web analytics

Solving the Islamicist Problem Once and For All, Part 3

Installment 1:

They’re coming for you, whether your like it or not.  War began before you were even born.

Installment 2:

Don’t give them a foothold. They will ABSOLUTELY use it against you.

In the second installment I argued that there were certain things about the Islamic religion that naturally bear certain kinds of fruit.  When Islam comes to dominate an area, certain things are going to inevitably start happening.  There will be a move towards implementing Sharia law, for example.  And honor killings.  And so on.

An underlying theme of this whole series is the complete and utter failure of many Western moderns to come even close to understanding what is going on, in particular the secular humanists.  The secular humanists are called out because, A., they’ve effectively been in charge of every lever of power in the U.S. and internationally since the end of World War 2 (ie., this is all going down on THEIR WATCH) and B., secular humanists themselves have an ideology that is toxic, one of the salient side effects being the inability to recognize real evil when they see it (because their worldview has no room for the existence of real evil; it is all relative).

Since they are in charge and probably will remain so, I have little hope for the West.  Instead, my basic position is that “we are on our own.”  The ‘levers of power’ attract the people who delight in exercising them, and the people we’d prefer to be in charge… don’t really want the job.  So, the void will always be filled with these idealists, and until people come to realize the necessity of radically reducing the number of ‘levers of power’ that are out there, we will continue to be extremely vulnerable to the Islamicists, who, in their own way, are attracted to the ‘levers of power’ and have no problem identifying evil:  Jews, Christians, and yes, secular humanists.  We will continue to die while the Elite meet in Paris to blame everything on Climate Change, and even seriously suggest that Islamic terrorism itself is a result of global warming.

Yes, it is positively stupid.  But I didn’t elect them.  Don’t look at me.

My impression is that more people are coming to terms with what I call Islamicism (Islam+fascism) and are trying to understand it.  In light of the fact that “we are on our own” while Rome burns, preparing ourselves appropriately means coming to grips with how the Islamicists themselves perceive the world, rather than what we think.  We cannot solve the problem unless we understand it.

In a previous installment I emphasized that the fact that Islamicists themselves perceive their religious duties and obligations as consisting of conquering the whole world for Allah.

This is so important, I wanted to flesh it out a little more just what it means to ‘conquer the whole world.’

According to the Koran, it is not necessary to make everyone a Muslim.  It is enough if the non-believers are in submission to Muslim governments.

This is important.

Everyone will remember from their elementary school text books just how ‘tolerant’ Muslims were to the Jews and Christians in their midst many hundreds of years ago (in contrast to those blood-thirsty crusaders!), but this is totally besides the point.  They were tolerant because the Jews and Christians were in submission–kind of like a slave owner is kind to his slave, just so long as the slave does what he is told and doesn’t try to rebel.

I’m not making this up.  Check it out for yourself.  There is an actual term for this, called dhimmitude, which I strongly encourage you to research if you’ve never heard before.

A population could consist of 80% non-believers, but so long as the country is run according to Islamic law, by Muslims, that is considered a job well done according to the Islamicist.

So, if you are a Christian and don’t object to essentially being a slave, then by all means, you will find your Muslim overlords to be fairly kind to you.  But don’t even think about evangelizing!  Seriously.  They will kill you.  Think you could ever end up as the prime minister or president of such a country?  Don’t make me laugh.

It is possible to be fooled into thinking that just because some Muslim countries don’t force women to be fully covered (for example), this means that the Koran can be interpreted in more ‘moderate’ fashion.  You must understand, only the Muslims are allowed to weigh in on that issue.  You, as a Christian (or atheist) are not going to be allowed to present what you think is a better interpretation.  This is important, because just as in the West, the ‘levers of power’ attract liberals and progressives hellbent on perfecting the world (cuz this world is all they got, ya know?), the ‘levers of power’ in Islam-dominated countries tend to attract the Muslims who really buy into the whole “Subject this land for Allah!”, thing.

In some Muslim countries, different Muslims will tend to influence the government differently, but they are all agreed that it will be governed by Muslims, and what YOU think is irrelevant.

And there are plenty of times when the make-up of the governing Muslims change, so that what seemed like a nice place for a Westerner to live is no longer.  Oddly, there are fewer cases of it going the other direction….

If it is not yet clear, let me spell it out:  Islam is an intrinsically political system.  The individual Muslim very much wants to please Allah so that he can enter Paradise, and ‘private’ religious acts, such as giving to the poor, praying five times daily, and so on, certainly rub Allah the right way.  But what Allah really wants is a world controlled completely by his delegates.  The individual Muslim duly takes notice.

This is why our own ruling powers are so hopelessly and pathetically incapable of truly addressing the problem that Islam poses to the world.   They already have a low view of religion as it is, thinking it is the product of indoctrination and so on (which, through public education, they may be able to counter), but tend to perceive it as mainly a person’s private beliefs about the world which occasionally has public manifestations.  Like the Muslim, the secular humanist is perfectly tolerant of the ‘non-believer’ as long as the ‘non-believer’ keeps their beliefs private.  Woe to the believer if he ever wishes to exercise his beliefs in public, or in public government!  You can get away with delivering this ‘woe’ on Christians, who have a belief system that intrinsically repeats after its founder, “God’s kingdom is not of this world.”  You cannot get away with this with Muslims, where the very nature of the private belief is that Allah’s kingdom is very much of this world.

But you, dear reader, can never forget this important feature of Islam.

Knowing, now, just how seriously the Muslim takes domination, you must now consider how the Muslim feels if that domination is thrown off.  There is nothing that chafes them more than seeing a territory previously controlled by Muslims (that is, subjected to Allah) now controlled by the Infidels.   Many examples of this could be offered, but the most volatile region of the world right now, Israel, is probably the best one to examine in this context.

Bin Laden famously turned his ire against the United States after the first Gulf War, when the U.S. established bases in Saudi Arabia in order to combat Saddam Hussein.  Self-loathing liberals have tended to rationalize Al Qaeda’s terror tendencies (“Why do they hate us?!?!?!”) with comments like, “How would YOU feel if a foreign army set foot on YOUR land?”  Forgetting, of course, that Saudi Arabia invited the U.S., and other coalition forces, because Saddam Hussein was poised to press on after Kuwait and go after Saudi Arabia, next.

You would have thought that Bin Laden would have been thankful.  But now you see why the very idea was anathema to him.  Bringing the ‘infidel’ army into land ruled by Muslims threw into question just who ‘dominated’ the region.  This was intolerable.

And when Bin Laden mentioned Israel in the same context, the liberals lapped that up, too, reasoning that the Jewish occupation of that region merely represented a violation of basic principles of fair play.  That is, it is perfectly reasonable for people to be angry that they are being shoved off their land, and if only that hadn’t happened, Muslims would quite happily leave the world alone.  Again, the liberals forget that it was an international effort, spearheaded by secular humanists and liberals themselves, working through the U.N. (which attracts just the sort), that invited the Jews to that region in the first place after World War 2.

But it is not perceived by the Muslims as a simple violation of fair play.

This land had been previously controlled by Muslims, fallen out of their control, and then most recently been ruled by the Ottoman Empire (in living memory to the Muslims in ‘Palestine’ in the 1940s), who themselves were battered by the infidels in Russia and England, setting the table for circumstances that unfolded in World Wars 1 and 2.

The displacement of Muslims from the region represented a tremendous, horrible loss in the eyes of Islamicists that went far beyond being forced from their homes.  It meant that Allah’s land had fallen under control of the Infidel.

If you have ever wondered why it is that these hordes of ‘Palestineans’ didn’t simply get absorbed by neighboring countries that one would have expected would have been sympathetic… eg., Muslim Saudi Arabia, Muslim Iran, etc, and instead remained in camps like so many thorns in Israel’s side, this is why.  For most of us, if we were displaced like this, we’d have moved on a long time ago.  But the Muslim has a religious obligation to restore the region to Islam.

This is why the presence of the Jews as the governing authorities there is so intolerable to them and why they attack it ferociously, and why, in the end, a ‘two state’ solution will never satisfy the Muslims.  It may be something that they accept as a near-term strategic gain, but re-conquering the land of Israel will always be on the agenda.

There is a name for this Islamic concept, but it escapes me.  Maybe one of my readers can produce it for me.  The most important part is to realize that the concept is thoroughly supported by the Koran and that it fuels the Muslim’s attitudes towards these issues.  In trying to remember the name of the concept, I found this excellent discussion of very similar things, including the obsession the Muslims have with Israel:  here.

Once the forces of Islam conquer a land or territory, it is to remain under Islamic dominion forever (‘for generations’), and it is a mortal affront to the supremacy of Islam when such territories would ever be lost to the dominion of Islam and revert to previous – infidel – ownership as was the case in Palestine.  It was a Muslim controlled territory (under the Muslim Turks and later the Muslim Arabs) and reverted by the decree of the U.N. resolution back to its previous owners: the Jews.

That article is definitely worth a look.

As an important aside, we here in the United States need to appreciate how the Muslim animosity to the U.S. is categorically different than the animosity towards, say, France.

The United States has never been conquered by Muslims.  It has never been under Sharia.  It is straight up, unadulterated Infidel territory.  It is certainly on the Muslim radar, being part of the globe and all, but there is not the same kind of religious intensity associated with it that Muslims will have towards countries that ever, even if briefly, were controlled by Muslims.  The above linked article said it quite well:

But when Israel is no more their hands will be free to turn yet again to the West as they did in the sixth and seventh centuries when they were finally stopped in their Islamic invasion at Tours and Poitiers in the middle of France having conquered all areas of Europe from Istanbul to Vienna and from Morocco to the middle of France, including Spain.  This time after Israel has been dealt with in true Islamic fashion they will try again.

Through their oil, wealth and the enormous spread of their religion through thousands of Mosques and millions of Muslim adherence all over the world, Islamic leaders believe the day has come to wipe out the humiliation of that defeat in Europe by the armies of Charles Martel and now re-conquer Europe and all the West for Allah thus adding also these territories Europe to become ‘Dar al-Islam’: part of the house and possession of Islam.

Again, I strongly encourage you to read that article in full.  Especially if you have never heard of Charles Martel.  In that case, you need to go kick your teachers in the shin.  (Well, the school board members are more likely deserving of your angst)

It seems unfathomable to us that anyone would still be chafing over defeats that occurred more than a thousand years ago, but it does chafe the well-informed, ‘true believing’ Muslim.  To say that it upsets them is to put it mildly.

The terrorist attacks on the United States, then, are less about trying to subject it to Islam and more about deterring the U.S. from standing in the way of Islamicist efforts elsewhere.   The Islamicists want it to be clear that they will be very angry if the U.S. does anything that would suggest that non-Muslims are now in charge.  They will be very angry, and it would be our fault.

In the meantime, they have other ways of subverting a nation and prepping it for Islamic rule.  I touched on that in the second installment, and if there are ever later installments, I have no doubt I’ll mention some others.  But if your eyes are sufficiently open, you’ll start seeing them yourself.

There is no particular ‘point of action’ that flows from this installment, which aims to help you understand the problem more fully.  However, it does accentuate points I made in the first installment about half measures and the ultimate need to defeat Allah.  Whether it is today or tomorrow, a decade from now, or a century, so long as Muslims think that they have a chance at world domination, they will continue to press their cause–and all means are justified.

Are there other interpretations of these volatile passages from the Koran that give rise to this theological/political orientation?  Why sure, if you think it is a reasonable interpretation of my comments to go looking under my bed for a cat if I say, “There is a dog in the kitchen.”  That would be absurd.  But you could get someone to think that is reasonable interpretation of my comment, if every time you went looking for the dog in the kitchen, I smashed a bottle over your head.  Likewise, you could get interpreters of the Koran to deviate from the plain reading of that text by always responding with extremely decisive action, whenever someone went with the more straight-forward interpretation and tried to act on it.

The only way that the political components of Islam will ever be removed is if every time they try to implement them by force, the ones making the attempt die quickly and the ones that backed them made to pay a cost that they deem was far more than they were willing to pay.

But that could not be the whole story.  Somewhere along the way, the whole underlying ideology needs to be combated.  And you don’t defeat ideologies with the sword (unless you use the sword to kill all the people with that ideology, something that strikes me as an undesirable approach in this case).  What we must do is mount an ideological offensive with the expectation that it will take decades and even centuries before it sees success.  To do this, one must have an ideology of their own that is robust for the job.

We are approaching almost a whole century’s worth of experience that show that secular humanism ain’t it.

Which is a problem, since secular humanism dominates the West, with its own brand of Sharia-like rule.

 

Share

6 comments

Skip to comment form

    • Dannyboy on December 4, 2015 at 2:49 pm

    Ok, I have a question. It relates to the constitution.

    I know that you’re a serious constitutionalist. You have no patience for those who violate the “rule of law” on their own ideological authority [Kim Davis vs Gavin Newsom, Liberalism vs the Rule of Law, September 4, 2015], and you have certainly spoken clearly and eloquently in defence of the “ironclad” constitutional sanctity of religious freedom [Your Beliefs are a Threat to the State Itself, March 11, 2013]. You have been extremely scathing about people who advocate “Constitutional disobedience” and want to jettison the parts of that document which do not currently suit them [Progressives Will be the Death of the Republic, Democracy, and Freedom, February 19, 2013]. Mostly, from reading your blog, I understand that such people are known as “progressives”, and I know that you are a “conservative”.

    So, given everything that you have said here, if someone wants to build a mosque in your town, are you going to let them?

    What’s the name of that amendment that comes just before the Second one? Because it seems to me that you have always been staunchly against infringing on some people’s constitutional rights in order to protect the safety of others. Can you account for this apparent contradiction?

    • Anthony on December 4, 2015 at 3:10 pm
      Author

    “What’s the name of that amendment that comes just before the Second one?”

    Would that be… the First? 😉

    “Can you account for this apparent contradiction?”

    I don’t yet perceive the contradiction.

    Did I say that I wouldn’t allow someone to build a mosque in my town?

    Two questions back to you:

    1. Do countries under Sharia law tend to allow the construction of Christian churches?

    You may wish to peruse this article before answering:
    http://www.answering-islam.org/NonMuslims/rights.htm

    Or, take a gander at this:
    http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/260978/logic-islamic-intolerance-raymond-ibrahim

    (especially the long quote near the top).

    2. Looking into the future, say, 30 years, and the population had come to consist of, say 60% Muslims, do you think that they would honor the U.S. Constitution as it currently stands? While the figures are hypothetical, it shouldn’t be hard to offer an answer with reasonable certainty.

    Thanks.

    • Dannyboy on December 4, 2015 at 3:37 pm

    That was fast!

    “I don’t yet perceive the contradiction.”

    Perhaps there isn’t one. But you appear to have been arguing for a general push-back against “Muslim culture” spreading any further than it already has. I don’t think it is an unwarranted leap to assume that you would use any position of influence you had to oppose the building of a new mosque in your area. That certainly seemed like it might be part of the strategy you were recommending to others. Still, perhaps you’re about to put me in my place with your answer to my question,….

    “Did I say that I wouldn’t allow someone to build a mosque in my town?

    Two questions back to you:”

    Wait, you didn’t answer MY question. And it pretty directly relates to the contradiction that I have suggested may exist between your recent posts on Muslims and your previous ones on Christians. Are you going to answer it?

    “Do countries under Sharia law tend to allow the construction of Christian churches?”

    Nope. Generally very intolerant of religious, cultural or sexual diversity. This does not relate to the constitutional issue I raised.

    “Looking into the future, say, 30 years, and the population had come to consist of, say 60% Muslims, do you think that they would honor the U.S. Constitution as it currently stands? While the figures are hypothetical, it shouldn’t be hard to offer an answer with reasonable certainty.”

    Perhaps not. Muslim majority countries don’t currently have a stellar record in terms of protecting human rights or enshrining the right to disagree with Islamic dogma. Of course, 30 years is a long time, so its hard to say for sure, but I’m happy to grant for the sake of argument that they would not.

    Are you arguing that constitutional rights can be abrogated for the protection of other individuals (present or future)? That does seem like an inconsistency with your previously expressed views on the inviolability of the Second Amendment in particular (even for the protection of other individuals).

    “Thanks.”

    You’re welcome. Maybe you’d now deign to answer my question about whether or not you’d block the building of a new mosque if it was within your power to do so?

    • End Bringer on December 4, 2015 at 5:08 pm

    “This does not relate to the constitutional issue I raised.”

    It does relate to whether or not you recognize the threat Islam poses in itself which is vital in continuing to the later issues of just HOW the threat needs to be addressed.

    Since you seem to be struggling with this first and crucial step, it’s a little to early to be bringing forth more advanced matters of balancing religious liberty with fighting a destructive and tyrannical ideology.

    And frankly I think your whole line of objection was already answered with SJ pointing out that active violence needs to be met with equal or greater violence, but oppressive ideology needs to be met with a counter ideology.

    In that line of thinking the answer is NOT keeping Muslims from building their own mosque. The answer is building a church right along side them. Or 2 churches, or three, or four, etc.

    • Anthony on December 4, 2015 at 5:56 pm
      Author

    “In that line of thinking the answer is NOT keeping Muslims from building their own mosque. The answer is building a church right along side them. Or 2 churches, or three, or four, etc.”

    Sometimes I just want to give EB a great big hug.

    While this isn’t exactly what I’ll propose, it certainly is in the ballpark.

    “Do countries under Sharia law tend to allow the construction of Christian churches?”
    “Nope. Generally very intolerant of religious, cultural or sexual diversity. This does not relate to the constitutional issue I raised.”
    +
    “do you think that they would honor the U.S. Constitution as it currently stands?”
    “Perhaps not. … but I’m happy to grant for the sake of argument that they would not.”

    Well, of course we really know the answer, which is quite easy: they would not.

    We may imagine that there would be a fair number of ‘moderates’ in there that would temper the encroachment of Sharia, but, as I have maintained, based on what we’ve actually observed, it would only be a matter of time before these ‘moderates’ are harshly brought to heel.

    I trust you saw the two videos that I linked to in part 2 that give us a glimpse of what is done to ‘moderates.’

    But the other video in part 2 that is a bit more relevant, I think, is the police response (that is, lack of response) to the Muslims assaulting the Christian evangelists in Dearborn, MI. Here you have Christians, in the United States, exercising their first amendment rights, and the Muslims, rather than exercising their rights to SPEAK BACK, resorted to violence–which, not unimportantly, is completely consistent with the expression of their religion.

    I give you the first amendment:

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

    Is it possible to ask for just a bit more patience before answering your question, asking you yet another, first?

    Given that violent subjugation is an actual, explicitly stated religious tenet of the Koran, and the first amendment prohibits the prohibiting of the free exercise of religion, is Muslims began cutting off people’s heads or blowing up cafes in the United States, should the rest of us accept this as protected behavior under the U.S. Constitution?

    Or if you think that this is too extreme, just think back to the Dearborn police standing buy as young Muslims toss rocks and bottles at the Christian evangelists… protected behavior? The Christians had it coming?

    I really do have an answer to your question. But I think getting some preliminary information from you will help you better understand it.

    EB: *hugz*

    • Anthony on December 4, 2015 at 11:29 pm
      Author

    Ok, I won’t be able to reply to whatever you say for a bit, so I’m going to assume that to this question,

    “should the rest of us accept this as protected behavior under the U.S. Constitution?”

    you will say NO. But WHY you were going to say NO interests me. I am going to make some assumptions about the WHY… and basically submit that your reasons for saying NO would be different than my reasons, but in this particular way: both essentially draw upon borrowed capital from the Christian worldview–but you reject the Christian worldview.

    This is important, especially since it is the case that many others feel the same way. As the borrowed capital dwindles, eventually the “NO” hangs there without a foundation, a bit like how Wile E, Coyote treads air before realizing he has no ground beneath him.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gq_bjaI0NTo

    To put it bluntly, the U.S. Constitution did not appear out of ideological thin air. It did not, and could not, have arisen out of an Islamic society, which my first two questions were meant to illustrate. Moreover, being derived from and based on the Christian religious principles of the ones that wrote it, when it is divorced from that foundation, it is only a matter of time before it folds in upon itself. In the famous words of John Adams:

    “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

    By ‘moral and religious people’ he means mainly Christians, not just any ‘ol religious people. He wrote this near the end of the French Revolution, which was viewed with horror by the American revolutionaries. The longer quote is instructive, but I am using it to do double-duty, pointing out the Constitution’s roots in the Christian worldview and its antithetical relationship to Islamicism.

    The U.S. Constitution and Islam are completely at odds with each other.

    Islamicists will take advantage of the freedoms and liberties embodied in the U.S. Constitution in order to undermine those very same freedoms and liberties–for the rest of us. This is not cool.

    You want to know if I would support/allow the building of this mosque.

    The problem, here, is that I can’t help but see past the mosque. The mosque alone doesn’t bother me that much, but I know that if there are enough people in the area that want to build one, that means that there are a lot of people who have a worldview that EXPLICITLY calls for my subjection and enslavement.

    The very fact that there is a mosque going up means that the battle for ‘hearts and minds’ has been lost… probably because it was never engaged.

    What it means to ‘engage’ is precisely what I have been intimating, which EB correctly identified, “oppressive ideology needs to be met with a counter ideology” that is equal to the task. It is a later installment.

    In the short term, while I’m not going to file lawsuits to try to stop them from building their mosque, I will put my local government on notice that they are being asked to approve of a structure by a group that would, if the tables were turned, deny it to them… and they have every intention to one day so deny it. I would warn my local government and the local police that I will sue the pants off of them if they refuse to protect the freedoms and liberties of the rest of the community. I will strive to make sure that my local government consists of people who share these values… and people with backbones.

    The backbone part is important, because it is simply a fact of reality that there will be segments of the Muslim population at that mosque who have nothing but contempt for the infidels in their area, and will have no problem with turning to murder… eventually, and inevitably.

    But, as I said, if we’ve come to this point, its probably too late.

    Not merely on a demographic level, but on the more substantive ideological level.

    That’s why I’m writing this series. People need to understand that we’re talking about bringing into this country people who have a worldview that entails the specific aim of subjugating us. This is just not an intelligent thing to do. But even if we didn’t bring them here, we will still have to face them eventually, because they WILL NOT STOP.

    As we proceed, we will do well to remember which ideologies have been associated with freedom and liberty (and even a fair measure of equality) and which ones haven’t. Correlation isn’t always causation… but in this case, it is.

    And we are fools if we pretend otherwise.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

4 × 3 =