Category Archives: Peace

Bob Dylan Among Honorees of 2012 Presidential Medal Of Freedom

PRESIDENT BARACK H. OBAMA awarded Presidential Medals of Freedom today at the White House to Jan Karski, Dolores Huerta, John Glenn, John Paul Stevens, Madeleine Albright, Shimon Peres, John Doar, William Foege, Juliette Gordon Low, Pat Summitt, Gordon Hirabayashi, and wait for it, can you believe it, the one and only Bob Dylan. The medal is the highest honor a president can bestow upon a civilian.

When delivering his brief remarks about each honoree, President Obama thanked musician Bob Dylan for opening up his world. "I remember in college listening to Bob Dylan and my world opening up because he captured something that—about this country that was so vital," Obama said. The president also noted that he's "a really big fan."

Bob Dylan started out singing other people’s songs. But, as he says, “There came a point where I had to write what I wanted to say, because what I wanted to say, nobody else was writing.” So born in Hibbing, Minnesota—a town, he says, where “you couldn’t be a rebel—it was too cold”—(laughter)—Bob moved to New York at age 19. By the time he was 23, Bob’s voice, with its weight, its unique, gravelly power was redefining not just what music sounded like, but the message it carried and how it made people feel. Today, everybody from Bruce Springsteen to U2 owes Bob a debt of gratitude. There is not a bigger giant in the history of American music. All these years later, he’s still chasing that sound, still searching for a little bit of truth. And I have to say that I am a really big fan.

Oddities of 2012, where beast and fowl and fish behave in strange events, severe weather, uncertain noises heard locally around the globe, the sun controlling earth...

The Second Coming

220px-William_Butler_Yeat_by_George_Charles_Beresford
William Butler Yeats (1865-1939)
W.B Yeats

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: somewhere in the sands of the desert.

A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again; but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

Chaos: The Harbinger Of Order

WHEN THE BANKS STOP LENDING and the dollar drops dead, the leonine principles of chaos will pounce upon us, claws poised, teeth bared. But as horrible as that bit of declarative sounds to the victims of chaos, there may still be a ray of sunshine for America and in turn, hope for humanity, and that hope is presented here in an adaptation of a wonderful comment by a reader at American Thinker in response to an article on The Coming Chaos.

John Griffing has stated the obvious and drawn a single conclusion among many possibilities—avoid default of the American debt crisis at all costs. Financial chaos because it cuts to the root of our sense of well-being can be and in most situations is really frightening. People suffer and die when money values go hiking off in many different directions at the same time. But one of the most unnerving problems with modern America is that no one has suffered recently and we are not sure that we can tolerate feelings like hunger and uncontrolled weather in our living rooms. Whole families would have to take to the roads with backpacks as winter approached like migrating birds.

Yet, I am not pessimistic. While Mr. Griffing is correct about bad things happening to good people, I am just as certain that "this too will pass." Why?

spend, spend, spend

Chicago Tribune, 1934. Sound familiar? Took a war to change things, then, too.

Because economic equilibrium will reassert itself. Chaos is too chaotic to last. Organization is an occasional, but natural state of affairs. We know this from the movies of the end of the world. Each time the world reaches a precipice, it draws back in horror. These movies will be our models. We may have to mimic the Amish or become members of a kibbutz, but with great buffalo meat in our bellies and mighty thunder in our throats we will survive as a people. Extra-privileged classes will have to disperse or reorganize to use less energy—like universities and governments, Hollywood and the NFL.

But physicist Stephen Hawking from the strength of his wheelchair has assured us that knowledge is never destroyed, but merely displaced. In the end we will be fine and the world will be at peace again. Bingo! Now I can go back to sleep and have a sweet dream untainted by reality! Tomorrow I will plant my winter collards and broccoli. If global warming doesn't get me first.

Adapted from a comment by J Levy

Forgive Us Our Debts

Ostrich
The Ostrich Revolution
FATHOM A FEW FACTS about our flipping national debt. LBJ's Great Society and a few other distractions—like the Vietnam war—stormed into 1969 and the Nixon era with buckets of deficit spending. Since then, the national debt has grown dramatically each decade, as shown below:

• In the 1970’s, the national debt more than doubled, from $366 billion to $829 billion.
• In the 1980’s, the national debt more than tripled, from $829 billion to $2.9 trillion.
• In the 1990’s, the national debt almost doubled again, from $2.9 trillion to $5.6 trillion.
• In the 2000’s, the national debt is projected to more than double again, from $5.6 trillion to $12.9 trillion (projected national debt at the end of fiscal year 2009).

Just for giggles and lollipops, let's analyze who was in charge of the Spending and Budget Authority—The House of Representatives:

In the 1970's the Democrats held the House all 10 years.
In the 1980's the Democrats held the House all 10 years.
In the 1990's the Democrats held the House for 4 and The Republicans for 6 years.
In the 2000's the Democrats held the House for 10 years.

The only time we ever balanced the budget was when the Republicans held the house in the 1990's during the Gingrich Revolution.

The anti-Constitutional Progressives give the credit to Bill Clinton—who was forced to accept the budgets from the Republican-dominated House. In addition—Clinton only got to a balanced budget by gutting the military and called it the "Peace Dividend" that rather quickly led to a tragic series of missteps that opened the door for 911.

Anyone who blames people who want to balance the budget and make excuses for fools who want to spend money we don't have and then raise taxes—is historically ILL-INFORMED and most often always DEMOCRAT to the core.

However, over time even the Republicans began to pitched gobs of cash wherever they could, just to make a good impression on the debtor nation the Democrats were grooming. Gotta keep them national defense and compassionate conservative votes coming, ya know.

Bits Of Knowledge Go A Long Way Regarding Pakistan

Obamawar
Obama's War
In 1839, The empire-keen British sought to expand the borders of its colony of British India, by launching a war of conquest against the neighboring Pashtuns. The Pashtuns, as a fiercely independent tribal warrior people, resisted ferociously, so that the British conquest of them was not successful. The British were only able to conquer part of the Pashtun territory, and even that remained in constant rebellion against them. Meanwhile, the remaining unconquered portion of Pashtun territory became the nucleus for the formation of Afghanistan. In 1893, the British imposed a ceasefire line on the Afghans called the Durand Line, which separated British-controlled territory from Afghan territory. The local people on the ground however never recognized this line, which merely existed on a map, and not on the ground.

In 1947, when the colony of British India achieved independence and was simultaneously partitioned into Pakistan and India, the Pakistanis wanted the conquered Pashtun territory to go to them, since the Pashtuns were Muslims. Given that the Pashtuns never recognized British authority over them to begin with, the Pakistanis had tenuous relations with the Pashtuns and were consumed by fears of Pashtun secession.

When Pakistan applied to join the UN in 1947, there was only one country which voted against it. No, it wasn't India—it was Pashtun-ruled Afghanistan which voted against Pakistan's admission, on the grounds that Pakistan was in illegal occupation of Pashtun lands stolen by the British. Their vote was cast on September 30, 1947, and is a fact.

The world needs to compel the Pakistanis to let the Pashtuns go, and allow them to have their own independent national existence, along with the Baluchis and Sindhis. Humoring Pakistan and allowing it to continue using Islamist hatred to rally the people towards unity to counter slow disintegration is not the way to achieve stability in the region, or security for the world.
In 1948, in the nearby state of Kashmir, its Hindu princely ruler and Muslim political leader joined hands in deciding to make Kashmir an independent country rather than joining either Pakistan or India. Pakistan's leadership were immediately terrified of this precedent, fearing that the Pashtuns would soon follow suit and also declare their own ethnically independent state. In order to pre-empt that and prevent it from happening, Pakistan's founder and leader Mohammad Ali Jinnah quickly decided to raise the cry of "Hindu treachery against the Muslims" and despatched hordes of armed Pashtun tribesmen to attack Kashmir. This was his way of distracting the Pashtuns from their own ethnic nationalism by diverting them into war against Kashmir "to save Islam". These are the same Pashtun tribesman whose descendants are today's Taliban. Fleeing the unprovoked invasion of their homeland, Kashmir's Hindu prince and Muslim political leader went to India, pledging to merge with it if India would help repel the invasion. India agreed, and sent its army to repel the Pashtun invasion. Pakistan then sent its army to clash with Indian forces, and the result was Indo-Pakistani conflict, which has lasted for decades.

Pakistan's fear of Pashtun nationalism and separatism, which it fears can break up Pakistan, is thus the root of the Indo-Pakistani conflict over Kashmir and also the root of Pak conflict with Afghanistan, not any alleged Indian takeover of Kabul. This is all due to the legacy of 1839, which happened long before Pakistan was even created.

When a communist revolution happened in Kabul in the late 70s, Pakistan's fear of potential spillover effects on Pashtun nationalism caused Pakistan to embark on fomenting a guerrilla war against Kabul that led to Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Aligned with with the USA, Pakistan then proceeded to arm the Pashtuns while indoctrinating them with Islamic fanaticism. The USA was not allowed any ground role, and was told it could only supply arms and funds to Pakistan, which would take care of the rest. Pakistan then simultaneously embarked on destabilization of India by fomenting insurgency there.

After the Soviets withdrew, Pakistan again feared that the well-armed Pashtuns would turn on it and pursue secession. So Pakistan then created the Taliban as a new umbrella movement for the fractious factional guerrilla groups under an ultra-fundamentalist ideology. Osama Bin Laden's Al Qaeda then became cosy with Taliban, and the result was 9-11.

When the 9-11 attacks occurred, the cornered Pakistanis then did a 180 and promised to help the US defeat the Taliban and bring the terrorists to justice. Meanwhile they were racking their brains hoping to come up with a way to undermine the War on Terror from within. Now that they have succeeded in doing that, and in bleeding US/NATO forces, they hope to jump horses by kicking the US out and aligning with China.

Because of Pakistan's attempts to illegitimately hang onto Pashtun land, it has brought itself into conflicts with so many countries—first against its neighbors and then against more distant larger powers. This is the reason why Pakistan is an irredentist state and can never be an ally against Islamic extremism, because Pakistan depends on this very Islamism as a national glue to hold itself together, and keep nationalistic ethnic groups like the Pashtuns from breaking Pakistan apart.

At the same time, Pakistanis don't dare own upto the Pashtun national question at any level, nor its effect on their national policies, because any attempt to do so would open up the legitimacy of their claim to Pashtun land.

It's only later on, much after America's defeat, that some Americans will realize too late that they should have seen that the Pashtuns on both sides of the artificial line were actually one people. Pakistan knows it all too well, because they've been living with the guilt and fear of it ever since Pakistan's creation.
Sovereignty is a 2-way street, entailing not just rights but obligations. Pakistan only wishes to assert rights owing to it from sovereignty, and wishes to completely duck the issue of any sovereign obligations to apprehend terrorists on what it claims as its own territory. This is because the fundamental reality is that the Pashtun territory is not really theirs, is not really under their control, and the Pashtuns don't really recognize Pakistani central authority over them.

Pakistan uses Islamic fundamentalism to submerge traditional Pashtun ethnic identity in a desperate attempt to suppress Pashtun ethnic nationalism, and to stave off the disintegration of Pakistan. The Pashtuns are a numerically large enough ethnic group possessing the strength of arms to be able to secede from Pakistan at any moment, should they decide upon it.

The answer is to let the separatists have their way and achieve their independent ethnic states, breaking up Pakistan. It's better to allow Pakistan to naturally break up into 3 or 4 benign ethnic states, than for it to keep promoting Islamic fundamentalist extremism in a doomed attempt to hold itself together. Pakistan is a failing state, and it's better to let it fail and fall apart. This will help to end all conflict in the region and the trans-national terrorist problem. An independent ethnic Pashtun state will be dominated by Pashtun ethnic identity instead of fundamentalist Islam, and thus AlQaeda will no longer be able to find sanctuary there. Conventional ethnic identity is far more natural and benign than trans-nationalist Islamism with its inherent collectivist political bent. Supporting the re-emergence of 4 natural ethnic states—Pashtunistan, Balochistan, Sindh and Punjab—would be far better than continuing to support a dangerous and dysfunctional failed state like Pakistan which continues to spew toxic Islamist extremist ideology in a doomed attempt to hold itself together.

afghanistan_cartoon
Military Genius On Display
Following the failure of the Vietnam War, many Americans later recognized that war was really a war of ethnic reunification by the Vietnamese people. It wasn't a case of one foreign country attempting to conquer another foreign country—indeed, the north and south Vietnamese were not strangers or aliens to one another—they were 2 halves of a common whole. The question was whether they would reunify under communist socialism or under free democracy, but because a blinkered American leadership refused to recognize the Vietnamese grassroots affinity for one another and their desire to reunify, it pretty much ensured that Vietnamese reunification would take place under communist socialism.

Likewise, the Pashtun people live on both sides of an artificial Durand Line (Afghan-Pak "border") which they themselves have never accepted or recognized. It's a question of whether they will politically reunify under close-minded theocratic Islamism or under a more secular and tolerant society. Because today's blinkered American leadership is again blindly defending another artificial line on a map, and refusing to recognize the oneness of the people living on both sides of that artificial line, America is again shutting itself out of the reunification process, guaranteeing that Pashtun reunification will occur under fanatical fundamentalist Islamism as prescribed by Pakistan (much as Hanoi's Soviet backers prescribed reunification under communist socialism.) It's only later on, much after America's defeat, that some Americans will realize too late that they should have seen that the Pashtuns on both sides of the artificial line were actually one people. Pakistan knows it all too well, because they've been living with the guilt and fear of it ever since Pakistan's creation—but that's why they're hell-bent on herding the Pashtuns down the path of Islamist fanaticism, using Islamist glue to keep the Pashtuns as a whole hugged to Pakistan's bosom.

If only policymakers in Washington could shed their blinkers and really understand what's going on, then they might have a chance to shape events more effectively, and to their favor. Pakistan is rapidly building up its nuclear arsenal, as it moves to surpass Britain to become the world's 5th-largest nuclear state.The Pakistanis are racing to build up as much hard-power as possible to back up the soft-power they feel Islamist hate-ideology gives them.

The world needs to compel the Pakistanis to let the Pashtuns go, and allow them to have their own independent national existence, along with the Baluchis and Sindhis. Humoring Pakistan and allowing it to continue using Islamist hatred to rally the people towards unity to counter slow disintegration is not the way to achieve stability in the region, or security for the world.

—Article attributed to Sanman

Thanks to Sanman for this interesting and encouraging post. Your essay suggests what many in Europe have begun to realize about their own lives under the EU. Many Americans, thanks to the Tea Party and its forebears, are busily reconsidering the noble idea that smaller government based on common interests and liberty, can be much more effective, creative, and successful, and therefore superior to these many cobbled-together super states, usually bound by awkward if not outright oppressive regimes which seem to be failing for many of the same reasons all over the globe.

Earth dries, the spitting sun. Terrifying unsung winds,
latter day stormtroopers born for nightblindness, compost damages,
foul waters crashing through amber posts sleepy, crawling mud
broadcasting fire, terror, joblessness, crumbling infrastructure, recalculating
unholy numbers this awesome algebra of pain announcing itself
to the lands as a carrot, then mere thud.

Money, rage, religion...
bunking for blood worthless as sinking treasure,
fighting back glances, on undeserving glum faces
too haunting to measure case by case,
files floating, paltry putrid lessons
of a dead awful stick
left to rot.

Time is running out. All thinking people need to seriously consider the nuances and the noises of world history and one's own basic common sense in the context of the dangers we face as we choose our next leaders who must meet the patriotic mark and allow us to once again mobilize ourselves and our families and our friends to invigorate what we give witness to as the thriving contours of the next century. Each of us here in America and across the peaceful nations should recognize the dangers we face as a culture and a people, so to then act upon the emphatic impulse that there appears little room for error this time around.

Breaking Free Of The Stupid Undergrounds

Arguing Against Groupthink
Arguing Against Groupthink
THIS IS, NEEDLESS TO SAY, NOT how one should approach a discussion over what is sure to be a difficult sell to those who already feel they know everything they need to know on a difficult topic, and instead presume you are just an idiot, a racist, and probably both.

In this photo, let's suppose we have a husband and wife, or perhaps two old friends, each professionals, a college professor and a bank executive, and let's agree it's not germane which job is whose. Woman or man, based only on what you see in the photo and what you already ascertain about the general culture, who do you think is the person more knowledgeable, who is concerned about a serious topic worthy of analysis?

Here's our profile. Based on what we know about how certain evidence breaks in this PC society, we presume the man to be the calm but vigilant anti-jihadist who prefers evidential persuasion leaving the woman to be a hardcore politically correct leftist claiming the higher moral ground, tooth and nail, certain of her superiority. If the roles were reversed, and it was she who was frightened of jihad, Islam, and its strategies for conquering the world, she would win no argument with this sort of display, even if this cowardly friend of hers is a wimpish hollow man of the politically correct variety, stoned on his own ignorance.

So read on...

FOLLOWING 9/11, FOLLOWING MADRID, FOLLOWING the London bombing, following Bali, in fact following the whole panoply of Muslim violence at that point, I listened and listened to political and media reaction.

Tiny minority. Religion of Peace. Rich Diversity. Untold wealth brought by immigration. Vibrant communities.

On and on the cliched excuses fell from establishment mouths, their voices united in a wholesale pass for what the rest of us saw as a religion intent on getting its way and killing as many possible in the process. Something was grossly askew. Something was missing. Why was our collective intelligence being so badly insulted by politically correct morons, parroting the same old fables?

Then the thought occurred. These people, wallowing in dire ignorance are merely talking heads and spewers of easily demolished platitudes. They do it because they all do it. It's the easy route. However, apart from what my eyes and ears told me about the current situation I was quite unaware of the history and true doctrine of Islam.

So off to Amazon and a few clicks later up it popped. Robert Spencer's Politically Incorrect guide to Islam and the Crusades. The cover alone gave the aura that this would be no half assed apologist's polemic so I bought it.

That was about five years ago, and what refreshment? What revelation?

Thus armed, my argument with friends either riled them mildly or aroused such anger that I realised something was not quite right. These were educated people. Lecturers, photographers, TV people, a couple of (largely unsuccesful) actors, senior managers plus of course the remoras and hangers on. One thing did unite them and that was the left.

My epiphany started at that point. Buoyed by the great introduction Robert's insight's offered, I bought more. And more. And despite all of this well researched truth they still didn't believe me. I was a racist and that was that.

For me that was when their bubble burst. All that came out was hot air and dogma. In other words the lies of self preening liberals, basking in self proclaimed liberality. And nothing more

They were [TS] Elliot's Hollow Men devoid of any individuality of thought and addicted to the groupthink which infests their brand of society.

A few years down the line I jettisoned the dross. If the unvarnished truth could not persuade them, why bother? I'd say this experience is quite informative. It obviously changed me. What was that thing about truth setting you free?

And all because of Robert's book...

Logdon

Who are we to improve upon this piece of brilliant writing? What better critique of the often undulating process of sorting out the real from the unreal can we offer to those who will not heed a word of it, but will resort to vile slanders, misinformation, hyperbole, and logical fallacies to thwart our insistence on using the fullest measure of our intelligence, not merely a caricatured obedience to some counterfeit ideal?

A Jihad Watch commentator transcribes a personal but oh so familiar path to intellectual sanity when trying to figure out why what we must process day in and day out on nearly every subject pertaining to Islam when filtered by the mainstream media just doesn't meet the smell, much less the taste test. Leftism is a cult of wishful thinking, and is no longer a ridiculous clique, but is now the deep-rooted establishment.

The courage and resolve so many of us must muster in breaking free of ANY of the stupid undergrounds described by Paul Mann is no different than breaking free of the groupthink of this so-called religious or political cult known as Islam and its new best friends, the radical Left of the West.

Radical Islam's Worldwide War on Liberal Democracies

lib-education
Why Doom Is The Mood
By Vijay Kumar

ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001, a war was brought to our shores by a band of men, bound by a militant ideology, in an act of mass murder. The response by the United States was a so-called "War on Terror," a reflex that has proved to be as ineffective as it has been costly.

We have spent more than a trillion dollars on invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. More than 5,000 American soldiers have died in the last eight years, and tens of thousands of American soldiers have been wounded. What has this flood of blood and money bought us? There has been no sustainable victory for the United States. There is no strategic victory; there is no political victory; there is no moral victory. And there is no peace. Islamic terrorism continues around the globe unabated.

The Obama administration lately wants to avoid any taint by the phrase "War on Terror," papering it over with even more ambiguity, calling it now an "Overseas Contingency Operation." It's still the same losing war, just as costly, just as ineffective. The Bush and Obama administrations' "War on Terror" - by any name—has failed for a simple reason. It is because there is no such a thing as war on terror. Terrorism is a technique, a method, a weapon, a means to an end. Terrorism is not an enemy that can be named or identified, much less fought effectively. A "War on Terror" is a war on shadows, a war on nothing and on no one. It is a fool's errand.

The problem is not Jews or Israel. The only thing keeping the conflict in endless, irresolvable foment is a universal supremacist ideology that demands the conquest of Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Chinese, the West and sub-Saharan Africa.
Yet there is a war raging. It is a war that already had raged for 1,400 years before it was brought to our shores, a war that has laid waste to entire nations, cultures, and civilizations. The war is Universal Jihad: the eternal worldwide war on all infidel nations. Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, and Egypt were Christian nations before Christianity was supplanted by Political Islam. Afghanistan was Buddhist, Iran was Zoroastrian, and Pakistan was Hindu before Radical Islam consumed their civilizations and cultures.

The long-running Israeli and Palestinian conflict is not some unique standalone dispute over real estate or factionalism or any of the other wrong reasons given for it. It is simply another front in Universal Jihad's imperialistic war for the minds and souls of man. There has never been a lasting peace there because Political Islam has no interest in making peace with infidels-and every man, woman, or child anywhere in the world who is not Muslim is branded as infidel.

The crisis in the Middle East never ends because Political Islam never yields to another ideology. It does not believe in or permit of peaceful co-existence. The problem is not Jews or Israel. The only thing keeping the conflict in endless, irresolvable foment is a universal supremacist ideology that demands the conquest of Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Chinese, the West and sub-Saharan Africa.

The purpose of Universal Jihad, its mandate, its raison d'etre is conquest of the infidels and their nations-all of them-whether by conversion, domination, or death. In Political Islam, there is no fourth choice. It does not countenance any form of permanent peace with infidels. Where Muslims are weak demographically and politically, they will propose truce. But we must understand the difference between truce and peace. Truce is a temporary ploy to buy time until one is stronger. Peace is lasting mutual respect. Muslims care not for peace, ever, with infidels, who are seen as inferiors. Where Muslims are strong they wage Universal Jihad, a worldwide war against the infidel. Jihad is the scriptural imperative of Political Islam, and the infidel is fair game.

For Universal Jihadists, therefore, any tactic, any means, any weapon is fully justified, so terrorism and mass murder are considered to be perfectly valid methods in attaining their theological and political goals. The Lockerbie mass murderer was given a hero's welcome recently in Libya because in Islam's Universal Jihad he is a war hero.

The September 11, 2001 mass murder in the United States was a holy act, not only sanctioned but also celebrated. The doctrine of Universal Jihad has a clear global goal: the supremacy of Islam everywhere in the world. It demands theological, political, and cultural supremacy-Islamic Imperialism-over the entire world. There is no room for political pluralism.

Universal Jihadists have a theological obligation to conquer non-Muslim nations by any means and supplant the governments of men with Islamic theocracy. Hence, there is no such a thing as assimilation of Islam into a host society. What the Western mind has failed to grasp is that in Islam, separation of church and state is categorically, scripturally, emphatically, and dogmatically impossible.
In Political Islam, there is no valid law other than the Islamic law, Sharia. The constitutions of liberal democracies are nothing more than the folly of fallible men and not worth the paper and ink wasted on them. Universal Jihad is a war on the cornerstones of democratic principles: individual rights and freedoms. It is a declared war on the very existence of democracy and the freedom of mind in the world. Islamic Imperialism is the greatest imperialist force the world has ever seen. Until recently, the Western Hemisphere has been largely isolated and protected from Universal Jihad by geographical and technological barriers. Today, all of that has changed.

The United States merely is among the latest nations to be targeted for attack and invasion by Universal Jihad. It is infantile to believe that the Universal Jihadists have brought their 1,400 hundred years war to the West because of America's support of Israel. Universal Jihad predates the birth of the United States and of Israel by a thousand years, and already has conquered much the Middle East and parts of Europe. America is falling prey to the same overt and covert strategies and tactics. Terrorism has been only one of those tactics.

Demographic conquest is the most permanent form of conquest. The infiltration of both legal and illegal Universal Jihadists to Western Europe and North America is fundamentally altering the very fabric of Western civilization. Political Islam is a State within a State no matter what nation it enters. Political Islam views the world as being divided into two eternally opposing camps: Darul al-Harb (Land of Hostility, governed by the infidels) and Darul al-Islam (Land of Peace, ruled by Muslims). Any land that is not Islamic and not ruled by Muslims is considered Land of Hostility. Universal Jihadists have a theological obligation to conquer non-Muslim nations by any means and supplant the governments of men with Islamic theocracy. Hence, there is no such a thing as assimilation of Islam into a host society.

At stake are our intellectual and spiritual freedoms, and the most cherished principles of democracy. To preserve them, we must win this war not of our making. The alternative is unconditional surrender. Universal Jihadists are the product of militant ideologies and not vice-versa. Unless and until we confront that ideology for what it is, logically and persistently, all of our efforts are, and will continue to be, futile.
What the Western mind has failed to grasp is that in Islam, separation of church and state is categorically, scripturally, emphatically, and dogmatically impossible. That is why the inherent imperialism of Universal Jihad is a greater threat to liberal democracies than Nazism and Communism combined. Unlike Islamists, Nazis and Communists lacked a transcendental metaphysics and global demographic strength. Nazism was defeated within ten years of its rise to power in Germany, and Communism has collapsed because of its own internal contradictions; post-Communist Russia and post-Nazi Germany became liberal democracies.

Not so the nations and civilizations conquered by Universal Jihadists.

A thousand years ago, the Indian Hindus were in the same predicament as is the Western world today. Their epistemologies were too rational, their metaphysical views too abstract and embracive. Their concept of non-violence even against those who wanted to annihilate them and their way of life was their greatest flaw. It was a fatal flaw. The Western world's present approach is reminiscent of the ancient Hindus.

The current crisis between the West and the doctrine of Universal Jihad is epistemological; it is a war of rationalism and intellectual freedom against virulent theological dogma. But it is a war. It was declared 1,400 years ago. Now it has been brought to America's shores. Universal Jihadists have been winning through eternal patience and persistence engendered and empowered by their transcendental metaphysics, and their central belief that the entire world was meant to be governed by Islamic theocracy. What they lack in technology, they make up in demographic strength, geographic diversity, ideological clarity, and a fanaticism that is only "business as usual."

Compounding the threat is widespread ignorance among the rank and file. Of the purported 1.5 billion Muslims in the world, 90% do not speak Arabic, yet Islam's most lionized theologians claim that the Quran cannot be translated into any other language. By their measure, 90% of Muslims cling to the ragged edges of a dogma that they cannot hope to fully understand. At stake are our intellectual and spiritual freedoms, and the most cherished principles of democracy. To preserve them, we must win this war not of our making. The alternative is unconditional surrender. Universal Jihadists are the product of militant ideologies and not vice-versa. Unless and until we confront that ideology for what it is, logically and persistently, all of our efforts are, and will continue to be, futile.

We can find a lasting and comprehensive solution to the greatest imperialistic threat Western civilization has ever seen. We have billions of willing allies in every place on the globe. But our success, our victory is predicated upon knowing and naming the real enemy, knowing the scope and reality of the threat, and taking decisive and directed action.
American politicians of both parties have failed or refused to define the true nature of the enemy and its intentions. The enemy is not Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, Hamas, Islamic Brotherhood, or any of the hundreds of Islamic fundamentalist groups from Algeria to the Middle East to South Asia to Indonesia. Each of those is merely a tentacle of the same voracious beast called Universal Jihad. The very fact of the multitude of factions is nothing more than another strategy of Universal Jihadists to disperse and confuse and weaken the infidel by making him fight too many enemies on too many fronts. And it is working. The only real enemy is Universal Jihad in all its manifestations. It is an existential crisis that threatens equally every non-Muslim nation, no matter what their culture, heritage, philosophy, or form of government.

The current military campaign by the United States and an ever-shrinking handful of its allies in the failed "War on Terror" (by any name) are beyond ineffective; it is suicidal. For eight long years it has squandered billions of dollars and thousands of innocent lives attacking the wrong enemies, while leaving the real seats of power of Universal Jihad unscathed, and even embracing them as "allies" and trading partners. The war in Afghanistan is escalating, with the last two months alone having been the two deadliest months in the eight long years of U.S. involvement there. Yet Afghanistan is only a client state, a proxy, for Pakistan, one of the nations in the triumvirate that is the Empire of Universal Jihad. It is Pakistan's clandestine agency, Inter Services Intelligence (ISI), that rules Pakistan. Using Saudi money, the ISI created Taliban and Al-Qaeda. It is Pakistan's ISI that fosters Afghanistan's chief exports of heroin and terrorism, and that supplies refuge for Universal Jihadists. Yet we embrace Pakistan as an "ally."

The Seats of the Empire of Universal Jihad are Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Pakistan. These are Command Central. These are the declared enemies of democracy and of fundamental human rights and freedoms across the globe. Unless and until they are recognized, named, and treated as such, Universal Jihad will continue to ravage every non-Islamic nation and culture everywhere around the world into perpetuity. The war being waged against humanity and democracy by Universal Jihadists can be won decisively. We can find a lasting and comprehensive solution to the greatest imperialistic threat Western civilization has ever seen. We have billions of willing allies in every place on the globe. But our success, our victory is predicated upon knowing and naming the real enemy, knowing the scope and reality of the threat, and taking decisive and directed action.

I maintain:

  • War against Universal Jihadists can be won globally in less than five years.
  • It can be won for less than one billion dollars.
  • It can be won without any more loss of American or Western Life.
In order to win this war that has been declared against us through no fault of our own, the first requisite is to acknowledge that it is an ideological war. It is the totalitarian Islamic theocracy against fundamental human rights and freedoms and against every democracy in the world. It's also necessary to recognize that causes of poverty, illiteracy, and misery prevalent in Islamic nations are over-population, suppression of intellectual freedom, hostility to critical thinking, and a dictatorial theocracy as the form of government. Colonialism or Zionist or Anglo-American conspiracies are not the cause.

The conflict between Universal Jihadists and the West is philosophical. Strength is necessary to bring and maintain order, but force alone can never prevail. Reason, empiricism, and the scientific method are our greatest weapons against the religious fanaticism of Political Islam's militant theocracy. Non-Islamic nations must correctly classify the doctrine of Universal Jihad as a subversive paramilitary political movement whose core ideology, of record, demands the overthrow of the existing forms of governments. Civilized nations recognize that such subversion, in times of war, constitutes treason.

And Universal Jihad is a declared war. It is a war of Islamic theological exclusivism against pluralistic democratic traditions. They are mutually exclusive. Islam's Sharia is the antithesis of individual intellectual and spiritual freedom. It stands in direct opposition to the very existence of any constitutional democracy, and to the very right to existence of any other religion or belief.

Therefore, in order to prevail in this war against the rest of mankind, we must do the following.

  • Build a global united alliance of nations against Universal Jihad. Jew and Gentile, Anglo-Saxon and Slav, Hindu and Buddhist, Norwegian and Nigerian-all have been victimized by Jihad. Never has any barbaric imperialism so universally threatened mankind without regard to national or ethnic or philosophical or geopolitical boundaries. Whatever our differences, in this war we are allies unified by a common ruthless enemy that will not rest until we and our cultures and nations have been conquered through conversion, domination, or death. United, we cannot be overcome.
  • Systematically remove all advocates of Political Islam's Universal Jihad from every nation of the Western world-which, by their own definition, is Darul al-Harb (Land of Hostility, governed by the infidels). The claims and requirements of Literal Islam's mandated theocracy call for overthrow of the American and Western forms of government in a declared war, and the supporters of Universal Jihad have committed and condoned acts of war on our soil against our people and our nations. That is treason.
  • As a united alliance of nations against Universal Jihad, cut off all trade and diplomatic ties to the Empire of Universal Jihad: Iran, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia. Enforce these sanctions until their governments publicly, formally renounce and disavow Universal Jihad by official proclamation.
  • As a united alliance of nations against Universal Jihad, use the combined resources of all affected nations to demilitarize, secularize, and democratize the Empire of Universal Jihad.
  • As a united alliance of nations against Universal Jihad, demand and exact compensation from the Empire of Universal Jihad for having supported global terrorism for at least the past half-century.

If any of these steps to victory seem draconian or undemocratic, pause to reflect that they are far more humane and civilized then the strategies and tactics of Political Islam and its 1,400 years war that has decimated entire civilizations and murdered countless millions. These steps are far more humane and civilized than dropping atomic bombs on civilian populations. These are not some "Modest Proposals" in the tradition of Swift. These are sober, attainable and necessary steps that must be taken if the rationality and freedoms gained by mankind over thousands of years of social evolution stand any chance of surviving the Universal Jihadist's onslaught of barbarism and mass murder to the end of totalitarian rule of the world.

To survive at all and preserve our cherished rights and freedoms, our cultures, our religions, our civilizations, we must declare an ideological war against Universal Jihadists. We must do so now. They long ago declared war on us.

Permalink
copyright (c) CBSX, LLC
politicalislam.com Use and distribute as you wish; do not edit and give us credit.