“Soft despotism is a term coined by Alexis de Tocqueville describing the state into which a country overrun by "a network of small complicated rules" might degrade. Soft despotism is different from despotism (also called 'hard despotism') in the sense that it is not obvious to the people."

Monday, August 02, 2010

Islamism is not a movement to be engaged, it is an enemy to be defeated.

I was shocked and awed by George Bush's Ramadan cookie parties, in The White House, the building scheduled for destruction by the 911 Islamists. In fact, George Bush hosted Iftaar dinners every year for eight years at the White House. Mr. Bush gave thanks for the many ways that Muslim Americans enrich the lives of all Americans. (except for the ones that had to jump out the windows of the WTC)

"One of the great strengths of our nation is its religious diversity. Americans practice many different faiths. We all share a belief in the right to worship freely. We reject bigotry in all its forms. And over the past eight years, my administration has been proud to work closely with Muslim Americans to promote justice and tolerance of all faiths."
George Bush

Claiming "strength through diversity" is about as inane an idea as sanctifying virginity through prostitution. The foolishness did not end with the end of the presidency of the vacuous George Bush. It continues under Obama, hardly a surprise, but someone will have to explain to me how a Jewish Mayor of New York City could possibly support the building of a mosque anywhere near the World Trade Center.

What have we done to deserve being ruled by such fools?


It’s About Sharia
Newt Gingrich resets our national-security debate.
JULY 31, 2010 4:00 A.M., NRO

The 2010 midterms have not happened yet, but the 2012 campaign is under way. For that we can thank Newt Gingrich. Not because Gingrich is a candidate, though he almost certainly is. And not because he can win, because that is by no means certain. We should thank Gingrich because he has crystallized the essence of our national-security challenge. Henceforth, there should be no place to hide for any candidate, including any incumbent. The question will be: Where do you stand on sharia?

The former speaker of the House gets the war on terror. For one thing, he refuses to call it the “war on terror,” which should be the entry-level requirement for any politician who wants to influence how we wage it. Gingrich grasps that there is an enemy here and that it is a mortal threat to freedom. He knows that if we are to remain a free people, it is an enemy we must defeat. That enemy is Islamism, and its operatives — whether they come as terrorists or stealth saboteurs — are the purveyors of sharia, Islam’s authoritarian legal and political system.

This being the Era of the Reset Button, Gingrich is going about the long-overdue business of resetting our understanding of the civilizational jihad that has been waged against the United States for some 31 years. It is the jihad begun when Islamists overran the American embassy in Tehran, heralding a revolutionary regime that remains the No. 1 U.S. security challenge in the Middle East, as Gingrich argued Thursday in a provocative speech at the American Enterprise Institute.

The single purpose of this jihad is the imposition of sharia. On that score, Gingrich made two points of surpassing importance. First, some Islamists employ mass-murder attacks while others prefer a gradual march through our institutions — our legal, political, academic, and financial systems, as well as our broader culture; the goal of both, though, is the same. The stealth Islamists occasionally feign outrage at the terrorists, but their quarrel is over methodology and pace. Both camps covet the same outcome.

Second, that outcome is the death of freedom. In Islamist ideology, sharia is deemed to be the necessary precondition for Islamicizing a society — for Islam is not merely a religious doctrine, but a comprehensive socio-economic and political system. As the former speaker elaborated, sharia embodies principles and punishments that are abhorrent to Western values. Indeed, its foundational premise is anti-American, holding that we are not free people at liberty to govern ourselves irrespective of any theocratic code, that people are instead beholden to the Islamic state, which is divinely enjoined to impose Allah’s laws.

Sharia, moreover, is anti-equality. It subjugates women and brutally punishes transgressors, particularly homosexuals and apostates. While our law forbids cruel and unusual punishments, Gingrich observed that the brutality in sharia sanctions is not gratuitous, but intentional: It is meant to enforce Allah’s will by striking example.

On this last point, Gingrich offered a salient insight, one well worth internalizing in the Sun Tzu sense of knowing one’s enemy. Islamists, violent or not, have very good reasons for the wanting to destroy the West. Those reasons are not crazy or wanton — and they have nothing to do with Gitmo, Israel, cartoons, or any other excuse we conjure to explain the savagery away. Islamists devoutly believe, based on a well-founded interpretation of Islamic doctrine, that they have been commanded by Allah to kill, convert, or subdue all who do not adhere to sharia — because they regard Allah as their only master (“There is no God but Allah”). It is thus entirely rational (albeit frightening to us) that they accept the scriptural instruction that the very existence of those who resist sharia is offensive to Allah, and that a powerful example must be made of those resisters in order to induce the submission of all — “submission” being the meaning of Islam.

It makes no sense to dismiss our enemies as lunatics just because “secular socialist” elites, as Gingrich called them, cannot imagine a fervor that stems from religious devotion. We ought to respect our enemies, he said. Not “respect” in Obama-speak, which translates as “appease,” but in the sense of taking them seriously, understanding that they are absolutely determined to win, and realizing that they are implacable. There is no “moderate” sharia devotee, for sharia is not moderate. Gingrich noted that in response to global outcry against the prospect of death by stoning for an Iranian woman, Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani, convicted of adultery, the mullahs’ great concession appears to be that she will be hanged instead. Islamism is not a movement to be engaged, it is an enemy to be defeated.

Victory, Gingrich said, will be very long in coming — longer, perhaps, than the nearly half-century it took to win the Cold War. Invoking JFK, he urged that the survival and success of liberty will still require an unwavering commitment to pay any price and bear any burden, for as long as it takes. Will that entail an ambitious project to democratize Islamic countries — notwithstanding that sharia dictates waging jihad against Westerners who try? Gingrich’s embrace of President Bush’s second inaugural address suggests that he may think so.

How we go about it and whether we use our military to spearhead a “forward march of freedom” are matters the former speaker did not flesh out. He also wondered aloud why, after nearly nine years in Afghanistan, we had not tasked military engineers and contractors to blanket that backward land with highways, the roads to advancement and prosperity. But we haven’t defeated the enemy yet. One can agree wholeheartedly with the former speaker that, having taken on a war against Afghan Islamists, it is imperative that America win. But in World War II, which Gingrich invoked repeatedly, and to great effect, we had our priorities straight: unambiguous victory first; then, and only then, the Marshall Plan’s ambitious reconstruction of Europe and Japan.

Debate over all of this is essential. The crucial point is that we must have the debate with eyes open. It is a debate about which Gingrich has put down impressive markers: The main front in the war is not Afghanistan or Iraq but the United States. The war is about the survival of Western civilization, and we should make no apologies for the fact that the West’s freedom culture is a Judeo-Christian culture — a fact that was unabashedly acknowledged, Gingrich reminded his audience, by FDR and Churchill. To ensure victory in the United States we must, once again, save Europe, where the enemy has advanced markedly. There is no separating our national security and our economic prosperity — they are interdependent. And while the Middle East poses challenges of immense complexity, Gingrich contended that addressing two of them — Iran, the chief backer of violent jihad, and Saudi Arabia, the chief backer of stealth jihad — would go a long way toward improving our prospects on the rest.

Most significant, there is sharia. By pressing the issue, Newt Gingrich accomplishes two things. First, he gives us a metric for determining whether those who would presume to lead us will fight or surrender. Second, at long last, someone is empowering truly moderate Muslims — assuming they exist in the numbers we’re constantly assured of. Our allies are the Muslims who embrace our freedom culture — those for whom sharia is a matter of private belief, not public mission. Our enemies are those who want sharia to supplant American law and Western culture. When we call out the latter, and marginalize them, we may finally energize the former.

It’s that simple. Not easy, but simple.


  1. Islam is not a religion. It is an old male dominated bunch of craparoo. It is a male dominated political movement.It obviously appealls to shits like
    desert rat who leaves rat turds all over the once beautiful desert.

    self confessed felon

    man of no convictions

    And Miss T should think twice, least she get stoned to death

    It is misogynist in the worst way, alas this crapoaroo arose with the surplus of the farmers, which made cities possiblle.

    I have been preaching this line of thought all along.

    In the big sway of things, it's got nothing to do with that Jew Bird rat always bring up...whats his name...Lester Crown!


  2. Fuck Gangrene. He can go build all the highways he wants in Afghanistan - As long has HE pays for them. I don't want to.

    A few months back, he was sitting on the couch with Nancy Pelozi promoting "Global Warming," and "problems with CO2." He's a con man.

    Sounds good, not enough sense to get in out of the rain.

  3. "He's a con man."

    I have to agree Ruf. In a previous life he was likely a carnie barker. You could use him as a weather vane. Whichever way the wind blows that's the way Newt rolls.


  4. After 10 years in Iraq they're in the same sorry state, if not worse, than they were in when we arrived.

    And, Iraq was 100 times more advanced than Afghanistan. These morons don't "get it." For the life of me I can't find two degrees of separation between Gingrich, and the craziest socialist on the planet.

  5. If he really thinks it's the US's obligation to bring democracy to these dumb fucks who don't want it, he shares the neocon wet dream and is delusional.


  6. Well that was fun Ruf.


  7. Pocono Raceway Has Gone Solar.

    3.6 Million Kilowatt hrs/yr.

    Broke ground last year, just "turned it on."

    Provides enough electricity for the Raceway, plus 1,000 houses. Figures he'll maybe end up with a "profit center."

    NASCAR - Done Gone Solar.

    What next?

  8. If Q is "agreeing" with me I must be getting tired. Bedtime for Bozo.

    Nascar's gone solar. Whoodathunkit?

    Man's a smart dude.

    G'nite all.

  9. Mee'me has grown up, no circular of stars keeping her down, and she's going to school, on daddy's dime--she's matriculated, and she's nobody's fool. She is now named


    She's become interested in fly fishing, hiking, and snow skiing, and running for politcal office.

  10. Fuck the motel computer, with it's decency function, I tried.

  11. Socialism comes in many forms, some completely unrecognized by the purveyors, e.g. "nationalized" health care. Mr. Gingrich has his wares, others have their own.

    For most Americans, but particularly those who regularly use this site, Jew baiting offers a sick form of sublimation. After all, picking on Jews poses little risk of mortal retaliation. Islam on the other hand has tooth and claw at the ready. In fear, Westerners back away from open, unvarnished confrontation and hope that sufficient stroking of Muslims, compounded by sufficient criticism of Jews will keep the Muslims at bay.

    Any Westerner, who has not capitulated and offered himself to servitude, will benefit from a review or exploration of
    the Three Things About Islam

    Without doubt, our resident Jew blamers will come out frothing and fuming. When they offer their usual jihadi propaganda and agitprop, sensible readers should give a few minutes to enumerating the conflicts over the globe and find the ratio of those involving Muslims to those involving Jews. The quotient will be staggeringly disproportionate, as the Perrine Hypothesis accurately predicted.

  12. Here in Idaho we have lots of Basques but no social concerns at all. They have had a lock on the Secretary of States office for instance (Pete Cennarussa) and he has done such a wonderful job we all want to the office to go to his children. The Basques in Idaho are a boon to our local society, like the Jews.The more intellegent part of the local pagan magority welcome them all. None of them are going to put a gun in your face.

    We welcome them all, and celebrate it too.

  13. My daughter has been dating a Basque, fellow taking chemistry. I like him. She's also dating a really nice guy from Boise State University, nice kid, circumsized gentile, knows his fishing too, geology....I can't make up my mine....but it's really none of my business..come to think of it. We are not the middle ages, though some times I wish we were. I could choose, but that would not let the young hearts do as they please.



    Now you know.

  15. I have been reading and posting here, since the Bar opened and not once have I seen anyone using "Jew baiting

    What a farce.

    Judaism has never even been discussed, except by those who claim to be Jews and continue to conflate both Zionism and Israel with Judaism.

    These sectarians cannot let go of that fantasy and false propaganda. Propaganda continually propagated by the Russian expats in the Levant.

    Flying their false flag of religious persecution, here in the US.

  16. ...once more with caffeine...

    by Henri Pirenne

    1) A History of Europe
    2) Mohammed and Charlemagne
    3) The Pirenne Thesis

    As Dr. Pirenne made clear, the West's struggle with Islam is existential, having nothing to do with Judaism or geography, save as pretext:

    "According to Pirenne the real break in Roman history occurred in the 8th century as a result of Arab expansion." (Mohammed and Charlemagne, Ch 1-2)

    "Without Islam, the Frankish Empire would have probably never existed, and Charlemagne, without Muhammad, would be inconceivable." (Medieval Cities, p27)

    While this writer recognizes that even the work and reputation of an historian of the repute of Dr. Pirenne is suspect when compared to the erudition of the more vocal patrons of the EB, the author offers it as food for thought to the less doctrinaire.

  17. This comment has been removed by the author.

  18. While Western Europe may have had a struggle with those from the Middle East, those struggles predate both Islam, Judaism and Christianity.

    We can go back to the God-Kings of Persia fighting the Kings of Greece.

    Neither Islam, Judaism, nor Christianity had any point of reference in those generational wars.

    allen's uses a unlinked professor to make his case, a professor that obviously cherry picks history to present a biased religious background to the geographical realities of the whirled.

    These disparate regions have been at war since the dawn of time, well predating the Age of Abraham.

  19. DR,

    Give it up; you are going to lose.

    Ooooooh, sorry, you guys cannot lose because you never bother with facts, just conspiracy. Furthermore, what would a mere scribbler such as Dr. Pirenne know in comparison to the EB Oracles of Schlitz, schmaltz and schmuck?


  20. Again, the Zionist propagandist dismisses the debate and moves to name calling.

    I win, again

  21. DR said,

    allen's uses a unlinked professor to make his case, a professor that obviously cherry picks history to present a biased religious background to the geographical realities of the whirled.

    The works of Dr. Pirenne are readily available on the internet. You might try Gutenburg as well. I provided three of his works, still in print, I believe.

    As to Dr. Pirenne being unlinked (unknown) to you, I am not surprised. You are probably equally as ignorant of Dr. Jacques Barzun.

    No, DR, Dr. Pirenne did not "cherry pick" and he had no religious motivation. His work was statistical (that would be scientific) as well as interruptive of the acquired data. Over the better part of a century, he has been pier reviewed. (Yes, I know you too are pier reviewed by your buds, but that is hardly on the level of the Royal Society.)

    Sir, have you no shame, at long last. Must your defense of Islam make fools and villians of all others.

    For your information, if you google "Henri Pirenne", 178,000 results instantly present. The same cannot be said for you.

  22. DR said,

    "I win..."

    A legend in your own mind, as is your bud Q.


  23. "Claiming 'strength through diversity' is about as inane an idea as sanctifying virginity through prostitution. The foolishness did not end with the end of the presidency of the vacuous George Bush. It continues under Obama, hardly a surprise, but someone will have to explain to me how a Jewish Mayor of New York City could possibly support the building of a mosque anywhere near the World Trade Center."

    We're exceptional in that way, we Americans.

    Doing all kinds of things that leave less confident types scratching their heads and going, "What the fuck? Are they insane?"

    "Carrying out a war on terror AND recognizing Ramadan at the White House AND building another mosque in Manhattan?"

    But that's why we are us and you are you, you sorry putzes.

  24. DR said,

    "allen's uses a unlinked professor to make his case, a professor that obviously cherry picks history to present a biased religious background to the geographical realities of the whirled."

    You ignorant buffoon. You insult the life's work of a man about whom you know absolutely nothing - just as you and your fellow jesters attack the reputation of Admiral McCain et and jump aboard every David Dukesque conspiracy that poops up in the sewers of the internet. You are scum and Islamic apologists.

  25. Peer reviewed, funny stuff.

    Does he discuss Alexander and his march through Afghanistan?

    Where was Islam in that part of the existential struggle?

    Not part of it, at all.

    When Caesar went to Egypt, Islam played no role, in that part of the existential struggle.

    Cherry picking history, that's what the professor has done.
    What his "peers" think of his work, unimportant.
    They being part of the social cabal. Pseudo intellectual idiots, as Spiro Agnew might have said, refering to such professional "nattering na-bobs of negativism," .

  26. Where was Islam's influence in existential struggle known as the Punic Wars?

  27. There really is no reason to talk or discuss anything with the Rat that concerns Jews, Israel or Zionism

    He is a jew hating, zionist hating, Israel hating bigot.

    He Jew baits as much as I breath...

    It's a proven given...

    out of his thousands of posts a theme has arisen...

    that them is:

    Jews bad, Israel worse, zionists even more evil...

    Lester Crown this and Israel illegal that...

    Why bother discussing anything with him on this topic?

    He lies, distorts and is overall distrustful.

    He self admits to his own criminal intent, history and abilities..

    He has claimed to murder people south of our border, at the direction of the USA government..

    Rat is the Mel Gibson/Oliver Stone/Helen Thomas os the EB...

    A black hearted asshole...

    It's plain to see, nothing to "misdirect" the RAT is a rat...

    He has a deep hatred for all things Jewish, Israeli and Zionist.

    He can claim that he has no issue with Judaism but that's total garbage...

    He has attempted to tear down that as well...

    In the end, much stronger, smarter and better Jew haters have walked this planet...

    Rat is not even in the upper tier...

    He's just an old buzzard living in a trailer in the desert all pissed that his worthless life has ended up with sand and rattlesnakes...

    He talks about moving south, out of the USA to retire someday..

    One can only hope he achieves this goal soon...

  28. That Mayor Bloomberg gives more weight to private property rights than to the the political and religious demonetization of part of his constituency, laudable.

  29. Ahhh, the other Zionist propagandist chimes in.
    Not discussing the issues at hand, but me.

    Once again, victory is mine!

  30. desert rat said...
    Ahhh, the other Zionist propagandist chimes in.
    Not discussing the issues at hand, but me.

    Once again, victory is mine!

    Victory is yours?

    Because we see that you are not capable of rationed discussion?

    Take your meds

  31. DR,

    Dr. Pierenne had an INFORMED opinion on any number of things, I am sure. Historically, he was interested in the influence of Islam (always militant, since there is no other variety) on the West. To this end he spent his life studying written sources, which required him to proficiently multi-lingual, among other things.

    Your "feelings" of animosity to all things you anticipate as Western or Jewish (You really cannot have the "West" without Judaism, despite the horrors.) are simple displays of bigotry. This must be the case since you have never read a word of Pierenne. Instead, anticipating that his evaluation of Islam's toxicity will hurt your feelings, you slander him in the only way you know.

    Clearly, obviously, patently, you know NOTHING about either Pierenne the man or Pierenne the historian. Nevertheless, you spout insults and gibberish about a man superior to you in every way. Like your little friends here, you have lived an unimaginative, mundane life, which will come to an end relatively soon (Thank G-d!). You and they will be forgotten within a year at best. Henri Pierenne will be studied and revered for centuries; the reward of a life well lived, you foulmouthed troll

    To be fair, I will await your citation of some work by Pierenne that supports your allegation of cherry picking, intellectual dishonesty and Jewish bigotry. Have at it or publically apologize for slandering the man's memory.