I want you to consider what it would mean to you, if you learned that a Jim Crow Party were potent and fashionable, and perhaps even ready to shake the political science of our country. Consider that before us stood the menace of a political movement organized upon a principle of subjugation and humiliation of an inferior or benighted class. How would you greet this? How would it strike your sensibility? Or consider what might be your reaction to the appearance of renewed apparatus of subversion, in certain ways analogous to the Communist infiltration of the early 20th century.
I want you to consider them amalgamated: an organized apparatus of subversion ordered toward the subjugation of a class of men.
This, friends, is the Jihad; and it is we who shall be subjugated. For the great honor of Islam is to extend equality to all men; and the great disgrace of the Jihad is to remove it utterly from those who reject the faith.
It is vital to understand the gravity of the situation. Now of course I know that all my friends here understand it perfectly well — else they would not have signed onto a statement of purpose so emphatic as ours. I feel confident, moreover, that even some of our dear right-Liberals, as Zippy long ago described them, are pretty well on-broad with our purpose. I have even discovered, in personal conversation, that indeed a number of flat-out Liberals are in the end sympathetic; in short that though they might bristle at the strictures I would apply to Liberalism, they could still be made to perceive the true threat of the Jihad. In these facts I find great reassurance and even pride. My countrymen, in considerable number and even despite other differences of real depth, are with me in opposition to the Jihad.
There is, in a manner of speaking, a board constituency for a formidable Anti-Jihad Coalition.
And so my question to readers is this: what sort of rhetorical, political, philosophical, even theological principles ought to comprise our strategy against this enemy?
Comments (5)
Paul, I don't know if this counts as anything like a principle, but many of us seem agreed that a serious modification of immigration policy, particularly towards people coming from Muslim countries, ought to be part of any such strategy.
Now, here's a question: Should politicians automatically assume that people from some heavily Muslim country--say, Saudi Arabia--who identify themselves as Christians rather than Muslims are good candidates for immigration? Naturally, the first priority should be getting officials to realize the problems with unfettered Muslim immigration. But beyond that, I can't help wondering if there's a Western tendency to assume that somebody who is a Christian from such a country is automatically an ally, having lived under persecution and such. That _may_ be true, but is there not a danger that a person--say, from Lebanon--who self-identifies as a Christian will nonetheless be an apologist for a terrorist organization like Hezbollah? The dhimmi mindset is sometimes rather ingrained in non-Muslims from Muslim lands as well.
Posted by Lydia | August 17, 2007 3:52 PM
"Should politicians automatically assume that people from some heavily Muslim country--say, Saudi Arabia--who identify themselves as Christians rather than Muslims are good candidates for immigration?"
It is well beyond abilities of US congress and US goverment to create and enforce a law that will reliably sort out Muslims and non-Muslims.
There is a real problem in allowing Muslims, any Muslim from Muslim country to come to US. If immigrant himsel is Muslim-in-the-name-only, there is no way to predict if his kids will not become suiciders.
Unless Christian from a Muslim country is a well known dissident or some such, how can we know if he is, in fact, a Christian?
Islam has a fundamental concept of Taqiyya, lying to the infidels when Islam is weak. Our meak and generally incomptent goverment has no chance to handle that.
The only answer is a total stop to immigration from all Muslim countries and, where possible, to Muslims from non-Muslim countries.
Posted by mik_infidelos | August 19, 2007 4:37 AM
"Should politicians automatically assume that people from some heavily Muslim country--say, Saudi Arabia--who identify themselves as Christians rather than Muslims are good candidates for immigration?"
It is well beyond abilities of US congress and US goverment to create and enforce a law that will reliably sort out Muslims and non-Muslims.
There is a real problem in allowing Muslims, any Muslim from Muslim country to come to US. If immigrant himsel is Muslim-in-the-name-only, there is no way to predict if his kids will not become suiciders.
Unless Christian from a Muslim country is a well known dissident or some such, how can we know if he is, in fact, a Christian?
Islam has a fundamental concept of Taqiyya, lying to the infidels when Islam is weak. Our meak and generally incomptent goverment has no chance to handle that.
The only answer is a total stop to immigration from all Muslim countries and, where possible, to Muslims from non-Muslim countries.
Posted by mik_infidelos | August 19, 2007 4:51 AM
For the last 3 years Lawrence Auster is refining his idea of Separation between West and Islam.
This is a concept close to Cold War with Communist block. Isolate Dar al-Islam, contain it, minimize all interactions with them and let them cook in their own juices.
I haven't see any other approach that is based on understanding of Islam and has a hope for preserving peaceful and prosperous West.
Posted by mik_infidelos | August 19, 2007 4:58 AM
what sort of rhetorical, political, philosophical, even theological principles ought to comprise our strategy against this enemy?
The Turks were defeated at Leptano by prayer.
Posted by Brandon Field | August 23, 2007 4:07 PM