Words, knives, guns
It’s hard to find words to describe yesterday’s murder of a soldier by machete-wielding Islamic terrorists in Woolwich (a part of greater London) who hacked him to death, so I’ll just let this article do the talking:
Witnesses told how the men drove a dark blue Vauxhall Tigra on to the pavement and knocked down the soldier.
He was wearing a T-shirt with the army charity Help for Heroes logo on it and was carrying a military issue rucksack. The men then leapt out of their car and ”˜hacked and chopped’ at their victim before dragging his bloodied body into the middle of the road.
This was the murderers’ explicit message to the British people:
”˜You people will never be safe. Remove your government. They don’t care about you.
”˜You think David Cameron is going to get caught in the street when we start busting our guns? You think your politicians are going to die? No, it’s going to be the average guy like you ”“ and your children.
So get rid of them ”“ tell them to bring our troops back so we can … so you can all live in peace.’
Ah yes. He’s just a different kind of peace activist.
The irony is sickening.
Richard Fernandez offers his own brilliant perspective on the deeper societal implications:
This incident illustrates, if nothing else, the endpoint of the social engineering of the West. It has been remarkably effective.
From a certain point of view, the British crowd behaved perfectly and this is the way “they” all want us to behave. The populace sheltered in place, didn’t do anything rash, talked to the perpetrators as people. They waited for the police to come and the hospital helicopter to take the corpse away. Some will doubtless get counseling to overcome their shattering experience.
And then they will congratulate themselves on how tough British society is; resilience and all that. The more caring will leave some flowers by a railing and hold a few candle vigils for healing and peace, until these wither and blow away and the news cycle washes up a new object of attention.
The attackers knew they were actors in a drama ”” as keenly watched in their communities as on the BBC. And in that other audience they were asking: “How will the locals behave?” We know now. And that other audience may derive an entirely different lesson from this tableau: “See? Only their women act like men. They follow orders. They are nothing any more ”” these Westerners. They are a civilization whose core has been destroyed.”
I would emphasize that a huge part of what was going on here is that the perpetrators had weapons and the people in the crowd did not. And the reason the people in the crowd did not is because they are banned so thoroughly. In fact, even had they had them (illegally, of course), and used them under this particular circumstance, they would rightly fear that they would stand a chance of being arrested for it. If you don’t believe me, read this.
So in Woolwich yesterday it was left to some women (who indeed were brave, but it’s a different kind of bravery, the kind “they”—the authorities—tolerate) to talk to the killers until the police came. The killers allowed the women to do this; they banned men from approaching.
You’ve all probably heard the expression about bringing a knife to a gun fight. Well, these women brought words to a knife (machete) fight (the killers had a rusty revolver, too, but it malfunctioned).
And then the police came. Finally—after twenty minutes. You know why it took so long? Embedded in the article is this telling sentence:
The two black men in their 20s, waited calmly for armed police to arrive before charging at officers brandishing a rusty revolver, knives and meat cleavers.
If you read that quickly or without much knowledge of British law (knowledge that I’d bet the terrorists didn’t lack), you might miss its significance. But note that word “armed”—not all police in Britain are armed, you see, and the delay was apparently because the special armed cops had to be called in.
And you know what? They finally brought guns to a knife fight, and they won that fight because of it.
I don’t think it’s hard to find words at all.
Islam delenda est.
Just lie back and think of what used to be England.
What would I have done?
What would my wife have done?
It is a special kind of brave.
Imagine having to live like that.
I couldn’t imagine. I can’t even imagine my wife talking to these animals. I’ll admit that we aren’t that kind of brave.
An ascendent strategy:
1. Withdraw our troops.
2. Sell them losts of guns and ammo so they can kill themselves.
3. Vote out any politician who denies American ascendency in energy production.
I am still trying to get my head around it – happening to a serving soldier, just outside a military base, on a crowded city street … and no one lifted a hand, rushed them, threw something… but the onlookers took pictures. Lots of pictures. I can’t see how much longer the British ruling class can essentially criminalize self-defense by ordinary citizens after an atrocity like this. The average Brit has been turned into a sheep, where once they were lions.
I try to imagine two maniacal yobs trying this on a crowded city street outside the gate of a military base in Texas. The forensics people would be mining lead out of the street and buildings surrounding for months. And the intended victim likely would be alive.
Islam delenda est?
…and then there were none.
(Pun intended.)
I’d love to see them try this in Texas. Seriously.
The Brits have been systematically harassed by authorities into not defending themselves, and that is despicable. An unarmed police force is ridiculous (especial for female officers). We can’t let gun-grabbers like Obama and Bloomberg do the same to us here. Disarming citizens is only the first step.
A different take on the “courage” of the women interlopers:
Talking is not brave; it’s defensive and who doesn’t defend with bravery in this extreme case is one who talks. What would have been brave is physical battle. That men did not battle is defensive. That women talked is defensive.
Here is the awful truth: No one took offense. That women “talked” is not a brightspot in an otherwise bleak presentation of Western culture; it is the instinctual defensive maneuver where a weaker vessel implores mercy and clemecy.
That is the message of the attack and the incredibly horrific promulagation that soldiers should not wear their uniforms off base is recognition that England sues for clemency.
The West colonized. The West as a victim of imperialist aggression. In total contrast to the Progressive-Left narrative of the West as perpetual colonizer and imperialist aggressor. The narrative of the very political movement that has enabled this Islamic terrorist attack, by disabling the immune systems of the colonized nation-states.
Islam is imperialism, Marxism is treason.
(This post will break 100)
Here’s a quote from a stupid idiot radio talk show host:
“Coming up, a story about an ordinary British housewife who looked into the deadly eyes of a terrorist and stood him down.”
Does he know of the Muslim love of rape?
Stood him down?
Yeah, right.
Argh, it’s already happened in Texas: Ft. Hood.
They know to stick to “gun free zones” and places where PC dictates we don’t talk back when picking a target. No doubt Hasan will be putting on a performance no less colorful (figuratively) than these machete guys when representing himself in court.
One can’t say it doesn’t work to a greater degree – terrorism, bombing, killing, maiming as a means of disabusing the world — well, a part of it – of the inherent violence of islam.
For the most part, the pundits, MSM, politicians, other religious leaders, will agree; and their adamancy that the ‘religion’ of ‘peace’ remains so after every bombing, killing, maiming, blood-letting proves the efficacy of bombing, killing, maiming for the purpose of disabusing the world that islam is all about bombing, killing, maiming. The times have NEVER been so interesting as now.
Wow.
You must be feeling strong about this issue, ZT, because I’ve never seen garbled writing from you.
It’s nice to see.
I love that passion.
Sgt. Mom:
Re the “taking pictures” thing—my understanding is that the terrorists told them to take pictures. My guess is that they complied because (a) they wanted to document it for the police and authorities, which would help in a trial; and (b) they were shell-shocked and didn’t know what else to do.
However, let me just say that taking pictures is a British and Canadian way of dealing with violence. I first encountered this many years ago when I was in Canada in a huge crowd (watching fireworks) in a large city. I noticed, to my shock, that there was no police presence at all. Nothing I could see. And some violence broke out (nothing like a machete killing, fortunately—but it was still frightening, some sort of gang fight) which I witnessed. It was not contained, but it burned itself out.
I found it very frightening that there was no crowd control. Afterward, I heard a radio show in which people were discussing what had happened. They said that the police had been watching remotely by video camera.
How were they going to help the situation? They couldn’t. The emphasis was on dealing with it ex post facto by looking at the tapes, or something like that. This was in the summer of 2001, and it made quite an impression on me.
The war on terror will be long.
I believe Islamic fundamentalism is only part of the root problem. Query: Why were Arabs so susceptible to inculcating Mohammed’s message, to take up the sword and slay infidels? What social psychlogical principles were at work? Is there any other religion that proselytizes this way?
Islam is not just a religious movement, it is every bit as much a political movement. It empowers.
Is it possible that amongst Semitic peoples Arabs have been nursing a grudge against Jews into antiquity, far predating Mohammed, all the way back to Abraham? Christianity gets it too, as a derivativation of Judaica.
Mohammed came along, recognized the ethos of the situation, and used religion, pathos, to organize Arabs, and to strike back.
As I say, the war on terror will be long.
I can understand why most of the bystanders didn’t rush the perpetrators…they were wielding machetes, for pete’s sake. But shocking as it would be to witness that kind of event, I can’t imagine sticking around to watch, let alone tape it. Why wouldn’t most of those bystanders want to get as far away as fast as possible? And why would the terrorists hang around and wait to be apprehended or shot? That doesn’t square with the behavior of other terrorists (such as the marathon bombers).
sharpie,
Yes, this is something I feel strongly about. Affinity does it. There’s a situation in my country, and the closer the situation in another country is to mine, the more it kindles the fire in me.
This isn’t the strongest I’ve felt about victims of Islamic imperialist aggression–the strongest is probably Serbia, which was not only the victim but roasted in world opinion and attacked by invading forces at that, just like my country (not yet the last thing, thankfully, but that’s not because the ProgLefties recoil from that option).
Still, it hits pretty close home. An open Islamic terrorist attack on a soldier in the street, that’s the kind of thing that’s happened far too often in the short history of my country. And what’s more sickening–what kindles the fire all the time–is to see the media cover for the aggressors, offer excuses, pretexts, lightening circumstances.
It makes me mad. When Lara Logan was raped in Cairo, people said she should never have set foot there; I said back then, yeah, great idea, it’s their culture and all that, but what if this happens in your own country? What are you going to do then? The answer is, apparently, treat those colonizers as if they were the hosts and you the guests. Sickening.
I could write pages and pages on this insane, unreal and (gasp) unjust order of things, but it tires me out. You can get the gist from my latest piece on Israel Thrives (the relevant points to here are under the second heading, “A Morally Prescriptive Argument”); although the article is about Israel and the Jews specifically, the points are just as true for other victims of Islamic colonialism and Islamic imperialist aggression.
I hate those who justify Islamic imperialism. I hate them with red-hot, burning hatred. I can’t convey this fully in words.
Quite long, indeed.
Sharpie can provide the beheaders shelter
G Joubert,
“The war on terror will be long.”
The war on Islamic imperialism might well be short. The long and protracted war, the one that’s not even being waged properly (America has its RINOs, and the entire free world has its ProgLeft-leaning media), is the war against the enablers of Islamic imperialism, the Far Left (neo-Communists, neo-Marxists, Progressives, whatever nom du jour you care to call them by).
ZT,
Serbia, the great fable. I saved a great comprehensive essay on that somewhere and will look for it. The whole “needed 3,000” bodies until the United States becomes involved by Clinton, and then, “miraculously,” 3,000 bodies happened. And, again, the amount of detail and the foreigness (including the names) meant the American public understood only the Hollywood version. Hollywood and Foggy Bottom. Time to seperate them.
How many fables are there due to Islam:
Dracula?
The Dark Ages?
What on earth drives a country to disarm its police? Did no one learn anything from the mass killing in Norway? Great Britain seems to be committing slow-motion suicide.
The beheaders haven’t been alone in history, but Muslim pre-occupation with body savagery is alone in the post-ancient world except for certain sects of Satanism.
My shelter for such would be the grave.
The episode, taken in its entirety, is probably as sickening as anything I can imagine. The crowing irony is the citizens talking to those killers after the event, while the deceased soldier lay in the street. On one level I have to wonder, “what did they talk about?”. How do you chat up a blood soaked killer after watching him hack an innocent to death before your eyes? Did they sympathize with his fury? Did they admonish him for acting out so violently? Did they forgive him? The scene was almost too surreal to process.
Neo cleared up one question for me. Looking at the clips of the armed police, I wondered whether the Brits have finally begun to equip their regular police with weapons. So, now I know those were the officers who are authorized to use firearms; presumably after signing for them at the local armory. And it took 20 minutes for them to respond. A clear thinking person could call this official policy a crime against society in itself. The British people are disarmed. Their police are disarmed. The only ones armed are the predators.
Western society is sowing the seeds of its demise. The Europeans and Brits have demonstrated to the monsters in their midst that they are helpless. Undeterred by experience, they continue to open their gates to more radicals. They continue to look away as hate against their very culture is preached in their midst. Led by our politicians, we seem determined to join them in a suicide pact.
I agree with Wretchard fully. What a pathetic display by the onlookers and the police force. These two murderers knew the game. They knew they would not be attacked by the onlookers. They knew the police are unarmed. Talk about making yourself a soft target.
Imagine if an American had been there. He’d have gotten a few weapons (eg, metal rods) and recruited a few bystanders then gotten into his rented car and run down these two pieces of crap the same as they did to the victim. Then they would have beaten these thugs senseless.
The 1960’s, as Paul Johnson wrote, was America’s “suicide attempt.”
Reagan and the 80’s were the response. We still reap the benefits.
There can be suicide and there can be renewal. I don’t know what choice others make, by I’ll die for renewal.
sharpie,
Serbia is such a contentious issue–so contentious it makes the Jewish—Arab Conflict look cut-and-dry in comparison. I’ve been castigated by fellow Israeli Jewish Zionists for saying the Serbs were victims rather than aggressors.
I have no problem admitting horrible things happened like Srebrenica. The one thing, though, one thing I can’t budge on because it concerns my integrity as an Israeli Jew, is the view of the Serbs as victims. When I read on Islam’s shenanigans worldwide, in places like Nigeria, India and Thailand where the “resistance to Western colonialism” argument is inapplicable, it’s clear to me there’s no such thing as Muslims reacting to unprovoked attack. Islam is the aggressor in its very essence, by virtue of its imperialistic dictum that sharia law must be imposed on the whole world. Therefore, I simply cannot believe the Serbs were the aggressors preying on innocent Muslims. It wasn’t so for my country in 1947—9, so I can’t believe it about 1990s Serbia either.
The image of Serbia as an oppressor was cut from whole cloth by a worldwide media already in sympathy with the Muslims. The same media has been relentless in conveying a brutal, dystopian view of Israel that I just can’t recognize as the country I live in, and have lived in nearly all my life. In other words, the media is lying, and not just lying but engaged in the art of the Big Lie. Since this is verifiably so for Israel, why should I take on face value the picture the media drew about Serbia? As an Israeli Jew that would be the ultimate in hypocrisy on my part.
The media is the enemy. If it didn’t take the events of the past two decades to make this clear, nothing will. The Muslim terrorists could scream “Allahu Akbar!” in those treasonous journalists’ ears and they’d still say the motive was unclear.
A person is only as good as his information, but that information comes in different ways. Obama and his minions may have been saying recovery for the last five years, but what does the other avialable information say?
It is the resolve to reject the other available information which makes the left despicable.
Related and relevant, excerpt from my post on the 10th anniversary of Operation Iraqi Freedom:
Modern political Islamists are totalitarian, a Marxist revolutionary hybrid. Compare their efforts to Mao’s Cultural Revolution. Many people seem not to comprehend that the terrorists are engaged in a clash of civilizations with us. In the clash of civilizations, war is the terrorists’ vehicle for unraveling the existing order, while a trend-setting liberal pluralistic Iraq at peace is intolerably offensive and an existential threat to the terrorists.
In that light, I offer these essential questions about our commitment, clarity, and Why We Fight:
If American, and Western, progressivism has been conclusively discredited for its forceful displacement of native cultures like the American Indian tribes, then what is the ethical difference, after removing the Lebensraum aspect of autarkic Western expansion, between that and championing a liberal world order today in a ‘clash of civilizations’ against autocratic Middle Eastern regimes like Syria, Iran, Saddam’s Iraq, or the Taliban in Afghanistan, and their fellow travelers like al Qaeda? Are we allowed to be progressive if we cannot, by self-imposed rule, classify our competitors as regressive? What’s the practical effect if we restrict our engagement at the same time our competitors are totally committed to establishing an order that is incompatible with, and actively opposed to, our preferred liberal order?
I believe we need to restore our chauvinistic commitment to the American progressivism that shaped much of the 19th and 20th centuries.
The Brits have slipped a long way since the days one would cry havoc, and let slip the dogs of war.
Where’s Winston Churchill?
Knowing his regiment would be sent to India for an extended period in the coming year, and not having the money to pursue the pleasures of aristocratic society Churchill endeavored in 1895 to find a suitable adventure and cast his eyes on Cuba. His reason for going to Cuba was not merely adventure.
He wanted to prove his courage to himself.
http://www.winstonchurchill.org/learn/biography/the-soldier/lt-churchill-4th-queens-own-hussars
“Where’s Winston Churchill?”
His grave is probably being turned into a high-capacity power station as we speak.
If people are not presumed to have a natural right to self-defense, it is because they are not presumed to have a natural right to …. what?
By the way, those of us who have read Dicey’s Law of the Constitution, will recall that he questioned at the time of his writing whether self-defense was still a presumed unconditional right in England.
Certainly the sovereignty of Parliament makes any rights whatsoever conditional upon Parliament’s pronouncement or leave.
In a world (the world of progressive metaphysics and anthropology) wherein the self is asserted to be unreal and an illusion, what’s to defend?
Musims are some sick savage perverted sons of bitches. Read about all the child sex rings in England by their perverted Muslims. Didn’t happen until they came along.
In response to stereotyping, I couldn’t CAIR less.
In the following video, Chris is Muslim and Peter is the denying Western.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-NilMpIhak
Dicey’s law of the Constitution?
Here’s my law of the Constitution: Don’t tread on me. Fucker.
Isn’t it incredible that basic and logical conclusions are questioned? Wouldn’t such huge controversies as “gay marraige” need something more than “question authority?”
Could we really be living in an age of insanity?
Maybe it’s the water.
I wonder if the killers are on the dole and living in public housing.
“They finally brought guns to a knife fight, and they won that fight because of it.” neo
Only in part and the lesser part of the whole as well. By calmly conducting what amounted to a ‘teach-in’ or ‘teaching moment’ while waiting for the armed police to arrive… and then, once the armed police had pointed their guns at the domestic jihadist perpetrators…then charging the armed police, the jihadists declared and demonstrated their willingness to die as ‘warriors and martyrs‘, as men innately superior to the politically correct English. That will be the conclusion drawn by Muslims and Islam and the British reaction mentioned below confirms that view as accurate.
“That women “talked” is not a brightspot in an otherwise bleak presentation of Western culture; it is the instinctual defensive maneuver where a weaker vessel implores mercy and clemency.
That … soldiers should not wear their uniforms off base is recognition that England sues for clemency.” sharpie
“The long and protracted war, the one that’s not even being waged properly… is the war against the enablers of Islamic imperialism, the Far Left…” ziontruth
Here, sharpie and ziontruth have the right of it. Both as to the outward circumstance in the war Islam is conducting upon the West and the Far Left’s covert, seditious enabling of Islamic aggression against the West. The Far Left views the West’s classical liberal cultural infrastructure as by far the greater obstacle to its agenda. Once they have fully met their objectives, they will turn and deal with Islam ruthlessly.
Never doubt the Far Left’s ruthlessness. They not only have no respect for ‘inalienable rights’ and innate human dignity but in the 20th century killed far, far more than the far right even dreamed of…the personal outrage of the right does not match the impersonal amorality of the left.
“When I am the weaker, I ask you for mercy, because that is your principle; but when I am the stronger, I show no mercy and take away your freedom, because that is my principle.” Louis Veuillot (The Dialectic of the Left)
Geoffrey Britain:
When I said the police won the knife fight because they had guns, I meant exactly that. I did not mean they won the propaganda fight.
That is a much, much more difficult one. And in Britain and much of Europe, very few people are fighting it, or even recognizing they are in it against an implacable enemy.
In this country, a few more realize.
Perhaps, however, a few more people will wake up because of the brutality of the attack. I wouldn’t bet on it being very many, though, if they haven’t woken up already.
Geoffrey Britain,
Perhaps a Nazi-Soviet showdown was inevitable, but imagine if Hitler had had the foresight to stick to the non-aggression pact with Stalin in order to focus on the Western front and maybe even boost it with a sweeter deal in the short term. What sort of sabotage would the Communist International have done domestically to the US war effort in WW2 had Stalin and FDR not cut a deal that included locking down the CommIntern?
It doesn’t take much to imagine due to the record of leftist domestic traitors since WW2, most recently during the Bush administration.
Given the histrionic volume of dissent during the Bush administration that quieted significantly after Bush handed off the White House to Obama, despite similar or worse actions by Obama, it would seem the Democrats employ their own version of the Communist International.
“If people are not presumed to have a natural right to self-defense, it is because they are not presumed to have a natural right to …. what?”
‘Natural rights’ or more accurately, ‘inalienable rights’ must come from a source superseding individual opinion or mere consensus, as a mob is no more ‘certain’ than personal opinion. For inalienable rights to exist they must come therefore form something that transcends mankind’s flawed and limited apprehension of objective truth. Once the concept of objective truth is rejected, belief in a omniscient creator must also fall by the wayside. The ‘state’ then becomes the grantor of ‘rights’ and what the state grants, at its convenience, it may also take away.
That way lies tyranny and that is the only path that the left’s premises can allow.
GB,
It’s a non-point, but I’m wondering, what makes you think the Left will win over Islam? The Left is inherently weak and cannot defeat Islam like a traditional Western front can.
Islam won over the weak and dying by the promise of loot. The Islam conquest in merely 20 years after Mohammed died (may all spit out his name and may allah himself be exposed as the moon god he is and infinitely inferior to the Christain and Jewish God) mobilized nomadic tribes against weakly led formerly citizen areas.
Contrary to misunderstood history, the dark ages were not a repudiation of Roman society replaced by Christian society, but of a citizen led Europe against Islam. In simple terms, it wasn’t Christianity, it was Islam.
In other words, Islam wins against weak areas and weak societies. Strong societies reject the bacillus which is Islam. When Charles the Hammer at Potiers defeated Muslim forces it was not the exception but the rule.
neo,
Understood. Unfortunately, upon the propaganda fight all else rests. Propaganda rests upon perception and Islam’s perception is that the West is weak and the liberal left confirms that perception daily. Islam’s jihadists view the West’s armed military and police forces as similar to Rome’s mercenaries, only as resistant as the underlying population’s fortitude. Britain and the larger West’s reaction to Muslim provocations are undeniable proof that their perception that the West will meet violence with appeasement is correct.
Eric,
Re: “it would seem the Democrats employ their own version of the Communist International”…
They most certainly do and have all along. McCarthy may have been an unprincipled, cynical opportunist but that doesn’t mean he was incorrect about the threat from the left. That threat has grown far stronger than it was in his time.
Unprincipaled.
And cynical.
Grab these.
“It’s a non-point, but I’m wondering, what makes you think the Left will win over Islam?”
Actually I would argue that it is a highly relevant point. Stopping Islam would no more stop the war upon the West’s classical liberal cultural infrastructure than defeating Mussolini did to the Nazi threat. An important battle yes but far from winning the war.
IMO, to understand why the Far Left will win over Islam it is necessary to understand that the Far Left and liberals are completely different species. Liberals are the Far Left’s dupes, their “useful idiots”.
Once the Far Left’s victory and conquest of the West is complete it will align itself with Russia and China and turn the Middle East’s population centers into glass parking lots and strongly repress ALL religions. Anyone who passively resists will be sent to the gulag. Those who actively resist will be executed.
In my view, it’s important to understand that Stalin wasn’t an aberration, his ruthlessness is the Far Left’s norm because the Far Left’s premises view human beings as malleable cattle.
Aren’t you the left loving historian?
No one’s arguing against your point, GB. No one. In fact, we all support it.
But then, Islam has been around for 1400 years and is the Arab alternative to communism.
Although it would be nice to have just one of the two against us.
Communism/socialism: 2 billion
Islam: 2 billion
Poor and otherwise not caring: ?
Western: ?
Allright, obviouly GB, you are a sold West defending patriot.
I apologize.
You’ll excuse my excess as easily as the Boy Scouts surrendered?
“I would emphasize that a huge part of what was going on here is that the perpetrators had weapons and the people in the crowd did not.”
This should be the main lesson. Do we defend ourselves as citizen soldiers (which is the reason Victor Davis Hanson states is the reason for Western ascendency) or will we hire it done. The latter is inferior.
Geoffrey Britain,
“Liberals are the Far Left’s dupes, their ‘useful idiots’.”
In other words, there’s the Stupid Left and the Satanic Left. (Sorry if I’ve linked to this article before, I just think it’s awesome.)
On the Far Left vs. Islam once one of them’s taken the hold, you should know they’re matched in ruthlessness: In the 1980s, while the Soviet Union was quelling rebellions in their Islamic provinces with a bloodied glove of steel, Khomeini’s Revolutionary Guards were equally busy executing thousands of the same Tudeh (Iranian Communist Party) members who had helped them overthrow the Shah.
They’re cut from the same Orwellian cloth. The fact that Islam is 1400 years old while Communism is a modern movement has little relevance–as far back in Antiquity, Sparta had all the essential marks of a full-fledged totalitarian state. Fascism is a timeless product of humanity’s inclination toward evil.
In those videos I saw Orcs. The Islamists are the Orcs. The West tries to fight them with lawfare. Our progs believe that if only we show them how civilized and compassionate we are, they will decide to reform.
Lawfare does not recognize a person or a nation’s right to self defense. Thus, they try to disarm both individuals and nations. For the proponents of lawfare the attacker is always a misunderstood, abused, discriminated-against poor person of color with a right to strike back at the imperialistic West. We, of course, must afford these Orcs all the benefit of the douibt as well as a first class legal defense for any crimes against us. And how do they treat us when we fall into their hands? Beheading is just one of their pleasures. Disemboweling and skinning alive are favored as well. So, can we make these Orcs see the error of their ways in marbled halls of justice? The evidence argues against it.
When will we recognize that Islam is not a religion but a deeply flawed, totalitarian political system designed to thwart individuality and progress? It is dominated by about 10% of its adherents who are willing to practice violent jihad. The other 90% are either afraid of the violent jihadis or tacitly approve of their activities They allow the jihadis to shelter among them and then are outraged when we attack the jihadis and some innocent people nearby are killed (Collateral damage). If they didn’t allow the jihadis to shelter among them there would be no collateral damage. Have we pointed this out in unequivocal terms? I think not.
We are at war. The war is brought to us everyday but we continue to call it workplace violence or criminal activity or some other bogus name. It will continue to go poorly until enough of us wake up and get rid of the multi-culti, lawfare approach and decide to defend ourselves.
sharpie Says:
May 23rd, 2013 at 5:13 pm
That was in what, 1898 or thereabouts? Already, he could see that the English notion of deriving rights from the declarations of parliament and the courts, was trending toward a problematical stage.
His description of the American system of constitutional government and our conception of legal sovereignty, as opposed to the British, still stands as a classic.
In philosophical terms, we are. And it’s not the water, it’s the intellectuals’ whose commitment to materialism as an all encompassing explanatory paradigm and mandatory social dogma rather than a workaday assumption, which is behind it. Materialism becomes naturalism as “matter” become problematical, becomes scientism as all other forms of knowing are impeached, becomes incoherence as under further analysis everything dissolves into an ultimately unintelligible monistic transience which is registered, and then finally disappears along with it’s registration without a trace.
Truly, until such time as we grasp the fact that the progressives have within their heart-of-hearts to use old fashioned language, reconceptualized man into an organic bag of environmentally shaped appetites, a kind of locus or temporary swirl in a field of what ultimately amounts to nothing ( I told you that it becomes incoherent) until then, we will not be able to grasp “how they can do or think these things”.
Under the new view there is no “objective” mankind. Just names applied as approved of by social forces and habits.
“Abandon all hope ye who enter here”. They saw the sign over the doctrine they were about to adopt because it offered power, and took it not as a warning but as an exciting opportunity to escape: to “liberate” themselves (whatever that deconstructed self” might be in residuum), from the “illusion” of a traditional self and from responsibility.
And, then, if you are sitting nestled in a taxpayer funded armchair, it’s a pretty easy form of nihilism to live with indeed.
Oldflyer said:
The episode, taken in its entirety, is probably as sickening as anything I can imagine. The crowing irony is the citizens talking to those killers after the event, while the deceased soldier lay in the street. On one level I have to wonder, “what did they talk about?”. How do you chat up a blood soaked killer after watching him hack an innocent to death before your eyes? Did they sympathize with his fury? Did they admonish him for acting out so violently? Did they forgive him? The scene was almost too surreal to process.
Well said.
Just watched this interview with Ingrid Loyau-Kennett, the woman being hailed as a hero for talking to the killers. I get a sense of dissociation rather than bravery. Anyone else find her manner and what she said odd?
By the way, what’s that accent she has — French, Dutch, or …?
I’m wondering, how much of what we assume was “bad” during our Medieval history was Islam. The Dark Ages, Dracula, Inquistion, and the Crusades come to mind. All of them were in the main reactions to Islam which were required for freemen to live and protect their own. Wasn’t Dracula a savage response to savage invaders, the impaling of thousands of Muslim invaders? How much freedom for Jews and others was lost during those times?
How much freedom is currently being lost because of Muslims?
And these bastards squeel and bemoan their lost civil rights? How much do they try to become American? How about those 25,000 bastard Americans in Minnesota which are still Somalians?
Geoffrey Britain Says:
“If people are not presumed to have a natural right to self-defense, it is because they are not presumed to have a natural right to …. what?”
It was a kind of trick question based on its invisible obviousness.
“Life”
Good point, and good argument.
“Aren’t you the left loving historian?” sharpie
??? To whom is that addressed? If myself, nothing could be farther from the truth of the matter.
If your apology was in reference to this, apology accepted, obviously a misunderstanding.
ziontruth,
In other words, there’s the Stupid Left and the Satanic Left.”
Labeling liberals as the “Stupid Left” is somewhat simplistic. Certainly stupidity is rampant among liberals. So too, among other factors are naivete, gullibility and ignorance. None of which are the result of stupidity. Both my WWII veteran Father and my 27 yr old Daughter are liberals, neither of whom are stupid, in fact they’re both highly intelligent. What they are is unknowingly and thoroughly indoctrinated into the memes of the left.
“On the Far Left vs. Islam once one of them’s taken the hold, you should know they’re matched in ruthlessness…They’re cut from the same Orwellian cloth. The fact that Islam is 1400 years old while Communism is a modern movement has little relevance…Fascism is a timeless product of humanity’s inclination toward evil.’
Yes, they are matched in ruthlessness, cut from the same Orwellian cloth and dual products of “humanity’s inclination toward evil”. But… not a match at all in logistical resources, nor will they ever be. And logistical resources is why the Far Left will prevail over Islam.
Regardless of how many nukes Islam may acquire, they shall never be able to impose their ideology upon an utterly ruthless Far Left that ultimately, welcomes confrontation as much as Islam does.
Regarding “Liberals are the Far Left’s dupes, their ‘useful idiots’.”, another excerpt from my blog:
Progressive liberals are primarily idealists. While progressive liberalism is strong in morality, its critical flaw is weak economic grounding. For example, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr, a model American progressive liberal, was frustrated after he switched his activism from civil rights to economic rights. That weakness is exploited by Marxists, who are primarily pragmatists (or materialists, in philosophical terms) with an economic focus. Marxists and progressive liberals appear similar in their methods and goals, and Marxists are expert at disguising themselves with liberal language and co-opting liberal initiatives. But where liberals practice tolerant cooperation and seek moderation with equitable balance for the greater good, Marxists employ no such self-regulating check. Marxists instead practice adversarial, zero-sum competition and advocate for maximal benefit for their clients even to the detriment of the greater good. The Marxists have no restraint in their client advocacy — think George Orwell’s Animal Farm or present-day affirmative action. Progressive liberals do have a restraining check: they value principle and a balanced greater good before client. Through the mid-20th century, progressive liberals appreciated the camouflaged threat that Marxism posed to progressive liberalism. Liberal leaders such as John Kennedy and Daniel Moynihan (the father of neo-conservatism) vigorously opposed Marxist-derived Communism. As liberal activism has produced liberal policies, however, liberals have tended to outsource decision-making for those policies to Marxists. Today, Marxists have infiltrated liberal ranks to the degree that the traditional definition for Marxists is applied to progressive liberals.
In my opinion, Leftism and Islam share a hatred of Western capitalism and republican government. They are willing to join forces to destroy it. If they succeed, they will eventually turn on each other.
In effect, each is using the other as a “useful idiot”. Each believes they will ultimately be triumphant. Each is utterly ruthless in crushing dissent once they have power.
As for which one will ultimately triumph, I can’t say. Russian Muslims didn’t fare too well under Stalin. Iranian Communists initially supported Ayatollah Khomeini’s Islamic revolution, then were rounded up and executed.
One thing I’m sure of is that Leftism is our most immediate enemy. It is Leftism which has weakened the West’s cultural self-confidence and left us vulnerable to Islamic inroads. If we can defeat Leftism, we may be able to regain our belief in the superiority of Western civilization. In that case, Islam will be no match for us.
We have to discard silly euphemisms like “war on terrorism” or even worse, “war on terror”. Terrorism is a tactic and terror is an emotion. How do you wage war against an emotion? Did we declare “war on dive bombers” after Pearl Harbor?
Once we can name the enemy and fight this war like we need to, we can win it.
JJ,
We are NOT at war with Islam (yet), Islam however is at war with us.
Re: “When will we recognize that Islam is not a religion but a deeply flawed, totalitarian political system designed to thwart individuality and progress? It is dominated by about 10% of its adherents who are willing to practice violent jihad. The other 90% are either afraid of the violent jihadis or tacitly approve of their activities”
Millions in the West do recognize that Islam is a totalitarian ideology wrapped within a religious covering. It is NOT however dominated by 10% of its adherents. Consider that 1 in 8 American Muslims polled in 2012 support the death penalty in America for criticizing any aspect of Islam. While 84% of polled Egyptians support the death penalty for apostasy.
No doubt many ‘cafeteria’ Muslims are afraid of the violent jihadis. IMO it is not however tacit approval of their activities that results in ‘peaceful’ Muslim’s silence but unspoken recognition that it is the ‘jihadist radicals’ who occupy the theological high ground. That every major Muslim theological school of thought supports that view completely undermines any legitimate theological protest by ‘moderates’ against Islamic violence.
“I’m wondering, how much of what we assume was “bad” during our Medieval history was Islam.” sharpie
If by ‘medieval’ you mean Europe, then not that much actually. Islam did not overthrow and destroy Rome, the primary civilizational focus for the ancient world. The barbarians at Rome’s gates were European tribes. Constantinople’s fall, Christianity’s civilizational focus… was however the result of an Islamic war of conquest.
For insight into the current state of American Muslim assimilation, see this: Guess who U.S. Muslims are voting for?
“Poll finds what they really think about Constitution, Shariah”
The big thing to remember is that it’s okay to spit on hijabs. . . or burkas . . . or camels because they spit too.
Seriously, doesn’t it seem like these Muslim attackers did their deeds in a made for order television crowd. They even stated it was too bad women had to witness their deeds. Not like the amount of sex trafficing and law breaking Muslims hiding from the law. Look into fraud against gov’t for welfare benefits and see if Muslims aren’t overrepresented. They love that twofer system. No heroes or people to emulate here. Muslims are pure parasites and marauders, looters, thieves and killers. That most of them actually do not do this is due to the fact that law and upbringing prevent them. But let them consult the Koran and attend Mosque and you’ll get that behavior.
DNW,
Please excuse my obtuse literalism. And what may be obvious to you, I assure you isn’t obvious to many on both sides. For confirmation, ask anyone to explain why ‘inalienable rights’ can only exist if in fact there is a beneficent, omnipotent, omniscient creator.
Eric,
Re:“Progressive liberals are primarily idealists.”
Yes.
“While progressive liberalism is strong in morality, its critical flaw is weak economic grounding.”
IMO, the rabbit hole goes deeper than that. Certainly ‘progressive’ liberals are economically ignorant and gravely mistaken. But that is due to their infantile protest against life’s essential unfairness. Liberals never progressed beyond the child’s “that’s not fair!” Everything they do and believe hangs upon that central and foundational premise. Liberals protest against reality itself, it’s a form of ‘unsanity’..
Conservatives and those on the right wish that life was fair but accept reality and try to make the best of it.
In the main, neither side however appears tp understand the absolute necessity for life’s essential unfairness.
Without life’s essential unfairness there would be no individual genius and thus no civilizational progress.
Without the unfairness of natural economic laws there would be no personal accumulation of investment wealth that capitalism (which merely follows natural economic laws, to one degree or another) allows, without which there is no entrepreneurial activity and growth. It’s not accidental that when America possessed minimally regulated capitalism it led the world in invention and material progress.
Without life’s essential unfairness, there would be no individual beneficial mutation and, thus no evolution and, life would never have evolved out of the sea’s amoebic life forms.
Life’s essential unfairness isn’t a ‘bug’ it’s an indispensable feature in the creator’s wondrous creation; our physical universe.
We should not dance on the head of a pin when it comes to ridding our country of Muslims and socialist/progressives. Like getting rid of cockroaches, everyone has their own idea. The important thing is to have the idea.
Geoffrey Britain,
“Labeling liberals as the ‘Stupid Left’ is somewhat simplistic.”
I don’t, actually. I didn’t write that linked article. I regard non-Far Leftists simply as remnants of the Old Left of FDR and HST, the kind of Leftists you can disagree with while deeply respecting them as fellow patriots.
Unfortunately, they’ve been overrun by the Marxist branch of the Left, so they’re no longer a significant force. The Euston Manifesto was an attempt at reviving the Old Left but failed to drum up sufficient enthusiasm.
“And logistical resources is why the Far Left will prevail over Islam.”
The purge of the Iranian Communists by Khomeini stands as a counter-example, but I don’t care much; like sharpie says, it’s a moot point, because the victory of either would spell the end of freedom, the end for us. To leave this question an open hypothetical is my desire.
“…Islam is a totalitarian ideology wrapped within a religious covering.”
Exactly. Like the Terminator: A living tissue (of religion) over metal endoskeleton (totalitarian, imperialist ideology). The religion-part is real, but a lot of people mistakenly think that’s all there is.
“Life’s essential unfairness isn’t a ‘bug’ it’s an indispensable feature in the creator’s wondrous creation”
Reminds me of what Agent Smith told Morpheus about the first version of the Matrix: Conceived to be without pain or sadness, most people jacked into it rejected it for its total lack of verisimilitude, thus necessitating a new version.
Eric,
MLK was a Republican. I think a better example would be Ronald Reagan, who was a Democrat until, to quote him, “the Democrat party left me.” Reagan was one of the first to sense the shift of power on the Left to its Far (=Marxist) branch. Pity he couldn’t do anything about their takeover of the media.
rickl,
Great minds and all that. 😉
Geoffrey Britain Says:
May 23rd, 2013 at 8:14 pm
I have not yet read this book, but it sounds utterly fascinating. It was originally published in the 1930s and I’ve seen it discussed at Gates of Vienna.
The author’s thesis is that the Dark Ages, or Middle Ages, did not begin with the fall of Rome, but rather with the Muslim conquests a couple of centuries later.
The barbarian tribes were at least somewhat Romanized, and converted to Christianity fairly early on. They more or less carried on Roman law. Basically, the classical world continued “under new management”. There was not an abrupt break.
But the Muslim conquests disrupted trade between the Middle East and Europe. For example, cheap and plentiful papyrus was cut off, and Europe turned to much more expensive parchment. This led directly to the decline in literacy among poorer Europeans.
Geoffrey Britain Says:
May 23rd, 2013 at 8:39 pm
I’m kind of lost here. I don’t know, but I assume, that you are asking me to explain what you take to be my implication of a necessary connection between an all knowing, all powerful, and good personal creator, and the concept of inalienable rights.
To start at the reverse side, I would not make a claim of the form: If no X then no Y. That would be the fallacy of denying the antecedent. “Affirm the antecedent, deny the consequent!” LOL
However, I would argue that in order for something to have inalienable rights, then there must be something definite to which the concept can be intelligibly applied. In order for X to have an attribute or property or expression of some particular kind there must be an X. (Some of course see objects as merely clusters of attributes rather than in terms of substance accident relations)
This then, is not a modus ponens argument I am proposing. I am just saying that in order for there to be a subject to which you may apply a predication, there must be a coherent subject. This, is precisely what postmodernist claims tend to deny above and beyond any question of law giving creators.
Placing then any question of a law-giving deity aside, in order to deduce a consequence or an entailment from a nature, I think that there still must be a nature from which to deduce it.
I would argue, that it makes sense to speak of a human nature, and that attempts to do away with the idea result in incoherence. Those who make these nugatory assertions are often – as we all have seen – subsequently caught sneaking a veiled notion of some essential human nature in through a rhetorical back door, disguised as say, “sentience”. Yet, if one took what they often say about not being able to draw an imperative mood conclusion from a statement made in the indicative, then the mere noting of a quality of sentience as part of some happenstance and non-teleonomic cluster of phenomena, would imply precisely nothing on the basis their very own rules of interpretation.
Thus, in my view, in order for man to have objective rights, he must at least have an objective nature which is proper to him as a natural kind.
This natural kind might be traceable ultimately, in some manner, to a providential creator. And I guess if you assumed a providential creator, a valid modus ponens could then be constructed.
However, in my view, while you need not take that extra ultimate step in order to draw sensible deductive (law-like) entailments,some notion of an at least biological teleology (or teleonomy) must be preserved, along with a moderate realism which recognizes the objective reality of kinds as phenomena grounded in more than just their inclusion in a random collection of objects to which a common name has been conventionally applied.
I would in fact agree with those who would say that natural rights (a legal concept) can still be deduced within a darwinian system.
Not that I am sure that that is what you were asking about. LOL
ziontruth,
I stand corrected on your personal view of liberals. I somewhat share your perspective, especially as regards elected democrats and their party. I do believe that the majority of liberals have no idea of how far left the elite of the democrat party and the various institutions that support them have become.
rickl,
While not an historian, I cannot agree that the Germanic tribes that overran Rome in the 5-6th centuries were Romanized. The German tribes were never conquered by Rome as the thick forests in the German region prevented the Roman’s from forming the infantry formations upon which it so heavily relied. In addition, Rome was an oligarchic, multicultural society, the Germans did not continue that tradition. They were looters, not builders.
That Islam cut off critical trade between the Western and Eastern halves of the Christian Roman empire is indisputable. So it’s fair to say that Islam was a contributing factor perhaps a major one but not IMO a determinative factor in the decline of Europe into Medievalism. I can agree with the POV that Islam completed the decline of Europe into Medievalism.
DNW,
Well. I’m sure we all understood that explication.
I’m simply saying that regardless of how rational the precepts of a moral system maybe, absent the imprimatur of a beneficent, omniscient and omnipotent creator, any systems premises,no matter how logically explicated, will unavoidably be based upon personal and/or shared opinion.
And opinion, can never provide a lasting basis for consensual government and societal cohesion.
Rickl…
Dittos to your post — which I wish I wrote.
=========
As for the Dark Ages…
It’s become apparent that a worldwide catastrophe occurred circa 536-539 AD.
Current conjecture is that Krakatoa blew up — massively bigger than the 1883 eruption.
Of the 1883 event: it was heard in South Africa. The rumblings went on for many, many, hours. It was mistaken as a Royal Naval gunnery exercise off the coast. (!)
That much is known. One must conclude that the 535/536AD blast was heard — in the Arabian desert — as elsewhere. Oriental records (China and Japan) mention it, the sound, the ash fall and the days long trembling.
Tree rings around the planet show that the impact was global. Rainfall went to zero in desert areas. This is the reason why Petrans left Petra — ‘overnight.’
Plunging temperatures caused Nordic lakes to freeze. This epic event is embedded within the Beowulf ‘legend.’ The immense Norse suffering caused a mass migration — south — by Swedes/ Lombards. (The Roman accounts place them in that general area. Modern DNA records show that just such a displacement occurred. This makes Northern Italians as likely to be Nordic as Germanic. And it also goes far to explain why Italy stayed fractured down the centuries.)
The Meccans of Mo’s day are, in fact, Petrans. Their script gives the game away. They HAD to make the migration to get to the only water supply within marching distance that flowed from mountain aquifers. Their old catchment system had nothing to catch.
They took their stone working techniques with them.
Centuries before Mo’ the Petrans had run a water-for-the-caravans motel business — with a ‘good-luck sideline’. As you might imagine, every caravan would offer a coin or two to have the benediction of the Petran priests and gods before heading out on the trek.
Once displaced down to (off the beaten paths) Mecca, the Petrans amped up their good-luck sideline — with the Ka’aba.
Just a little bit of reflection will show that the god-rocks of the Ka’aba HAVE TO BE ejecta from the Krakata blast of 535/6.
They made a meteoric descent — at night — down onto the open desert — glowing even after the impact. The biggest hunk became allah — the rest were deemed daughter rocks. Consequently, they were given girls names. All of this happened before Mo’ was born.
Mo’ had mother/ girl issues. Consequently he demoted the girlie rocks and elevated ‘big ejecta’ to godhood.
While the Petrans had a place to go, and the Swedes went south; most of the world just died in place. Contemporary accounts indicate that every conurbation suffered as if the Black Plague or the SS/NKVD had hit town.
In the greater Med, farming collapsed utterly, killing the families right along with the crops. Even Egypt — the Nile Valley — suffered. The temperature plunged so low that it screwed up the crops even when water was available.
The only recourse for most survivors was to fish. This bears emphasis for this is not the first time horrific reversals have happened to humanity. Toba dang near wiped all humanity off the planet, circa 75,000 ybp.
In each of these end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it events fish and shell fish made survival possible. So, it is with this in mind that the early Christians used the fish as their symbol of faith under brutal Roman repression.
[The Romans could go step for step with the Nazis or Soviets any day of the week.]
The depopulation, planet wide, was profound. It’s the reason why Mo’s crews could sweep through North Africa. It was still mostly empty. There was practically no-one there. Three years of no rain had entirely broken the back of the North African grain trade — and Rome’s imports.
It’s not for nothing that EVERY single nation so quickly swept by the muslims was profoundly afflicted by the eruption. As you moved north, reduced rainfall still left enough for life to go on. It was merely miserable. Hence, France did not suffer as severely.
In the generations afterwards, and with normal weather, (agricultural) Europe had bounced back. The muslims did not run their economy on agriculture. Rapine conquest was more their style. So when they met the Hammer in 732AD, their Western European project never really recovered.
The ultra long war to eject them from Iberia had the muslims on the back foot economically: they held drier lands. Wetter lands meant generally better yields and larger populations with larger armies. In particular, cavalry demands lots of water.
Building outstanding fortresses ended up making for an extremely protracted rear-guard strategy. Every time one was lost — it stayed lost.
Islam needs a power vacuum. Whenever such a circumstance arose expansion has been rapid. Islam has a glass jaw, as Tours showed, as Vienna showed, as the Six Day War showed.
Wretchard added this comment to his post. Tells a story of how Men (and Women) react to such an atrocity.
>>And then there was Richard Ramirez, the Satan worshipping “Nightstalker” who sought to melt in with an Hispanic community where attitudes are still somewhat basic.
He tried to steal a car but the owner crawled out from under it and when threatened with a gun gave Ramirez a knuckle sandwich. He then tried to grab another car, but the woman in it yelled for help and then neighbors started turning out.
That his cue to run and he lit out, with a couple of dozen irate people behind him. Finally cornered, he turned and snarled “I am the Nightstalker!” hoping to terrify his pursuers.
However his words were cut short by the impact of kitchen pots and construction reinforcing bars on his skull. Thereafter it was all downhill for Nightstalker who must have felt relief when the cops pulled up.
I have just read that a BBC political commentator is apologizing for characterizing the men as Muslim, though that is exactly what they were telling all the bystanders themselves.
There’s a lesson in those contrasting responses somewhere, if only I can find it. But between the time the Woolwich perps struck until the police took ovr the scene the suspects were basically a menace to the public. Yet only the untutored seem to remember what even the cavemen once knew. Until help comes you’re the only game in town. And help may never come. At least it never did in time for the 25 year old soldier.<<
For a post that starts with canned phrase and then ignires the point it made,and goes kn at length and has nearly 100 responses….
Thank god all of you couldnt find the words…
This incident illustrates, if nothing else, the endpoint of the social engineering of the West. It has been remarkably effective
No whats happening in seeden is
They either do something despotic like their ancestors did n nit let anarmy of hate take residence.. kick out whose ther…or have a permanent insurgency which as the uk shows has children that have bodies locally and minds from someplace else
Children of immigrants are nit the same as those that dont have other places….
That was,as i explained staljns point for doing the same thing… it made any country not willing to be mean turn mean to survive… like a devil forcing an angels hand by circumstance
How do you chat up a blood soaked killer after watching him hack an innocent to death before your eyes? Did they sympathize with his fury? Did they admonish him for acting out so violently? Did they forgive him?
I have no idea since ghey torture me and cant seem to handle high functioning autism….but sociopathy seems to be a snap for them
There’s a lesson in those contrasting responses somewhere, if only I can find it.
That vocational education doesnot prepare people to be adaptably effective outside their narrow memory based, not principals based education like tge elite get (and autodidacts get, and home schooled can get)
The people your talking about lived in the world not in the mind… their reality and compassion was and is real not an affectation put on to meet a social aesthetic and avoid discovery of faking it causing them to live in constant fear
Ergo, they fantasize about being effective a d acting
And do nothing
While thecpoor, the dynamic and others act…
For them to actually act is to reveal their kncomoetence
Note the brave woman they keep lying about explained herself jn ghe first minutesbut that is not useful fir the feminist women are as brave as men stuff
She did not kniw the horror going on
She tbkught he was hit by a car and ran into the situation
Once in, she could not choose to be out and just went with it… nothing brave other than nit suicidally freaking out
Note that this change is a regression to the time when people were jobs n had no rwal names (so much for feminist history)
Smith, stein, etc… single trained people who were yheir job in a feudal state
Us autistcs are dalit, the phds and elite are brahmin
Huff post now turns 180 as if what???
When buses and trains exploded on 7/7 in London, the objective of the suicide bombers was to sow fear and terror in the very soul of the British people. In that the jihadis were successful. One would have expected the British authorities to not just hunt down the terrorists, but also to fight the cancer of Islamism that lies at the ideological roots of jihadi terrorism. Instead, successive governments in London have tried to pussyfoot around the challenge, hoping the jihadi terrorists and their ideology would melt away with time as Downing Street funded so-called “moderate” Muslim groups and “former”
ziontruth,
No, Dr. King is the better example of my thesis that the combination of strong moral grounding and weak economic grounding leads to exploitation of real progressive liberals by Marxists masquerading as liberals.
King’s activism had 2 distinct stages: civil rights and economic rights. The first-stage King, the civil rights activist, is the one we all celebrate. The second-stage King, the one periodically held up by leftists, advocated for democratic socialism in the US.
“Stages” doesn’t adequately express the gap between King’s civil rights and economic activism but I can’t think of a better word. King’s economic activism did not build on his civil rights activism. It was really a search for relevance after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ended his civil rights campaign, while the rise of the Marxist ‘black power’ materialist movement increasingly marginalized King’s Millian ‘I have a dream’ idealist brand.
King’s strong theological and philosophical background, as well as his affluent upbringing, equipped him perfectly to be a civil rights activist appealng to mainstream politicians and the public. But the same background equipped King poorly for his later economic activism.
After the Civil Rights Act was passed, King was overtly marginalized not only by the ‘black power’ Marxists but also more politely marginalized by the black businessmen who had funded the civil rights campaign. King became increasingly frustrated in his attempts to make a difference after his civil rights victory. Out of his element, venerated but no longer heeded, feeling betrayed by his former supporters, King became increasingly strident (eg, his uncharacteristic left turn against the Vietnam War effort, which pissed off LBJ, who had supported King on civil rights) and evangelical. The ‘I Have Seen the Mountaintop’ King was a broken shadow of the ‘I Have a Dream’ King.
In his day, people better understood the difference between celebrated civil rights King and out-of-his-element economic rights King, somewhat similar to how people now differentiate between Jimmy Carter the president and Jimmy Carter the activist.
These days, however, leftists have reworked the narrative to conflate King’s economic rights activism with the historical authority of his civil rights activism. Which again goes back to my point of pragmatic materialistic Marxists cuckolding idealistic liberals.
GB
Excellent WND article.
Rickl,
Thanks for the book suggestion.
“How do you chat up a blood soaked killer after watching him hack an innocent to death before your eyes? Did they sympathize with his fury?”
Trained human observers do it all the time. Spies and infiltrators do it to get close and betray the target. Those trained in H2H lethal force are expected to utilize social discourse to gain the confidence of the target, get close, and execute the target.
“In his day, people better understood the difference between celebrated civil rights King and out-of-his-element economic rights King, somewhat similar to how people now differentiate between Jimmy Carter the president and Jimmy Carter the activist.”
I suspect King and Malcom X, were killed by Black Panther esque Muslims when both started going off the plantation.
Even if you gave slaves weapons, they wouldn’t use them against their oppressors. What makes a warrior a warrior is that he can kill enemies as naked as the day he was born. What makes a slave a slave is that when armed to the teeth, they don’t desire freedom.
Not any more.