web analytics

Solving the Islamicist Problem Once and For All, Part 2

Last week I posted an article on the same topic, where I make the following points:

  1.  A problem cannot be solved unless one actually understands it.  But even that is not enough.  One must have the will to carry out the solution.
  2. World conquest in the name of Allah is Islamic doctrine.  Whether or not the rest of us are ‘at war’ with Muslims, Muslims, fundamentally, are at war with us.  Whether we like it or not.  It is an explicit and foundational aspect of the Islamic religion.  Islam, is, by nature, a political animal, even as it has ‘religious’ aspects to it.
  3. Half-measures have done far more harm, historically, than thoroughly decisive actions.
  4. It is not enough to talk about defeating Islamicists militarily;  the ideology itself must be defeated.   But when confronting it militarily, it must be done decisively.
  5. Having ruled out half-measures, this means, in ultimate terms, bringing the false god, Allah, down.
  6. In order to call something ‘false’, one must believe there is such a thing as ‘truth.’  One cannot act decisively unless one firmly believes they are within ‘truth.’  Or, to put it another way, in order for the Islamic ideology to be defeated, something believed to be better and superior needs to be advanced.
  7. Currently, the world order is dominated by secular humanists.  Their ideology will always be inadequate to the task.  Islamicists take advantage of the intrinsic weaknesses of the secular humanist worldview.  First and foremost, Islamicists believe that there is such a thing as ‘good and evil’ (and secular humanists and every non-Muslim is evil), while secular humanists are decidedly neutered on this score.  Islam is not wrong in saying that there is a real good and a real evil, but what they consider good and evil is very wrong.  Christianity offers a counter-weight that secular humanism is powerless to provide.
  8. This is not difficult to understand, but it is hard to accept.  People are not going to like this solution.

Islam is a religion with a history that is a thousand years in the making and is not going to be overthrown in a year or even a decade.   A characteristic of our current age is the expectation that seeds planted will bear fruit the next day.  Gardeners know better.  So do Muslims.  They think generationally, while moderns move from fad to fad.  If moderns embrace a significant cultural change and it does not end the world overnight, they figure the danger has passed.  Some problems… some changes… bring about dangers that do not manifest until decades, even centuries, have gone by.

Given the stated Koranic goal of conquering the world for Allah, what we might perceive as ‘danger’ is to them an opportunity.  Moderns play checkers.  Muslims play chess.

It is important to understand that when I talk about Muslims, I’m talking about the people who actually believe and act as though the Koran is true.  Merely self-identifying as a Muslim does not make someone a Muslim, just as self-identifying as a black person does not make a white person, black.  (Sorry.)  We can divide up the global Muslim population into three basic groups, which, importantly, exist in pretty much every ideology.

  • There are the true believers.
  • There are nominal Muslims.
  • There are cultural Muslims.

As I said, these groupings exist for every ideological system.

  • There are people who are Christian, through and through.
  • There are people who lean Christian, take the label, and so on, but are not fully invested in it.
  • There are people who, by place of birth, circumstance, or what not, live and breathe as though they are Christian, but don’t really believe any of it.

So, there are a billion Muslims, but a very large number of them do not pose a short term or long term threat.  Indeed, there are probably a good many ‘cultural’ Muslims who might feel a certain affection for their homeland or culture, who wish very much that they did not live under Muslim rule.

This is what makes it so despicable when the international community (ie, Obama) does nothing when the Iranians rise up to protest their rigged elections, or the coalition allows Hussein (the other one) to wipe out the Kurds after the first Gulf War, or Obama does everything in his power to empower Islamic radicals (whether intentionally or not is irrelevant here; it has been the actual impact of his policies) in the so-called Arab Spring.

This is just the tip of the ice berg.  Many examples can be produced.

Much of these horrific lapses with long lasting devastating consequences have taken place while ‘humanitarian’-minded secular bureaucrats stood by and dilly-dallied, hemming and hawing, perpetually unable to strike a definitive stance–precisely because their worldview is all shifting sand beneath them.  Although, they may have been padding their wallets (eg., Oil for Food scandal).

I believe that at bottom, in the main, most people who have ever lived desire freedom and earnestly long for it.  They have no intention of imposing their belief systems on other people.  If left to their own devices, they would be happy to mind their own business.  They wish people would leave their business alone.

But such people are vulnerable to those who possess tyrannical worldviews, especially of the ‘global conquest’ sort, and even more so where the ideology embraces ‘the ends justify the means’ as not just morally justifiable, but a real moral virtue.

Islam has within it explicit support for this perspective.  It manifests most obviously in jihad, but is formally expressed in the doctrine of taqiyyaTaqiyya is the teaching that it is quite alright, even justifiable, nay, obligatory, to lie, in the cause of Islam.  It is to Islam what Alinsky is to Progressives.

Moreover, because of Islam’s explicit political component, most familiarly known as Sharia law, the cultural (and sometimes nominal) Muslims are no match for the True Believer’s acceptance of some other important Islamic doctrines:

1., Allah is an angry, judgmental god, who is very hard to please.  Even a good Muslim’s ‘salvation’ is very much in doubt.  EXCEPT, there are ways to gain absolute certainty:

2.  Certain acts will win for the Muslim absolute confidence that one will be shown mercy by Allah:   Eg., making the Hajj and… Jihad.

You remember jihad, right?

So, entangled into the very fabric of Islam are more than one components that make the religion very dangerous in the hands of the True Believer in Islam, components that exist in other forms in other systems, but do not exist at all in other systems.

In other words, there are some ideologies where there is nothing to fear of ‘True Believers.’   Islam is not one of them.

In countries where Islam dominates the culture, even if you aren’t a True Believer, you’d better talk and act as if you are one, or you’re taking your life in your hands.  And I mean, YOU’D BETTER.

If the above seems like an unfair video to produce, perhaps because it occurs in the ‘wild west’ where the radicals are clearly in control, then you may want to take a gander at some of the videos we have of what transpires in the more ‘civilized‘ Saudi Arabia.   Or jump to this one.   Note the presence of uniformed agents of the country.

With such considerations bouncing around in our head, let us consider one of the foremost pragmatic and practical steps that we can implement if we wish to ultimately defeat Islam:

Numero Uno:  do not allow Islamic culture to spread beyond its current reach and decisively turn it back, whenever and wherever you are able, effective immediately.

If this means that Muslim refugees need to be held back from re-locating to places where Islamic culture does not yet hold sway, then, as much as it pains me to say it, so be it.

[Because of truly infantile people on the web, I need to add that this does not mean we do not show them compassion or try to tend to their needs.  It does mean that Islam is to ideology what Ebola is to disease; one does not knowingly bring someone who is infected with Ebola into your midst.  The soft-headed notion that surrounding the Islamicist with secularists will somehow cure the Islamicist has produced more fatalities in the West than Ebola has.]

It is not just because they are Muslim, per se, that you have to do this.   The ‘cultural,’ and a fair number of ‘nominal’ Muslims, would probably get along ‘ok.’  You have to do this because of taqiyya and jihad, and the absolute fact that the True Believers have expressly stated that they will use such migrations to infiltrate new lands, with the explicit and express intent of bringing those lands under Islamic rule.

The daft inevitably will make the argument that they are unlikely to have any success any time soon.  Any time soon.  See my paragraph beginning, “Islam is a religion with a history…”

The other reason we have to do this is because the people in charge are almost all, to the man, secular humanists who cannot see the categorical difference between refusing to bake a cake and cutting off a man’s head in the street.  They can’t recognize genuine evil because they do not understand the real nature of people (eg, the fact of ‘sin’) and the power of ideology.  They really believe those poor chaps at Charlie Hebdo had it coming, that they had only themselves to blame.   That the massacre was legitimate, per John Kerry.

A bit like Biden saying he wouldn’t judge the Chinese for implementing the One Child Policy, one of the gravest ongoing human rights travesties ever known to man.

These are the ‘humanitarians.’  These are the people in charge of ‘vetting’ the refugees.

There is no hope that any time soon, grown-ups will take charge of our bureaucracies.  In the meantime, every day that they are in charge, we are in peril.

The incompetence… or is it delusion… of people like Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, John Kerry, and Barack Obama, is compounded by the absolutely known fact that the ‘True Believers’ will use this process (any process, really) to get into a country… and then bide their time.

From the link a couple of paragraphs above, was this excerpt from a document detailing the overall ISIS strategy (evidently, in ISIS’ own words)

Yes, my friends.  They are pleased with enclaves of ‘cultural’ Islam to hide within, and ultimately use as a staging ground for expanding their ‘land/territory.’

Remember, unlike many religions, in Islam, taking ‘land/territory’ is part and parcel of the overall intent of the religion.

Thus, given enough time (and they are patient… so it could be decades or even centuries), they will come for you.

Thus, preventing such a base of operations from taking root in your community may not have any immediate impact on your own life or livelihood, but you have to have the brains to think ahead, a bit.  If not you, what about your kids or your grandkids, or your great-grandkids?

There are many signs in the West already that the impacts are being felt.  Chances are, if you found this post at all, you already have seen some of those signs.

One of the problems is that the secular ‘humanitarians’ are pretty much in charge, everywhere.  This includes the media.  That means that a lot of the horrific stuff that is going on does not get reported.  It goes against the narrative, which, at root, excludes the reality of real, genuine evil.

For example, honor killings.

I’m not talking about ‘over there.’  I’m talking about ‘over there.’  And here.

Honor killings are not simply random, cultural artifacts.  They are derived from and logically and naturally flow from certain facets of the Islamic religion.

In another case of “they deserve what they get,” there was the case of the Christian evangelists assaulted in Dearborn, as the local police stood by and watched.

That wouldn’t have been my approach, but in this culture, which in the main has endeavored to advance liberty, freedom, and yes, even justice for all, the evangelists had the right to expect the police to protect them.

Of course, the evangelists knew exactly what to expect from the Muslims, which is why they were there.

One thing is for sure, Muslim missionaries would never get that kind of treatment from a Christian crowd, and, in the off chance that they did, sad to say, if current trends continue, the full weight of the law would be unleashed on the Christian.  (eg, ‘buffer zones‘, which after decades of unconstitutional abuse, are finally being rolled back).

And don’t even get me started about what Islam believes a person’s obligation should be towards the Muslim who becomes a Christian, versus what Christians believes they should do to the Christian who becomes a Muslim.

The point of this comparison is to illustrate that there are things intrinsic to the Christian ideology that are categorically different than the Muslim one.

Christians might get fired up, but they are not likely to actually fire you up, if you get my meaning.  Certain things will happen automatically and inevitably based on the composition and make-up of the culture.  We don’t have to use our imagination to fathom what kinds of things happen when Islam dominates the culture.  An ounce of research does the trick.

The question is whether or not you have the presence of mind to come to grips with reality as it really is, rather than hoping against all the evidence, that Muslims in the West will create a culture that honors life, freedom of religion, or democracy itself.

So, step one:  do not allow Muslims to have a cultural foothold.  Interact with them at arms length, and even help them.  And dear God, if they themselves try to stand up against the True Believers, such as what we saw in Iran, and in several other places, don’t leave them hanging out to dry.

Much more to say, but this will have to do it for this installment.



Skip to comment form

    • Timaahy on December 3, 2015 at 5:15 pm

    A problem cannot be solved unless one actually understands it. But even that is not enough. One must have the will to carry out the solution.

    Seems especially apt, in light of events in San Bernadino.

    • End Bringer on December 3, 2015 at 6:08 pm

    And what do you identify as the problem in San Bernadino, Timmy?

    • Timaahy on December 3, 2015 at 6:40 pm

    Well to be honest, EB, I really don’t know. As with most things, there are likely to be a myriad of causes, and I don’t think anyone really has a firm grasp on exactly what is causing almost one mass shooting a day.

    I do feel, however, that these events would be much less frequent if people simply didn’t have such easy access to military grade weapons.

    The main thing to admit at this point, irrespective of any corrective actions, is that there is a problem. Senior Republicans seem unwilling to do even that.

    • Timaahy on December 3, 2015 at 6:52 pm

    Sorry, probably shouldn’t have derailed SJ’s “Islamicist” post… have created a topic in the forum.

    • End Bringer on December 3, 2015 at 7:03 pm

    No need to apologize. Given Islamic terrorists have proven more than willing to kill people with planes, with bombs, to behead them, etc. that liberals like you believe that making LEGAL gun access more difficult is what needs to be addressed, I’d say no greater illustration of SJ’s point could be asked for.

    • Anthony on December 3, 2015 at 7:45 pm

    lol yes, EB, I’m quite sure that if they wouldn’t have been able to get guns, they would have simply thrown up their hands in exasperation and either A., went back to Saudi Arabia to pout or B., decided they may as well just become upstanding citizens of the United States. 🙂

    • Anthony on December 3, 2015 at 7:51 pm


    Since these deaths in California, 11 have died elsewhere–and not by guns.

    Scroll through the list.

    Most of the entries tell you how the people were killed. There have been many mass casualty events that didn’t involve guns at all. More than one exceeded the number dead in California.

    And that’s just in the last 30 days.

    • Timaahy on December 3, 2015 at 8:38 pm

    Scrolling through that list, it seems that the vast majority of attacks are due to bombs or guns, and the vast majority occurred outside of the US.

    So I’m not sure what that proves.

    • End Bringer on December 3, 2015 at 8:49 pm

    It pretty much proves that the liberal notion that violence will end or be reduced by going after guns is a complete and utter fantasy, especially when it comes to Islamic motivated killings.

    Also it says something to the notion of the US laws being the other part of the problem when we see people being killed with guns in other countries where aquiring one is supposedly harder.

    • Timaahy on December 3, 2015 at 8:54 pm

    You’ve made a few assertions there…

    No one thinks violence will end by going after guns.

    Gun-related violence can be reduced, depending on the circumstances. You apparently think the US is a lost cause in that respect. Perhaps you’re right.

    Which countries are you referring to?

    • End Bringer on December 3, 2015 at 9:23 pm

    1. The way liberal’s go after guns so doggedly, it’s pretty much the only logical conclusion to make. And not too difficult to imagine given how divorced from reality liberalism is.

    2. The logic of gun-related violence being reduced is the same as car-related deaths, knife-related deaths, and drug-related deaths, being reduced – Get rid of the method, then the method can’t be used to facilitate the outcome. Technically true, but completely irrelevant as it ignores certain common denominators, Islam being one of them in this case. As well as the simple fact that one will simply switch to another method, if others become unavailable.

    3. Any country. Is this not an “epidemic” that uniquely plagues the US alone in the world, as liberal’s have asserted?

    • Timaahy on December 3, 2015 at 10:42 pm

    Do you want to have a conversation, or just spout unhelpful generalisations?

    Explain to me how “we want to make guns less accessible” is logically equivalent to “making guns less accessible will end all violence”.

    We can ignore cars, because they are not designed to kill. That aside, car-related deaths are an occasional and regrettable consequence, and we implement a wide range of measures to reduce the risk as much as we can.

    Bringing up drugs doesn’t help your case either, since most liberals favour harm-minimisation rather than an outright ban.

    As for knives… well… It’s really not that hard to buy a big carving knife. Or make your own.

    So your three examples aren’t really doing anything to advance your argument.

    You also seem to be under the impression, once again, that everyone wants to “get rid” of guns. I really don’t think that’s true.

    As well as the simple fact that one will simply switch to another method, if others become unavailable.

    This seems to be a kind of reverse slippery slope. A sticky hill, perhaps? At any rate, “we shouldn’t restrict this dangerous weapon because people will just use something else” really isn’t that compelling.

    And, much like the slippery slope, it’s easy to make the same argument from slightly higher up the slope. For example, I can just say that we shouldn’t ban tanks, because if we did, people would just resort to using assault rifles. Oh wait they already do.

    No, you made a claim, so be specific. Which country’s gun laws were you referring to?

    • Anthony on December 4, 2015 at 8:22 am

    “Scrolling through that list, it seems that the vast majority of attacks are due to bombs or guns, and the vast majority occurred outside of the US.”

    Are you proposing that we outlaw bombs?!?!?!?!?!

    Perhaps we should make a law against murder. We can even get the U.N. on board. Within a short order… world peace.

    Anyway, I think you need to analyze it a little closer. Perhaps go beyond what ‘seems’ and maybe do some of the actual math. And this time, don’t conflate guns with bombs. The fact that a great many were killed with bombs and NOT guns is precisely one of the things that I wanted you to notice.

    The point about them being outside the US… I’m not sure why you think that is significant.

    First of all, that particular list only charts the deaths after 9-11. If you include 9-11, the overall number goes way up, as you can expect. But if you open it up to the U.S., at all times, the numbers shape up differently again. For example, if you include the various embassies that blew up under Clinton’s watch or the marine barracks in Lebanon back in… 1983?… the numbers change again.

    Those were bombs, son. Not guns.

    The reason why this is an important and relevant point for me to make is to call attention to how unimportant and irrelevant your point is. 🙂 Just because ‘guns’ were in play in this incident doesn’t mean that that is anywhere near the right prism to see this event through. Thinking that ‘guns’ are the right prism to see this incident through rather than, say, THE ISLAMICISTS THAT WANT TO KILL AND/OR SUBJUGATE US ALL, is completely off base.

    But it is off base in an interesting way… because your choice of ‘prisms’ says more about YOU than anything you might actually say about ‘guns.’

    The reason you choose to focus on the instruments rather than the ideology is probably described here:


    You can’t bring yourself to confine yourself to the topic of Islamic fascism for the same reason that the existence of guns upsets your sensibilities: they confront you with the real fact of evil, as a tangible, objective thing, that is intrinsically intertwined in EACH human soul. Yours, too. And mine.

    No amounts of therapy, or public health programs, or elitist conditioning of the masses, or compulsory education, or compulsory medication, will change the rock bottom truth about human nature.

    And that is a fact that you just can’t bring yourself to acknowledge.

    After all, to your knowledge, apes do not roam from tree to tree cutting off each other’s heads, do they? I haven’t seen a dog bombing civilians from his fighter jet. You? Something is different about humans, Jim. Something different that goes far deeper than you are willing to admit.

    • End Bringer on December 4, 2015 at 1:06 pm

    1. As SJ pointed out with the matter of outlawing bombs, the point that is being driven is that making more laws only has any real impact on those who are law abiding to begin with. It will not do a lick of good to those committed to killing others like Islamicists have proven to be. That the liberal solution is always ‘more restrictive laws, more restrictive laws, more restrictive laws’ ad infinitum just further shows that liberal secularism doesn’t even recognize the problem, let alone has a realistic solution for it.

    2. That you like to hand wave away all other examples does not change the matter of the underlining logic of getting rid of guns reduces gun deaths being inherently flawed. Even more importantly – it goes against the evidence we see of Islamicists using bombs, kidnapping and beheading, or just throwing them off rooftops to kill anyone that isn’t a Muslim like they are.

    And yes, if you want to get into the nitty details, the liberal argument can be more accurately described as ‘we want to get rid of all/most guns IN THE PRIVATE CITIZEN’S HANDS.’ I’m sure all but the most delusional liberal doesn’t truly believe disarming the police or military would do anything but cause more death (which interestingly they’d like to see controlled by a liberal government). But since it ultimately amounts to the same thing for the common citizen, your faux-indignation for me to make a more clarified description comes off as simply dodging the point.

    And hey, you can always just make clear that it doesn’t represent YOUR specific viewpoint, right?

    3. I made a claim on a repeated theme ‘Gun violence is a problem for the US more than anywhere else because it’s so easy to get one’ that seems to
    crop up when liberals claim we’re in the middle of an “epidemic” in need of more restrictive laws. One which pointedly ignores that citizens have had guns since this nation’s founding, but only have had continuing problems in the last 50 years or so (hmm, wonder what changed in the 60s?). Seeing gun violence, or really ANY mass killings, in other nations just proves “laws” in the US are not the root problem, and thus “laws” will not be a solution to really address it.

    • Timaahy on December 6, 2015 at 3:15 pm

    hmmm, wonder what changed in the 60s?

    Are you blaming modern gun violence on the civil rights movement, free love, or The Beatles?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

four + 16 =