Jihad Watch: Fitzgerald: Not Right, Not Left -- But Don’t Mess With Mr. In-Between

July 1, 2005

Fitzgerald: Not Right, Not Left -- But Don’t Mess With Mr. In-Between

I have maintained from the beginning that the resistance to jihad is not a partisan issue, or a liberal/conservative issue, but one that should interest and involves all those who live in the West and enjoy the benefits of Western civilization. Nonetheless, it is a fact of life that those who identify the jihad ideology -- not American imperialism or Abu Ghraib or Gitmo or Israel or Mossadegh's toppling or what have you -- as the real source of Islamic terrorism are almost universally classified as being on "the Right," no matter how absurd this classification may be (and it ventured to the outer limits of absurdity when Bat Ye'or was waved away by the New Duranty Times as being part of Europe's "Far Right"). It is a fact that I have been able to interest only conservative publishers in my books, which fact I believe to be an indictment of the publishing establishment.

In any case, all this shows the ultimate uselessness of these "Left" and "Right" labels. For when we criticize the Bush Administration's dhimmitude here at Jihad Watch, we are accused of being either "farther to the right than Bush" or "leftist Bush-haters." In this regard I hope things will be more clearer in 2009 when another President is in office, since the jihad that this site is dedicated to resisting in the name of human rights did not begin with Bush and will not end with him. People often email me listing the alleged crimes of the Bush Administration and/or the United States in general as if such a list constitutes a sufficient riposte to the stories we post here daily. But in fact such lists are irrelevant. We are not interested in defending one Administration, but the American republic in general. We are not here to shill for one ephemeral policy or another, but to defend the West and the civilization it has inspired. Just as the jihadists see themselves as heirs of a 1,400-year-old struggle, so we see ourselves as the heirs of those who have resisted them around the world across the centuries.

Some of those in the resistance may have been on "the Left"; others on "the Right"; ultimately, that's irrelevant. We no longer have the luxury for such internecine quarrels. Let us defend now our very existence, and then we can sort things out among ourselves.

So: here is Jihad Watch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald's reductio ad absurdum in response to charges that he, by criticizing Bush's dhimmitude, had placed himself on "the Left":

“…you people (on the left)…”
“ …if JW descends into partisan bush-hating…”

--Two comments received by JW after a brief posting critical of Bush’s speech on Iraq

Both statements are true. The person who criticized that speech must obviously have been “on the left" as anyone can tell. And we all know how it is with people on the left" -- Oriana Fallaci, Pim Fortuyn, Theo van Gogh, Ibn Warraq, Ali Sina –- those appeasers of Islam. Not like Grover Norquist. Not like stout defender of the West Alistair Crooke. Not like Raymond Close. Not like all those ex-diplomats to Arab countries who offer their foreign policy advice whenever they can spare a moment from their new careers as “international business consultants” with a “special expertise in the Middle East.” Not like such disinterested dispensers of policy advice as those former members of ARAMCO – Messrs. Exxon, Mobil, and now young Master Exxon-Mobil – who have been explaining both Islam, and Saudi Arabia, so helpfully, for so many decades, with the results we all see.

Yes, not merely “on the left,” as one poster suggests, not merely one who “descends into partisan bush-hating,” as someone else notes in an email to JW – but, in truth, an Old Bolshevik. You see, I am a lot older than you think. I joined the party before 1905, before the period when a certain Djugashvili was still a wet-behind-the-ears seminary student, and robbing banks in the service of the People, much less benignly presiding over a whole country as the Father of Peoples, was still simply a daydream. I still have my tattered card from 1902-- I think I was the fourteenth person to sign up. You can see me, standing to the left of Ulyanov (Lenin) in the photograph of the First Party Congress in Minsk. Like my goatee? Puts you in mind of kindly Anton Pavlovich, doesn't it? I shaved it off soon after.
And you know what -- I was right to join up. I never wavered. I wanted to be on the right side of history, and I was. We won. We marched forward toward Communism, and just look at the results. We took over the whole of Russia. We created the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. We built the White Sea Canal. We had Soviet power, and we electrified the whole country. We went to the moon, into space. We struggled for peace and friendship with all peoples of the world. We helped China --where would China be today if it didn't have Communism?

And you can imagine how amazed and happy I was to learn on the radio just two months ago, the one they put in all our rooms, the one you can't shut off – there was a period when we mostly heard poems by Demian Bednij, Demian Bednij, and Mayakovksiy, of course, with those lines about the the “burzhui,” and then after that there were excerpts from Gladkov – you know, I have to admit, I never really liked him – and much later, some verses by a child, about the sun, and Mama, very sweet, very nice. You know what we heard. About America finally accepting Communism. That finally America has accepted Communism. I knew it would happen, but I didn't expect to live to see it. Wonderful. So just who was on the right side of history, and who was on the wrong side, eh?

And now that I'm 121 years old -- and I'm not even a Georgian, I don't even like yogurt -- I think about the old days, as I sit here on this bench, with the bending birch trees on either side. The distance looks like Levitan. Do you know about our little village, the "Posyolok starykh bolshevikov" (the "Settlement for Old Bolsheviks"). Stalin gave it to us. He gave us so many things. Everyone in this country received so much from the government. Why did he do it? Well, he appreciated the fact that we joined the party, threw in our lot with history, before it was the easy, popular thing to do, which was what, after the 1905 Revolution, or pseudo-revolution, it became. You couldn’t keep people away after that.

At first it was just like any of those collections of dachas, Peredelkino, places like that. Just 30 kilometers outside Moscow – so easy to come to, in the summers, to read, and play chess, and go mushroom-collecting, and all those things everyone thinks Russians do – and you know something, that is what we do. I remember how we would sit for hours having tea under the trees, za stolom, and we would be chattering away, and quarreling away, but nature – priroda – would be very quiet, and nothing would bother us except each other, and the little creatures that silently flitted about, sometimes landing on the raspberry jam. Tishina da moshkara.

And then, about 20 years ago – I can’t remember exactly when -- the government changed things. The government is never wrong. It decided we should stay here permanently, and now we have a special staff to take care of us, and they are always with us, even when our relatives come to visit, as they sometimes do.

Just last week I received a surprise visit from my grandson. You know, my son had died in the war, and my grandson had gone up to teach in Tartu, but then, just a few years ago, even though he said he had always loved it there in Estonia, he came back to Moscow. He told me “things had changed” but he didn’t say anything else. Anyway, I am glad to see him. And his only child, my great-grandson – I haven’t seen him in so many years, started some kind of thing, I don’t understand how it works, but it serves food very fast to people, and there are many places where the food is served – all over Russia, in Moscow and Leningrad, and even in Stalingrad, probably – very fast for people who need to get back to work. It must be some government idea, just another new way to help the people. My grandson told me, very proudly, that these all have the same name – “Myagkii Snak/Sofsnak.” It’s supposed to mean something, but I don’t know what. Anyway, the government is probably going to give my great-grandson at least a medal, and maybe the right to buy an apartment, for all of his great efforts. Isn’t that wonderful? Vot – that’s Communism.

You know I told you we play chess. Well, for the last 20 years we have had this very nice boy – he may be 40 now – and he is in charge of recreation, and also wheels us wherever we need to go. And the other day I was studying a book by famous grandmaster Paul Keres (you should have seen him in 1935, in Varshava – I was there at the time, for Vneshtorg, on a mission – it was his first great performance, and I have never forgotten that)-- his "Sto Partii" (One Hundred Great Games) is no my favorite book, and the other one I really like to re-read is this collection of funny things little children say, from the ages of 2 to 5, that Korney Chukovsky compiled – he must be at least 80 by now.. And I was reading the book by Keres, and moving pieces around on the board, and then Luis, the nice young man from Cuba who for some reason decided not to go back when the Cuban government asked him to -- he said he preferred Russian food, and the Russian weather was so much nicer, he explained – well, Luis came right up and looked at what I was doing and said that Keres was not nearly as good as the Cuban Capablanca, Jose Capablanca, the "greatest chess player," he insisted, "who ever lived." Well, I think Luis is crazy, he is just letting bourgeois nationalism affect him. But he is a Cuban, not a Soviet citizen, so what do you expect? I didn't want to offend him because he pushes my chair so carefully, and picks me up when we get to the stairs, and then sets me down so gently. But really -- how silly some people can be.

Sometimes we watch television – only documentaries about the war and Marshal Budyonnniy, and then some news programs that Luis told us were made “specially” for our group, and while I watch I have some nice borscht, with sour cream, and pickled herring. And you know, before the last few years, or maybe ten years, we almost never had meat, but now we have satsivi, a special Georgian chicken dish -- very tasty – and piroshki with meat – and even real meat from cows. How does our government do it! They are fantastic. I have had satsivi almost once a week the past two years. And before, in fifty years, I remember having it only once – when Comrade Stalin himself served it to us, in 1947, when he called a special gathering of the Old Bolsheviks in the Kremlin, as part of the celebrations after the war.

Memories, memories. Sometimes I get confused. Some zubrovka, perhaps –for one last little session, one final malenkiy mezhdusobojchik, before you have to go? And how are Il’f and Petrov? They were so funny. Pilniak, he was funny too. They were all so funny in those days. And Marshal Frunze -- did he recover okay? And whatever happened to Feliks Edmundovich?

I made the right decision. Lenin knew – he knew everything. We took care of Renegade Kautsky. We fooled Ribbentrop. We sold them all the rope. And after the war, nobody could get the better of Comrade Stalin. Not Roosevelt, not Churchill, not those revanchisty in Bonn who keep trying to get back East Germany. They never will. And that's why, even after all that has happened, at the age of 121, I'm glad you found me out. Yes, of course I am "on the left." And proud of it. On the right side of history, since 1902.

Posted by Robert at July 1, 2005 11:32 AM
Print this entry | Email this entry | Digg this | del.icio.us |

Comments
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)

There is a Left and a Right, and they are comporting themselves markedly differently with regard to our self-defense against Jihadism.

The term "Leftist" is crucially relevant and important.

It is not the act of criticizing Bush's policy in Iraq that makes one a Leftist.

What makes one a Leftist is revealed by the REASON WHY one criticizes Bush's policy in Iraq. If you criticize the war because you think it is an extension of "American-Zionist Imperialism", a "grab for oil", a "mass murder of innocent Iraqis", a "Fascistic oppression of Freedom Fighters", a "Nazi-Gulag-Genghis Khan" assault upon perfect Third World victims -- then you are a Leftist.

And such Leftists as I have just defined not only exist -- THEY EXIST BY THE MILLIONS IN THE WEST.

The vast majority of people on the Right, when they criticize Bush, do so constructively.

The vast majority of people on the Left, when they criticize Bush, do so destructively -- even SELF-destructively, against the interests and safety of their own Western civilization.

These are distinctions that matter. To gloss over them, in the interest of some non-existent "unity", is counter-productive.

Posted by: metaxy

at July 1, 2005 11:47 AM

Metaxy,

The distinctions you outline are indeed important. Obviously a Leftist who doesn't consider Western civilization worth defending is not our ally, but our opponent.

I was not calling for distinctions to be "glossed over," but to be set aside: "We no longer have the luxury for such internecine quarrels. Let us defend now our very existence, and then we can sort things out among ourselves."

But that assumes that both Left and Right want to defend the West. Certainly there are some Leftists who do want to do so -- and some Rightists whose anti-Semitism and opposition to imperialism has blinded them to the jihad threat.

So: I am an anti-jihadist. I invite everyone to fight along with me to defend Western notions of human rights. Those who will do so will come from the Left and the Right, although I am very well aware that they will come from one in much smaller numbers than from the other.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch

at July 1, 2005 11:53 AM

Hugh as always hits the nail on the head. Yes, I am a Bush-basher, too. Bush is a phony, he's no conservative. And he's a coward, too. Doesn't have the guts to call islamic jihad what it is, uses "terrorism" instead, thinks we, the citizens of the USA are a bunch of morons.

Well, some of us are, but not everyone. I vote for neither democrats nor republicans, instead I vote for the CONSTITUTION PARTY. Real patriots, these people.

So go fool somebody else, George Skull-and-Bones Bush.

--------------------------

Bush’s War Against Iraq Ruining America

By Paul Craig Roberts

Last Friday the price of light sweet crude oil on the New York Mercantile Exchange for August delivery closed 16 cents short of $60/barrel—the highest price ever and an ironic outcome for the millions of Americans who believe that cheap oil was the reason for Bush’s invasion of Iraq.

Equally shocking to Americans was the announcement that China has outbid US oil giant Chevron for the American oil company, Unocal.

Polls showing that a majority of Europeans have a higher opinion of China than of the US were another blow to the pumped-up self-esteem of Americans, deluded as they are by Bush administration hubris and claims of American "exceptionalism."

The decline in economic and diplomatic standing that Americans have suffered under Bush is exceptional. How much longer will Americans support the incompetent Bush administration that is driving them and their country’s reputation into the ground?

The world press sees Bush as an arrogant hypocrite who justifies his invasion of Iraq in the name of democracy, while protecting Uzbek’s murderous dictator Islam Karimov, described by Craig Murray, former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan as "very much George Bush’s man in Central Asia." On May 13, Karimov had 500 protesters shot down in the streets of Andijan and 200 massacred in Pakhtabad. Still more civilians were massacred by Karimov while attempting to flee into neighboring Kyrgyzstan.

It was the Bush administration that blocked a call by NATO for an international investigation of the Uzbek massacre. According to news reports, Karimov has agreed, for a suitable payment from US taxpayers, for Bush to attack Iran from bases in Uzbekistan. Uzbekistan also serves as one of the Bush administration’s offshore torture centers to which suspected terrorists are sent.

Deceived American patriots dismiss such reports as leftwing fabrications. However, human rights groups have documented these abuses. Moreover, on June 24 an Italian judge ordered the arrests of 13 CIA agents, who kidnapped a Muslim in Italy and secreted him to Egypt, another offshore US torture center. The 13 CIA agents managed to stick the US taxpayers with a $144,984 hotel bill in the process.

It would be interesting to have a comparison of the hourly Uzbek and Egyptian torture rates. US taxpayers have a right to know how many of their hard-earned tax dollars, given up on pain of prison sentences, are flowing to offshore torture centers.

During his June 25 Saturday radio message to Americans, Bush gave an upbeat report on victory in Iraq and said: "Americans can be proud of all that we and our coalition partners [he means his poodle, Tony Blair, but likes the plural sound] have accomplished in Iraq."

Gentle reader, are you proud that American troops are torturing Iraqis? Are you proud that tens of thousands of Iraqi women and children have been killed and maimed with their deaths and terrible wounds dismissed as "collateral damage"? Are you proud that you elected and reelected a president who lied you into an illegal war that has killed 1,755 American troops, maimed thousands more, and destroyed your country’s reputation?

If you are proud of this, what kind of person are you?

While Bush schmoozed trusting Americans over the air waves on June 25, Brian Brady of The Scotsman (June 26) reported that Bush warned UK PM Tony Blair earlier this month "that war-torn Iraq remains on the brink of disaster." [Bush warns Blair he must boost UK forces]

Moreover, the situation in Afghanistan is deteriorating. The British, who are even shorter on troops than the US, cannot maintain their troop strength in Iraq and also contribute forces to stem the resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan. The US and Britain, it seems, are trapped in two quagmires.

Vice President Cheney claims, erroneously, that the Iraqi insurgency is in its "last throes." But it appears that it is the US that is on its last legs. Lt. Gen. James R. Helmly has warned that the Army Reserve is "rapidly degenerating into a broken force." Everyone except the deceived American people know that the US lacks the combat troops to continue the war it is losing in Iraq.

As Zbigniew Brzezinski, a hawkish US National Security Advisor during the cold war conflict with the Soviet Union, said in response to Bush’s Saturday radio address: "Patriotism and love of country do not demand endless sacrifice on the part of our troops in a war justified by slogans."

Posted by: angry_kafir

at July 1, 2005 12:09 PM

Mr. Spencer,

Fair enough. Your invitation is eminently reasonable; less reasonable is the implied expectation that the active & passive obstruction to your invitation will not emanate overwhelmingly and effectively (because of sociopolitical dominance) from the Left.

The differences between Left and Right concerning the response to Jihadism are staggeringly disproportionate, and are analogous to our oft-cited disparity between extremist Muslims and authentically progressive Muslims.

And most of those on the Right who are remiss -- in the sense of the irrational hope Bush and Rice place in the capacity for the majority of Muslims to yearn and fight for Western values -- are remiss not out of ideological conviction, but out of being forced to kowtow to the PC Leftist dominance around them plus having been themselves enculturated in the PC dominance (showing how amazingly pervasive it is, that even a Bush or a Rice would have become blandly and effortlessly indoctrinated, by cultural osmosis, in sentiments about how wonderfully peaceful Islam is).

Those on the Right who are remiss out of anti-Semitism and anti-Imperialism are a TINY handful, or are so marginally wacky they do not belong on the Right-Left spectrum (or if they do, their ultra-Rightness is so extremely far to the Right, like August Kreis of the Aryan Nation or Timothy McVeigh, they manage to reach around the Left-Right circle to bite the Left on the ass).

Posted by: metaxy

at July 1, 2005 12:25 PM

Metaxy,

You say: "less reasonable is the implied expectation that the active & passive obstruction to your invitation will not emanate overwhelmingly and effectively (because of sociopolitical dominance) from the Left."

I invite to read this statement again: "I am very well aware that [anti-jihadists] will come from one in much smaller numbers than from the other."

I thought you knew which side I was referring to there, and in which place. Apparently not. But I think it should be clear to any attentive reader of my remarks above and my first message to you.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch

at July 1, 2005 12:37 PM

Speaking from the neocon right, I think those on the right who have problems with Hugh are not necessarily upset because he criticizes president Bush, rather, they take issue because he rejects the idea that we should use military force to overcome the islamic enemy.

If Hugh gets criticism from Bush loyalists just because he has the "gall" to disparage the Republican Party in any way shape or form, than, yes, he is receiving idiotic attacks from people who aren't thinking for themselves. However, what I think many legitimate critics of Hugh take issue with is that he believes the "nation building" phase of the war in Iraq is a mistake, thinks we should pull out, and that economic sanctions and military containment will work better. That last part is very similar what we hear from democrats, and why Hugh gets criticism from the right and praise from the left on the message boards.

Now, on the whole it is foolish to consider Hugh a leftist. He clearly and unapologetically identifies islam as the true problem and says any measures to stop the enemy is folly unless this is the premise from which we base our actions. I, Mr. Neocon, completely agree with him on this point, and criticize Bush, and every other world leader, for refusing to articulate this obvious fact, as well.

The disagreement, therefore, with Hugh is not over the diagnosis but the cure. Hugh feels sanctions/containment is the best option because it will limit the ability for islam expand and wage jihad against the West. I and others on the right strongly disagree.

The view from my vantage point is, once we have agreed that islam is the cancer, we must try to DEFEAT it not CONTAIN it. Comtainment policies are fine for some situations, yes, as I'm not really too concerned with invading Venezuala because Chavez is a crazed dictator, but islam is different. Islam has openly declared war on us, attacked us, killed our mothers, fathers, children and babies. They seek to kill or enslave us all, declare Sharia Law and run the world with brutal, evil domination.

We cannot sit back with passive economic policies and hope for the best, as this animal thrives both in poverty as well as riches. The spread of this beast knows no boundaries and cannot be stopped by projecting our own pragmatic sensibilities. To win we must go to the source, the heart, the guts, and tear apart the koran and the ideology of islam from the face of the earth. I do not intend to have my wife and child dying drom a bomb filled with nails or being enslaved by ruthless islamic predators.

We cannot defeat barbarism with pragmatism.

-MZ

Posted by: Madzionist

at July 1, 2005 12:40 PM

WHat Robert is doing is something that should be done. It has been done by many War Generals in the interest of smashing an enemy that would kill ALL of us if it had the chance.

The point here is to put down your conflicting views that you hold against each other. Forgive harsh words targeted at you for your beliefs. We are Americans...plain and simple. Whether you are Jew, Christian, Buddist...confused Muslim..right, left....whatever. For once we should all just shut up and turn and face our equal enemy in unison.

At this site we are, as Robert said, Anti-Jihadists. We are not here to squabble over this and that as I have been guilty of too. We are here to fight for our lives and the lives of our children to achieve the final goal of peace and freedom. The enemy is on our shores..you can put aside your differences and fight the good fight or you can join the enemy.

If we do not band together we will not have the coutry or freedom to squabble with each other anymore. We are a nation of many opinions....but we must put down those opinions and fight so one day soon we can pick up where we started.

Posted by: pocadon

at July 1, 2005 12:41 PM

This has been my point all along. But it's hard to get the one-notes to abandon their usual rants over leftists and concentrate on the real enemy.

The far left has it's crazies, but this does not represent the majority of putative liberals, no more so than the crazy right wing pundits represent all putative conseratives.

Posted by: Loxias

at July 1, 2005 12:54 PM

Excellent distinction Metaxy. In many regards, I am still a leftist, but 9/11 set me straight on the most pernicious leftist dellusions (which tragically, form the core beliefs of many leftists today). The leftists who rail again and again about Bush's "fascist" tendencies and the so-called "Dominionist" threat have no sense of proportion.

Yesterday as I was doing some research on the connection between Nazism and Gnosticism I came upon some books for sale on the Amazon website by Julius Evola (a very extreme Nazi whose writings fuse Aryan race theory to, believe it or not, Tantric Buddhism). His books got rave reviews from two magazines; Gnostic magazine and New Dawn. The articles in New Dawn were virtually indistinguishable from those of another extreme leftists site "Common Dreams." In other words, there is a very fine between the far left and neo-Nazi movement.(Gnostic magazine did not make its articles available for free, so I could not compare it to anything but the name in itself says alote about the Gnostic affinity towards Nazism).

By chance I also came upon a gay, pro-America, pro-Christain, anti-Islamist website based in the U.K. These people really know who their enemies are:

www.flameout.org

As for Craig Roberts, he is about as morally confused and factually-challenged as that other self-styled libertarian Justin Raimondo. Funny Roberts should quote Zbigniew Brzezinski; the architect of the now infamous 1979 plan to funnel billions of dollars to the government of Pakistan so they would re-direct it to the Mujahideen in Afghanistan (more than half of which ended up with the group headed by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar). In the 1980's, Brzezinski also formed part of a group that edited a security assessment on Saudi Arabia in order to convince the Reagan administration to sell AWACS to the Saudis (this was exposed in "The American House of Saud" by Steven Emerson).

Posted by: Andrei Rublev

at July 1, 2005 1:05 PM

"he [Hugh] rejects the idea that we should use military force to overcome the islamic enemy..."
--- from a posting above

How anyone would get that idea baffles me. Military force may not be the only or even main, instrument of policy, but for some things -- such as keeping all Muslim states from acquiring, or from retaining, major weapons projects military force may be the only solution. And there are many places where force should be used. How could one possibly come away from several hundred of my postings, or several of them, or even one, and conclude that I don't think we "should use military force."

As for "angry_kafir" above, I do think he might better cross out the "too" in the phrase meant to congratulate me with some fellow-feeling --"I'm a Bush-hater, too." Nor would I ever wish to be associated with, or even seen in the same room with, someone capable of writing, and what's worse, apparently believing, the following:

"Gentle reader, are you proud that American troops are torturing Iraqis? Are you proud that tens of thousands of Iraqi women and children have been killed and maimed with their deaths and terrible wounds dismissed as "collateral damage"? Are you proud that you elected and reelected a president who lied you into an illegal war that has killed 1,755 American troops, maimed thousands more, and destroyed your country’s reputation?

If you are proud of this, what kind of person are you?"

Kindly note the quotation marks. That is not I writing. That is someone else writing. Someone with whom I completely disagree.

I think, Robert, that what we have hear is that famous failure to communica -- oh, I hate to finish the phrase. It's no longer funny, is it? And Cool Hand Luke was not particularly memorable, anyway. And I dread to think what Paul Newman is supporting politically these days.

Well, at least he's not Pete Seeger -- say, did I tell you about the time he came to visit us at the Home for Old Bolsheviks? Just after he won the Lenin Prize, or something. "This land is our land, this land is your land, this land is made for you and me." I understand that song has been translated into Arabic, and is now top-of-the-charts for Muslims throughout the Western world. Any truth to that rumor?

Posted by: Hugh

at July 1, 2005 1:07 PM

Mr. Spencer,

I don't mean to quibble and don't think I am, when I must respond that, in the spirit of authentic rhetoric, this particular point we are discussing revolves around important matters of degree: your phrase "...will come from one in much smaller numbers than from the other" does not forcefully and clearly enough convey the intolerably gargantuan disproportion.

Imagine that in one business company (company "L"), 98 out of 100 male bosses sexually harrassed over 75% of the female workers; while in another business company (company "R"), only 7 out of 100 male bosses sexually harrassed over 75% of the female workers. In a public statement concerning this problem in which a comparison between the two companies was crucially relevant, it would be significantly flawed to refer to the disparity in terms of sexual harrassers "coming from company R in much smaller numbers than from the other".

Even though such a statement is defensibly accurate, it tends to muddy a disparity that screams, that boggles the mind.

Bottom Line: Such a statement could accurately describe a 70/30 disparity, where the actual disparity is more like a 95/5 and therefore calls for more vigorous language.

Posted by: metaxy

at July 1, 2005 1:18 PM

"How anyone would get that idea baffles me. Military force may not be the only or even main, instrument of policy, but for some things -- such as keeping all Muslim states from acquiring, or from retaining, major weapons projects military force may be the only solution."

Again, Hugh, failure to communicate. There is no doubt that you support the use of military force to enforce CONTAINMENT of islam. What I was outlining is the difference between using military force to DEFEAT islam and using military force to CONTAIN islam, as this is the crux of our philisophical disagreement.

I thought I was clear about that, but perhaps I left that point to vague.

-MZ

Posted by: Madzionist

at July 1, 2005 1:21 PM

I love these nitpicking coments...do we have to over anylize every word someone says or writes? This is the point I was trying to get across....just stop crying and fight the enemy.

Divide and conquer...well we are already divided...so whats left?

Posted by: pocadon

at July 1, 2005 1:23 PM

"Hugh feels sanctions/containment is the best option because it will limit the ability for islam expand and wage jihad against the West. I and others on the right strongly disagree."

My biggest problem with containment policy towards the Gulf States is that there is no stopping other countries from selling them weapons and technology they should never have (another reason the Eurabian project is very much OUR problem too).

The other problem is that nothing today comes even close to oil (or natural gas) in cost-effectiveness. I have talked to chemical engineers who are acutely aware of the problem of U.S. dependence on the Saudis (They hate Saudi Arabia even more than me because they have been there!).

The fact remains that Saudi Arabia is the swing producer that sells the cheapest oil. We cannot remove our dependence by simply using less oil because the resulting cheaper prices will only fuel the futher economic development of other countries that will take up the slack (like China). Furthermore, the cheaper prices might simply give Saudi Arabia a bigger market share. We might exert some limited influence were we to become a kind of "swing consumer," with electric plants that can easily be swithed to other fossil fuels (and more cars running on electricity to literally "plug in" to this flexibility).

If the Iraqi experiment succeeds (a very big if), then maybe Iraq is the best (least-worst) option we have for the near future:

If Iraq produces enough oil to make up for shortfalls from Saudi Arabia (another big if), then we carry out airstrikes against the oil fields of Saudi Arabia without causing a world wide recession. Other Gulf States many denounce this openly, but they will be secretly thrilled at getting bigger market share. More than anything, they will learn know that America takes the covert funding of terrorism very seriously and act accordingly to clean up their act.

Posted by: Andrei Rublev

at July 1, 2005 1:39 PM

Pocadon,

This is what makes this website so enjoyable. All of us here fundamentally agree with what the problem is, but we have our own ideas as to what the best solutions should be. There is nothing wrong with people of basically like minds having strong debates. After all, we aren't robots here.

-MZ

Posted by: Madzionist

at July 1, 2005 1:42 PM

Dont mind me...Im havin a bad day

Posted by: pocadon

at July 1, 2005 1:44 PM

"How anyone would get that idea baffles me."

Let me clarify that I have never regarded Hugh as a "pacifist" of any kind. He is addressing the very serious possibility that our troops (at this point of the conflict) may be dying in vain.

We must make a clear distinction between praying he is wrong and simply "wishing it away." If he is right, the second option is nothing short of trecherous.

Posted by: Andrei Rublev

at July 1, 2005 1:49 PM

Let's not forget another line from the same song, crooned soothingly by Bing, along with Patty, Maxine, and LaVerne:

"You gotta ack-sent-chew-ate the positive, E-lim-in-ate the negative..."

And only then will you be properly ready to not mess -- used in a less aggressive sense than was deliberately implied above -- with Mr. In-Between.

Posted by: Hugh

at July 1, 2005 1:55 PM

You make a good point Metaxy regarding the use of language. How's this for a revision of Robert's post:

Before: "Certainly there are some Leftists who do want to do so -- and some Rightists whose anti-Semitism and opposition to imperialism has blinded them to the jihad threat.'

MZ's revision: "Certainly there are an overwhelming majority of Leftists who do want to do so -- and even some fringe Rightists whose anti-Semitism and opposition to imperialism has blinded them to the jihad threat."

Better?

-MZ

Posted by: Madzionist

at July 1, 2005 1:56 PM

pocadon,

Our divisions here among us who agree with the jihadwatch mission are minor divisions, compared to the massive rift between the Leftists and Sane Rational People.

Posted by: metaxy

at July 1, 2005 2:00 PM

Madzionist, yes I think the contrast between "overwhelming majority / fringe" is both more accurate and more rhetorically forceful.

Posted by: metaxy

at July 1, 2005 2:02 PM

The problem with containment, as I see it, is the population issue. If population growth continues unchecked in Islamic countries with their limited natural resources (other then oil), if western countries no longer supply food, materials, and expertise, the pressures of Islam and the need for resources will foster the very conditions for war and expansionism.

We will be looking at massive pressure cookers ready to explode, as resources tighten and the rulers of these countries look to save their own hides by painting westerners as the enemy.

I'm afraid that military intervention would be the ONLY answer under that scenario.

Posted by: treehugger

at July 1, 2005 2:31 PM

Unfortunately it would appear that there will be no choice by 2011 but for nukes to fly :( very sad
hopefully this can be avoided by containing, then eradicating islamic teaching.

Hugh has appeard always as neither "right" or left" Only "thoughtfull and clear-eyed about the current situation upon this planet . I.E.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/003022.php

(clarification) of the threat for the masses leading to concrete actions are the first step.

That is what JW/DW is.
T
his "first step" (taking years sofar) has not even been taken yet. we can hope that atleast the foot has left the ground.
The next election shall be interesting indeed.
A very large stick shall be needed regardless of whatever else happens .
very sad that somany cannot live with others.

petty bickering stemming from "right or left" leanings serve only to tie the laces.

Posted by: AvrageJoe

at July 1, 2005 2:48 PM

Maybe we should go back to the Wild West Days...was there a jihad problem then?

"A gat in every house and a cap every ass" Peter Griffin- Faminly Guy

When people disagree they should shoot it out and that will solve the problem...fighting always works....ask Mohammed :)

Posted by: pocadon

at July 1, 2005 3:03 PM

Apologies.....statement omitted was

" Look to Hugh's post (post #9) at this link
(note the date)".

Thankyou Robert and Associates. keep up the very Important and good works

Posted by: AvrageJoe

at July 1, 2005 3:05 PM

"We will be looking at massive pressure cookers ready to explode, as resources tighten and the rulers of these countries look to save their own hides by painting westerners as the enemy."
--- from a posting above

We will not be "painted as the enemy" -- in Muslim eyes, we are the enemy. We are the enemy if we submit, and pay the disguised jizyah of foreign aid, or not. We are the enemy if we yield to every Muslim demand and change our societies in ways little and big, which by insensible degrees will allow them to spread Da'wa, unchecked, and to breed within, and exploit the rights guaranteed by, a country that they do not wish well, either in its political and social arrangements, or in its refusal to allow the right-and-proper dominance of Islam. We are enemy already. We are Infidels -- how could it be otherwise? Are Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira to be ignored? Set aside? Rewritten? What?

What are Infidels supposed to do? If Arabs insist on having the highest birth-rate in the world -- and not by chance -- is it up to us to support their overbreeding? If the "Palestinian" Arabs, used as the shock troops of the Jihad to push back, and then cause to live in a state of permanent and intolerable insecurity, and then finally to eliminate altogether, by the pressure of Muslim population growth or through direct military means or both, the Infidel sliver of land known as Israel, are essentially economically unviable -- which might lead them to ultimately move away, or at the very least to have smaller families -- should the Americans, should the Europeans, should the Israelis themselves, be putting these people on the permanent dole, the permant transfer of wealth from Infidels to any Muslims who happen not to have oil wealth?

Cut them all off. Period. Let them all seek support from the rich Arabs. No more transfers of wealth, beyond the hideous sums already transferred (some $10 trillion since 1973) and unavoidably continuing to be transferred until a serious war-footing policy is put in place (and do you notice how hot and stuffy it's getting in here? do you think -- do you think there is still time to reverse course, or is it possible, just possible -- that it's TOO LATE?). And when those rich Arabs don't come through sufficiently, let the anger of the Cairene mobs, the maddened mobs of young males, self-brutalized, self-idiotized, in Gaza, turn their rage on those decadent Saudis, those soft Kuwaitis, and the rest of the lot. All to the good, from our point of view.

Posted by: Hugh

at July 1, 2005 3:18 PM

Hugh, I agree with the containment theory. I do NOT want a large population of Muslims in the US who want to change this into a Sharia state. I would rather die then live under such conditions. We are also not obligated to support overbreeding (and to that end, everyone at Jihadwatch should immediately get involved in US immigration issues) or ideology that is hostile to our survival.

However, I am pointing out that at some point the pressure inside the "contained" Muslim countries will begin to push outward, most likely in a highly violent manner. This appears to be part and parcel of Islamist ideology, and it will be exacerbated by the appalling living conditions that containment will probably create. And who better to blame (and pillage) then the rich and infidel west?

We need to be to prepared to support containment with significant military force, or we will be overrun.

Posted by: treehugger

at July 1, 2005 3:52 PM

Cut them all off. Period. Let them all seek support from the rich Arabs.

I could not agree more with you Hugh. We are acting like morons funding our own executions.

f.g.

Posted by: f.g.

at July 1, 2005 3:53 PM

I'm interested in this topic to the point that I keep a daily blog on it. I mentioned Evola a day or two back, making some promise to expand on his ideas later. I'm not well-versed in Nazi-occult fascism, so, if Andrei Rublev and others care to post whole essays on that or other related topics, please feel free to do so either by dropping a letter into the comments section at the blog or by writing to my e-mail address at dag.walker@gmail.com. I'll cut and paste from there.

I'm not particularly concerned that others aggree with me. One may post nearly anything there on topic or there abouts.

http://nodhimmitude.blogspot.com/

Posted by: sonofwalker

at July 1, 2005 4:07 PM

"Maybe we should go back to the Wild West Days...was there a jihad problem then?" -pocadon

As long as there's been islam there has been a jihad problem. The difference between then and now is then it took a steam ship 2 weeks to cross the ocean and no moslems lived in this country. Jihad is being taken to us and the rest of the world now, so we can choose to fight or choose to be slaves.

I say to the jihadis, "this town ain't big enough fer the both of us, pardner, so you can either surrender 'er start pushin' up daisies."

-MZ

Posted by: Madzionist

at July 1, 2005 4:07 PM

"We no longer have the luxury for such internecine quarrels. Let us defend now our very existence, and then we can sort things out among ourselves."

I agree completely, however we live in a society where for the past 30 or so years children (now people into their 40's) have been taught that our very existence was created by destroying others and that we should not celebrate, cherish or otherwise acknowledge our very existence.

Ask a child who Christopher Columbus is. They'll tell you he is someone who didn't really discovery America. Ask who the missionaries were in California. They are the people who killed the Indians. Who are the Spanish and what did they do to establish North America? They were evil white men who arrived on horseback and robbed the Mexicans of their culture and turned them from innocent idol worshipers to pawns of the Catholic Church. Nothing at all about the courage and strength of the European people that caused them them to explore the world and open places previously unknown. The age of discovery was born in the West.

How are we supposed to band together to defend something that has been portrayed as indefensible for so long?

All I know is moslems are killing innocent people around the world and the U.S. media wants us to think it is because of Israel and "the Jews". If only the Jews would leave them alone and give them back their land. blah blah blah.

This conflict is one that will not go away until the West literally obliterates the nations that harbor moslem terrorists. This is a cancer identical to Nazism. It is truly evil and should be done away with. For God's sake, they cut off people's heads and videotape it for all to see. Is there something I'm missing about how we are supposed to show deference to these animals?

Posted by: Occidentalist

at July 1, 2005 4:12 PM

And we all know how it is with people on the left" -- Oriana Fallaci, Pim Fortuyn, Theo van Gogh, Ibn Warraq, Ali Sina –- those appeasers of Islam. Not like Grover Norquist.

This has largely fallen on deaf ears. They refuse to hear what they don't want to hear.

Posted by: Loxias

at July 1, 2005 4:14 PM

For Heaven's sake, guys! Look at the top story on today's Dhimmi Watch! That genial, bland, neutral centrist newscaster of a major American news network, Brian Williams, glibly comparing Muslim terrorists to the revolutionaries of the American Revolution!

Can't you see the rampant pathology of our modern West? It deserves descriptive and judgemental language EXTREMELY stronger than that so far expressed by Jihadwatch.

Accentuating the positive, and refraining from "bickering" will simply not do in this diseased climate.

Yes, half of sociopolitical persuasion is in expressing what OUGHT to be done. But the other half is in recognizing the SCREAMINGLY PANDEMIC ENORMITY of the internal obstacles to what ought to be done.

Posted by: metaxy

at July 1, 2005 4:55 PM

Leaving Iraq might be good long-term jihadi containment strategy. However, the sectarian struggle and anarchy which will arise in the power-vacuum left by the United States will cause us to long for the days of $60.00/barrel oil. The average American is driving a vehicle (trucks, SUV's don't count in CAFE) which makes comparable mileage to the cars during the Gas Crisis of 1973. We're probably more vulnerable now than we were then.

So whether we like it or not, Master Exxon-Mobil is going to rule our Middle East policy for the forseeable future. Should we be this dependent upon oil? Of course not. I'd favor almost any reasonable steps to reduce our dependency. I'll put a windmill and solar panels on my roof if it will take a few dollars out of the pockets of the Saudi princes, and I can amortize some of the cost from taxes. I already drive as little as possible. Does that make me a "radical-Left environmentalist" or a cold, steely-eyed pragmatist?

Posted by: Beagle

at July 1, 2005 5:11 PM

I've been looking for an opening to vent my spleen over Grover Norquist.

Basic bio:
http://www.nndb.com/people/482/000049335

While he is the founder of the Americans for Tax Reform,
http://www.atr.org/

he is also the founder of the Islamic Institute
http://www.islamicinstitute.org/

Norquist's ATR is the outfit that has the no new taxes pledge site:
http://www.atr.org/pledge/national/incumbents.html

But Norquist also says this at
http://www.islamicinstitute.org/aboutus.htm

Muslims in America Sharing Our Dreams, Our Values

More than 5 million strong, Muslims represent one of the fastest growing segments of American society. They come from all walks of life: doctors, business leaders, grocers, teachers, etc. They are part of the American social fabric, yet they are the most misunderstood citizens of the United States.
The Muslim community is composed of diverse people and viewpoints. Despite media stereotypes and widely held misconceptions, Muslims share many of the same values and beliefs with Americans of other faiths.
"(The Islamic Free Market Institute's) efforts to educate Americans on the true traditions and beliefs of Islam will help the relationship between all Americans and the American Muslim community." Newt Gingrich, former Speaker
Americans may be surprised to know that many Muslims believe in school prayer, low taxes, ending abortion, fighting crime and drugs, while being family and community oriented.

Norquist has been alleged to be gay. He recently married, however -- to a terrorist-linked Muslim Palestinian woman who works at the Islamic Institute. Norquist denies that he's converted to Islam, and if that's true, Mrs. Norquist is therefore already under a death sentence. My own theory is that she is just his beard, and that he really has converted, and is simply denying this as a good Muslim in his position should, in order to advance the cause of Islam.

I've been toying with using his No New Taxes pledge list as nothing more than list of right-wing Dhimmis who've already sold out America to the Saudis.

(I can hear the howls of outrage already)

Posted by: Loxias

at July 1, 2005 5:23 PM

There is another thought here. It's in part of the title, "Don’t Mess With Mr. In-Between".

Bush has lost the majority of the important independent swing voter, and the vast majority of the female portion of this group.

With Justice O'Connor's announced retirement, the Washington Republicans are alternatively gloating and hiding in terror from what will happen when Roe v. Wade goes by the wayside. In 2006 and 2008, every last Republican will likely have to come down hard one way or the other on the question, and will face either a fiercely challenged primary, or a just as fiercely contested general election. The undoing of Roe v. Wade may just be the undoing of the present Republican coalition. This in addition to all the other things that influence an election.

Posted by: Loxias

at July 1, 2005 5:31 PM

Newt Gingrich, former Speaker Americans may be surprised to know that many Muslims believe in school prayer, low taxes, ending abortion, fighting crime and drugs, while being family and community oriented.

I, for one, am not the least bit surprised. This is why Buchanan, Thomas, Gingrich, Norquist, and other right-wingers are just as easy to divide-and-conquer as the Che Left. The short-term political advantages are manifest, while the long-term end of Western Civilization is hard to contemplate and likely to occur after our lifetimes. The damage done by pretending Islam is the fuzzy bunny of religions, can peacefully co-exist with other faiths, will tolerate constitutional secular governance over time, or accept a secular legal system, is incalculable.

Muslims will seem to get along until their numbers are sufficient to break out "pure" Islam.

Posted by: Beagle

at July 1, 2005 5:34 PM

This is why Buchanan, Thomas, Gingrich, Norquist, and other right-wingers are just as easy to divide-and-conquer as the Che Left"

In case you don't follow politics very closely, Gingrich and Buchanan are about as close politically as Abe Lincoln and Jefferson Davis.

-MZ

Posted by: Madzionist

at July 1, 2005 5:51 PM

I notice the conversation has returned to the problem of dealing with Saudi Arabia. Coincidentally, just yesterday I wrote that we should abruptly change our policy towards Saudi Arabia:
http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/2005/06/saudi-problem.html

I’m not as bold as Hugh in suggesting a total policy and war plan but this is a clear step worth taking. It may not stop Saudi Arabia from selling elsewhere, as some here have mentioned. However, we should no longer be complicit in any direct dealing with the center of Islamic evil.

Changing our stance is part of changing our thinking with regard to the Islamist threat.

Posted by: JasonP

at July 1, 2005 6:12 PM

"This is why Buchanan, Thomas, Gingrich, Norquist, and other right-wingers are just as easy to divide-and-conquer as the Che Left."

Get real! The fact remains that following 9/11, most conservatives understood the danger of this alliance. The statistics bear it out:

In the 2000 election, over 70% of Muslims voted for Bush. In the 2004 election, over 70% voted AGAINST Bush (This data was supplied by CAIR, and they obviously have no motive for lying about this).

In the final analysis, when it comes to greed, people from both sides of the political spectrum sell out to the Saudis in equal measure. The main problem with much of the modern left is that they support Islamists for IDEOLOGICAL REASONS. This explains the huge disparity between dhimmi Democrats versus dhimmi Republicans. Anyone looking at the description of Paul Sperry's book "Infiltration" should have notice that nearly all of the Saudi-supporting Republicans are NO LONGER IN OFFICE!

Gover Norquist is a disturbing exception, but note that he was repeatedly criticized for this by his fellow conservatives (in frontpagemag.com and the Washington Times). Have any Democrats bothered to denounce Dennis Kucinnich or John Conyers for their ongoing alliances with CAIR?

"The undoing of Roe v. Wade may just be the undoing of the present Republican coalition."

People who will not vote for Bush simply because of his conservative stance on abortion need lessons on perspective: Under Sharia law, women who get pregnant out of wedlock are stoned to death.

Posted by: Andrei Rublev

at July 1, 2005 6:21 PM

In case you don't follow politics very closely, Gingrich and Buchanan are about as close politically as Abe Lincoln and Jefferson Davis.
-MZ
Posted by: Madzioni

Horse feathers, they are seperated by one issue and one issue only Israel... otherwise they are Siamese Twins.

And BTW Mr Zionist, it is way past time that Zionists stop sucking off the teat of the American Milk Cow and started carrying their own water.

The taxpayer has to subsidize the Father of Jihadi'a, Egypt just to bribe them to keep peace with Israel.

A major criticism of left and right is that the invasion of Iraq was because of Israel, Sharon's statements, PNAC, JINSA and the Israel Institute for Strategic Studies document Clean Break, doesn't help, neither does your nihilist rants.

I vainly try to tell the "It was because of Israel and Jews" crowd, that there were other, more important beneficiaries, such as the Saudis, Iranians, Kuwaits and Gulf States, each of whom contributed to the invasion, each of whom have benefited from the invasion.. but my common sense plea and facts are wasted with Zionist rants such as yours and Rubelev's being thrown back in my face.

And Rubelev you were "left" only to the extent that othe Trotskyites like Wolfowitz, Perle, Kristol, Podhoretz and Decter were once "left".

Found a better horse to ride that's all.

nd most of those on the Right who are remiss -- in the sense of the irrational hope Bush and Rice place in the capacity for the majority of Muslims to yearn and fight for Western values -- are remiss not out of ideological conviction, but out of being forced to kowtow to the PC Leftist dominance around them plus having been themselves enculturated in the PC dominance (showing how amazingly pervasive it is, that even a Bush or a Rice would have become blandly and effortlessly indoctrinated, by cultural osmosis, in sentiments about how wonderfully peaceful Islam is). Posted by Metaxy

Pure unadultered pablum, the stuff that comes out of the rear end of a bull. Are you trying to sell me that the neo cons are swayed by PC?

There's another level of this game running, just like in computer games, your still running on the lst level. The "left" is dominant around the govenment, or the US only in the lies of the propagandists like idiot on the stick with an adams apple coulter.

Stop trying to claim moral high ground by the charade of persecution.

Maya Angelou wrote in her autobiography: "Oh, the holiness of always being the injured party. The historically oppressed can find not only sanctity but safety in the state of victimization." Once you have acquired this status, you can do no wrong, or the wrong that you do can always be excused because you are, after all, one of the oppressed.

My stomach heaves. Christian, Muslim, Jew, Right and Left out vying each other for persecution rights.

Posted by: Giaour

at July 1, 2005 6:28 PM

As we celebrate this great country this weekend, let's just realize that each and every 4th of July Parade will be populated by people on the Left and Right, Conservatives and Liberals, Republicans and Democrats.

For America to defeat Islam, we need all Americans to join the struggle.

However, in 2005, the evidence points to the Left as being the one's either blind or ignorant or dead wrong about the danger Islam poses to America.

I'd like to believe that many Leftist will eventually come to this realization...but, who knows.

But aren't there savvy ways to try to "convert" the Left into anti-jihadists?

And how about ways to bring about mass apostacy of American Muslims. Sounds like a "left" idea, doesn't it?

I wonder if it's too early in the CLASH to have people passing out JIHADWATCH flyers at 4th of July parades. How bout some floats?

Enjoy your beer and bbq ribs this weekend. Relish them. If we let Islam has its way with us, we may no longer have beer or ribs to enjoy.

Posted by: nuh

at July 1, 2005 6:31 PM

"Changing our stance is part of changing our thinking with regard to the Islamist threat."

Since "boycotting" Saudi oil is impossible, we have two bad options for eliminating Saudi funding for terrorism:

1) Occupation of the Saudi oil fields

pro: This oil supply will not be disrupted.

con: Other than the fact that this will result in many casualties, terrorists will make this job impossible.

2) Airstrikes against the Saudi oil fields

pro: This eliminates funding for terrorism with minimal risk to our soldiers.

con: Unless we can get oil from somewhere else to make up the difference, this will cause a profound worldwide recession.

The second option is a big challenge, but I cannot think of any circumstances under which option one is remotely possible.

Posted by: Andrei Rublev

at July 1, 2005 6:41 PM

Beagle,

"I'll put a windmill and solar panels on my roof if it will take a few dollars out of the pockets of the Saudi princes... I already drive as little as possible. Does that make me a "radical-Left environmentalist" or a cold, steely-eyed pragmatist?"

It depends on WHY you do these things. If you do them because you believe in fighting Islam, you are not a Leftist. If you do them because you hate the West and love the Tree Spirits and Allah, you are a Leftist.

Posted by: metaxy

at July 1, 2005 6:48 PM

nu": However, in 2005, the evidence points to the Left as being the one's either blind or ignorant or dead wrong about the danger Islam poses to America.

Look to your own house first, and purge it of your dhimmitudinous NorQuis'lings.

Giaour: Are you trying to sell me that the neo cons are swayed by PC?

Since you bring it up, yes. They are just as p.c. as everyone else, but in their own way.

Posted by: Loxias

at July 1, 2005 6:49 PM

KJ: (Laughs out loud)

I was busy trying to think up a way to understand the "plight" of the "poor, pitiful Muslim that turns to terror out of social desaparation" (haha... I can't even pretend to say that without laughing) and get the Jihadis into therapy (or at least that's what President Rove (R-Saudi) says I was doing) when I stopped by to read the headlines.

Lamenting the increasingly-right wing tone of one of my favorite websites, I recently quoted poor, old Job: "How long, oh Lord, how long?" and (poof!) the right-wing monkeypile disappears. Maybe there is a God.

Are we at long last willing to accept these simple facts:

1) Leftwingers do not automatically love Islam, bash Israel, and hate America.

2) Rightwingers do not automatically hate Islam, support Israel, and love America.

As specially regarding apologizing for Islam, most "pundits" can be easily bought. And as with all "leaders," their followers can be easily manipulated.

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

Hugh, with all due respect (and you are due a lot of it) I think that a lot of your jokes are lost on this crowd.

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

(The following isn't directed at the staff of JW/DW, who are devoted to presenting the facts about Islam/Jihad/Dhimmitude at face value, and without petty partisan bickering. It is for the GOP-ersonality-culters. Hey!--that sounded like "Coultures!")

I can EASILY make my case that liberals are good at fighting jihadi terror. (Kiiind-off) using the "Socratic Method" of dialog, I prefer to let the other party make the important statements. So those of you out there who really think that Hot Karl Rove told the truth about liberals the other day, please answer:

ONE: Who sent more jihadi terrorists to prison, Janet Reno or John Ashcroft?

TWO: Were more Americans killed by jihadis under Reagan or Clinton?

THREE: Were more American Troops killed by Jihadis under Reagan or Clinton?

FOUR: Why wasn't America attacked by jihadi terrorists during the Y2K celebrations?

FIVE: The US presence in Saudi Arabia after the "Gulf" War inspired which terrorist to attack us? (Hint: he's from Saudi Arabia.)

SIX: True or False: Every soldier, tank, drone, and interrogator sent to Iraq COULD have been sent to Afghanistan to help get Bin Laden and killed Talibanis/Al-qaeda.

SEVEN: True or False: Some of the WTC '91 perps were sent to prison in America, some were beheaded in Saudi, and some were imprisoned in Yemen.

EIGHT: Hezbollah, with the help of Syria/Iran, killed 241 US Marines in Beirut on WHICH president's watch: Reagan or Clinton.

NINE: After the Beirut massacre, said president

a) Destroyed Hezbollah.
b) Turned tail and ran, promptly invading the insignificant Carribean island of Grenada.
c) Later SOLD Hezbollah/Syria/Iran Stinger Missiles to fund an illegal war in Central America.

(more than one answer may be correct)

TEN: Which American president was publically berated by the leaders of Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan for "having an affair"?

(bonus: which politcal party harped on and on about America "losing international respect" because of the above criticisms?)

ELEVEN: Which American president sent 700,000 US troops to save the sorry, fascist, jihad-sponsoring royal families of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia?

TWELVE: How many American troops have DIED from "Gulf War Syndrome":

a) none
b) less than 1,000
c) between 1,000 and 10,000
d) over 10,000

THIRTEEN: With three months left in office, after the bombing of the USS Cole, Clinton should have:

a) advised the incoming Bush administration to concentrate on Islamic terrorism
b) bombed Yemen
c) invaded Iraq

...

Just answer please, then get back with me about "lib'ruls bein' soft on terra-ists."

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

For the record:

I don't think Bush invaded Iraq to "steal oil", "expand our Empire", or to "help Israel." I think he invaded because his brain (Hot Karl Rove) told him that being a war president would make him more re-electable.

For the record:

I don't hate Bush because "he's a Christian," "becuase he's a conservative," or because he's a republican. For one thing, he's NOT a Christian, and he is NOT a conservative. I wish he was a good conservative, at least that way we wouldn't be making 3 Soldiers/Marines a day waste their lives for nothing.

For the record:

I hold many viewpoints that most people consider mark me as a liberal. And I don't hate Israel. I love my country, and loved it enough to join the Marines at 17, within one month of Reagan's Beirut massacre of '83. I served four years and received an honorable discharge.

For the record:

I hate Islam. I hate what it does to women, homosexuals, minorities, leftists, secularists, Hindus, Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Animists, Persians, Sikhs, feminists, intellectuals, and scientists. I hate Islam BECAUSE I'm a liberal. In my opinion, there's no good reason for a liberal to love Islam.

For the record:

I have had several atheist/secular/moderate Muslim friends. I know that some Muslims would "never" do the things that Islam has always done (and still does.) That's why I differentiate between the GROUP (Islam) and the INDIVIDUAL (Muslims.) Some adherents of all persuasions are decent people (e.g. the Nazi, Otto Schindler; the Afrikaner, F.W.DeClerk; the Commie, Mikhail Gorbachev; and the Muslim that saved PFC Jessica Lynch.)

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

Eventually, maybe we can get more left-wingers to understand the simple, basic facts about Islam, it's expansionist, fascist history, dhimmitude, Sharia, and the crazy pedophile that started it.

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

I forgot who said it, but Grover Norquist probably is a closet homosexual, and probably a closet Muslim. You've got to admit, that it one creepy guy.

For all my good conservative friedns, and all my good liberal friends, have a good weekend, everyone.

LLLL

In-denial, "Liberal Hunting Permit" GOPers and sh*teating, pigf**king Jihadi Muslims are asked to please direct hate mail and (respectively, one hopes) death threats to:

rollinsfan021361@yahoo.com

(Left-wingers that want to debate the "evils" of Israel and/or the "beauty" of Islam are invited to get the redass too.)

Posted by: kj

at July 1, 2005 6:57 PM

Giaour,

"Are you trying to sell me that the neo cons are swayed by PC?"

PC is the dominant atmosphere: the fact that Rumsfeld cannot publically state that Abu Ghraib was just fine and nothing to apologize for; the fact that Bush calls Islam the "religion of peace"; the fact that our US military compels our soldiers to read Karen Armstrong to learn about Islam -- shows that the cons are severely restricted in acting. It also shows, as I said, that the PC gas has poisoned our public conscious by osmosis, even affecting the good sense of many cons.

It would be impossible in today's PC climate for an FDR to arrest Japanese-Americans given the same circumstances in which he in fact did this. It will likely be impossible for Bush and future Presidents to do what needs to be done with the Jihadist enemy, as we did grandly and with massive public and political support back in the 40s.

"My stomach heaves. Christian, Muslim, Jew, Right and Left out vying each other for persecution rights."

It's not a matter of claiming "persecution". It's simply a matter of pointing out the massive obstructions to engaging rational & pragmatic action against a culturally protected Enemy.

Posted by: metaxy

at July 1, 2005 6:59 PM

Aaaah... while I was writing this, Blood Puddin' posted his blather.

See what I told you, Hugh?

Pig Blood, how about a label or two for you?

Idealogically-a-Muslim
Nazi
Bible Thumper
Grace Junkie
Closet Queer
Practically-a-Muslim
Shi'ite Baptist
God Botherer
Veteran Hater
America Hater
Almost-a-Muslim

How does it feel to meet a liberal that has a backbone?

...now go crawl back into Strom Thurmond's colon and finish your dinner, shoat.

Posted by: kj

at July 1, 2005 7:03 PM

Pig's Blood:

You are exactly right: what is wrong with our war in Iraq is that we are pulling our punches and trying to fight a "nice" PC war.

If we could fight as we did in WWII, we would have mopped Iraq's floor several months ago, and Afghanistan's floor, and put both countries under martial law, and would be now IMPOSING democracy upon them until they learned to grow up, sit up straight, shut up, abide by OUR rules, and join the 21st fucking* century. Cf.: McArthur.

* (Pardon my American.)

Posted by: metaxy

at July 1, 2005 7:08 PM

Pig and the rest of his litter will use this forum and any other opprotunity to promote the hatred of liberals. We've "always" "hated America", remember?

We were "soft on the Nazis" because we lamented when Dresden was laid waste, and "soft on the Japs" when we begged the gov't to hit deserted areas of Japan with the nukes.

We were "soft on Communism" because we wanted to bring our troops home from the meatgrinding soulcrushing jungles of Vietnam and thought it was a bad idea to fund ANYONE (even Islamic terrorists) if they would just promise to keep the commies at bay.

Now we are "soft on terrorism" because we wanted more troops sent to Afghanistan (you know, to kill the guys that actually DID attack us on 911?) instead of Iraq.

Whatever you say, Blood Pud. The farther we lurch to the right, the harder we'll come back to the left. The more rope you guys get, the quicker you'll hang yourselves.

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

...and of course, liberal-hater extraordinaire, Metaxy has to chime in withe her two cents worth.

You are exactly right: what is wrong with our war in Iraq is that we are pulling our punches and trying to fight a "nice" PC war.

Metax, WHO is fighting the "nice PC" war? The liberals running the Pentagon, the liberals running the Senate, the liberals running the House, or the liberals running the Whitehouse?

BTW I agree with you that Afghanistan needed to be "fixed"... too bad the "liberals in charge of the Whitehouse" had different ideas. 'Cause you know, Saddam was JUST ABOUT to nuke us....lol.

Posted by: kj

at July 1, 2005 7:13 PM

...and remember the O'Reilly talking points: WHEN we get attacked in America again, be sure to blame "the liberals" for letting all those illegal aliens in from Mexico. After all, "we" are the ones in charge of the government, right? President Kerry, Senate Majority Leader Hilary, and House Majority Leader Kucinich are the ones letting those illegals come in.

It must be fun to live in Bizarro GOP-world.

Posted by: kj

at July 1, 2005 7:15 PM

One of the things we did with Japan after we compelled them to surrender by bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki: we ordered the Japanese Emperor to go on public radio and tell all his Japanese people that he is in fact not divine (as was the dominant Japanese theopolitical understanding).

60 years later, we go through national spasms of self-recrimination and apology and hang our heads in shame under international censure when we accidentally (and perhaps a couple of times on reasonable purpose) mistreat a few Korans.

In 60 years, the Leftist PC disease has deepened and spread to ridiculous and dangerous proportions.

Posted by: metaxy

at July 1, 2005 7:21 PM

I distinguish between classical Liberals and Leftists.

Classical Liberals believe in and have fought for many good values over the decades, such as freedom of speech, freedom of expression, women's rights, respect for minorities, relaxing sexual puritanism, championing the dignity of doubt & skepticism, criticizing purveyors of Absolute Truth (whether of the religious variety or otherwise), economic reforms to ameliorate the suffering of the poor, etc.

Leftists are Liberals, but they have been infected with the multi-culturalist disease that now finds expression in the irrational ability to condemn Islam -- even when they have the evidence that Islam is hostile to the liberal ideals they support!

The disease of Leftist Liberalism (unlike classical Liberalism) also finds expression in EXCESSIVE criticism of American and the West in general. Self-criticism is a good and healthy thing. EXCESSIVE self-criticism is bad, morbid and self-destructive.

In our current climate, Leftist Liberals outnumber rational classical Liberals by 100 to 1.

Posted by: metaxy

at July 1, 2005 7:33 PM

In case you don't follow politics very closely, Gingrich and Buchanan are about as close politically as Abe Lincoln and Jefferson Davis.

The quote from Gingrich, which I quoted, is remarkably similar to quotes I've read from Pat Buchanan, Grover Norquist, and Cal Thomas which seek to turn Islam into just another old-time religion and a potential political ally (in the short-term, of course). I have a feeling they will split on the issue of Islam becoming the state religon, the ultimate goal of every "pure" Muslim. Posted by: Beagle

at July 1, 2005 7:41 PM

Andrei, I understand the practical limitations with regard to Saudi Arabia but you are missing my point. You are focusing on the whole problem. One step at a time! I’m suggesting that we halt our support for the jihadist state in Arabia. That doesn’t end their ability to function but it is the first step to regain our moral balance.

We need to face the nature of the Islamic threat. Even if our fellow citizens can only see a limited enemy – labeled fundamentalist Islam, militant Islam, etc. – it clearly includes Saudi Arabia. If we are to take seriously our ideas and judgments we cannot continue business as usual. We need moral leadership. This is a prerequisite for a sustained policy regardless of the details. This is the main point of my post: http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/
Was it unclear?

Posted by: JasonP

at July 1, 2005 8:08 PM

Pig's Blood Pudding, you have forgotten who's been in charge of the government for the last 6 years.

Gee, all those hopelessly liberal leftists such as Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft et al.

Posted by: Loxias

at July 1, 2005 8:42 PM

Loxias,

Even though Bush & Co. has been in power for 6 years, he and his staff are almost powerless with regard to the dictates of PC multi-culturalism and how this frames our approach to handling the problem of Islam.

Case in point: Bush's recent speech was mostly about our war on terror. He never mentioned that the enemy is Muslim, nor that Islam might even be a source for their "hateful ideology".

A Republican Administration now may have power with regard to certain limited conservative issues, but with regard to our fight against Jihadism, they are effectively neutered by the prevailing osmosis of PC multi-culturalism, which has conquered all major levels of sociopolitical life in the West. Behind the scenes and out of the spotlight, it seems Bush & Co. are doing a few good things, such as the rounding up of Muslims and the detention at Gitmo, as well as fighting for the Patriot Act. But on major overt levels, it is clear that either Bush & Co. are blatantly lying in order to appease the PC Monster, or have breathed too much of its gas by osmosis over the years.

Posted by: metaxy

at July 1, 2005 9:26 PM

"We need moral leadership. This is a prerequisite for a sustained policy regardless of the details. ...Was it unclear?"

Actually, your post is perfectly clear and lucid. At this point, there is no need to scare people off with controversial suggestions like mine (I was thinking in the long-term).

Consequently, I look forward to a new (Republican) administration that is less beholden to the Saudis (and I always admired the way Rudy Guiliani told Saudi prince what's his face to take his money and stick it).

Congress has usually been less sympathetic to the Saudis(something seems to go very wrong when people get too close to the state department). I should hope the American public looks to someone in congress that is feed up with both Saudi duplicity and leftist moral bankruptcy.

Might our relationship with Saudi Arabia be a winning campaign issue?

Posted by: Andrei Rublev

at July 1, 2005 10:18 PM

Correction!

Might the status of our relationship with Saudi Arabia be a winning campaign issue?

Posted by: Andrei Rublev

at July 1, 2005 10:23 PM

Hey KJ,

If you want to do something constructive, stop whinning about conservatives hating liberals and go to a leftist forum to win them over to the cause against Islamofascism. I don't care how many Republican straw men you have to destroy to convince them that Islam is the problem. In the meantime, if you want to come to JW to bark up the wrong tree, you will have to explain to us why:

* Over 70% of Muslims voted AGAINST George Bush in 2004.

* Nearly all criticism of DOMESTIC security measures that have captured many terrorist enablers in America has come from the left. This has NOTHING to do with the war.

* Every single non-Muslim organization that supports the Islam Project leans to the left. Here is the evidence:

http://www.6thcolumnagainstjihad.com/Rublev_P4.htm

And here is my expose on the Islam Project:

http://www.6thcolumnagainstjihad.com/Rublev_P3.htm

After this article was posted on LGF, it was picked up by numerous conservative websites. Not a single leftist website picked it up (even though many leftists read LGF). In fact, I saw it ridiculed by leftist trolls on a conservative website. Furthermore, a leftist friend of mine to whom I forwarded the article then proceeded to give me a big lecture on how most Muslims want to live a normal life blah blah...even thought there is NOTHING in my article criticizing Muslims in general. It is about an organization that teaches kids that Sharia law is OK. She couldn't even see that in my carefully written article. Pathetic!

Posted by: Andrei Rublev

at July 1, 2005 10:41 PM

"The taxpayer has to subsidize the Father of Jihadi'a, Egypt just to bribe them to keep peace with Israel."
-- from a posting above

This is nonsense on stilts. The taxpayers are being asked to send $2 billion to Egypt for no good reason. Egypt does not need to be bribed to keep the peace; the Camp David Accords were brokered by Carter and Brzezinski, who not only gave up the chance to acquire permanent bases in the Sinai for the American military (the idea simply never crossed their mind), but dictated that Diktat to a hapless Begin, that fully complied with the most outrageous demands of Anwar "Prince of Peace" Sadat -- a situation in which the repeated victor in wartime was forced to sue, on the loser's terms, for a peace treaty.

The idiotic idea of supplying Egypt with money began then, with the nasty Carter and the comically limited Brzezinski (limited especially in that area -- geopolitics -- that he always liked to invoke by means of dropping into every third sentence the word "strategic" the way some people like to stick the adjective "in-depth" before the word "study" and feel well pleased with themselves). It was not at Israel's request, but despite Israel -- which I doubt has ever been pleased with the $2 billion supplied to Egypt, but is in no position to protest lest its own aid from the United States -- which is justified on both strategic and moral grounds -- be cut if Egypt's is.

There never should have been aid extended to Egypt. Even if -- which I do not for one moment believe -- it was initiated to persuade Egypt to fulfill the terms of its agreement with Israel, one has to ask why was it deemed necessary to bribe Egypt to fulfil the solemn commitments which it had undertaken, and for which Israel had scrupulously fulfilled all of its undertakings, which involved the tangible -- i.e., handing over the entire Sinai, with three new airfileds, oilfields discovered by the Israelis, anhd $16 billion (1978 dollars) in infrastructure. The Camp David Accords were of course a complete folly, a complete loss for Israel.

The "peace" maintained with Egypt is not a result of those sily Accords, but is kept by Egypt for the same reason that Syria keeps a peace, withoout a treaty, with Israel -- fear of the consequences of open warfare. That's it. That's the only reason.

Blaming Israel for the aid given to Egypt is absurd, and not the only absurd thing in the same posting.

Posted by: Hugh

at July 1, 2005 11:21 PM

One Last Post, and those of you, especially those in England now abed, who remember the scene in Dennis Potter's "The Singing Detective" where the evangelical brigade comes in to spread cheer amid the hospital gloom, should recall that celebrated scene -- or re-view your video of that hospital-cornered masterpiece.

Here are the words you have all been waiting for, the ones that you have been humming, but not quite remembering in their entirety, all day long, ever since you came to JihadWatch and saw that allusive title above:

You've got to accentuate the positive
Eliminate the negative
Latch on to the affirmative
Don't mess with Mister In-Between

You've got to spread joy up to the maximum
Bring gloom down to the minimum
Have faith or pandemonium
Liable to walk upon the scene

(To illustrate his last remark
Jonah in the whale, Noah in the ark
What did they do
Just when everything looked so dark)

Man, they said we better
Accentuate the positive
Eliminate the negative
Latch on to the affirmative
Don't mess with Mister In-Between
No, do not mess with Mister In-Between
Do you hear me, hmm?

(Oh, listen to me children and-a you will hear
About the elininatin' of the negative
And the accent on the positive)
And gather 'round me children if you're willin'
And sit tight while I start reviewin'
The attitude of doin' right

(You've gotta accentuate the positive
Eliminate the negative
Latch on to the affirmative
Don't mess with Mister In-Between)

You've got to spread joy (up to the maximum)
Bring gloom (down) down to the minimum
Otherwise (otherwise) pandemonium
Liable to walk upon the scene

To illustrate (well illustrate) my last remark (you got the floor)
Jonah in the whale, Noah in the ark
What did they say (what did they say)
Say when everything looked so dark

Man, they said we better
Accentuate the positive
Eliminate the negative
Latch on to the affirmative
Don't mess with Mister In-Between
No! Don't mess with Mister In-Between

Posted by: Hugh

at July 1, 2005 11:37 PM

Bravo! Well said. I believe it should be required reading - for every US politician

Posted by: Beth

at July 1, 2005 11:59 PM

Andrei,

I had missed your post up above addressed to me.

"In other words, there is a very fine between the far left and neo-Nazi movement..."

Have you read Alexandre del Valle? Here's a particularly good article of his, in which he explores a little this nexus you note:

http://occidentalis.com/article.php?sid=1692

Posted by: metaxy

at July 2, 2005 12:36 AM

metaxy: Even though Bush & Co. has been in power for 6 years, he and his staff are almost powerless with regard to the dictates of PC multi-culturalism and how this frames our approach to handling the problem of Islam.

Really, now. Yes, the President proposes and Congress disposes, but what party controls Congress?

Just after 9/11, the President had a genuinely united country behind him. Congress would have pretty much given him anything he wanted: a re-instatement of the draft, a huge war tax increase, even a suspension of the writ of habeus corpus for aliens and enemy combatants (this is something the Patriot act never had, but which Bush could have had).

Instead he dithered, and went into Lyndon Johnson guns-and-butter budgeting. He went to Iraq with insufficient force and with no clear idea of what happened after victory: akin to Napoleon in Russia, he now is risking losing the Army. Like his father's First Gulf War, Dubya's Second Gulf War has snatched stalemate from the jaws of triumph.

If we had greatly increased the Army, we would today have about a million American fighters in the Middle East, neatly rotating back home after a mercifully short tour, without abusing the reserve and National Guard. We would have taken down Syria two winters ago, and would be digesting Iran right now, and deciding what we do with Pakistan later on this year.

And we would have taken control of all the oil, and if we had caught him alive, Osama would be on trial in the Foley Square US Courthouse, with Mayor Rudy back in his old seat as US Attorney for the Southern District of NY.

Bush could have done all of this, but did not. Like his father, he's a wimp, and everyone around him is a wimp.

Oh, yes, I supported the Iraq war. I've be yelling for American occupation of the Middle East for decades, just as soon as Russia can be gotten out of the way.

You right-wingers are such whiners. You've got the Presidency and both houses of Congress and look at what you have got: a bunch of dhimmis all signed up on Grover Norquist's No New Tax list.

Posted by: Loxias

at July 2, 2005 12:45 AM

Andrei,

PS -- and apropos of the theme of this thread: the problem of a proper response to the menace of Islam really is not precisely a question of Left or Right: but there still is a division:

1) modern Gnostics (they come in all flavors -- ultra-Right neo-Nazis & Fascists; Leftist West-bashers; Islamic Puritans -- all of whom can't bear the tension of perfection & imperfection and want to transfigure reality into a perfect realm, whether a Fourth Reich, or a Communist Utopia, or a Global Caliphate finally ready to receive Allah's Last Judgement and Eternal Paradise)

2) the rest of humanity who have accepted the tension of existence between purity & impurity, between perfection & imperfection, between truth & doubt, between meaning & mystery, between grace & law, between endless history and an end in eternity, etc.

...in other words, we #2 folks are the Mr. and Ms. In Betweens!

(nota bene: "metaxy" is Greek for "between")

However, as long as there are virulently offensive and massively plotting representatives of #1 afoot, we can't afford to be fence-sitters in between: They perpetually regard us as the Dar-al-Harb? Well, as Dubya says, Bring 'em on!

Posted by: metaxy

at July 2, 2005 12:53 AM

metaxy: 1) modern Gnostics (they come in all flavors -- ultra-Right neo-Nazis & Fascists; Leftist West-bashers; Islamic Puritans -- all of whom can't bear the tension of perfection & imperfection and want to transfigure reality into a perfect realm, whether a Fourth Reich, or a Communist Utopia, or a Global Caliphate finally ready to receive Allah's Last Judgement and Eternal Paradise)

We might debate what you mean by Gnostic, but I otherwise mostly agree with your post.

Our American democracy is messy, with free-speech and all. The same is true for the West as a whole. Toleration is our greatest strength and our greatest weakness.

Consider how much different we would be today if John McCain were President (and I would have voted for him in 2000).

Posted by: Loxias

at July 2, 2005 1:11 AM

Interesting that an appeal for transcending petty differences and a call for left flank and right flank unity for the greater good immediately descends to name-calling and hair-splitting.

I find little worthwhile in either camp because their irresistible urge to be on top, or to be thought right, is so intoxicatingly meaningless and tactically irrelevant (-when battling a global imperialistic anti-freedom movement like Jihadist Islam)- that the entire impulse to 'debate' merely ends up siphoning off the energies needed to outwit the extremist Muslim menace.

Let's just admit every recent president failed, or we wouldn't be in the position we are.

The one in power now is at least fighting. It may not be done perfectly, but it is not surrender.

I oppose those who sh*t in their own nest, wrestle in their own foxholes, slander their own forefathers and mothers (always imperfect), and step on the faces (instead of standing on the shoulders) of those who gave them the freedom to slander them, (if they wish to be so infantile) and I oppose the accentuation of the nihilistic, negative and anhedonic in history.

Camille Paglia's vision of the West's worth is useful.

Ward Churchill's take on it is like a sadist handing out straight-razors to depressed children.

The intent is what matters.

Left. Who cares? Right. Who knows?

But being decent. Caring. Liberty-loving. That matters.

Developing the spirit and intelligence and fighting for freedom of thought and belief. And being concerned about the future so that it remains open to new insights. And compassionate enough to band together for the common good. Not merely to use the undeniable poisons of past mistakes (that all cultures and peoples have made, being flawed human beings) to pollute the wellsprings of being for short-term jollies.

Politics is where the ability to lie is no liability.

I have no illusions about that all-too-often power-pimping class. But the best of them - like Winston Churchill and FDR- can sometimes help rouse the wavering will of the people at the right moment.

We need to drive the venal swine out of office and try to encourage some with balls and brains to man -and woman- the helm.

Combating the totalitarian threat is more important than quibbling about how exactly to oppose it.

Turn the raw vitality against the enemy.

And let those too delusional to recognize the danger dither in their laughable limbos.

Once the challenge to Civilization is met, and defeated, then all of the small contests -about who failed more than whom -can happily reassert themselves.

And we can argue whose sacred cow has a higher butterfat content.

Meanwhile, the enemies of the West are serious, studious and sadistic.

We should encourage their in-fighting and eschew our own.

If nothing's left, it don't matter who's right.

Posted by: BigSleep

at July 2, 2005 2:01 AM

I believe in Christian love towards all (Caritas), charity.

A greatly changed Christianity will impose itself on the world.

Posted by: Loxias

at July 2, 2005 2:25 AM

I believe in Christian love towards all (Caritas), charity.

A greatly changed Christianity will impose itself on the world.

Posted by: Loxias

at July 2, 2005 2:25 AM

I believe in Christian love towards all (Caritas), charity.

A greatly changed Christianity will impose itself on the world.

Posted by: Loxias

at July 2, 2005 2:25 AM

Hey Libs, go hillary yourselves.

Yes, we shall. St. Hillary (blesséd is her name) will take us to the promised land, or rather, all sorts of good laws that make Americans rich.

Republicans oppose this. They rejoice in poverty and then conspire to get rich.

Posted by: Loxias

at July 2, 2005 2:33 AM

robert,

for the record, my complaint (which hugh quotes) wasn't that he criticized bush's policy, but that he did so UNFAIRLY and UNPROFESSIONALLY.

in case you've forgotten, here's how hugh ended his post on the FRONT PAGE of JW regarding bush's recent address to the u.s.:

"This is something the smug speaker gave no signs of comprehending." -- hugh fitzgerald

this follows a multi-part article in which he refers to current u.s. policy as "stupid" and a "farce". how professional.

so let me remind everyone here of the ACTUAL issue i raised:

how can anyone safely recommend this site to someone influential if right on the front page one of the supposed EXPERTS is unprofessional, unfair, discourteous, and disrespectful to those they disagree with?

saying that JW is nonpartisan is one thing, but keeping it so is apparently quite another. are you prepared to do that, at least on its front pages?

Posted by: fishboy

at July 2, 2005 3:59 AM

All right, already! Get with the program. You are giving comfort to our enemies by this squabbling. Left or Right, conservative or liberal. These terms are irrelevant. We have a common enemy that doesn't give a tinker's damn about these distinctions. Certainly they won't ask for your Leftist or Conservative affiliation before dispatching you to the next world.

Posted by: epg

at July 2, 2005 5:36 AM

Hugh - thanks for reminding us of the words of the song.

In the UK the distinction between right and left is becoming more and more meaningless, especially when it comes to Islam. On a leftish UK blog, Harry's Place, a handful of posters who 'get it' about Islam find ourselves branded as 'right wing', when we are in fact arguing in favour of women's rights, gay rights and so forth. Our opponents are supposed to be 'left wing', yet they give this reactionary ideology a pass.

Recently the debate polarised such that in the anti-Islam camp (no pun intended) were two gay men, a Hindu guy and me (female) and in the pro-Islam camp were two straight, white guys.

The blogosphere may not be representative of society as a whole, but the contradictions show up quite keenly at times.

Is George Galloway right wing or left wing? Who cares. He's a wanker (and a 'poppinjay', or was that the other chap?)

Posted by: Interested

at July 2, 2005 9:05 AM

The problem with Hugh's article lies in his very first sentence:

"I have maintained from the beginning that the resistance to jihad is not a partisan issue, or a liberal/conservative issue, but one that should interest and involves all those who live in the West..."

The first clause depends upon a factual statement -- "is not a partisan issue"; the second clause depends upon a modal verb expressing not facts but obligation -- "one that should interest...all"

My point all along is that Hugh's article is all about SHOULDS, ignoring or minimizing the mountainous IS that obstructs the positive no matter how much accentuation is crooned about it.

Sometimes, Hugh and his supporters seem to think that the Should is an Is. Sure, the Should SHOULD be an Is, but it is not -- and no amount of saying it is will make it an Is.

Of course we all here agree about what SHOULD be done. The problem is, there are millions in the West who disagree, and the sociopolitical atmosphere is overwhelmingly on their side, not ours.

Posted by: metaxy

at July 2, 2005 3:49 PM

All-

A very fruitful and interesting discussion which I'm sorry I did not get a chance to participate in earlier, though it seems the only thing I missed out on was dotting metaxy's i's and crossing his t's, as he's already made most of my important points. The most frustrating part of the war against Islamic aggression for me is that it is only prolonged because of the restraints which we, as civilized people, place upon our own conduct. As Bismark once said, the world has become strange with the weak becoming strong through their ferocity, and the strong weak because of their moral scruples.

As to the question of why our supposed political and intellectual elites refuse to name the enemy by his true name, or even show empathy for him while displaying contempt and hostility for their own country and Western civlization in general, there are several answers to this, I think. I'll leave out the cynical petro-dollar shills who do the Saudis' work out of venality, or the political opportunists who think Muslims can be used for their own short-term political gain (Grover Norquist, the UK's Labor Party, the Quai d'Orsay) and focus on the ideologues who do what they do from conviction. These consist of the following groups:

The Alienated: This is the smallest group, and is composed of political extremists who are so alienated from the dominant political/social order of their own country that they'll embrace those who seek its destruction, either by convincing themselves of the confluence of motive between them and the militant Muslims, or because they think that by destroying the regnant social order the global jihad is unwittingly helping pave the way for their own personal Idaho/utopia, or else because they think the current order is so corrupt and evil it should be destroyed for its own sake, regardless of what happens afterwards.

The Too Beautiful for this World: This group consists of the most delicate and sensitive among us, who either cannot bring themselves to openly hate an ideology that is itself nothing but hatred and intolerance, or else cannot bring themselves to stomach the means needed to combat it. This group includes most artists, belletrists, a significant minority of the Israeli defense forces, and other sensitive, dreamy, poetic types. Though still not large in number, their cultural influence is huge. These sort of people also are big on the idea of universal brotherhood, and so unthinkingly give weight and legitimacy to "world opinion", as expressed by the corrupt, Muslim-dominated UN General Assembly.

The Alienists: These are the multi-culturalists and self-haters, who either through ignorance or a sort of psychological neurosis, think that their own civilization offers nothing but a history of violence and exploitation, while the Other is always either victim or else a sort of deeply wise spiritual tutor who can help them escape their post-modern, technological funk. These sort of people reactively side with the Other, either because they are ignorant of actual history, or because by siding against their own side they feel morally superior to those who they think always side with their own out of purely selfish reasons, or else some combination of the two.

Now, the Alienated include people from across the American political spectrum: communists, hard-core environmentalists, Lew Rockwell-type anarcho-libertarians, White supremacists and Christian fundamentalists (remember Jerry Falwell's post-9/11 comments?).

The second and third groups, though, are always on the left, because their convictions stem from what are prototypically liberal traits: a sympathetic moral imagination (i.e. compassion), and the ability for self-criticism. These are fine traits when applied intelligently and honestly, but for some people they are over-developed to a morbid, pathological degree, so that they become the appearsers of Muslims either through deep-seated feelings of personal guilt or, in a sort of moral narcissism, think that through continual acts of personal self-abegnation/capitulation to the Other they speed their own way to a higher plane of spirituality. That they give aid and comfort to those who staunchly oppose all their highest ideals (secularism, tolerance, equality of the sexes, cultural diversity) does not really matter to them because, as I said before, it's fundamentally a narcissistic enterprise for them.

Do I think such people represent most Democratic voters or politicians. Hell no! And Karl Rove and his ilk deserve one of those gruesome torments Allah seems to so delight in for using 9/11 for their own petty partisan ends. But the multi-culturalists/alienists do have a disproportionate cultural influence, and it's not just on one party. There used to be a thing called the culture wars in this country, but they ended without the losing side declaring defeat. Instead the losing side found out how to use multi-culturalism and identity politics for its own ends, and so now Bush uses opposition to his conservative judicial nominees to tar his opponents with prejudice against Hispanics, or women, or (mon dieu what a neo-logisim!) "people of color, er- I meant faith".

And now after 9/11 it is supposedly our conservative president who declares Islam a "religion of peace", while his amen corner in National Review and The Weekly Standard gleefully chide Europeons on their racism for refusing to allow Turkey into the E.U.

We must create a broad-front, but we must also understand the motivations of those who cannot yet admit what this war is about (let alone the means necessary to win it). Some we can win over with different rhetoric (I think even King Tolerance is once of these); others (mostly of the Karen Armstrong ilk) are not worth trying.

Posted by: emperor_diocletian

at July 2, 2005 7:05 PM

"The problem with Hugh's article lies in his very first sentence:

The first clause depends upon a factual statement -- "is not a partisan issue"; the second clause depends upon a modal verb expressing not facts but obligation -- "one that should interest...all"

My point all along is that Hugh's article is all about SHOULDS, ignoring or minimizing the mountainous IS that obstructs the positive no matter how much accentuation is crooned about it.

Sometimes, Hugh and his supporters seem to think that the Should is an Is. Sure, the Should SHOULD be an Is, but it is not -- and no amount of saying it is will make it an Is."
--- from a posting above

None of the remarks quoted as being mine are mine; they all come from the remarks prefatory to my memoir as an Old Bolshevik, which has nary a "should" in it. I think the distress expressed is meant for Robert, and he of course can answer any criticism directed at him for himself, but I would prefer to have to answer only for my own remarks, not for those even of someone on whose wave-length I have requested "Permission to surf, sir!"

Posted by: Hugh

at July 2, 2005 8:15 PM

diocletian,

Excellent adumbration & diagnosis of the types of pathology that make this war difficult to conduct.

I would add that you still did not advert to a sociopolitico-cultural atmosphere of PC osmosis that pervades our air now. This pervasive problem is more than a mere problem of individuals and groups who think wrong-headedly. It is also a problem of a cultural sea change in thought: a shift in Zeitgeist.

Two "givens" will illustrate this atmosphere (I could cite 100, but for brevity's sake will limit myself to two of high importance for our purposes here):

1) For at least the past 30 years, it has become a given of Absolute Truth carved in eternal stone that the arrest and detention of Japanese-American citizens was a horrible bad thing (one of the many that prove how evil the US is). (Even a George Will will casually and parenthetically state how it was clearly a horrible bad thing.) For a person in this climate to publicly state that it was in fact a good, rational and humane thing for FDR to do would elicit puzzled shock from 99.9% (quickly followed by angry charges of racism from 90%) of American people, on all parts of the spectrum.

2) It would similarly be a puzzling shocker for someone to publicly state that Western Imperialism (including Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, French, British, Italian, and later American nations expanding across the globe) was mostly an enlightened and beneficent and self-correcting enterprise, and that the world would be a better place if it were reinstated (under pre-PC pre-United Nations terms of course).

Nevertheless, we cannot effectively prosecute our current War against Jihadism for the long haul, unless we unburden our conscious of these PC "givens" and re-orient our heads back to our former enlightened rationality by which we believed #1 and #2 (among other things).

Posted by: metaxy

at July 2, 2005 8:46 PM

Hugh,

I did misattribute Spencer's words for yours. However, one doesn't have to literally employ "shoulds" to repeatedly and forcefully call for what should be done with insufficient concern for the mountainous impediments of sociopolitico-cultural inertia in the way of what we all here agree (with minor tactical adjustments here and there aside) should be done.

Posted by: metaxy

at July 2, 2005 8:52 PM

I don't recall too many "shoulds" included in my repeated offerings of To-Do lists for those whose duty it is to instruct and to protect us. Do you?

Posted by: Hugh

at July 2, 2005 10:20 PM

Hugh,

A To-Do list can either be imperative (Do this!) or obligatory (You are bound to do this for the following reasons...) or advisory (We think you should do this for the following reasons...). Advisory to-do lists can range from mildly polite to sternly critical.

I assume your To-Do lists have mostly been of a sternly critical advisory nature. However stern and critical they may have been, they do not go past the should level to legally or threateningly binding prescriptions nor to commands based upon the power to enforce them; nor do they transcend the three levels of To-Do-ness into statements of fact (if they did, there would be no need "to do" them).

But rather than continuing to dance around this peripheral dispute, I'd like to know more directly your thoughts on the meat of the matter:

1) How would you characterize the resistance to your To-Do lists from "those whose duty it is to instruct and to protect us"?

2) What do you think are the causes of this resistance?

3) What do you think should -- and can -- be done to render this resistance effectively surmountable so that those whose duty it is to instruct and to protect us can get on to the business of doing the To-Do list?

Posted by: metaxy

at July 3, 2005 12:25 AM

Emperor_ diocletian

The Too Beautiful for this World: This group consists of the most delicate and sensitive among us, who either cannot bring themselves to openly hate an ideology that is itself nothing but hatred and intolerance, or else cannot bring themselves to stomach the means needed to combat it......That they give aid and comfort to those who staunchly oppose all their highest ideals (secularism, tolerance, equality of the sexes, cultural diversity) does not really matter to them because, as I said before, it's fundamentally a narcissistic enterprise for them.

How right you are. There are many such people, and in the other categories you mention. The problem is that this 'see no evil' idea has penetrated so deeply into the Western way of thinking that it now seems wrong, uncivilised to hate what is actually hateful.

Posted by: Interested

at July 3, 2005 7:08 AM

metaxy and Interested, thanks for your comments. I agree with the point about cultural osmosis, but we have to be careful not to go overboard in our desire to violate the PC taboos our day (no matter how richly they deserve it):

2) It would similarly be a puzzling shocker for someone to publicly state that Western Imperialism (including Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, French, British, Italian, and later American nations expanding across the globe) was mostly an enlightened and beneficent and self-correcting enterprise, and that the world would be a better place if it were reinstated (under pre-PC pre-United Nations terms of course).

The merits of European colonialism really vary by time, country, and place. Certainly it was no worse than was the historical norm, and in most cases was far better. How many children today know Britain's role in putting a stop to the trans-oceanic slave trade (which, contrary to what the multi-culturalists would have us believe, existed among Muslim countries for centuries before it began to be practiced in the European colonies)? Or that after the Western imperial powers finally pressured the Ottomans into ending their African slave trade in the late 1800's, the Meccan ulema declared the Turks apostates and waged jihad war against them?

Still, I think revisting these culture wars may be counter-productive and lead to stalemate with the people we are trying to convince long before we can broach the topic of Islamic jihadism with them. Instead, let us use the reigning zeitgeist for our own purposes. Is the zeitgeist against imperialism and for cultural diversity? Fine, so are we since Islam is little but imperialism and the extinguishment of cultural difference in the name of thinly-veiled Arab supremacism.

Also, let us make our case in a positive manner. Instead of giving into our anger and being anti-Islam, let us be pro-dhimmi and pro-human rights. Islamic countries impose nothing less than a system of religious apartheid on their minorities. Let us hammer into the multi-culturalist's heads again and again that this is what we are against, that we are pro-human rights, that we are pro-freedom (including the freedom of Muslims to change religions or sects or criticize Islam w/o fear of bodily reprisal) and force the multi-culturalists to take a real stand. You'd be surprised how many are simply mentally blocked by the reigning PC dogmas, as the African-American activists I read about a year ago who have started to take an interest in the Sudanese jihad but first had to wrap their brains around the notion that, in their words, "one people of color could oppress another people of color". Let us make it our goal to keep throwing the evidence of this in their faces again and again.

Posted by: emperor_diocletian

at July 3, 2005 1:57 PM

Reasons for Resistance:

1) Ignorance -- of Islam, both of its actual teachings, aside from the five pious pillars of individual worship, and of how, in practice, those teachings have been reflected in Jihad-conquest and the imposition of dhimmi status on non-Muslims.

2) Fear -- fear of the implications of recognizing what Islam is all about. Fear of how to handle the situation, given all the Muslims now in Infidel lands. Fear of imparting the truth to one's own citizens, who may not take kindly to the betrayal, especially in Germany and France, of the citizenry by those who permitted, with such reckless abandon, the entry of large numbers of Muslims. Fear of what might have to be done, or at least might have to be entertained as a possiblity -- including large-scale expulsions of those whose attitudes, based on immutable texts, cannot be changed and are a permanent menace to the non-Muslim indigenes.

3) Stupidity. This can cover a great deal, from the stupidity of university life, and the emphasis on "diversity" and the assumption that that which divides people, sets them apart or against each other, is simply a figment, some misunderstanding that can always be cleared up. The refusal to believe that ideas, or sets of ideas, matter, that people might be raised up in a society where hatred of others is not merely tolerated, but is the main, the defining characteristic, of that entire society or people -- this is something the bland, cult-of-tolerance West cannot, it seems, allow itself to believe. But Islam is based entirely on the uncompromising hostility of Muslims for Infidels, a manichaen division of the universe between Believer and Unbeliever.

Posted by: Hugh

at July 3, 2005 2:11 PM

Interested,

"this 'see no evil' idea has penetrated so deeply into the Western way of thinking that it now seems wrong, uncivilised to hate what is actually hateful."

Self-hatred is still okay in the modern West. It's okay to hate the West, and to hate America -- just don't hate anything or anyone else.

Posted by: metaxy

at July 3, 2005 2:40 PM

diocletian,

Your prescription is far more realistic than mine; let's just hope it will work in the long run.

Posted by: metaxy

at July 3, 2005 2:46 PM