How to win the war (2) 2

At the end of How to win the war (1) we asked: How can we fight an enemy who is not only spread over many countries but is also here in our midst, thriving and increasing dangerously amongst us, and striking at us unpredictably and at random?

There is a way. It can be done. America has fought such an enemy before when it was at war with another collectivist ideology, Communism. It was a ‘cold war’ for as long as the country that was ready to engage America in its name – Russia  – held back from military assault. Hot battles in the war were fought by proxy armies in Africa, South America, the Far East. At home it was fought with words.

Within America itself the war was fought by means of law, propaganda, and intelligence.

Eventually America defeated Russia, but it never won the war decisively on its own soil. Within the United States itself, Communism not only survived, but in certain ways triumphed. Its true believers came to dominate in the fields of education, the newspapers, radio and television, and the highly influential film industry. They established a secure stronghold in the universities, in the law courts, in the Democratic Party, and eventually at the apex of power in the presidency itself with the election of Barack Obama. Right now, it is stronger than it has ever been before in America. And it is in alliance with Islam.

The war against Islam will have to be won more decisively than the war against Communism. So how shall we fight it? What must we do? It is not up to the military alone to fight this war – though the armed forces will play their part. Every individual who values liberty is a soldier in this fight.

We must expose Islam for what it is. It must be shown beyond all doubt to be wrong. It must be defeated in argument.

Islam must be made ashamed of itself.

We must do the very thing that the Islamic bloc in the UN is trying to make universally illegal – criticize Islam.  We must do what weak European leaders say should not be done – treat it with brazen insensitivity, with scorn, with loathing.

We must expose every wrong committed in its name. We must stigmatize it, ridicule it with jokes and satire and cartoons, ‘disrespect’ it, force it to try and defend itself with arguments and counter every one of them. We must concede nothing to this ideology of death.

We must let Muslim men know that what they regard as honor we regard as dishonor. In their twisted morality they consider it necessary for the upholding of their honor that they bully helpless women, force their daughters to marry men they hate and fear, kill them if the don’t obey, if they are raped, if they fall in love with someone they don’t approve of. We must impress upon Muslim men that such deeds are deeply dishonorable, low, beneath contempt, as well as intensely cruel and incontrovertibly wrong.

Far from curbing our free speech, it is precisely with words that we must defeat the ideology of Islam. We must make a better job of it than we did with Communism; do it more the way we did with Nazism, which very few people dare now to defend. ‘Nazi’ has become a synonym for evil; so should ‘Islam’.

Hold fast to the understanding that Islam, like Nazism, is an ideology and must be despised and rejected by humanity as a whole. The evil will of Mohammad must be defeated here and now, at last, all these centuries after he first launched his warriors of death in 78 battles against any who would not submit to his vicious tyranny.

Our war is with a set of ideas and those who take action to force them upon us, not with everyone who is born into Islam. On no account must Muslim citizens in western countries be herded into internment camps. But there should be a total ban on Muslim immigration. And Muslim immigrants already admitted must  integrate fully into our way of life, accept our values, our law, our customs and traditional codes of behavior. They must be given no concessions: no separation of the sexes in gyms and swimming-pools, no time off for prayer, no building of special washing facilities in public places and business premises for their rituals of ablution. There must be no allowing of publicly licensed Muslim taxi drivers to refuse to take a passenger who is carrying a bottle of wine or has a lap-dog with him. No public rallies must be allowed that display placards urging murder. No threats against our free speech must be tolerated. No preaching or sloganeering against Christians and Jews must go unpunished. No new mosques may be built. Exclusively Muslim schools must be closed down.

Captured Muslim terrorists must be forced to talk, then tried by military tribunals and if found guilty summarily executed. Any Muslim who uses violence against us in the name of his religion must expect to be treated as a terrorist.

If there are political leaders who oppose these policies to any degree, they must be forced out of office as soon as possible. The present US administration does not want to accept that Islam is the enemy. If it did, it would have to acknowledge that it is fighting on the same side as Israel against the same enemy. It would support and join Israel in the use of force against Hamas and Hizbullah. It would stop Iran by every means possible from becoming a nuclear-armed power. It would not permit Iraq to reinstate sharia law. It would see the folly of having gone to war against Christian states in the Balkans to protect Muslim rebels.

If Muslims use our laws and civil liberties against us, we must do the same against them. For every suit brought by Muslim trouble-makers we must counter sue. Even better, we must sue first and often.

While Muslims may pray to their deity in their own properties, they must be deterred from attempting to do so in public places where, if they do it, they should expect to be mocked and verbally abused. They may dress as they choose, but if their clothing advertizes their faith, they must expect to be challenged. We must make them afraid of our opinion, of our disdain (but not of physical assault which we must abstain from unless in self-defense).

We must make Muslims who want to destroy our values, our liberty, our democracy, our civilization, afraid of us. We must make them afraid to preach their ideology. Also, and even better, we must make them ashamed to preach it.

These measures should be our battle plan. Only if we adopt it in full will we be taking the war and our survival as free people seriously. Only by doing these things will we win the war they have declared against us. Anything short of uncompromising opposition will not do: we will be terrorized, massacred, worn down, until we submit to be ruled by evil, and returned to the darkness of barbarism. We must all be anti-jihad warriors now.

  • philabor

    Wow. I agree with a lot of what I read on this blog, and agree that we are war with radical islam, but I don't go with mocking people's prayers. I am all for prohibiting many of their abuses of women, and absolutely dead set against any elements of Sharia Law in the us, but can't sign up for banning them praying in public. Do we then ban Christian prayers in public? I don't agree with their beliefs, but defend their right to have them. It's their anti-American behaviors where I draw the line.

    • C. Gee

      Jillian's idea of “deterring them” from praying in public places, may mean time-and-place – and- by-permit regulation for mass prayer, rather than outright prohibition. The banning of the ostentatious group prayer at the airport by the Flying Imams in search of Islamophobia is warranted. That kind of in-your-face praying is equivalent to a group of neo-Nazis performing a quick goose-step march and straight-arm saluting in unison in front of a synagogue. No one would care if a single Muslim quietly sent off a quick one to Allah, but he would have to modify the Muslim rules on the choreography. It is hard to be discrete when you have to stretch out your arms sideways, salaam , touch your head to the ground, stick your bum in the air. Jews and Christians have learned to trust the deity to know when they are praying – giving him the nod and the wink, so to speak, a subtle doven, a dipping of the head and a brief closing of the eyes. Back at temple or tabernacle they can let rip.
      Despite my finding rituals of religion ludicrous, being nicely brought up, I would probably not snigger and jeer on tripping over a praying female Muslim beggar in the street (which happened on a crowded path in the Roman forum ). If, however, I or someone else should decide to do so, we should not be hustled off to the slammer for hate-thought. Nor should general societal disapproval stigmatize speech protesting against aggressive ( or passive -aggressive ) religious speech, rather than the religious speech itself. The protection from ridicule or insult of religious speech because it is aimed at an imaginary friend is ridiculous, anti-American, and dangerous.
      My right to ridicule the ridiculous in public should be co-extensive with the right to be ridiculous in public. And I expect ridiculous Americans themselves (including Muslims) to defend my right, just as I defend theirs.
      By the way, I quite see how devout Jews and Christians could regard Islamic doctrine itself as a parody of their religions. A little barking dogma, with a cap on its head, dancing on its hind legs.
      Religion, how do I mock thee ? Let me count the ways…