To Be Or Not To Be… An “Extremist”

In prehistoric Celtic mythology the ovum anguinum, or “serpent’s egg”, was a mythical stone that had magical powers. Most of the information we have about it comes from the Roman historian Pliny the Elder, who reported that he had actually handled such a stone. He acquired his information from the Gauls, but similar stones appear in Welsh, Irish, and Scottish legends.

The ovum anguinum was created by snakes who coiled together and generated it from their saliva and secretions and then lofted it into the air with their hissing breath. If a Druid adept leapt over the conclave of snakes, he could catch the stone in a cloth without allowing it to touch the ground. The snakes in their fury would pursue him, but if he succeeded in crossing a river that the snakes were unable to pass, he could return with the magic stone.

The serpent’s egg was said to give its owner protection from injury and defeat in battle. When held against one’s chest during a dispute or litigation, it guaranteed victory.

Ah, if only I could obtain one of those for use in the Blog Wars! No one would dare to contradict me…

Alas, the ovum anguinum is no more than a Celtic fantasy. As you can see from the 15th-century woodcut at the top of this post, the stone being snatched by the courageous Druid is a fossilized echinoderm, perhaps a sea urchin or something similar. 4,000-year old troves of fossilized sea urchins used as grave-goods have been discovered in Wales. Other examples of serpents’ eggs listed by skeptical scholars include seaworn shards of ancient glass from Roman bottles that had had holes drilled in them and were used as amulets among the Celts.

No, there will be no shortcuts to victory in these heated disputes over the existence of “moderate Muslims”. I find this species to be as fictive as the ovus anguinum — and not as harmless as a fossilized sea urchin.

I recognize, however, that not everyone agrees with me.

The conversation about the “moderate Muslim” began last week with V.K. Chatterjee’s exposé of Maajid Nawaz. We could just as easily have been discussing Tariq Ramadan or Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, whose silver-but-forked tongues have done at least as much as Mr. Nawaz’ to obscure the problem of Islam. All of them have sent non-Muslims haring down a blind alley in a desperate search for Moderate Islam. Mr. Ramadan, however, has tarnished his once-pristine reputation by making certain imprudent remarks before Muslim audiences on videotape that made their way into the public record. And Imam Rauf is more familiar to Americans than to Europeans, so the focus was on Maajid Nawaz as a prototypical taqiyya-artist at his most unctuously persuasive.

A comment by Oren deepened the discussion by suggesting that we might be doing our movement a disservice with our hostility towards Maajid Nawaz. Oren’s follow-up comment the next day provided additional points that deserve consideration.

His entire comment is below. Certain sections that merit further discussion in depth have been marked in bold:

Now that you have turned my comment into a post, please allow me to respond.

First of all, let me begin by making clear that I am not a Muslim apologist, nor a “useful idiot” in the ranks of the left. I am an Israeli blogger and activist, who has been warning against the danger of the Islamization of the west for close to a decade now.

However, I quickly realized that in order to have any impact, the anti-Jihad movement must have clear objectives. What is it that we wish to achieve? Waking up the large public is an important mile stone, but certainly not the end game.

If your declared goal is simply to eradicate Jihad violence, and to prevent Sharia law from entering our legal system, then you have the potential to bring the public on board. As a part of this agenda you may advocate stopping further immigration to the west, but you will still have to suggest a reasonable solution for those Muslims already living in Europe and the US, one which the public opinion will be able to accept. The only such solution I can think of is integration. In other words, allowing them to stay, as long as they abide by western law and adopt western values.

On the other hand, if your stated goal is to kick each and every Muslim out of Europe and the US, then I’m afraid you will probably only alienate the moderate sections of society, and supply ammunition to the hard core left, which constantly tries to vilify the anti-Jihad movement as “racist”.

Let’s imagine for a second an average European, who is not very knowledgeable about Islam, but is troubled by the recent attacks in Paris, for instance. He is looking for answers, which he can’t get from the main stream media. What would such a person think to himself, were he to stumble upon your blog and find it lampooning someone like Nawaz, which he believes to be the quintessential moderate Muslim? He would probably come to the conclusion the anti-Jihad movement really is extreme, and shy away.

And so I believe that your recent piece was counter productive. I am not a psychic, and I can’t tell whether Nawaz’s intentions are pure or not (and mind you, misspelling the word Taqiyya is not a very compelling argument…). However, there are literally thousands of Islamic apologists out there who are openly preaching hatred and violence towards non Muslims, and whose intentions are proven beyond doubt. I believe we should direct our energies against them.

The above arguments display an apparent anxiety that many people in our movement share: an apprehension about alienating people in their own social class and cultural milieu who do not already support the basic arguments of the Counterjihad. In order to win over such people, we are advised to avoid the appearance of being “extremists”. Sometimes we must pull our punches and not say certain things because they will seem so distasteful, so radical, to those bien-pensants who have not already understood the catastrophic nature of the behemoth that is rapidly bearing down on us.

I’m not affluent enough to move in such circles, so I can’t testify personally to the effects of being a radical Counterjihadist in a crowd of moderates. However, others have reported their own experiences, to the extent that it is a recurring topic of conversation, one that has been discussed here more than once in the past.

The headings below are based on the bolded excerpts in what Oren had to say in the above comment.

Having an impact

The prospect of “having an impact” is a preoccupation for some Counterjihadists. But what constitutes having an impact? The answer varies from person to person. To some it means being invited to appear as a talking head on CNN or the BBC or Fox News. For others success may involve securing major funding from a foundation for their non-profit organization. Still others may long for a paid position as an advisor to a prominent political figure.

So “impact” will be determined by the “objectives” that Oren describes. And none of the examples he cites are congruent with my primary objective. Since the 910 Group was founded almost ten years ago, my main purpose and day-to-day preoccupation has been to create and extend a resilient network of Counterjihad-minded activists who are well-informed about the nature of Islam and willing to volunteer their services, using whatever talents and skills they may have, to roll back the Islamization of their countries over the long term.

That last phrase is crucial. This is going to be a long war. A very long war. I expect it to last at least two generations, which means it will continue for decades after I depart this vale of tears. What I’m working towards cannot be achieved in my lifetime. What I’ve watched being built over the past ten years will not bear fruit until after things go sideways.

Which they certainly will. And, judging by the accelerating successes of the Jihad, the days of “sideways” will arrive fairly soon. At that point it will no longer matter what the Gutmenschen think of us. Whether we are “radical” or “moderate” Counterjihadists will become irrelevant. The preoccupations of those grim days will be very different.

That’s when networks of seasoned volunteers will see service. The arena for action will no longer be on the panels of TV talk shows or on the floor of various parliaments.

It would not be prudent to describe in detail what I expect to happen, but useful skills in the days to come will not be the same as those required of, say, a presidential spokesman or a TV news anchor. We will be living in a different world.

Bringing the public on board

In my experience, to attempt to “bring the public on board” is to pursue a chimera. The general public tends not to climb on board until the crisis becomes up close and personal for them.

No matter how many ISIS atrocities are shown on television, the impact is not the same as the destruction of your neighborhood by violent Third-World gangs. Or being mugged and sent to the hospital by a Somali immigrant. Or having your daughter “groomed” and raped by a gang of Pakistanis. Or discovering the long-term effects of the construction of a mosque a block or two away from your house.

This is what galvanizes people into action. When they gain personal experience of what the Jihad means for them, suddenly they’re thinking just like us. They start reading and researching and talking to others who have had similar experiences. And the next thing you know, they’re indistinguishable from “radical” Counterjihadists.

All this can happen in the space of just a few weeks. But for most people, nothing can make it happen except the cold, hard experience of Reality.

Suggesting a reasonable solution for those Muslims already living in Europe and the US

This is the core problem for every Western country. The serious damage to our culture has already been done. It has been going on for decades — the current crisis is simply an acceleration of a two- or three-generation process. Our political leaders have been deliberately replacing their native populations with hostile foreigners, most of them Muslims. As Fjordman put it, “This is the greatest organized betrayal in Western history.”

There is no way to talk about possible (and likely) future scenarios without running into the wall of What May Not Be Discussed. El Inglés asked the question: “Surrender, Genocide… Or What?” And look what happened to us — we got booted out of Pajamas Media and cast into the Outer Darkness, where dwell the neo-Nazis and fascists and racists and all the other despised fringe elements. Here Be Monsters.

There is no way that meaningful solutions to the current mess can be suggested without something similar happening to the intelligent analyst who attempts it. Frank, realistic discussion of the options is ruled out in advance.

This is why the Moderate Muslim features so prominently in polite discourse. No matter that he is a phantasm; he is our only hope. Which leads us to…


It used to be that America required foreigners to “assimilate” rather than “integrate”. But Europe has never practiced assimilation as a matter of policy, and the United States has recently abandoned it. Both sides of the Atlantic pursue Multiculturalism instead. New arrivals are allowed and expected to retain all their foreign ways, and the elusive process of “integration” is supposed to permit them to live side-by-side with everyone else without conflict.

But this never happens. Despite all the outreach, and diversity seminars, and courses in Western “values”, the newcomers remain stubbornly foreign. This is especially true of Muslims, who remain implacably opposed to the values of their adopted society, and are more than eager to bite the hand that feeds them.

Abiding by Western law and adopting Western values

This is not going to happen. Yes, Hindus will adopt Western values and abide by the law. So will Sikhs and Buddhists. But not Muslims. Islam does not submit; it comes to dominate. The process of hijra followed by eventual domination is encoded in its core scriptures. No one who remains a faithful Muslim can pursue any other path.

We now have more than forty years of experience in Britain and France to demonstrate the accuracy of this distressing conclusion. The second and third generations of Muslim immigrants are typically more radical than their parents and grandparents. The older generations do not understand what has happened to their descendants. How did these kids become “radicalized”?

All it takes is a nearby mosque and a well-trained imam to turn “moderates” into “radicals”. Everything necessary to achieve this goal is already written in the Koran, the hadith, and the sira. All that remains is for it to be carefully explained to an interested boy or young man, and then off he goes down the road to Jihad.

As long as the mosques and imams remain in the West, there will be no general tendency to abide by Western law and adopt Western values.

Kicking each and every Muslim out of Europe and the US

This is what many Counterjihad people long for, but even a cursory glance at current realities will reveal the political impossibility of such an outcome. It just ain’t gonna happen.

Until some sort of collapse occurs, that is. And that collapse is coming. The arrival of thousands of mujahideen in Europe this year has accelerated its advance. And the central banks’ obstinate insistence on printing more money will hasten it even more.

When that happens, all the rules will change. Things that cannot be talked about now will be common topics of discussion. The possibility of removing Muslims from Europe and North America may well be considered then, and it may not involve simply physically relocating them to foreign climes.

But until those grievous days arrive, such matters may not be broached — not without the obligatory kick into that old familiar Outer Darkness.

Alienating the moderate sections of society

Ah yes, this is what we must avoid at all costs — alienating “moderate” sections of society. But which society are we talking about? Muslim? Or Western?

What would a “moderate” Westerner be?

Is a complete and utter hedonist a “moderate” or an “extremist”?

Is a believing Christian an “extremist” while an atheist is a “moderate”?

Who are we talking about here?

I find it hard to get a grip on what these “moderate sections of society” might consist of.

Supplying ammunition to the hard core Left (which constantly tries to vilify the Counterjihad as “racist”)

This is the game that we are always called upon to play. The rules were written by the Left. The playing field is Leftist turf. The referees and spectators are Leftists.

It’s a mug’s game, and we cannot win it. Winning can only occur when we admit the Left is right about Multiculturalism and immigration and racism etc blah yak. In other words, when we become Leftists ourselves.

Until we do that, we will always be called “racists” and “xenophobes” and “right-wing extremists”. There is no way around it. Those are the rules.

I’ve discussed this at length in “Declining to Play the Game”:

Don’t accept the rules.

Don’t recognize the authority of the referee.

Don’t call the toss.

Don’t even go onto the field.

Convincing uncommitted people that the anti-Jihad movement really is extreme, who then shy away

But is it really my job to convince people that I’m not extreme?

Why am I required to make people aware of some quality in me (real or imagined), rather than to do my job properly?

My job is not to convince people that this movement is not extreme. My job is not to create a good impression, or present a pleasing exterior.

This is not a popularity contest.

In point of fact, if I do my job properly, many people will conclude that I am extreme. The rules of the game are rigged that way. Those who decide how we must play will label as “extreme” my view of what is facing us — unless I don the politically correct rose-colored glasses that everyone else is wearing and see what everyone else sees.

There’s no sense in doing that.

To try to convince the world that you’re not an “extremist” is to jump the distancing stick described by Thor von Waldstein, which is part of the “salami tactics” used by our opponents:

Whoever jumps over every little distancing stick that is held out, only confirms thereby his political inferiority to the one holding the stick. He acknowledges its game rules and therefore voluntarily enters the playing field which the stick holder has laid out in advance so as to rule out a win, or even a small territorial gain.

The task of winning over people who think we’re extreme is essentially a trivial one, and not at all relevant to the job at hand, which is to face up to nature of the war that is rapidly approaching us.

The war that lies ahead will not be what we normally think of as war. It will be like 9/11, Beslan, the Bataclan, the Boston Marathon, and San Bernardino, lots and lots of them, all happening simultaneously. In addition to all the death, bloodshed, terror and general carnage, the economy of the West will be devastated. As the new wave of Jihad hits the West, the emergency services, police, forensic investigators, and judicial system will be tied down for months on end in order to “apprehend the perpetrators bring them to justice”. Lawyers, motions, discovery, stays, trials, and appeals for thousands of defendants, going on for months or years. Billions upon billions of dollars poured down politically correct rat holes. And that’s not even considering all the billions lost to commerce as ordinary people avoid airports, train stations, shopping malls, stadiums, street events, and public spaces in their day-to-day activities.

As our economies sink under the weight, Western leaders will eventually and reluctantly be forced to acknowledge that what they are dealing with is warfare, and not criminal acts. Warfare of a sort they’ve never seen before. And they will have to change their approach to how they deal with it. It will be a slow and painful process (painful for them and even more painful for us), but they will eventually have to put aside their cherished politically correct visions of Islam and accept its ghastly Reality.

One of the first PC luxuries to be abandoned will be the “moderate Muslim”.

79 thoughts on “To Be Or Not To Be… An “Extremist”

  1. Everyone is racist to some degree or another, some are racist against their own people, which is really sick and twisted and a hallmark of many lefties and the ‘Gutmenschen’ of post-1960’s Europe and America.
    So next time someone calls you a racist, just say, yes, and so are you.
    There probably are some skinhead types who really would like to kill all the immigrants, but the overwhelming majority of people probably just want them to leave and get back to a Europe inhabited by Europeans.
    That they will not go quietly is likely, that it will take MAJOR changes in many governments is certain.
    I think we might be entering a re-run of the Middle Ages, where small sections of cities, provinces or countries will either secede or cordon themselves off from the rest in some way and enforce strict controls of their boundaries, similar to but on a grander and more extreme scale than gated communities or suburbs vs. ‘inner cities’ in the US.
    There will be riots where the inhabitants of a certain area will flat out refuse to be refugeed, settled, immigranted, Islamized or what-have-you, including taking a stand against their very own police or military, if necessary. Let’s hope the morons who govern Europe haven’t completely lost all their marbles and don’t actually fire on their own people.
    If they do, ugliness will ensue that will make the combined horrors of WWI & II seem like kiddie games in the sandbox.

  2. A moderate Muslim is close kin to a unicorn. Sighting either one is highly unlikely. Fleeting glimpses through the trees don’t count as real encounters.

    Political correctness is an ever-increasing stricture. It reduces the available oxygen in the room, shortens the list of permissible words that may be uttered, and slowly silences everyone except those appointed as our “speakers”. Even *they* aren’t really in charge, they simply have a larger permission to speak. It is as though the whole of the public square has been turned into a TSA waiting room, where those who wish to fly (or to speak), must agree to disrobe, to willingly submit to being groped, to expose their most private selves to public scrutiny, and above all, to refrain from complaining.

    Mean-spirited motivations are ascribed to people who are naive enough to think none of this concerns *them*. There are not only no innocent by-stander left, but the very concept is an anachronism. Innocence itself is being squeezed out of existence.

    • Dear Dymphna,

      Everything that is happening now (at least in UK) can be explained by the existence of the so-called “Lancaster Plan”. According to John Joyce at New English Review, this was a plan drawn up in 2005 by Labour under Blair. The plan describes a strategy for avoiding muslim violence during a transition to a muslim UK. The plan basically calls for gradual consent to muslim demands in a controlled way. According to Joyce, it was seen a a historical inevitability (a left-over from classical marxist theory) that Europe would become muslim, so the plan is a pragmatic attempt to do it as a step-by-step transition. One of the more sinister points of the plan is that the elites will (of cource) not suffer any negative consequences, and will, in fact, still be in charge through it all. I don’t know if the plan exist, or if it is a hoax. If it is true, as I suspect it is, it would explain a lot. Can you do anything to verify or debunk this? Because if it really is true, then the information is dynamite, and should be spread around.

  3. All Islam leads to the same result: jihad. It’s impossible to even say that Islam is a legitimate religion without it resulting in support for jihad. As long as anyone gets the idea that Islam is legitimate then they will get the idea that jihad is legitimate. Like all roots of a tree lead to the trunk, all support for Islam leads to jihad, violence, war and human destruction.

  4. A trend that I have observed growing for about the past thirty years with increased growth during the past fifteen years could be called “ABC” (Anything But Christian). The responses on the part of the Left that I have observed, and have had to personally deal with, in response to the Christian Ethos and Gospel have been more vitriolic than some of the more radical Imams it has been my displeasure to attend to. In fact, the radical Left and the radical Muslim could almost sing in harmony.
    The Liberal and the Leftist have apparently forgotten Who and What made it possible for them to air their views in the public discourse, and even have them taken seriously on occasion. Prior to Jesus Christ and His preaching women were Chattel that were sold by their father to the husband-to-be and were expected to produce progeny that would carry on the name of the household. During Jesus’ time a woman could be divorced simply on the husband’s say-so, a practice that Jesus roundly condemned in Matthew Ch.19. Both Paul and Peter, Peter especially, called the treatment of one’s wife as less than his equal by the husband a sin that would prevent the husband’s prayers from being heard by the Lord.
    The only reason that suffrage was an issue in this country was that only those who paid property taxes (meaning they owned property) could vote. Alexander Hamilton had stridently warned against the populace being able to vote itself largesse form the Treasury. We have seen the fruits of that in universal suffrage and welfare receipt. Women gained the right to own and inherit property as the result of the Treaty of Hidalgo that ended the Mexican-American War (your heard it here first in California) as the right of property title and succession passed through the woman for the Spanish, and so did the family surname.
    Given the Liberal’s and the Feminist’s enjoyment of rights and liberties that are unparalleled in history and have only been available for the past one hundred years, it goes beyond the pale that they would welcome an ideology as oppressive as Islam out of their sheer animus for anything that even remotely infers or invokes Christianity and its ethos of loving and caring for your neighbour. I supposed that as long as that “Bearded Old Man on the Throne” as the Bolsheviks put is even remotely involved they will have nothing to do with any of it, preferring to quite literally throw the baby out with the bathwater. I have pointed out what life would be like for them under the Iron Heel of Sharia but to no avail. I have come away from several discussions shaking my head in bewilderment and wondering whether their hatred of everything Christian had blinded them to the awful realities of the alternative in Islam that they appeared to be willing to embrace.
    Go figure folks, I cannot. What I have learned from studying Islam, including the 800 page tome, “Christmas in the Koran,” (I read all 800 pages Dymphna) is that it will consume the infidel Dar al Sarb and then will consume itself, leaving nothing alive on this planet. If Satan’s agenda is to kill, steal, and destroy, then Islam which in my opinion is his own pet religion, will certainly accomplish that, leaving Satan to be the god of a burnt-out carcass of a planet.
    I have read the end of the Book however. Satan gets 1,000 years in solitary and then immediately breaks parole which results in his being cast into the lake of fire for an eternity. That can’t happen soon enough for me. Thanks for hearing me through on this subject.

    • The foundation of Marx is Christian, and all Marxism is trying to do is to build a new house on the old (Christian) foundations. Unfortunately, every time the structure gets above the first floor, the still Christian foundations (the Ten Commandments) crumble away and mayhem ensues.

      Leftists find it difficult to understand that their alternative non-Christian society is based upon profoundly Christian underpinnings, that in the context of “from each according to ability” is a Christian concept of love, and that “needs” cannot be met unless we “love our neighbour as ourselves”. When this fails, so the Marxist has to enforce the issue with an iron fist.

      This is a gaping hole in the collectivist approach, and the hope is therefore that it can be filled by ‘moderate’ Islam; a religion of ‘peace’. Unfortunately Mecca Islam is abrogated by Medina Islam, and the left is too ignorant (desperate?) to understand the difference. The left assumes that Islam is a benevolent religion like the Christianity it wishes to purge from society; and having cut through its own branch whilst still sitting on it; the left thinks it can use ‘moderate’ Islam to save face.

      ‘Collectivism’ is an attempt to forcibly enforce peace (Christian love)

      ‘Islam’ is an attempt to forcibly enforce peace (submission)

      The two appear to have the same aims but the devil (Satan) is in the detail

      • It also may be that the corporate world is of the opinion (delusion) that it can co-opt Islam and commercialize it just as it has Christianity. The flaw in the assumptions that apparently have been made is that the foundations for the beliefs of Islam are as rational as the foundations for the Christian beliefs.
        While the Tanakh shows evidences of design on the part of the Author Who knows the end from the beginning and fulfilled the promises that were made in the Gospel with a precision that obviates coincidence, the Qur’an is a hastily contrived assortment of rants that lacks any coherence and was made up as needed by the ‘prophet’ to cover unforeseen exigencies. The Qur’an is not internally consistent and resembles the Roman god Janus with Mecca on one face and Medina on the other. Islam can present any face it wants to anytime it wants to, so how can you co-opt a schizophrenic? You don’t. You leave him as the Village Idiot but keep an eye on him in case he doesn’t behave or becomes violent.
        As the corporations rule the world, though from behind the chairs of the politicos who are their puppets, they will find a way to reward the ‘good’ Muslim and punish the ‘bad’ Muslim just as they have done to the Christian.
        Marxism was co-opted and morphed into a quasi-Christian ethos so that ‘you pay it forward’ and ‘go along to get along’ and ‘consider others before yourself’ especially if the ‘others’ are your managers or HR and will reward your ‘niceness’ with money as long as you remain properly ‘submissive’ before them. You see, they are already at work, we now have “Dar al Salaam Inc.” 🙂
        I am grateful that Yah is in charge and sees all this buffoonery.

    • How about ABCOJ (Anything But Christian Or Jewish)?

      Your NT quotation implies that (unlike Jews) Christians greatly improved the lot of women in the ancient world, but you completely ignore the role of Judaism. Let us please avoid invidious comparisons and criticism of beliefs and customs that we know next to nothing about: Western ethics has a Judeo-Christian basis. Religious Jews and Christians should be working together to preserve western culture. Inadvertently attacking each other is not helpful.

      I have read the New Testament from cover to cover more than once, but I have also studied history. Thus I find that your NT quote to be very misleading:

      Matthew 19:8-9 “Jesus replied, ‘Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard… anybody who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery’” (NIV Study Bible)

      The following facts show that quoting Matthew 19:8-9 distorts reality:

      (1) “The Jewish population of the world at the beginning of the Common Era … had expanded to represent some eight percent of the population of the Roman Empire” [the Jewish Enigma (London, Open University, 1992) p. 9]

      ~2,000,000 in Judea
      ~4,000,000 under Roman rule elsewhere

      (2) Map 4 in The Jewish Enigma, The Jews of the Roman Empire 100-300, shows several “Areas densely populated by Jewish communities”, including Alexandria, Tarsus, Ephesus, Rome, Genoa, Tunis, and Cordoba.

      (3) When Jesus was active, Christians constituted a tiny minority sect within Judaism. The roughly six million Jews in the Roman Empire provided a widely-admired example of people living by a strict code of ethics, rules that were only partially adopted by the Christians when they became the majority.

      (4) Hundreds of years before Jesus was born, Jewish brides received a ketubah, a sort of “divorce insurance” that specified the husband’s obligations: “A ketubah is a Jewish Halachic document detailing a husband’s obligations towards his wife during their married life together as well as in case of divorce or in the event of the husband’s death.” (the earliest known example dates from 440 BCE) []

      What’s the point of (1)~(4)? By specifying adultery as the sole criterion for divorce, Jesus was actually weakening women’s protection. Following Jewish custom, divorces are NOT easily granted (the Rabbis built a “wall” around the Torah), and adultery is NOT the only criterion for granting divorces.

      Married Jewish women are legally very well-protected: not only do they receive alimony and inheritance rights, if their husbands neglect their obligation to provide food, shelter, clothing and even regular sexual intercourse (one reason why the Sabbath provides for complete rest), women can also ask for a divorce.

      Please remember that in the West, legal protection for women, children and others did not arise in a vacuum. Christianity and Judaism have both helped to create western civilization. In the coming dark times, we will need to increase our cooperation and mutual recognition.

      • Thank you, I didn’t know all of what you said about Jewish mores. My ignorance apologizes and stands corrected.
        I have been reading the Bible through, cover to cover, for the past 10+ years as well as studying the history. Nothing such as what you wrote ever showed up. If you have some resources please post them. Thank you.

        • I don’t want to clutter up this thread with tangential matters, but I strongly believe that maintaining a strong moral code is the only thing that will allow Western civilization to survive. Judaism has a great deal to contribute to this conversation

          If you want to learn about the Jewish approach to ethics, the best source is undoubtedly A Code of Jewish Ethics, by Rabbi Joseph Telushkin.

          Two volumes have published so far, “You Shall Be Holy” and “Love Your Neighbor As Yourself.” These books are so rich that I highly recommend getting the hardcover versions rather than the slightly cheaper Kindle versions. After the lights go out, you will want to keep reading this book to pass it on to your children or grandchildren. I am including a few reviews to show how well-received this book has been.

          #Reviews for Volume 1 (576 pages): You Shall Be Holy#

          “Rabbi Telushkin’s masterwork is a gift to humankind. In a time of encroaching darkness, it demonstrates that the light of Torah and Judaism’s teachings lead to a life of wholeness that advances humanity and civilization. It is a wonderful and instructive reminder that this complex legal system is so much about people and filling our sacred spaces with meaning.” –Richard Joel, president of Yeshiva University

          “Rabbi Joseph Telushkin displays the vast ethical resources contained in classical Jewish religious texts and demonstrates how these teachings can apply to the daily personal and communal challenges that confront us all. The book speaks to everyone concerned with leading a virtuous and meaningful life and deserves a wide readership by Jews and non-Jews alike.” –Rabbi David Ellenson, president of Hebrew Union College – Jewish Institute of Religion

          “In every decade, there are a handful of truly great works, and this is one of them. Joseph Telushkin lifts up the ethical content of our tradition in whatever form it appears–distilled law, interesting anecdotes, historical events, or moral fable. To these he brings his modern sensibilities, deep wisdom, and the common sense of a master teacher. I predict this book will be required reading for my grandchildren, and for all others who want to improve themselves and repair the world.” –Blu Greenberg, author of How to Run a Traditional Jewish Household and On Women and Judaism

          # Reviews for Volume 2 (512 pages): Love Your Neighbor as Yourself#

          “Masterfully presented, Telushkin’s straightforward opinions are supported by enlightening anecdotes drawn from the Bible, Talmud and Midrash as well as contemporary Jewish and non-Jewish thinkers. While this superlative compendium focuses on Jewish ethics, people of all faiths will find the precepts so unambiguously presented here to have significant value.”
          –Publishers Weekly

          “This stunning volume, filled with three thousand years of wisdom drawn from Judaism’s holiest books and most insightful teachers, shows us the way to become kinder, more perceptive, and more compassionate, no matter what our faith. Rabbi Telushkin’s examples and anecdotes moved me to tears. It is, perhaps, the most important book for everyone who cares about one of the most important issues we all face – how to become a more loving person.”
          –Rabbi David Woznica, Stephen S. Wise Temple

    • It doesn’t have to be that way. Even a single candle can light up a dark room. Don’t give up hope!

      • I second that, for many years I was in despair mainly because of the thought of all the people that would be killed, then I realised that perhaps that this could result in a rebirth of our civilisation and I expected the Muslims to move too early which is what seems to be happening…

  5. Baron,
    Thank you for this thoughtful essay.
    You point out that once the crisis hits, efforts at persuasion will no longer be needed. Suitable for the pre-crisis world is the website
    whose main theme is how to be an effective persuader of fellow infidels. A counterjihadi who visits it for the first time can spend a lot of time following one link after another.
    The companion website
    is intended for the Islam-ignorant, the kind of people who say “What’s a ‘taqiyya artist’? Sounds kind of exotic. I’d be curious to see a painting of a taqiyya.”

    • Citizen Warrior and Inquiry into Islam are always the first sites I recommend to people who know nearly nothing about Islam. When they come up to speed, I then recommend Gates of Vienna and other invaluable sites.

  6. Thank you, Baron, for this introductory course. I recommend you condense the last sections into a “must read” along the top for the newbies. I’ve linked a decent read “Failure of Civility” below in case readers from the EU find themselves in a rapidly collapsing environment and need to become somewhat self sufficient. It’s a bit repetitive but does bring up basic principles that bear reading.

    • I grew up at GOV. I can’t remember how I came to this site over a decade ago. I do remember a very naive email I sent to the Baron which ended up on the front page. My issue was why Celtic crosses presented such discord in the Muslim populace. Being a collector of these, I couldn’t understand why this bothered the Muslim population in the west.
      I have since understood that any outward display of Christianity is to be eschewed. It is to be beaten down and driven from the public realm.
      This is the world we live in now, just a decade hence.
      What will happen to us? Ask the people all over Europe that are burning down refugee settlements… I guess they don’t want to turn their hospital beds toward Mecca 5x’s a day as what was happening in England when I wrote my first email to the Baron.

  7. What’s the place of non-European (and visibly identifiably so), non-Muslim immigrants? Will they receive similar treatment to the Muslims? I would usually have at the lunch table at work an African immigrant who appears to appreciate the issues much deeper than almost all the Scandinavians, say. I could bet he reads this blog since his knowledge of Islam and its modus operandi are deep and insightful. His comment indicate the Counter Jihad movement does not appear to distinguish between people like himself and the others. Are all non-European, non-Muslim immigrants doomed to the fate of the Jihadists too?

    • There is no reason why he should suffer from this and its something that is thrown at us regularly, but I am not a racist, it is not the colour of the skin that matters, it is what he thinks and does that is important.

      First of all our civilisation values life, and the anti-Jihad movement does distinguish between those that want to kill us and force their system on us and those that do not . That is the entire reason for the deep debate on what is a moderate Muslims that have been occurring over the last 15 years.

      I think that the whole question will come down to if you want to stay in the west and be a part of our civilisation then you will have to reject Islam, that step seems to be what your friend has already done, or he was not a Muslim to start off with. There are of course over issues that will cause issues for him, lack of jobs, crushing debt and social problems that occur due to that, but those are not related to our view that there is a massive problem with Islamic ideology.

    • Blacks – while a few will be able to assimilate to a more or less lower level of European culture – cannot be expected to appreciate, say, Ibsen or Greig. A black Ibsen or Chekov would have grown organically in their own culture and he would have the necessary intellectual and spiritual receptors.

      • Wow! You are what gives us a bad name…
        You think that “blacks will be able to assimilate to a more or less lower European culture?”
        [ad hominem redacted]

        • there is rational grain in what AI wrote, – but it would be safer not to associate cognitive abilities with skin colour directly, but in statistical sense. There are lot of examples of black people making considerable intellectual achievements.

          at individual level – I myself have clear realization, that I can’t assimilate to the certain – higher – level of culture in my profession (Physics) because of my modest mental capabilities, which are genetically defined.
          I am OK with that.
          Why others can’t?

      • Your misspelled reference to Russian literature (Chekhov, not Chekov) is ironic: you obviously haven’t heard the story of Abram Petrovich Gannibal, an African slave who was adopted by Peter the Great and became a member of the Russian nobility. He fought in the French army, became a military engineer and was the great grandfather of Alexander Pushkin. Not bad for the “lower level of European culture,” eh?

  8. President of Turkey is reported to have said : ” There is no such thing as a moderate muslim. The term is ugly and offensive. A muslim is a muslim “.

    Since a muslim is commanded by the Koran to follow to the letter the commands therein, any so called moderate muslim (who does not follow EXACTLY) is a “hypocrite”. Penalty is the same as for apostasy = DEATH.

    Modern wetsren definition is : Radical muslim cuts off your head. Moderate stands on the sidelines and cheers. A good example would be 9/11. Radical muslims destroyed 3,000 people. Moderate muslims all over the world were out on the streets celebrating.

  9. Baron, you mesh so completely with my thinking its scary, what I was initially trying to do in the period of 1999 to 2009 was push for people to understand that Islam was an extreme ideology and that we needed to expose it to full open investigation of its texts, I realised that the Islamics were trying to block that so that was its Achilies heel so to speak.

    I watched in despair as western governments reduced our freedom to criticise the extreme xenophobic political religious ideology known as Islam and in doing so removed our hard won freedom that is at the corner stone of democracy which is protected free speech. In 2009 I decided that it was now too late and that it would now end up in a messy bloody civil war which was now inevitable, I largely walked away because the stage is set, I realised that the war had to be in the face of our population before things would start to change, and we are almost there.

    The context of the question of what is a moderate Muslim is who can be assimilated when we get to the shooting stage, there are many Muslims who have their own personal Islam who actually reject the extreme parts, they are Christians but they don’t realise it, those people must be helped to move on and some are already doing so. It is those people who think that Sharia should be applied for all of mankind who are not moderates, the better question would be who are the fundamentalists or extremists? For me it is any Muslim who believes that Sharia should be applied to all, point final, those people have no right to live in a free democratic society in my opinion.

    The shooting war starts soon, I just hope that our side works out that there are perhaps 20% to 30% of people who define themselves as Muslims who would walk away from that terrible ideology if given the chance, our task should be to realise that and act upon it. The current political leaders really don’t seem up to it to be honest.

    And on a final note, credit should go to the French security forces, they have done an excellent job over the recent state of emergency, though this should have been applied after Charlie Hebdo and the attack on the Jews, but of course that was an attack on people who had big mouths and the Jews who both deserved it in the opinion of the chattering class, the events of 13th November proved them wrong and people like me were proved right, there are many still in denial, but there is a sea change here and very very welcome even if incomplete.

  10. we will not have any chance to survive as Europeans when we dont introduce extremely radical methods to clean our societies. First we have to clean inside the house and get rid off the traiterous left. Without winning the battle against the left we will not win the battle against islam.

    Thankfully the new conservative government PiS in Poland has recognized it and has taken the first steps of the “plan of peace” below.

    So the “plan of peace” is the following
    -vote for right wing parties like FN, FPÖ etc. and bring them to absolute majority of 51%+
    -take control of the leftwing media and replace the staff by your own
    -take control of leftwing courts and replace the judges
    -strengthen military and police
    -institute national boundaries again
    -get rid of the EU and the Euro
    -education programs for the children and students to make them resistant against leftist ideas
    -make islam an ideology and not only a religion
    -disallow building more mosques
    -throw out illegal moslems, foreign preachers and legal criminal moslems
    -make it illegal for moslems to act against the state in any form
    -overwatch the rest of moslems in your country very closely by modern technological methods like video monitoring in every mosque etc. If anyone of them makes any problems, throw him and his family out of the country.
    -force them to integrate by re-education

    With implementing this plan we will still have some terrorism for a few years till they are re-educated, but we can possibly avoid a bloody civil war.

  11. Westerners searching for a “moderate” Muslim are searching for an excuse not to pass moral judgment on Islam and even on Muslims. That tooth fairy has just got to exist for them, otherwise they find living very troubling. For me, the ideal “moderate” Muslim is an apostate, an ex-Muslim who has renounced, repudiated, and rejected all things Islamic. An apostate is an ex-Muslim who doesn’t try to convince you that the violent verses in the Koran are just a matter of “interpretation” or “subjective judgment,” but that they are meant to be taken literally, as ISIS and Al-Qaeda do take them. An apostate ex-Muslim will tell you that he fears Sharia and the Ummah and a Caliphate as much as you do. An apostate ex-Muslim is a guy who got rid of the beard that [redacted]. Just a note: I’m an atheist, but certainly no “moderate” Westerner. My blog site ought to inform you of that. But I’m afraid that the conciliatory policies of Western governments towards Muslim immigration and all things Islam are simply going to lead to what the Baron is reluctant to name (lest Attorney General Loretta Lynch decides to “do something” about this site), it’s going to go to brass knuckles between Westerners and Muslims, with Western governments lending Muslims a helping hand to put down us “extremists” and “radicalized” defenders of Western civilization.

  12. I am afraid I cannot agree with the boy’s infatuation with the terms ‘moderate’ and ‘extremist’ at all. No one should bother about that nonsense at all, other than to explain to anyone who brings it up that the terms are meaningless.

    If anyone persists, then the only other response should be to insist that they define their terms first. Then we can watch them curl up like pouring salt on a snail.

    The yardstick we ought to use to measure our actions – and our words – is truth.

    Is what we are saying true?

    • Yes. We can know whether *our* statements are true, but we can never know whether the opposition’s statements are true.

      If the opposition is Muslim, then look for taqiyya to be active.

      If the opposition is leftist, then look for leftist selective truth and omission of the rest of it.

      Personally, I’ve always found the truth to be the easiest story to tell: you don’t have to worry about keeping your stories straight if you only have ONE to tell.

  13. The commenter Oren argues his point very well. No doubt there were other such erudite people in the past who argued the pros and cons of confront/don’t confront potential threats, but I’m not sure the West has ever witnessed the scenario it is now presented with – which is the evil genius of incremental racial and cultural displacement whilst smearing those who disagree with it via the bully pulpits of the all powerful media, educational and political establishments.

    But is there any point of agonising over this by means of intellectual discourse? When confronted with Nazism we declared war on Germany. There was no other way. Now we are confronted with Islam we have two choices, allow Islam to remain in Europe or remove Islam from Europe. One guarantees our destruction, the other our survival. Is there a third soft option? No, there is not.

    • I reiterate my questions I think third time on these pages, will try to do it as straight as possible

      – do you see the whole “moderate muslim”, “Islam is the religion of peace”, and similar debates as sort of “Trojan Horse” the West is bringing to Islam, – whereas the real goal is to initiate and promote mass apostasy.
      (I am quite confident imams and ulema see it this way).

      – if yes, do you consider possible to “remove Islam from Europe” without actually removing people, i.e. largely via apostasy and deportations of irreconcilable minority

      – if yes, do you consider reasonable to neutralize the Islamic establishment in the West first (ideologues, authorities, collaborators, and sponsors), while keeping apostasy option open for the bulk of Muslim population

      overall, I think there is not one (the first described by Les Ingles) but the two options for the “removal of Islam from Europe”
      – via “discontinuity”
      – via strategic containment

      at that, the second option is the only realistic one, despite the nature of that containment may become violent at some stage in some places.

      therefore, my last question is

      – do you see the long term Western-controlled Balkanization as the acceptable middle way towards “removal of Islam from Europe”

      • Islam will not go down in Europe. At this point they command too many votes and a large percentage of the population.
        Islam will only go down in a bloody civil war. It remains to be seen if the Europeans have the fortitude to wage this war. If not, Islam will overcome Europe.

        • I repeat again – don’t be so dogmatic, look at Israel.

          >20% – very hostile! – Muslim/Arab population.
          External enemies, small territory, limited resources.
          Still there is no “bloody civil war”, Islam is contained.

  14. This is a difficult subject for people to address. Do people become moderates, water down and gain a few new minds to the movement (if indeed it is one). Or do we, as is suggested, give no quarter as it is really meaningless in the short term because of time constraints or any other reasons that may apply.

    As for the longer time frame, which is not as far away as some think, what is the best way to make use of the few resources available?

    Personally speaking, I used to spend a great deal of time trying to explain to individuals my arguments against Islam. Then I suddenly had one of those Eureka moments of the obvious.
    Very few arguments are ever won by those engaged in them!
    It is those that listen in and say nothing that are effected most.

    I now save the argument for when there is a crowd of listeners and really go to town on the opponent with no quarter given to them. In case your not sure, IT WORKS!

    The other thing I now am starting to do differently is insisting on changing the rules of the game. One of the effective rule changes I now put in place is asking people who insist on protecting Islam is to explain to me what the Islamic religion “actually” consists of.
    Eventually they have to accept the Koran and Mohammed are the foundation, from there on I own them!

    Works every time. They still often refuse to give in but once again it is the listener that starts to understand and change their mind.

  15. As you correctly allude in your final three paragraphs, the dynamics of the situation will not change. That is, until the cultural elites, the corporatist CEO’s and the political mandarins, start to feel the sting of jihad directly. This will occur as the muslim communities gain a greater control of areas currently deemed as “no go zones”, and so become defacto dar al islam, and consequently, as their hold tightens, these areas will becomes operational safety zones from which to launch their attacks. At this point, while the petty pilfering, the opportunistic assaults and rape raids on the general populace with continue and indeed increase exponentially, a new target for their depredations will emerge, kidnappings, ransom and murder of the better off elements of society, together with assassinations of political elites deemed to be in the way of islamic control of the polity. For a clear sighted preview see Lebanon circa 1971 onwards.

    Also, as you have also pointed out, the business interests will see a very sharp decline in profits, as customers cease frequenting malls and venues which islamic razzas will make potential danger zones.

    The only alternative to this dire prognosis, is a strong swing to the right politically across much of Europe and the West in general, as it does not appear that there is any serious factions of the Left with any coherent policies to deal with the looming catastrophe. This however comes with its own dangers….possible civil war, and fractured social cohesion, in short, totally dysfunctional societies, the marxist academic’s wet dream; though I do have my doubts as to whether they would actually enjoy the reality of the situation .

    • I find the most effective is using the verse 5:32:

      “On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if anyone slew a person – unless it be in retaliation for murder or for spreading mischief in the land – it would be as if he slew all mankind: and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of all humanity. ”

      I point out that the verse is used out of context and not in its full form by people who are in fact lying about its meaning, in fact the key part is:

      “unless it be … for spreading mischief in the land”

      In effect by our very existence we are spreading mischief in the land, those people shot and killed in Paris on 13th November were doing just that by just living their lives.

      I then go straight to the point about defining that in Islamic terms an innocent can only be a devout Muslim due to the concept of spreading mischief in the land.

      So when an imam says that Islam does not call for killing innocents and uses that verse as follows:

      that if anyone slew a person – it would be as if he slew all mankind:

      He is lying to your face in the most offensive way possible, and those people who do this are often acting as if they are moderate Muslims.

      Taiqya artists one and all…

      I have managed to get quite a few people to see through the duplicity of Islam using this.

      • This comment was in reply to Mark Spahn’s comment, no idea why it ended up under Just Another Richard’s spot on analysis.

        • Hello, DaffersD.
          I’m confused. Your remarks seem to be unrelated to anything I said in this discussion. But I’ll take it that your mention of me together with Q5:32 gives me leave to pose a moral problem:
          I’m walking along the Niagara River, lariat in hand, and I happen to see four people about to be swept over the falls. I lasso one of them out the the river. I could also save the other three from plunging to their death, but 5:32 assures me that I needn’t bother, because saving one person is equivalent to saving all four, indeed to saving all 7 billion persons in the world. Am I right in thinking that the “numbers don’t matter” attitude of 5:32 is morally daft?

          • I was trying to show a verse that really exposes the taqiyya artist and that one hits the nail on the head. I should have made that clear in my first sentence, I thought I had wrote that, sorry.

            I think the verse is more linked to the killing part, saying if you kill someone its the same as killing everyone, the key aspect of course is that its modified to allow certain killing, which is key to the issue with Islam.

            There are a lot of verses that make little rational sense.

            The amusing thing is 5:33 is of course the real deal…

          • We need a Talmudic scholar, Mark; until one pops up, I’d suggest that “saving one life” refers to a situation where only one life is at peril and able to be saved. Oscar Schindler didn’t save all the Jews of Europe, but did what he could, as I daresay you’d rescue as many people as possible with your lariat rather than let the other three drown?

    • JAR-

      Tourism has already taken a significant hit in Paris/France, Tunisia, Turkey, and a few other countries that have been affected by recent attacks. This trend has certainly been noticed by at least a few wealthy folks in high places. Hopefully they will begin to bring their influence to bear on the situation.

  16. Start with 9/11 and 3,000 people killed and all arbitrary numbers. There have been other incidents. That ups the total. Some people were injured, not killed. That also ups the total.

    Assume a four-member family unit for each of the 3,000. That would be 9,000 people directly affected. One can also assume extended family and seriously good friends. One can also assume people who were not affected at all but have seen reason for concern (I’m one). One can also assume people met in the last 15 years who became like-minded (the five-year-old who lost a parent is now twenty and he/she has just gotten married).

    Life goes on and necessities materialize and, given a chance for reflection, that’s a goodly number of people who don’t give a hoot about the likes of haggling over “moderate” v. “extremist,” but, not having good skills with the likes of communication, as law-abiding people they’re simply waiting.

    They’re all out there somewhere.

  17. Many, many times an article will be published or perhaps a person will say something that no matter how one thinks, will provoke self thought as ‘why didn’t I think of that’. This one such thought provoking piece and thanks for posting it Baron.

  18. This commentary by the Baron approaches very closely the reality and the culture (as it has been fashioned over the past several decades) that we all live in presently. In my own immediate circle of family and friends, there exists people that play to the tee, the role forced on them, i.e. the monkey syndrome (hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil)! The irony of it all is that in their case this behavior is wrapped up in perverted sense of the true gospel, i.e. the “social gospel” as propounded by so many Christian sects today. They believe they are demonstrating to God and man their adherence to ” you must love one another”.
    I don’t mean to imply, that this behavior pattern is singular in its source. Human Behavior is too complex to place all of your apples in one basket. These people I am referring to also harbor an abiding fear of the possibility of destroying the “narrative” they have been following all of their adult lives, i.e. as one individual I know put it so succinctly: ” They are getting all they can and canning all they can get”. The present radical liberalism dominating this culture has been playing these attitudes like a “Stradivarius”. They keep people in constant fear of losing their goods, their soft life, their entertainments and spectacles, and their worshipping of celebrity. Many other facets of this behavior could be discussed at length. DeToqueville identified the problem as well in his famous book “Democracy in America” when he stated that (paraphrasing) the people would eventually accept a “soft totalitarianism”.
    In the Baron’s discussion of this dilemma starting with “Supplying ammunition to the Hard left”, his words contain the absolute truth about where we should stand. The times for words have passed. One should not give a “tinker’s damn” for the rhetoric and position of these people. Do not give in one minute to their palaver and spittle. Do not be afraid of being intolerant, racist, sexist, homophobe, nativist, bigot and all the other labels these deluded people throw at you. Yes you will lose family members, friends, etc.. Who appointed them as judges? It is now time for principled men to take a stand against this madness!! Do I offer any idea of victory. No. But you will be able to pass from this mortal veil of tears steadfast in the affirmation that you stood for the absolute truth of this existence.
    I salute Baron. Keep up the good work!

  19. The question of non-violent Muslims in our society raises an ethical question.

    There is no maneuver room in the assertion that canonical Islam mandates war and the subjugation of non-Muslim societies. This holds even for off-the-wall variants of Islam like the Ahmadiyya, who renounce violence and coercion, but still revere Muhammad and sharia. Once even “non-violent” Muslim sects control the government and police, sharia can be enforced through mechanisms of the state, rather than through violence by “lone-wolf” jihadists.

    But, western law and ethics are always focused on actual actions, rather than thought. So, how do we handle the presence of people whose formal adherence is to a totalitarian system of thought, and to a subversion of government to implement the totalitarian system?

    By this point,the moderate counter-jihadists, and the stronger counter-jihadists can agree on one point: no more Muslim immigration at all. You can ignore the question of what to do with the Muslims already here, but if you allow further immigration of Muslims, you lose the war. This position has already gone mainstream, especially with regards to the position of Donald Trump.

    I think another position which would not offend mainstream non-leftists is that all Muslims who are in the country without citizenship or naturalization papers can be removed. This position would be rejected by the social justice advocates, but quite compatible for people who simply value the law as it is written. A non-citizen does not have the right to be in the country if the government wants him out.

    As to Muslim citizens, I think we can take a lesson from the Bosnian and Kosovo wars. Justice did not extend to individuals, but generally, Muslim villages that stayed out of the fighting or supported the Serb militias were left alone, while villages with Muslim militia supporters were being ethnically cleansed. This is not individual justice, but it does not throw out the idea of justice entirely, which is about all you can hope for in a situation of war.

  20. There is finally one politician who refuses to abide by the rules of the game, or at least to abide by many of them. His name is Trump. And that is why he so reviled by the establishment, including the GOP establishment.

  21. Wow.
    I never cease to be amazed at how people can overthink and debate a problem all the way to incoherence. Such is this debate.
    The reality is: Islam and its sharia “law” are absolutely, positively, eternally and forever incompatible with what we term “Western Civilization”. To reiterate: we can have the one, or we can have the other but the two simply cannot coexist (despite those ridiculous bumper stickers).
    The terms “fundamentalist” and “extremist” simply do not apply when it applies to the Islamic cult. There is no maximalist, minimalist, leftist, rightist and upside down–no partial, halfway, no middle-of-the road. No way.
    There is only the degree with which the Islamic dagger is used. It may just tickle the ribs–Now–but the goal is forever “up to the hilt in YOUR (kuffer) heart” AND DON’T FORGET IT!

    I really do not doubt the final outcome of the battle in which we are now engaged. “Our side” has the better weaponry, ALL of the arms production, more population and also the home court advantage. The final fight in the Middle East will be nothing more than a simple bombing exercise. Right now, the invaders are dependant on the West for virtually ALL their clothing, food, lodging, medical care, AND pocket money.
    Withdrawal of this support ALONE would do the trick. The choice: convert and renounce Islam, leave (the West), or starve. Harsh? “Just yoo whaiit ‘Enry ‘Iggens.”

    Wait for the next, tenth or twelfth, or umpteenth terror attack–not overseas somewhere where you have never been and never will go–but NEXT DOOR. Along with the bazillion others that the MSM cannot hide anymore.
    The mind of the West’s ‘gut menschen’ WILL INDEED change. It will when the information gets out to all. (As an aside: how many of us now know that the murderers in Paris DISEMBOWELED their dying victims alive–whilst waiting for an [armed} ‘Police’ response?? There’s worse stuff. It just ain’t out there. YET.)
    Truth, like ‘murder’, will eventually OUT. It just might take a while.

    So many Muslims.
    Where will we EVER [redacted]?

    • A report I read in the Mirror described “slitting stomachs”. I knew immediately that was a euphemism for disembowelling. Of course the authorities have hushed it up or tried to.

    • The horrific atrocities at the Chabad House in Mumbai, the Westgate Mall and Garissa University in Kenya, and the atrocities inflicted by Boko Haram in Africa have been covered up.

      Jihadis are The Beast from The Pit.

  22. “Billions upon billions of dollars poured down politically correct rat holes. And that’s not even considering all the billions lost to commerce as ordinary people avoid airports, train stations, shopping malls, stadiums, street events, and public spaces in their day-to-day activities.”

    Baron, this sentence touches very tangentially upon one of the most damaging and dangerous aspects of the problem. Given the Corporatist world view / aspiration …namely to wipe out competition to their dominance within world markets. Those already suffering under weak economies, namely the high street / Mall businesses, will simply not survive the added depression to their profit line. While the so called “smart money” moves into on-line trading, it assumes that the markets will prosper and thrive, while their market share picks up the slack, but this ignores a fundamental dynamic. If the buying public vacates the public spaces, retail will simply wither and die. If that happens, the middle classes who own and maintain much of the retail industries will simply not survive; the damage that will do to national economies will be incalculable. Consider….the high street essentially shrinks to bare necessities, this places untold millions of retail staff on the unemployment lines, already straining national budgets; add to that, the property owners / Landlords and all their attendant, staff and support personnel.

    Given the tendency of governments to hide the true unemployment figures, it will be safe to assume that they will continue to do the same under these (potential) predictions; thereby keeping the lid shut tight on the pressure cooker they have created.

    Now suddenly you have the on-line retailers, the big money Corporatists, salivating at an enlarged captive market of potential customers, but who, now being unemployed, have no discretionary disposable income to buy anything…whoops. My guess is that an awful lot of bean counters haven’t really thought this through.

    An awful lot of extra disgruntled individuals with not a lot left to lose ….what could possibly go wrong!!!!!!!!

    And this is only one small aspect of the potential consequence, brought to us by those that know best.

  23. There is no such thing as a moderate muslim. I’m offended by those who promote that lie, and those who suggest “integration” given the death cult of Islam demands all non muslims be forcibly converted or killed. These “moderate” frauds are employed in demanding out capitulation. There is no future if there are practicing muslims in the US, they are out enemies, whether they admit it or not.

  24. I ask, did anyone ever hear of a moderate Nazi? The answer is always no. Then I point out that all Muslims follow the same rulebook which is a manual for world domination and they are subject to military discipline. A Muslim who converts or renounces his faith is treated like an army deserter i.e. sentenced to death. In fact a Muslim who breaks any of a dozen rules is sentenced to death, mutilation, flogging or all of those in any order.

    Every Muslim is a soldier in the Islamic army.


    According to this article by Daniel Pipes, it looks like the kind of war that you are describing has started, and would be much more obvious if it weren’t what can only be called the complicity of the mainstream media.
    The surprise to me was the revelation that James Holmes, the mass killer from Aurora Colorado is now a practicing Muslim. It is not clear whether he was already one at the time of the shooting (certainly nothing was mentioned about it at the time).
    In contrast to the reticence of the media to link anything to Muslims, one reporter tried to link the job to the Tea Party on the grounds that one of the 17 James Holmes’ in the Denver area phone book was involved in the Tea Party (a 53 year old man, no less).

  26. The piece of information about James Holmes is in one of the several links from the article in Townhall.

  27. It is apparent from the post above, that the Baron has given up all hope on the seeing the conflict between Islam and the West being resolved in any peaceful or at least orderly way. If I understand correctly he foresees some sort of a “collapse”, in which Western countries will break down completely, and the survivors will have to form armed militias in order to protect their homes from pillaging Islamic gangs. I do not discount this scenario entirely, but I do see it as improbable.

    I personally believe it is more likely that in the upcoming decades existing nation states will remain more or less intact. A global economic crisis is almost inevitable, as I often explain in my own blog. This crisis will impoverish most of humanity, and may aggravate the already tense social pressures existing in most Western European countries. Some of them, like Sweden for instance, who have imported more third world migrants than others as a percentage of the population, may experience civil wars. This scenario is less chaotic than what the Baron suggests, but it is brutal and bloody nonetheless.

    However, I do see a third option, which can minimize all this blood and gore. This option involves a rapid shift of the political map towards the right, which will bring to power people like Geert Wilders and Marine Le Pen. These newly elected leaders, assuming they act swiftly and decisively, may yet prevent the supposed “collapse”. Here are but a few measures they can take, which may stop the process of Islamization, and which do not constitute grave human rights violations. For starters, they can halt all immigration to Europe. They can prosecute any Imam who is preaching hate and violence under existing incitement and sedition laws. They can deport any immigrant who is convicted of terrorism, or any other crimes for that matter. They can place Mosques and other Islamic organizations under surveillance. They can block the foreign Saudi money which is funding these operations. They can reform their entitlement systems, and make it impossible for new immigrants to live on the dole. I argue that all these measures, if enforced stringently, can not only stop the process of Islamization but even reverse it to a certain extent, as many of the recently arrived migrants will opt to leave, rather than work for a living, god forbid. One may argue that such measures will not be taken peacefully by the Islamic population in Europe, and that may truly be the case. But Muslims nowadays still do not constitute a majority of the fighting age population in Europe (and certainly not in the US), and any violence they do exhibit will not constitute an existential threat, and will only grant the governments greater legitimacy to use force against them.

    As you can see, I believe it is not too late for the Western world to avert this catastrophe through the political arena. This is why I believe it is so important for the counter Jihad movement to gain popularity. It is true that the left will never grant us legitimacy, and that the co-opted main stream media will always remain hostile towards us. But we here in Israel have proven that these are not real obstacles on the way to political power. The Israeli public has long ago realized that the left is collaborating with the enemy, and that the media is biased, and as a result we have elected a strong government which is ready to fight Jihad terrorism. When I mentioned on my earlier comments “the moderate sections of society” I was simply referring to the majority of the voters. Be they men or women, religious or atheists, straight or gay. The personal liberties of all of these groups are threatened by Islam, and therefore they are able to unite under the banner of Counter-Jihad.

    Now is the time to discuss the dreaded “moderate Muslim” issue. Many of you have argued that such a creature does not exist, or that they are an insignificant minority at best. This may be true, but nevertheless I claim that we cannot shut the door before such individuals, not for their sake as much as for our own sake. Once the West has closed its borders and effectively cracked down on Islamic terrorism, we will still be left with millions of Muslim citizens, most of which have never broken any law, or had anything to do with terrorism. If we wish to preserve Western notions of human rights, equality before the law, indeed the very principle of “innocent until proven guilty”, we shall have to allow them to live as equal citizens. Again I go back to the example of Israel. Many people are not aware of it, but there are some 1.5 million Muslims living within the 1967 borders as fully equal Israeli citizens. On occasion some of them will collaborate with the Palestinians and carry out an act of terrorism or civil disorder, but for the best part they keep quite, because they are a minority and because the Israeli state is asserting itself strongly enough. Many of them are coming to realize that as Israeli citizens they enjoy more freedom and prosperity than anywhere else in the middle east, and are slowly assimilating.

    Certainly, this is not an ideal situation, but let’s consider the alternative for a moment. Imagine that an overzealous Europe will ban the religion of Islam altogether, and demand all its Muslims to convert or leave. Many will pretend to convert but remain Muslim in secrecy. How will the state possibly be able to tell who is a Muslim and who is not? Will it revive the old Spanish Inquisition in order to identify the crypto Muslims? This will be the end of freedom of conscience, not just for Muslims but for the rest of society as well. Next, what will they do with all the Muslims who will not want to leave? Will they round them up and put them in camps? This will be a nightmare. One quickly realizes that mass deportation of citizens who have committed no crime is impossible. Whether they are truly “moderate Muslims” or not is beside the point. We shall have to assume that they are unless they prove otherwise.

    Last but not least, I highly recommend against “nation building” or any other military involvement of Western powers in the middle east. I have objected to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan from the very start, knowing that no one can reform Islamic societies other than Muslims themselves, and that this may take centuries to unfold. Instead I recommend containment. In other words, closing the borders, reducing all interactions with Islamic countries to the bare minimum, and investing resources in finding alternatives to middle eastern oil.

    This is the message I repeat time and time again on the social media – hope is not lost. Have some faith in your own people and in their basic survival instincts.

    • If the outcome I have been predicting comes about — and I am by no means the only one predicting it; see Matt Bracken’s “Tet, Take Two” — the prosecution of all the “hate preachers” and terrorists will no longer be possible; there will simply be too many of them. Remember, this scenario is not just what doom-cryers like me are predicting, but what Al Qaeda and the Islamic State have promised us. The AQ timeline laid out more than a decade ago assigns 2016 as the year of total confrontation in Europe. The Great Jihad itself will be setting the pace.

      Suppose there is a Beslan, a San Bernardino, and a Bataclan in the Netherlands, all in one day. Then a few days later there is a Boston Marathon-type bombing, bus bombings like the 7/7 ones in London, and a Charlie Hebdo, also all on the same day. And then more of the same the following week.

      Neither normal policing nor normal judicial processes can handle such events. Civil order would tend to break down, and martial law would have to be declared. Fundamental freedoms would have to be suspended for duration of the emergency.

      At that point it won’t matter whether Geert Wilders is prime minister or one of the Greens — whoever is in charge will have to take this sort of action, or anarchy will prevail.

      If — and this is still IF — the Great Jihad keeps to its own schedule, we will not have time to discuss all these fine points of doctrine and strategy, get the general public on board, and win a majority for taking action. History will pounce upon us like a crouching tiger from the shadows, and action will take us. The option for civilized niceties will no longer remain.

      If the Great Jihad does not act according to its own schedule, then my prediction is wrong, and we will have lots of time to debate the best strategies and hash out all the details of what must be done.

      • I advise that you take any promise made by a terrorist organization with a grain of salt. If they were able to carry out all they have promised, then Israel would already be long gone. I believe that they still don’t posses the necessary infrastructure needed in order to carry out multiple terrorist attacks at the same time. If they had, they wouldn’t wait. They would strike today.

        Also, I believe that Western governments would not be so easily overwhelmed. Large coordinated attacks may cost hundreds of lives, and paralyze a city for a few days. But eventually life will go back to normal. Here in Israel we have experienced literally hundreds of random attacks over the past few months, and yet life has hardly been disturbed. It is true that Western countries are not as experienced with terrorism as Israel, but they will quickly adapt to the new situation.

        In addition, I believe that with every attack, the terrorists are moving more and more people into our camp. And so if they step up the rate of attacks, then they are also bound to increase the rate in which public opinion is turning against them.

        Democracies are a bit like sleeping giants. They may appear weak and docile for a while, tempting the aggressor to act prematurely. But when they wake up they can crush their enemies with a single blow.

        • I’m not talking about promises. I’m talking about an internally circulated plan that includes a timeline. It’s similar to “The Project” or the “Explanatory Memorandum” — what Muslims say among themselves that they do not want the kuffar to be aware of.

          In the past 6 months, between 10,000 and 100,000 additional mujahideen made hijra to Western Europe. This changes the calculus of what is likely to happen, and when. I don’t think Israel has ever had that large a percentage of hardened jihad fighters loose on its streets.

          In Israel, police or bystanders shoot dead those Palestinians who attack with knives or run over people with their vehicles. In Western Europe or the USA, a policeman who did that might risk his career, depending on the exact circumstances. In Europe a bystander who did the same would be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. In the USA it would depend on whether it happened in a gun-friendly state — South Carolina would react very differently than, say, Connecticut.

          So a comparison between Israel and the rest of the West is not apt. Not yet, anyway.

          • Most of the police in France are armed and will have no compunction about shooting terrorists dead if they cannot stop them in any other way – for instance shooting them in the arm and leg like the soldiers did to the latest car jihadi. And most of the population will cheer them on rather than tut tutting about police brutality. The killers of Lee Rigby would have likely been shot dead here just like the Tours attacker was last year.There was before the 13th novembre attacks far less political correctness about Muslims than you will find in the UK amongst the general population and the mood is hardening all the time. Also in the countryside many ordinary people have arms. Most villages have a hunt and you cannot bring down wild boar or large deer with a pea shooter.
            There have been several tv news reports on France 2 about young people signing up in droves for the expansion of the Armed Forces, the Gendarmerie and the police that thd government has mandated to counter the terrorist threat. Even the left here are far more divided than in other European countries. There is a greater proportion who see the danger of Islam than there is in the UK. The French had to struggle to rid themselves of the tyranny of the Church and have no desire to put another religious tyranny in place. There is far less debate here about what national values are than there is in Britain and to some extent a greater level of racism and xenophobia. In la France profonde you are an outsider and looked at suspiciously if your family has not lived in the village for 3or4 generations even if you are French! But there are among the Maghrebin origin population many secular people -outright and declared atheists and agnostics and MINOs. I actually know some! They are pleasant, hardworking people who just want to get on with their lives.

        • P.S. Check out how well the Al Qaeda timeline matches the events between 2004 and 2015. That is, they seem to be on schedule so far. 2016 is marked down as the year of total confrontation.

        • Oren:

          Comparison with Israel is only approximately correct, there are two crucial distinctions
          – in Europe, there is no mandatory military service => no attachment between people and the army, and no backup (mass numbers, well trained) reservist force
          – in most European countries, the population is unarmed because of the draconian gun control laws

          Nevertheless, I agree that even in that circumstances organizing constant flow of significant terrorist attacks while withstanding Western reaction would be beyond jihadis’ capabilities.

          They will try anyway, and I think the most “perspective” tactic will include guerrilla attacks by groups of 20-40. Even without firearms, only with automobiles, knives/axes, clubs and petrol, they will be able to inflict critical damage on soft targets.

          I tend to agree with Baron that the number of infiltrated jihadis might now be in thousands (thanks Mutti for that), so one should count on hundreds of such gangs.
          But even with firearms and acting simultaneously, they are no match to European military.
          So Europe won’t fall, but there might be some hard time.

          I would say that at the very initial steps in any of your containment plans (that are very reasonable indeed), there must be significant extension, equipment and training of well-coordinated European anti-terror spec-ops forces.

          • Ah, but will European military forces be used against Muslim invaders? Or against members of the native population who get fed up and begin to take vigilante action against those invaders?

            Anyone want to take bets?

    • Oren,

      You present a reasonable scenario, except for a few points.

      1) You prescribe a series of measures to neutralize jihadists and bottle Muslim citizens into conforming to civilized standards. The big problem with this is the diversity of American society. We are a heterogeneous society with non-converging value systems. It’s very difficult to get a politician or elected leader to take a stand or act decisively, simply because his base of support is so widely distributed. El Ingles has written extensively on this blog on the problem of a diverse electorate:

      Notice that the leaders of European countries who have actually taken a stand, such as the President of Czechoslovakia, lead relatively homogeneous countries not yet very affected by immigration and diversification.

      2) You are assuming the leaders of the West European countries and Canada and the US actually have the interests of their constituents at heart, and will act in their interest once it becomes blindingly clear how immanent the threat of jihad violence is. I think a strong argument can be made that these leaders will actually use the police and military powers under their control to clamp down on any active, popular resistance to the Muslim violence.

      Note that while Israel has a sizable Muslim minority, the rest of the Israeli polity is more-or-less unified on the necessity of protecting the country and the borders. When the Israeli Muslims are “assimilated”, does that mean they will politically support the use of military power to maintain Israel’s security against fellow Muslims?

      The crux of the argument, it seems to me, is whether it is possible for really diverse societies to take effective actions to protect themselves. With the Mexican invaders organizing themselves politically, the blacks systematically opposing any effective action to protect US culture, and even the Muslims conducting registration drives, it may be impossible in a decade or two to assemble a meaningful majority for any any self-protection actions.

      So the question is, will it be possible for the Western countries who have diluted their own peoples and culture, to continue to exist with their present political systems and boundaries? Or, will there have to be large movements of peoples to effect relatively homogeneous polities with the will to protect themselves?

  28. RE: the solution to the problem. What are we supposed to tell John public is the expected outcome. To my mind, we should only point to basic truths, which are these:

    We are at war. We are at war with ISIS, all ISIS sympathisers, Islamism and all the proponents of Islamism, whoever they may be or however numerous. We are going to have to fight this war whether we like it or not and we are going to fight it to a victorious conclusion against any and all foes. What exactly that is going to entail we can’t say, for want of a crystal ball.

  29. I agree with you on your assessment and note anyway there are millions waking up on both sides of the Atlantic and no leftist Muslim views, taqqiya or not, can be taken seriously since we don’t listen to the lefties on principal and the view inherently nonsensical. I clicked on the link re the post you say lost you a friend at oh, and I can’t help but notice the author misses another eminently reasonable solution and one I believe will be most likely under a us conservative president such as Cruz within a matter of years. Ban the totalitarian politico military system known as Islam. I do not beleive it is a religion defined by its fruits and this concept needs to be explored fully and backed up by scholarship. I know Spencer says it is a religion but I define a religion differently. In fact “Muslims” are victims of this propaganda. Once it is explained to them that they have been duped, mosques raised, qurans burnt, quoting the book punishable, imams jailed etc. People can then be told they are free to leave. Since I’m on a reality check, the rights hatred for leftist environmentalism is too dogmatic for words. I see the right can’t stand the leftist agitating e.g. the methods but what about the underlying facts. don’t care if the planet is warming I want free clean energy and surely as an Israeli you can see the great benefit of resigning Saudi to its goats and camels forever. All this nonsenseof western economies iimploding because of my soar geyser are rubbish. I believe that the better custodianship we have for our land vis say israeli technology the more quietly the left will disappear. Since I’m really out on a limb I’ve been wondering how that Israeli state healthcare works for you? If there’s an explanation for the seeming hypocrisy re ovamacare besides the fact that Israel is small, because it’s not particularly homogenous, I would appreciate insight.

  30. Long-time intermittent lurker here. I’ve got to join this conversation.
    For the record, my background is similar to Oren’s, and it looks like I share most of his views.

    Suppose there is a Beslan, a San Bernardino, and a Bataclan in the Netherlands, all in one day. Then a few days later there is a Boston Marathon-type bombing, bus bombings like the 7/7 ones in London, and a Charlie Hebdo, also all on the same day. And then more of the same the following week.

    Neither normal policing nor normal judicial processes can handle such events. Civil order would tend to break down, and martial law would have to be declared. Fundamental freedoms would have to be suspended for duration of the emergency.

    I don’t have to imagine. I can remember.

    March and April 2002 were the height of the second intifada. Suicide bombers were exploding every other day, and sometimes two in one day. The dead numbered more than a hundred – equivalent to 1,000 killed in a country as big as France. Civil order did not break down. It is hard to imagine for people living in a country accustomed to peace and tranquility, but a solution was at hand. The army was sent in (operation Defensive Shield), and the construction of a border fence was begun. Israel has been in a state of emergency since 1948 without descending into anarchy or despotism.

    I think the analogy with the second intifada contains an important lesson. Sharon was one of the most militant of Israel’s prime ministers, with no faith whatsoever in Yasser Arafat, and yet he delayed for more than a year before opting for a military solution, while the situation worsened month by month. He did this for two reasons.
    1) To secure international backing for such a move (read: American support). The events of September 11th, plus Bush’s disillusionment with Arafat after the Karine A affair were enough. This is not so relevant for a country like England or France. The second point is much more important:
    2) To secure popular support for such a move. If he had acted in April 2001, there would have been 100,000-strong demonstrations in the street against him. In April 2002 there were none.

    This is where the popularity of the counter-jihad movement can be crucial. One day a president will sit in a council with his generals who will beg him to act. Will he scoff at them as primitive warmongers or consider their plans earnestly? It may depend on whether last night’s Pegida demonstration had 10,000 or 1,000,000 protesters.

    I should note that the left-wing press was unaffected by the events. They seamlessly flowed from “No military solution is possible!” to “Impossible to re-occupy without terrible losses!” to “They’ll hate us even more now that we conquered them so easily again!”.

    Note that while Israel has a sizable Muslim minority, the rest of the Israeli polity is more-or-less unified on the necessity of protecting the country and the borders. [/quote]

    This is true now. It was not true in December 2000 when Barak tried to calm the riots with more appeasement.

    The crux of the argument, it seems to me, is whether it is possible for really diverse societies to take effective actions to protect themselves.
    Israeli society is far more diverse – even fractured – than it appears from the outside. It can take effective action because the unifying idea (Zionism) is still strong, and its leaders still come from a strongly Zionist background.

  31. Interesting about the Celts. I had studied some Celtic/Pictish history and mythology in college. I do not know this story. I had an essay published on the conquest of a Celtic tribe by Julius Caesar in Gaul called the Helvetii. Caesar was a remarkable leader and warrior, a man of the people.

  32. The moderate muslim is “the fleeting shadow in the corner of one’s eye”, that mythical creature akin to a cryptozoologic animal that “was-just-there-and-if-you-run-fast-enough-you-can-still-catch-it-around-the-corner”.

    Yes, we’re all racist to a degree and I personally have no problem with it; not because of the “everybody else is doing it” cop-out, but because my feelings and prejudices are no-one else’s damn business. I don’t have a problem with racism, just as long as people don’t act on that racism. My concern is with the act, not the thought.

    Having said that, I hate the left more than I hate islam, because at least muslims are doing what they do in their interest and according to their values (however demented and anti-Human they may be), while the left is guilt-tripping us away from doing the same, from following our own self-interest.

    The only way out is through.


  33. I’m so tired of this [deprecated leftist] “racism!” meme!

    I just listened to some dumb cops wring their hooves and self-flagellate about how “racist” they are were and still are concerning native Indians here in Ontario, Canada.

    Their naval-gaving claim is that, every time there’s an Indian uprising and armed stand-off on some highway near some reservations, the cops make disparaging and “racist” remarks about their opponents!

    Well – so what? All they’re really doing is objectifying their opponents, in order to dehumanize them because said opponents have scared the cops by threatening them with guns!

    It’s the exact same process of objectification we see at sports games between players whose ‘ethnic’ makeups are probably exactly the same on both teams!

    I’ve seen groups of drunks objectify and vilify absent members as “stupid drunks!”

    I’ve seen French people refer to others as “Stupid Frogs!”

    I’ve even heard Indians vilify absent members of their own tribes as “stupid Redskins!”

    BOTTOM LINE: When you are scared and want to objectify an opponent, you’ll use whatever symptoms of difference are at hand! And that includes “race” (breed of human) as well – but it doesn’t mean you’re a confirmed “racist” in any and every other given situation, especially when you don’t feel threatened by your life being in danger!

    Liberals (professional criminal extortionists,) on the other hand, LIVE for slander – they live to see “racism” in every one, every where and all the time.

  34. My thoughts on ‘To Be Or Not To Be… An “Extremist”’ as follows:

    Yes, yes yes. Agree on the points made, and dread what can’t-be-talked-about, but agree on that too. Have read several books on Islam, have worked with many dozens of muslims, have spent a few years now, thinking this over, and over. And I think you are hitting all the nails on the head. Thank you for your clear and eloquent efforts to blow away the fog that surrounds us. God save us, but I am ready and waiting, it can’t happen too soon.

Comments are closed.