Sunday, June 22, 2014

Cutting to the chase.

This is a comment I posted over on the The DiploMad 2.0, which site I commend to you. Points added here are in italics:
Islam needs to be confined to its present pestilential tribal areas.

The doctrine of shariah that mandates death for apostasy, blasphemy, innovation, idolatry, heresy, and their multiple metastasizations must be proscribed in every civilized country and any Muslim who advocates it or refuses to denounce the Koran and all schools of "Islamic jurisprudence" as false and evil for containing any words justifying it must be ejected forthwith from the civilized world or denied even temporary entry. Any imam, mullah, ulema, shaykh, mufti, qadi, or "holy" man in the world who issues a fatwa calling for the death of any non-Muslim is to have his name placed on a list of people outside the law. It's an ancient practice that bears reviving. A $1,000,000 bounty is to be placed on the head of the issuer. A passport to any non-Muslim country chosen by the "winner" will be issued to him or her and immediate family.

For gosh sakes, instead of getting wrapped around the axle over whether Islam is a religion or not, we need to strike right at the heart of the matter: noxious, abhorrent behavior. We didn't consume valuable band width in the U.S. when we went after the communists. We didn't concern ourselves with the merits of dialectical materialism or whether the state would wither away upon the final triumph of communism. Who cares! We settled on proscribing communists' advocacy of the violent overthrow of the U.S.

For liberals, let me make it clearer: Advocating violent overthrow (involving treason and killing) = advocacy of death for apostates.

There just aren't any First Amendment problems here. We attacked the communists where they were vulnerable. Nor do we protect speech that is a threat to someone. Would it make it protected speech if the speaker were a member or priest or cardinal of the Catholic Church?

Then we can proceed to legislation on the order of the Foreign Missions Act, I think it was. Under that, if the Soviets confined U.S. diplomats in Moscow to a half-mile radius of our embassy, we did the same to them in the U.S. Muslims in Saudi forbid building of churches or Egyptians burn down a Christian church? Guess what?

It's nonsense that Islam is a giant entity called "a religion" and that we can't attack specific noxious practices. But our political class would have to have a spine and a brain implant before something simple like this will ever be tried.

Be that as it may, it's a strategy that can't fail because its targets are our enemies without question and they will squeal like stuck pigs when we get down to brass tacks and quit wrestling with the spheres.[1]

Your basic "cut the crap" approach.

Apologies for the language but I'm done with trying to get this problem solved with parlor room thinking or tactics. There are many deliberate distractions thrust in our faces that would tie us up in the coils of "rights," "religious freedom," "patriarchy," "religion of peace," "colonialism," "war on women," "inequality," "investments," "racism," "quantitative easing," "affordable housing," "disadvantaged," "comprehensive immigration reform," "free trade," "global warming," "climate change," "extreme right," "right-wing fascism," "voter suppression," "entitlements," "nation of immigrants," und so weiter. This is Gordian Knot time and we must stay focused on the main enemy.

Jeremy, Australia has much the same thoughts:

Looking from outside America, one of the things that really need review is the freedom of religion thing. That has never been true throughout the history of western civilization, I believe the idea was introduced because many small protestant Christian sects had left England for America to escape the enforced uniformity of the Church of England. At the time, it is likely that the founders of the republic would have defined Islam, along with Buddhism etc. as primitive sects rather than religions. We know that the romans used stories of human sacrifice as their reason for wiping out druidism, Cortes felt justified in wiping out the Aztec religion because of their human sacrifice, and the British wiped out Thuggee the professional murderers and thieves who worshipped Kali in India in the 1830's. In each of these cases there is a religion which relies to some extent on killing. It seems to me that Islam is another religion that considers killing to be a moral act even if in limited circumstances and thus cannot be tolerated. Freedom of Religion is a principle that must be rejected.[2]
Bruce Catton wrote about the American Civil War. He observated that at the beginning the Union Army had a democratic spirit to it. The officers of my grandfather's regiment elected their own officers in Chicago in 1861, for example. Catton went on to say that as the realities of the war became clearer, the Army had to resort to stern discipline like administering lashes to unfortunates tied to a wagon wheel. In the regimental journal of my grandfather's unit there is a single entry: Private So and So – executed for desertion.

Now, it seems, we're still playing grab ass and pretending that it's a game. We content ourselves with childish fantasies about human nature and recklessly experiment with economic and political arrangements that would make our ancestors gasp in horror at the stupidity they reflect. Millions and millions and millions of otherwise intelligent and kind people still do not grasp the nature of the civilizational threat we face and what it will unavoidably entail for them and their descendants if it is not turned back and annihilated.

The time for the wagon wheels will yet come. Pray that the right hands wield the whip when it comes.

[1] "Collapse--Part II, The Rise of the Muslim Murder Machine." By W. Lewis Amselem, The DiploMad 2.0, 6/21/14.
[2] Comment on "Collapse--Part II."


T. Paine said...

Hypothetical scenario: Suppose some scary looking people bought the house next to yours. The men have long beards, appear in long dresses and wear funny looking hats. Their woman are dressed all in black, covered head to toe, don't drive, don't go to school or have any rights as we westerners understand them. Then suppose you pick up a newspaper and find out the man with the beard killed his own daughter because she was seen talking to a boy. And then suppose a news article reports the man has also issued a 'fatwa' against all westerners and calls for beheadings and torture for the egregious offense of being an infidel Christian.

What are you going to do? (Do you feel that little bit of something pulling on your soul yet? That's called courage!!!)

But now suppose that hypothetical isn't your new neighbor but is now your parent's new neighbor. Or they've set up next to your church. Whatcha gonna do Homie?

Robert What? said...

Obviously some people at the too of the power structure (not just politicians) benefit from the unrelenting import if third world savages and radical Muslims. But I'll be damned if I can figure out his anyone benefits from it. Clearly they are confident that they won't have to suffer the ravages of their own policy decisions.

Col. B. Bunny said...

Mr. Paine, the short answer to your question is that I will let the police handle local crime and I will be 100% indifferent to the fate of the accused and very much concerned for the proper operation of the judicial system.

What do either of your scenarios (apparently requiring action on my part) have to do with the government actions I advocate? And what important distinction is there between a man who lives next door to me or who lives somewhere else? It seems to be a crucial distinction to you but I'm at a loss to understand why? Either way it's a police matter that requires no involvement on my part, though apparently you think they need my help.

Since the man has committed a homicide, what would be required of me to do or feel given the responsibility of the police to deal with the man? Is action or "courage" required of me each time I read that someone in my community has committed a serious crime?

In what way am I your "homie"?

Col. B. Bunny said...

Mr. W, I agree it's perplexing. Best idea I have is that adherents of socialism, communism, progressivism, and liberalism have such a poisonous disdain for our traditional culture that any threat to it is more of a blessing than something to alarm us.

"You hate or will sully what I do, ergo, you're a fine fellow indeed."

Mix that with a spectacular indifference to the consequences of a transfer of power from a civilized Western people to third-world primitives and you have the poisonous left of our times.