Monday, June 1, 2015

Sooo not nice.

But sooo high on my list in the cut the crap department. 1,400 years of Muslim bullshit is enough.

The only solution for the Muslim threat is to kill every last one of them: their families, their friends, their neighbors; to lay waste to their crop lands and salt their wells, to destroy their buildings such that no two stones lay atop one another. The justification, if one is needed, is that the Muslims are Evil.
The old ways are best.

Is it written somewhere that we can't go back? That we're helpless to avoid that suicide by niceness, the progressive wet dream that our leftist and moron fellow citizens yearn for so ardently?

Treason class immigration priority.

Source: Comment at American Digest.

H/t: Remus.


Pascal said...

"Is it written somewhere that we can't go back? "

LOL. I only recently called out how the Progs have been doing that -- taking us back -- since their inception. It's only recently that they have gotten brazen about it all whilst continuing to claim the opposite.

For those who require imagery, here's the link providing a colorful and familiar graphic which brings their words into conformity with their actions.

Dr.D said...

It is hard to reconcile the "kill every last one of them" approach with the commands of Jesus Christ, much as I would like to do so. It is not too hard, however, to think in terms of containing them, confining them to their own lands and their backward ways. I think we should totally isolate them, let there be little or no trade or commerce of any sort between them and us. If they insist on living in the 7th century, so be it. But keep it entirely over there.

It is not hard either to say, leave or die to those that are in Western lands. Christ spoke of how we should treat "our neighbor," but it is implicit in what He said that "our neighbor" does not come at us with murder in his heart. These people are not "neighbors" but enemies, pure and simple.

Reg T said...

I also seem to recall Christ having been said to say something about selling your robe for a sword. If true, I doubt that he meant so that you could hang said sword above your mantle.

Defense of Christianity, along with Judaism and every other religion, along with every culture other than that of orthodox (Sunni?) Islam - which is actually an ideology, since Islam is a construct created to cloak its precepts as a "religion" - is necessary since otherwise only Islam's Universal Caliphate will remain.

If a man insists that he will kill you, your wife and your children, cannot be dissuaded, and has amply demonstrated this by the beheading of men, children, and women who aren't deemed pretty enough or compliant enough to suffer as sex slaves (a woman was recently burned to death by ISIS because she would not perform "an extreme sex act"), then he is a threat that simply cannot be tolerated.

When said "man" exists in the millions, and are seen to carry out this threat whenever they are present in large enough numbers to get away with committing those acts, then they need killing. Which is what the "sword" was meant for.

So, it would seem to be specious to talk about "not killing for Christ". I am not advocating for women and children to be killed, unless those women continue to inculcate the Islamic disease in their young children, or the "children" - say as teens - are already so indoctrinated they cannot be disabused of their desire to kill or enslave the rest of us.

Remember - the commandment is _not_ "Thou shalt not kill". That is a liberal myth. The commandment is "Thou shalt not murder". Killing in defense of loved ones, or the innocent, is perfectly acceptable. Even our predominantly liberal courts agree with that.

Col. B. Bunny said...

@Pascal Fervor

That's a clever graphic. Communism and the French Revolution were tragedies because their ideologies cut man off from his past, which became illegitimate, even loathsome. "Progress" got packaged up with a nice ribbon but it was only a way of returning to arbitrary power. Even the kings of Europe did not have the enormous repressive power of the communists or the leaders of the French Revolution. (I don't know my intellectual history well enough but didn't the former draw inspiration from the latter?) The hard left knows what it's doing but the maddening thing about the social justice warriors and useful idiots is they simply will not consider the implications of what they support in terms of moving backward to times when autocratic power was the norm. Not only that. They simply pay no heed to the history of totalitarian power in the last century. Protections against aggregation of power in our Constitution thus are of little interest to them. I think in my entire life I only ever heard two liberals of my personal acquaintance ever even mention the word "Constitution." One was a lawyer advocating an interpretation of it that was right out of the communist lexicon of the 1930s. The other only to call upon the term "habeas corpus" as it should be granted to Guantanamo inmates.

My comment here that the old ways are best is inaccurate to the extent that it was not common in the West to my knowledge to engage in wholesale extermination. Perhaps the Albigensians would have a different take on that but even there I don't know the extent of the killing. No doubt there are (other) (isolated) instances of extermination. Lots of killing through the centuries, most certainly.

My idea of "the old ways" is rather that there actually was a time when European people had no trouble at all in perceiving they were under attack and resorting to effective measures to defeat their enemies. Vlad the Impaler was especially effective.

More to the point, it's not necessary to resort to a "salt the earth" approach in every instance. These days it would solve all our problems if we would stop believing the lies about Islam, recognize it for the mortal, savage threat it is, and do SOMETHING about it other than import more Muslims, pay them welfare benefits, and invite them into the highest councils of our government.

Col. B. Bunny said...

Well said, Dr. D.

Was it Chesterton who spoke of "wooly-headed humanitarians"? That seems to be the default position of Western elites, those that are not purposefully seeking power from the destruction of the existing polity. We are truly stuck on stupid and it's true as you say that merely confining Muslims to their own lands would be sufficient. In fact, I think it would be the perfect revenge. V.S. Naipaul pointed out how the Iranian mullahs hated the West but could not do without the things that only the "world culture" could provide. Let them enjoy the full, perfect fruit of their own backwardness. That necessarily entails unwinding the most hideous mistake that any civilization ever made in inviting primitives into their homelands, namely, population transfer, not to put too fine a point on it. (The Trojans were the first to make the mistake we're now making, btw.)

We're so wussified now that the extreme measures advocated by the man making the comment I quote are, what? Bracing? The reflect a salutary fury and murderous intent that is, at a minimum, quite close to that which we endure on the part of Muslims with their beheadings and immolations. There was a marvelous YouTube rant by a black gentleman that I saw several years back. He had more common sense on the subject of Islam than 60 years of Foggy Bottom types. He was perplexed by the whole Islam thing and one of his points was "If you want to get crazy, we can get crazier." This is quite the opposite of the approach our elites simply adore, namely, "If you get crazy, we'll back down and figure out what we've done to deserve your anger and contempt."

Col. B. Bunny said...

@Reg T

All excellent. The point of a threat that simply can't be tolerated is the key one. We are wedded to half measures and, actually, that half measures would be an improvement since we presently resort to no measures whatsoever to counter the Muslim threat. We don't even allow ourselves to identify the exact threat. Even at this late hour we insist on identifying the enemy as "terror," "violent extremism," or "Islamism." All are stomach-churning for the pusillanimity they reflect. And the stupidity.

I believe it was in Ukraine after WWII when (Bandera's) partisans were still operating out in the woods. The Soviets encircled suspect base areas with troops so numerous they could literally touch each other as they advanced to the center. No one could escape that kind of a cordon. That is a textbook example of not resorting to half measures. Repatriation is my favorite corrective at present. As a preliminary measure I'd be willing to see how it goes by outlawing Islam but I can see that that would be a waste of time and require too much effort to police the "cooperating" Muslms. Didn't the church use anathema as an offensive weapon against its enemies? As I said, [some of] the old ways are best and why is it that they are denied to us now? To paraphrase Justice Jackson, is modern civilization in fact a suicide pact where we die of terminal niceness? Look what ISIS/Al Qaida does in Syria and Iraq. That's what unvarnished, state-of-the-art Islam does to captives, Christians and other infidels. We should be much more extreme in what we do to kill those swine there and rid them from our midst here. We are still operating with the mindset of Westerners who had no technological rivals anywhere in the world. We have no idea what is planned by our enemies who have access to more technology than we realize. Dirty bombs, anthrax, and infrastructure/grid destruction are well within their reach and an EMP burst over the east coast seems to me almost a certainty. A new day is dawning and we are still snoozing away. I may be rambling now.