Free Markets, Free People

It may be time to become violent and intolerant

Large quote from Andy McCarthy.  This is an important point that so many in the West simply refuse to acknowledge:

This point has been made so many times it should hardly be necessary to point out that Obama and Kerry, like Kerry’s predecessor Hillary Clinton, and like many Bush-administration officials before them (including President Bush), are dead wrong when they deny the nexus between Islamic doctrine –– the literal scriptures –- and terrorism, decapitations, totalitarian government, repression of women, rabid anti-Semitism, the murder of homosexuals, and so on. Still, it would be a serious error merely to observe that they are wrong, snicker at their fecklessness, and move on.

There is a reason they are taking a position diametrically opposed to reality.

Obama and Kerry, like transnational progressives in both of our major political parties, believe there are “moderate Islamists” who are the key to stability in the Middle East. Now, the term “moderate Islamist” is contradictory: an Islamist wants government by sharia, Islam’s totalitarian societal framework and legal code. There is nothing moderate about sharia. Those who want it implemented are not “moderates” even if they don’t commit mass-murder to get their way. Sharia is also anti-liberty, anti-equality, and anti-Western. Therefore, we should oppose Islamism just as we oppose other freedom-killing ideologies. That doesn’t mean we need to go to war with all Islamists, but we should work to diminish their influence and we should never regard them as a solution to anything.

Notwithstanding their abhorrence of the West, “moderate Islamists” are regarded by Obama and Kerry as potential allies: people, groups, and, in the case of Turkey, for example, countries that we can work with to solve the problems plaguing the Middle East and overcome our own security challenges. It is thus critically important to Obama and Kerry for the public to believe that (a) all Islamists are not basically the same and (b) there is a sharp difference — a day-and-night difference — between “moderate Islamists” and terrorist organizations like the Islamic State and al-Qaeda. If, instead, the public becomes convinced that all Islamists, violent or non-violent, adhere to essentially the same ideology, the administration’s goal of working with Islamic supremacists becomes politically untenable.

It is impossible to convince people that non-violent (or, at least, purportedly non-violent) Islamists are not representative of Islam. The administration tried that with its “largely secular” Muslim Brotherhood flyer . . . and has been embarrassed ever since by the howls of laughter. Most significant Islamist groups are rooted in or affiliated with the Brotherhood. Not only do these groups claim the mantle of Islam’s representative; our government concedes that status to them.

Because they refuse to acknowledge this they simply hold out a “solution” that doesn’t exist.  So-called “moderate Islam” is only a ratcheted down version of the extremists.  Perhaps “moderate Islam” doesn’t want to take part in killing you, but they’re not particularly upset that the extremist version is doing it for them.   They may differ in the methods, but they’re not indifferent to the result – i.e. the world converting to Islam and the establishment of Sharia law.  That is the ultimate goal of Islam.  Weasel wording it doesn’t change that fact.

So how does one go about convincing “moderate Islam” to back off?  Well one way to to recognize the threat, and the threat isn’t just limited to “extremists”.  However, such recognition is antithetical to the tenets of the left’s multi-culturalism.  Every culture is “worthwhile” and has “value”.  Even those which justify the murder of non-believers and homosexuals, enslave and mutilate women, and essentially redefine misogyny.  The very people who support this sort of “tolerance” would likely be its first victims.

Back to the question – how do we back off “moderate Islam?”  Well this is going to sound exceedingly violent, but it is meant to be.  You have to ruthlessly and completely wipe out the extremists.  But instead, we seem to be contemplating a strategy of  “managing” the threat.  As Michael Totten notes:

The reason we must reject the tempting tendency to close our eyes and hope this problem goes away is that Allah doesn’t always sort things out according to American interests.

Life is filled with things we don’t want to do but have to do anyway. No one wants radiation or chemotherapy, but if you get cancer, you’re going to have to take it despite the fact that it might not work and that it will certainly feel like it’s killing you.

Let’s not kid ourselves. ISIS — or ISIL as the President calls it — is cancerous. And it is not a benign tumor. It is metastasizing and will not stop growing stronger and deadlier until it is dealt with aggressively and, at the absolute minimum, contained.

And only that sort of treatment will impress “moderate Islam” – period.  Of course, that’s only step 1.  Step 2 will be even more painful for the Western left.  It is all about intolerance.  That’s right, it’s about being intolerant of ideas, principles and cultural norms that attack and would eventually destroy Western culture as we know it.  Islam is as intolerant of our Western culture is we should be of it’s culture.  Just because some group of elitists on the left decided one day that all cultures are equal and valuable has now been shown to be simplistic pap.  And unless Western civ is in the mood to commit suicide, it is going to have to make some very hard and intolerant decisions in the near future.

So if the West is to survive, it’s time to take a real “step 1”, not some half-measure that I am pretty sure is being contemplated as we speak.

Many violent jihadists who go on to join al-Qaeda and, now, the Islamic State (an offshoot of al-Qaeda) got their start in the Muslim Brotherhood. They seamlessly graduate from Brotherhood teaching to insatiable jihad because Brotherhood teaching lauds jihad. In fact, the transition happens because many of those who receive Brotherhood instruction become frustrated by the contradiction between the Brotherhood’s aim of a worldwide caliphate and endorsement of jihad to achieve it, on the one hand, and its counsel of patience in pursuing it, on the other.

It is precisely because Islamists share an ideology rooted in Islam, and what they see as a divinely mandated mission of conquest, that a Muslim can so predictably evolve from student to sharia adherent to “moderate Islamist” to not-so-moderate Islamist to terrorist. It happens frequently. And the common ideology rooted in Islam also explains why so many “moderate Islamists” financially and morally support violent jihadist organizations even if they don’t take up arms themselves.

Why?  Because, as I said, the “moderates” are not at all indifferent to the outcome brought about by the extremists.  And until we wrap our heads around that and do what is necessary to actually and finally address the real threat we face, it’s not going to get any better and could easily get much worse.  It isn’t about extremists and moderates, it’s about a toxic culture/religion that was recognized as such by the West centuries ago as a threat.   As for the present, there’s very little difference between “moderate” and “extremists” with regard to the final outcome they seek:

The Islamic State has presumed to declare a caliphate. Al-Qaeda franchises think that is hasty — especially since someone else is running the caliphate — and would proceed more gradually, setting up emirates and hoping for more consensus among Islamists. Both organizations want to confront the West only violently; the Muslim Brotherhood, on the contrary, teaches that, while violent jihad has its place (see Hamas), it is valid to negotiate with the West, to infiltrate the West’s institutions, and to achieve whatever conquest can be achieved without violence.

~McQ

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

26 Responses to It may be time to become violent and intolerant

  • It used to be said as many here will recall – “If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem”.
    That was very popular in our youth as the counterculture leaders lectured us that we couldn’t be neutral in the great struggle.
    .
    Having coined the phrase, the progressives should understand “moderate” Islamists can’t be neutral either.

  • As a ready made example and a demonstration of the peaceful wonder that is Sharia law
    From our good friends the Saudis (who are officially claiming they know of no such arrests)

    Saudi religious police arrest Christian Prayer Meeting (all of it….)
    .
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2756134/Dozens-Christians-including-women-children-arrested-Saudi-Arabia-tip-state-s-Islamist-police-force.html
    .
    If only this meeting had had co-exist pamphlets or co-exist bumper stickers to hand out to the representatives of the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice!
    .
    Yep, yet another demonstration, no culture is better than any other.

  • Step 2 will be even more painful for the Western left. It is all about intolerance. That’s right, it’s about being intolerant of ideas, principles and cultural norms that attack and would eventually destroy Western culture as we know it.

    OK. But what does that mean, McQ? We have this First Amendment thingy, and I know you don’t want to walk away from that (I certainly won’t). So, how does Step 2 look to you?

    If it’s a matter of just stepping up to reality and saying that Islam teaches stuff that is inimical to the values any of us should be embracing, that is something we can readily do. Some of us are doing it.

    I hear and read a lot of people who are saying that Islam isn’t really a religion but a socioeconomic system. It sounds conspicuously like they are militating for the idea that Islam should not be under First Amendment protection.

    • I’m fine with the First Amendment. Let’s quit playing the “I’m offended” game and tell it like it is. Let them sell their ideas and principles on the marketplace of ideas without seeing one side trying to shut down debate with PC nonsense and pap about cultures being “equal” in value.

      • Again, as with looker, I’m good with that.

        It would have worked wonders for those little girls in England. Nobody gets to make a special pleading to get out of our laws by virtue of what they bitch about. This applies to a lot of people, IMNHO. A person’s black skin is no disability to me, and it is no badge of privilege, either. Time we were all just citizens under the law.

    • Obviously ALL the facets of Islam are not going to be protected under the 1st Amendment because they themselves violate it.
      .
      And I’m frankly at a loss as to how it even merits discussion. They are free to practice their religion within the boundaries established by the Amendment. That doesn’t mean they get to threaten me with death for drawing cartoons of the prophet for example even if their religion/government says that’s all good.
      .
      You’re going to have to separate the, and there are, socioeconomic aspects out, and that’s just the way it is. Just because they practice theocracy doesn’t mean we have to protect all aspects of that.
      .
      Some aspects of it have to go if that’s part of their religion. Church vs state. Refer back to the Shinto discussion we had recently, Emperor worship goes, teaching it in school and government goes.

      • I’m good with all of that (it should go widdoudt saying). Succinctly, ONE rule of law for everybody, and no King’s-X for religion.

        I read and hear people talking up what are essentially pogroms, and kicking all Muslims out of the US.

        • I’m not ready for Manzanar II, but realistically if we got to that level we are going to, and already do, have to contend with the fifth column that is present.
          .
          The not surprising demonstrations of quiet takeover are already seen in Europe where “tolerance” has been abused beyond the breaking point in several countries. France for example and the UK as well.
          .
          Here as examples we wouldn’t allow a Protestant sect or Catholic group to have prayer meetings in school, but we accommodate prayer in school during the day by Muslim students.
          If the Pope and the Vatican council tomorrow declared that Catholics must pray for 10 minutes 3 times a day between 7:00 am and 2:15 pm I find it hard to believe there wouldn’t be a tremendous fight to get Catholics students the ‘right’ to get school accommodation for it.

        • Just like many times in war, we’ll make mistakes, we’ll may overboard and we may feel bad about it later.
          .
          But in the end I’d like us to be around to feel bad about it later if it comes to that.
          If I have to choose what to feel bad about I’m going to err on the side of preserving Western Civilization.

          • As aware as I am of the limitations of the law, I think the “correct” and humane response is just applying the law as the Constitution intended.

            That is, people are held to the rule of law REGARDLESS of ___________. No exceptions, no special pleadings, no nothing.

            It goes without saying that we have moved vigorously AWAY from that ideal under the Obamabanana Republic. And that is a movement that has not stopped, or even slowed. Barracula will leave an awful residue in the BIG GOVERNMENT bureaucracy (which includes the upper echelons of the military) and the judiciary.

            It’ll take a LOT of flushing to rid ourselves of that.

  • “Because, as I said, the “moderates” are not at all indifferent to the outcome brought about by the extremists.”

    Some of this may be due to no small amount of fear, not just of physical harm, but of being rejected by the community as it becomes more hardline. I think this is the problem of the immigrants.

    While in the actual middle east, I suspect there is an element of viewing these guys as “clean” and austere people who live by a code, vs. corrupt politicians who demand bribes, etc.

    There is also some kind of one-upper aspect of Islam. In Indonesia, it would even affect non-Islamic religions, who in order to compete in the market of religions also were far stricter about rules than in other Western countries. I’m talking about Christian groups frowning on any consumption of alcohol, etc.

    So, there is a ratchet that tends to want to go towards “more religious” rather than less.

    Let’s also note the two countries that bombed the militias in Libya:

    UAE which includes Dubai. A place that somehow has created wealth out of being a little less restrictive than other places.

    Egypt which had a solid taste of life under the theocrats and did not enjoy it as much as it was imagined.

    • I read some weeks back that one way you know ISIS is comin’ to town is that all the local prostitutes start showing up dead. It is hinted that this gets Muslim momma on the side of ISIS.

      “Tolerance” is only recognized by ISIS with the “in” predicate on the word…

  • http://bitsblog.theconservativereader.com/2004/09/where-are-the-good-muslims/

    Note the date. Nothings changed.
    the perception of most is driven by a lack of Muslims willing to work against the exrremists. Most dont really know much about the Koran, and dont care to know, literal translation or otherwise, when they see Islamic stonings of people accused of sexual sin, while the accusers marry 9 year olds.

  • The title of this post may apply just as well in our domestic settings

  • The sources, who represent creditors to Chrysler, say they were taken aback by the hardball tactics that the Obama administration employed to cajole them into acquiescing to plans to restructure Chrysler. One person described the administration as the most shocking “end justifies the means” group they have ever encountered. Another characterized Obama was “the most dangerous smooth talker on the planet – and I knew Kissinger.” Both were voters for Obama in the last election.

    One participant in negotiations said that the administration’s tactic was to present what one described as a “madman theory of the presidency” in which the President is someone to be feared because he was willing to do anything to get his way. The person said this threat was taken very seriously by his firm.

    The notion of “madman theory of the presidency” goes back to Nixon.

    The madman theory was a primary characteristic of the foreign policy conducted by U.S. President Richard Nixon. His administration, the executive branch of the federal government of the United States from 1969 to 1974, attempted to make the leaders of other countries think Nixon was mad, and that his behavior was irrational and volatile. Fearing an unpredictable American response, leaders of hostile Communist Bloc nations would avoid provoking the United States.

    Obama seems to only embrace it for domestic policy, for some odd reason.

  • http://www.independentsentinel.com/maxine-waters-shariah-law-is-compatible-with-u-s-constitution-you-bigots/

    A wonderfully interesting lil’ talk in light of the context of the post.

    • It is a means to an end.
      The left understands they cant tear america down alone, they need help.Youve gotta tear down what is, to replace it. Islam gives them that.

      • The Collective has made an art-form of gathering all “grievances” under their banner. And it works.

        It really goes back to that whole Frankfurt School idea of fracturing and undermining American culture. It has been (literally) terribly successful.

        Of course, Pres. ScamWOW has done the exact OPPOSITE of what a lot of people believed he would do because they believed his lies.

  • “She said she is pushing legislation to ban any racial profiling.”
    Really.
    And exactly which RACE is Muslim, Maxine, you racist asshat.
    .
    Will there also be protections for the Catholic race under her legislation?
    .
    Seriously folks, at every opportunity this ‘race’ thing, like the ‘mexican race’ or the ‘hispanic race’, needs to be fought and clobbered. Take this damn arrow out of their quiver every time they bring it out.
    Make them look like the race pandering racist idiots they really ARE.

    • That has proven a good trick to pull off. When you point to the racism of the Collective, it is held out as dead-bang proof you are…wait for it…RAAAAAAACIST…!!!

      Oh, and “insensitive”. AND, in fact, YOU are the grievance-monger. Check your old, fat, white privilege, dude. Cultures change. Watch and see. Good and necessary. Good and plenty. ARRRRRRrrrrgh.

      • Well the good news is the ‘lady’ in question can put forth any legislation she likes, I rather doubt this one it will ever see the light of day.
        .
        even with Weepers Boehner at the helm.

        • Yahbut….the absence of a new COLOSSALLY STUPID law is cold comfort. It doesn’t move the ball in the right direction, and we need to put some points on the board.

          PLUS there is the fact that that kind of loopy, suicidal “thinking” is out there…

          • I think we know what it’s going to take for that. Sadly we’re going to have to have the equivalent of losing the Pacific Fleet and the Philippines before we get serious.
            So asshats like the Maine Mosquito can finally understand what’s going on ( he’ll squeal like a rat nailed to the barn door ).
            .
            The ruling parties are going have to be in fear for their jobs, and possibly their lives to come back to some semblance of sanity.
            .
            The new generation is going to have to get it’s ass kicked to grow up.
            And my heart says a lot of them will respond by trading freedoms in exchange for protection theater.

          • One of the things that amuses me no end is the Obamic concept of “triangulation”.

            The Clintonian version involved observing the positions of two opposing parties, and then adopting a third “pragmatic” position that SEEMED “reasonable”.

            The Obami, instead, just adopt ALLLLLLL positions. It makes people dizzy, which of course, is the design.

  • Bruce…. I found this in my database having written it back on 2006. It directly addresses the issue of “moderate Muslims”, and why are are not seeing any

    http://bitsblog.theconservativereader.com/2012/09/enlightening-islam-a-revisitation/

    Perhaps the best passage to the point you’ve made is here….

    Jason Pappas at Liberty and Culture makes this important point, by way of John Agresto, former president of St. John’s College’s Santa Fe campus. That point being, that when we make judgments about our success or failure in Iraq, we miss in both directions, because of a complete misunderstanding of the rocky culture and the religion on which so much of it is based:

    “We generally have a benign view of religion. We always insist that those who kill infidels or torture in God’s name have somehow ‘hijacked’ their religion. We consistently failed to understand that not all religions have the same view as we do of peace, of brotherhood, or of justice. Islam in general, and parts of Islam in particular, are not post-Enlightenment faiths. But why would they be? We desperately kept looking for the supposed ‘moderates’ among the clergy in Iraq. Moderate as compared to what? Just because we believe that God wants everyone to enjoy equal rights, or that killing Jews or stoning apostates is wrong, doesn’t mean that our beliefs are shared in other faiths.

    And therein, lies a point that I made over a year ago now, which was unfortunately lost in the transition to this new web site. I will try to reconstruct it from memory and snippets. It generally made the point, that Islam was still waiting for its Martin Luther. I would suggest to you that Luther, more than anyone else at this time, paved the way toward the age of enlightenment. Prior to Luther’s arrival, there was no such thing as a moderate Catholic. Similarly, then, there is no such thing as a moderate Muslim today.

    As I asked Bill at his excellent INDC blog back at the beginning of this year:

    Where are the long lines of local Muslims angry at what’s been done to their peaceful religion? There are none, or not enough to make any difference

    .

    The more I investigate this the more I’m convinced that the Pope, of all people, got this one right. Islam, being Islam, simply cannot reform itself. Therefore I submit, that there is no such thing as moderate Islam. More correctly, that there is no such animal as a moderate Muslim.

    At least, at the moment. Which, translates into “it may be possible to inject some change down the road.” But, frankly, I consider it an open question, whether or not reform can ever occur.

    The price then goes into the idea of raising the education levels, , the dragging Islam, kicking and screaming, from the 14th century to today. That was the whole point, I think, to establishing a democracy in Iraq and why the dirt-scratchers were so opposed to it.

    Obama threw away all the gains we made to that end, when he ordered us out before the task was completed. As I warned back then…

    e have to stick with the plan. The consequences of not doing so are utter failure, for both they, and us. I say again; It’s not going to be quick. We in the west, cannot expect that kind of seed change to occur overnight. What we’re talking about, is dragging Islam and its followers fast forward from the fourteenth century. We cannot do that quickly, or by force and not expect violent reaction. Forced change, is never long lasting , and seldom satisfactory for anybody concerned. What needs to be done therefore, is to create an environment in which an Islamic version of Luther can stand forth, so that the culture can change ITSELF.

  • I should add that because Obama tossed all that effort away, we are now left with the prospect of getting violent and intolerant ourselves being the least unattractive option left.