How the West Should Deal With Our Enemies, the Muslims

[Zanton]

How much more evil does Islam have to visit upon the West before the West finally decides to decently fight back? How many more attempted massacres of 289 innocents, like Christmas Day over Detroit? How many more successful massacres like Bali (10/12/02), Madrid (3/11/04), London (7/7/05), Mumbai (7/11/06), Mumbai (11/26/08), and New York (9/11/01)? Does anyone seriously doubt that the Muslims are fanatically determined -- at the very least -- to set off simultaneous suitcase nuclear bombs in Washington DC and New York City? The likelihood here is they will succeed!

The West ought to hate Islam. We ought to hate the Muslims who believe in and practice it. Why don't we? It's sick, sad, and surreal that we don't.

But if -- in response to these never-ending horrors and outrages from Islam -- we don't choose to wipe Muslims from the face of the earth, at the least we should drive them from our midst. Why are these savages and demons allowed to live amongst us? Why must we permanently live -- trembling and cowering -- with the terror they always bring?

Is the West going to turn into Israel -- that great home of Muslim appeasment, Muslim submission, self-hatred, and self-destruction? In a desperate, pathetic longing for security, are we going to become a league of garrison states -- because we've foolishly, depravedly chosen to live cheek-by-jowl with monstrous fiends who loath our very being and seek to anihilate us? Is the West going to become a series of police states -- of highly regimented, tighly controlled, fascist tyrannies -- forever in a state of prison lockdown?

The fact is these jihad-loving bastards are malevolent destroyers who should be stopped. They're menacing, mauranding, malicious dragons that need, at long last, to be slayed. Muslims -- with their loyalty to loathsome Islam -- constitute a societal cancer and cultural bubonic plague that needs to be summarily excised form the body Western. All active and passive supporters of jihad need to be forcibly removed from our vulnerable, precious civilization -- if not terminated.

The answer is simple: kick them out.

[Jack Black]

A very well written and tightly reasoned polemic. Sadly Freepers ate unable or unwilling to offer any substantive response to this piece and make snide little meaningless comments.

It is symptomatic of the degredafion of our culture and sadly stands as the all too revealing attitude of the majority.

Lawrence Auster has written at length about the need to seperate from Islam on his sight View From The Right. He Is a very clear thinker and writer. Among the fundamental insights he has is that liberalism has become so ingrained in our culture that even most conservative thought is constrained by its basic axioms. Thus even at a leading conservative discussion forum the true traditionalist view is infathomable.

[Jack Black]

Bush was almost identical to Obama in this regard. He chose the term “war on terror’ which helped defuse anger about Islam. He used the absurd ‘hijacked religion’ and cotiuously sold the story line that it is only a few bad apples that we somehow must identify.

He was, obviosly, more effective in managing our defense. But coceptually he viewed Islam the same way Zero does.

[Zanton]

"A very well written and tightly reasoned polemic. Sadly Freepers ate unable or unwilling to offer any substantive response to this piece and make snide little meaningless comments.

It is symptomatic of the degredafion of our culture and sadly stands as the all too revealing attitude of the majority."

Many thanks for the compliments, Jack Black! Of all the feedback, I enjoyed your comments the most. I especially liked the first line!

I don't mind the persiflage from shocked Freepers. I'm a true radical. So I basically deserve it -- or at least I'm asking for it. I'm just grateful FR owner Jim Robinson allows as much freedom, energy, and passion as he does here. He's a true hero.

But I may disagree with you a bit in that I don't think the "true traditionalist view" you indirectly promote is all that perfect. The Founding Fathers made many errors.

First off, they sought to "promote the general welfare" when they should have favored the individual welfare. Now this is almost collectivism!

They also allowed Congress to lay taxes, impose import/export duties, coin and borrow money, regulate interstate commerce, establish post offices and roads, etc.

All wrong! :-(