Good or Bad for the Jews

"Good or Bad for the Jews"

Many years ago, and for many years, I would travel to Morocco to visit uncles, cousins, and my paternal grandmother. Some lived in Tangiers;...

Thursday, March 24, 2016

Dealing with the Islamic Threat

Please forgive if I repeat much of what I've stated before about the threat from Islam. I will try to avoid sprinkling this essay with too many links to prior posts; I would direct the curious to my March 22 post which provides several links to earlier writings on Islam and on the progressive delusions that protect it and allow it to foment hatred and violence in our societies. I think most of that writing holds up well, certainly at the risk of seeming immodest, it appears to hold up better than what we might call the Obama/Clinton/Kerry/Rice/Merkel/Trudeau/MSM approach.

How do we deal with the very real threat posed to Western civilization by Islam?

Foremost, we must recognize that the threat comes not from this or that "radicalized" individual, cell, or group in caves in Afghanistan or Syria, or in dingy flats in London, Amsterdam, Brussels, Paris, Sydney, or New York. The threat comes from Islam, itself. The "crazies," the jihadis, the radicals, the Islamists, whatever you want to call those dying to meet their quota of brown-eyed virgins, understand their creed well. Islam does not mean peace. Islam does not preach tolerance and love for one's fellow human beings. Islam does not portray non-Muslims as equals or even as fit to live unless they convert, or pay a special tax and do not propagate their non-Islamic faith. Even as practiced today, and remember these are not just words in old forgotten tomes, Islam advocates lying to nonbelievers, and for the enslavement and the killing of those nonbelievers. Apostates must, of course, die.

The faith of losers, Islam teaches grievance. The Muslim world echoes with complaints, lamentations really, about all that has been "taken" from Islam, and about all the injustices inflicted on the Islamic world. Spain. Vienna. Palestine. Crusades. Jerusalem. If only the Jews had accepted Mohammed! If only the Christians hadn't done this or that! Muslim countries would be rich but for the infidels! The nonbelievers stymie the plans of Allah! Revenge! Punish them for rejecting the True Faith!

The teachings and practices of Islam on sex and women help explain the behavior of millions of Muslim men, including those in Europe. Islam does not respect women, at all. The Quran essentially declares them less than human; Islamic doctrine provides detailed instructions on the "proper way" to beat a wife. Vicious gang rapes are common throughout the Muslim world, and not frowned upon by authorities. The victims invariably get blamed and often punished, including with death. In Muslim cities and towns, you find violence-prone young, bored, resentful, sex-starved men hanging out in coffee shops, or roaming the streets in groups, many having met no women in their lives other than their mothers and sisters. They see women as mysterious, evil creatures who need subjugation. Their views of women, especially Western women, come, as noted, from the Quran and from the vast amounts of pornography consumed in the Muslim world. I was always struck by the fact that when we nabbed some very religious terrorist jihadi, almost inevitably we found his laptop or bookcase crammed with pornography. Please also note that despite Islam's ostensible hatred for gays, homosexuality is widely practiced in the Islamic world, along with pedophilia and bestiality.

All religions, of course, have odd and cruel features in their old texts. Islam, however, remains unique among major religions for never having had an enlightenment. It has undergone a reformation of sorts, but a retrograde one. In much of the world, Islam now lies closer to its 7th century origins than it did 100 or 200 years ago; it recedes into the past for inspiration and validation. Per its fundamental writings and its widespread practices, Islam is about conquest, not coexistence or tolerance. Where one finds a lighter Islam is in a place such as Indonesia where the rough edges have been knocked off by centuries of contact with Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, animism, and the worship of Britney Spears. Even Indonesia, however, has a large, growing cyst of violent "crazies," many having studied in the Middle East, furiously explaining that the majority do not do Islam right--and the "crazies" are correct.

In sum, misery, ignorance, resentment, desire for war, and the quest for world subjugation lie at the violent core of Islam. It has produced a very diseased civilization, one whose first victims comprise the 1.6 billion persons who live as Muslims. The disease is spreading and growing ever more lethal.

Too many of our "leaders" and opinion-makers refuse to confront the reality laid out above. They, therefore, design polices that prove ineffective, counterproductive, and will lead the West to the apocalypse. Exaggerated? Go to Europe and see what's happening there. No longer just a weird cult confined to forgettable parts of the world, thanks to oil money, Western technology, and criminally insane Western immigration policies, Islam now poses a real threat in our neighborhoods. The West's refusal to see reality protects the jihadis, and leads to a rising toll of dead and maimed in New York, Nairobi, Boston, London, Paris, Brussels, San Bernardino, Ft. Hood, Copenhagen, Toronto, Sydney, Mumbai, and on and on.

How to deal with Islam? Take it at its word. When Islam says it wants to conquer, enslave, and kill us, believe it. Islam claims to be a warrior creed, accept that. Peace marches, candlelight vigils, piles of teddy bears, bathing buildings in colorful lights, and word salad speeches about "not letting the terrorists win by changing our ways" just won't cut it. I would bet that many of those killed in New York, Boston, London, Paris, and Brussels were progressive liberal sorts who "welcomed" the arrival of Muslims, and would have proven horrified at the thought of our portraying Islam as a murderous dogma. Delusions can and will get you killed.

We are at war; better said, they are at war with us. We must reciprocate. Forget all the progressive nonsense about how if we fight back we only produce more jihadis in response. When the US and UK bombed Germany into rubble and invaded it, did we worry about that producing more Nazis? No. We worried only if we had killed enough of the bastards to have them call off their war. If there is any hope, however dim, for peaceful co-existence with Islam, then Islam must suffer large, stinging, unambiguous defeats wherever it seeks to do battle against the West. Islam must experience defeat in Kashmir, Palestine, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Afghanistan, Nigeria, Kenya, and anywhere else it takes up arms. The idea and image of Islam as a warrior creed must be refuted, crushed, and shown as a hollow boast. Perhaps, perhaps, over a long, long time, forces will arise within Islam questioning the call for permanent war, and, perhaps, perhaps, those forces eventually will knock down the rotten house that is Islamic society, and build something new. We can hope . . . in the meantime, our war must continue.

Part of that long war, of course, must consist of support for Israel, the Middle East's only democracy, and include a relentless drive to develop our own energy resources. With energy independence comes freedom from Middle Eastern oil blackmail. Our money for oil imports helps fuel jihad--make no mistake about that. We must make clear to Muslim regimes all over the world that we will not sit by passively and watch jihadis slaughter and enslave Christians. If "moderate" Muslim peoples and regimes exist, they have to prove it to us. They have to help avoiding inflaming and provoking us.

We also need to make a total effort against Islam here at home. Our immigration policies must change dramatically. Just as we, at one time, excluded Nazis, Fascists, and Communists, we have the right to exclude practitioners of the totalitarian cult known as Islam. We have the right and the obligation to exclude those committed to the violent overthrow of our way of life. The West derives no benefit by importing millions of Muslims. The Syrian refugee crisis is a scam and we must recognize it as such. It is not a question of whether these persons belong to ISIS, AQ, Boko, or JI. Islam's core beliefs pose the threat as we have seen from the large number of native-born Muslims in the West who have gone jihadi--including, for example, Somalis here in the US. At a minimum, we do not need to import more Muslims.

In addition, as done when fighting the old mafia, so we must do with Muslim organizations already in our countries. When the FBI went after the Italian mafia, a much more benign operation than the Muslim cells we see now, the FBI--Oh, horrors!--went after people with Italian names. The focus of investigation and intelligence operations was on and in Italian communities. Nobody questioned this any more than when the FBI went after Russian, Jewish, Albanian, Jamaican, or Irish mobsters; the FBI arrested Russians, Jews, Albanians, Jamaicans, and Irish. This is not rocket science. There is nothing wrong with putting mosques and their Imams under surveillance, infiltrating their gatherings, and making clear to Muslim communities that the price for acceptance by their fellow Americans consists of a clear and total rejection of jihadism and other violent supremacist behavior. The concerns and dictates of progressive PC must be rejected.

As I have said many, many times before, our belief in the Bill of Rights and all the other wonderful values of Western civilization should not constitute a suicide note.  We have overcome mad imperialists of all sorts, there is no reason we cannot defeat the Islamic imperialists abroad and at home.


  1. Nicely stated Diplomad. We in the West have two concurrent enemies: Leftism and Islam.

  2. At the end of the day, any religion *needs* to be able to drawn back to it's roots/foundational text. If it 'changes to the whims of the times', it's really nothing at all.... you get unitarian universalists and crap. This is even *more true* in Islam, as Muhammed performed an early crypt-cipher of sorts by declaring that the Quran can *only* be read in arabic. There is just no way to 'water down' something that has such a well controlled text. Some goon two hundred years from now will be able to learn his arabic, read his Quran, and see exactly what it's calling for.
    In the case of *most* religions, that kind of examination results in said goon cleaning up his life and becoming a better person.

    - reader #1482

    1. You're absolutely right. That's why I am not very hopeful for there to be a wholesale transformation of Islam a la something akin to the Ahmadiyya movement which did seek to introduce some sense of peace, love, and coexistence.

    2. Spengler, as usual, has an excellent essay, which recommend reading. The essence ?

      "Conditions for a perfect storm on the scale of past wars of exhaustion already prevail, and the likelihood of another war of exhaustion on the scale of the Napoleonic Wars or the Thirty Years War is much higher than foreign policy analysts seem to appreciate. The result may be the 30% solution we have seen so many times in history, and the appropriate American response may be not to extinguish the fire, but to maintain a controlled burn."

    3. And when el Sisi of Egypt calls for a reformation in Islam ... a perfect opening to begin to avert the coming storm, what does Obama do? [... crickets ...]

    4. unlike sisi, obama may actually believe in Islam. :)

      - reader #1482

    5. Hello, Mr. Michael K.

      Spengler basically repeats himself. As does Diplomad. As do many. Certainly as do I. War alarms.

      "To see what is in front of one's nose needs a constant struggle." George Orwell

      "Men more frequently require to be reminded than informed." Samuel Johnson

  3. A distinction is often made between Islam and Islamism. Do
    you feel that it’s a valid distinction, and is a
    reformed Islam possible?

    Mark Durie: A thorough reading
    through the hadiths, sira and Koran led me to believe that
    reform in the sense of “improvement” is
    incredibly difficult. In medieval Christianity, reforming
    religion meant making it better by going back to its roots,
    back to the gospels. The problem is, if you reform Islam
    this way, you go back to Muhammad’s message and
    example, and what you get is Wahhabism and al
    Qaida. Reform through reshaping Islam under the
    influence of external ideas, derived from non-Islamic
    sources, is conceivable, but the trend of the past 100 years
    has been just about all in the other direction.

    If you put a young God-fearing Muslim in a room
    with an Islamic radical and an Islamic moderate, both trying
    to win over the young person’s soul, the radical would
    win again and again. It is because the canon –
    hadiths, sira and Koran – are massively stacked in
    favor of the radical position. Yes, there are violent
    passages in the Bible too, but it is an uphill battle to
    build a violent theology based on them. With the Koran,
    building a violent theology is like rolling balls down a
    hill. It is a huge uphill struggle building a
    “moderate” Islamic theology on the basis of the
    Islamic canon alone.

  4. Foremost, we must recognize that the threat comes not from this or that group of "radicalized" individuals, cells, or groups gathered in caves in Afghanistan or Syria, or in dingy flats in London, Amsterdam, Brussels, Paris, Sydney, or New York.

    Yes. Yes indeed.

    I once, many years ago attended a discussion wherein a question was posed, "Aside from hydrocarbons [oil] what is Saudi Arabia's top export?"

    There was some uncomfortable muttering among *the experts* on who (I guess) was best suited to field the muted response from one in attendance, "Wahhabism?"

    [Yeah I know the link goes to the NYT but ...]


  5. We should take a cue from the example of Joash in the book of Judges, But Joash replied to the hostile crowd around him, “Are you going to plead Baal’s cause? Are you trying to save him? Whoever fights for him shall be put to death by morning! If Baal really is a god, he can defend himself when someone breaks down his altar.” Judges 6:31
    Give them sufficient time to evacuate Mecca, because on "X" date it will be destroyed. If allah is God, let allah defend Mecca.

    1. Why are we giving "Them" time to evacuate?

    2. The point of the operation would be to demonstrate to them that allah is not God, they are in the thrall of idolatry. If they repent, great, if not we continue until their unconditional surrender.

  6. Tremendous as usual. Always a delight when we mirror each other.

  7. Greetings from Down Under Dip,

    You wrote: ".....and making clear to Muslim communities that the price for acceptance by their fellow Americans is a clear and total rejection of jihadism and other violent supremacist behavior".

    I cannot see rejection is possible as this would involve rejecting some of the Koran's teachings - a deadly business indeed.

    Moreover, who would begin the process? Certainly not Al Azhar University which is the logical and IMO the only authoritative source of change. It surely cannot begin at the local level as the mob would tear the imam apart for disbelieving the word of God.

    I think we must ban this vicious and murderous ideology.

    1. Yes. I was trying to be a bit optimistic, but recognize that ain't likely to happen. I have written before (some years ago) that Islam needs to be excluded from Western societies as a totalitarian death cult that advocates the violent overthrow of democracy.

    2. Dip, truly spoken. There is however a lingering ideology that enables Islam within Western societies. It is one we have never quite defeated.

    3. And continuing on with the thread of "the problem is the fundamental text", this is also why I see limitations upon the current 'liberalization' of America. A surprising number of 'denominational' Christian church organizations have embraced homosexuality in marriage as not being sinful, regardless of the explicit text of the New Testament. This isn't "hate the sin, love the sinner", but rather "we voted to remove homosexuality from the list of sinful actions". This is not born out in the fundamental text for Christianity, and in the same way as 'reformation Islam' will fail, so will this movement.
      The Bible and the Quran are both too well distributed to 'hide' their actual claims.
      America's worship of sexuality continues to grow unabated, blinding us to actual problems and threats in the world.

      - reader #1482

  8. Well Mad,
    You're going to get tired with telling so much truth.
    The Progs are so use to relativism and not telling the truth that they can't believe these guys (and Koran) mean what they say....., but they do, dead seriously. I can hear them now "They don't really mean all that, they're just saying it to help redress injuries laid upon them by us".....Uh Bubba, yes they do! It's a favorite tactic of the left to lie about things to advance their quest for power, Islam has been doing it 1,250 yrs longer, they are made for each other. Gimme that old time religion, gimme that......
    James the Lesser

  9. You need to rethink the advantages of American oil independence - it is more complicated than that.

    Yes, producing all our own oil would be great but many Arab countries can still deliver their oil to market at costs less than ours. As we are seeing now, and as Kissinger warned about Carter's Synfuels Corporation, they can cut price to bankrupt our producers.

    Even with an American tariff to protect domestic production, oil could be sold at lower prices to our economic competitors. Oil is still a foundation of modern civilization and the cheaper the oil, the more vigorous the economy.

    So North America might become independent, but China gets cheaper energy. China becomes stronger in the world economy and America has a handicap.

    Sorry, but there remains no cheaper alternative to Muslim oil.

    This is why who controls the oil flows from around the Arabian Gulf will remain a prime foreign policy concern for the US government.

    1. There is a partial solution ... when oil gets real cheap, we could fill up our strategic oil reserve. And when it gets expensive, we could reverse the flow. To some extent this would protect our producers with higher prices when the Saudis are trying to keep prices low. It would basically cut off the pricing peaks and fill in the pricing valleys ... reducing the beta ... a good thing.

  10. To use the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in a price leveling role would be a huge expansion of scope and expense. The SRP has already been used by politicians for domestic political advantage.

    One also needs to consider the capital costs of the facility, the cost of capital sunk in inventory, and the operating costs for the pumping to-and-fro.

    There is also the risk that we don't judge the price swings correctly and wind up buying high and selling low. I assume you want this reserve to be government-operated so I will guarantee that they will screw it up.

    1. Check Google ... we have been buying high and selling low. If we put in place sensible guidelines, this proposal might also be a money maker ... a first for our current bunch.

  11. If we are going to play games with oil, our best bet is just to start sinking bulk crude carriers when they transit the straits. After that, we should bomb every power plant in the region to rubble, return them to the stone age they so desire.

    1. No bombing of power plants, Please!

      I'll be making my home at a nuclear power plant construction site on the Arabian Gulf next month.

      The rooms at the site are Motel 6 but the dining hall is Delmonico.