
There are times, 'MrSmarterthanyou', that you do not need to Spell It Out and endander the contractual exstence of this Blog to make your point. If you fling around the Grim & Specific Realities of ( to quote Lenin ) "What Must Be Done" you give ammunition to the enemy while not telling us anything that we do not already know
change your name to 'Mr.MoreDiscretionthanyou', perhaps, or speak more softly without giving up the Big Stick. Spelling out the obvious does harm here without doing anything worthwhile
The right to self-protection is well established in Irish law and all the other "Anglo-based" systems of jurisprudence. They do not cover pre-emptive measures, which is what is really being debated here. The Obvious Problem with pre-empting an attack is the whole Certainty Thing.......
We in the West are under attack, but much of that attack is subtle and insidious, and 'putting lead' into actual people might do much more harm than good
and there are so many informers and fellow-travelers.....
KG, the principles of free speech won't do me any good if Google shuts this blog down. How can I make my concern any clearer?
I want to keep this blog open. And I also don't like it when commenters say, "Let's kill people." Those two issues have converged in this post.
We can talk about the possibilities that lie before us without sliding over into advocacy. It serves no useful purpose and can actually do us harm.
Topics that I don't object to in a bar conversation over a few beers are not necessarily appropriate in this venue.
How difficult a concept can this be?
Lets ask the people who fled Sarajevo. How they felt as they watched the city fill up with Islamists and then degenerated into house to house fighting and snipers. Then NATO comes in and gives it to the Islamists. Now.... Bosnia is a world leader in the export of Islamic terrorists. There are examples of how these criminals take over, all over the world and we just can't seem to get a handle on what to do about it!
Death by a thousand cuts, takiya is a hard thing to explain to most people.
Baron, perhaps I worded my comment badly. (nothing new for me, alas)
Of course I understand that concept and I agree with you wholeheartedly. What I was trying to say was that we need to find a way to make our position very clear, to discuss these things without being subject to the constraints of Google and anonymous complaints. Because our opponents will define "hate speech" down to mere disagreement eventually and blogspot hosted blogs will become whatever the enemy decides is acceptable.
We need to find a way around that.
The best example I can think of is the way PC has made even the airing--no matter how polite--of dissenting viewpoints all but impossible in all kinds of fields, from IQ research to maternity care. They'll do the same to political discussion on the 'net, given half a chance.
The first thing we need to do if we're to oppose the jihadists is secure the lines of communication.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for tough measures, but measures that are rooted in the principles that we fight for. If we ditch our principles then we have lost our way, regardless of what our enemy does or doesn't do.
If that leaves us at a disadvantage, then so be it, it wouldn't be much good to fight one anti-democratic system just to replace it with another, and that is the result if we abandon our principles
In any conflict in which a democracy finds itself at war with a totalitarian system, it needs to calibrate its response. The calibration has to be such that victory is achieved. The prospect of defeat is inconceivable, for we might as well have not fought at all. When we fought totalitarian systems in the past, we did ditch many of democratic safeguards, but everyone knew that these were for the interim, and those liberal democratic principles would be restored once the threat had been defeated. If we had been defeated, no such restoration would occur. That is why we calibrate our response – i.e., do what is necessary to win.
Our previous encounters with totalitarian systems, have made us think that this war that Islam is waging on us is equivalent to the previous ones. They are not. If the Nazis had won, we would still retain many of the features of Western culture and life styles. If the Communists had won, we would certainly be poorer, but still retain music, art, literature etc but proscribed to conform to the party line. Even these would get less stringent with time, and the system would fall, as we have seen it fall, as both totalitarian systems retain some degree of rationality.
With Islam, this is just not the case. It is so alien that most of the public do not realise the magnitude of change that will take place. This would not take place over a generation but several generations. Think Persia to what it was under Cyrus the Great and what it is now. Islam has continued, despite colonialism, defeat in war, mass massacre by Hulegu Khan, economic stagnation and even starvation. Once a country is under Islam, there is no way back – the Reconquista is the one exception, and that occurred because the rest of Europe backed it up.
Under these circumstances, the need to calibrate our response has to be just that little bit more cautious.
Now let us look at the nature of the threat. The existential threat hanging over us is not the terrorist one but the demographic one. All Muslims have to do now is to let time takes its course. How do we counter this threat, while all Muslims have to do is to be liberal, democratic, tolerant etc, and wait till the numbers alone dictate the implementation of shari’a in Western countries. How do we fight now when the only option left is to be undemocratic and illiberal.
One thing I remember from when I was learning karate was when my instructor said if you are going to attack someone you attack with everything you have. Otherwise, do not attack. Since WWII we have never attacked with everything we've had. The results are apparent to all.
As we face islam over the coming decades we, us commenters, have the dilemma of having to fight with our hands tied. Our government will not help us and half the population will not help us. In fact, they'll fight us. So much for attacking with everything we have.
I very much look forward to the conotinuation of this thread!
Having been a combat Marine, in actual combat, you know my gut feelings and probable knee-jerk reaction. I agree whole heartedly on keeping our cards close to the vest on certain matters.
One tool we have, but no federal lawyer to pursue, are the sedition and treasonous acts found in the Constitution and linked to enemies abroad and domestic. If those wanks won't do their job what else can we do? A rebellion puts us in the same boat as those out to destroy us and you can bet your last dollar which group they will come after.
How about a special prosecutor? One that might accomplish these goals in a manner akin but different from McCarthy and House on un-American activities. I believe someone made the statement about going to the opponents meetings, rallies and taping or filming the activities to present to the authorities ala channel 4. That might work if you don't get caught!
We should also have a back-up system or two if and when Google pulls the plug. This is not my area of expertise but surely someone out there does. For our brethren(hope that includes the sisters) I stand by your side or in front if necessary.
Tom
Zonka -- I think you are quite wrong as respect to the facts.
Survival makes people do things in a survival situation that would be unthinkable otherwise.
To wit, in 1939 the British Defence Ministry rejected as absurd the idea of bombing "private property" in the Black Forest (German war production) because it would be a betrayal of British Principles.
In 1943 the British were firebombing Hanover.
Fights produce a dynamic all their own, a steadily increase in ruthless tactics to win.
"Surrendering" is not survival. There was a reason that the US and Britain and the USSR did not surrender. That they fought on. This reason had much to do IMHO with not noble principles but the well-thought out calculation of ordinary men that they would be put to work as slaves/serfs while the conquerors take their wives and girlfriends. Men fought for family or opportunity to form one. THAT explains Stalingrad and the Battle of Britain's otherwise incomprehensible sacrifices.
I'll add that I don't think it is a good thing or something to be desired, i.e. the rise of a Napoleon and violence. But rather predictable.
As it stands now the situation, i.e. counter-jihad, is rectifiable but very few in power can see the huge problems. They delude themselves with statements such as "if we are nice to Muslims, they will be nice to us when they are the majority."
As I see it, the essential question is who will rule Europe? Europeans under the current Judeo-Christian-Greco-Roman system, or Muslims under a Muslim system.
That is the essential question from which all other issues flow. Men won't fight and die for noble causes. Or principles. IMHO. Rather for advantage or to preserve what they have.
My pessimistic view is that two groups will struggle to control Europe: surging young Muslim men and disadvantaged, marginalized European men also seeking advantage. One will win, the other will lose, and the winner will whatever side can mobilize the most resources, adapt to changing circumstances the most quickly, make the fewest mistakes, and learn from mistakes the quickest, in employing violence.
I don't like the onset of violence. I find it horrible. But like anyone in 1938 I can see the general outlines.
I applaud GoV attempt to do something before "the invasion of Poland" but I am not optimistic that say, the "Blum Government" will see the danger.
Whiskey --
You're just not getting what I'm saying. Everything you say is true, but it has nothing to do with our current circumstance.
We are not talking about what the our governments or the military might do. In fact, I have specifically requested that the ground rules of this war-gaming exclude proposals for what our governments should do, because for the time being we can have no effect on government policy.
With respect to the jihad, our governments have effectively abandoned us, and we're on our own.
Therefore what I want to war-game is what we can do, regular bozos like you and me, ordinary people. There are plenty of things we can do, but we can't order the Marines to Tehran, and we can't stop Muslim immigration.
So all the talk about the need to kill people is not only morally questionable, it's not practical or helpful, since it doesn't lie within our range of effective options.
Baron -- I don't think (I have not seen all comments) that anyone has advocated "let's kill people."
IMHO the disagreement is over the likelihood of violence spilling out over Europe in a wave of some fairly brutal struggles for power.
In a perfect world GoV would alarm Leftist leaders to the danger of continued PC-Multiculturalism and large amounts of Muslim immigration, and reasonable and sensible steps would be taken: limiting immigration, insisting on Muslims adopting cultural norms of Europe or leaving, imprisonment in very bad conditions to capital punishment for terrorist murders, honor killing and the like. Lengthy prison terms for those who engage in terroristic threats. Crackdown on violent behavior and criminals of all stripes and a strong military capable of self-defense. Constant and public insistence on national culture and values and demands that people honor that culture, while of course not excluding those who wish to adopt it by reason of race/ethnicity/religion. That one can be say Italian or Danish while still being Jewish or Muslim, but certain things are expected. Such as not getting excited by say, Neapolitan nativity scenes or pork being served at Danish public functions.
However, I would assign that probability to a number only marginally greater than zero. Sadly I think we have run out of time. That Col Peters is right (I initially disagreed with his assessment, thinking Europe's young men would simply collapse but now I do not think so).
As for Google/Blogger, may I offer some advice? IMHO some "human rights commission" will "Mark Steyn" this site quite soon. I host several sites at Bluehost.com, they are quite reasonable, and you can run either Wordpress or MT (which is now open source).
I have for example, www.campaign-money.com is my own site, I have a few others. "Dirty Harry" at Liberty Film Festival also hosts there with his own personal Wordpress blog.
I am actually shocked you've not been "Steyned" before this.
Plus, if you own your own site you can add your own custom ad code for non-Google folks like Yahoo, MSN, etc.
Heck if Mark Steyn can get hauled in before the Inquisition for a book he wrote (a quite reasonable one too I might add) then it will happen to anyone.
Zonka,
We don't magically become like them if we fight them tooth and nail. We become like them if AFTERWARDS we govern or dominate like them.
If someone says "I'm gonna make kill you or make you my b*tch", then using your logic, your only choice is to die or be their b*tch. That was the choice of millions of Jews who ended up in ovens. Later, around the time of the founding of Israel, there were many willing to limit themselves to those two choices when the British and the Arabs lined up against them, and they seem to dominate that country now. But there was also the Irgun (sp) who actually meant it when they said "never again".
Now, I am not Jewish, but I'll be damned if I will allow myself to be falsely limited in my choices to Dhimmitude or death. I will go the way of the Irgun, and I think anyone willing to march to the ovens because they don't want to do anything "ungentlemanly" to save themselves is a fool, and should keep their foolishness to themselves, and not force it on others.
It's like you are happy in line to the oven with the smug comfort of knowing your shize doesn't stink.
**We now enter the world of military strategy: The past meets today**
On another point, "assassinations are stupid, morally wrong and inefficent"? I guess you have no military experience, and no mind for war.
First, bans against assassination were "gentleman's agreements" so that Lords and Kings et al could play their terrible games of chess with peasant lives, and not their own. The Brits were mortified that we would actually aim at their officers rather than content ourselves with blasting away at conscripts. Is it morally wrong to strike the leader, rather than wade through all the cannon fodder and collateral casualties along the path to him?
Regarding "inefficient", would plugging Arafat have saved lives? What if Israel had plugged Arafat, then bombed his funeral? That would have been uber-efficient, and there are many opportunities in the ME like that today. You also cannot deny that Chairman Mao was the center of a cult of personality. His premature death would have left a Chi-Com regime that would have moderated. Same for Stalin, possibly the same for Kim Il Jung, he has no ready heir, and I bet his generals would be open to change if he was gone.
Our current ban on assassination was signed by Carter, and we can comfortably say he was a fool, and as he had no intention of ever actually defending the US or anyone, we can say he did it either to be high minded or cowardly, and it didn't help the world one bit.
Whiskey --
There were several comments of that nature. I had to delete them.
Whiskey_199 wrote:
Zonka -- I think you are quite wrong as respect to the facts.
Survival makes people do things in a survival situation that would be unthinkable otherwise.
I'm not denying this, my point is that we're nowhere near the poinbt where we can talk about this being a matter of survival. And although I take the Jihadi threat deadly serious, the West hasn't even tried to flex its muscles yet. If there were political will to do it, all muslims would be out of Western Countries in a month... But there is no political will to do so.
@Mr.Smarterthanyou,
I have no problem fighting the Jihadis tooth, claw and nail. But it is a problem, when our governments doesn't support such a fight, and even turns the blind eye to the war that has been declared on us. But that doesn't mean that I condone the use of assassinations (which aptly is an Islamic tradition after all).
And to turn the ball back at you, your knowledge of the military seems to be lacking as well, as assassinations can never be a strategy at best it is a tactic! And the war that we are facing with the Jihadis are very different from previous wars, in the sense that we're not fighting a nation state, we're fighting autonomous cells, that can work alone or in concert with each other... Bound together by an Ideology and loose networks. So there is no Kim Il-Jong, Chairman Mao to take out and leave the organization in shambles.
There is a plethora of targets, none essential to the whole movement. Al-Qaeda wouldn't fall and cease to exist just because OBL was taken out of the picture, take No. 2 as well and they may be shaken for a couple of days, but then would be back again.
We need a new way of fighting a new enemy that is as fluid as the Jihadi movement is. And fighting the Jihadis is only the first step, because unless the majority of Islam realizes the failure of Islam as an ideology, we will be fighting this war over and over again. So Islamic Ideology must be discredited within the muslim population.
Mr. Smarterthanyou --
I'm beginning to feel like a broken record.
Go through your last comment, look at what you said, and see how many of your prescriptions or assertions concern what our government can do, or should do, or might do, or ought to do.
I want to change this topic. Our governments will not do the things they need to do anytime soon.
There's no point in discussing those things. It makes as much sense to plan how to grow cabbages on the moons of Jupiter.
Let's stick to the things that we -- you and I, ordinary people -- can actually do.
To get the discussion back on tracks, a few things that we can do and do well is to inform, grow networks and expose the folly of the Jihadis.
One thing that is particular potent is humor, satire and ridicule. That is something that their macho culture has no defense for, except the extreme. And yet if we show them that we are not giving in to their demands, their pavlovian response to such mocking will hurt them more than it will hurt us.
This will be probably be labeled agitation or offensive to some and would not qualify as a flashmob if everyone showed in this attire. But I'm going to get one or two.
http://tinyurl.com/23lfg4
Tom
Is there a level of psy-ops we can do? Can we send CAIR, etc. subscriptions to porn magazines? Can we pose as Islamists and advocate whack ideas? Can we spam Muslim websites? Can we mail New Testaments to Saudi Arabi? There's got to be some level we can operate on to let them know we're not gonna take it. Can some of you smarter people come up with more devious ideas? Baron, feel free to delete.
To the Barons friends.
Blogger is not a government, which means it has ‘Free Speech Rights” including the right not to carry the Gates for any or no reason. Heed the Baron's advice. Or read his and Dymphna's posts with intent to see how to make strong points while still being civil. There are few better.
Keep the Gates active.
I flatly refuse to be bullied into accepting any belief system, including a belief system I already subscribe to. This means that even if I were honestly inclined to become a Muslim, I would refuse to do so because Islamists are attempting to institute a world-wide system of social coercion.
I would be willing to defend "western civilization", but only if I have some idea what it is I would be defending. For example, I flatly refuse to accept that Brazil, Argentina, and Chile are any less part of "western civilization" than the United States.
There may come a time when ordinary people talk of "Kaffir Consciousness". Until then, I think it is important to ask questions to Muslims about Islam. Ask Muslim leaders to prove the existence of their prophet. Point to a moral failing of Islam and ask Muslim scholars, "Is this Islam?" If one does not make statements, but instead honestly asks questions about Islam (perhaps for the ostensible reason that one is considering conversion to Islam), it will be difficult for the censors to shut down legitimate questions about Islam.
Remember, Socrates was judicially murdered by Athens not because he gave answers, but because he asked questions. He was accused of undermining the religious faith of the youth. Yet, the legacy of Greek philosophy has endured far longer than the ancient paganism of Athenian demagogues.
Early critics of Islam asked, "What part of Allah sits on the Throne of Allah?" This is not a minor question because Mormonism (for example) has a very anthropomorphic conception of deity. Philosophy and metaphysics may sound like esoteric weapons, but one must remember that philosophical and metaphysical debates have been a major source of recreation throughout the millennia. Controversy is not always a bad thing. Controversy can also be very entertaining.
Islamist imperialists may claim to want dialogue, but they desire no such thing. They want a monologue where we reply with the script we are given. So, for a Muslim leader to engage in any philosophical debate with us is a victory for us because our enemies seek to enforce rules of discourse that outlaw any explanation of Islam other than their own.
So, let's ask questions.
What's wrong with making a great effort to educate the public about the dangers of Muslim immigration? If enough people feel sufficiently strongly about it, the government will have to go along whether they like it or not. That happened with the previous immigration/amnesty bill.
Okay, I'm not going to say this ti agree or disagree with any of the "extreme" solutions advocated here or elsewhere, I'm just throwing this out to make a point.
I don't hit women. Right? I do not do it, it's one of those things that was instilled in me pretty me from birth and it's part of my character, my core beliefs even. However I recently had call to think about this for reasons that I won't go into and there's not a caveat; you can bet I'll bloody well hit her if she's coming at me with a knife. Does that change who I am? Does it change my character? I still don't hit women because it's wrong to do so, but that code is suspended when my life is threatened.
Like I said, not agreeing or disagreeing. Others have said we aren't collectively at the point where it's necessary, but I think we should be prepared to consider the possibility. LATER.
not s/b now.
One resource our side hasn't used much is fiction. I think if everyone in the anti-jihad/open borders blogosphere were to write novels,short stories, screenplays, comic books, etc., dramatizing the actual effect on our way of life of muslim and other invaders, more of the undecided would wake up, and our governments would have to become more responsive. In addition to fiction, online diaries would accomplish the same thing. Entertaining stories and everyday details would accomplish what polemics won't. And writing and online publishing don't cost anything, as opposed to making a movie, for example. I read somewhere that Tom Wolfe is writing a novel about immigration. This is wonderful, of course, but everyone who comments here has enough talent to use what's happening in their own community for fiction. And even some liberals would change their minds. Because entertainment is insidious...you can't argue with a good story.
As for the question of what we should be willing to do, I won't go into detail because that isn't appropriate for this blog, but I'll just say, I have no problem doing whatever it takes to win. That wouldn't change me at all, or if it did change me, so what. 9/11 changed me, so did nearly being killed by a Mexican illegal. Being alive and free is good, and worth whatever I have to do for it.
I didn't read all the way through the comments so if I repeat what others have said, my bad.
There are aspects to such discussions other than "getting a buz" or whatever.
Part of it is in developing the appropriate emotional/physiological calluses that will allow a man to come out the other side of the obvious fight ahead with some part of his psych still intact.
Another part is the strategic use of fear. There is something here that most folk want to ignore or hide from.
When push comes to shove, we can, and if made to, will, kill every man, woman and child of the muslim world. All of them. Kill them in blinding flashes in all their cities and hunt down the remainders where ever they go to hide.
It is a natural human response to obliterate as completely as possible any enemy that proves itself to be implacable and unbending in its merciless drives for conquest.
We have the technical and logistical ability to clean this planet of how ever much humanity is required.
If anyone thinks that the "American Street" is willing to lay down and submit without going the last full measure, they are deluded and grossly misinformed.
Now, with that said...
What mercy is there in giving our enemy any indication that they have any hope at all of ever succeeding? All that does is encourage more of them to behave in a manner that will eventually ensure they all die.
There are those that behave in a civilized manner and conduct themselves according to the established rules of conduct because they are naturally inclined to do so.
Then there are those that are not so inclined. And for them, it is only fear that can move them to compliance. Without fear as a tool, the only other option is forced extinction.
Ad Triarios Redisse!
Semper Fi.
Self censorship?will you still have a blog under sharia?the two recent world wars did not turn the soldiers into blood thirsty savages,in fact it was next to impossible to get the suvivors to talk about thier experiences,we will not turn into brutes just because we fight for our freedom,quite the opposite,we will know the value of what we have,we must fight fire with fire, and be just as brutally determined to win as our enemies are,because if we lose the consequences are unthinkable,you must hate your enemy with all the passion that you can muster,because while you are being "civilised"and writing genteel words, the man in the street will come to the conclusion that he is not in any danger and will ignore the whole issue,as there is no serious alarm in your writings,and the only reason that any of us have blogs is the fact that our masters do not consider us dangerous,and your constitution guarantees freedom of speech,the neo-nazi sites are still thriving and they get closer to the bone than you ever will,yet they have not been closed down.
But the bottom line is ,how will you slaughter a chicken without getting blood and guts all over you,write it a nice series of essays until it gives up the will to live?
I forgot to add:
But, not every site nor every conversation meant to serve the same function.
There is a wide range in the ability to respond to a threat implied. That's not a bad thing.
Your site is yours. You make the rules and we either abide by them or go elsewhere. That is how it should, and must, work.
Your site serves a purpose. You do the work of an intel gatherer and disseminate.
This is a good place for those of us who are more suited to the fight aspect to catch up on what's going on in the particular "over there" that you cover.
I read here on a regular basis. I rarely comment because I realize that what I have going on in my heart and in my head do not contribute in a constructive manner to the conversations.
There is a saying that is used..."everyone on the same page".
That's not such a good thing in such a complex and broad spectrum problem as what confronts us now.
It is better that everyone be "in the same book" but working the pages and/or chapters particular to their ability.
SamenoKami --
Delete?? Hell, no!
You've got some great ideas, and they're exactly what I was talking about: actions which may conceivably have an effect in the direction we want, which can be done by ordinary people, and which stay within the law.
BTW, I'm not ruling out all possible law-breaking, just the advocacy of it in this space.
The trick will be to develop networks of people who can organize such actions and remain focused enough to see them through.
I hope some CVF members are reading these comments...
Hank, thank you.
:)
I wrote
The existential threat hanging over us is not the terrorist one but the demographic one. All Muslims have to do now is to let time takes its course. How do we counter this threat, while all Muslims have to do is to be liberal, democratic, tolerant etc, and wait till the numbers alone dictate the implementation of shari’a in Western countries. How do we fight now when the only option left is to be undemocratic and illiberal?
This is the real problem we have
Now SIOE report
European Parliament resolution of 13 December 2007 on combating the rise of Xenophobia
Posted by Sitemaster on December 21, 2007
The EU has the naïve thought that by writing this resolution the islam can be forced to get rid of every fundamentalistic idea it has. Unfortunately this will never happen because islam is by nature fundamentalistic. The only thing that’s likely going to happen is that SIOE and SIAD are regarded xenophobic and intolerant organizations and therefore punishable by law. The sharpness of both SIAD and SIOE will be killed.
http://sioe.wordpress.com/
We now have the situation that the EU will have enshrined a law that makes any criticism of Islam punishable. Web sites will also be monitored.
The invidious aspect of this is that Muslim organisations are all for it. They come across as liberal, protecting human rights, tolerant etc, while anti-Islamic/anti-shari’a views will appear as extreme. Meanwhile the non-organised elements of Muslim society will continue with riot, and giving Muslim leaders yet more opportunity to preach the message of “Tolerance, root causes” etc.
Baron has already written that our government has abandoned us. Quite right. A few years ago, I wrote that our government, even if it wanted to help us, is unable to, as its hands are tied by the law. It can only help in intercepting terrorists.
We are in a terrible spot, and some novel ideas are required. This is not going to be easy.
"jaw, jaw, jaw."
-Winston Churchill
Cities eradicated in blinding light? Something only governments can do.
We must elect the governments that recognize the problem. If the French can do it, we in the US can, as well.
My concerns are similar to GoV but I'm no less concerned with the long and determined slide into socialism than the Jihad War.
With no offense intended to our European friends, I believe that we must first muster the strength of the US, and then broaden through the Anglosphere-the UK, Canada, and Oz.
I don't think the rest of Europe will unite until they feel the bulwark of the leaders of freedom ready to uphold them.
The first step is to elect a president and congress that will recognize the fact that we are still overwhelmingly petroleum based, put the blue sky energy wishes on a back burner, and take the steps to be self sufficient for oil on our continent.
The Jihad War, like any other, has to be funded. And some portion of every gallon of gas we purchase funds our enemies. This is suicidal.
Some may wish to read Mohammad and Marx and The suicide coin.
A phenomenon that I'm beginning to see here, and moreso on the continent, is that of people starting to simply ignore the law and government and work outside it. Government has become so strict authoritarian in some instances that virtually everyone breaks at least one law every day. I'm breaking several right now - all of them trivial and pointless. I regularly break the law when I work by not taking enough breaks, just as an example. This leads to a situation where people start to realise that, since they are already technically criminal in the eyes of the law, they might as well just ignore the petty legislation and regulations and work outside them. And so that's what people are doing.
That's the sort of thing we need to tap into. Ordinary, moral people who would have been called law-abiding before the law became a blunt instrument to punish and restrict the general population, they are going to be the power that drives this movement. They are already operating in an environment where they consider the law to be, as one American put it, an ass; we have to insert ourselves into that environment.
Zonka,
When I brought up the topic of "assassinations", which seems to have gotten this whole ball rolling through multiple threads, I stated that the goal was to provoke the Muslims into action against the West NOW rather than allowing them to wait until demographics (as DP111 reminds us) tilts the balance in their favor. I had no intention of cutting off the head of the snake, just flushing him from his hiding place for all to see.
The impetus for this idea were the riots in France attributed in the MSM to "youths". These incidents seem to have waken a limited number of people to the problem in our midst. Inciting larger incidents would serve our purpose of waking more people. Time is NOT on our side.
And as several others have pointed out it is civilizational and cultural survival for which we fight and not individual survival.
What we can do:
1) What I just did. Using a foreign based mail server, create a confidential google identity that cannot be traced to an email account that once cracked, can identify you.
2) Get GOV off blogger, or have a backup. If you can get hosted by someplace like Russia or Ukraine, it would make the legal process to get the goods on you that much harder.
3) Use a random IP, or use software that gives you anon browsing.
4) Speak your mind. Do not let the fear of being called a racist of provocateur silence you.
5) Spy on your enemies. Make their secrets public. Remember, your local TV journalist is an opportunistic coward. He will investigate the Christian, and it will help his chances to move "up-market". If (s)he investigates the local mosque, her family is now in danger. Fuggetabout it. It won't happen. Get this:
http://www.amazon.com/101-Spy-Gadgets-Evil-Genius/dp/0071468943/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1198513917&sr=8-2
Use the tools to get the scoop on the mosques, MSA's, even you local branch of the ACLU. It may not be admissable in court, but if you can stick it out in public, even on a blog, it can do some good.
6) Keep in mind, after silencing you, they still need to disarm you. So get arms while you can. Get the most effective rifles that your local area allows. For 47 states or so, you can own a SKS. Cheap, but effective and very reliable. Designed to be used by someone with little training.
7) Get any other survival related training and materials that you can. Keep in mind that you can be tried in the press based on what they find!!! Make sure that you know your laws, particularly wiretapping and self defense laws.
8) Get involved in LOCALpolitics. That includes school board. Our schools are stuffed with liberal Dhimmis trying to pretend Jihad means "inner struggle" and Christian means "Ignorant Redneck". Make damn sure that no matter what nuttiness takes over at the national level, you can sway the local scene. Heck, If all you can do is sway a homeowners or tenants association to take a pro-us, anti-Jihadi stance, you have done good.
Charlemagne,
We agree on the goal but not on how to reach it, and my contention is that there are other ways of achieving the same result... Through ridicule, laughter as well as refutations of the claims of these people. Better to make them irrelevant and a laughingstock than to make them a symbol of twisted martyrdom.
As for practical suggestions, I would like to see people starting to reclaim the language, and counter the PC crowd, and then change the mindset as a sideeffect... We need a sticker that says: "This Blog is P.C. Free Territory" or something to that effect, and let that spread.
Zonka,
If given the opportunity to kill Hitler in his crib or allowing him, out of principle, to survive and thus for history to follow its known path what do you do? A moral dilemma no doubt but which choice serves the greater good? I think we're in a similar position, civilizationally speaking.
I agree completely about using humor as a weapon. We know how it can drive them over the irrational edge. I've mentioned in another thread about an "Islam for Dummies" site I think would be a great tool for both exposing Islam's principles and for mocking them. Americans are notoriously inattentive and have short attention spans. A "Dummies" website can get a message across in short statements and cartoon images. If we use an offshore, anonymous host what would be the rights of the Dummies publisher regarding copyright protection? I hate to "borrow" Dummies but it is so well known. In the US anyway.
Charlemagne,
Your analogy is flawed, since there is no way that somebody (without the help of time-travel) in 1889 would be able to know that infant Adolph would turn out to be a megalomaniac tyrant and killer. And even with 20/20 hindsight, it is not possible to know what would have happened if Hitler was killed in his infancy. Would events have conspired so that much of the same would have happened, with somebody else in charge of plottting revenge over the German grievances, and searching for lebensraum for the expanding German population?
An "Islam for Dummies" might be a good way of spreading information about the true nature of Islam. But I was also thinking about a "Ask the Mad Mullah" type of webpage, that would answer silly questions about Islam with silly answers, as well as bringing funny news from the world of Islam, in the vein of "The Onion"...
Perhaps it's only flawed in that we didn't have the advanced knowledge regarding Hitler that we do regarding Islam so we couldn't have made an informed decision. With Islam, we know their goals and we know the demographic projections.
But that's what I love about GoV, lots of great ideas flowing freely.
Shall we team up in the new year to explore our "humor" options?
Charlemagne Wrote:
Shall we team up in the new year to explore our "humor" options?
Definitely :)
Baron --
I am quite sorry to hear statements were posted of the "kill them all" variety. I agree that is quite distasteful.
As for what can be done by ordinary people? I would suggest the following:
1. Relentlessly attack PC-Multiculturalism as the tool of a status-obsessed elite hostile to ordinary people.
2. Hold to native, national-religious traditions. Merry Christmas instead of Happy Holidays. Go to synagoge or church. Celebrate national holidays. Unapologetically.
3. This will be controversial: continue to WARN government Leftist figures that unless PC-Multi culturalism and Western self-loathing and increased Muslim immigration are stopped, a bloody conflict that will be horribly ugly is inevitable.
While this has the least likelihood of succeeding, the payoff (no bloody conflict) is the highest. Therefore even though it may be futile it is worth pursuing.
I would argue that the comments themselves indicate a huge danger. And the following argument made at every opportunity:
"Racism" and "evil" are not the generators of these comments but fear and anger and hopelessness of a people becoming an oppressed minority in their own countries who see violence as their only tool.
That further marginalizing such sentiments by suppression will only encourage a violent version of the fall of the Berlin Wall. That the very impotence of government in other areas will only guarantee further Freikorp type violence and the naked self-interest of everyone should be to bring about reform rather than revolution.
Advocate an FDR style REFORM rather than a Lenin-style REVOLUTION. Or NSDAP revolution if the audience prefers.
I think this argument, being soundly based on logic and reason, can find at least some support among the wider class of the Press and government.
It does not require Leftists to give up their religion of PC-Multi-culti but "adjust" to one of adherence to national values and stop provoking the native European population, who are seen as the enemy.
Zionistyoungster recently quit blogging at least partially out of dissapointment from the self-censorship seen on GOV and LGF, his final post explains far more eloquently the disastorous nature, baron, of your decision to limit the options to be explored Cyberfutility
Kahaneloyalist --
I don't grant myself that much power over people. If ZY decided not to blog, that's his doing and not mine.
It's a shame he decided that discussion within the boundaries I set was not worth engaging in.
And it's an even greater shame that he decided to take his ball and bat and go home instead of setting up his own establishment with rules that he approved of, instead of the sissified guidelines that I impose here.
It really is a pity, because he was one of the best we had.
You know, it would seem that people really aren't that interested in individual action.
The GoV bloggers should address, rationally and pragmatically, how the local, State and National authorities should respond to an attempt to secede from the "Union" and join the Umma. Each person should think on a local-personal level.
For example, the English blogger thinks in terms of England. The French in terms of France. The Wisconsin-Michigan resident in his terms.
The struggle, IMHO, will not be apocalyptic. Rather it will be focal. The response to these attempts to change the status quo, will determine the aftermath.
What needs to be done is to analytically and historically undermine Islam.
By showing that the "perfect" Koran is a palimsest of cobbled-together fragments. Bits which its illiterate "author" Mohammad could never read, and thus never had a clue as to the actual contents of this "book" (called "The Recitation", tellingly).
The Koran was only collected and codified after Mohammad's death (poisoned by a Jewish lady war captive), and even his child sex slave (AKA 6 year old "bride") Aiyesha later noted (in the Hadiths) that some selections were forgotten, some were eaten by a passing goat (being written on bark) and some verses were remembered differently (longer vs shorter) by competing followers of the "prophet".
If the Koran is not the "perfect": and "eternal" and "infallible" word of Allah, then it is nothing.
Mere human-all-too-human sayings, grafted into a cosmically-presumptuous stick to beat the ignorant with.
Muslims need to be informed that their root document is a farrago of nonsense, sewn together by clever religious politicians, and thereafter used to terrorize and infantilze them for centuries.
To keep their leaders in "perpetual" power and them in "submissive" misery.
Islam will not be defeated by any warfare of the literal sort.
But by sapping the historical basis of their essential dogmas.
And by critical analysis of the pious fraud that is the Koran.
Killing brain-washed jihadis will also be necessary, in the meantime, but driving a reasoned stake through the rotten heart of the phony Koran will be the only way to stop this sanctimonious monstrosity.
The Idea must be defeated.
Its followers will then have no need to terrorize the world.
Undermining the Koran is the key to toppling its poisonous bloom.
You know, it would seem that people really aren't that interested in individual action.
Mr. Discretion, it's not that people aren't interested in individual action, it's more (I believe) that people feel that they are alone and bereft of support.
At times like that we tend to spin around in circles trying to decide which way to go.
For me, I'd love to be up there on the tv making a stand against the jihadis.
However, as a single parent I have a young child to consider and there's no way I'd put myself in harm's way and the possibility of her being brought up by her lefty/dhimmi father.
I take other measures. I blog, I network, and I talk to people I meet.
Just a few words to the bloke in the servo you don't normally fill your car at can remind you that you're not really alone. There are a lot of people who don't inhabit the blogosphere who are aware of what's happening but not the extent.
My latest idea is to shake hands with every muslim that I meet. Why not? Okay, I know I'm a dirty kaffir - or an infidel whore lol - but it's my custom to shake hands with people, and if they refuse then I get offended.
There are so many little things we can do without breaking the law or inciting violence, and fora like GoV can help up find them.
Islam has continued, despite colonialism, defeat in war, mass massacre by Hulegu Khan, economic stagnation and even starvation. Once a country is under Islam, there is no way back – the Reconquista is the one exception, and that occurred because the rest of Europe backed it up.
Efforts to stop Islamic expansion by trying to convert Muslims to Christianity by missionary work, has also failed, even though it was conducted at a time when many Muslim countries were under colonial rule. Even now, missionary work in the West, shows little success. Nothing has stopped the expansion of Islam, either the rapid one by conquest, or the slow one, by infiltration and demographic growth. The West was immune only so long as it did not allow Muslims into the West in any significant numbers.
Now we are confronted with a situation that has no precedence in the West- Islam growth from within. It is a challenge that we are singularly ill-equipped to resist. Our governments are not able to resist even if they wanted to.
Some three years ago, this topic was addressed - how to undermine Islam in the West, with civil liberty and liberal principles as the main tools.
The Freedom of the Burqa
This should be done by adopting the most caring, liberal and compassionate attitude that one can muster.
Mr. Discretion,
Working on 4, 6, 7, and thinking about getting involved in 8.
I'll leave the rest to the others here...I'm most interested in those I'm working on right now, especially keeping my sharp-shooter skills tight!
We need to begin thinking about what we need to do ourselves, if our government is to fall. We cannot have these kinds of discussions about our government failing us, and then pretend this is not a possibility. Failure of this magnitude you discuss will lead to downfall, and hence Sharia.
Zonka: Originally my comments were about the usage of assassinations as an effective means of cutting the head of the Jihadi movement, which I think is inefficient, stupid and morally wrong. Inefficient because the Jihadi movement is not a unified front but a lot of small cells that works autonomously kill one leader and another cell takes over or another cell is created. Stupid, because it doesn't work -- it will only serve to bolster the backing, popularity and legitimacy of the enemy. And morally wrong, as assassination outside of a legitimate war-zone is premeditated murder, and a crime under the "Rule of Law", and even in a declared war-zone the tactic is a bit shady.
Zonka, you are entirely incorrect about the efficacy of targeted assassinations. Please respond to my comments and questions over in the Explosive Banlieus thread. In case you hadn’t noticed we are at war. Our enemy conveniently refuses to declare official war but conducts it against us all the same. The object of war is to kill sufficient numbers of your enemy such that they no longer pose a threat. The best place to start is amongst the top ranks of those enemy forces so as to eliminate the most experienced, persuasive and motivated individuals. This has been the way of war for many thousands of years and nothing will change that in the near future.
I would also invite others here to review my posts in the Banlieus thread to gain a better understanding about the differences between high context and low context cultures. This is a concept that few people are conversant upon and one of immense importance in comprehending Islamic culture and how to thwart terrorism.
Zonka: draconian solutions such as assassination, “Nuke Mecca" or similar memes, none of which are realistic at the moment nor something to wish for
It is erroneous in the extreme to conflate targeted assassinations with something so patently ridiculous as “Nuke Mecca”. The two have nothing in common and are, in fact, quite diametrically opposed in nature. One is a nearly surgical treatment of an insidious moral cancer while the other is a totally misguided blanket solution.
Zonka: We are not at the brink of extinction either as a people or a culture, although we are under attack, but so far it's only mosquito bites, they hurt but aren't life-threatening.
Except that the mosquitoes are carrying malaria and even one single terrorist nuclear attack on an American city could set our national economy back the better part of a solid decade. The 9-11 atrocity probably cost America around ONE TRILLION dollars in damages, economic recession, lost tourism and a host of other ancillary revenue streams. None of this includes the near-one trillion we have spent in the MME (Muslim Middle East) fighting Islam on its own turf.
I also find it entirely unacceptable to sit around and wait for a nuclear terrorist attack upon American soil before finally deciding that the time has come to crush political Islam. The huge economic recession that would be caused by such an attack would kill not just the untold thousands in whatever city was struck, but countless others due to job loss, deprivation, poverty and other side effects.
DP111: Our previous encounters with totalitarian systems, have made us think that this war that Islam is waging on us is equivalent to the previous ones. They are not. If the Nazis had won, we would still retain many of the features of Western culture and life styles. If the Communists had won, we would certainly be poorer, but still retain music, art, literature etc but proscribed to conform to the party line. Even these would get less stringent with time, and the system would fall, as we have seen it fall, as both totalitarian systems retain some degree of rationality.
With Islam, this is just not the case. It is so alien that most of the public do not realise the magnitude of change that will take place.
Superb post, DP111. Again, this goes back to the differences between high context and low context cultures. Western people simply cannot comprehend how different Islamic thought processes are and carelessly transpose our own moral template upon Muslims out of sheer convenience. This is what has led to Bush et al continuing to call Islam the Religion of Peace when it is anything but.
Baron Bodissey: Therefore what I want to war-game is what we can do
Sadly, it is little more than what you are doing by operating the Gates of Vienna site, good Baron. All of us must begin to educate those around us with the greatest possible speed. Knowledge is, indeed, power. However, it is just as vital to not abandon discussion of truly viable approaches in the fight against jihad. This is why I continue to point out the comparative worth of targeting terrorist leadership as compared to such rubbish like a nuclear strike against Mecca. Once the West’s population becomes informed, they must also have some actual worthwhile ammunition in their intellectual belt. Those bullets consist of useful, practicable and “least-harm” measures that reasonably can be implemented. Whatever word we spread about fighting Islam needs to include these tools so that an informed public can reach concensus and agitate for such countermeasures.
Mr.Smarterthanyou: Is it morally wrong to strike the leader, rather than wade through all the cannon fodder and collateral casualties along the path to him?
BINGO! How many lives should be lost? Those of a few truly evil terrorist leaders or entire Muslim nations? The answer is beyond obvious.
Zonka: There is a plethora of targets, none essential to the whole movement.
Again, wrong for reasons I have already covered in the Banlieus thread.
Grimmy: What mercy is there in giving our enemy any indication that they have any hope at all of ever succeeding? All that does is encourage more of them to behave in a manner that will eventually ensure they all die.
No mercy at all. It is why I consider having even the most open-ended discussions about worst case scenarios in the Global War on Terrorism to be of worth. Not just for us Westerners but especially so for the Muslim world.
That said, there can be no dispute over whatever guidelines the Baron wishes to institute at GoV. I can only hope that I will be given fair warning if I violate them.
PS: Excellent post, ProfitsBeard.
Zenster --
Sadly, it is little more than what you are doing by operating the Gates of Vienna site, good Baron...
This is where you are mistaken. Much goes on that you are unaware of. Just because you don't hear about such things doesn't mean that they aren't happening.
You may not have read my "Army of Midgets" post. Gates of Vienna is where people circle the lamp post look ing for their keys.
The real action is elsewhere, beyond the circle of light, out there in the mysterious darkness.
Fear not, Baron , at every opportunity I do one of two things:
1. Shake the hand of every armed services member or military veteran I meet.
2. Inform people about the true nature of Islam and the real meaining of jihad.
I always enjoy a venue like GoV that gives me more ammunition for the battle. In this fight, victory is not an option. Thank you for all your hard work.
I just saw this thread, and I haven't been able to read all the comments yet. The discussion is very interesting. I will have to side with Whiskey here. Zonka and the Baron are misrepresenting what he said. I know that there is more to this to the Baron, about the content of posts that he had to delete. But I will have to answer the issue as it is presented in the post, i.e. in relation to the position of Whiskey.
Whiskey wrote: "SURVIVAL trumps all else."
Zonka answer "If survival is all that matters and principles can just be thrown in the dump, then I suggest that we all convert to Islam, and be done with it!"
This is based on a misunderstanding of what Whiskey said. What was meant by Whiskey here is not physical survival but civilizational survival. Mass conversion to Islam IS civilizational suicide. Zonka's comment shoots a big hole in the air, and is not even aiming in the direction of Whiskey's position.
Zonka continues to argue that the idea that survival trumps everything else implies the ditching of all principles. This comment is as misguided as his first comment. To say that civilizational survival trumps all else merely implies that all principles need to COMPLY with civilizational survival. For the first time in history our civilization has reached a point where our core principles commands civilizational suicide. This has to be reversed of course.
The false dichotomy of "extreme measures" vs. "complete surrender" was introduced by Zonka and the Baron. It doesn't belong in this discussion.
Zonka expresses the idea that if we do not fight for the principles of democracy and rule of law, then this fight is not worth fighting. Islam has been waging war against us for 1400 years. Modern liberal democracy has been around for less than 100 years. Rule of law has been around for less than 400 years. Zonka's position implies that that fight of the first 1000 years of our civilization against Islam was not worth fighting. I think that when presented in this way that he might not hold on to his position as he formulated it. This long term historical perspective makes it clear to us that it's something much more fundamental than democracy or rule of law that we are fighting for; in relation to which modern democracy and even rule of law are of rather ornamental value in the bigger picture. The it I'm referring to is about the essence of our civilization; our way of life.
Modern mass democracy and even rule of law will only be worth holding onto to the degree that they comply with civilizational survival. The point here is not in questioning the genius of concepts such as rule of law, parliamentarism, fundamental rights for a political opposition, etc. The point is in saying that if our civilization goes, so does these things to. But while stating this as an important truth to bear in mind, I'm not at this point implying that things are that dramatic.
In our culture we have always made the important distinction between wartime and peacetime. It's never been illegal to advocate killing of an alien nation in a situation of war. The idea is absurd. However, our governments have not declared any war. Still, it's also for long been completely legal in our civilization to advocate the declaration of war against an alien nation by the political opposition. And war is what we are talking about here. And war has already been declared upon us. However, both the PC multiculturalists (by mass immigration) and the Muslim (by their tactics) have blurred the borders between war zones and peace zones; war time and peace time. We are not meeting troops from a geographically distinct area, orderly lined up on the battlefield. But it's nevertheless a war. If we are going to survive this as a civilization it will require that we recognize that we have now met a format of a war that we are not traditionally prepared for, and adapt our strategies, principles, etc., accordingly.
Wartime has always meant compromising our peacetime principles. But it never meant the end of these principles (and it's so standard so that there most often, in our civilization, have been principles for how to do that). Likewise periods of dictatorship never meant that end of Western republican traditions in the longer run. So I cannot see where the fear comes from regarding these things. In a war we will need to do whatever it takes to win.
So if certain principles are breached in a war, and even more in a big war, it never meant the end of these principles. They might have transformed though in accordance with a changed situation. But peacetime ways always came back after wartime. Quite as these principles cannot stand on their own legs, but depend on our civilizational survival, neither are they born out of themselves. They are born out to the essence of our civilization, and always respawn after extreme situations (big wars, dictatorships, etc.).
However, also in our civilization there is a solidly founded tradition of how to discuss things like these in a civilized manner. E.g. advocating killing of citizens of our own country in a situation of peacetime, is in breach with that. I think we all agree with the Baron here. His position regarding this is completely sound. And there are good reasons to follow this tradition, that has nothing to do with Google and Blogger. I've seen a few examples here of people who've been dangerously close to transgress the limits of civilized discourse; people with no other intention than a tempered and reasoned dialog. And I've seen the Baron reminding them of the importance of staying within civilized discourse, and they have complied. This is a good order. The examples of the rotten eggs have been very rare here.
Regarding the Barons question of war-gaming, my answer to this is the following: separatism! What we can do concretely, that would really mean something, is to move to a certain place, arm ourselves, and then declare that place as an independent country. That's the general formula. To be successful it should probably be applied to an already existing separatist movement, e.g. the one in Flanders. Or to a place small enough for people like us to become the majority. This is the general idea. But there's quite a lot of a long-term strategy that needs to be worked out. To start with it's enough with one place, one corner of our civilization. To set the good example, to show what is possible. This is all doable.
Regarding war-gaming I suggested:
"to move to a certain place, arm ourselves, and then declare that place as an independent country"
When planning something like this we first need a model. One previously successful example similar to this is Israel. Good to bear in mind.
However, here comes a suggestion I just thought of. It's practical as well as peaceful:
1. Appoint an island anywhere in the world (it should probably already be an independent country).
2. We move to the island and buy all the land on that island.
3. By owning all the land we will be able to take over the political rule of that island.
4. We build a solid army and declare the island a Muslim free zone.
5. We maintain good trade relations with China.
6. We invite immigration by anyone from our civilization that wants to join our cause.
7. When our island is becoming too crowded, we repeat from (1) with a new island.
8. When we have grown even more in numbers we head for mainland areas of Europe, supporting independence of already existing separatist movements: economically, militarily and morally.
There are many more aspects of this plan. This is just a short-hand description of the idea.
Swede, I like the island idea, but even if people did something like this, the rest of the world would boycott our island nation as if it were apartheid South Africa. Would we really want China as our only trading partner? I'm reminded of Samoa, the independent country not the American territory. A few years ago, Samoa announced no muslims would be allowed to settle there, as the risk from terrorism would be too great, for an economy totally dependent on tourism. Well, there was one muslim living there, and he protested, and the Samoans caved, probably after pressure from the U.S.A. This is always the problem with trying to create something...it's an invitation to the rest of the world to interfere.
There are some people in the U.S.A. trying to take over a state like Wyoming or New Hampshire (the Free State movement, mostly libertarians). This hasn't caught on, even though it's a great idea. Maybe people aren't excited about freezing their a** off in either place. A tropical island, though...If only...
The Lakota Indians just revoked their treaty with the US. They own Nebraska, N&S Dakota, Montana and Wyoming. Anyone can join them if they renounce their US citizenship. No mention of how they will operate in relation to Muzzle-ums.
I think I may have explained my position badly, since I seem to have been misunderstood, so let me try again in a simpler fashion.
There are two domains of operations the “peace domain” and the “war domain”, these domains have different rules. In the war domain, you can dispense certain principles, laws, etc. for the duration of the domain. This is what usually happens in wars, and when the war domain collapses it returns to the peace domain, and the laws that prevails there.
My opposition was and is, to introduce the logic and rules of the war domain into the peace domain.
The fact that our opposition considers the peace domain to be part of the war domain, doesn't alter the fact that until the powers that be in the peace domain, changes it into a war domain, we must follow the rules or become revolutionaries, rebels or criminals.
Now as we all know our leadership and governments are not likely to realize the situation and change our societies into the war domain, and we do not have the support necessary to stage a successful revolution, so we must operate within the laws of the peace domain or resort to vigilantism. And the latter I cannot approve of, and even if I could, this would not be the place to talk about it!
So what this boils down to is that... We fight for our principles and we live with the principles (in the peace domain), if we can't do that then the principles have no meaning. In the war domain, we can dispense with some of the principles, at our discretion, to insure our survival whether individually or as a civilization! I hope we can agree on that.
So the real question is what can we do, while working in the peace domain framework, without the help from our governments?
And my position is still that
What can you do ? One thing stands out : have kids. 5. Or better 10. And educate them. Make sure they can handle themselves.
Zonka,
I will tell you how your last comment sounds in my ears:
If Sauron says "peace rules" you will obey. You will not even attempt at changing the rules (to "war rules"), even though it ties your hands behind your back and it's a game you cannot win. You wouldn't challange the rule framework without the permission from Sauron. That doesn't make sense, of course.
Whatever totalitarian or tyrannical rule, you will complacently respect the rule framework they institute? I once read a Christian in another forum, living in the Muslim world, who declared that it's the duty of a Christian to follow the laws wherever he lives, and that included Sharia. And she was ostensibly very proud of submitting to these laws and thought it made her righteous, and a marvelous goodie-goodie.
I'm a revolutionary. I want Sauron overturned. I want to change the rules of the game to make it possible. The "principles" Zonka talks about seem to be like those Tolkien rings. To "rule them all", "to bring them all and in the darkness bind them". Will any totalitarian rule paying lip service to those "principles" bind Zonka not to revolt? The binding is facilitated by a web of an illusionary "we", weaved by the ruling elite using these "principles" as tools. But Sauron will gradually be replaced by Allah. Will you still be following the "peace rules" then, Zonka? And if not, at what point then will you stop following the "peace rules"?
I'm preparing for the revolution. If the idea of righteous revolution doesn't fit your principles, then you might as well just ditch them, yes, because they won't do you no good.
Then there is another issue of how to present this, to the general public, at different stages of the revolution. And how to avoid the eye of Sauron.
CS, that christian was an idiot. We christians are required to follow the rules of the nation we live in as long as they don't conflict with the teachings of Christ, separating the secular from the spiritual for the first time in history (or so they say). Sharia most definitely conflicts with christ's teachings. It's the sort of thing that might have prompted him to open up a whip-weaving shop.
So that person was an idiot. :)
Conservative Swede,
Then either I have a problem explaining myself or you have bad hearing...
I want Sauron overturned as well, but I'm not going up against his armies alone or with a handful of men. I don't have in my possession a ring that can undo Sauron by being cast into that fiery chasm, nor am I part of an army that is big enough to take on Sauron in a head on fight.
So what am I going to do? Pretend that I have such powers and let myself get thrown to the wolves? No, instead I will work within the framework that's possible to change things so that we have a chance of facing Sauron and walk away victorious.
And I will stop following the peace rules at the time the peace ceases to exist, either by a de jure entering into the war domain or the conditions of the peace domain deteriorate to a degree that is unacceptable and there is a better alternative.
So like you I want to fertize the ground for change, but without squandering resources needlessly, thus biding the time, until the time is right for change.
And avoiding the “Eye of Sauron” is exactly what is needed at the moment, as we're easy enough to be squashed in the blink of an eye, at the moment. And that is also why I said that this is not the best place to talk!
This article http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/2799 on Brussel's Journal by a former French ambassador leaves me with almost no hope that Europe will survive.
I fear that my earlier comment had no traction and this is at the heart of our civilizational struggle.
Make no mistake about this. Our civilization runs on petroleum and it will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.
The very first step to combat the Jihad War is to prevent further funding--to stop buying the rope by which to hang us.
We can do this by dis-enacting the laws that hamstring us from pursuing our energy needs at home.
When we can do this we can stop monetary support of the Saudi Kingdom and their support of madrassas and various terror groups.
We can and should engage ourselves in energy Jihad--disengage from ME oil and distribution--and feed the world its energy needs from our resources and thereby cripple the money-cow that is funding Jihad against the West.
Cut them off at their knees.
Be responsible for ourselves.
Don't allow them to buy the tools to destroy us.
There is no person or group that can accomplish this. There is no way around the fact that it has to be done on the national level by a superpower--the US--that must be elected to enact the necessary changes to policy.
The 'big stick' is oil. How long must we let others hold it over us?
Turn,
To get the US to stop importing oil from the ME requires us to defeat the well funded environmentalists first. They are the ones that keep us dependent by blockading access to US resources. This message needs to be spread and made clear to everyone that complains about high gas prices, purchase of US assets by sovereign wealth funds, and Islamic terrorism.
Zonka: "or the conditions of the peace domain deteriorate to a degree that is unacceptable and there is a better alternative."
This principle of your's is now so elastic that it can be interpreted quite freely. E.g. above part has already come in effect: the conditions are unacceptable, and there is a better alternative, so the time to leave the peace domain is already here.
If you are as flexible with all of your principles, you won't have any problem in holding on to them, and we won't have any difficulty in agreeing.
Quoth turn:
"The first step is to elect a president and congress that will recognize the fact that we are still overwhelmingly petroleum based, put the blue sky energy wishes on a back burner, and take the steps to be self sufficient for oil on our continent."
US oil production peaked in 1971. Not even Prudhoe Bay was able to increase production to the 1971 peak, and no amount of drilling in ANWR or off-shore will either (your program is impossible, Charlemagne). If we want to be self-sufficient, we are going to have to slash oil consumption on the order of 70%.
Point of fact: if the US had the same per-capita oil consumption as Brazil, we would be a net exporter.
What this means is that everyone who insists on their "right" to drive a Suburban, Durango or Hummer is feeding the jihad. No amount of American flags and "Support the troops" ribbons changes the ugly fact of where the money from the pump goes. R. James Woolsey gets it, why don't you?
The last time I checked, ingenuity and thrift were American virtues; waste was not. GM is starting to get it, pushing the Chevy Volt to market soon; the Volt and other plug-in hybrids will substitute domestic electricity for terrorist oil. What YOU can do about this is to buy one, drive it, and trumpet your choice as the patriotic one.
This is also an opportunity for outreach. The left is big on the environment and global warming. Whether they're right or wrong, cutting the CO2 emissions from vehicles also cuts the fuel consumption and the revenues to oil producers. That bandwagon is already moving, all you have to do is get on. It also gives you a chance to co-opt their issue and their followers; do not underestimate the potential.
Conservative Swede,
I can see why you might think so, wrt. the situation in Sweden. The question is are you prepared to go against both the system and the Jihadis in a way that would land you on a prominent place on the "Most Wanted" list in Sweden? Is the situation so bad that you would go to such extremes? Or do you feel that there is a chance to still work within the system, or use less extreme measures?
For my part I think that there is still a chance of working within the system to facilitate a change for the better. Your perspective might differ. You don't have to answer my question here, as that could incriminate yourself.
Oh dear...
An important dimension seems to be lost in your reasoning: time!
You seem to assume that everything happens in the very same instantaneous now. I'm talking about mentally preparing for revolution. Not doing it today.
We work within the system as long as, and whenever, it suits us, but we know already now that the system is illegitimate and deserves to be overturned; and that the time will come so we are preparing (mentally and otherwise) for that.
"yada, yada... extreme measures"
What extreme measures??? Share your fantasies with us.
It's you who limit your options, and I who keep the many possibilities open. Of course we can work within the system. But the point is in politics the power of the will is everything. If we do not see this situation as revolutionary, we are not going to get anything done working within the system. Compare it to a salary negotiation. If you are not prepared to go for "extreme measures" (transcending the framework) such as quitting your job, and really mean it, then you are not in a negotiational position.
The previous change that happened within the system in Europe, when Social Democracy took over, happened exactly because they were backed by a movement prepared to make a revolution.
Post a Comment