Ron Paul: "Those who hate us and would like to kill us, they are motivated by our invasion of their land"

But like nearly all libertarians, their ideas and solutions completely breakdown when addressing Islam, jihad, and dhimmitude.

True, but even truer than you say. Libertarians make their stupid, wilfully ignorant and intellectually lazy assertions based on the calculus of rational behavior in the global marketplace.

But, I would axe this question: how is the hegemonic behavior of Communist China formed on the same basis as that of America or the UK when its population has no freedom?

So it's not just the Moslems. It's also the communists and other totalitarians. From Mohammedans to Marxists, the ability to deal with these bullies and takers is based on the mistaken belief that the Golden Rule extends across borders.

*** 33:21 ***

Dr. Ron Paul, MD should quit giving his pompous speech and crack a book. Or shut the hell up.

2) Would he continue diplomatic support of Israel?"

Ron Paul and I believe his son Rand Paul view Israel as a diplomatic and a moral liability. They cloak it in U.S. aid to Israel which goes to support Israel's military which bolsters Israel's illegitimate "occupation" of Muslim land in Dr. Paul's thinking. I have for years advocated Israel weaning herself from American aid. It would be good for the U.S. It would be good for Israel. I do not believe Ron and Rand Paul's (or their supporters, Red State, Erick Erickson, etc.) antipathy toward Israel is about aid. It is about supporting "the Jews" and the Jewsish people's right to a homeland in dar al Islam. I've not seen any Congressional Resolution expressing moral support for Israel - whether it be during a fire-fight with Hezbollah or Hamas - that Ron Paul supported. He either votes no or he abstains.

Thank you very much, wildjew.

One important point from the discussion is that US support of Israel does not violate libertarian principles. So, Ron Paul's hostility to Israel, as you described, is his own inclination.

I wonder how Ron Paul reconciles his neutrality towards Islam with the libertarian principle of the freedom of the individual. Libertarians who advocate open borders for criminals and Muslims (and others) hostile to the freedoms of speech and religion are just plain confused and should not be taken seriously.

Accommodationists with evil, they.

"Ron Paul is a latter-day America Firster, an old-line isolationist and non-interventionist--and as blind to the cosmic menace of Islamic Supremacism as ever Charles Lindbergh was blind to the global threat of Nazism. "

Well, to be truthful, I'm pretty much an non-interventionist myself. But, protecting your own borders is not sending the military to other countries. Also, there's nothing wrong with diplomatic support for countries like Israel. We should not be nation-building in Iraq or Afghanistan, and I still have no clue to the reason for intervening in Libya. What US interest is served by sending military aid to the rebels?

"Winston Churchill was villified and ostracized by the establishment, and deeply unpopular with the voters until his predictions came true, by which time it was too late to do anything that didn't involve huge quantities of blood, toil, tears and sweat."

"Still, if you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed, if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not so costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no chance of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves."

Sir Winston Churchill

Sean,

You are so right!

I stress, "old-line." If we want peace, then we must paradoxically be prepared to prevail in war. We should--once again--be the world's "Arsenal of Democracy."

Stein does not seem to have an activist readership.

BTW, we shouldn't be in Libya; and our objectives elsewhere are conflicted and half-hearted.

"Well, to be truthful, I'm pretty much an non-interventionist myself. But, protecting your own borders is not sending the military to other countries. Also, there's nothing wrong with diplomatic support for countries like Israel. We should not be nation-building in Iraq or Afghanistan, and I still have no clue to the reason for intervening in Libya. What US interest is served by sending military aid to the rebels?"

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I agree with much of what you've written. When you say you are pretty much a non-interventionist, would bombing / obliterating Iran's nuclear installations constitute interventionism in your opinion?

The U.S. Constitution is a great document. It's not as though it was given from above by the gods. Some Americans invoke the Constitution as though it written by the hand of the Almighty at Sinai. The Constitution is not without its flaws, as we are seeing when people invoke the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment in absolute terms in behalf of Islam and the building of mosques by whomever; wherever.

"What, no comment here at JW by the commenter who goes by "Abraham Lincoln?"

Wellington,

I think you do "Abraham Lincoln" an unwarranted compliment by referring to him as a "commentator". He simply trolls the comment threads, dropping in the same message about Ron Paul. "Abraham Lincoln" never engages in discussion or exchange of views.

Libertarians make their stupid, wilfully ignorant and intellectually lazy assertions based on the calculus of rational behavior in the global marketplace.

That gets to the heart of the issue, APF. And, as you say later, it's not just the Libertarians. Insofar as geopolitics is concerned, the world-view of the entire Western intellectual establishment has been built around the concept of economic self-interest, and national self-interest has been suborned to this.

Completely missing from this is any factor reflecting cultural self-interest. More precisely, this world view deprecates cultural forces into insignificance compared to economic forces. Ironically, in Islam it's exactly the other way around; cultural/religious self-interest is the cornerstone of their world view, and everything else flows from this. The failure on the part of the Western intellectual/political establishment to recognize this shows a lack of appreciation of history and a failure to understand the role cultural assumptions play in geopolitics - despite Muslim spokesmen shouting in their ears and blowing up stuff in the name of Islamic culture on practically a daily basis. It also indicates a refusal to incorporate facts into their world view if the facts don't neatly fit their fantasy view of the world. This has led, and continues to lead, to all kinds of misjudgments and errors in responding to Islamic cultural/political/military aggressions.

Of course, Ron Paul isn't alone in being guilty of ignorance about the cultural forces of history. He has lots of company in virtually the entire Leftist intellectual establishment. They are idiots, all of them, intellectually speaking, if judged by their gross misunderstanding of motives that drive the men (and their followers) who determine the trajectory of history.

It is our responsibility, as voting citizens, to make sure Ron Paul and his intellectual kin do not get elected to public office. Or to any policy making positions of responsibility that would subject them to influence from Islamists (and to make sure that those of similar mind who are already in such positions are removed from office or appointed positions).

"Neither have I seen evidence of a hostile preoccupation with Jews....."

I'm not sure I can convincingly dispute your 'preoccupation' perception. I found it interesting skimming through the Perry / Aga Khan school curriculum earlier, the authors relied on Bernard Lewis when they spoke of Muslim anti-Semitism having its roots in Nazi Germany. The footnotes refers to page 154 of "What Went Wrong?" wherein Lewis (contrasting Islam with historic Christianity) wrote: "With rare exceptions, where hostile stereotypes of the Jew existed in Islamic tradition, they tended to be contemptuous and dismissive rather than suspicious and obsessive."

To take it one step further, do you see any evidence of a hostile preoccupation with Jews (or with Israel's Jews) on President Obama's part?

Hi wildjew,

"I agree with much of what you've written. When you say you are pretty much a non-interventionist, would bombing / obliterating Iran's nuclear installations constitute interventionism in your opinion?"

I think there is a difference between trying to influence another country's internal politics, and protecting yourself. Would I consider the action of Israel to be "intervention" when it attacked Egypt for closing the Strait of Tiran, and massed troops on the border? No. Israel was protecting itself from a military threat.

Similarly, I don't see any reason why the non-possession of nuclear weapons would interfere in any way with the ability of the Iranian government to run its internal affairs as it wishes. So, if Iran does not submit to complete inspection of its facilities, I would not see the destruction of Iranian nuclear facilities by either the US or Israel as an example of nation-building or interference in the internal affairs of another nation.

Recall that when Israel attacked the Osirus reactors in Iraq, it did not interfere with the ability of Saddam Hussein to abuse his people, or even to make conventional war on his neighbors.

In a word, I don't see a problem with a preventive strike against a threatening country. I don't even really object to the US having deposed Saddam Hussein. It was our systematic destruction of the Iraq army, police, and civil service and our fanciful attempts at nation-building that I really object to.

OK Ron but you are not a non-interventionist. If you believe a nation has a right to preemptively attack another threatening nation - in this case Iran, perhaps the preeminent state sponsor of physical terror in the earth - then you are not a non-interventionist. If you listen carefully to Paul and like minded non-interventionists, they oppose preemptive warfare no matter the pretext. Paul welcomes a nuclear Iran into the community of nuclear-armed nations. I would agree with your view, the United States has no business nation-building. I thought the response to the 9/11 Muslim-terror atrocities was about national security. I did not realize it would be about spreading democracy (free elections) in the Muslim world.

Eastview

"Completely missing from this is any factor reflecting cultural self-interest. More precisely, this world view deprecates cultural forces into insignificance compared to economic forces."

Your comment is insightful. Libertarians seem to discount the importance of governments in securing their own borders and protecting their own societies.

Libertarian philosophy simply is not a philosophy of government, of the caliber of something like "The Federalist Papers."

"If the American people are just as clueless as Ron Paul they will probably vote for him. He sounds like a typical brainwashed American."

The American people voted for Obama and if polls are accurate, some 40% of the American people would do it again. That is pretty clueless.

"I get it that the founders didn't want us tangled up in foreigners' insane turf wars and race wars. But neither did they promote -- or act on -- the idea that we could simply ignore the rest of the world. That we could act as though it weren't there and could not affect us."

I've got "His Excellency: George Washington" by Joseph J. Ellis. On page 235 Ellis wrote about this common misconception on Washington's Farewell Address, which Paul and others use as a statement recommending American isolationism. Ellis wrote: "Entangling alliances with none" is not present in the Farewell Address.

I am pretty sure I have heard Dr. Paul attribute this to Washington. Here is an on-line piece by Ron Paul. Up at the top: "It is our true policy to steer clear of entangling alliances with any portion of the foreign world." – George Washington

http://mises.org/daily/2514

The irony, according to Ellis is it does appear in Jefferson's first inaugural, of all places. What Washington said with respect to foreign policy is this. "Tis our true policy to seer clear of permanent Alliances, with any portion of the foreign world."

It seems to me, this policy would recommend the U.S. exiting the United Nations; possibly NATO, both of which have proven to be permanent alliances of sorts. When Germany threatened the democracies, the United States and the England formed a necessary temporary alliance for the duration of the war.

"I would support the US seizing the oilfields of the Middle East and confiscating the immense oil wealth of the Saudis and Gulf States emirs, because unless those resources are removed from their possession, they will use it perpetually to wage jihad against unbelievers forever."

You make a better case for war than President Roosevelt did for making an alliance with Josef Stalin:

In 1942, U.S. Ambassador to the Soviet Union William Christian Bullitt, Jr.'s thesis prophesied the "flow of the Red amoeba into Europe". Roosevelt responded to Bullitt, Jr., with a statement summarizing his rationale for wartime relations with Stalin:

“I just have a hunch that Stalin is not that kind of a man. ... and I think that if I give him everything I possibly can and ask for nothing from him in return, noblesse oblige, he won't try to annex anything and will work with me for a world of democracy and peace."

Senator Harry S. Truman made the best arguments for solving the problems by throwing both Stalin and Hitler under the bus, and pick up the pieces:

On June 23, 1941, the day after Nazi Germany attacked the Soviet Union, Senator Truman declared: "If we see that Germany is winning we ought to help Russia and if Russia is winning we ought to help Germany, and that way let them kill as many as possible, although I don't want to see Hitler victorious under any circumstances. Neither of them thinks anything of their pledged word."

So I says to myself, I says self, you stand corrected.

I just read a piece here at American Spectator called Ron Paul and the Neoliberal Reeducation Campaign by one Jeffrey Lord.

Apparently there is a pattern, and it is a dark and creepy one, to Paul's peculiarities.

Lord makes a convincing case that Paul isn't a conservative at all but rather, in Lord's words a sort of Neo-Liberal.

What is more, although I, in my naivete, had not seen evidence of a hostile preoccupation with Jews on Paul's part, apparently there is a fair amount of plausible evidence that he is a sort of international-Jewish-conspiracy lunatic.

If half of what Lord alleges is true, and it all seems well reasoned and grounded in verifiable fact, Paul has to be laughed out of the presidential campaign before he and his minions ruin the election.

Live and learn.

Yuck!

The Republican party would be the better without him. Patrick Buchanan felt unwelcome and left the Republican party a few years back. I would like to see Paul made to feel unwelcome; that is, unless the party of Lincoln has become the party of Paul. In that case I might feel the need to leave.

Obama? Yeah sure.

You will note that I am revising my opinion of Paul's attitude toward Jews. (see my 2nd comment).

But Obama? Yes. He is blatantly and consistently hostile toward Israel. And while I haven't heard him say anything overtly hateful about Jews, he is constantly surrounded by people who do, and makes not a sound to restrain them or distance himself from their utterances.

The Obama campaign website was infested with overt Jew haters. And need I mention "Reverend" god-damn_America, and the-Jews-wont-let-me-talk-to-the-White-House Wright?

And then there is his adoption of the name Barak. While not by any stretch an antisemitic act in itself, it would seem the opposite, I am always deeply suspicious of non-Jews that drape themselves in Jewish cultural artifacts.

Sometimes, although too infrequently, it is an expression of admiration and solidarity -- and may heaven smile on those that feel that way. More often however, it is a cannibalistic, replacement-theology style hijacking.

You don't adopt an old Hebrew name for yourself unless you have SOME sort of preoccupation. And his actions do not suggest that that preoccupation is one of love and admiration for Israel or the Jews.

I'm figuring that his attitude toward the idea of chosen people, is probably the same as his attitude toward American exceptionalism. That is a deep impulse to pull it down and degrade it.

Thanks.

I should probably read the Ellis book.

My impression is that having freshly liberated themselves from the irrationalities of the old world, the founders did not want to be dragged into meaningless tit-for-tat old world squabbles by permanent standing treaties.

But they were profoundly prudent rational and wise men. I cannot imagine that they pictured themselves on an untouchable island cut off from the world.

They just had their priorities straight.

They would not have wanted to build a world where we were surrounded on all sides by implacable hostile maniacs. Whistling past the graveyard for all eternity ... until the maniacs invaded to destroy us.

They were WAY too smart for that kind of nonsense.

And then there is his adoption of the name Barak. While not by any stretch an antisemitic act in itself, it would seem the opposite, I am always deeply suspicious of non-Jews that drape themselves in Jewish cultural artifacts.

***********************

I believe that "Barak" may also be Arabic.

As resident Christian defender of the Old Testament, I have a few bones to pick. As for the widespread use of Hebrew names by non-Jews, count me among the guilty Christians. Both of my sons bear Old Testament names. Then again, I am of Jewish descent, albeit on the wrong side of the family to please the rabbis. Whether I nod to my father's ancestors or to the Old Testament, which is sacred to me, you figure it out. It may even be both.

Indeed, 4/5 of the Christian Bible is the Hebrew Bible, only with the order of the books slightly different (we put the Psalms and Proverbs before Isaiah and Jeremiah, not after). Even when we vilified the Jews, we read the Old Testament. It gave us our view of history (I refer you to Augustine of Hippo's _City of God_), and a lot of our ethics. Some of us sing the Psalms in public worship, and our clergy, rather than charging the Jews with corrupting it and dismissing it, urge us to read the Old Testament as well as the New Testament. And, the very first page of the New Testament itself affirms the sacred character of the Old. The title "Christos" applied to Jesus is the Greek form of M'schiach, and was bequeathed to us by the Septuagint, the Old Testament Greek Version used by the primitive church (at least most of the time). Indeed, without the Old Testament there is no Christianity.

Indeed, one of the LOUD and SCREAMING arguments against Islamic da'wa is that they have never explained to us how Christians and Jews come up with the same Torah, Nevi'im, and Kethuvim, even when they wrangle over its meaning. This, more than anything else, gives the lie to the Muslim doctrine that Jews and Christians corrupted the Scriptures. If they had corrupted them,especially during that early portion of the Christian era when they were busy criticizing each other, the Jewish and Christian versions of Moses, the Prophets, and Writings would deviate a lot--but they do not.

Hence, it is both understandable and to be expected that Hebrew names will continue to be part of Christian culture.

I have been wondering about Ron Paul for some time now. I find him to be a fascinating, if somewhat creepy, puzzle.

Speaking of creepy, flipping around the channel last night I came upon Sascha Baron Cohen's Bruno and saw the scene where Bruno lures candidate Ron Paul into his hotel room hoping for a sausage party. Now, obviously I ain't against sausage (Jimmy Dean's is the best), but I was so disappointed to see Dr. Paul storm out of the room when Bruno launched into an enticing bump and grind with his projected buttocks, causing the medical doctor to yell He's into the queer stuff! and as he fled into the hallway.

*** 33:21 ***

So, while Ron Paul may enjoy the exalted status of being an Islamophile, to me any possible goodness from that is cancelled out by him also being a homophobe.

Now, those who would say that the doctor's statement was in the script must remember that he doesn't play by any script. He intellectually honest, which explains his great favor for Moslems.

You wrote: "Only Ron Paul will indeed remove the Islamic threat to America. This is because sharia is unconstitutional, and only Ron Paul stands for a strict return to the Constitution...."

Sharia is the legal code of conduct for Islam. Ultimately Islam (as it is literally interpreted from the Qur'an and the oral tradition) is the problem. How is Islam unconstitutional? It is not. But for amending the U.S. Constitution, nothing can or will be done about Islam. Besides Ron Paul appears favorably disposed toward Islam. Otherwise why would he say, Islam is not the enemy?

True, but even truer than you say. Libertarians make their stupid, wilfully ignorant and intellectually lazy assertions based on the calculus of rational behavior in the global marketplace.

I'm a libertarian, and I'm not stupid like Ron Paul. Whether someone is stupid or not and refuses to look at what's what doesn't discredit libertarianism. All libertarianism is is the political implementation of the NIOF principle. That doesn't rule out having a proper national defence, or honesty looking at the reality of the enemy. I don't think it's libertarianism that makes them stupid. It's probably more to do with multiculturalism and other PC drivel that runs rampant these days.

The salafists, jihaddists and mohammedan imperialists are not all stupid.

They know that if they are going to make headway in America it is not enough to capture the affections of the goofy decadent left. They HAVE TO get a solid hold on the right wing as well.

And they are very energetically and wisely working toward that goal.

It's just an embarrassing shame that so many of our good guys are such easy marks.

That oil money doesn't hurt either.

Well, Abraham_Lincoln,

Glad to see you actually respond to what is said, rather than simply dropping a load on the threads.

Your basic points are:

1)
"Only Ron Paul is going to cut off every stinking red cent to Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Afghanistan, and you name the muslim country, sucking billions out of America."

2)
"Only Ron Paul will indeed remove the Islamic threat to America. This is because sharia is unconstitutional, and only Ron Paul stands for a strict return to the Constitution."

Now, I think a lot of the people here have some sympathy for the point of view of 1). This is in spite of the fact that we don't give aid to Saudi Arabia, which instead sends millions into the US. The Saudi money funds politicians, mosques, and university chairs. George Bush is particularly close to the Saudis.

Now, number 2) seems problematic. First of all, you tell us that Ron Paul will protect us from Sharia. With all due respect, don't we need to hear that from Ron Paul, rather than you? We can't support candidates based on unsubstantiated fantasies, and until the candidate actually addresses the issue, it is a fantasy to attribute a position to him.

Also, there is a huge problem with Muslim immigration. The European countries are experiencing actual security problems. As you mentioned, Sharia is completely opposed to the Constitution, but, and this is a big point: the Constitution has an amendment process. If Muslims immigrate who are opposed to violent change, but are dedicated to changing the right to free speech or the right to freedom of religion through constitutional means, does that constitute sufficient reason to bar that person from immigration?

What is Ron Paul's position on that, and is it something he actually said, or simply your fantasy of what he would do if he were elected President?

Hi redwine,

I'm kind of a libertarian also, although I've moved on from using that as my primary identification.

I agree with your that Ron Paul doesn't define libertarianism. I had to do a Google search to find what you meant by NIOF (non-initiation of Force), so watch your acronyms.

The problem is, libertarianism doesn't constitute a complete philosophy of government. It's more like a moral guideline, which has to be applied with intelligence. For instance, the issue of a limitation on owning automatic weapons. Also, there is the problem of creating an actual, functioning government, which was tackled by the Constitutional Convention.

"If we see that Germany is winning we ought to help Russia and if Russia is winning we ought to help Germany, and that way let them kill as many as possible..."

I wish that was the way we had handled Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya. Indeed, our goal should be to make the jihads last as long as possible and to also foster as much Muslim on Muslim violence as possible.

Actually, "Barak" is both Hebrew and Arabic, though it has different meanings in the two languages. In Hebrew, "barak" means "lightning," while in Arabic it means "blessing."

You are aware, aren't you, that American troops left Saudi soil in 2003?

No religion is the enemy of America. Religions almost always have conflicting world views which are different from America, but no religion that I'm aware of has America written into its religious texts as the enemy.

Consider this: Judaism is in conflict with the American Constitution. So is Christianity. Yes, they are. What is the First Commandment? "I am the Lord your God, you shall have no other gods before me." What does the Constitution say about this? It is opposed to this commandment and anybody is free to have whatever god or gods or no god that they want, and the government cannot impose this commandment on the people.

Does this make Judaism and Christianity the enemy of America? No. It does make those who seek to impose this commandment on all Americans against America. Just like all muslims who try and impose sharia law on America are against America.

Didn't know that.

It could weaken the case for an active preoccupation with Jews and things Jewish -- depending what he had in mind, which of course we'll never know.

Either way, it doesn't make the bastard one whit less hostile.

How is Islam unconstitutional? It is not.

Jew, this comment leaves me gasping for breath, and I toil in a workplace that inures one to bad atmospherics.

Take a gander at the enumerated powers and say that again, but this time accounting for them.

*** 33:21 ***

Whether someone is stupid or not and refuses to look at what's what doesn't discredit libertarianism.

As a theory of political economy, yes that much is true. But, as a theory to formulate foreign policy not so much. It's rare that libertarians don't get foreign policy wrong. To wit, Ron Paul's pledge to cut Moslems off from all Jizya would a good and groundbreaking policy, Dr. Paul doesn't even realize it's Jizya that's being paid: he thinks it's simply bad policy.

Remember, he's the one who said I don’t see Islam as our enemy and delivered it in the fantastic package called "radical Islam," which is tantamount to publicly dining on Unicorn sheet.

*** 33:21 ***

Given that libertarians insist on strict adherence to the U.S. Constitution, they argue for a national behavior that is not only rational, but lawful. But that should only be in matters under national control, which foreign policy never is.

That's why I called libertarianism stupid when it comes to foreign policy (never said it was per se).

Best case, and this ain't as far fetched as it may seem, maybe Ron Paul really does understand Moslemism, but makes apparently stupid statements like the one in bold above cuz he's fearful of having a backpack full of C4 and nails explode in his face at his next town hall meeting. As a medical doctor, he knows what that can do to a guy.

That's a rational fear and, from such a pespective, the man damned well better be an Islamophobe. In my considered opinion, an Infidel who's not one is a stupid human being... in matters hegemonic, at least.

You wrote: "Consider this: Judaism is in conflict with the American Constitution. So is Christianity. Yes, they are. What is the First Commandment? "I am the Lord your God, you shall have no other gods before me." What does the Constitution say about this? It is opposed to this commandment and anybody is free to have whatever god or gods or no god that they want, and the government cannot impose this commandment on the people...."

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Interesting point. But is Judaism and Christianity subversive to America? Consider this exhortation to the Jews by God (after they / we were exiled to Babylon) through the prophet Jeremiah. Keep in mind the Jewish prophets are authoritative to Christians:

"Seek the welfare (peace) of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the LORD on its behalf; for in its welfare you will have welfare."

Does the Qur'an similarly exhort faithful Muslims living in dar al harb? Should Muslims seek the peace of America? Should Muslims pray to Allah in America's behalf? Or might devout Muslims feel an obligation to seek to subvert American institutions? Should good Muslims pray, "Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant." (?)

How is Islam unconstitutional? It is not.

Jew, this comment leaves me gasping for breath, and I toil in a workplace that inures one to bad atmospherics.

___________________________________________________________

Why does it leave you gasping? You work with pigs, if you are indeed a pig farmer according to your appellation. I work in a hot house; 9600 square feet. Agriculture has been my livelihood for many years. I've worked in Florida hot houses for better than thirty three years.

Islam (any religion), no matter how violent and supremacist it might be; no matter how subversive it might be, is not unconstitutional. Have I been in the Florida heat too long? Why are you gasping?

"Abraham Lincoln" wrote:

Well, gravenimage, can you tell us what attacks Islamic supremacists made on America prior to the post WW2 era when America started imposing its will on the muslim world?
...............................

America "imposing its will on the muslim world"—what a joke.

So—what *has* changed since WWII? For one thing, the United State emerged as the 'leader of the free world'. Muslims had spent more of their time prior to this primarily hating the British.

Also, the Muslims world is a much wealthier place since the West began to get so much of its oil from the lands of Dar-al-Islam. We have forked over *trillions of dollars* to them in the past few decades.

Then, there is all that foolish "foreign aid" that we have been doling out...

Before this, Muslim power had waned significantly in the face of the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire and technological advances in the West.

Then, the United States and especially Europe have foolishly allowed nearly unfettered Muslim immigration, as well as huge "exchange student" programs with the Muslim world.

During this same period, the West—including the US—has become much less confident about her own culture and her own values, and hence less apt to defend against a vile creed such as Islam.

So—you have a situation where the US is more visible to Muslims, where Muslims have more greatly infiltrated the West, where Muslim countries have more resources for waging Jihad, and where the West is, it appears, less likely to fight back.

I believe these are enough reasons for the increased threat from Islam, especially when you understand Muslim history.

More:

Here's a hint: you'll have to go back to the Barbary Coast Pirates. About a 130 years.
...............................

So—you believe the Barbary Pirates were still ravaging the Mediterranean *as late as 1881*? You should check your facts, "Abe"...

Podcast,

" Indeed, our goal should be to make the jihads last as long as possible and to also foster as much Muslim on Muslim violence as possible."

I disagree with you. Our goal should be to protect ourselves, not hurt Muslims or anyone else.

We will be far safer by limiting Muslim immigration. There is no need to foster Muslim-on-Muslim violence. It is not only unnecessary; it is immoral.

All of your observations on the United States, also apply to Western European countries like Germany, France, Italy as well as Japan, Korea, Canada and many other countries in the post WW2 environment. The difference is that none of those countries have tried to impose their will on muslim countries in the post-War years anything like America has. An attack on them on Sept 11/2001 would have been just plain silly and achieved nothing for jihad. All of them except for Canada suck up all the muslim oil they can get -- far more as a percentage of their use than America.

No, I'm sorry gravenimage, but the biggest part of returning to the Libertarian Republic which America was founded as and intended to be, is recognizing and admitting what went wrong and fixing it.

Yes, you are right that it was a longer period without jihad against America. At least 160 years up until the Iranian Revolution against the American installed Shah, anyways.

It is time for America to learn from its mistakes and the things it used to do right. Vote Ron Paul.

Gravenimage must have slept in, because my argument is not that Islamic supremacists aren't an evil, destructive force lashing out at the world, with fortunes that rise and fall, it is that the United States became target #1 because of its own actions in the name of projecting its power and its oil companies' interests at the expense of other countries and other peoples' rights. There is no getting around the facts.

America made mistakes. They must be acknowledged and learned from and America must be rebooted so it can function as the Libertarian Republic it was designed as and intended to be.

There is no argument to be made against the fact that the very moment a muslim acts upon his religious convictions in a literal, fundamentalist way, they become the enemy of America. But even then, it is not Islam that is the enemy of America, it is the muslim who makes that choice.

We will be far safer by limiting Muslim immigration. There is no need to foster Muslim-on-Muslim violence. It is not only unnecessary; it is immoral.

No, it's not immoral. They are at war with us and thus we should look for cracks and fissures within Islam to exploit to our advantage because it is first of all, in self-defense and thus not immoral, and second, because it is a smart strategy.

Islam (any religion), no matter how violent and supremacist it might be; no matter how subversive it might be, is not unconstitutional. Have I been in the Florida heat too long? Why are you gasping?

1) Islam is not a religion, it is a life belief system that comprises government and military in addition to faith.

2) The U.S. Constitution is essentially a limiting framework; Moslemism exceeds its limits on almost every account.

3) Americans of other faiths, from native animism through Confucianism, Buddhism and Hinduism all the way up to Judeo-Christianity get on quite well with the framework.

Indeed, one might see the Constitution as a litmus test for what is a genuine religion. Moslemism gets an F-minus on that test.

Kepha:

I emphatically do NOT think that when Christians take biblical names that they "drape themselves in Jewish cultural artifacts".

Christians read from the same Bible that the Jews do, and hold it sincerely as their own sacred text. So I would not regard biblical names as Jewish cultural artifacts as such.

On the contrary, they are biblical and therefore shared.

But other things are specifically Jewish. And the name Barak, which I don't believe is biblical, is one of them. As would be yarmulke, shofar, tefillin, tallit, the star of David, etc ... And of course a bunch of other Israeli/Jewish names not biblical in the normal sense.

Neither do I claim that to drape oneself in Jewish cultural artifacts is necessarily blameworthy.

Once again I say that in some folks, such usage is a sign of admiration and solidarity. And once again I say ... may heaven smile upon them what feels that way.

"Abraham Lincoln" wrote:

All of your observations on the United States, also apply to Western European countries like Germany, France, Italy as well as Japan, Korea, Canada and many other countries in the post WW2 environment. The difference is that none of those countries have tried to impose their will on muslim countries in the post-War years anything like America has.
..............................

Well, France and Britain were actually fully occupying Muslim countries at the time. (The fact that France's occupation of Algeria dated from the fight to end Muslim piracy is a separate issue).

More:

An attack on them on Sept 11/2001 would have been just plain silly and achieved nothing for jihad.
..............................

Whew! Good thing there haven't been any Jihad attacks on Britain, or France, or Spain...oh, wait...

Look, I am actually in agreement with you in many ways. America's attempts to turn Afghanistan and Iraq into Jeffersonian democracies have been a sad—and very predictable—failure. I believe we should be *extremely* wary of intervention around the globe.

But believing that the 1400-year-old Jihad threat will end when we pull our last troops out of Afghanistan is equally foolish thinking.

No matter how misguided in their particulars, our involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq were attempts to *fight Jihad terror*—they did *not* cause it.

More:

...my argument is not that Islamic supremacists aren't an evil, destructive force lashing out at the world, with fortunes that rise and fall, it is that the United States became target #1 because of its own actions in the name of projecting its power and its oil companies' interests at the expense of other countries and other peoples' rights. There is no getting around the facts.
..............................

These are hardly "facts"—and characterizing the United States as primarily trampling other people's rights is hardly a fair description of America's role in the world over the past sixty-five years, whatever mistakes she has made.

Why is the United States "target #1" for Jihad? For the same reason that Islam labored so long to destroy the Byzantine Empire.

Because the United States is right now the most powerful of the Kaffir countries, and hence is seen by Muslims as the "leader of the Infidels" (even if many Infidels might disagree). If Jihadists can sufficiently weaken America, they know that the rest of the West will be far, far more vulnerable. I don't believe the reason at base is any deeper than this.

But then, believing we will no longer be a target of Jihad when we finish pulling out of Iraq is far more comfortable than contemplating that it would take our destruction or irrelevance for us to reach that happy state—at least as things currently stand.

Gravenimage, you and Classicus have clearly shown that "Abe" has a flawed grasp of World history, and his Tu Quoque response to me sure doesn't show that I have.

We liberate the Philippines, East Asia, and the Western Pacific--and secure their independence; we liberate Europe and the Mediterranean; we check the U.S.S.R's attempted annexation of Iranian Azerbaijan and safeguard the rest of Iran--and we're imperialists? And the U.S.S.R annexes Tuvinian Mongols, Karelian Finns, Poles and Western Ukrainians, Ruthenians, and Belorussians (who differ in history and creed from their Eastern counterparts), Moldava Romanians; while they reduce the rest of Eastern Europe to satellite states--and they're not?

Yes, we learned to spend "Millions for Defense; Not One Cent for Tribute" to the Barbary States (nominally part of the Ottoman Empire) and other Western powers learned likewise; and we watched as the Muslim Ottoman, Safavid, and Mughal Empires decayed and ebbed away. Muslims don't attack when they are weak and the Kuffar are strong.

Just backing you up.

In the period from the wars against the Barbary pirates up until the 1950s (when Qutb, he of the Ikhwan, visited the USA and found it most offensive to his Muslim sensibilities), was a period of Muslim weakness. There were very, very few Muslims on American soil - very few would have been allowed in - and Islam's ability to project power onto American soil was very limited.

As soon as some Islamic states became powerful (after the influx of oil money, especially from 1973 onward) they began to think about Jihad again.

And the USA in the late 20th century was (and even in its battered state in the early 21st century) is what Byzantium and Sind were in the 7th and 8th century: big and rich and beautiful, a pirate's dream of plunder.

Neither Byzantium nor Sind had to do anything except *exist*, in order to attract the Jihad raiders. Muslims crossed the Indian Ocean to get at Sind, which had done *nothing* to them whatsoever.

As soon as the jihadis were able to get at them, and felt strong enough to get away with it, they started attacking.

Here is a comment that appeared on an Australian blog in 2009.

It describes what the commenter heard at an anti-Israel march, conducted in his own street, at the time when the Israelis were giving the jihad mobsters of Gaza a bit of a drubbing.

"Jonathan Whybird
Mon 19 Jan 09 (05:24pm)

'Excellent article Carolyn. I note the earlier poster who said that he/she has sent the article in question [a nasty antisemitic piece - dda] to the Anti-Discrimination Commission. I think The Australian should do this itself and report on the outcome - it would be very very interesting.

'Marcus (the expert on everything) [i.e. another person who had commented - dda] I cannot agree with your view that most of the Palestinians are peaceful people.

'On Saturday [17th Jan] in Brisbane there was another demonstration in favour of Palestine at which anybody who bothered to go (I live in the city and they marched in my street so I had a front row ground level seat as my fiance and I had come back from a run) would have heard Muslim Australians chanting “kill the jews”.

' I even spoke to one protestor

**who confirmed he was Muslim and from Iran who said there would only be peace when Israel and the rest of the west was destroyed.** [my emphasis - dda}

'Now this man was supported by many of his fellow protestors who screamed with him, but for three men in the crowd who shook their heads and at that point left the protest (and apologised to us for the comments of the others).

"**When I asked the man why he hated the west he said “because you reject the prophet”.** [my emphasis - dda}.

END QUOTE.

'Reject the prophet'. Be non-Muslim, and refuse to *become* Muslim. **THAT's all it takes to 'provoke' the Jihad**.

Note that that Persian Muslim on a street in sunny Brisbane, asked why he hated 'the west' and wanted them to be destroyed so that there could be 'peace' (Islamspeak for Total World Domination By Muslims) did not say 'because of Mossadegh', or 'because of the Shah' or 'because of Imperialism'.

It was, plain and simple, "because you reject the prophet" [i.e. Mohammed, and therefore, Islam].

I neglected to mention the Estonians, Latvians, and Lithuanians forcibly annexed into the U.S.S.R.

But, as a theory to formulate foreign policy not so much. It's rare that libertarians don't get foreign policy wrong.

That isn't because of a failing in libertarianism, it's a personal failing on their part in not looking at the facts. The bottomline of libertarianism is the defence of individual rights. That places a duty on government to look honesty at, and deal honestly with, foreign enemies. Is that what Ron Paul is doing? No, it's not.

Abraham Lincoln said "And yes, it was America who backed the Taliban, making sure they couldn't be beat by the USSR. Instead of just keeping its nose out of another country's business, America blindly empowered evil Islamic supremacists who came back to bite it and murder."

I LOL'd when I read that. You just proved you are a lefty by regurgitating this BS.

Taliban didn't form until the early to mid 1990's. They didn't exist.

America backed Mujahideen by arming and training them in Afghanistan to fight the Russians. Mujahideen were not the Taliban.

Since you seem fond of Wiki, I'll link it for you http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban

As for why there was no Jihad against the US from Islam during the 1800's? I suspect it had much to do with British Emperialism during that time period.

England occupied much of the Islamic lands into India. The English Occupation of India actually ended 1,000 years of Islamic Rule in India. So basically the Muslims were getting beat back so they were too busy fighting the UK to worry about the US.

Even though there was not much against the US, there was still plenty of Jihad going on against the entire world by Islam. Islam didn't turn its attentions towards US until the discovery of oil when it finally had money again to expand as it is currently doing now.

You wrote: "There is no argument to be made against the fact that the very moment a muslim acts upon his religious convictions in a literal, fundamentalist way, they become the enemy of America. But even then, it is not Islam that is the enemy of America, it is the muslim who makes that choice."

When people say "Islam is the enemy" they are speaking of the greater Muslim world. No? That does not mean every Muslim is the enemy just as every German was not the enemy during the second world war. Notwithstanding, the United States declared war against Germany.

You wrote: 1) Islam is not a religion, it is a life belief system that comprises government and military in addition to faith....."

Your argument is with students of Islam who believe Islam is both a religion and an ideology; that is an all-encompassing political, socio-economic system.

2) The U.S. Constitution is essentially a limiting framework; Moslemism exceeds its limits on almost every account....."

I'm not sure what you mean by a "limiting framework." Most Americans and American leaders believe Islam is protected under the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment. I have argued, were our Founders prophets, if they were able to look forward to our day, the First Amendment might have been drafted differently.

Quoting from a Library of Congress article on Islam and the Founding Fathers: "In his seminal Letter on Toleration (1689), John Locke insisted that Muslims and all others who believed in God be tolerated in England. Campaigning for religious freedom in Virginia, Jefferson followed Locke, his idol, in demanding recognition of the religious rights of the "Mahamdan," the Jew and the "pagan." Supporting Jefferson was his old ally, Richard Henry Lee, who had made a motion in Congress on June 7, 1776, that the American colonies declare independence. "True freedom," Lee asserted, "embraces the Mahomitan and the Gentoo (Hindu) as well as the Christian religion."

"In his autobiography, Jefferson recounted with satisfaction that in the struggle to pass his landmark Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom (1786), the Virginia legislature "rejected by a great majority" an effort to limit the bill's scope "in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan." George Washington suggested a way for Muslims to "obtain proper relief" from a proposed Virginia bill, laying taxes to support Christian worship. On another occasion, the first president declared that he would welcome "Mohometans" to Mount Vernon if they were "good workmen."

3) Americans of other faiths, from native animism through Confucianism, Buddhism and Hinduism all the way up to Judeo-Christianity get on quite well with the framework.

Indeed, one might see the Constitution as a litmus test for what is a genuine religion. Moslemism gets an F-minus on that test...."

If you mean by limiting framework, Islam cannot co-exist peacefully with other religious traditions, I agree. How do you define a "relgion?" The Constitution does makes no attempt to define a religion.

My computer went out for a while, a leftover effect from Irene,...

I'm glad you're back safe and sound Wellington.

You clever man. I plead guilty to reading Cicero and allowing a little of his bombast to creep into my posts now and then.

You mention Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman, and correctly say that they are not electable to presidential office. I fear that for the election of 2012, we will not have a Conservative candidate who really gets Islam, and that's all the worse for us, since no Democrat wants to face Islam squarely.

Ron Paul reminds me of the squeaky Ross Perot, but with a slightly more polished demeanor. Still, I can't image Ron Paul making a convincing figure when it comes to national defense. I doubt very much that any foreign adversaries would take him seriously. Nor would allies take him very seriously either.

Allen West on the other hand, would be far better; but unfortunately, he is not ready; and as a congressman, his chances of reaching the presidency seem remote. I hope that someday he will be a good position to run.

I've seen John Boloton's name out there as another possible candidate. He has the intellectual heft, he was graduated summa cum laude from Yale at a time when standards were higher than they are now, but I'm afraid that for a start, Mr. Bolton would have to lose the mustache that makes him look a bit like Bob Keeshan (Captain Kangaroo). At least Bolton's mustache is not as wild as Nietzche's was. Facial hair is a trivial thing, but no president since Theodore Roosevelt and William Howard Taft (Al Gore resembles him) has had a mustache or beard.

For another thing, John Bolton's tough stance against the idiocies at the UN, even as he served as an ambassador there, would rile the liberals and make for loud, very boisterous, and probably underhanded, opposition to his candidacy from them. George Soros would spend great mounds of cash and that would be fine if Bolton would win the presidential race. (Who doesn't love it when liberal billionaires are thwarted?)

Ron Paul will not get the Republican nomination. If loses there, I wonder if he will continue in public service. In any case, I doubt that he will educate himself on Islam. He is someone who is complete; that is, he was filled up with education a long time ago and hasn't seen the need for any more. But if by some miracle he would deign to crack a book, he could start with Robert Spencer's work. If not that, then maybe someone on his staff could research Jihad Watch and read what is said about the candidate here. There is plenty on JW that might be helpful to him. I would think that what dumbledoresarmy has had to say in this thread would be instructive as well.

I'll look for your new posts Wellington - Ciceronian tactics and all.

As always, all the best to you and yours.

Yet again, classicus, your graciousness characterizes you. Thank you for your comments.

I do indeed like Bolton and West very much. They strike me as the kind of men who know what needs to be known and how to effect the right results from the right ideas. Their principal problem, in addition to being not very well known, is that they are so far ahead of the general populace, and already have so many enemies amongst the elites, that they therefore have additional obstacles to the ascension of power along with all the "ordinary" ones. But they are leaders, and true leaders know where their people must go and how to achieve this even before the people understand what journeys they have yet to take, what journeys they must yet take.

Well, the right people have to be in the right place at the right time for civilization to triumph over the forces of anti-civilization. Not there yet. Hope we get there sooner rather than later. Meanwhile, mediocrities or worse are in charge of preserving Western Civilization, and many of these elites don't even know very much about this magnificent civilization. Indeed, not a few of them are foolishly hostile to it (the guy currently occupying the Oval Office comes foremost to mind; to call him merely a mediocrity would be kindness taken to a fault). Ah, sometimes I catch myself thinking we're at the dawn of a new dark age. But then I have a few beers and I become more sanguine about man's future. Works every time.

Well, time will tell. Take care, my knowledgeable friend. See you later, right here at JW.

A_L -

wrote:

"There is no argument to be made against the fact that the very moment a muslim acts upon his religious convictions in a literal, fundamentalist way [..]"

A common and fundamental error, this particular one about "literalism" being the problem here. Islamic doctrine mandates violence against "unbelievers", quite literally. So there's nothing "allegorical" about the looting and killing to be taken literally, it's already there, the explicit call to wage war against us, the kuffar.
Instead of literalism, the problem with practising Muslims is not only that of activism, as in following up on the Islamic call to violent action, but also of inactivism, as in not standing up for the sake of Liberty, as is the case with the majority of these so-called and supremely chimerical "moderate Muslims".

Kind regs from Amsterdam,
Sag.

A_L -

wrote:

"There is no argument to be made against the fact that the very moment a muslim acts upon his religious convictions in a literal, fundamentalist way [..]"

A common and fundamental error, this particular one about "literalism" being the problem here. Islamic doctrine mandates violence against "unbelievers", quite literally. So there's nothing "allegorical" about the looting and killing to be taken literally, it's already there, the explicit call to wage war against us, the kuffar.
Instead of literalism, the problem with practising Muslims is not only that of activism, as in following up on the Islamic call to violent action, but also of inactivism, as in not standing up for the sake of Liberty, as is the case with these so-called and supremely chimerical "moderate Muslims".

Kind regs from Amsterdam,
Sag.

Wellington, sir, and Classicus, you have summed up current reality to the "tea", whether ill or fair. And I'm saying to the word, both. "Graciousness characterizes you both"

I wish that the reality of your comments were not so. For some fellows and I, we feel that in some ideal circumstance, Bachman, Trump and West, or Gingrich, in some order, would be our best and brightest, to put some order and restoration, to freedom and economy, to the universe of freedom, but reality, is what you speak, and well do I appreciate every word, both of you speak!

And yes, dumbledoresarmy, and Robert's books, would be a good thread of education to the current dhimmis. Miserable state of affairs, but all is far from lost. And much is to happen. And diverse are, and will be, our allies, in what is promising to be epochal, as of need.

Wellington wrote, replying to Classicus:

I do indeed like Bolton and West very much...
..........................

As do I, Wellington and Classicus. I also like Rudy Giuliani—not perfect on some issues, but I believe his staunch stance against Jihad makes up for a great many shortcomings on other matters.

Alas, *none* of these candidates are running, at least so far.

I believe one reason so many conservative boosters are balking at the revealing of any less-than-stellar background information is that they believe that any criticism of Republican candidates means the likely reelection of Barack Obama.

I have been *very* glad of Robert Spencer's close vetting of the candidates who are in the race, though. While it often makes for dispiriting reading, I believe it is absolutely vital that we know exactly who we are electing, as much as is possible.

I realize that the candidate I pull the lever for next November will likely be flawed in his or her understanding of the Jihad threat—but I want to be as informed as possible before I take that step.

The fact is that the public is most worried about what is on their plates at this serving, jobs, income and better times and hope, sadly only all, that is currently important to the mass of voters . Most put freedoms, and the classic jihad threat to them, the great presumption of magically guarenteed freedoms, to the far rear of their concerns, to their peril, for the current time.

And the unwashed (uneducated) masses, assume any Hollywood style good looking, dummy dim dhimmi kafirs can make jobs happen, magically. They are not students of history or economics, nor anything of wisdom, yet, damn it all!

Citizen K, before we draw too many insinuations, please remember that Murray Rothbard was an APOSTATE from Marxism. His libertarianism was his reaction against the creed in which he was raised.

Yes, a lot of Jewish immigrants in early 20th century America were pro-Communist. They'd suffered a lot of persecution in the Tsars' Russia, and so they came to think that any movement that was against the Tsar had to be their friend. But, on this side of the pond, while many kept the Marxist faith the brought, a lot more found that the USA offered possibilities that Marx had not even thought of, and switched.

Frankly, I think that Rothbard's extreme libertarianism was in part a deep appreciation that Marx missed a lot when he looked at capitalism and that "the collective" can be fallible, too, and, in part, an over-reaction to his youthful Marxism.

As for Ron Paul, I don't agree with his foreign policy stance; but I will hand it to most people who reach high elective or executive branch office that they are generally learners--they may learn the wrong lessons, or apply them by half measures, but they are learners. It's like Obama after his first security briefing, coming out looking as if he'd just been kicked in the guts. Candidate Obama would never have ordered the whack job on Usama Bin Laden; but President Obama, with access to classified information, would and did. I would guess that a future President Ron Paul would probably find himself forced by new information to change some of his positions.

In a race between Obama and Paul, I'd vote for Paul in a trice. While Obama has had to come down from the flower child position that everything wrong is America's fault, and others wowuld just luuuuuuuuuuuuuvvvvvvvvvvvv us if we adopted the right poses, which I'll grant to him, the breadth and depth of his associations with America haters (beginning with that woman who was never proud of the country that made her very rich until the Dems nominated her husband)are too much for my comfort. Re Paul's association with Rothbard, it was an association with an ex-America hater. Further, like many other American politicians, Paul listens first to domestic constituents, and approaches his office as if the rest of the world doesn't matter. But, if he wins, I suspect he'll be a quick study.

Wellington

speaking as an Australian who is anxiously 'eavesdropping' on the goings-on in our largest ally - since we are very small, only 22 million of us, very thinly spread and with some pretty scarey neighbours the closest of which, a mere hop step and jump away across a *very* narrow stretch of water, is rapidly-sharia-izing Indonesia, 'the world's most populous Muslim country' as the media never tire of informing us - I must say that I too like the look of Bolton and West. And, as Gravenimage has just said above, Giuliani had his good points. He was smart enough to let Bratton do what was necessary to clean up NYC, and smart enough to reject that blood money cheque from the Saudi prince after September 11.

The vibe I get from West at the moment is a modest 'nolo praesidere' that reminds me of all those early medieval/ 'dark age' figures who would cry 'nolo episcopare' when people were seizing them and pushing them toward the job.

Perhaps the thing for people to do is to support him - and other trainee politicians of the Islamosavvy variety, as they start to step up to the plate - to the hilt (and that include, especially, in these tough times, financially) while they make contacts and get a handle on how to do government, and gain in confidence, until they *are* willing to go for the top job.

And in the meantime - I'm thinking of Barnabas Fund and their 'Operation Nehemiah', which is mainly working through the churches in the UK and the Commonwealth - I'd simply encourage people in America - both religious and secular-minded - to do everything they can to nurture your Civil Society, starting with the neighbourhood institutions, such as the churches and synagogues, and also the various voluntary organisations and groups like the Scouts and the PTAs and Rotary and suchlike. Build, plant, heal.

The great strength of all free non-Muslim societies is Agreement and Reciprocity: our ability to cooperate creatively; our ability to think and create and produce and therefore to weather all kinds of adversity. So: all Resisters of jihad can put some energy into affirming and nurturing those things. It *will* make your society stronger; and it's worth doing in any case.

Small things matter.

The other day I went along to a new Jewish-owned chocolate shop (which has become something of a favourite 'watering-hole' for our local Jewish community, as I discovered) that was being targeted by a rent-a-mob pushing Boycott-Divestment-Sanctions against Israel.

I went to buy a hot chocolate and thus stand in solidarity.

There were a LOT of other Aussies there with me, mostly Gentiles, doing exactly the same; including one person whom I had expressly invited.

Afterward I went out and talked with some of the people who had mounted a counter-protest; I met more people from the Jewish community in my hometown than I have met at any time up till now in the whole of my life. They seemed pleasantly surprised to discover how many Aussie Gentiles, like myself, supported Israel and despised antisemitism (no matter what mask it wears)...and were prepared to stand up and be counted. I got the impression they'd gotten a major psychological 'lift'. I don't know that many of them grasp that behind the BDS Useful Idiot catspaws there lurks the Global Jihad.. but if there are more events of this kind, and I get the chance, I'll be able to inform them.

The wider point? - a nice chocolate shop did a roaring trade (good for the economy), the Jewish community in Australia feels just a little bit safer and more confident, Aussie politicians learn that there are probably more Votes in supporting Israel than in dissing her, civility and common decency were affirmed, and the jihadis lurking behind their proxies encountered a solid rock wall of Resistance and may therefore pull in their horns for a bit.

Anyway, back to America...you've taken an AWFUL battering in every way, including natural disasters, since September 11 2001. You've lost far too many young men in Iraq and Afghanistan, and poured far too much money away into the bottomless maw of the Ummah. But I think you can and will survive and rebuild. Like the rest of the West, you belong in the end to the Order of the Phoenix.

Don't give up. Don't lose hope. There are more of us with you than you think.

PS - Wellington, have you ever read Paul Gallico's "the Adventures of Hiram Holliday'? It was written at the start of WWII, and it involves an American protagonist who, at the crucial part of the story, finds himself in a duel wielding a Roman sword. I think you and Classicus would both enjoy it, if you haven't read it before.

Read it in conjunction with the chapter 'The War of the Gods and the Demons' from Chesterton's "The Everlasting Man".

I'd like to second your reply @Citizen K, and thank you for your insightful comment about the background of Murray Rothbard. He was a student, and in many ways the true successor, of Ludwig von Mises, who wrote the magnificent study "Socialism". Nice detail: Rothbard himself in his two-volume masterpiece "History of Economic Thought" (1995), wrote a damning chapter about the Anabaptist revolution in the city of Münster, in which he described these zealots as (proto-)communists.

What I find so thoroughly depressing about the foreign policy discussion among "conservatives", is that on too many occasions one ends up with candidates either attacking or defending the neo-con (or rather neo-progressive) perspective. Common feature among all of them, including Ron Paul, is that for some reason they choose to remain uninformed about Islam. So you end up with a debate about Muslims attacking the US because of their hatred of Britney Spears and blue jeans or as the radical exponents of "blow-back incarnate".

I think that Robert Spencer's alert is totally warranted here, and I'm looking forward to a veritable tsunami of clueless candidate alerts (CCA's) that would include those candidates who seem to "get it", but whose principal preoccupation is with fighting terrorism, thus adding to the nefarious Blair-Bush meme of the "tiny minority of extremists who have hijacked an otherwise peaceful religion".

Kind regs from Amsterdam,
Sag.

Wellington -

Delighted to repeat this remark of yours:

"Separation of the malevolent ideology from practitioners of such an ideology is an artificial division of the first degree."

I know it might be considered a bit off this Mr Paul firestorm topic, but before adding some more to my 2 (euro)cts on US foreign policy vis a vis Islam, allow me to ask your opinion about the well known adage, i.e. that

"There are moderate Muslims, but there is no moderate Islam."

Wouldn't you agree that this formula also includes some measure of this artificial split that you refer to?

To get back on track, I'd say that I fear @Classicus is probably right about the inclination or capability of Ron Paul to "make room" for entirely new information (about the true nature of Islam). His views on what would be true US conservatism in foreign policy crystallized long ago around the nucleus of John Quincy Adams' saying about the US that "she goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy".
I believe that this completely dominates his general perspective and that therefore his critique on US interventionism and progressivist "nation building" doesn't allow for a third option between this view and that of the neo-cons where Islam is part of the equation. The third option being of course that Islam has its own agenda of "peace in our time" for the world, regardless of the debate between Ron Paul and his detractors about US foreign policy.

To conclude my contribution with a perhaps somewhat bold statement, I'd like to submit that any participant in the CJ initiative defending most of the US foreign policy decisions under the banner of this progressivist "War on Terror" as a fight against Islam, is just about as clueless as Ron Paul is on the subject.

My hope for the US lies not with established politicians, waiting for them to educate themselves and then act as leaders of some anti-Islam revolution. My hope is with the growing part of the populace growing tired of the establishment driven black-out about the threat of Islam. More and more people will be educating themselves about the Mohammedan menace, creating a "market" as it were, for a future CJ politician in the US, like the one we now have in Holland. That process started in the eighties and really gained momentum some 20 years ago over here. You have some journey ahead ;-)

Kind regs from Amsterdam,
Sag.

Good to hear from you again, Sagunto. I posted that remark which you quoted because there have been some here at JW who maintain that Islam itself is not the problem but rather Muslims behaving badly is (an all too common occurrence as more and more people throughout the West are coming to know). Such folks posit a high theory that if there were no Muslims at all then Islam, the Koran, the Hadiths, etc. could not do us any harm. This is true but also, at least in this present age and far into the future, irrelevant, even absurd. But I don't think it necessarily works the other way and that's why Ibn Warraq coined that phrase about there being moderate Muslims but no moderate Islam.

I would liken things here to American slavery before the Civil War. The institution of slavery was evil, always will be, and yet there were some slaveowners, like Jefferson Davis, the first and only President of the Confederate States of America, who, by all accounts, treated his slaves fairly. In fact, he was disgusted when he heard of a fellow slaveowner who acted barbarously towards his slaves. Well, slavery remained an evil, still does to this present day, but some slaveowners were heinous in their treatment of slaves while others like Davis were not. Abraham Lincoln knew this and that's why he said that one could hate the sin without necessarily hating the sinner. Ditto for Islam. It's wicked and many Muslims acting upon its precepts are wicked as well, but there are many Muslims, the so-called moderates (whom Robert Spencer has brilliantly characterized as "lazy Muslims") who are simply not a threat (or very little) in and of themselves to liberty, equality under the law and so on. I mean if every last Muslim on earth thought and acted as Zuhdi Jasser does, even though Islam would still remain a decided negative, threats to liberty would be greatly reduced (though still present to some degree) and acts of barbarism by Muslims would be non-existent. BTW, I don't particularly like Jasser and I think he runs interference for a wicked ideology in Islam (just as Davis did for slavery) but if no Muslim were worse in any manner than he, the West would be better off considerably. But, of course, Islam would remain nefarious, though I still think your point that there is some degree of artificiality in the split outlined by Ibn Warraq has merit, but I find no merit with the argument that Islam is not the problem, only Muslims are. Islam is a problem. Slavery is a problem. Marxism is a problem. Nazism is a problem. All of these are problems intrinsically irrespetive of whether there are any practitioners left implementing them.

Respecting your other analysis of American foreign policy, John Quincy Adams is often quoted by folks who want to use him as a buttress for their own isolationist sentiments. Well, Quincy Adams was a brilliant man but he lived at a time when America was not a world power and things have changed so much from Quincy Adams' days that invoking him to sustain an argument about America being wrong to "go abroad" and deal with problems in lands afar no longer has much relevance. I must confess, though, as the American patriot that I am, I often wish much of the rest of the world would finally get its act together so that there would be no necessity for America to intervene most anywhere. It's a dream I have. But yes, it's only a dream.

In any case, since America has world obligations (e.g., the American Navy keeping the Persian Gulf unobtruded so that oil supplies can get to nations all over the world) that people in the days of Quincy Adams could hardly have fathomed, I do think nonetheless that American foreign policy in the modern world must be as realistic as possible. One of the faults of Americans is that they are often too idealistic. Not everyone wants freedom or knows what to do with it if they get it. This reality must become a cornerstone of American foreign policy. Not there yet but we're getting there I think. After all, some people want and understand freedom better than others. Such people would include the ancient Greeks, the English, your fellow Dutch, the Americans of course, Australians and in their own inimitable way even the French (well kinda'). But then there are those people who, quite frankly, show a dearth of understanding of the importance of liberty. They would include almost all peoples of Asia, the Russians of course and, yes, Muslims. Grasping all this is absolutely essential for an efficacious American foreign policy as we move into the future.

Speaking personally, I don't care as much as I used to about other peoples enjoying liberty. I too have evolved in my thinking here. Some people don't understand freedom, won't fight for it and many don't even want it. Very well. As long as these people don't bother us, we should leave them alone. I would close by noting that no two truly free peoples have gone to war with one another over this past century. In every conflict, I believe without exception, at least one of the two sides in the conflict, in the war, has not been free, not been a real democracy. If man has any chance to eliminate war, I think every nation being a true democracy is what will do it. Not a guarantee here, but the best shot we have to achieve this noble goal. Of course, impediments of all kinds exist which hinder democracy, real democracy, from occurring in a particular country. No impediment in this regard has ever been a greater hindrance than Islam. Some as much, but none more. Between Islam and liberty there can never be a reconciliation.

I think I have gone on too long here so forgive me for that. Hope you are doing well and I will look forward to future posts of yours here at JW.

Kind regs from America

Wellington

Thanks for your reply, dda. I agree with you that becoming "Islam aware" is going to be something that must work upwards from the common folks to those in charge. This most important of endeavors will surely be a bottom to top, rather than a top to bottom effort. I suppose a good example of a top to bottom try at things has been those two bugbears, political correctness and multiculturalism, which have certainly made some headway but which are now running out of steam (thankfully).

It was touching to read what you wrote about the little Jewish chocolate shop and the kind of support it's getting. Anti-Semitism is not only an ugly thing but a very stupid thing as well because to the extent that anti-Semitism exists then to that extent is liberty for everyone in trouble. Jeesh, this isn't rocket science. You'd think everyone of sense by now would have figured this out.

And yes, America has taken a beating in the past decade but America is as resilient a polity as has ever existed in my opinion. Most Americans will never give up. They'll perish before they surrender. Well, I'm sure you know the New Hampshire motto, my favorite of all fifty states----Live Free Or Die. I honestly believe that a very large majority of Americans have incorporated this sentiment somewhere in their being, somewhere deep down inside. From what I have been able to gather about Australians over the years, so have most of your fellow countrymen. After all, better dead than unfree.

Thanks for the Gallico and Chesterton recommendations. I'll look into them. As always, I wish you and those whom you hold most dear the best. I have to say that I am encouraged by the fact that people all over the world, in this case an Australian and an American, can be so in unison on something which threatens freedom, here, of course, Islam, which Arthur Schopenhauer referred to as "that despicable doctrine." Take good care, dda.

In your reply to my reply, Sagunto, you conveyed very effectively the problem with so-called (always like to remember the "so-called" part) moderate Muslims and that is that they are pretty much worthless. Now, if every last Muslim on earth was a so-called moderate, I think everyone who really knows Islam would agree it would be a less dangerous, less problematic world because then only Islamic doctrine in the abstract would remain as something heinous. But again we're talking high theory.

Actually, the best thing a "Muslim moderate" could do for himself and the world at large is leave Islam. In fact, assuming liberty will win out over Islam long term (it's either liberty or Islam since the two can't co-exist), which I think will be the case, it will almost certainly be necessary that many, many Muslims finally see the light and just leave the religion they were snookered by. In most every instance such Muslims will be the so-called moderates. Still, Islam itself will always remain, rather like the fact that mankind will always know how to make atomic weaponry even assuming every nation finally rids itself of such lethal weaponry (not a good idea right now I would argue). And so in this sense (and in other senses too) Mohammed did the world no favor, no favor at all. He gave the world something rotten which the world will always know about. Rather as Marx and Hitler did.

Take care across the pond there and may your fellow countryman, Geert Wilders, continue to inspire so many of us. All my best from over here in the States.

Wellington and Sagunto:

Just a thought here:

One of you mentions Pat Condell on Muslim moderates being quietist to the point of insignificance. One thing we see in the Islamic world is a whole civilization of people who have been long accustomed to being subjects rather than citizens (in the sense of someone with a meaningful stake in and responsibility for the functioning of the polity). I was raised on hearing people condemning the "good Germans" for failing to do anything against Hitler, but, after seeing a few countries under dictators mild and harsh, I see how easy it is to train a population to keep its heads down.

And,it is also too easy to get comfortable in ignorance.

These are two things, I believe, which make it difficult for most people in the Dar-ul-Islam, even if they pointedly ignore the fiercer teachings of their religion concerning the Kufr.

Thank you @Kepha,

..for your remarks about human behaviour under dictatorship. It gives me at least the opportunity to appreciate things we all have in common as humans. It also raises the question where Islam and its adherents might differ from ordinary German citizens under the Hitler regime, because I still reserve some space for the option that the majority of "moderate" Muslims really do find it best for all of us to submit to Islam.
To leave the analogy intact, imagine ordinary Germans spreading Nazi propaganda, handing out "Mein Kampf", even in private surroundings, for that's what moderate Muslims do, they still spread Islam. Your analogy places some more weight on the supposition that "good Muslims" secretively don't believe Mohammed to be the insaan al kamil, comparable to the way many ordinary Germans didn't like Uncle Adolf as a role-model for their kids. Moderate Muslims are thus primarily MINO's, in survival mode under the dictatorship of Islamic culture and doctrine.

Now I see that your concern is with Muslims living in the Dar-al-Islam. Mine is with our moderate Muslim friends in our own countries. Here's what I propose.

Say we broadly agree that all activist Muslims are a clear threat to our well being as "unbelievers" and our way of life, regardless of whether these activists are of the violent or non-violent, i.e. "stealthy" persuasion.

So when we speak about moderate Muslims, living within our borders, not posing a direct threat, we are focussing on the non-activist subgroup. For the sake of clarity, let's disregard the overlap between stealthy jihadists and the apparently non-activist, i.e. "moderate" subgroup.

Let's divide this group into segments, of unknown size, according to the danger they present to our way of life.

I propose the following 6 provisional categories:

a) Onlookers who share the same beliefs about Islamic supremacy as the activists, willing to aid their Muslim brothers whenever called for assistence.
b) Onlookers who share the same beliefs about Islamic supremacy as the activists, who wil aid their Muslim brothers even though they might have some doubts about their means of arriving at the desired goal.
c) Onlookers who don't necessarily share all of the activists' beliefs about Islamic supremacy, but who'll nevertheless lend a hand if threatened enough.
d) Onlookers who don't share all of the activists' beliefs about Islamic supremacy, whose main contribution to the spread of Islamic supremacism is to look the other way and do nothing to oppose the spread of Islamic hatred and intolerance.
e) Onlookers who in fact don't share any of the activists' beliefs, whose main contribution to the spread of Islamic supremacism is identical to that of their co-"religionists" in group d.
f) Onlookers who oppose the activists' beliefs and who are also willing to actively oppose them within an Islamic cultural setting (which in Europe includes large areas within our cities). This group might also be described as "activists", but not in the way activism is meant here, which is "acting as would be expected from a Muslim according to Islamic doctrine". One could also maintain that this group, as Muslims, only exists on paper (or in cyberspace).

Then there are those who have had the courage to leave Islam, not to be counted as moderate Muslims:

g) Apostates from Islam, i.e. ex-Muslims who are nevertheless still making excuses for Islam, holding on to the belief that it can and will somehow reform in a direction desired by Westerners.
h) Apostates from Islam, i.e. ex-Muslims who actively oppose this so-called religion and who can therefore be considered allies in our CJ initiative.

Now the question is, what do we know about the numbers and the force they represent in real life?
I don't have the exact statistics right at hand, but one can easily see that category f) consists of CJ celebrities like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Wafa Sultan and a few others, the celeb-factor indicating that this group is minute. Regarding the other groups one might ask whether group d or e consists of the biggest number of Muslims in the West.

Take care,
Sag.