Thursday, December 3, 2015

CLEAR AS A BELL: Understanding Islam's real enemy: Individual Liberty

Recently I've participated in a few online discussions about the most recent multivictim terrorist attack against innocent civilians that took place on US soil in San Bernardino, CA on December 2nd, 2015.

Most commenters who are aware that the issue is Islam, not "workplace violence" or disingenuously, "guns", then go on to comment that Islam is at war with the "West".

I think it goes deeper than that.

Islam is at War with Individual Liberty.  Islam will never accept individual liberty, whether as practiced in a western country or elsewhere. Remember, Islam has spread so successfully because the options are SUBMIT or die a horrible death.

Many many cultural muslims, of all different ethnicities, when allowed to live and prosper in a secular non-muslim culture, don't actively participate in the religion or adhere to its other tenets, but continue to follow the religious calendar with respect to celebratory days, customs, food, language as one way of marking family history and culture.  Islam is not just a religion, but an entire social/political/financial structure and way of controlling and organizing disparate groups by force and tyranny.  After a few generations of being removed from the threat of painful torture and death if one is found to NOT be practicing Islam as decided by hard core control freaks, the influence of Islam continues to wane as evidenced by the openness of Iran and Iraq societies in the 1970's.

It takes true courage to stand up to such a dichotomous and evil philosophy where your two options are to be a "true believer" or be dead. The first step to be taken in courage is raw honesty about the true threat.

My husband did multiple tours in support of OIF and spent a full year embedded with the Iraqi army. The Iraqis were working, with the support and training of coalition forces, to rebuild a civil, secular society. The Islamists made huge gains by killing any moderates, especially educated professionals, within Iraqi society, successfully setting back efforts to help Iraq regain footing as a peaceful, advancing society that it had made such strides towards in the 1970's. Directly as a consequence of DH's efforts to support secular Iraqis struggling to reopen up law schools, return young girls to the education pipeline and make the streets safe for children to play in again without fear, he was targeted for assassination by various Islamist sects with three IED attempts. In each case, a call was issued from the local mosque (aka command and control center and weapons cache) warning the locals the IED was about to be triggered. He still has a negative Pavlovian response when it comes to hearing any call, the adhan or other, from a meuzzin.

Iraqis who worked with the coalition forces were killed only after being subjected to horrific torture, and their homes and property seized by the mosques and turned over the "faithful".  Children of families who were found to be helping the coalition forces were killed by the Islamists. On more than one occasion, coalition forces had to rescue and extricate a captured Iraqi officer or interpreter. That's some pretty powerful incentive to not rock the boat or stand on the side of freedom.  Kinda like the Obama Regime envisions for us here in America, where anyone who dares to exercise their right to opt out of the collective or (gasp!) even criticize the goals of the collective or Dear Leader is targeted by the IRS, DOJ, EPA, BLM and all the other assorted alphabet arms of state tyranny they have at their disposal.  It's the same mentality, the difference is scale, scope and success.  Once you realize this, it becomes obvious why there is such admiration and support from the Fabians and Progressives for Islam when the two ideologies should be in conflict with each other.  (They will, if we allow this advancement to continue unchallenged, once all avenues for liberty have been terminated, at which time the death cage match between Progressives and Islamists will take place).

There are photos on the wall of the law school in Ramadi that document Iraq's slow slide from an open, secular society making great strides in education, public health and infrastructure that was recognized as a center for higher education throughout the ME and Asia, where women from all over the world attended unveiled clothed in western style jeans and blouses, to the photos of the alumni just before it was shuttered in a decaying and fractured country riven by ethnic strife and stripped of heritage and hope. The number of women attending had decreased, and additionally one could see the progression through the sequential photographs taken over the years as the women became more and more covered up. The added layering and creeping inability to personalize one's outward appearance is emblematic of the incremental suppression of individual liberty and expression of free will that was taking place.

The determination of Islam to spread and force the entire globe into its clutches isn't limited to the West. Catalog the acts of violence by Islamists against non-muslim populations in Asia and Africa.  The only hope the rest of the world has is in the West, as we are truly the only ones with both the technology and intellectual history and framework for alternatives to defeat it.  What is lacking is the will.  The courage.  The acceptance of what is, not what we would like it to be.

As Gates of Vienna so aptly puts in, this is the Third Wave in a very long battle. This is not the first time that the guardians of liberty have had to repulse the creep of tyranny from an emboldened and growing caliphate.

In this modern 21st iteration of an older war for hearts and minds, the battle is driven in part by anxiety within muslim society over their role in the larger post-colonial world. It is the ultimate "crabs in a bucket" syndrome now that all external structural frameworks of colonial administrative control have been removed.  Many people, but not all, within the Islamic sphere of influence were thriving in the newer, more open societies and even more threatening to those who use Islam as a mechanism of control, many that were thriving were voluntarily deciding to reject Islam when other opportunities or the fear for non-compliance was removed.

In summation, yes, the problem IS Islam, and no, they don't target just the West, they specifically target Individual Liberty as the biggest threat to the achievement of their ultimate goals, just as Progressives do.

Like Progressivism, Islam buys loyalty by rewarding its most loyal footsoldiers who deal out the street level enforcement of the right "thinking" and "actions" with overcompensation of privilege, perks and power. Group dynamics are used to terrorize, threaten and destroy vulnerable outliers who dare resist as a warning to others.  "Isolate, Ridicule and Marginalize" are tools used by both systems, but Islam backs theirs up with genuine, gut wrenching violence and death. Consider the threats followed through by real violence against any non-muslim who dares "mock" Mohammed or criticize Islam - Charlie Hebdo, Theo Van Gogh - and the fear in the West, promulgated by Progressives, - as the putrid fruit of a successful strategy. Tellingly, Islam also thrives by offering a group safety net and sense of security and structure to those who have been unable to fully seize the opportunities the modern world offers, including the exercise of individual liberty and free will.

IMHO. Your mileage may vary.

Thanks for stopping by and visiting our little corner of the internets!  If you enjoyed what you read, you can "share" with others by using the social media buttons (Twitter, Facebook, Google+) at the end of the post. Shopping through any of our Amazon links at no out-of-pocket cost to you helps support our little blog and is greatly appreciated.  You can sign up for email notice of new posts through the sidebar link on the right hand side of the blog (your information or e-mail is never shared/sold with anyone). 

Follow us on Twitter @StopShoutBlog and/or @Partyzantski.  Questions, comments and concerns are most welcome.  All comments are moderated and will post when we have time to review and release.

Fix. Bayonets.


Never Retreat.  Never Surrender.

 We're on Twitter !!  @StopShoutBlog
Note: blog post updated 4 Dec 2015



Anonymous said...

The Cult Of Mohammed created this conundrum:

"If a man is a bad Moslem, he is a good Moslem."

This has two meanings, (a) If the Moslem man is a horrible terrorist in the eyes of we infidels, then that man is "a very good Moslem worthy of praise" by other fervent Moslems since he is following all of Mohammed's teachings and the explicit directions in the Koran,

or (b) if the man is a very lackadaisical Moslem and does not strictly follow the Islamic ways on how to treat infidels or lives a secular Western lifestyle, in other Moslems' eyes he is a very irreligious or bad Moslem, a Moslem worthy of much scorn, but one of whom we infidels think must be a "good Moslem".

mobius wolf said...

Unquestionable parallels. Socialists resort to mass graves as soon as they get the chance. Just have to collect enough goons first.

Bruce Hanify said...

Trenchant, Cogent and Timely. Thank you!

Anonymous said...

I have noticed that even while discussing theoretical situations with FeMarxist-Collectivists, that when they are logically trapped they often resort to the suggestion that you solve the puzzle by killing yourself (but, the problem of Marxism not working with humans is a failure of their theory, not my life!). Eliminating fundamental disagreement (disagreers) always works for them on the collectivist road to a new-man utopia.


Stop said...

Thank you for your great comments.

I am so weary of the deliberate deflections about true Islam and its doctrine and the continual repackaging of it so it is palatable to the classically liberal mind.

Our military FAO/ROAs (Foreign Area Officers) who have extensive training in language, culture and what Islamic doctrine actually is labor under no such delusions.

I understand “Godwin’s Rule” WRT making comparisons to Nazis and their brand of socialist doctrine. However, when examining Islam, the comparison is not only valid but necessary. Hitler had an alliance with the Grand Mufti of Jerusaleum, who was given office space and staff in Berlin. Hitler often expressed his admiration for the Islamists, stating in a public speech:

“The peoples of Islam will always be closer to us than, for example, France”.

In biographical info published about Hitler by his closest advisors, they explain that Hitler admired the ruthlessness of which Islamists spread their doctrine, and was quite happy to exploit that, as he felt that in the very end the triumphant ethnically pure Germans, once they had control over all of Europe, would then deal with the Islamists and take control of their terrorities as well. The modern day Progressives hew to the same belief. They are in admiration with the ruthlessness with which Islamists gain power and control, and even provide aid, cover and comfort, because in the end, they feel that they will also be able to take over and control the Islamists in the final battle for the establishment of the perfect collectivist state.

So, when people discuss Islam, Yes, I, ALWAYS, in my mind substitute “Nazi” too see how I would feel about the statement if it wasn't sanitized. For example, the premise, “not all Muslims (Nazis) are bad. There are some very nice Muslims (Nazis).” You begin to see how ridiculous it all is. I refuse to sign up for my own genocide. Islam is not a "Great Religion" deserving of all kinds of state protections and carve-outs, it is a complete top down Totalarian system managed through terror and group force. The very nature of Islam is antithetical to the historical tradition of egalitarian democracy established by the modern West. The two can NOT co-exist.

Joe Mudd said...

Tashfeen Malik (King) is a nom de guerre for a Muslim Jihadist from the annals of Muslim history. As he is known to Muslims “تاشفين ملك الموحدين” Tashfeen Malik Al-Muahideen, in English: Tafhseen King of the Unitarians (Muslims) and the conquerer of the west. The history stems from when Yusuf ibn Tashfin led the Muslim forces in the Battle of Zallaqa/Sagrajas. He came to Andalusia from Morocco to help the Muslims fight against Alfonso VI, eventually achieving victory and allowing the Muslims to remain in Spain for centuries. The battle has been symbolic for Muslim victory against the Christians.

Partyzankski said...

The issue of vetting as bleated by the talking heads and Dept of State types..
The details of what the vetting consists of will be illuminating, if they ever make it public knowledge.

I hope that the average American will consider that there is NO WAY for American investigators to go to and interview contacts of “refugees” in Syria without getting the ISIS treatment… unless, of course, ISIS gives them a pass. There are some implications in that paragraph that I’ll just let the reader cogitate upon.

A real life example from Iraq regarding “paperwork”… all Iraqis were supposed to carry what is called a “Gencia” card… sort of like an official Iraqi citizen ID card. They looked like small passports. The only place they could get them was in Baghdad, but to go TO Baghdad, it was too dangerous. So, locals just made up their own versions and carried those. Same for lic. plates on cars. No matter, because there was no way to query any central database of the Iraqi civil government to check on details. Is Syria better equipped in this regard despite years of catastrophic, internecine warfare? The vetter propagandists would insist they are. Common sense and experience say, “no”.

If large portions of Syria are as chaotic as Iraq was/is, how do the people claiming that vetting is taking place propose it will happen? Will they detail platoon size Infantry units as personal escorts to investigators? Will investigators get paid hazardous duty pay? Who, exactly IS doing the vetting? Will they or have they contracted it to locals? If so, who vets THEM? Have they unwittingly or wittingly hired ISIS guys who have cleaned up (shaved, put on a sport coat) to pencil whip this? “Oh, Muhammed bin Muhammed? Nice guy, pro western, not radical, last read “The Feminine Mystique”, would not hurt a fly….

One must understand that a vetting process depends entirely upon the VETTERS. Consider the OPM “hack” by “China”…. we are the most advanced nation in the world, spend untold billions on this sort of thing and we get pwned? O.K…. if we were pwned, why at this time? It is bad enough that America has had Jonathan Pollards, Aldritch Ameses and Robert Hansens, but they all PASSED vetting of the highest order. Americans need to keep a healthy skepticism of this and frankly anything emanating from Mordor on the Potomac. Humans are imperfect, got it. But this far down the road to perdition, it went from happenstance, to coincidence, to enemy action.

Yours in liberty! Partyzanski

Anonymous said...

The reason liberals cling to the idea that Islam is a religion of peace while there is great evidence to the contrary - is a s direct offshoot from their moral equivalence philosophy. According to this philosophy you should not say one idea is better than another - they are just different. The goal is to muddle the lines between clear statements of right and wrong, good and bad. Americans must be clear in confirming that our freedoms are clearly better than sharia principles.

I thought the correct response to the cartoon fiasco would have been for every cartoonist in a free country publishing a cartoon of mohammed - a clear and unanimous statement of protest. Liberals think we should not offend by publishing cartoons of mohammed and in that acquiesence have decided to live under sharia.