- - - - - - - - -One major issue emerged from the “What Can We Do?” thread. It is one that frequently arises in a lot of other threads as well. Namely, whether Islam can be defeated without first breaking liberalism’s Politically Correct stranglehold on the Western mindset.
I propose a thread titled, “The Quiet Game”. It refers to the title of a murder mystery written by Greg Iles. “The Quiet Game” is a dinnertime ruse used by parents to keep children quiet. This is done by having a contest to see can go the longest without speaking.
I propose to use this concept in referring to how both the Left and Right are playing mum on the threat of Islam. As Serge Trifkovic says, they are “refusing to name the enemy”.
I then want to connect this up into the more important theme of whether Islam can be defeated without first killing Political Correctness. It concerns me greatly to witness so many people resign themselves to seeing America undergo nuclear terrorist attack before they think US citizens will mobilize.
We need to break through that resignation and begin getting some consensus on exactly how and what it will take to bring Islam down. Personally, I believe that Islam needs to go first. Not just because it is the greater threat but also due to how the Left’s protection of Muslim agendas will finally reveal Liberals for the traitorous element they have become. Communism was too widely accepted and masked its intentions too well for it to have been a millstone around the left’s neck like it should have been.
Islam is so odious and barbaric that this is one albatross the Left will not be able to wear without stinking up the room. By directing the West’s major effort against Islam, it will automatically highlight the Left’s complicity in propelling jihad and forever maim its credibility. This will my own major assertion upon which further debate can be grounded.
OK, Zenster — here you go. Everyone can have at it, while remembering the Rules of Discourse for Gates of Vienna.
I have a hard day ahead of me at work, so you all are mostly on your own.
45 comments:
I'll propose another version of "The Quiet Game."
How long will Gates of Vienna be silent on the recent apprehension of Serbian war criminal Radovan Karadzic?
Do you think he is a monster? Or merely a "misunderstood" Serbian anti-Jihadist?
Enquiring minds want to know.
And I'm specifically interested in the Baron or Dymphna's viewpoint. I know others who post regularly will start spouting about the "hoax" of Srebrenicza...
Gosh Gordon, you really ought to stay on topic ;)
In response to Zenster:
It concerns me greatly to witness so many people resign themselves to seeing America undergo nuclear terrorist attack before they think US citizens will mobilize.
To be honest, I don't see how we will mobilise unless something really bad happens. People are just so in denial right now that it's going to take something very nasty to wake them up to the threat. I don't like it, but in my opinion, it's true.
Liberalism was always going to be the means of our own destruction. Civilizations die by suicide, not murder.
Providence has sent us the means of our awakening. Islam immitates the guiles and deceits of its fraternal twin liberalism, but is itself too brutal to be so inventive.
Our task is to paint liberalism as the destructive force it is with the same brush with which we paint Islam for what it does, and remove them from the body politic as one.
Evils, like poison, have their uses, and there are diseases which no other remedy can reach.
'Defeat of Islam'?
How do we define that?
I think I have to take great issue with Zenster's words "Communist was", as if that ideology is in the past.
In my Maryland redoubt I have more to fear from the Left than I do from 'slammis.
I know I am am out of the mainstream on this site, but I don't view Islam as near a big threat to the USA as leftism.
And specifically even the Mexican invasion will do far more to destroy our society than Islam will.
Of course in Europe this is not the case. Islam is an existential threat there.
I don't think the Moslems can pull off another 9/11 event in the USA. I think they have largely shot their wad.
I think both leftism and Islam need to be confronted at the same time. The Left on one hand is allied with Islam, trying to silence criticism of Islam through "hate speech" laws and the like. Not to mention the unworkable ideals it peddles. Islam on the other is dictating to Leftists what to do and how to silence critics of Islam, as well as telling it's minions to support socialist policies that allow them to exploit welfare in the West.
I think one way we can fight them both is to commence a campaign of lampooning and making fun of Islam and PC multicultural dogma in everyway possible. It will be a challenge to Muslim attempts to silence us and the Left's PC diktats. Islam and the Left have no sense of humour, so they will show their true colors and be driven to fits.
Of course, there are other things that must be done, but it's something we all can do start poking at our twin enemies of freedom.
I think Islam, immigration and the multi-culti ideology will vanish as a whole. Once we acknowledge that there is an Other who can be harmful to ourselves, the idea of the sacred minorities and the myth of the good savage will perish at the same time.
It's the domino effect. A change in the perception of the Other will trigger an earthquake in the public opinion.
Unfortunately, it is tremendously difficult to make the first step.
Yes, humor is good. Not being silent is good. We still have tools in the USA that our friends in Europe don't have. The first (and second!) ammendment is a key one.
Proud Infidel:
"I think both leftism and Islam need to be confronted at the same time."
(Going to the "back of the rack" here):
Howzabout we prod Leftism to confront Islam and vice-versa?
Kind of like the nifty trick of letting Nazis and Marxists bump each other off by the boxcar-lot.
liberalism’s Politically Correct stranglehold
I would suggest that the two are not synonymous - Pim Fortyn was a prime example. The civilizational disease (liberalism-decadence) should not be confused with the virulent and deliberately anti-western marxist-inspired Political_Correctness that habitually feeds off it.
Also to conflate the left with liberalism is also just plain wrong, among others the (neo-con) republicans have accepted the key liberalist tenets. As have "conservatives" across much of the West, staying economic right but going social left and thus largely indistinguishable from the New Labors.
Looking at the Netherlands as an example (and remember the gay tolerance immigration test?) it is possible to forsee a near future non-PC liberalism that treats Islam as the ultimate evil that Nazism is today.
But echo Natalie, the current generation will not change unless something awfull happens. Wasn't 9/11 enough? Yet, given the ugly phenomenon off 9/11 trutherism, there is nothing that will change some attitudes.
Once we acknowledge that there is an Other who can be harmful to ourselves,
What is going to drive that acknowledgement? I see some dawn awakening on the immigration issue. It is so in your face that many people are now understanding that millions and millions of Mexican campensinos injected into our high tech welfare state are not a wonderful blessing. Most people have a more realistic view of Islam than they did 10 years ago, too.
But there is this elite/people disconnect. Our elites are still enthralled with minorities. Look at the housing bailout. It was filled with a $10 million dollar earmark to give money to La Raza, and another one for ACORN (which is a black oriented pressure group).
I think Lawrence Auster is doing good work on VFR to explain "the other" in painful detail.
We have to individually become fearless in talking to our circles of influence about these things. It is difficult. We tend to like harmony in life. Conservatives put a premium on civility. But we all have to push our limits a bit to defeat the multiculturalist "tolerance" memes that are controlling and killing our great society.
"Make someone uncomfortable once a day".
Ridicule.
Best weapon to use on a-holes who have yet to become overtly violent.
Until Dar Al Islam drops a nuke on us, it is the best arrow still in the quiver.
Islam is a threat but it can be defeated. The West and its European peoples are better than any other society at organized application of high-intensity violence. Islam is particularly bad at this - the more technological war gets, the less capable Islam is. The West can defeat Islam. It may require extremely unpleasant measures - domestically, stuffing people into railroad cattle cars and shipping them off to ports where they get loaded on ships and dumped on desert coasts - or maybe just shipped to mass graves; on the foreign front, use of high explosive without regard for collateral damage (or even with the deliberate intent of such) and of WMD on a scale that might be termed genocidal. That is all a worst case scenario (although one I personally find likely), but there is no physical reason the West cannot prevail.
The actual reason the West is not prevailing, and is not taking any steps to do so, is a reason of will, and only a reason of will, and entirely a reason of will.
The leaders of the West choose not to use the tools at their disposal. Some of this is due to moral reservations; it remains to be seen if this morality has a place outside of the bubble of Western civilization. Some of it is due to them being unconvinced of the severity of the threat. Some of it is due to a genuine desire to cast down the West and replace it with something other. Some of it is due to fear of what the progressive aspects of our civilization would say and do about any steps towards an active counter to Islam. This is the Gordian knot that must be cut. Until the question of will is addressed, nothing else matters. And the question of will does not depend on great popular movements, but on individuals like Berlusconi capable of taking obvious measures and bypassing progressive discontent.
Isaac Asimov wrote a short story once, called "In a Good Cause". There's a lot going on in this story, but the basic situation is one of several dozen independent human worlds, of which Earth is the most powerful but far from being the ruler, and a gigantic alien empire that threatens all humans. The rulers of Earth adopt the policy of an apparent alliance with the aliens while fighting or intimidating all the other human worlds into not interfering with Earth's affairs, after which they turn on the aliens and defeat them. The overriding concern had been to prevent any alliance of humans with the aliens; Earth was sure it could beat them alone, it was the other human nations that were the big potential problem. That's the situation we're in with Islam. At half, or a tenth, of our current military strength, the Islamic world can still be beaten. As long as the various groups that don't wish the West to preserve its ancestral nature are given a say in affairs, NOTHING that is attempted will succeed. A house divided against itself cannot stand.
Since the dawn of time, small, disciplined, highly trained and focused military forces have been orders of magnitude more effective than large diverse mobs. We don't need numbers. We need focus.
The only way Islam will be able to succeed is by the hands of socialists and traitors. Just look at Britain to get a good picture of what can happen to a nation when the socialists take over. Islam was given an inch, then a foot, a yard, and then a thousand miles in Britain. Now there are so many Muslims in Britain and are treated with white kid gloves that Britain will be in crisis mode whatever happens.
Islam will have to be dealt with the same way bullies need to be dealt with - a punch directly in the nose. Bullies are cowards, and the only thing bullies understand is violence.
"I think one way we can fight them both is to commence a campaign of lampooning and making fun of Islam and PC multicultural dogma in everyway possible."
That's a thought. I think we need to concentrate on PC first - the other can be hazardous to your health (think van Gogh, think about the less-than-patient reception of the Mohammed cartoons).
One goal of PC is that "everybody's just as valid as anybody". If we can bring them down, that theory will fall down the sewer where it belongs.
But the movement has to pick up steam, or it'll stay in the shadows.
Rollory: " At half, or a tenth, of our current military strength, the Islamic world can still be beaten."
I'm not sure about that. Another SF story from long ago had a modern jet fighter (probably F-86) timeshifted into WW I. At first, they thought its superior speed and firepower would be a plus, but it was so fast, it couldn't engage with WW II biplanes, and besides that, the closest thing they had to jet fuel was paraffin (=kerosene), and that was just barely good enough.
The moral is that you can't fight medieval guerillas with modern weapons. They come at you out of the desert, they blend in with the population (think Richard Reid), they have no central command, no central geographical location.
And there are about 1600 million Muslims world-wide. Some may just want to be left alone, but tell that to the French in the banlieus, to the British in their "no-go" areas.
How do you define a fundamentalist Christian? The Bible is inerrant, the received word of God, it's the Book. (Less-than-fundmantalist Christians will waffle on all those points - one of the reasons there are so many Christian denominations.)
How many Muslims do not accept the Koran as the "inerrant, recieved word of God" - not just recieved, but dictated directly to Mohammed?
The question then is, are there any non-fundamentalist Muslims?
Het Gordon, my nick name is Afonso Henriques and I think that may be ordered to kill more or less some 8000 muslims... Well, I think that answers your question.
I can be more clear, if you want to judge a Serb, you will have to get me a Turk, pardon me Bosniak, so I can say you're not being unfair. Untill then, as long as you only attack Serbian people, I will still consider you and them all racists, and as so, because I am no racist, I can not agree with the punishment of Karazic.
Slobodan Milosevic is a hero to me, someone I look upon. Karazic is at least, a man of action and a man of honour, something incresingly rarer in Europe. That diserves my respect.
And no, I am not sorry for the poor Bosniaks...
As Karadzic said, this current policies will only lead to the genocide of all the muslims in the Balkans or a great suffering along the European people of the Balkans during their (our) path to extinction. I add: Let it be the Turks to perish!
By the way, I don't know what Dymphna or Baron could say about that in this blog!
Now to Zenster, stop being obssessed with Islam, the problem is all the Third Worlders in the West.
Yeah, you should solve the Mexican thing and the Oboma nightmare before thinking on "defeating islam".
By the way, invasions like that of Irak will not help you (us) at all.
But stop wondering about Europe! I mean, only a strong America can help Europe... I can't see a strong America...
Zeke,
""Make someone uncomfortable once a day"."
That is not going to work because that is not going to grant you many friends...
I think I have a better one:
"Make someone proud of its people, land, History, Culture and Traditional conections to the Divine".
Stop the patriotism (love for the fatherland) and embrace Nationalism (love for the National Comunity). Ethnic Nationalism in Europe, "White Nationalism" in the Americas...
It has nothing to due with white power, with violence, much less hate. Just ask the question:
For what and whom are you fighting for?
Are you not a Naionalist? (and please, that's nothing to due with racism, racism is active not passive.)
Armance,
I think Islam, immigration and the multi-culti ideology will vanish as a whole. Once we acknowledge that there is an Other who can be harmful to ourselves, the idea of the sacred minorities and the myth of the good savage will perish at the same time.
Yes, this is how historical changes usually take place. And all the people who feel despair and cannot imagine such a change have not read any history, or haven't paid attention while reading it. Only last century we had a couple of shifts of this magnitude. When you live in the middle of a paradigm it looks impossible to change it (because all the aspects of it support each other). But if you study history you will find that such changes happened fairly often, and how it works.
To illustrate what I talk about. Louis Armstrong visited Sweden in 1933. In all the news papers he was describe as something monkey-like let loose from the jungle. All across the line! And in the reviews by the most serious music critics.
Who would have imagined in 1933, that twelve years later that Western Europe would undergo an America-led cultural revolution which would lead to the common belief that there are no differences between races?
Translation of two of the quotes:
Knut Bäck, Göteborgs-Posten, November 1933:
"This world is strange... No protests are raised against how the jungle is let loose into the society. Armstrong and his band are allowed to freely wreak destruction."
Sten Broman i Sydsvenskan, November 1933:
"Dare I say that he at times had something monkey-like about him and sometimes reminded of, according to our perceptions, a mentally disturbed person, when he pouted with his mouth or gaped it to its widest open and roared like a hoarse animal from a primeval forest."
The third quote compares the concert with a natural disaster, and Armstrong's trumpet with a hell machine. The only good thing coming out of it, he says, is that it solves to old dispute of whether monkeys have a language.
This is what Europe looked like, up until 1945. And since some people will live under the misconception that this was a phenomenon of the '30s I here provide a quote from the Swedish Encyclopedia, Nordisk Familjebok, the 1876-1899 edition.
http://runeberg.org/nfak/0483.html
http://runeberg.org/nfak/0484.html
"Psychologically the negro can be said be on the level of a child, with vivid fantasy, lack of endurance, ... can be said to lack morality rather than being immoral ... etc."
Even though the point here has been to illustrate how social paradigms can shift completely in short time (and this is just one out of numerous examples), let me add how up until 1945 all the focus was put on the differences between races, and after that all the focus has been put on what is equal (while ignoring differences). Let's see if the next shift means a synthesis of the two extremes. Will people be able to keep two thoughts in their minds at the same time?
We all agree on the dangers of the pernicious alliance between the Marxist left and the Islamists and we are incessantly whining about it and projecting an array of wishful thought supported by nothing.
Let's try to be cool headed and logical: the inception of modern left is over 150 years old - since the Communist Manifesto. Wherever it grabbed power bloodbath occurred on a massive scale, swiftly followed by economical collapse. These cataclysmic events are well documented and witnessed by many.
Try to answer this question: despite the sinister history of the Left, it never lost its attraction, quite opposite, it's more vigorous than ever: and people vote for those politician who promote and support Leftist oppression and its alliance with the Jihadist.
Without understanding the very essence of Leftist attraction to the people who are voters, we are left in the dark forever, filling up countless blogs with embittered lament.
Don't carried away by emotions, keep on remembering, without popular support these Socialist-Jihadist could never assume overwhelming power as they do.
What is their secret in the eyes of the voters?
Why are we the minority, what is our fatal fault?
ZZMike: You are thinking inside boxes you don't even realize are there.
We are not at war with the guerrillas, any more than we were at war with just the Japanese officers. We are at war with the entire society. We do not fight just the guerrillas. We do not try to find just the bad guys in the banlieues. It is the entire population in the trouble spots that needs to be removed - that should never have been allowed into western nations in the first place. Yes a lot of them are technically innocent. Irrelevant. They are Muslims, Islam does not mesh with the West, they are part of the problem, they all need to leave. And before you start talking about making more enemies than we need, I really don't see that as a problem. It doesn't matter how large their crowds are if they can't apply the force properly and we can - and ever since Marathon, the march of the Ten Thousand, and Alexander, that has been our advantage over the Orient. I see no reason why it wouldn't be the case here too.
The jet fighter example isn't relevant. Sure, a lot of how the US military currently operates is extremely dependent on extremely precise and expensive technology. You can dial down several orders of complexity and gain a lot in robustness while still being far more advanced than what Islam can competently field.
For those of you looking for humor in/about Islam maybe you can find some applicable topics here.
Humor In Islam
In addition to this link many other posts in The Fjordman Report [see the side bar]. Fjordman frequently has thought provoking and incitefull posts here.
I find it amusing and tragic at the same time that while we are discussing here how we, the European nations, should fight against Islam and ALL OF US agree that no matter what method will be the most effective (using nuclear weapons, military intervention, deportation, etc.) the logical conclusion is that a BLOODSHED IS UNAVOIDABLE and some Muslims will die in the process (be they pilgrims in Mecca or thugs from the outskirts of Paris), some people ask themselves if Karadzic is a war criminal.
Excuse me, Karadzic wanted to de-Islamize Bosnia. At some point we will be in the situation to de-Islamize Paris, London, Malmo or Bruxelles. How do you think we will do that? Politely and kindly inviting them to leave? "Sorry, dear Ahmed, but now we have to say good-bye?" What if they refuse?
This is a war, not a business for wimps. It's them or us, sharia or a normal life. It's for people like Karadzic who cannot accept to be dhimmies. Be prepared for seeing mass graves or otherwise be ready for slavery.
How are we supposed to fight against Islam if we are so afraid by the words "war criminal"? According to the Court in Hague, if we put into practice even the mildest suggestions that we discuss here, at GoV, we will be labeled "war criminals" any time.
Who brought Islam in the Balkans, may I ask? The Muslims themselves, through war and genocide. What was Karadzic supposed to do? To accept with a light heart an Islamic state in Bosnia and his people paying Jizya to Izetbegovic?
If we want to prevail over Islam, we will need hundreds, possibly thousands of Karadzics. I believed that was clear, but it doesn't seem so.
Again I ask. How do we define the defeat of Islam?
Is it the retreat of them to the lands they've occupied since... 1908... 1608... what? Is it the 'convert, leave or die' of 1492?
Because the alternative may look like this from Fox News. (Note that the story has been removed from Drudge and the link to CBC at the bottom of the article does not work.
conservative swede said...
When you live in the middle of a paradigm it looks impossible to change it (because all the aspects of it support each other). But if you study history you will find that such changes happened fairly often, and how it works.
And he's correct, of course. It also can be said that a paradigm shift occurred between 1917 and 1933...
What if the last remaining superpower putatively on the side of freedom allows itself to be weakened sufficiently by the Left to no longer have the will to do what is right?
Armance,
Excuse me, Karadzic wanted to de-Islamize Bosnia.
Actually his objective was much more defensive: to save the Serbian parts of Bosnia from an Islamic all-Bosnia rule. What America and NATO considers to be "multiculturalism".
No one's arguing that a paradigm shift cannot occur. It's just that all the juice seems to be toward a large lurch farther left. Obama's "change" is a shift to full speed ahead socialism in the US from the present creeping version. McCain is also on board, but for the slower poison. With Congress already in the grasping talons of the Dems who are justifiably expecting gains, there is literally no one influential at the highest levels of American government making the conservative case even though it's a good one.
Scanning the right wing blogs, there is a sizable faction of conservatives who are going to sit oput the next election, refusing to vote for a RINO like McCain. Their theory is that after mushy middle voters taste Democrat havoc for 4 years, they'll be ready to vote for real conservatives. (The fatal flaw in their reasoning is that this time with Islamic barbarians at and within the gates, and the American economy vulnerable, the damage may be irrecoverable). Meanwhile, Dems are united behind their candidate. This spells mathematical doom for the Republicans who are foolishly choosing Democrat-lite as their re-election strategy to no good end. Dems will vote for the real thing and conservatives are divided between the "hold your noses and vote McCain" types and the ones who balk.
Meanwhile, Europe is going down the leftist tubes on countless fronts. For every bit of good news that we cling to, there are ten bad developments. Berlusconi is making some anti-immigration noise but Italy just ratified the Lisbon treaty which taken seriously will bar all anti-immigrant activity. Australia's voters repudiated a staunch conservative in Howard and elected a socialist PM who has started dismantling all that Howard achieved.
Bela's question as to what we are doing wrong...well, we in the West invented a system, liberal democracy that apparently contains its own poison pill. It turns out that the majority of people in the world even when given a choice in the matter are willing to sacrifice their freedom to make choices as individuals because they do not like the responsibility involved. They opt for the illusion that someone else can make the hard decisions and dole out an allowance to them. A billion Muslims follow their koranic and sharia rule book en masse. Many Russians pine for the "glory days" of Stalin when rivers ran red with blood and choose his modern successor, KGB agent Putin (and his sock puppet). Socialist governments throughout Europe are erasing nations to create a homogenized EU, communism on Prozac.
All this is possible because the majority of people are made anxious by freedom and its concomitant individual responsibility. It is also a learned behavior. The less you do for yourself, the less you feel capable of doing. Socialists specialize in creating an impotent childlike citizenry.
As long as this sheep-like majority was led by a relatively benign sort of European white oligarchy who rewarded individualism, the would-be drones were coaxed into working and things kept improving. However, we have long crossed the critical tipping point - with the dregs of society having the same vote as productive members, and the leftists having created group entitlements, the majority are now voting themselves the assets and labor of the minority. The bottom half of US citizens pay 4% of taxes. That means the top half are supporting themselves and someone from the bottom half permanently, not just until they get back on their feet. They are not meant ever to get on their own feet. They prefer a lower standard of living to personal responsibility and leftist politicos prefer buying their way into power with tax monies, a match made in hell.
Without constant vigilance (and we allowed marxists to infest all the levers of power) all governments grow and tend toward totalitarianism. Democracies breed parasites.
Eventually, when it has grown big enough, “The state is the great fictitious entity by which everyone seeks to live at the expense of everyone else.” Frederic Bastiat
Laine,
No one's arguing that a paradigm shift cannot occur. It's just that all the juice seems to be toward a large lurch farther left. Obama's "change" is a shift to full speed ahead socialism in the US from the present creeping version
Obama is not a paradigm shift. It's just going deeper into the current one.
1918 and 1945 have been the recent paradigm shifts at civilizational level. The civil war for America. 1989 for Eastern Europe. 1968 was a minor transformation.
1918 and 1945 are better seen as two steps of the same shift, with 1945 as the concluding step, and therefore a more decisive change. In fact, the American civil war was a pre-step to all this, its resulting "patch" was made universal across the West from 1945.
The embryo of multiculturalism was dreamed up during the enlightenment, but was first institutionalized by the result of the American civil war.
As Diamed has written:
"If we had combined freeing the slaves with deporting them, they could hardly complain since they had never been citizens in the first place. Unfortunately Lincoln was assassinated, the plan was abandoned, and the window of opportunity vanished. Now blacks are equal citizens of the USA and, so long as the USA exists, it is as much black as it is white."
And multiculturalism was born, and out of its rib bone political correctness had to be created.
I have collected more historical evidence to show this. I will write an article in a near future.
The threat of Islam, and the vehicle that currently supports it in the West, PC, though the advancement of the global multiculturalism construct, which is Islam's current vehicle for success, must be taken on simultaneously.
PC is the current pond in the West, and Islam is the big carnivorous fish, at the moment.
ConSwede-
You're quite obvious lacking in US history.
I perceive a common thread in Euro perception of the long and ongoing meme that America's inclusion of Blacks triggered the MC movement.
This is what I can state:
No other country on the face of this world has given more opportunity to so many.
There are many vocal whiners and many opportunists but facts are facts--as 'racist' as America is perceived--there is nowhere else on Earth that minorities can achieve so much.
With all the troubles (many or most generated by opportunists within their own communities) inherent in what we strive to be a 'melting pot', we still come out on top.
Turn,
You started as if you wanted to counter me, but ended up just confirming everything I said.
First off, I would really like to thank the Baron for airing this important topic. My own intention was to develop this theme a bit more than what was sent to press but I would be ungrateful to complain about it. I certainly am pleased to see this discussion get off to such a running start.
Next is the entire quote by Srdja Trifkovic, as alluded to in the original post:
The elite class has every intention of continuing to “fight” the war on terrorism without naming the enemy, without revealing his beliefs, without unmasking his intentions, without offending his accomplices, without expelling his fifth columnists, and without ever daring to win. Their crime can and must be stopped. The founders of the United States overthrew the colonial government for offenses far lighter than those of which the traitor class is guilty. [emphasis added]
This “Quiet Game” of not "naming the enemy”, results from an obscene convergence of Liberal Left and corrupt Neo-con subscription to Multiculturalism. One wants it to erode the dominant white Christian foundations of America, the latter is using it to enhance corporate—read, “Campaign Donor”—profitability by destabilizing the entire sub-$100K per annum earnings structure. These two venal parents are using the “Quiet Game” to keep their electoral offspring silent, even as they set about serving up bowls of political and economic hemlock at the dinner table.
Thus, bipartisan glorification of Multiculturalism—as an ostensibly legitimate continuation of America’s time-honored “Melting Pot”—is a smokescreen for the most vicious, intensely cynical and calculated assault upon America’s indigenous culture. This perversion is of such a depth and permeating nature that it has effectively rendered The United States a one-party system.
All of the foregoing militates against any abatement of Islam’s onslaught against the West. Liberalism’s pet Muslims are their new Protected Species and unchecked immigration serves far too many Neo-con agendas for there to be any effort made at halting the ongoing deluge of non-assimilating arrivals crossing America’s borders. This is treason on a vast scale and both parties are making a concerted effort to denude average Americans of any ability to halt their sedition against citizen and Constitution alike.
Now, on to the comments.
Natalie: To be honest, I don't see how we will mobilise unless something really bad happens.
Then how do you explain the groundswell of support for Italy’s Lega Nord? Europe’s Boot has yet to suffer a major Islamic atrocity, yet the Italians have somehow managed to get their back up over Muslim colonization. The country’s legacy of independent nation-states definitely has engendered a longstanding distrust of central government but is that the only reason for this phenomenon?
xlbrl: Our task is to paint liberalism as the destructive force it is with the same brush with which we paint Islam for what it does, and remove them from the body politic as one.
Which is why—much as with Bilgeman’s later post—I suggest using one to tar the other. Going for the two-fer makes success much less likely.
turn: I think I have to take great issue with Zenster's words "Communist was", as if that ideology is in the past.
The past tense communism I refer to is that of Soviet Russia, whose collapse finally tore the mask of benevolence from Marxism. China, North Korea, Cuba and—to an extent—Vietnam are currently viewed much more askance that they might be were the USSR still an ongoing (criminal) enterprise.
Zeke: And specifically even the Mexican invasion will do far more to destroy our society than Islam will.
Not if Iran has its way and smuggles a nuclear truck (container) bomb into one or several American cities. If that comes to pass the Aztlán invasion won’t amount to a hill of refried beans.
I don't think the Moslems can pull off another 9/11 event in the USA. I think they have largely shot their wad.
Working within the context of many who post here about Western benign neglect; Inaction over Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal falling into radical hands easily could find America taking a monstrous gut shot that would make the 9-11 atrocity look like a walk in the park.
Armance: I think Islam, immigration and the multi-culti ideology will vanish as a whole.
It seems unlikely that they will vanish simultaneously. So, which needs to go first? Must one go before the other?
Once we acknowledge that there is an Other who can be harmful to ourselves, the idea of the sacred minorities and the myth of the good savage will perish at the same time.
I will certainly agree that demolishing Liberalism’s warped idealization of the “Noble Savage” would—of itself—represent a huge advance. As their pet cause of the day, Islam promises to finally obliterate any obsession with coddling unassimilated minorities.
Bilgeman: Howzabout we prod Leftism to confront Islam and vice-versa?
Kind of like the nifty trick of letting Nazis and Marxists bump each other off by the boxcar-lot.
This, by far, outshines any other alternative. The abject hypocrisy of protecting Muslims, even as Islam promises to murder all those who practice homosexuality, open marriage and poly-amorous relationships should ring the death knell for Liberalism.
Fellow Peacekeeper: Also to conflate the left with liberalism is also just plain wrong, among others the (neo-con) republicans have accepted the key liberalist tenets. As have "conservatives" across much of the West, staying economic right but going social left and thus largely indistinguishable from the New Labors.
Which is why I noted how both sides of the aisle are participating in this treason. The fact remains that Liberalism is far more inclined towards politically correct speech and thought. Neo-cons have followed suit largely because it has become political suicide to do otherwise.
kbarrett: Until Dar Al Islam drops a nuke on us, it [ridicule] is the best arrow still in the quiver.
There are other arrows of greater power than ridicule. Yes, the Danish cartoons exposed much of Islam’s dark side. Still, blogosphere fact-checking plus its back-channeling of accurate information about anti-jihad activities and the Global War on Terrorism can do as much—or more—good.
Rollory: The leaders of the West choose not to use the tools at their disposal. Some of this is due to moral reservations; it remains to be seen if this morality has a place outside of the bubble of Western civilization.
This is a major point. Cultural relativism—a favorite tool of Multiculturalists—demands an equal level of morality be demonstrated outside of its own sphere, even where all evidence points towards Western morality being weaponized against us. Islam’s abuse of the West’s transparency, sense of fair play, honor and tolerance are all prime examples of how our morality may have limited application in the lands of our enemies.
Joanne: Islam will have to be dealt with the same way bullies need to be dealt with - a punch directly in the nose.
We have yet to bloody Islam’s nose in any significant sense. Even rolling up Afghanistan and Iraq was largely to no avail due to how shari’a law was allowed to re-infect both countries.
ZZMike: The question then is, are there any non-fundamentalist Muslims?
In light of how all Muslims must abide by every last dictate of the Qur’an and its commentaries, “non-fundamentalist” Muslims would be—by definition—MINO (Muslim In Name Only) or apostates worthy only of death.
Rollory: We are not at war with the guerrillas, any more than we were at war with just the Japanese officers. We are at war with the entire society.
This fact cannot be overemphasized. Muslim zakat finances so much of terrorism that even the mythical “moderate” Muslim still remains a danger. Whatever remaining few genuinely decent Muslims that exist are still betrayed by taqiyya. Islam’s entire cultural construct is so emphatically inimical to Western civilization that the two are immiscible.
We do not fight just the guerrillas. We do not try to find just the bad guys in the banlieues. It is the entire population in the trouble spots that needs to be removed - that should never have been allowed into western nations in the first place. Yes a lot of them are technically innocent. Irrelevant. They are Muslims, Islam does not mesh with the West, they are part of the problem, they all need to leave.
Innocence plays no role in this. Arsenic is innocent in and of itself. Yet, in the hands of a murderer, it becomes lethal. So it is with even the most demure Muslims. When led by jihadists, their cumulative effect becomes toxic.
turn: Again I ask. How do we define the defeat of Islam?
A bare minimum involves making it illegal in the West. Shari’a must have no foothold and Islam must enjoy no tax-free status. The mask of religion must be ripped away for once and all time while being indelibly branded with totalitarian theocracy. Eventually, all theocratic nations—of any stripe—must be overthrown.
Conservative Swede: Obama is not a paradigm shift. It's just going deeper into the current one.
Most definitely.
turn: There are many vocal whiners and many opportunists but facts are facts--as 'racist' as America is perceived--there is nowhere else on Earth that minorities can achieve so much.
This one fact alone should have been sufficient to silence all proponents of Affirmative Action and any other preferential treatment of minorities. That is has not been able to do so bespeaks a monumental failing of conservative politics and the worst sort of treachery within the Left.
Finally, please pardon the lateness of this reply. I had not anticipated this item being posted so directly and yesterday was one long preposterous outrage.
Zenster said: "Then how do you explain the groundswell of support for Italy’s Lega Nord? Europe’s Boot has yet to suffer a major Islamic atrocity, yet the Italians have somehow managed to get their back up over Muslim colonization. The country’s legacy of independent nation-states definitely has engendered a longstanding distrust of central government but is that the only reason for this phenomenon?"
But Italy just ratified that Lisbon treaty, didn't they? So maybe they're not doing so well after all... They seem to be pandering to the EU recently, which isn't good.
Natalie,
But Italy just ratified that Lisbon treaty, didn't they? So maybe they're not doing so well after all... They seem to be pandering to the EU recently, which isn't good.
This can also been seen as that they are choosing not to pick just that fight right now. They already have many battles going on right now at the domestic scene. It's not wise strategy to have to many battle fronts at the same time.
Con Swede: It's not wise strategy to have to many battle fronts at the same time.
Which is why I continue to advocate focusing on Islam in the near term. America has a similar option in electing John McCain. Yes, he is part of the machine, just like how Berlusconi wants in to the EU.
At the same time Berlusconi is proving to be anti-jihad and McCain might just qualify in that respect if he bombed the snot out of Iran's nuclear R&D facilities.
As the alien tells Jodie Foster's character in "Contact":
"Baby steps. Baby steps."
We must never mock the precious and peaceful Islam. Who are we to say that raping 6 year-olds is immoral? Who are we to say that stoning gays and rape victims to death is evil? That is just their culture and it MUST be respected. Morality is all relative, we must remember that.
absurd thought -
God of the Universe wants
all planets Islamic
Earth is one of many
in process of conversion
absurd thought -
God of the Universe wants
many Taliban planets
stonings and beheadings
billions served daily
absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
allow Islamic conquest
enjoy the dhimmi life
of second class citizen
.
All real freedom starts with freedom of speech. If there is no freedom of speech, then there can be no real freedom.
.
Philosophy of Liberty Cartoon
.
Help Halt Terrorism Today!
.
USpace
:)
.
Zenster,
America has a similar option in electing John McCain. Yes, he is part of the machine, just like how Berlusconi wants in to the EU.
Ehum... McCain and Berlusconi are complete opposites. McCain wants to open up the borders more so they are WIDE open. Berlusconi is closing his borders.
McCain is definitely "part of the machine" and only looks good compared to Obama. But compared to e.g. Hillary he looks worse.
While the whole point with Berlusconi is that he's not part of the system. And it's not about "baby steps", state of emergency and launching the military is the very opposite of "baby steps". No it's not about "baby steps" it's about the fastest way to get results. Compare it to warfare, there is nothing baby-steps about it, it's war. If you live in a bad neighbourhood and want to clean it up, do you pick a fight with all the bad guys at the same time? Is this a fast way to success? No, since it's the way to failure.
Neither McCain is about "baby steps". He's the radicalized vanguard that will speed up the destruction of your country with giant leaps.
Former Gordon, I think your question was answered here: Karadzic vs MSM.
In short, it's pointless and actually arrogant of you to request GoV to pass judgement on Karadzic. Why should we? The Yugoslavian wars were very complex, lots of details are underexposed, hidden or, in the case of the Mujahedeen warriors, simply killed.
You comment constitutes trolling. Fortunately, the commenters at GoV are above the level that would catch your bait.
I propose you to go trolling elsewhere, while we indulge in more interesting details of European constitutional issues, the Balkans, Islam and what else is important.
Turn:
How do we define the defeat of Islam?
Islam is defeated the day it no longer instills fear.
Joanne:
Just look at Britain to get a good picture of what can happen to a nation when the socialists take over.
For that, I think one has to look at Common Purpse in particular. It's a discreet network of 'leaders' who dismantle the essential bits of British identity. It's quiet, non-violent and lethal for the nation.
This and other details lead me to believe that Britain is a bit of a special case. It's going to be real, butt-ugly bad before they start climbing again.
As for McCain vs. Berlusconi, I must admit that given the choice, I'd rather vote for Berlusconi. He's a real human being, and in spite of all the corruption stuff (yes, this is weird) I'd rather have him in office than former EU Commissionar Romani Prodi. Sure, Italy ratified Lisbon. Incompetence :( Who would expect *Italian* politicians to do their homework?
I expect turnout at the US presidential election to hit a record low. What else to do?
Henrik,
in spite of all the corruption stuff (yes, this is weird)
Have you been reading MSM again? What have they made you believe about Berlusconi now? You know it's all lies, and that I can prove it to you.
CS, I have noticed quite a few self-amnesty tricks from the side of Berlusconi, which leads me to assume there is something rotten.
And even assuming there is, I still prefer Berlusconi.
I think that should be a clear statement.
Henrik,
There are no self-amnesty tricks that amounts to corruption from Berlusconi, sigh. Didn't I already tell you not to swallow what you read in MSM hook, line and sinker? You are just too gullible.
I suggest you read this:
Minister Alfanos immunitetslag
CS, assuming it really just is this single law, I stand corrected.
Interesting to be corrected on Berlusconi in Swedish :)
My Italian is exactly good enough to confirm what is said in Swedish. It doesn't even apply to MP's at large! Interetingly, Italian MEP's do have that immunity...
Good. Next time do not believe what the MSM writes about Berlusconi.
My Italian is exactly good enough to confirm what is said in Swedish. It doesn't even apply to MP's at large!
It doesn't even apply to the minsters at large! Sweden has more far-going immunity for the government than what was just introduced in Italy. I wouldn't be surprised if it was likewise in Denmark.
Such is the nature of the "debate" in liberal democracies. If something that is all necessary is taken away, then there is a lot of fuzz about it when it's reintroduced again. While in other places nobody even pays attention to the existence if the law. Political debate always happens on the margin, and the whole world is about 1% up or 1% down. The big pictures is almost never looked at.
Con Swede: McCain and Berlusconi are complete opposites. McCain wants to open up the borders more so they are WIDE open. Berlusconi is closing his borders.
My comparison was strictly to note the similarity of Berlusconi being pro-EU while McCain's pro-immigration stance makes him part of the same Multicultural machine. You're taking the comparison well beyond what was intended.
I would also dispute your assertion that Hillary would be better than McCain. Anyone who could make the following statements is a communist wolf in democratic sheep's clothing.
1) "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."
2) "It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few, and for the few..... And to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity."
3) "(We) ....can't just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people."
4) "We have to build a political consensus and that requires people to giveup a little bit of their own turf in order to create this common ground."
5) "I certainly think the free-market has failed."
6) "I think it's time to send a clear message to what has become the most profitable sector in (the) entire economy that they are being watched."
Post a Comment