Sunday, February 14, 2010

Chasing Our Tails

LTC Allen West really gets it about “radical” Islam: “This is not a ‘perversion’.”

You’ll also notice that in his comments he — ahem — mentions this blog:

Thank God this man is running for Congress! As Diana West says:
- - - - - - - - -
LTC Allen West (ret.) is a man who isn’t afraid of enemy fire or speaking the truth, and voters in Florida’s District 22, from Jupiter to Ft. Lauderdale, are lucky pups to be able to vote him into Congress this November. When they do — and they better not blow it — the rest of the United States will finally have his leadership where we need it… in Washington, DC.

Many thanks to Vlad Tepes for clarifying and synchronizing the sound in this video.


Spiral said...

Interesting question and answer session on Islam.

Oh, by the way, I did put up a new post on my blog: The Obama Bread Lines.

joe six-pack said...

I am very pleased to hear him speak. It is nice to know that the republic has good leadership. We need this more than anything else today.

Ron Russell said...

Col. West has it right, its never been about radical Islam---its about Islam!!!

heroyalwhyness said...

As Colonel West stated, ". . .Islam is doing the same thing since 622 AD . Since the seventh century - thirteen hundred and eighty-eight years.

*You want to dig up Charles Martel and ask him why he was fighting a Muslim army in the battle of Tours in 732?

*Do you want to ask the Ventian fleet at LaPonto why they were fighting a Muslim fleet in 1571?

*Do you want to ask the Christian, I mean the Germanic and Austrian Knights why they were fighting at the Gates of Vienna in 1683?

*Do you want to ask people what happened at Constantinople and why today it's called Istanbul, because they lost that fight in 1543?. . .

Every one of our children should be able to rattle those historic details off - rote upon demand.

I would also add a specific American historic legacy to that list, that being

*the birth of the US Navy/Marines created specifically to address the depredations of the Barbary pirates by President Thomas Jefferson in 1801.

Anonymous said...

His district would include Fort Lauderdale? Those Lauderdale Muslims who were screaming "gas the Jews" are going to try to smear him good, and Florida's colleges seem to be a jihadist haven.

EscapeVelocity said...

Col. West for President! CAIR the Muslims Students Association will be running for cover and not invited to the FBI briefings except to be interogated.

The right man for the job.

Anonymous said...

Ok, he doesn't propose solutions, but great video. I'd like Yaron Brook as this guy's foreign policy adviser because of this:
" The US has been attacked first thus it has the moral right to fight Islamism. The sole moral duty of the United States is to defend its citizens against its enemies by all means, even with the use of the atom bomb if necessary.[28]

What specific military actions would have been required post-9/11 to end state support of Islamic Totalitarianism is a question for specialists in military strategy, but even a cursory look at history can tell us one thing for sure: It would have required the willingness to take devastating military action against enemy regimes—to oust their leaders and prominent supporters, to make examples of certain regimes or cities in order to win the surrender of others, and to inflict suffering on complicit civilian populations, who enable terrorist-supporting regimes to remain in power.[20]"
"I'm suggesting that we start bringing this war to the civilians, the consequences of this war, to the civilians who are harboring and helping and supporting the insurgents in Fallujah and other places. ... I would like to see the United States turn Fallujah into dust, and tell the Iraqis: If you’re going to continue to support the insurgents you will not have homes, you will not have schools, you will not have mosques ..."
This guy knows how to win a war against Islam's tactic - terrorism.

Mother Effingby said...

Sometimes, rebelliousvanilla, just stating the facts, pure and simple, IS the answer. It is like the story of the Emperor and his new clothes. Simply stating the facts was enough to end the illusion. So it is here. Simply, fearlessly stating the truth about Islam without all the word modifiers and preambles and hemhawing is a start.
Notice how the other guys flapped their ties and didn't want to come out and say the truths themselves. West alone, calmly and forthrightly said the truth. Without hysteria, without saying, While I believe Most Muslims are peaceful. No. He just laid it out in crystal clear fashion. Nothing more, nothing less.

Anonymous said...

What a RELIEF to hear this man speaking. How refreshing!
Get this man into the congress where he belongs as fast as possible.

EscapeVelocity said...

rebelliousvanilla, this guy tortured Islamic ner do wells personally with his own bare hands to get information to save the lives of the soldiers under his command in Iraq.

And while he may be the wrong color to you. He is why the American system will always be superior. Not by the color of his skin, but by the content of his character.

The ideology of Islam is your big problem in Europe, and not anybodies skin color. Capiche.

. said...

To Colonel West, the Baron, and herroyalwhyness - some counterfactuals:

You want to dig up Saladin and ask him why he was fighting Crusader invaders in 1187?

Do you want to ask the Mogul emperor and his viceroys why they were fighting "Clive of India" at Plassey in 1757?

Do you want to ask why Prince Diponegoro of Java was fighting Dutch invaders of his Javanese homeland in 1825?

Do you want to ask why the Mahdi was besieging General Gordon and his British invaders in Khartoum in 1885?

My point is that all of these Muslims were, like the Christians mentioned by the good Colonel, fighting Western invaders of their homelands - homelands for centuries prior.

Colonel West's dredging up of historical rhetoric does nothing to resolve these issues.

Anonymous said...

Escape Velocity wrote,

"And while he may be the wrong color to you. He is why the American system will always be superior. Not by the color of his skin, but by the content of his character.

The ideology of Islam is your big problem in Europe, and not anybodies skin color. Capiche."

Where did RebelliousVanilla talk about Mr. West's ancestry? Where did she indicate that Mr. West was the "wrong color" for the job? If you cannot provide evidence to back up this claim, you owe the lady a retraction.

As for your diagnosis of Europe's problems, I am stunned. Have you read, man, what you wrote? "Capiche?" Could you have come across more leeringly thuggish? Who talks like that? Even when I disagree with Europeans about what ails their countries (and when talking with the leftists among them, I frequently do), I don't talk like that.

Your language is not that of one who persuades but one who intimidates. It is uncivil, ungentlemanly and, frankly, unchristian. And for that, you also owe the lady an apology.

Anonymous said...

Gordon wrote,

"You want to dig up Saladin and ask him why he was fighting Crusader invaders in 1187?"

Well, I suppose he was trying to defend what his forebears had conquered from the Christians back in 642.

But that aside, this is what you claim as your actual point:

"My point is that all of these Muslims were, like the Christians mentioned by the good Colonel, fighting Western invaders of their homelands - homelands for centuries prior.

Colonel West's dredging up of historical rhetoric does nothing to resolve these issues."

I'm not entirely sure to what "issues" you're referring or even what your main point is.

Do you mean to say that because Muslims have been fighting off Western invaders for far longer than Westerners have been fighting off Muslims, Westerners should therefore now hand over their homelands to Muslims and balance it all out? Is that right?

Perhaps you'd like to unpack that argument for us a bit. As it stands now, it is as inaccurate as it is unreasonable.

christian soldier said...

Christianity came BEFORE Islam was 'invented' --
Christians OWNED properties BEFORE Islam was invented --
Crusades were - simply put- to wrest CHRISTIAN lands from Muslim usurpers...
Historical time-lines are still valuable when arguing the TRUTH!!!

EscapeVelocity said...

Better yet, bartholomewscross...

Why dont you ask the lady about her racial politics?

Anonymous said...

I'm not interested in her racial politics right now, Escape Velocity. This thread is supposed to be about Colonel West, and so far you are the only one who has made his race an issue. I asked you for evidence that she had done so, and this is the best answer you can come up with?

Man up and own your mistake.

Also, for what it's worth, when talking about Europe's demographic problems, there are at least three, separate issues, and one may take a position on one without committing oneself to any other.

1.) Islam. This is a religio-cultural issue and can be opposed as such.

2.) Racial/national decline. This is an ancestral issue and should be dealt with as such.

3.) Demographic atrophy. This is a sociological issue and should be dealt with as such.

Thus, a Sikh in England can logically oppose Islam in England and also have no sympathy for native Britons. He might also favor demographic atrophy for, say, environmental reasons.

On the other hand, a traditional nationalist might focus on defending his nation's claim to a particular square of the European continent, care little about the advance of Islam in the rest, and promote vigorous pro-natalist policies.

Or a deracinated, Eurabian bureaucrat might drone on about the need for more family credits to increase the future supply of workers.

Now, each of these positions is rather short-sighted if it ignores the other two. But short-sightedness is not the same as incoherence.

You don't have to agree with RebelliousVanilla's national concerns. It's her family, her nation, her problem, and it isn't really any of your business. To the extent that some here are sympathetic to the plight of her nation is, again, not really any of your business.

But none of these issues has anything to do with Colonel West or his fitness as a U.S. Representative. Your bringing them into this discussion and, worse offloading the blame for that intrusion onto RV, is wholly inappropriate and even deceptive. Now stop.

EscapeVelocity said...

Except she is an American.

Instead of interjecting yourself into that which you do not have any knowledge, perhaps you can excuse yourself.

She castigates US Conservatives for being Constitutionalists, and abandoning defense of some kind of white Euro Supremacism, or something.

Im anti racist. Sue me.

Baron Bodissey said...

EscapeVelocity --

Watch out: you're just digging yourself even deeper. Time to put down the shovel.

Rebelliousvanilla is not American; she is Romanian. And, based on the comments she's posted here over the last several months, I don't think she gives a rat's patootie about Col. West's race. But maybe she'll return and speak for herself.

The fact that she is an ethnic nationalist doesn't mean she has an issue with anybody's race. I'm an ethnic nationalist as well as a patriotic American, and I celebrate Col. West, because he is a superb exemplar of the traditional American ethnicity.


Anonymous said...

Jewel, stating the facts isn't the answer. That just enables people to find the answer. Obviously, you can't have a solution if you leave from false premises.

EV, I'm not American and I don't want to be one either. I could have loved pre-1960s America(19th century America was even better). I would have wrapped the US flag around my body and kiss the American soil. But right now, I wouldn't feel at home there. Besides the ability to own a gun fairly easily, I have no reason to want to move there.

I don't castigate conservatives for being constitutionalists, I'd like you to quote me on that or STFU. I said that the 1964 Civil Rights Act is unconstitutional because it is passed under the interstate commerce clause and the act has nothing to do with interstate commerce. In order to have it passed, the same logic was applied that was used to manage the economy by the government - the agriculture thing in the 1930s is a great example of it. I actually find the US constitution one of the greatest founding documents of a country, minus the latter amendments to it, like giving Congress the ability to levy direct taxes. And I'm not a supremacist, I actually find the notions of genocide, enslaving other people and so on disgusting. I'm also not racist(I'm not prejudiced, nor hateful). I actually desire Mexicans or Muslims to be happy, but in their own countries.

Without other skin colours in Europe, we wouldn't have the problem of Islam in Europe though, would we? I mean, leave from the starting point, not the middle. And no, just because he isn't white, it doesn't mean that I find him subhuman or anything. I'd choose this man over a white liberal every day, but that doesn't change anything about groups. The American system worked best when America had a white population that was the moral leader of the country and it's majority(80-90%). I hope you don't see the last decades of American history as something great.

And please, stop quoting MLK. I won't bring up his adultery up, as that is one of it's personal failings(or his plagiarism), but I will judge him by his public record. I hope you do know the attitudes towards America that he had in the last two years of his life - like that America was the source of all evils in the world. But even without that, if you actually research what King stood for, not just the highly selective part of him that you like, he was for the government looking to have equal outcomes between racial groups, which is the same as the current liberals. But again, you see a group of people wanting to live only among with people within it and ensure it's survival a mortal sin and imperialistic ethnosupremacism from what I can tell(talking about conservatives with liberal principles lol). I'd like to ask you something. Considering my descendants won't have a place to call home due to immigration and other groups of people anyway, why should I fight against Islam or to have new institutions? Why should I care? I'd rather live a life of hedonism right now before the world becomes crappy and when it does, screw Europe and the US and I'll move to Singapore or Asia. And as a female, I can do this really easily. Logically, if my ancestry is irrelevant, the way to go even for conservative things is to move to China and marry a Chinese. China will be the world power of this century, there are 120 Chinese men for 100 women, so finding a rich Chinese man wouldn't be hard. I'd also have children in a real country that stands up for it's nation, not tries to destroy it and so on. My descendants would also have a country that they can call home as my genes get absorbed in the Chinese population.

Gordon, why was Saladin in Jerusalem to begin with?

bartholomewscross, a Sikh actually has all the incentives to favour demographic atrophy for the ethnic British because that would lead to less competition with his group in the carrying capacity of the country.

. said...

bartholomewscross: My point is that claims that Islam has been an aggressive force aiming to conquer the world for 1400 years can easily be countered by claims that Christianity, and later Western Christianity, has been an aggressive force aiming to conquer the world for almost as long.

It's important to look at issues with Islam today, but not to let 1400 years of baseless historical hatred (baseless when completely ignorant of legitimate counter-argument) encrust those issues.

If Colonel West is willing to excoriate Islam as an expansionist religion aiming to take over the world by force, he should argue that, Robert Spencer's spurious claims aside, Christianity has and perhaps is trying to do the same thing. But he doesn't because either he is a Christian religious zealot who, in looking for the speck in the eye of another ignores the beam in his own eye, or he is a cynical political hack hoping to capitalize on irrational fear of millions of U.S. Muslims to gain political office.

Oh I suppose he could also be an atheist zealot like Christopher Hitchens who hates all religions, but somehow I doubt it.

Chechar said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Chechar said...

[I removed my previous post because I forgot to add blue links]:


I spent a year debating a leftist who says the same as you. She has such a concrete block for a brain that, like another former friend of mine, everything I said entered one ear of this woman to get out from the other. She put it everything I said into what Orwell calls a memory hole.

I will tell you this one time and one time only: The difference between imperial Christendom and imperial Islam is abyssal. Through the latest centuries non-Westerners in general and Muslims in particular have belonged to a far more primitive psychoclass. That’s the main point of the book that, thanks to the syntactic revision that the Baron does chapter after chapter, is being published here under the title, The Return of Quetzalcoatl. Psychoclasses exist, which means that Amerindians were even more psychologically dissociated than the Muslims; and the Muslims more dissociated than the Christians.

I acknowledge the crimes committed during Christendom. In fact, my very first post in Jihad Watch was about a work, Karlheinz Deschner’s Criminal History of Christianity, about which I have read three books of its monumental collection of ten (in the Spanish translation: it still has to be translated to English). Still, the crimes committed by the Christians pale before the ones committed by the people from other cultures.

You will see what do I mean when chapter 8 of my series appears here. Meanwhile watch how I scold James Cameron for inverting historical realities and, as I say in the video, for “depicting the native blue ET’s” as “a metaphor of the noble savage here on Earth because of the Jamaica-styled hair [in the film] among blacks”. The point is that the difference of how the Spaniard or the English colons treated their respective siblings is so astronomical to the ways of the Amerindians that I find it insulting resorting to the tu quoque fallacy.

Exactly the same applies to imperial Muslims vis-à-vis imperial Christians...

EscapeVelocity said...

It's probably best that we dont speak to each other anymore RV.

I am sympathetic to some of what you say....but I think you have become radicalized and are in fact a racist.

I never thought I would be considered a pansy arsed cultural marxist liberal leftwinger.

Simply amazing.

Having a Romanian lecture me on how proud I should be of my country over the last 40 years has to be beyond Pythonesque parody.

I wish you luck finding yourself a strong Asian man to provide you security and a culture you can be proud of.



Chechar said...


Last year I saw a cute Romanian girl in Gran Canaria. Your also belong to the most beautiful race on Earth. I wouldn’t advice to miscegenate now that whites are in danger of extinction (here in Mexico I myself had to refrain from marrying a woman of another socio-cultural class). If the world in which you live becomes crappy there’s still the relatively uncontaminated Poland to move in.

And the US is not that bad. There are still white, non-socialist states in the Northwest Center, i.e. Wyoming and the Dakotas; although it’s too cold there.

Anonymous said...

Escape Velocity,

If you mean by "anti-racist" that you do not wish harm to come to others simply because of their race, then yes, I'd agree. Indeed, I'd go further: I don't want harm to come to anyone for any reason.

But I fail to see how RV's support for Colonel West's congressional bid counts as wishing him harm. I also fail to see how RV's principled defense of her own nation's presence on this earth brings harm to anyone.



"My point is that claims that Islam has been an aggressive force aiming to conquer the world for 1400 years can easily be countered by claims that Christianity, and later Western Christianity, has been an aggressive force aiming to conquer the world for almost as long"

OK, but none of your points proves this. 1187 AD is much later than 642 AD, actually, to the tune of about half a millenium. And if you figure the difference between 1187 and the birth of Christianity--1184 years--and the difference between 642 and the beginning of Islam in 610--32 years--the difference is much starker. It took over a millenium before Christendom committed any great act of war according to your list and even that act was in response to an Islamic threat to Europe which had begun over 500 years before. But it took Islam only 32 years of existence to organize its followers into a marching army that conquered the whole of Arabia, North Africa, Spain, Persia, India and beyond, and due to not a single threat from one of them.

You say that Christians seek to conquer the world just as Muslims do. If you mean they and the Muslims seek to do so by force of arms, you are observing a fact about the Koran and imputing it falsely to the Bible. You will please substantiate your contentions.

If you mean that Christians and Muslims mean only to persuade the rest of the world by words and never by force, then you are observing a fact about the New Testament and imputing it falsely to the Koran. Again, you will please substantiate your contentions.

The problem with your argument, if I might be so bold, is that it's an egalitarian one: it argues for equal outcomes (in this case, the aim of two religions) between two very different competitors. But since the two competitors do not, actually, aim for the same thing (one submission and the other repentance), you end up arguing against reality.

I imagine that must be frustrating. And worse, it's false.

Anonymous said...

Chechar, I know that I'm part of the most coveted racial group for females(based on a transcultural study). And I was just saying that logically, if my identity is irrelevant, then I could do that.

EV, considering you called me a racist, I would like you to point out the prejudice in the things I am saying. And how that prejudice is combined with hate. And I didn't say you are a left winger or a cultural Marxist, I said that you operate under the founding principles of liberalism. I don't really seek to upset you, but I didn't say you should be proud of your country for what happened during the last 40 years - actually quite the opposite. And being an American is irrelevant related to knowing what being an American is or anything about the US. In case you didn't notice, the average American is failing the citizenship test that your government requires for foreigners. Test that I didn't ace, but at which I got 94%(got two answers wrong, one of them because the question seemed to imply something else to me). It's hysterical though because you said in the previous comment that the greatness of America is that all people can stand up and whatever(or at least this is what you implied) and now you say it's parodical that a Romanian lectures you. Now, replace Romanian with African and oops. But again, it's ok, considering I'm white and the political function of anti-racism... Blah, no point in getting there.

And I wouldn't be proud of a culture that isn't my own, just like I can't be proud of the achievements of a different people than my own. I think you tried to say sayonara.

EscapeVelocity said...

I think that there is too much to say for us to come to understanding RV.

There is much we agree on, no doubt.

EscapeVelocity said...

I do think that Ethnic Euros are entitled to not have their countries overrun with immigrants.

Also that the Euro Ethnic has been deprived of his own narratives and stories, myths, culturally.

I do think that a resurgence in cultural confidence and pride among these groups is a good thing.

So maybe I unfairly judged you too harshly and too quickly.

However I do think that it is very easy to over react. And that is never a good thing. For example, the over reaction to colonization = reverse colonization.

The Western Left and their gaggle of minority identity groups has over reached (over reacted) and they missed an opportunity to correct injustices, instead of just changing the groups being treated unjustly. Of course the Western Left is a massive topic, and they have proven themselves by their actions and words at their heart to be the enemy of White Euro Christians and their culture and civilization, and seekers of universal justice...the language that they hide behind. Their hypocrisy is plain for all to see.

Anonymous said...

I don't think I ever suggested that Europeans should kill, enslave or whatever. I didn't mean discrimination in the sense of committing genocide. I actually find those besides completely morally repugnant, also inefficient to achieve any means.

I don't really hate others. It's like this: if I prefer my children over the children of my neighbour, it doesn't mean that I hate the children of my neighbour.

Also, this isn't reverse colonialism. The British empire did away with a lot of bad things, while bringing a lot of good things to the colonies - our immigrants aren't doing anything positively as a group(sure, there are individuals who do good things here), while doing a lot of negative things. Just in the same way, I would rather live in a white neighborhood in America, while I can respect Allen West and vote for him. Extrapolating the good behaviours of a few individuals to the whole group and judging the group as beneficial is as idiotic as judging an individual by the way his group acts. But I do find Allen West's view on Americans naive - he said that Americans are a nation of Americans. Talking about tautologies. Still, he's probably head and shoulders above the people he's running against, so I don't see why I wouldn't endorse him. Just like I enjoy the ideas of Thomas Sowell.