Saturday, October 31, 2009

Walking the Tightrope

I’m in the process of collating my notes and writing up a report on the International Legal Conference on Freedom of Speech and Religion that I attended earlier this week.

Before we get down to all those nitty-gritty details, I’d like to discuss some meta-issues that arose in the comments thread on the interview with Lord Pearson. Some of the commenters expressed dissatisfaction with Lord Pearson for proposing that gays and feminists needed to be mobilized to support the anti-jihad cause, and for suggesting that a less-than virulent form of Islam — what he called “mild” Muslims — exists.

The cavalier dismissal of the possible participation of gays and feminists in our movement prompted me to say this in the comments:

Actually, there were conservative gay people present at the conference, people who are just as vehemently opposed to Islamization as you and I are. They also have a personal stake in the outcome, much more so than I do. So including them in political coalitions is meaningful and effective.

FunambulistThe doctrinaire feminists will never get on board, but there is another kind of feminist — my wife is one — who is glad that women have achieved equal rights with men under the law, and who does not want to see those rights threatened.

Once again, there were any number of women who fit that description at the conference. They, too, have a personal interest in making sure that Islam does not triumph, and their commitment is just as strong as my own.

Part of my job is to work with these various groups and help coordinate common action among them. This isn’t theoretical for me; it’s quite real and practical. It’s also very difficult.

Those who denigrate what Lord Pearson is doing have probably never attempted to walk the same tightrope that he is now on.

Issues like these surface repeatedly in discussions about anti-jihad strategy and tactics. At one extreme are the doctrinal purists, who condemn or hold in contempt those who advocate anything less than deportation of all Muslims, or who want to form alliances that include left-of-center opponents of Islamization. At the other extreme are the squishy politically correct folks who oppose radical Islam, but tie themselves in knots trying to reach out to “moderate” Muslims and avoid anything that might earn them the “racist” soubriquet.

Most of us are somewhere in between. We’re willing to compromise on side issues in order to build a broad Counterjihad coalition, but refuse to budge on our core principles, which — unfortunately for the squishes — are most emphatically politically incorrect.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

Some critics are adamant that the current situation vis-à-vis Islam in the West has no political solution, and is doomed to end in violent confrontation, civil war, and mass bloodshed.

One senses an element of schadenfreude in this assessment. After all these years of betrayal and invasion, and in the face of the imminent destruction of Western culture, the desire for catharsis is understandable.

It’s also easier than all the alternatives. Since nothing can be done, just stock up on weapons and ammo and be ready for the moment when things go sideways. Why attempt the hard slog towards a political solution when you know for certain that such a course is futile? Better to wait for the inevitable explosion, and then join the fighting in the streets.

Although I can sympathize with such sentiments, I find myself unable to share the enthusiasm for these chiliastic scenarios. It’s important to remember the hideous reality that would result if such events were ever to unfold: the disappearance of civil society, mounds of rotting corpses in the streets, looting, rape, random murder, famine, epidemics — this is what awaits us if we abandon the search for alternative solutions.

I’m not sanguine about the apocalypse, because my family members and friends would likely be among the corpses. And I’m under no illusions about my own physical prowess or skill with weapons, so I’m certain to be lying out there covered with flies and being pecked by vultures like so many others.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

However satisfying it is to contemplate civil war as a solution, the reality of that result is something that very few of us would actually want to face. So I will continue to look for alternative futures. I believe that other solutions are possible, but they will require patience, hard work, flexibility, and compromise.

Unfortunately, they will also include at least some violent confrontations. The Western Disease has progressed to the point that a completely peaceful resolution is no longer available to us. However, we don’t have to opt for the apocalyptic solution, even if it is more satisfactory and requires less effort.

So what are the alternatives?
- - - - - - - - -
Mr. SnoidOur current political establishments are not uniform, but every nation in the West is possessed by the politically correct multicultural demon to a greater or lesser degree. The political classes, the academics, the media snoids, the leaders of mainstream religious denominations — all require exorcism.

Virtually all of them would recoil in horror at any solution that might conceivably turn back the tide of Islamization.

Most of them would literally rather die — and see their own civilization destroyed — than be viewed as “racist” or “intolerant”. We are tolerating ourselves to death.

This means that a political solution is not possible within the existing governing structures and under the current paradigm. How, then, do we create a climate in which change might conceivably occur? Yes, revolution would do the job. But how do we overthrow the dominant paradigm and create a new one without mass fratricidal bloodshed?

Obviously there are no easy answers. A political solution will require time and patience, and we have very little of the former, while most people lack the latter.

If there is to be non-revolutionary and (mostly) non-violent change, it must come from incremental grassroots organizing. I know from experience that building a grassroots network is a tedious, thankless, time-consuming, and unromantic operation.

It involves real tolerance, not the PC kind. It demands listening to different points of view, understanding them, and accepting them, even if full agreement can never be reached.

It means keeping the larger goal in mind while consciously avoiding any focus on points of difference.

For example: I believe in God, but many of the people I deal with are atheists. Some of them are of the orthodox variety, which means they proselytize for their faith and are angry at those who don’t share their beliefs. I have to put aside my annoyance and avoid taking offense, because orthodox atheists are an invaluable asset to the Counterjihad.

On the other side are the Christians who oppose any accommodation with homosexuality or abortion. They, too, are bastions against the Islamization of the West.

This approach contains something to offend virtually everyone. Most groups in such a coalition have reason to hate one another. Keeping them together under a single umbrella is a Herculean task, but it is something we must strive for if we intend to win this struggle.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

One of the common problems within the Counterjihad is what I call the “we statement”. Here are some examples:

  • We need to deport all Muslims to their countries of origin.
  • We should take strong military action against countries that support Islamic terrorism
  • We must hold our traitorous politicians to account
  • We should nuke Mecca and Medina
  • We need to forbid the construction of mosques in Western countries
  • We must eradicate Islam from the face of the earth

…and so on.

OK, I agree with at least some of these ideas. But to what effect?

Take a look at the political situation in the West right now. The real one, that is, not the one you wish we had.

The leftmost wing of the Democratic Party in the United States holds power, and will control the permanent bureaucracy for the foreseeable future.

Social Democrats are in control of most European countries, and the Center-Right alternative is only microscopically better. With the exception of the Netherlands — which may change drastically after the next elections — there is no hope that things will change within the existing political structure. When the Lisbon Treaty takes hold and codifies the EUSSR, matters will become even worse.

The situation in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand is similar. No matter which party holds power, the general direction of affairs remains the same.

Throughout the West, the political elite have created a system which assures them of continued power, but also completely forbids them to roll back Multiculturalism or do anything to stop the Islamic juggernaut.

We are locked into our present course unless the system itself changes.

And the only way the system will change — assuming we forego the option of bloody revolution — will be through the grassroots. Change cannot and will not come from the top down.

Like it or not, if you want to avoid both sharia and corpse-strewn streets, you will have to undertake the tedious, difficult, and thankless task of building a broad coalition.

Forget what “we” should do. “We” can’t do any of those things.

But there are things that can be done, and I prefer to concentrate on those.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

The first thing we must eschew is the pronouncing of anathema against those with whom we disagree. Instead, let’s focus on what we can agree on.

It’s important to remember the core objectives and principles that must not be compromised. They are few and easy to enumerate:

1. We categorically refuse to accept sharia law in any form and to any degree.
2. Mass immigration, especially from Muslim countries, must cease.
3. No special provisions for Islam in the West are acceptable. Muslims must be subject to the same laws and restrictions as the rest of us, no matter how much they are offended by them.

Those are straightforward and easy to understand. Any person or group who adheres to these three objectives should be welcome in a coalition — provided that they are willing to work with different groups with which they may disagree on other issues.

And there’s the rub. What we see to an alarming degree today is that people refuse to work with one another, to the detriment of all who oppose Islamization.

Atheists won’t work with Christians.

Evangelical Christians won’t work with gays.

Libertarians won’t work with Socialists.

People who believe there are no moderate Muslims won’t work with those who believe the opposite.

And on and on and on.

This constant energy-draining intramural fighting will literally be the death of us. When the mujahideen roll up to our doorsteps and put their knives to our necks, at least we can reassure ourselves that we never for an instant wavered from the correct ideology.

We may be dead, but by God, our doctrine remained pure right up until the very end.

Once again, I’ll ask the same question I’ve asked so many times before:

Would you rather be right, or effective?

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

To return to Malcolm Everard MacLaren Pearson, Baron Pearson of Rannoch.

Lord Pearson wants to have an effect on “mild” Muslims. But you don’t think that mild Muslims exist.

So what?

Lord Pearson is staunchly against sharia, vehemently opposes further immigration, and insists that Muslims in the UK must submit to the same rules as native Britons.

Would you rather remain pure, forego an alliance with him, and lose any chance of working with thousands of people who support him and UKIP?

If you encounter groups of homosexuals or feminists who vigorously resist Islamization, would you refuse to have anything to do with them? Why?

It reminds me of the old Kingston Trio song:

The whole world is festering with unhappy souls
The French hate the Germans, the Germans hate the Poles
Italians hate Yugoslavs, South Africans hate the Dutch.
And I don’t like anybody very much

But we can be tranquil and thankful and proud
For man’s been endowed with a mushroom shaped cloud
And we know for certain that some lovely day
Someone will set the spark off, and we will all be blown away


We’re headed for that punch line unless we can figure out how to find common ground with one another and work together.

Building workable coalitions is a hard enough job in itself, but after that comes the really difficult work: designing a plan for effective action.

I want to concentrate on accomplishing Step One so that we can move on to Step Two, which is a long and dangerous task.

45 comments:

Dymphna said...

One lone man, all by himself, can make a difference.

As I read this essay, I kept thinking of LionHeart. Now there is a courageous human being. He is looked down on and sneered at by his "betters" as much as he is looked down on and spit at by the Pakistanit drug lords who have taken over his neighborhoods.

I don't think he any longer has a permanent home, though I could be wrong. Sometimes he emails me when he's hiding out and we talk about the long slog.

He's willing to do it and he knows it may end in failure. The Pakistanis really do actively want to kill him and he knows he may die.

I get mad at him sometimes for being so matter-of-fact about it but to him it's come down to a fight for his country.

That's why he went back when we were trying to get him to stay and seek asylum. I was so concerned that he was flying home to his death. But as he said, if he dies, he wants it to be in England, for England.

Now there's a man who stands for what he believes. The ankle-biters all want to bring him down for one reason or another. He is bloodied, maybe, but unbowed.

For LionHeart, purity lies in action on behalf of his beloved country.

Part of me admires his singlemindedness. Another part frets about his all-too-mortal zeal.

Fjordman said...

Baron: I both agree and disagree with what you say. The political system throughout the Western world is now completely broken from our point of view and favors the status quo. I think we need to ask ourselves the following question: Are Western elites actively trying to destroy their own civilization, not just as a matter of being naive, but willfully and knowingly?

Most people will still shake their heads in disbelief if you ask this question and put you in the same category as those who believe that the Americans never went to the Moon and that the Apollo landings were staged and filmed in a TV studio. However, we now have so many statements from various high officials, from the Labour Party in Britain via Scandinavian politicians to American ones, that I think we need to take this idea seriously.

In science there is the concept of Ockham’s Razor, named after the fourteenth century English scholastic philosopher William of Ockham. Very briefly stated it says that you should use the simplest possible explanation to explain observed reality. If we assume that Western elites want to break down Western nations states in favor of transnational authoritarian entities, a deliberate program of ideological "Globalism," then it makes sense that they use mass immigration and Multiculturalism in general and Islam in particular as a battering ram to break down the established order. This theory passes Ockham’s Razor because it provides a simple and coherent explanation for observed reality and behavior. I notice some of those who comment over at Lawrence Auster's place agree with this position.

As the Baron indicates, this makes the situation a lot more complicated in that we not only have to fight Muslims but also our own elites, who often side with Muslims and other hostile groups against us. This, unfortunately, makes a pan-Western civil war a real possibility. I suspect they don't do this just for appeasement, though there is undoubtedly an element of that as well, but because they actively like the destructive and repressive potential of these groups. All Western elites support continued Islamization. They do this precisely because they desire to utilize Islam's oppressive and authoritarian nature.

Takuan Seiyo said...

There is a lot to comment, and I’ll do most of it in Part 14 of the “Meccania-Atlantis” series.
First, we have to recognize that Muslim colonization and jihad are just one of the major problems besieging the West -- and in the U.S. a relatively minor one. And, I contend, even if you had a magic wand and we wake up tomorrow with all Muslims gone and living where they came from, with other Trojan horses still here we would still be careening on a downward slope.
Second, the reason all these Trojan horses are here, including the Muslim one, is because of identifiable demographic groups in which dysfunctional traits are concentrated to several standard deviations beyond the mean for white Western males. Yes, it’s “white” and it’s “males.” For instance, unmarried white females are proportionately among the strongest backers of all suicidal policies in every Western countries.
So “gays” and “feminists” or even “Muslims” does not begin to address the issue. We have different and very grave problems with groups only some of which I can mention here and now: Jews, Scandinavians, major denomination Christian clergy and their faithful flocks, blacks, mestizos, the under-30 (i.e. totally brainwashed) stratum etc.
There is no way to defeat jihad unless you somehow defeat the indigenous Westerners whose stupidity and brainwashed ideology has allowed Islam to take a purchase on the West. There is no way to control the gale of rape, murder and violence sweeping over the West unless you can defeat not just jihad, but the non-whites. And you can’t send most of them “back to where they came from,” because American blacks, for instance, were here before you (or at least I) were here.
That’s why the only viable solution I can see that avoids violence, at least in the foreseeable future, is what I call “John Galt meet General Kutuzov.” More later.

Baron Bodissey said...

Fjordman --

I don't disagree with anything you said. I think Andrew Neather let the cat out of the bag with his recent admission that the Labour Party deliberately used immigration to cement its power in the UK.

But globalist doctrine isn't the only factor. Remember, a large and continuous influx of Third Worlders guarantees a permanent majority for the Socialists in the West. They have a vested interest in keeping the immigration machine cranked up, since the new arrivals vote overwhelmingly for the Socialist parties.

So what do you disagree with -- my assertion that we need to form a broad coalition in order to have any hope of effecting mostly non-violent change?

Remember, I'm not predicting our success. Our chances aren't actually all that good. I just feel a personal obligation to make the attempt.

Chechar said...

Baron,

As I said, I like Lord Pearson a lot (although he is a rather mild gentleman). And I do recommend Bawer’s book to liberals as the best introduction to the problem (although homosexuals don’t fight for my right to say that their lifestyle is pathological). And I highly esteem Pat Robertson because of his stance against islamization (although I am not a Christian). And I am willing to work with them all.

But since the entire western world is under the grip of a suicidal ideology, I very much doubt that the paradigm will shift unless things go horribly wrong in Europe. Oh!: and I doubt that corpses will be rotting in U.S. streets when the European showtime begins (unless Iran plays with its nukes).

Sorry, but a violent civil war is the only way out of this European mess. This is not pessimism but realism. Only a truly major catastrophe can break the current liberal paradigm. And I pray for the eschaton in my own lifetime.

Fj,

I agree with everything what you said except that, pace Ockham’s razor, I maintain that the elites’ treason also involves unconscious motives (I have now finished my essay on the “Hysteric Leftist” and can start translating it to English).

Why do I apparently want to violate this economy, parsimonious principle? Because the British and Nordic pronouncements that you refer about are so extremely abyssal in self-hatred, that more than a mere will of power must be involved. Also, remember what I recently said in another thread about Bill Clinton stating this year before a Muslim audience that it’s very good that whites will be a minority in the US. This coming from someone who’s no longer president, and spoken so candidly and without any self-consciousness, speaks volumes about an inner pathology that cannot be circumscribed in commonsensical politics or even in Machiavellian politics.

There is something else going on extremely wrong in the Western’s psyche.

Morris County Feedstore said...

May God have mercy on all of their
souls. They've begun a destruction
that cannot now be turned back.
And it will spread globally.

Fjordman said...

Baron: I don't disagree with you on too much, actually. We should try to reach out to as many potential allies as possible to limit the damage that is inevitably going to ensue from the impending structural and ideological collapse. I just fear that the system is now so broken or hostile to our interests that trying to work within it is no longer enough. But yes, we should nevertheless try for the best.

KGS said...

The title of Edward O. Phillips's novel *Hope Springs Eternal* comes to mind. It's inevitable that the human spirit refuses to give into doom and hopelessness, where there's hope then there's a chance.

Like the Baron said, we need as wide of a coalition as humanly possible, which means seeking out people who agree with us on *these importaqnt issues*, there's just no way around it if you're really serious about doing something.

It is also true that the mindset we are up against, is indeed as Fjordman states. There is a conscience effort by many working in the lower and upper eschelons of our governmantal bureaucracies at destroying the very fabric of our western societies.

To counter them we have to work from the ground up -as did these socialist radicals who spread the highly destructive dogma of political correctness (read = cultural marxism) with great success- and reverse their change of society.

That means getting active on the grass roots level and work through the local government where one lives, one municipality at a time. It's slow, painstakingly slow, but necessary nonetheless.

For an example, the Finns have started a new political party which is of course focusing on reversing mass immigration, but also on our democratic structures that gave birth to these destructive policies.

A call for direct democracy will come to be heard more often in Finland, which would mean the end to much of the political machinations that allow for such subversions of our societies.

The average man or woman does not buy into the total destruction of their society, and their direct say, not the political system existing, hold the keys to turning things around.

sheik yer'mami said...

Kudos to the Baron for posting this. It looks like GoV is the only website that ever touches this subject, all others (including mine) focus on the daily atrocities, the beheadings, the attacks, the rapes and the crime committed by the RoP.

I think this is something to build on, Baron, and far more important than our usual frenzied blogging that may raise awareness, may help to educate some, but fails in the essential mission, which is to reverse the spread of Islam and the one-world utopia of our respective Socialist governments. (Are there any other ones left?)

Thanks again, Baron. And also thank you for sending me these other articles re the same subject.

Free Hal said...

Dear Baron,

I agree that we are heading for another disaster like the French Revolution, only more violent.

Can we change direction to something more like the American Revolution?

The American Revolution showed that people can live in freedom and dignity, whilst the French one showed that they can’t.

The difference was twofold: the Founding Fathers; and the existing colonial machinery which Americans could take over because they already ran it.

So a good starting point would be for you to create some sort of founders’ group.

They can, first, agree on what you are founding. A herculean task, but you have able people to call on, and you don’t need many.

Second, plan out some sort of machinery that will enable civil life to carry on after the collapse of the democratic machinery. Or a way to revive the existing machinery after it has collapsed. This is the really hard nut to crack, but essential.

Best wishes,

Hal

4Symbols said...

Baron,

After decades of complicity why do you think Lord Pearson is only now on the right side, this man was at the heart of government as with Thatcher, Blair, and Cameron he viewed Asian families as a better prospects and representations of Britishness than the indigenous common man.

Being part of what you may call the underclass - ask any U.K. politician which class remained politically active while everyone else was asleep and why the establishment done everything in its powers to destroy that class. Lord Pearson and his type would not even have spat on me if an islamist had set me on fire.

The values you seek are with this underclass in the U.K. it was the hierarchy of the church that scattered the congregation while the good lord subjected the people to sharia law.

Lord Pearson and the fringe groups will need the patronage and protection of the common man and the underclass before that class needs them, they fight harder and longer.

Lord Pearson is after my vote, I withheld my mandate along time ago and will not give it in trust until common sense and justice prevail.

As an after thought did a back-office boy in MI5 dream up "mild islam"?

Geoffrey de Bouillon said...

Baron,

Thank you for your efforts to support the counter jihad. I agree with most of you points. But because I agree, I believe that the only path to stopping the Jihad goes through defeating the Left first. There is no stopping the Jihad until the West comes to grip with Leftist faulty thinking. I believe we have a death wish. The Zero is not the cause, he is a reflection of it.

There is a good comment thread over at Neoneocon about who left actually are.

mriggs said...

Test

mriggs said...

Long time reader, first time poster.

The situation we find ourselves in is one of inevitable confrontation. How violent that confrontation, no one knows. We have the advantage of full knowledge of the enemy's aims and strategy - conquest of the west from within, once demographics are sufficiently favorable. Our counterstrategy seems clear. The issue must be forced, the confrontation moved forward in time while the enemy still hasn't achieved favorable demographics. This must be done in such a way, however, that doesn't surrender the moral high ground, but rather exposes the enemy's moral low ground. Grassroots action, yes. This is a must. But the large scale propaganda war is the most important. It must be shown that while we wish to speak and demonstrate, the enemy counters with violence. Engage in targeted dialogue - Pose the question to all religions in society: "Should homosexuals be killed?" etc. Promote Max Frisch's play, Biedermann und die Brandstifter - a modern western cultural staple that happens to deal with EXACTLY what is going on in our society today. Generally speaking, do EVERYTHING that is legitimate and reasonable in western society that abhors the enemy and forces him into rash action. When I say reasonable, I DON'T mean iconoclasm such as the motoons etc, something that is perceived as an abuse of the principle of free speech. That sort of thing does not capture the moral high ground. Publications and dialogue must deal with actual issues, not just iconoclasm. The freedom of homosexuals is an actual issue, the right to offend for the sake of it is not; the common man does not see the latter as a basic human necessity, but does see the former as such.

In this way we mobilize the masses and undercut the elites, which should ensure that when violent action occurs (and it can be said it has already started) the armed forces of each nation are on our side.

mriggs said...

Just one more thing that cannot be emphasized too strongly: Victory cannot be achieved through seeking confrontation with other groups in society who are not the enemy. The enemy is islamization and its muslim proponents. They must be isolated, not pushed into a common cause with other societal groups.

Orlando said...

There is still a long time between now and the eventual violent clash that will occur. It's not until Islam and the Left became intolerably oppressive (and when they also have a much greater demographic), that anything will happen.

mriggs said...

Orlando: first of all, don't put the enemy into a category with another societal group. The enemy must be ISOLATED, and first of all he must be isolated in our minds, then in our words, then in reality.
Second of all, what you said is too close to defeatism for comfort. Focus on what can be done, not on what cannot.

heroyalwhyness said...

Orlando, this and this should convince you that time is not on our side.

Orlando said...

@mriggs: I think you are splitting hairs here. When I speak of Left and Islamists, I'm obviously isolating who the enemy is. I hope you aren't demanding I name ever Leftist and every Islamist when talking about this issue. As far as defeatism is concerned, I have no doubt in my mind that we will successfully beat the enemy. Your problem is with how I characterize the fight because it is uncomfortable for you. The truth is not always easy. The political solution is impossible. This will be a blood bath, in my opinion.

@heroyalwhyness: Signing anti-speech bills and the pompousness of such actions are of little value. When I speak of intolerable oppression, I speak of people being imprisoned for talking about Islam and that type of thing. We're not there yet. We have a while to go before that becomes an acceptable and politically correct practice.

mriggs said...

Very well Orlando. Perhaps I have misunderstood you and/or am splitting hairs.
I agree that a "political" solution (one that is exclusively non-violent) is impossible, if only for the fact that the violence has already started. E.g. in Sweden the enemy is already capturing or fighting to capture real estate that will need to be recaptured later in some way.
What we need to do is split the enemy from the left leaning segment of the population, after which the multicultural elite whithers. If you are hinting that the thing to do is wait until the left has endorsed the principles of the islamists to a much greater degree, then I think that would be a big mistake. That would correspondingly increase the stake the left has in seeing the islamists triumphant, and we cannot be sure of defeating these two blocs combined.
The eventual decisive factor will be where the allegiance of the armed forces will come to lie, and getting them firmly on our side requires that the western population remains united.

heroyalwhyness said...

Orlando - think again Christian hoteliers charged with insulting Muslim guest

Godffrey said...

It appears that there is an inherent assumption among our multicultist elites that Muslims will not contest their rule. This is, of course, a naive assumption to make as Muslims will not tolerate being ruled by infidels if they can do something about it. In the future when Muslims are a majority, or at least a large minority, they will no doubt attempt to overthrow these now useless idiots. Most likely the military be called out to restore order. There are two options here, either call in the military to keep the Muslims under control or gain some temporary favor from the Muslims by making more concessions to them and sicking the military onto the people. The former option is obviously the most sensible but I don't think that the elites would rule out the latter. Multiculturalism is the new religion for those in power and the truly faithful will stay with their chosen faith even under the threat of death. The million dollar question is whether or not the folks in the military would be willing to shoot at their own people. Traditionally wherever you go the military has always been a conservative institution. In the event of an outbreak of civil war in America I have no doubt that the military would refuse to shoot at the American people. I am not sure about what would happen in Europe as I have little knowledge of any European armies, but i would have to assume that the European leftists keep an eye open to watch for any deviation from ideological orthodoxy in their respective military establishments (definitely an interesting subject for Europeans commentators to investigate).

Frank Hilliard said...

I'd like to join this discussion from a Canadian perspective. Here we have a minority Conservative government that has taken some strong anti-Islamic terror initiatives, but which can't seem to come to grips with Islamic fundamentalism as such. So, to give you an example, the Party has voted to eliminate the notorious Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act which has been used by Islamists to prohibit criticism of Islam, but the Government has shown no desire to actually do so.

What can you do when the Government can't, or won't, follow its own policy conventions?

What I did was to leave the party and join the Christian Heritage Party. I reasoned that only a religious-based party could understand, block and eventually defeat Islamism, cultural relativism and statist Marxism.

However, even here, the CHP has not yet fully come to grips with the threat posed by Islamic immigration, judicial advocacy and a left-leaning, media. It is still, to a large extent, dealing with effects rather than causes.

My compliments to the Baron, Dymphna and Fjordman for leading the fight, understanding the issues and suggesting lines of defence.

planegoody said...

Agreed, 1,2,3. Good start.

Also, the mindset certainly does need to change.

For a start, stop changing the laws to accomodate muslims and they might even leave voluntarily. Why should the laws be changed to accomodate muslim sensibilites?

Meat preparation rules are in place, yet muslims are allowed to break those laws. Why?

Burial laws exist. Muslims are allowed to break those laws. Why?

Education laws exist. Muslims are are changing what is taught and how education happens. Why are they allowed to do this?

Marriage laws exist. Muslims are allowed to break those laws? Why?

Tax laws exist. Yet muslims are allowed to break those laws and claim more than one spouse. Why?

Security and identity photo laws exist. Why are muslims allowed to break those laws?

When these laws were put in place, no exclusion clause for religions was included. Why suddenly are they being changed? Why is religion suddenly more important than the laws of the land?


The only law that should change because of muslims living in the west? Anytime a suicide bomber murders someone, their head and parts should not be given back, but buried in pigs blood. That would stop suicide bombers. Why isn't this done?

You want a peaceful future? Stop the accomodation now.


The only other peaceful suggestion is to encourage families to have more children. You can either have too many kids, or too few and import the difference. It is impossible to keep a population completely stable. Take your pick.

mriggs said...

One more point that might be worth making is that a minority coup is infeasible. It would galvanize the left and the multiculturalists in other countries and make the wider war unwinnable, and probably bring military action against the country in question.

ole said...

Well, if we're talking about strategi- elements so here's my favorite one : When facing an enemy who seems to have everything going for him , you must draw back to a defensible position.
In the short future this can be interpreted as reason for us to ENCOURAGE the establishing of muslim-only ghettoes in the big european cities.
If muslims start actualy managing their own neighborhoods, it will exspose their real nature , which they are otherwise doing a brilliat job of hiding.
If muslims stay and live more in their ghettoes, a BORDER will be established befor or later, and young peoble growing up in these violent border areas might be a whole new breed as in the danish "biker gangs".
Ghettoes will be aplace that some educated muslim born women wil be willing to risk their lives to escape from.
And so on , there are countless reasons .

mriggs said...

Ole: It is true each increment of the enemy's advance will serve to expose his nature. This is something that will happen by itself, however. Active planning must focus on how to provoke the enemy into revealing himself more clearly than otherwise, and shine the spotlight in him.

kritisk_borger said...

If the anti-jihad movement in the west are going to achieve anything at all in their fight against radical Islam and religious intolerance, they need to have a well formulated plan and a good strategy which will ensure that this plan is achievable.

If the anti-jihad movement is split into various factions, and those various factions refuse to cooperate because of some minor differences in opinion and ideology, and if they even in some cases actively work against each other because of this, they will most likely fail in their attempts and not achieve their intended goals.

This is of course a dream scenario for the jihadist movement, who are very organized and knows exactly how to achieve their goals. It’s a classical example of conquer and divide, let the opponents dig their own graves so to speak, by busying themselves with petty infighting among their own ranks, the jihadists will win without even having to confront them.

The anti-jihad movement need to recruit members from a broad spectrum of the political scale. They would also be well advised to treat their fight against the jihadists as war, because when it comes down to it, that’s exactly what it is, even if no violent battles are being waged.

It would also be a good idea for the leadership of the anti-jihad movement to study the work of Chinese army general Sun Tzu, and familiarise themselves with his principles of how battles are won. No battles can be won without a proper plan and strategy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_art_of_war

Baron Bodissey said...

Thanks to everybody for your thoughtful comments.

Free Hall --

So a good starting point would be for you to create some sort of founders’ group.

Well, there already is such a group. It’s called ICLA, and its function is to communicate among various groups and act as a network of networks. Wherever possible we work with any group that genuinely supports the three basic objectives outlined above. In fact, we work with disparate groups who wouldn’t be caught dead working with each other directly.

But my part in it is small, because my skills are limited. I’m good at networking with people, writing propaganda, and building occasional images. That’s about it.

Fortunately, better minds than mine are hard at work at ICLA.

——

Geoffrey de Bouillon --

I believe that the only path to stopping the Jihad goes through defeating the Left first. There is no stopping the Jihad until the West comes to grip with Leftist faulty thinking.

I share your distaste for the Left, but I think that this strategy would be a mistake.

First of all, the number of leftists who are willing to strongly oppose the jihad is quite small, and doesn’t include anyone from the far Left, who are fully committed to the Demonic Convergence with Islam. Anyone on the “moderate” Left who shares our goals should be welcomed.

Working with us will make them apostates from the Left, and thus the sworn enemy of their former comrades. At the same time, close association with principled conservatives will tend to move them further to the right.

So working with moderate leftists is a win-win for us — it tends to divide the Left, and it adds to our numbers while broadening our base.

——

4Symbols —

Even if you were able to determine Lord Pearson’s true motivation, why is that of any concern to us? If he is genuinely opposed to sharia and immigration, then he is an ally, regardless of his motives. The same thing applies to the BNP, the EDL, and any other group that shares our goals.

As for the working class, I agree with you completely. It’s time for both the upper and the lower reaches of Britain’s social stratification to overcome their mutual distaste and work towards our common goals.

And the “mild Islam” meme is a great strategy, IMHO. It has already upset some of the Muslims, so Lord Pearson must be doing something right.

The Poster Formerly Known as Gordon said...

1. We categorically refuse to accept sharia law in any form and to any degree.
2. Mass immigration, especially from Muslim countries, must cease.
3. No special provisions for Islam in the West are acceptable. Muslims must be subject to the same laws and restrictions as the rest of us, no matter how much they are offended by them.


Amazingly enough, I completely agree with points 1 and 3, and agree with the 1/2 if point 2 related to "Muslim countries." (except that I would allow persecuted Christian minorities to emigrate from Muslim countries). I believe that mass immigration to the U.S. from Latin America, East Asia, and South Asia strengthens the U.S., although I wouldn't presume to say the same for Europe.

I am also nowhere near as pessimistic about the ability of the Western World's current leaders to recognize these points before it is too late than you are, but that is an argument about means, not ends.

Chechar said...

@ I believe that mass immigration to the U.S. from Latin America, East Asia, and South Asia strengthens the U.S --Gordon

Jesus Christ in Heaven: What a nonsense! Please study the history of Mestizo America (improperly called “Latin America”). I told you in our previous exchange when I started to post here that I have lived among Mexican and “Latin” America immigrants in the US. They are destroying the WASP culture as they already have destroyed my native town of Mexico City: by breeding like rabbits.

It’s amazing to see comments like the above one here in GoV. Please visit Mexico and see with your own eyes the nightmare that brown, uneducated people created in the largest city of the continent here down the South.

usmcwarrior said...

All of this makes for nice conversation and very civil discourse but is missing one important point: If Islam is an inanimate, thoughtless entity, you can pretty much do with it as you will. The problem is it is a dynamic, ideology that requires the purification of the earth through intensive propagation of the faith. That intense action they (Muslims) and their Koran call Jihad. You cannot sidestep that or reason with it or its proponents because they lie at the heart of the ideology. In the same way a Christian may choose to become a lifelong missionary to some far-flung corner of the world to share the Gospel of Jesus Christ, to save the souls of ignorant; the Islamist is prepared to purify men and the world through Jihad for Allah. The problem is, the unrepentant must perish by Koranic dictate or be subjugated. Which are you prepared for? Understand this is not a fight of your choosing but rather one that was thrust upon us in the 7th century. The Islamists have spent all the time that has followed, being true believers.

Those 'moderate' Muslims are largely seen as Apostate by the true believers and are at the top of the list for death but, as we saw with moderate Christians in the days that followed 9/11, the most lukewarm believers will rally to their 'first love' when trouble descends. We should not be so naive as to think this will not happen to 'moderate Muslims' if their faith is ill-affected in some way. Denying them a certain level of acceptance in society certainly rises to that level.

What we need to do is what we know to be right, understanding that there are always ill-consequences that follow even great and righteous decisions. Every one of the Apostles except one was martyred even though they held true to their faith and continued to share the Gospel. If we continue to count the unknown theoretical cost for righteous decisions and then fail to act according to what we knew to be right in the beginning; where does that leave us?

I am all for the live and let live philosophy. My Christian teaching tells me I can no more drag a man into heaven than you can a camel through the eye of a needle. Every man must stand or fall on his own convictions, but any ideology and its adherents that choose to threaten me with death for refusing to convert, frankly, needs to be destroyed. This was not a fight of our making. It was made by Mohammed, his visions and through the incessant actions of his progeny for these last 1300 years. I don't know about you, but for me and mine I say, fight and destroy the enemies of this country and our people until there are no more enemies.

Semper Fidelis;

John Bernard

Johnny Rottenborough said...

I’ve read and admired your blog for a long time; this is my first post.

If Lord Pearson (a fellow Briton) thinks that British/European Islam will reform itself to the equivalent of the Church of England, I’d advise him not to hold his breath. Why should Muslims change a winning formula when the prize they have been eyeing for hundreds of years—Europe—is within their grasp?

Christopher Caldwell, in Reflections on the Revolution in Europe, writes, ‘It can be a pathetic spectacle to watch [Western liberals] waiting around for Islam to modernize—or to become less all-consuming in the lives of its practitioners—in the way that Christianity did from the sixteenth century on.’

Muslims are on a winner in Europe, Islam will not reform itself, and Europe’s only non-violent hope of escaping subjugation by Islam is the deportation of Muslims.

mriggs said...

The deportation of muslims is not a non-violent solution because it cannot be achieved non-violently.

The notion of mild Islam can be a useful one, because a search for this entity is apt to reveal that there is precious little of it about; and what little of it that can be drawn out will most likely attract violence from the rest of Islam, thus exposing the enemy's nature even better. Scenario: Qardavi or what his name is has proclaimed Adolf Hitler an emissary of allah - where are the moderate muslims to denounce this notion?

Frank Hilliard said...

When people talk about 'moderate' Muslims what they really mean are non-violent Muslims who are in the majority. Unfortunately, as Paul Johnson points out in Modern Times, The World from the Twenties to the Nineties, history shows that moderates are the first victims of the extremists once push comes to shove. Specifically, he says the FLN in Algeria targeted Muslim and French moderates in order to drive them into the extremist camp. The same thing happened in Gaza and Lebanon and we can expect something similar in the coming confrontation with Islamists in Europe and North America.

Moderate Muslims will be the first to be attacked by Muslim assassination squads and bombers.

WAKE UP said...

Baron, bless you, but there's only one possible course of action; to paraphrase Leonard Cohen: "First we take Washington, then we take..."

...if you get my drift.

Baron Bodissey said...

WAKE UP --

I share your sentiments, but take another look at what you just wrote.

The problem, as I keep pointing out, is the word "we".

"We" can't do what you propose. "We" can't do much of anything except vote repeatedly for either Tweedledum or Tweedledee.

"We" will continue to bend over and be on the receiving end, and "we" can choose between getting eight inches or ten inches of the full multicultural monty. That's what democracy does for "us".

So I'm talking about what I can do, along with a relatively small number of like-minded people.

That's where "we" have to start.

WAKE UP said...

Baron, I was QUOTING Leonard Cohen, whose use of "we" I hear as a rallying cry. Also, he's got his targets in the right order.
Nevertheless, I take your point - but we mustn't lose too much focus arguing finer points among ourselves. Resistance is the key.
For myself, to paraphrase another great poet: "America, I'm putting my...shoulder to the wheel" (Alan Ginsberg).

Personally, I resist Islam vociferously and firmly every time I encounter it, even in its smaller manifestations (they're merely harbingers of a greater malevolence).

And I contend (and this is not far removed from your position) that if everyone does what I do, the "I" will become "we". It's called the Tipping Point.
---------------
Best regards, and congratulations on the fine post that produced this thread in the first place.

Baron Bodissey said...

WAKE UP --

OK, now we are in complete agreement. With diligence, "I" can become "we" -- especially if I don't snipe and carp and sabotage those who are supposed to be on the same side.

As for Leonard Cohen -- here's another apropos quote (from the album New Skin For The Old Ceremony):

There is a war between the rich and poor,
a war between the man and the woman.
There is a war between the ones who say there is a war
and the ones who say there isn't.


[...]

There is a war between the left and right,
a war between the black and white,
a war between the odd and the even.


This is my fourth comment here, so y'all are free to go at me now...

Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ mriggs (11/02/2009 4:36 PM)—The deportation of muslims is not a non-violent solution because it cannot be achieved non-violently.

With a generous helping of money to the departing Muslims and to the country taking them in, there’s every hope that violence would be avoided. Anything rather than bloodshed.

Orlando said...

"Peaceful solution" well-wishers aren't looking at history as a guide. Are there any cases were an enemy has successfully invaded a country, taken hold of the reigns of power, and then acquired to the wishes of the conquered for moral reasons? haha. And we are talking about the Muslims, the same enemy force that conquered much of Europe once before.

You are attaching ethical sensibilities that you have, to an enemy force hellbent on the destruction of everything you stand for.

And you think this is going to be "non-violent"? Please.

Orlando said...

*acquired=acquiesced

WAKE UP said...

"There is a war between the ones who say there is a war, and the ones who say there isn't" (Cohen)

Damn right, Baron. Keep yer powder dry, y'all.

sheik yer'mami said...

Johnny Rottenborough sez:

The deportation of muslims is not a non-violent solution because it cannot be achieved non-violently.

With a generous helping of money to the departing Muslims and to the country taking them in, there’s every hope that violence would be avoided. Anything rather than bloodshed.

Really?

Germany's done that more than 20 years ago. Some 70000 Turkish "guestworkers" received "generous helpings of money" (they always do, don't they?) for the promise to return to Turkey.

Just about all of them took a long holiday and came back when the money was gone. Furthermore, when they came back they brought their extended tribes with them. The problem is now bigger than before.

I have no hope that bloodshed can be avoided. After all, we are dealing with a blood cult that doesn't subscribe to your sensitivities.

4Symbols said...

Hi Baron,

No amount of conventional politicking is going to pull the U.K. back from the brink, unfortunately the breakdown of the democratic process in the U.K. is more serious than is realised, the country is basically being governed by quangos. Old style government departments such as the foreign office have been heavily infiltrated by the unthink brigade as for the ministry of defence that can not even marshal its own incompetence in procurement.

In short we have to create a new space or surface a clean slate to communicate the message so that it is not lost amidst the convoluted unthink graffiti that has vandalised the democratic process. The quarry of that surface has to be from first principles those principles can only be found in a reawakening of Christianity - not as dogmatism but as a source of moral fibre.

If the debate is allowed to fall into the discredited politics of the left and right, then it will be lost. Amusingly in the MSM the political elite are now referring to themselves as the political elite, that is a small victory they must not be allowed to think of themselves as abstract from a debate that is spread across the political spectrum.

Lionheart is a good example of creating such a clean surface, after all that has befallen the U.K. he was the first to bring people out on to the streets in large numbers, his place in history is secured.

Thank you for GoV.