On Knowing the Enemy

If you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle.

— Sun Tzu

Yesterday’s post on nuking the Ka’aba produced more discussion than I anticipated. The most surprising aspect of the back-and-forth was the assertion that we have no need to understand Islam. I disagree: if we do not understand our enemy, it will take far longer to defeat him — if indeed we ever do.

The first two sections of the post below are adapted from some of my responses in the comments, beginning with a more detailed explanation of why I think the Islamic State (and Salafists in general) will rejoice over the destruction of the Ka’aba.

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

ISIS is currently the strongest war engine of Sunni Islam, so it is that we will be fighting. The rest of the Sunnis are supporting ISIS, covertly or overtly, directly or indirectly. Both aspects of the problem — the warriors and their support matrix — must be dealt with. Assuming, that is, we ever decide to deal with the problem at all, rather than topple secular dictators and engage in “nation-building”.

Those Muslims who become “radicalized” — that is, whose faith has been purified — will either join the jihad or support it. During that process they will study more closely the doctrines of the pure faith. They will learn that to erect a shrine around a black stone and revere it is to worship an idol, no matter its provenance. They will therefore consider the destruction of the shrine their Islamic duty, and vow to destroy it, just as they did the tombs of the Shi’ite saints in the territories they conquered in Iraq.

This is the dynamic into which our nuking of Mecca would be inserted.

The purified faithful would cognize what happened as Allah’s using the filthy infidel as an instrument to destroy the filthy idols erected by the mushrikun who have polluted the hijaz. They would rejoice at what happened, and feel themselves vindicated. Their hatred of us would not diminish a whit, of course — we would simply be the instruments of Allah’s judgment against the mushrikun.

The effect on other Muslims, the non-Salafists, would be harder to predict. But I doubt they would apostatize just because the Ka’aba had been destroyed. The exultation of the Salafists would saturate the airwaves in the Islamic world, and an undetermined number of Muslims would listen to it and say, “By gum, you know they’re right! I’m going to support the Islamic State from now on.”

That’s the scenario, as I see it. And all of that would inform the motivation, decision-making, planning, energy, and zeal of the vicious Muslims who are already amongst us, the ones who give us Beslan and Brussels and the Bataclan and San Bernardino and all the other jihad attacks.

Thus, it is incumbent upon us to understand as well as we can the way Muslims think about these things, because it will have a direct causative effect on the number of casualties we will have to take.

Knowing the enemy does matter.

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

The next section is a response to one of the commenters who averred that understanding Islam was unnecessary for the task at hand. He described it this way:

Both Europe and America can essentially do this [cut out and contain Islam] quite simply, and almost bloodlessly, by totally banning the practice and teaching of Islam, destroying all the mosques, and forbidding entry to Muslims.

Saying that something can “simply” be done ignores the fact that it is manifestly not being done, simply or otherwise. It hasn’t been done, it isn’t being done, and there is no sign that it ever will be done.

Why is that?

In point of fact, Islam is in the process of defeating us. It may already be too late to turn the tide; it’s hard to tell. But it has massively infiltrated us, found our weakest societal points and used them to its advantage, and disabled our ability to resist — compromised our cultural immune system, if you will.

How did an indigent, feeble Islam manage to do this to the strongest and most affluent civilization that has ever existed?

By knowing the enemy.

Islam is it war with us, and considers us its enemy. So Muslims infiltrated us and studied us, learning how we live and how we think. They attacked us at our weak points, using our own foolish intellectual and cultural fads against us — political correctness, fairness, equality, “racism”, you name it; anything that wins the argument and forces us to cede ground.

They managed to do all this without our understanding them to be the enemy, or even understanding that a war was on. In fact, they induced us to chant the mantra “WE ARE NOT AT WAR WITH ISLAM” over and over again, of our own volition and against all the evidence before our eyes.

And now they are among us, placed at the strategic political and cultural nodes of our societies. If we suddenly wake up and realize that we are their enemy, and they ours, then we will be in a civil war from that point onwards, as Matt Bracken has pointed out.

Theirs is a major accomplishment, one of the greatest victories ever achieved by one civilization against another. And they did it all without open warfare, without their enemy’s awareness that there was a war on.

How did they manage to do that?

By knowing the enemy.

And yet you say: “It is not important to understand Islam”!

This is a misguided notion. It is because you and others like you share it that we are losing this war, all without its ever turning into an open kinetic conflict.

We are losing, I tell you, and losing badly. It may already be too late to turn it around. And it is definitely too late if we fail to realize that we need to understand Islam thoroughly in order to defeat it.

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

In my earlier post I mentioned the importance of sitting through Major Stephen Coughlin’s briefing on Islam and Islamic law.

I attended a nine-hour briefing by Maj. Coughlin back in 2009. Shortly afterwards I began the task of turning a transcript of video footage from another briefing — it might have been twelve hours long; I’m not sure — into prose, which became the first draft of his book Catastrophic Failure.

At that time I was already fairly well-versed in Islam; I’d been studying it intensively for five years or so. But Maj. Coughlin’s briefing not only presented material that was new to me — such as a detailed verse-by-verse analysis of the abrogated portions of the Koran — it also prompted me to take a new approach to the subject. He emphasized how important it is to learn about Islam the way you learn a new language — by immersing yourself in it. After a while, you learn to think like a Muslim. When certain events make the news, you can look what happens and conceptualize it the way a Muslim does, rather than filtering everything through the lens of a Western perspective.

Major Coughlin has become so knowledgeable about Islam that he can predict, in general terms, the future course of the jihad. What has been happening recently in the Middle East and Europe was outlined years ago by him.

Not long after Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan committed his jihad massacre as a “soldier of Allah” at Fort Hood, the slides for a briefing on his faith given by Maj. Hasan surfaced and were published in the press. In his briefing Maj. Hasan justified what eventually became his own actions in terms of Islamic law.

After seeing Major Hasan’s slides, someone said to Stephen Coughlin, “It sounds as if Hasan must have been briefed by you!”

Major Coughlin replied, “No — he and I were both just studying the same sources.”

Once again: Know your enemy.

129 thoughts on “On Knowing the Enemy

  1. The smart money says that it is indeed too late to turn it around. In western Europe certainly, but not in Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, Russia and in eastern Europe generally.

    Within twenty years, everywhere to the west of Poland will be a seething mass of fanatical Muslims, mainly recently converted indigenous Europeans, all fixing for a beheading spree to the east.

    For Russia’s sake, I hope they keep their nuclear arsenal in good order.

    • Come hell or high water, Russia will stand, I have no doubt about it.

      If it gets down to the wire, Russians will engage in mass killings before going down, and they’ll do so effectively enough not to go down.

      I hope that Islamic expansionism is stopped before that, because it won’t be a fun day when we need to look to Russia for support, as the leftover inheritor of a semi-western civilisation.

      • In a way, the Russians already are the inheritors of Western civilization. “Tsar” is derived from Caesar; Russia traces it’s roots back to the Byzantines who themselves were the inheritors of Roman civilization when the western half of the empire collapsed amid decadence and moral rot and was overrun by barbarians.

        Wasn’t it Mark Twain who said “History doesn’t repeat itself but it often rhymes”.

        • Excellent observation about contemporary decadence in the west rhyming with the ancient past.

      • It is sad that the US is still so vehemently opposed to Russia. In many ways, they are more natural allies than our ‘friends’ in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf.

        Putin has played his cards in Syria masterfully. He has made the US and the entire Western European political establishment look like the self-important bunglers they are.

        Also, the guy just looks, acts, and sounds the part. Check out his most recent inauguration:


    • I think that it will take longer than 20 years to bring about the conditions which you foresee, but your vision of a “seething mass” is compelling nonetheless.

      For sake of comparison and for establishing a point of reference, read about the Islamization of Indonesia. Widespread conversion has been carried out during the past 400 years or so, as I recall. More recently, within the past 50 years, there has been an intense increase of Islamic piety and Arabization. Nevertheless, vestiges of the old culture remain. Consider, for example, Pancasila, “the official philosophical foundation of the Indonesian state” (Wikipedia). Pancasila is straight out of Gotama’s religion, and it remains as a living, public testimony to the durability of culture.


      The conversion of Europe during the centuries to come will play out in a similar way, I suspect, with vestiges of Enlightenment rationalism, and degeneracy such as relativism, lingering on and on and on.

      For additional insight, see also books by V.S. Naipaul, e.g. “Among the Believers” and “Beyond Belief”. The first is an account of his travels in Iran, Pakistan, Malaysia, and Indonesia ca. 1979. The latter describes his journeys to the same countries about 15 years later.

      • There was a Malaysian guy when I was working in Riyadh who was radicalized, when we arrived he was western, secular and friendly, by the time I left 18 months later, he hated me because of my Jewish roots.

  2. I believe we need a “Readers Digest” source of knowledge of Islam. Most people will not entertain studying Islam as Major Coughlin, Matt Bracken and yourself have done. We (and I include myself) need a handy source of information… And it has to come from a source or sources that have great credibility.
    Now what would these sources be? Government? Not a chance, unless the general population saw fit to vote for people they now despise. I can’t think of any other such sources.
    Which brings me to the most obvious problem: The fight against this enemy will have to be undertaken DESPITE the “authorities,” which means that those fighting against the enemy will be fighting with either one or two hands tied behind their backs. One false move and we’re in deep (“legal”) trouble. Just look at Tommy Robinson.
    But perhaps I’m being overly pessimistic. From various casual conversations, many people recognize quite clearly the nature of the problem; it’s as if they already know the enemy in a general way. Not difficult. Just look around and one gets an instant picture of what’s potentially in store.
    Do I have percentages? No. Do I have a strategy? No. Do the people I converse with have a strategy? No.
    But I do watch the Israelis and thus understand somewhat what it takes to undertake an “aggressive defence”. Perhaps it would take an Israeli-type choice to produce the outcome that’s needed: kill or be killed. That simple. Except for the politicians here in the West…

    • Try the “Religion of Peace” website. All the work has been done there.
      I think private lawfare is the way to go in democracies and the control of Hijra and calling it for what it is, jihad by migration, cutting benefits for large families, cut down on oil etc. This can happen by private litigation funding. Take a leaf out of the Israelis book and take the properties.

      • Very impressive site. So much information on it, it’s difficult to know where to start… Thanks.

  3. What does Islam do but kill, steal, and destroy those who are not its own, and then its own as its feasts upon the children of its own revolution?
    I only know of one other entity whose personality and behaviour pattern fits the above description. To quote Gandalf in the Return of the King, “This enemy cannot be defeated by dint of arms alone.”
    Thus, while providing for the general welfare and security, and calling their acts of jihad for what they are, pre-meditated hate crime murders, we take the battle to the next level up to the abode of the spirit. Thankfully we are not limited in our arsenal to carnal weaponry but also have weapons that are mighty for the pulling down of strongholds.
    Yes, I have studied the enemy rather thoroughly and know them/him rather well. I also know that my first duty is to my family and their health and safety. In that duty, I am expendable, they are not. Selah.

    • PS, it appears that those who loathe all things Christian have found in Islam a useful foil to accomplish their agenda of removing the ‘bigots’ (their term) from their misery. It would behove them however, to remember the last line of the poem “When they came for the …..”

  4. Nuking Mecca would not get to the root of the problem as you discuss.Might you have a favorable opinion about promoting the SHUTTING DOWN OF ALL MOSQUES. I tried to advocate doing so in my article linked below. It would be tremendous if a writer of your status launched a full and persistent campaign.

    sincerely, Martel Sobieskey

    • Oh, yes, I would favor that proposal. The problem is, we are nowhere near even remotely beginning to think about possibly considering such a solution.

      Islam has effectively neutered us as societies. We, collectively, are incapable of confronting it. That’s what I meant when I said that we are losing. And without 95% of us ever knowing we were in a war.

      • The left has neutered us as a society, not islam. Islam is powerless by itself compared to the west. You quoted Sun Tzu, but you fail to correctly ID the enemy, and instead focus on islam. The biggest battle is against the failed philosophy of multiculturalism. Compared to that, islam is nothing. In some ways, the current strategy is exactly what Sun Tzu would do, namely attempt to divide islam into its various fractions and get it fighting itself. Please tell me what is wrong with this?

        • Nothing wrong with that.

          Islam is the proximate enemy — the force that will effect our destruction. The Left is responsible, by allowing, enabling, and encouraging it.

          This blog is not primarily about the Left. We cover the Left as part of our job, but it is not the principal focus. So what I am saying, in effect, is: “Know that portion of the enemy which most concerns this blog, and which will effect our destruction as a proxy of the Left.”

          • “Islam is the proximate enemy — the force that will effect our destruction. The Left is responsible, by allowing, enabling, and encouraging it.”

            And the Non-Left, more numerous than the Left, has enabled the Left to percolate its worldview through society in the atomized and “lite” version of PC MC.

            So the problem is three-fold, not a Manichean duo.

            And the three folds are complex in their differences one from the next.

  5. Like I said before, there is a misconception about the status of the Kaaba.
    This is not just another sort of holy shrine.
    In contrast to other places in Mecca or Medina (or elsewhere) this is the place that muslims are obliged to visit during the hadj (one of the five pillars of Islam).
    This is the place were Muhammed and his followers destroyed the statues of preislamic arabic polytheism, and that has a special place in islamic theology.
    This is the place that gives muslims the direction they pray to.
    Salafis and others would likely destroy the tomb and mosque of Muahmmed in Medina, or even the fountain of Zamzam and the footprint of Ibrahim next to the Kaaba. But never the Kaaba and the black stone.

  6. Baron,

    I understand your point that the destruction of the Ka’aba would play into the hands of the Salafists and would most likely strengthen their hand (at least at first). And, that it is necessary to understand one’s opponent and try to understand how they see events and react to them in order to defeat them. However, I also believe that when open and large scale warfare finally arrives between the West and the Religion of Peace, the absolute worst thing that can happen is to engage them halfheartedly and with anything less than total anhililation of Islam and it’s followers as the ultimate objective. To this end, anything which serves to force the moderates on both sides to choose sides and harden their resolve would be a positive development. Once the enemy has been identified, it can be fixed and defeated.

    Forcing moderate muslims to choose either the way of the Salafists or once and for all reject the Religion of Peace is good, even if in the short term it strengthens the hand of ISIS or their clones. I believe there cannot be any fence sitters in the coming conflict. And when their cities are vaporized one after another, understanding how the enemy thinks becomes important in determining how to finish the job with the least amount of expenditure of western lives and resources.

    • Nuking the Ka’aba would hardly constitute “total annihilation”, even at the height of the hajj. A lot of other places would have to be nuked, too — Cairo, Tehran, Baghdad, Jakarta, and Istanbul, just to name a few. Oh, and London.

      • I’d prefer it if London were not nuked thanks, by our friends or our enemies.

        By the way Baron, is it only Yorkshire muslims who say “By gum”?

      • It’s odd that so little of your discussion mentioned the importance of Mecca to the hajj. As I understand it, the pilgrimage is a religious obligation of ALL Muhammadists. Muhammad even prescribed its rituals and timing, and the obligation is suspended if, and only if, one is PERSONALLY disabled. It’s doubtful, however, that the destruction of Mecca would count as such a disability, although many believers would, no doubt, attempt to twist scripture to fit such an interpretation. Perhaps many more would, instead, interpret destruction as a harbinger of the end times, and this could pose a great risk if the pious insist that the situation then calls for a great jihad against infidels.

        Still, what happens if Mecca disappears in a detonation, or series of detonations, which leaves a deep crater? What happens if hajj is rendered totally unsafe by intense radioactive contamination? I find it difficult to believe that this would not be interpreted immediately by hundreds of millions of believers as proof of Islam’s falsity.

        Perhaps a thorough investigation is in order to see if most believers would be vulnerable to the following line of thinking, more or less, after Mecca has been craterized and contaminated:

        (1) Hajj is necessary for Islam.
        (2) Mecca is necessary for hajj.
        (3) But Mecca has been utterly destroyed; we can’t even visit it.
        (4) So there can be no hajj.
        (5) Therefore Islam is false.
        (6) Therefore it would be foolish for me not to abandon Islam.

        If this is correct, then the situation calls for widespread promotion of the argument among Muslims in anticipation of destroying Mecca by some means. This would prepare them for apostasy such that it will be less mentally and emotionally traumatic to commit apostasy than to join a jihad against infidels. And of course, research is needed to see how many would interpret destruction as a sign of the end times and proof of obligation to wage intense warfare against infidels.

        It’s by the way that Scientific American published a relevant article about ground penetrating nuclear weapons. Supposedly the shallow detonation confines most radioactive byproducts to the ground but nonetheless ejects a great deal to the surface. This would be just what the situation calls for, i.e. intense radioactivity all over the terrain where Muslims are expected to walk during hajj. I don’t recall the year or month when the issue appeared, but it was sometime from Sept. 2001 through Sept. 2006.

        • In my experience, nothing, and I mean NOTHING makes a fanatic give up a fanatical belief (religious or otherwise). The structure of such fanaticism makes it unfalsifiable. Each new event can be explained in such a way that it fits into the belief system.

          At the core of Islam is Insh’allah, the absolute certainty that everything that occurs is the direct intervention of the will of Allah. If Mecca were to disappear in a mushroom cloud, that would be seen as a punishment of Muslims for not being Islamic enough.

          I’ve occasionally encountered Christian sects that have weirdly similar beliefs. Bad things that happen to their adherents are cognized as God’s punishment for not having enough faith, or something similar.

          This type of belief system is inherently unfalsifiable, which means that there is no point in arguing with it or attempting to refute it.

          Adverse real-life events may make the occasional individual adherent wake up to the absurdity of his beliefs, so that he apostatizes. But the group belief can never change — it can only attrit, individual by individual, until it has no adherents left.

          • I won’t deny that fanatics are radically hardheaded, but bear in mind the proportion of Muslims who are fanatics. Now, do we even know what that proportion is? I doubt that the number is as high as Islamophobes would like to believe. Further, a great many Muslims are apt to be wavering in the faith like Catholics who attend mass twice per year, at most, but who give the religion scarcely any thought at other times.

            Bear in mind also that the wavering Catholic is apt to provide the papacy’s own fanatics with an infusion of wealth which helps the papacy to survive under stressful conditions. So also may it be with Islam. This is why it’s important to drive wedges between the leadership and the sheep.

            When we think about Islam without Mecca, we realize that it would be an Islam with just FOUR pillars, not five as has been the tradition for centuries. The struggle to rationalize an Islam with four pillars would greatly stress the Muhammadists’ leaders and be a new impetus for odium theologicum among them. In other words, the destruction of Mecca drives a wedge between the shepherds at the same time that this wedge is serving to separate the shepherds from their sheep.

      • “Oh, and London.”

        Yes — and New York, Los Angeles, Seattle, Miami, Washington DC, Detroit, Dearborn, Chicago, Paris, Amsterdam, Brussels, Rotterdam, Berlin, Rome, Madrid, Sydney, Toronto… (I don’t have time to list the other 500 Western cities into where Muslims have insinuated; I have a bus to catch…)

    • Well, Moon, there will always be fence sitters. They get terrible hemorrhoids but they’d rather deal with the pain than have to move.

    • I agree with your analysis. We must force a hard choice to have clear sides. Also only the total destruction of Islam is acceptable.

  7. The West is in a deadly serious battle with Islam on the surface but Muslims are present in the West — and can spread like an opportunistic infection — because of the actions of the real enemy : the left. Since the mid 19th century the West has had to contend with a vast number of intelligent and educated people whose fundamental view is that our civilization corrupt down to its shoelaces — a view supported for decades by a ghastly tyranny in the form of the Soviet Union.

    That segment has attacked our institutions and done all in its power to delegitimize how we conduct ourselves, to include attacking or undermining sovereignty, rule of law, citizenship, ethnic identity, demographic balance, morality, family, education, fundamental rights, culture, and economic rationality. It sought to corrupt the people by selling parasitism as a virtue which fueled its political success but the problem was still with the leadership.

    As a critical part of this vicious campaign, an astonishing movement was organized to flood the home countries with third-world people who have no business being in the West any more than I have in being in China or Peru, unless pursuant to a host country assessment that I could contribute value (and no diseases) were I admitted.

    The Muslim has been able to prosper not because of some innate insight into Western weakness over and above what has been imparted by the above-described segment who were more than happy to make common cause with him. So the problem with Muslims in the home countries is not that they are wise and devious in formulating strategies that we fail to study at our peril. It is that Muslims are present at all.

    To anyone who thinks that Muslims and infidels can coexist in an infidel polity whose laws will be and remain superior to the shariah I say simply that the clear demographic realities are such that Muslims will flood us with superior numbers. It is sufficient to learn enough Muslim doctrine to understand the impossibility of coexistence, why every Muslim who swears an oath of allegiance to an infidel nation swears a false oath, and that inevitably the European will be reduced to dhimmi status if not worse if the Muslim remains.

    Removal of all trace of Islam from Western countries must be effected and that is a simple matter of identification and transportation. The burden of proof is on he who says failure to remove is consistent with a functioning Western nation.

    Having cured the fundamental mistake of admitting an enemy population occasioned by the betrayal of the left, we are then left with the task only of isolating Muslims in their own lands and taking whatever other steps are necessary to ensure that Islam is never again a threat to humanity. This does not require us to understand their philosophy or to destroy them; it only requires that we adhere to the motto of the infantry where necessary policies unilaterally decided by us (and certainly our Russian brothers) meet resistance unwisely undertaken.

    I don’t want to say deeper understanding of Islam is not helpful. It is. The War Department knew it was at a disadvantage when it came to understanding Japanese culture at the outset of the Pacific War so it commissioned Ruth Benedict to write her Crysanthemum and the Sword as fast as she could. However, one after action report probably told local commanders more than Benedict’s book ever did. Knowing that your opponents are brave, tenacious, intelligent (blokes) known to have relaxed attitudes toward suicidal action is very helpful but how important is it to know that that’s the case because of bushido or jihad? They all die just as quickly when the fur starts to fly.

    Historically, the presence of huge numbers of foreigners inside the pale meant that there had been a catastrophic failure of the army on the border. To that now must be added betrayal of the elites as a reason for such an influx. This is the mistake/betrayal/catastrophe that must be corrected. It is lack of understanding of the thinking of our leftist traitors that is hindering us not our failure to understand the diseased mind of Choudary.

    I’ve burned up too much bandwidth commenting at GoV of late and meant to give it a rest for a while but this seemed worthwhile to say. No one should be without my opinion I always say.

    • Removal of all trace of Islam from Western countries must be effected and that is a simple matter of identification and transportation.

      There you go again with the “simple”! It’s not at all simple, or it would have been done already. If we could manage to identify and transport, the war would already be effectively won.

      The reason that we can’t do that is that Islam has neutered us. It could not have done so without the active collaboration of the Left, obviously, but it has very cleverly insinuated itself into the most strategically advantageous positions within the Left to make sure that we would be helpless and unable to act against it.

      That is the core problem. Fifty years ago we just had the Marxists doing their long march through the institutions. Now we have the Muslims in symbiosis with them, matching them step for step.

      • Yes. There is an Islam-Leftist alliance. But ultimately, that is going to kill the Left in Europe. The Left won’t be forgiven for essentially being a wartime collaborator against our civilization.

        Baron said: It’s not at all simple, or it would have been done already.

        Yes, it’s all a matter of political will. The Info-War has to be won. If the Info-War were won early enough, we would be able to sort this out without bloodshed.

      • Just a short reply Baron, you say I don’t get it, but I’m amazed you don’t!
        islam has NOT neutered us–our own traitorous people have neutered us!
        WHY do you keep on about how we must understand our enemy–as if it’s difficult?
        Col. Bunny gets it dead right in my view

        • I never said the Left hadn’t enabled and collaborated with Islam. Islam couldn’t have gained its victory without the help and encouragement of the globalist Left.

          However, this is the point I am trying to make: The Muslim Brotherhood has massively infiltrated the institutions of the United States. It has done so, by its own admission, in order to carry out a “Civilization-Jihadist Process”, a “grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by [our] hands”. They have come a long way towards realizing their goal.

          Their success could only have happened by their gaining a deep understanding of American culture and politics. In other words, they know their enemy.

          We need to do the same with them, so that we may defeat them. Because they (yes, with the help of the Left) are currently winning hands-down.

          If all we can think of is to nuke Mecca, than we have definitely failed to understand the enemy.

          I know, I know… it would be so emotionally satisfying to see that mushroom cloud rise over Mecca, wouldn’t it? But it wouldn’t win the war.

          Dreaming about nuking Mecca — which is not realizable in the foreseeable future, anyway — is a sign that we are flailing. There are other, more important fronts to which we should be directing our attention, namely the fronts where we are currently being routed by the enemy.

      • So we we just sit and wait, uh? We are afraid to pay what the Serb Nation are still paying, right?

        • Are you telling me that the only alternative to nuking Mecca is to “sit and wait”??

          Are you really unable to conceptualize any other strategies for defeating the enemy?

          • This web site, the information provided, the approach taken is one of the most important things happening at the moment in the English speaking world. That is not sitting and waiting. But most people actively do not want to know. Knowing may well cost you your job, because then you may inadvertently speak. The Generals cannot know, the people in government service cannot know – that is what has to be changed. Free speech is a major issue. because only then can your average person actually know without causing personal damage to themselves.

      • I believe there is a distinction to be made between proposing a ‘simple’ (aka straightforward) solution to a problem, and actually implementing that problem. On my reading, the Col. is proposing a (simple, straightforward( solution, whereas you are talking about implementing it (not simple or straightforward at all.)

        I think we could all agree that there are simple, straightforward, perhaps even sweeping solutions out there, which would go a long way towards improving our general situation.

        However, getting our political ‘representatives’ to actually implement those solutions is another kettle of fish altogether.

        • Quo Fan —

          If we were able to “simply” nuke Mecca, or “simply” close all the mosques in our countries, or “simply” deport all the Muslims, then the problem of Islam would already be 99% solved.

          The point is, we are nowhere near being able to even begin to do any of these things. In the 12 years I’ve been monitoring the situation, we’ve actually drifted FARTHER from such solutions.

          The problem is, how to effect political change in the West so that things can “simply” be done that right now can’t be done at all.

          As Peter says, that means confronting the Left and removing it from positions of power. That is a HUGE task, easier said than done. It has to be done from the grassroots, with a long march-back through the institutions. Which takes a long time, and we don’t have much time. So, at the moment, our prospects don’t look good.

      • The fact that we have not solved our problem with Islam is that we as a civilization refuse to recognize the problem — that Muslims have been welcomed with open arms into our midst, they intend to conquer us, and their determined allies are the treasonous native left.

        Muslims themselves have not neutered us; our native leftist enemies have spun a web of political correctness, media treachery, judicial complicity, and outright lies about multiculturalism, diversity, globalism, equality, feminism, sexual stupidity, “white privilege” and racism, and micro-aggressions that the Muslims merely use to their advantage with enthusiastic leftist instruction and Saudi millions. Without that protective web Muslims would be an inconsequential problem.

        Removing enemies from our midst is very simple but you continue to confuse that simple process with the recognition or awakening issue, which is where the difficulty lies. From every word you have ever written here it is obvious you understand that very well.

        This site, my site, Vlaams Belang speakers in the great video you just posted, Fjordman, AfD, TheReligionofPeace.com, Paul Weston, Pam Geller, Robert Spender, Hugh Fitzgerald, Andrew Bostom, and surely more than a 1,000 other blogs have tried to sound the tocsin with very little to show for it other than a heightened awareness and understanding of a thin sliver of our societies. Perhaps . . . perhaps the tide is turning but it does so at a glacial pace to mix metaphors. As I frequently say, European voters could at zero risk hand thumping majorities to their patriotic parties but they will not do so. UKIP, FN, PVV, the Sweden Democrats are starved of oxygen and the treasonous left even rips away Le Pen’s parliamentary immunity to drag her before the criminal courts for crying out loud. All without massive revulsion. (Much worse is coming to light now which simply can’t be hidden any longer, of course.)

        So that is why we have this problem — a somnolent population — something the treasonous left fight tooth and nail to preserve by suppressing the simplest fact of all — Muslims’ unshakeable and enduring hatred of infidels and their societies. One our fellow Westerners understand this simple fact, all intricate anti-Islam texts and catechisms can be discarded and I can pursue my interests in photography, the English Reformation, and female psychology.

        So the difficult part has nothing to do with identification and transport. In 1970, Gaddafi expelled 20,000 Italians less than a year after coming to power, seizing their assets in the process. Other population transfers and/or murders have occurred (e.g., Turkey, Ottoman Empire, Chechnya, Crimea, Czechoslovakia, Abkhazia, the southeast U.S., Damascus, Germany, Lebanon, Egypt, Tunisia, Morocco, Sudan, Timur, the southern Philippines, Cyprus) often with much death and suffering.

        All of this merely illustrates that where there is

        (a) a realization, well-founded or otherwise, that the majority population cannot tolerate a minority and

        (b) the will to remove the detested people,

        the methods of removal are simple and such as could be devised and implemented by any competent battalion adjutant and quartermaster working together, using, of course, humane but firm methods (something that Christians in Muslim lands have rarely experienced let it be said).

        What follows recognition is easy; effecting recognition among our fellow citizens is what is difficult.

        • Colonel,

          European voters could at zero risk hand thumping majorities to their patriotic parties but they will not do so.

          That is what I’m referring to when I say that the problem is not at all simple. If we, the West, can’t vote out the traitors who are destroying us — which, by all rights, should be just as “simple” as nuking Mecca — how then can we then take on the problem of Islam?

          As it turns out, neither of these intractable issues — the Left and Islam — is simple, or we would have long since cut the Gordian knot and taken care of business.

          The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Our inability to take even a single bite out of this one is an indication of the massive, difficult problem we face.

    • Yep! I agree. And should you not show up, we can always go over to the source at The Intergalactic Source of Truth, right?

    • “That segment has attacked our institutions and done all in its power to delegitimize how we conduct ourselves, to include attacking or undermining sovereignty, rule of law, citizenship, ethnic identity, demographic balance, morality, family, education, fundamental rights, culture, and economic rationality.”

      Perhaps this sentence should have started, “That segment has been allowed, if not encouraged to attack our institutions …”

    • Actually the Baron already stated as much…

      From my own standpoint, when the vile 9/11 was implemented by the crew from (essentially) Saudi Arabia, I was absolutely certain that this was a turning point. Imagine my surprise when the compassionless left and their media henchmen turned the whole thing on its head.

      And they essentially did this by asserting the superior morality of their position…

      If these folks could say and write the things they said and wrote, then it’s plain to see that in order to save ourselves, our families, our neighbourhoods and our country, it’s essential to bring down these leftists institutions and their media supporters… in no uncertain terms.

      Free speech is one thing; lies and double-talk are quite another.

    • You are correct in identifying the source of the problem.

      The solution, however, is not so simple. What you’re suggesting can’t practically be done, I don’t think.

    • “a we are then left with the task only of isolating Muslims in their own lands and taking whatever other steps are necessary to ensure that Islam is never again a threat to humanity. This does not require us to understand their philosophy or to destroy them…”

      May I remind you, Col. Bunny, that Thomas Jefferson found it advisable to acquire a Koran so as to understand his enemy, the Barbary Pirates. The Barbaries had no entree whatsoever to American soil, and were engaged in a purely military (or quasi-military) action against US vessels. Yet, Jefferson found it desirable to understand them.

      It is always good to remember the Baron was instrumental in the creation of “Catastrophic Failure”, a categorical source of information not only about the fundamentally imperialist nature of Islam, but of the many national and international mechanisms that Islam uses to subvert Western freedoms. Once you study Coughlin, you find that it is not only desirable but essential to have a force of trained security experts who thoroughly understand enemy (Islamic) doctrine. Anything less is malfeasance on the part of the government, leading to defeat. I say that again: lack of detailed knowledge of Islam and its tactics and strategy leads to defeat. Nuclear bombs, tanks, and submarines won’t save us, but a competent leadership, diplomatic,and security apparatus will.

      The practice of jujitsu is the use of the force of an opponent to use against him. The proper response to fighting a jujitsu practitioner is not to simply increase the force you use, but to understand his techniques. At that point, and only at that point, will the preponderance of force make a difference in your favor.

      • You may. However, one does not have to be a Maj. Coughlin or a Jefferson and engage in extensive study. Watching one or two videos by Bill Whittle or Pat Condell, watching the video of ISIS burning the Jordanian pilot, spending a day at theReligionofPeace.com, spending six hours at this blog, and spending a few minutes watching this video is all anyone needs to do. If one does this and still has a tra la la view of his blessed Muslim neighbors all one can say is that you can’t fix stupid.

        Understanding details of Islamic doctrine is unnecessary thought I do like to call attention to the Iraqi Shiite cleric whose web site is quite clear that infidels are najis and thus down there with pigs, dogs, blood, dead bodies, and worse. Understanding of Muslim tactics is another thing but any NCO or junior officer can explain those. And a recent graduate from law school can explain how the employment and civil rights laws can be used to hammer us here at home.

        You’re absolutely right about nuclear weapons and subs. I’ve made that point many times. They are not, however, ineffective because we don’t have detailed knowledge of Islam and its tactics and strategy. They are ineffective because our leaders drawn from the Treason Class don’t have the desire to defend us. The do, however, have the fervent desire to betray us.

        • I agree completely Col Bunny.Weapons don’t help if we are ordered not to fire them at the enemy.

          Also U.K courts are so busy charging British soldiers for not treating a relentless intransigent and barbaric enemy with kid gloves ,that British soldiers are demoralized ..In turn the ordinary civilian is demoralized and does not want to enlist in the armed forces..

          We need to massively invest in our military.We need to give our military our full backing .We need to stop sending the human rights lawyers in to harry our soldiers and second guess every action they take under enemy fire.

          We need to stop the lawyers from making our troops fight the forces of evil with one hand tied behind their backs .

          We need to stop issuing our troops inadequate gear and equipment and blank ammunition -or no ammunition at all as happened at Benghazi.

  8. Baron said: It may already be too late to turn the tide; it’s hard to tell.

    Baron, it’s certainly too late to turn it successfully without bloodshed. I’m pretty sure the Jihad is not going to win though. To me it’s a question of how much damage it does (and it may be huge), but no, I think it has very little chance of winning.

    Why? Because of the huge hoardes of Vikings, Saxons, Anglo-Saxons, Gaels, Gauls, etc currently subdued by the daily estrogen-shots of political correct cultural Marxist multiculturalism all around Europe, who will be suddenly catapulted into reality by mass bloodshed of their people. Feminism will die overnight, it is already on its last legs. Manhood and warriorhood will rise again overnight. Honestly, I fear for the poor Muslims of Europe, I really do. I fear for them. Because they are no match at all, not even close, to these warrior men of Europe who are currently asleep but who will wake up.

    Again, it’s only a question of how much damage is done, and it may be huge. But the Muslims will not defeat the Europeans. Not a chance.

    • For over 40 years I’ve been watching Europe, and lately Australasia and North America actually welcome the enemy into their countries, and while I desperately hope you are right Cautious BB, I don’t see anyone making any genuine attempt to stop the tide of useless, semi-literate, murderous thugs, the refuse of the Mid East and north and west Africa who couldn’t make it in their own countries, from invading the west.
      Just today a local newspaper here on Vancouver Island showed a photo of some brainless do-gooders in–of all places–Haida Gwaii who are ”waiting excitedly to welcome a couple of Syrian moslem families” to that remote native indian paradise. As if they will stay there, just like the family who were sent to Pender Island, stayed two weeks and are now in Victoria, they will re-locate, probably to Vancouver. Moslems love to live together; they are ‘gang people’, hate to be or walk alone, and nearly always go in gangs–the better to intimidate, rob, or beat up locals.

      Yes, it must turn eventually to violence, and the sooner the better. It has only been held back up to now because of the traitorous actions of our own people, our ‘leaders’ and police and all the leftists and yes, liberals who are unable to see where their astounding lack of ability to see more than two days into the future is leading us.

  9. Ask Zombie Cortes and Zombie Montezuma about Quetzalcoatl. Get the thunder sticks; some horses; some local allies; do a lot ie a lot…of killing. Bring on the priests. Convert the suppressed/oppressed and frightened heathens. Rinse and repeat. This is history… which can repeat itself under the proper circumstances. Ask Ahura Mazda. Muslims are either at your feet or at your throat. If its very cold where they live in the Nuclear Winter, they might end up worshipping fire again.
    Islam is a mental disorder.

  10. I agree 100% with your point about the futility of destroying the Ka’aba or any other physical manifestation of Islam. The purists believe that only the unmediated word of Allah (the Koran) is the essence of Islam. Any other physical manifestation of Islam is blasphemy. They would rejoice at the destruction of the Ka’aba and even Mecca or Medina.

    There isn’t much that I admire in the way of Islamic architecture. Muslim’s themselves don’t seem to care about such aesthetics. That said, the Taj Mahal is a an extraordinarily beautiful creation, yet the purists, if they had their way, would bomb it to pieces in an instant.

    Brings to mind something I observed in my old Queens, NY neighborhood about 15 years ago. For whatever reason, muslims were moving en masse into my neighborhood, so they decided to convert an old store into a mosque. Well, whatever craftsman they hired to do the original brickwork on the facade did a magnificent job with the masonry. It really was beautiful brickwork. I thought, well that’s that, the job is done. And it looks good. Well no, the Iman in charge couldn’t leave beauty alone to stand and be admired. He affixed a grimy looking combination steel/plastic facade to this brickwork so that the entire building resembled a greasy spoon takeout chicken joint. It was then that I understood that muslims really seek to undermine earthly manifestation’s of God’s beauty. Be it architecture, art, music, even the environment. Nothing matters except the dull drone of the Koran.

    • “They would rejoice in the destruction of the ka’aba…”
      The other 99% would NOT agree!

    • Daniel-

      Your last two sentences are exactly correct.

      The Ummah are driven to create a “Hell-on-Earth” because it makes the rewards promised by their book all the more desirable. Thus, they must exist in a joyless, lifeless world until their passing.

    • Where are the Muslim films, novels, symphonies, paintings, patents, universities? They do not exist. But we must have these people in our midst by the millions. We cannot get enough of them.

  11. I just spent 2 weeks in England, out in the countryside. Everybody – EVERYBODY! – is so fanatically left-wing it’s astounding. They have their heads in the sand and think that as long as they have their village pub, then nothing’s changed.

    But a quick trip to London proves otherwise. The few English people I saw there had their heads down and walked quickly.

    The stupid English should take Washington State as an example. It’s pretty right-wing out in the Eastern half (Spokane, Walla Walla); lots of country music listeners and “prairie folk.” But the state is ruled by Seattle. All elections are swayed by the population of totally-leftist Seattle.

    Hiding in the countryside doesn’t work.

  12. Did we make the same mistake with communism? Did we in the West really study communism as well as we are being urged to study Islam? Or did we fail to study it? It appears it can be argued that the West did not defeat communism. Unfortunately for us, it seems as if communism has taken hold in the West. If that’s the case, are we going to repeat the mistakes fighting Islam and losing like we did with communism?

    • Indeed, the loss of faith in communism in the East Bloc gives one reason to hope.

    • Right to the point.

      To prevent further infiltration of your societies with communism, and also turning those who are only mildly attracted to the left propaganda -or simply don’t see the danger- concrete analysis followed by solid action is in demand.

      Socialism seems to be the hiding place of Communism today; Similar to the way moderate muslims provide the necessary harbour to jihadis.

      Socialism is based on fake ecconomic theories which apparently the biggest part of it’s authority has emerged from. Non-political schools of economics should be brought back to public attention and discussed together with it’s relevance to minimum government theories. Some people simply seem to think Socialism is the only method invented so far that knows everything, and they prefer to deny it’s dangerous and ill-intentioned goals.

      Unfortunately I am no authority on macroeconomics and I hope knowledgeable people join the movement.

  13. Fighting the nazis didn’t require the American GIs shipped overseas to read Adolph’s hateful Mein Kempf or undertanding the national socialist’s party’s rules and regulation. It took:

    (1) The absolute determination that nazism was an evil cause, rooted in evil and intent on spreading evil throughout the civilized world.
    (2) The conviction that no intermediate result was valid, but the total obliteration of nazism, the destruction of its leadership and a crushing defeat of its armed wings.
    (3) A fully equiped army with capable generals, officers and soldiers who understood what was at stake, that theirs was a fight of the sons of the light against the sons of darkness.

    Well, islam is today’s nazism only with a twist. It is disguised as a religion, so the silly and naive liberals think islam is on an equal footing with the other western religions. Islam is a totalitarian, hateful, discriminatory and antisemitic ideology just like nazism and that’s what the politicians and generals that should be defending Western civilization against it failt to see. Considering the pedophile murderous maniac named Mohammed as a prophet is exactly like considering Adolph a prophet. Some fanatics do, and in the case of the nazi fanatics they were wiped out. The same must happen to those islamonazis that think filthy Mo-ham-on-meds the assasin is a prophet.

    Islam had been dormant for centuries because it lacked the power to confront the Western world. It could do well against unarmed blacks in Africa, pacific Jews in the Middle East and unsuspecting buddhists and zoroastrians in Southern Asia. Thanks to undeserved trillions of petro-dollars, Islam has been inscribing in its payroll for the last four decades most politicians in higher echelons in Europe and lately even in Canada and the U.S. Such politicians have been turning a blind eye on their country’s flooding with muslim soldiers disguised as immigrants. That plus the naive blindness of doped white westerners that believe “multi-culturalism” is the coolest trend this side of history has seen a succesful assault on the West by hordes of savages from Somalia, Pakistan, Syria, Bangladesh, Saudi Arabia and other assorted muslim hell-holes.

    The West lacks the three issues laid out at the beginning to defend itself against such an assault. Even champions in the fight against islam such as the fine people at GoV are deliberating on taking courses on islam to understand it. There’s no need to understand islam. As a current saying goes “All I need to know about islam I learned on 9/11”. All one needs to know is that islam is bad for your health, for your principles, for your life, for your liberty and your pursuit of hapiness. Islam has made the lives of millions throughout northern Africa, the Middle East and central and south Asia miserable. Do Europe and North America really want to follow in that list?

    • The average GI may not have needed to understand Nazism to fight it. But the top-level military commanders most certainly did.

      • I am not sure that is correct. They knew they were the enemy, and what they needed to understand is the military strategy of their opponents. I bet few would have read Mein Kampf, or known of the choices the German people made, whether the NSDAP were actually socialists, what they planned for the occupied territories, when they decided to formally murder Jews etc etc. ISIS is a distraction – the enemy is demographics – immigration, asylum, birth rates. Turkey is much more of a threat than ISIS because Erdogan understands demographics, visas, belonging to the EU.

      • I beg to differ. The generals needed to understand tactics, strategy, logistics, warfare theory and practice. Nazis were the enemy. Period. Whether Adolph had a lousy childhood, or was bullied in school, or what his motives were for being such an antisemite was irrelevant, In fact, understanding nazism was so much at the end of the list that at the beginning and for slightly over two years, the U.S. was oblivious to the war in Europe.

        Islam is OK for the dirty hell-holes it has already conquered in the Middle East and North Africa. Islam is really bad for the Western world and as such has to be extripated, its followers sent back to Pakistan, Somalia and Saudi Arabia where they can freely and happily practice their hateful “religion”, kill each other, enjoy the wonderful benefits of sharia and keep their fat ugly women covered under burqas so as not to be an eyesore. Doing that throughout the Western nations that islam is bent on conquering requires determination and decisiveness, not studying the filthy koran, analyzing the hadiths or trying to understand how their mindset stuck in the 9th century works.

      • I’ll go you one better. The diplomats and political strategists needed to understand not only the philosophy of Mein Kampf, but the philosophies of the German opponents to Hitler.

        You know Diana West’s book, American Betrayal, very well. She details the story of a cabal of anti-Nazi conspirators at the top of the German military and intelligence services who were ready to initiate a coup, topple Hitler, and essentially surrender to the US and Britain (though not to Russia). If this offer had been successful, hundreds of thousands of allied soldiers, not to mention millions of Jews and European civilians, would have been saved.

        Instead, the offers were simply ignored.

        Certainly, a detailed knowledge of the enemy’s philosophy, strengths, and weaknesses gives an overwhelming advantage in conflict.

        My belief is we can use Saudi Arabia as a luke-warm ally, as long as we understand they are not a friend and need to be kept at arms distance, even as we collaborate with them. Even Coughlin’s book details his conversations with Egyptian Muslims who were vehemently opposed to the Muslim Brotherhood. I’m not saying we meld with these people, but we can work with them, as long as we recognize the differences and conflicts of interest that still exist.

        This is what knowledge, as opposed to a crude, bullish reliance on massive force, will get you.

      • So do I, far too many people here are referring to moslems as intellectual and military genii, and they are totally missing the point that this whole mess has been ‘allowed’, indeed pushed on western people by our own traitorous leaders, and until they are got rid of–one way or another–moslems will continue to triumph, sneer at us, rape our women and most of all DEMAND; for that is how they ‘understand us’, by demanding, not by analyzing our culture!

        They simply demand, push–and we give in. Very simple. Simplicity is always best, as they have discovered, but we haven’t.

        • far too many people here are referring to moslems as intellectual and military genii

          Seriously? Name three who do that. Some Muslims are smart but most are below average intelligence. It is the “genius” of the happenstance of sitting on a lot of oil which the whole world wants, and the genius of using a deracinated, hollowed-out Western “civilization” as a lever to accomplish what one could not do on one’s own. Our leaders have become the enemy, ready to sell us out for their own personal enrichment. Boys in a schoolyard understand leverage.

          Our “leaders” suffer the fatal flaw of cynicism and sentimentality. They’re aren’t very smart either, but they are so eaten by ambition and envy they’ll use their power as leverage no matter who is harmed…and thus they, for instance, build government schools to propagandize each new generation. They are vicious.

          • “Our leaders have become the enemy…”
            That’s what I’ve been saying all along, Lady D, and yes I agree they are vicious.

            I know you don’t believe they are worse than the moslems themselves, (you said so some time back) but I don’t understand your reasoning there, since with decent leaders this whole mess would not have happened.

            We have been royally ‘sold down the river’, with no end in sight; look at your President, and look at our PM, London’s latest mayor, Calgary’s mayor–the list is endless…….

            “name three..?” Oh come now, just read the comments.

          • I know you don’t believe they are worse than the moslems themselves, (you said so some time back) but I don’t understand your reasoning there, since with decent leaders this whole mess would not have happened.

            Well, if I said that, at best I mis-spoke myself. The current crop of “leaders” are slimeballs at best. That is why the very word “conservative” is meaningless now. Shoot, it’s so trashed now that former conservatives are left without a designation that fits.

          • I’d post this video if he had a cleaner mouth. A shame, the reflexive swearing gets old. But the premise is good, even if its execution is flawed.


            “How to Understand the 14 Different Groups on the Right Wing”

            The information below the video says:

            Published on Apr 29, 2016
            (LANGUAGE WARNING:) Lazy liberals talk about “the right wing” as if conservatives are a unified block. Gavin McInnes of TheRebel.media explains that this obviously isn’t true, and illustrates the Right’s diversity.

          • p.s. And look at who America may well vote in as the next Prez. I refer to the distaff Clinton, of course.

          • “At best I mis-spoke myself…”
            While you were admonishing me about ABB in Norway. LOL!

            You had a head of steam up there, but seriously, I hope that didn’t bring on your PTSD. Must remember not to enrage you so.

    • “Well, islam is today’s nazism only with a twist. It is disguised as a religion, so the silly and naive liberals think islam is on an equal footing with the other western religions. ”

      That’s not the main reason why liberals accord undeserved respect on Islam — it’s because in their minds it’s a religion of Brown People, and that in turn triggers the hot buttons of their White Guilt and White Anxiety not to be “bigoted” and “racist”.

      The mechanism isn’t over yet. When Muslims start misbehaving, it doesn’t cause the liberals to reassess their respect for Islam; they perversely redouble it. And the worse the Mohammedan mischief becomes, the more the liberals dig in their heels stubbornly to defend Muslims and vilify their critics.

      (Note: I used the term “liberals” only because the comment I was responding to framed it that way; I prefer to use the term “PC MC”)

  14. “He emphasized how important it is to learn about Islam the way you learn a new language — by immersing yourself in it. After a while, you learn to think like a Muslim. When certain events make the news, you can look what happens and conceptualize it the way a Muslim does, rather than filtering everything through the lens of a Western perspective.”

    This is essential to understanding.

    Also, fundamental to comprehending, is the West seeing an individual as an individual, unique and independent, whereas islam sees an individual as nothing but a part of islam as such.

    When a muslim is “offended”, it is not the individual as such, but the ideology that is being “offended”, in the sense that it has been touched where it should not be slowed down in its process of conquering land after land. That is where the “offense” really lays.

  15. The enemy is, I think, less Islam (because that is behaving as one would expect it to behave) and more the fellow travelers who infest our societies. Submission by Michel Houellebecq is a work of fiction, but a wonderful book and well worth reading for some understanding of this.

  16. It’s Islam.
    No, it is really the Left. Without Islam, another tool would be used.
    No, it is a subset of the left, the progressives and the Frankfurt school and the Critical theorists and postmodernists.
    How do we beat them? Many are in our own families.
    We change their influence.
    How do we do this?
    Good arguments. Degrade their teaching in the education, media, movies, arts.
    How can we avoid harming free speech?
    Learn enough that we can show incitement to violence in their policies and pronouncements. Get political power to change the funding of schools and governments.
    What is a tiny beginning?
    Send good articles from GoV to friends and relatives. Leave Reliance around the house and xeroxes at work. Vote well.

    • This is the best comment yet and gets to the nub of the matter.

      The article states: ¨Islam … has massively infiltrated us, found our weakest societal points and used them to its advantage, and disabled our ability to resist — compromised our cultural immune system, if you will. How did an indigent, feeble Islam manage to do this to the strongest and most affluent civilization that has ever existed?¨

      The answer is that it didn´t. That work was already done for it by the Left. Until a decade or so ago there were barely any Moslems in the West, let alone Moslems in a position of power. There were none in the press, none in academia, none in the legal arena, none in politics and none in any other area of major national importance. That they have achieved so much in such a short time and against the wishes of the broad mass of the indigenous populations is proof that the groundwork had already been laid for them.

      I would urge anyone who wants to know the truth to look very closely at the Frankfurt School and its many disciples. They are the ones who set out on a long march through the institutions and it is they that are pulling the strings when it comes to the advance of Islam in the West.

    • Miri Regev, Israeli minister of culture, is currently taking a big crack at these cultural Marxists in Israel.

      Google her and see the huge shrieking that she’s engendering.

      Essentially, what she’s doing is avoiding the use of state money to promote cultural Marxism. That, of course, makes her a “fascist” in the eyes of all left-thinking people.

      She is one of my personal heroes in this fight. I wish that we had people like her in power here!

  17. Well if you aren’t going to harm them or force them out and more are coming, I would consider focusing on their conversion to Christianity. If you have government conspiring against the population and the other solutions are not available the ones you are left with may be the only solution. On the demographic front the war is lost in time. It is not lost on this front. You may have less community for them to deal with. There family is not handily available to convert them AND IF MANY CONVERSIONS OCCUR MAYBE THEY WILL QUIT COMING.

    • I meant the family is not readily available to kill them if they convert although others would step in.

  18. You may well be right, Baron, in that it would make more people see things in the ISIS way.

    If our enemy is ISIS, you are undoubtedly correct.

    On the other hand, I’m not sure that ISIS is the real problem. ISIS is *so* extreme that I’m thankful to them for one, and only one, thing: I’ve yet to see a leftard openly support them, which they WILL do with Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. I’ve even heard leftards supporting Al-Qaeda. But not ISIS.

    What I’m getting at is that our enemy may NOT be ISIS.

    Our enemy may be the entire surroundings, and ISIS only an extreme phenomena.

    Consider that ISIS types *want* to start a war. They’re taking it to us.

    Let’s take it to them instead.

    Forget the rock for now, you’re right. It’s time to attack something that’s definitely important to ISIS. I propose Raqqa.

  19. Anybody visit an Albigensian church lately? No, because the French massacred them. One of my favorite religious quotations: The crusaders (yes, there was a crusade in France against heretics) breached the walls of an Albigensian-held town. A captain runs up to a warrior-bishop, and asks how to tell the Christian captives from the heretics. The bishop says: “Kill them all, God will know His own.”

  20. Sun Tzu’s 19th Strategem of the Art of War : ” Take the burning firewood from underneath the caldron .”

  21. The quote by Sun Tzu about knowing your enemy is apropos, and every western elective dictatorship, including the US with her succession of ignorant Presidents and Secretaries of State, has failed to understand the enemy.

    To give one awful example of this kind of applied ignorance, a 2006 review by Christian Avard quotes from a book by former Ambassador to Croatia, Peter Galbraith, who claimed that President George W. Bush was unaware that there were two major sects of Islam just two months before the President ordered troops to invade Iraq.

    A year after his “Axis of Evil” speech before the U.S. Congress, President Bush met with three Iraqi Americans, one of whom became postwar Iraq’s first representative to the United States. The three described what they thought would be the political situation after the fall of Saddam Hussein. During their conversation with the President, Galbraith claims, it became apparent to them that Bush was unfamiliar with the distinction between Sunnis and Shiites.

    Galbraith reports that the three of them spent some time explaining to Bush that there are two different sects in Islam–to which the President allegedly responded, “I thought the Iraqis were Muslims!”

    President Bush was a man of unusual ignorance and I found his alleged response to be perfectly in character.

    Even worse, that pathetic dolt would almost certainly have been completely oblivious to the existence of large non-Muslim communities – now almost eliminated – within Iraq and the likely mortal danger they would face once they lost the protection of Saddam Hussein.

    • “A particularly curious aspect of the Bush “Islam is peace” broadcast is the way in which the whole world suddenly, within a nanosecond as it were, forgot that Bush is not a source of general knowledge. As if under hypnosis, everyone suspended normal critical faculties and drank in this learned guru of Islam.”
      Follow the hushed voice trail:
      “The Duping of Cameron” at Liberty GB

    • You can find some detailed writing on Bush’s ignorance and his general aversion to any sort of intellectual or intelligent effort here:

      Bush was a failure or a quitter in every venture he tried, but he was a macho sort who threw himself into an election fight as a ritual of manhood. Almost literally, he was qualified for nothing but running for (not serving as) President.

    • The problem with Bush was not so much his ignorance, but the fact that he and Cheney trusted Bernard Lewis, emeritus Expert on Islam, to persuade them into thinking that the solution to the problem Islam is increasingly causing the world is aggressive intervention to help Muslims “democratize” — because, after all, we all know that Muslims are really Westerners deep down inside, because, naturally, all humans on earth are Homo Occidentalis; and if they aren’t behaving like it, it must be somehow our fault. If we can only bring Western democracy and secularism to them, their Inner Westerner will blossom and things will settle down.

      Unfortunately, this starry-eyed neo-Wilsonianism isn’t just a feature of Leftists; most conservatives of the West are infected by it, and I have even found signs & symptoms of it to have seeped into the cracks of the Counter-Jihad…

    • Hilarious!

      I have to say, having spent a few weeks working in Israel in 2014, in the Tel Aviv area, I came away reminded of the past, of what the rest of the West used to be like, i.e., a place of relative social peace.

      Now, I do realise that the rest of the country has a very different demographic, but the Tel Aviv area had a general vibe of relative social cohesion, with the exception of small numbers of African refugees/”refugees”. There were a small number of obvious Arabs (i.e., hijabi women), becoming a larger number in the Jaffa area. Despite the ongoing war (it was “Protective Edge”), they were walking around like everyone else, seemingly unmolested and generally exhibiting behaviour similar to the other locals. There were also a small number of ultra-orthodox Jews, who also seemed to largely mind their own business.

      Some Asians, presumably mostly foreign workers, were visible. I saw an Indian-looking person, and an African-looking (not Ethiopian – those are so common as to be unremarkable) person in an army uniform (meaning that they’re surely citizens, not foreign workers). I heard a black African foreign worker partly conversing with her child in French and party in Hebrew. I asked her, and she told me that she was from the Congo.

      I ended up in the middle of a African foreign resident demonstration, by happenstance. I failed to see any of the violent acts that one would typically associate with same in many places – just loud and sign-waving behaviour, typical Israel-style behaviour. People there love to demonstrate and don’t mind sharing their opinions: I also saw anti-war demonstrators. My takeaway was that: “If this is people behave here when they’re upset, this is a society that’s holding together fairly well.” I took pictures. Nobody was in the slightest hostile.

      Women walked around alone at night at 3 am, seemingly more concerned with what was going on with their cellphone than with their surroundings.

      My point is, there were a number of people who would be described as “diverse”, although they were clearly nowhere near collectively forming a majority. They didn’t strike me as unduly oppressed or desiring to form separate societies.

      The place reminded me of what many Western cities were like 25 years ago. It was like a trip in time, and I must say, I was quite surprised that despite all the expected problems in the region, that urban area had a general vibe of being a livable place. I’d recommend that they not make major changes or adopt the West’s ways too much, lest they end up having the same problems!

  22. The West cannot survive if the socialist welfare systems, together with the Neo-Marxist political elites who rule our societies, remain in power. The good news is that the world economy is about to collapse, a collapse which will simultaneously dismantle the welfare states and remove the political elites. Europe and North America will then have a reasonable chance of survival.

  23. I reason and propose several things.

    1. If two sects of moslems (salafist and non salafist) are willing to fight one another, divide and conquer them. For example, infiltrate salafist, so they tear down the Kaaba (not Mecca, just Kaaba). Then reveal that it’s salafist that do it. We’ll see moslem against moslem.

    In WW2, Hitler lost primarily because he battled Russian. Evil against evil. Let’s make evil against evil. In several moslem countries, ISIS or Salafist is also against moslem. We know the moslem as enemy: they can fight each other.

    2. About nuking Mecca or nuking Kaaba; perhaps not nuking, bombing it suffice. I am not clear what exactly Baron meant. But if it’s all about strategy, I think Baron is wrong. Bombing Kaaba is strategically good. It will demoralize most moslems globally.

    3. Islam is eschatologist? Yes, but that does not mean they cannot be demoralized by something material. Japanese pilot seemed careless about worldly things, they’re willing to harakiri. But when their caesar admitted defeat (and their caesar was nonetheless material, tangible), most of them let go their faith.

    4. Following #2 and #3, say out loud that Islam as a teaching is not proven to be glorious. Ali Sina (I mentioned his name several times, and Geert Wilders at least once mentioned him too) says that one most powerful thing against moslems is SHAME. Make them shameful through the destruction of Kaaba, through their battling of one another, and through or bravery of speaking it.

    5. Quote “If the Salafists will be our principal enemies in the coming war — and I believe they will be — and if the Salafists will be encouraged, energized, and turbo-charged by the destruction of Mecca, then why should we do it?”

    Will the Salafist be discouraged if Kaaba stays? I don’t think so. The Salafist will be as much energized, regardless whether Kaaba stays or destroyed. Baron’s reasoning is flawed, I think. Destruction of Mecca is not raison de tre for salafist. And making Kaaba undisturbed is not our issue either.

    6. Even if the destruction of Kaaba encourages the salafist, we shouldn’t be too afraid. Salafist will have two fronts: non-salafist moslem, and non moslem. Say right now they have only one front (the non-moslem). Wouldn’t it be nice if they have two fronts instead of one: it is more possible to beat them. Hitler was more beatable after he faced several fronts, at least two big enemies.

    Finally, I’d say yes to understand Islam. If the “Traveller” book is too thick, read the book “Understanding Muhammad” by Ali Sina. It is thinner, and enlightened many individuals, including me. Islam itself is a portrait of Muhammad. I prefer the book of Ali Sina; and I tell you one thing that I testify: the moslems are less forgiving to you when you mock Muhammad then you mock Islam. Hence, understanding Muhammad is – I opine – more important than understanding Islam. Know your enemy, yes. And know yourself, yes; fix your theology, be brave.

    * Revelation in The Bible mention about something burn in the earth. I interpret as (primarily) the burning of Kaaba. Revelation uses the word ‘Babylon’.

    • “one most powerful thing against moslems is SHAME. Make them shameful through the destruction of Kaaba, through their battling of one another, and through or bravery of speaking it.”

      Mohammedan “shame” isn’t the same thing as Western shame. Simply using that term without understanding this may well lead to a misapprehension of the enemy (and will hence jeopardize the much-needed knowledge which Sun Tzu, and Baron, rightly counsel).

      In Western shame, there is the initial ego, pride, superbia (whatever one wants to call it) that presents a front that becomes the problem which either the individual himself will solve by changing his heart, or change will be forced upon him by events and/or other people. Then he will be shamed into changing. Some resist this process, others eventually succumb. Western morals over the centuries have enculturated a respect for the process of shame, and have enculturated a substance that will replace the false front of superbia once the shame process wears it down.

      One big difference with Mohammedan “shame” is that Islam doesn’t enculturate any good substance supposed to take the place of the shame that would be deconstructed. And that’s mainly because for Islam, there is nothing good to supplant the superbia with — the Mohammedan pride & ego is good, worthy and noble, in Islam, not bad! Their “shame” thus is actually a psychological/cultural wall protecting the Mohammedan core of psychopathic fanaticism. Or to put it another way (since I’m speaking metaphorically here), for Mohammedan psychology, there are only two phenomena to be considered: the Mohammedan Ego & Id inside every Muslim, and the “shame” that is the threat to the Inner Mohammed — any threat, anything and anybody against Islam is one and the same as “shame”.

      With this in mind, one can see it would be a mistake to think that when we “shame” the Muslim by besting them, that they will begin to relent and change for the better. No: they will seethe in their madness all the more, and try to figure out better ways to kill you (ways which include the taqiyya that fools Baron, apparently, into thinking that only Salafists are the enemy).

      That’s all they will do.

  24. Ali Sina in his website http://www.faithfreedom.org provides several charges against Muhammad, and invite moslems to refute it. He does not charge Islam, he charges Muhammad. Many moslems tried to refute Ali Sina’s charges, none succeeds. As the result, some moslems leave Islam. Perhaps it’s better to attack Muhammad than to attack Islam. Muhammad can always be ‘real’ to moslem, while Islam may not always be. Muhammad is a person, Islam is not. It is like Jesus is real to christians, while christianity is abstract. The leftists mock Jesus more than they mock christianity. Let’s consider attacking the person (Muhammad) more than attacking the religion. Is that equal to insulting the religion? Perhaps, but the counter-arguments by leftist and moslems will be more difficult. Harder for moslems and lefits to play the ‘race’ card. Harder to play ‘religion’ card.

  25. I have absolutely no interest, at the end of the day, in how Mohammedans choose to live in their own countries.

    And I have no interest, at the end of the day, in ‘defeating’ the Islamic world by blowing up their religious sites or anything like that.

    All I am interested in is ridding my own society of Islam’s influence. And we don’t need rockets or bombs or troops to do that. All we need is the ability to critically analyse the doctrines and teachings of Islam, and the freedom to speak our minds. That’s it.

    The Mohammedans have spent years trying to deny us those things, aided and abetted by traitors from within our own ranks. If those people don’t want something, and they go to such lengths to fight it, then that shows its importance.

    The Mohammedans can’t tolerate truth, analysis and criticism? Then we need to analyse their religion, criticise it and speak the truth.

    If that was done, every hour of every day, right here in our own societies, then these Islamic bampots would gain no traction whatsoever, and they would be relegated to an insignificant, powerless bunch of backward-thinking zeroes. Which is all they are, at the end of the day.

    • Yours is a great analysis and I fully agree. However, there’s a little “but”. You may not be interested in how they live as long as they remain in their hell-holes in muslim-conquered lands. But they ARE interested in how you live. They believe you are a sinner that needs to be killed, converted or punished for not believing in some pedophile murderer that they revere as a prophet. They don’t believe in “live and let live”. And that’s where your powerful analysis breaks. If they were content at staying in their hell-holes and allowing you the same liberties you want to allow them, all would be fine.

      They are an “insignificant, powerless bunch of backward-thinking zeroes”, as you say. But as for the powerless part, they’re avidly seeking the posession of nuclear weapons and they’re literally swimming in trillions of petro-dollars. That’s a combination that spells disaster to their enemies, i.e. the Western world. What do you think backward-thinking mullahs will do once they have their first atomic bomb? Bully and threaten? They’ll shout “alla-hu-akbar” and push the red button. Just like that. Because the hateful, blood-lusting allah commands them to do so.

      They need to be constantly questioned and criticized all right. And western societies need to rid themselves of this plague. But ideologically they need to be crushed, because otherwise they won’t stay calm until they achieve total world domination. Or until they become neutralized into a completely irrelevant ideology confined to poverty-stricken hell-holes in the Middle East.

    • So we “need to analyse their religion, criticize it and speak the truth?”

      I would agree. Small problem, our leaders, all over the western world will NOT let us do that.

      Even in countries with conservative, right wing governments we are not allowed to criticize the murderous, sex-crazed sons of the protected people.

      Conservative? Well, in England the word is a sick joke, but even in Norway —-you are not allowed. The only light on this subject shines in eastern Europe.

        • Up to you, mate, I’m old and dispirited.
          Whenever there are elections anywhere in the western world, the people only seem to elect ‘degenerate, sodden-witted mushrumps’ to quote the bard.

    • “All we need is the ability to critically analyse the doctrines and teachings of Islam, and the freedom to speak our minds. That’s it.”

      Ideas on our side aren’t going to stop a 911, a Madrid, a London Tube Bombing, a Paris, a Brussels, a Mumbai, a Bali, etc etc etc…

      Ideas on our side will drastically minimize those metastasizing dangers if our ideas lead to rational actions against the Muslims in the West.

  26. My old Europe is essentially finished. My plans to leave it soon have been made. Even Switzerland will be having a hell of a time of it of Europe is split into two zones by 2050.

    Meanwhile, I think Salafists believe in jihad against all infidel regimes, in particular the oil sheiks of Arabia. As the Baron already wrote, Salafists see them as idolatrous, but I am still looking for a source where it says they see worshipping the moon rock itself as idolatrous. Our European leaders, who have never been acted more stupid than Europe’s leaders in 1914, have failed to confront the rise of this dangerous ideology. They are, along with presstitute media, this so-called religion’s enablers by design I believe. Without their help I believe their rise would have been a lot slower because they still have no governing body to control the various Salafist groups.

    • If you don’t mind my asking, where will you be going? How did you choose your destination?

  27. Destroy the political left, and I mean destroy it, and the problems with islam taking over the west will then seem not such an insurmountable problem to resolve. You now see what the most difficult problem really is.

    • My words for a long time already. Islam isn’t the cause of our problems, it’s the symptom. The cause are the ones who open the window to let the vermin in. They do that deliberately. Lefties are the enemy of every free, sane human being capable of thinking for him- or herself. They want to collectivize everything, including your most private thoughts. Maybe that’s why they are so fond of Islam, which is basically the same idea: The want of power over other people’s minds. If we ever find a way to eradicate that from our genes…

  28. As long as the West continues believing Islam is a peaceful and legitimate religion, we will continue to lose the war. I don’t think it is about understanding Islam in the sense of formulating strategies to overcome our opponent. I would say that it is desirous to understand Islam in the sense of recognizing that it is an evil. In that sense, if we were to get to that point, we all would have an identifiable enemy to conquer. It is imperative the West recognize Islam as evil. We did it with Nazism. We tried it with communism, though it was not totally successful because many among us held many of its principles as good. So Nazism was completely discredited and defeated while the fate of communism was a mixed bag in that we have incorporated many of its principles in our political and societal DNA.

    • Shouldn’t we be explicitly making the case that Islam is evil? Many people make it implicit that Islam is evil. Many people describe the evils committed by Mohammedans in the name of Mohammedanism. But shouldn’t we all be making the case explicitly that Islam is evil?

      It is hard to imagine today one making a public statement that Islam is evil. That is a measure of how deep in denial the West is in. I believe there should be a concerted effort to brand Islam as evil explicitly. Drop the implicit tact.

  29. One of the most intelligent articles I have read on the importance of knowing Islam. Thing is with liberals in open alliance with Islam against the West, it becomes difficult to see the West emerge victorious from its self created nightmare. We need to understand not only Islam but liberalism too since the latter is clearly as much the enemy.

  30. I read the first few comments and then skipped here. Forgive me for my intemperance but my patience has been exhausted.

    [REDACTED for intemperate language]

    Sorry for the intemperate language but when I am aroused I tend towards intemperance. Ha.

  31. Oh, PS
    Yes, Islam is evil. It is an evil religion as anyone who has read it knows. Let us not kid ourselves, that would be a big mistake. A well-placed bomb might help, but who will do that? Not[Obama] of course.

  32. One last word.
    Actually one doesnt have to nuke Mecca or the Kaaba to destroy it.

    This is no undergrund bunker nore a fortress.
    Its a relatively small and weak building.
    And the so called Black Stone is very likely nothing else then pumice (or with a similar structure).
    Islamic sources say it can swim on water and that is has been broken in pieces in the past and glued together again.

  33. An important book that explains the Left’s infiltration and takeover of Western culture is:

    “Explaining Postmodernism” by Steven R. C. Hicks – http://amzn.com/0983258406

    It also reveals why the Left sees the Ummah as co-travelers. Some of the quotes from Rousseau are shocking – change a few words and they could have been uttered by apologists here in 2016.

  34. Understanding your enemy is many things . While it IS important to understand the enemys strength and the frightening advance he has made , it is even more important not to loose sight of his weeknesses , and the powers and processes that work against our enemy . Without this larger pespektive we will surely loose hope and selfconfidence , and any chance to victory . As the example of Israel show us very clearly , muslims can very easily be defeated by even a small nation who has the will to fight them . The israelies generaly dont understand islam very well , but they have learned how to fight it anyhow . Some might say that this has come about because of superior american technology , but actually the main weapon has always been the individual soldier and his will to fight .

    • The will to fight, using violence; without understanding their ideology. Yes that’s important. Somehow they’re human too, that can be tired if they see their enemies are also relentless. Ambon, an Indonesia city, experienced civil war between Christians and Moslems at the end of 2nd millenium. There were several factors that ended it. I remember one interview that was aligned to your opinion. A moslem said ‘we stop the war because we’re tired’. The will to fight, yes. And I believe it needs a proper theology that says life is beautiful and you can commit violence to everyone who want to ruin it.

  35. So the winning strategy is for us to destroy the Ka’ba but make it look like ISIS did it.

  36. Re: “And now they are among us, placed at the strategic political and cultural nodes of our societies. If we suddenly wake up and realize that we are their enemy, and they ours, then we will be in a civil war from that point onwards, as Matt Bracken has pointed out.”

    “Theirs is a major accomplishment, one of the greatest victories ever achieved by one civilization against another. And they did it all without open warfare, without their enemy’s awareness that there was a war on.”

    A significant problem we in the west face is that we are not keeping up with the evolution of warfare and how the nature of conflict has changed – particularly since the end of the Second World War. A relatively small cadre of specialists and professional military people takes the scholarship of conflict seriously, but the to the average person on the street, when you mention the word “war,” what comes to mind is kinetic conflict – bullets, bombs, and all of the rest. That definition, while correct in the narrow sense, does not take into account the vast array of other means by which wars are waged.

    What the forces of Islam – the soldiers of Allah – are doing, is something like the Chinese concept of unrestricted warfare. What is unrestricted warfare, you ask?

    The concept was first known widely in the west with the 1999 publication of the book, “Unrestricted Warfare” by PLA Air Force Senior Colonels Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui. Under their vision, the heretofore clear lines between military and civilian spheres dissolve, as do the lines demarcating the battle space from non-combatants – literally, the war is everywhere and anywhere; all are combatants, no one is a non-combatant. The weapons of war may be traditional kinetic weapons – bullets, bombs, rockets, tanks, aircraft, ships, etc. – or they may not be.

    The nearest western counterpart to the unrestricted warfare model lies perhaps in the work of military theorist John Boyd and his acolytes, such as William Lind. Lind’s generations of warfare model has proven to be very useful as a conceptual tool, as has his idea of “fourth generation warfare” or 4GW. In 4GW, the most-effective weapons are often not things normally associated with the waging of kinetic wars, i.e., mass migrations of people, currency manipulations, demography, and so forth.

    The Islamic way of war has always relied heavily upon non-kinetic means to supplement the kinetic. We are seeing that in Europe now – the so-called “refugee crisis” is actually an invasion by another name – what Muslims call the hijjra.

    Money is another potent weapon of 4GW or unrestricted warfare – which is skillfully exploited by our Islamic enemies. The sheiks of the Sunni Arab Gulf states and kingdoms didn’t simply park their vast petrodollar profits in the bank; they out them to use as a weapon – bribing and co-opting western officials, building a vast network of mosques, madrasas and other Islamic infrastructure around the non-Muslim world, churning out pro-Islamic propaganda, buying favorable coverage in the western media, etc. These are all forms of unrestricted – or fourth-generation – warfare.

    Informed readers can undoubtedly come up with additional examples in the same vein, but the basic point remains: Our Islamic adversaries may not rate highly on conventional battlefields, where they usually lose to conventional western military formations – but they are a force with which to be reckoned in the realm of fourth-generation warfare.

    The use of unrestricted conflict is how the Muslims can claim, straight-faced, that they are not at war with us. They are – on one hand – committing an example of tawriya with such claims, but on the other they are correct: many, perhaps most, westerners do not recognize the Islamic way of conquest for what it is – and has always been.

    As long as the enemy is permitted to define/wage the conflict on terms favorable to him, we will continue to lose. One cannot win a war one does not even recognize to be happening, nor can one win a conflict in which one is not permitted to name or accurately describe the enemy. On the other hand, if we seize control of these things – if we begin to take the initiative – then we stand a chance of surviving, perhaps even thriving.

  37. My apologies for the following typo:

    “The sheiks of the Sunni Arab Gulf states and kingdoms didn’t simply park their vast petrodollar profits in the bank; they out them to use as a weapon”

    Should read:

    The sheiks of the Sunni Arab Gulf states and kingdoms didn’t simply park their vast petrodollar profits in the bank; they took them out and used them as a weapon…”

  38. “(and Salafists in general)” — Baron Boddisey

    If Baron thinks our only enemy is “Salafists” and not all Muslims, then with exquisite irony, Baron doesn’t know the enemy.

    • Hesperado, once again you are putting words into my mouth, which seems to be your hobby.

      If I thought Salafists were the only enemy, that’s what I would have said. Salafists happen to be the “strong horse” at the moment — in both their organized war-making machine, the Islamic State, and their organized subversion machine, the Muslim Brotherhood. They are the ones upon whom my essay was focused.

      The entire enemy is Islam in all its forms, of course, as I have often said. Why you choose to pretend that I have never said such a thing is beyond me.

      That’s the non-Western enemy, of course. The Western enemy — the enemy among us — is another matter entirely. Foreign and domestic, as Matt Bracken points out.

      • Salafists happen to be the “strong horse” at the moment — in both their organized war-making machine, the Islamic State, and their organized subversion machine, the Muslim Brotherhood

        Salafists are not the Muslim Brotherhood. The MB was formed in Egypt and is nowadays heavily funded by Qatar. Salafists are a Saudi product and funded by Saudis.

        In the Egypt elections following “Arab Spring”, MB and Salafists competed with each other for votes. MB won because they are much more tightly organized, resembling the Nazi party. Salafists are more diverse and chaotic, you will even find some Salafists who don’t necessarily force their beliefs on others.

        Later, after Egypt’s military deposed Morsi, rivalry between Qatar and Saudi moved from Egypt to Syria. Both Qatar and Saudi are Sunni Muslims, but the Emir of Qatar will not take a back seat to the Sauds, hence spending like crazy to jockey for pole position in the world of militant Islam.

        • You’re confusing Salafists with Wahhabists. Wahhabists are specifically Saudi, whereas “Salafist” can refer to any Muslim who wants to purify Islam so that it returns to the state it was in during the time of the Companions of the Prophet.

          • Dear Baron, have a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_parliamentary_election,_2011%E2%80%9312

            The Salafi Al-Nour Party withdrew from the Democratic Alliance for Egypt coalition due to disagreements with the Freedom and Justice Party over its share in the coalition’s joint candidate lists.[33] On 12 August, three Islamic Salafi parties (Nour, and two unregistered groups that later became the Authenticity Party and the Building and Development Party) announced that they would run a united candidate list.[34] Their common list is officially called the “Alliance for Egypt”, and is unofficially referred to as the “Islamist Bloc”.[35] The Al-Nour Party fielded the overwhelming majority of the candidates, and all the Alliance for Egypt joint candidates are running under the Al-Nour Party label.

            Note that the “Freedom and Justice Party” was the Muslim Brotherhood’s political party. Again, MB ≠ Salafists. Of interest is also read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salafi_movement

            Salafism is sponsored globally by Saudi Arabia and this ideology is used to justify the violent acts of Jihadi Salafi groups that include Al-Qaeda, ISIS, Boko Haram, and the Al-Shabaab.[80][81] In addition, Saudi Arabia prints textbooks for schools and universities to teach Salafism as well as recruit international students from Egypt, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Africa and the Balkans to help spreading Salafisim in their local communities.[80][81]

            In contrast to this “back to the roots” purism of the Salafists, the MB is a weird 20th-century hybrid of fundamentalist Islam and Western organizational principles, with more than a smidgen of Nazi ideology and discipline. Lumping MB and Salafists together is a mistake, though there have been overlaps and lateral movement of followers between the two. The Wiki article does note that some sources apply the “salafist” label to MB also, but that does not explain how and why a salafist alliance contested the Egypt parliamentary election against the MB front organization and came second with 27.8 percent of the vote to the MB’s 37.5 percent.

            Rather than continue lengthy discussion of differences and commonalities between MB and salafists, I would urge you to keep in mind that Qatar, where the hugely influential al-Jazeera is produced, has today become the main sponsor of the Muslim Brotherhood; the Emir’s pockets are very deep.


            Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia has declared the MB a terrorist organization. Most people are aware of the Sunni-Shia rivalry in Islam, but few people appreciate the fierce intra-Sunni rivalry between Saudi and Qatar, which is a main driver in the ongoing war inside Syria.

            In 2014, Qatar’s relations with Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates came to a boiling point over the Qatar’s support for the Muslim Brotherhood[75] and extremist groups in Syria.[137] This culminated in the three aforementioned countries withdrawing their ambassadors from Qatar in March 2014.[138] When the ambassadors withdrew, the GCC was reportedly on the verge of a crisis linked to the emergence of distinct political blocs with conflicting interests. Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Bahrain were engaged in a political struggle with Qatar, while Oman and Kuwait represent a non-aligned bloc within the GCC.[138] ( … ) In recent years, Qatar has been using Islamist militants in a number of countries including Egypt, Syria, Libya, Somalia and Mali to further its foreign policy. Courting Islamists from the Muslim Brotherhood to Salafist groups has served as a power amplifier for the country, as it believes since the beginning of the Arab Spring that these groups represented the wave of the future.[134][140][141] David Cohen, the Under Secretary for terrorism and financial intelligence at the U.S. Treasury, said that Qatar is a “permissive jurisdiction for terrorist financing.”[142] ( … )
            Qatar supported the democratically elected President Mohamed Morsi with diplomatic support and the state-owned Al Jazeera network before he was deposed in a military coup.[146][147] Qatar offered Egypt a $7.5 billion loan during the year he was in power.[148]

          • Yes, I remember the MB were not designated “Salafists” in the Egyptian election. But I disagree with the classification — the Muslim Brotherhood are Salafists in their beliefs — they want to return Islam to the way it was in the time of the Companions of the Prophet. That is a “Salafist” if the word has any meaning. The rest of it is just arguments over political nomenclature, in my opinion.

            The Ikhwan, Hizb ut-Tahrir, ISIS, al-Nusra, al Qaeda, Boko Haram, al Shabaab — all are Salafists, as I define the term. Maybe no one else agrees with my usage!

      • The “strong horse” metaphor implies that all who are not strong horse are not equally dangerous.

        Another commenter above posted a saying of Sun Tzu — “Take the burning firewood from underneath the caldron.”

        What Westerners call “Salafists” are just Muslims doing one of the myriad types of jihad, the front-line spearhead. All the other types of jihad, performed by all other Muslims on the planet are the “fire underneath the caldron”.

        Meanwhile, since I don’t think my own West is evil, my metaphor for the non-evil PC MCs and non-evil Leftists (the majority of them) is that in various ways — for sincerely (and obtusely) starry-eyed reasons, thinking they are doing the right thing in the name of good principles — they are blocking access to the fire underneath the caldron.

        P.S.: I don’t put words into people’s mouths; I reasonably infer what their words imply. If my inferences have erred in one way or another, that’s a separate matter — but it is not the same thing as “putting words into” my interlocutor’s mouth.

        • Great posts Hesperado. I’m enjoying the back and forth between you and the Baron.

          I think it leads to greater clarity as each party must refine ,clarify and justify his viewpoint in reaction to the other’s comments and constructive criticisms..

          This is a great thread thank -you for starting it and maintaining it Baron .It is a joy to immerse oneself in the feast of reason and the flow of the soul.

          • I second that Shelagh!
            We all owe the Baron and Lady D for adding immeasurably to our education, for one learns much from others in a blog such as Gates of Vienna

Comments are closed.