Posted on 07/15/2007 4:20:50 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Is there not a cause? ~ David (c. 1040 B.C.)
Until philosophers rule as kings or those who are now called kings and leading men genuinely and adequately philosophize, that is, until political power and philosophy entirely coincide, while the many natures who at present pursue either one exclusively are forcibly prevented from doing so, cities will have no rest from evils ... nor, I think, will the human race.
~ Plato ("The Republic" 473c-d)
Bombs, bullets and soldiers alone will never stop al-Qaida, Hezbollah, radical Islam and their religious fanatical jihad against Judaism, Christianity and the West. Why? Because Islam is an idea, a belief, a philosophy, a worldview, a religion that over a billion and a half people follow and live their daily lives by.
Islam determines what Muslims think, hear, value, believe ... even die for. Islam is what a billion and a half Muslims have banked their eternal destiny on and more than not will gladly give their lives to assure a Muslim world, as painfully witnessed recently in the terrorist bomb plots at London's West End and Scotland's Glasgow Airport where so far six of the eight suspects detained are respected, upper-class Muslim medical doctors.
We must change philosophy (religion) by philosophy.
This isn't an original idea. Remember that the first thing the victorious Allies did after conquering Hitler and his Nazis during World War II was to institute a comprehensive "de-Nazification" program to change the thinking of all Germans away from Nazi fanaticism and anti-Semitism to a representative democracy, establishing a republic based on the legal/moral paradigm of the rule of law and a Constitution. A similar program was enacted by Gen. Douglas MacArthur to convert the Japanese masses away from the maniacal fanaticism of Emperor Worship, which existed for over 1,000 years. Sixty years later, Japan stands as a faithful ally of America and a bulwark republic in an area rife with Communist dictatorships and growing Islamic hegemony.
Why wouldn't a formal policy of religious conversion, "de-Islamatization" if you will, work for a U.S. president that's got the guts, vision, leadership and ability to do it? The critics will prattle: "The Muslim faith is a religion of peace, not war"; "All Muslims aren't bad"; "The Muslims will call us 'Crusaders.'" Let us prove them right, not by reclaiming or conquering Muslim lands, but neutralizing the radical elements of their religion at the meta (intellectual) level by spreading our Judeo-Christian traditions – traditions that are infinitely more compatible with a democratic-republic form of government than any form of Islam, which, I wrote in an earlier column, is incompatible with a republic.
I know to some readers this sounds a bit radical, Pollyannaish and naïve, but hear me out. Look at what Muslim countries do to our Judeo-Christian beliefs. There is an explicit, unified and purposeful strategy to forbid strictly the Bible, Christian literature or proselytizing of any kind in virtually all Muslim countries at pains of capital punishment – the most egregious and overt being Saudi Arabia, America's supposed ally in the war on terror. Yet the Muslims can build mosques in America and in the West as fast as Saudi Arabia, Iran or some other Muslim country, or terrorist organization, sends them the funds. The result: Genocidal Islam grows right here in America, while Judeo-Christianity dies a slow death on the vine due to 150 years of neglect and failure to use the world's greatest religion as a viable domestic and foreign policy strategy and geopolitical export to the nations of the world.
The crux of the argument is: Can a secular liberal democracy ever defeat genocidal Islamic jihad against the West? I answer no. The problem with the war on terror is that we are asking the wrong people for their expert opinion to deal with the West's vexing problems of worldwide terrorism.
In the fourth century before Christ, the Greek philosopher Plato, in his magnum opus, "The Republic," had the same dilemma and criticism with his view of history up to that time and even with the rulers of his day. Plato's contention was that a competent, well-rounded ruler needed, besides a thorough grounding in the military arts, mathematics and music, to also have a meticulous foundation in philosophy. The Greeks called this curriculum The Quadrivium. The ideal leader needed to be a philosopher-king.
Why? Because philosophers understood better than, say, a military commander, a senator, a well-connected Athenian, "guardians" (officers/soldiers) or "merchants" (business owners/producers), the intricacies of human nature, of mankind's predilections, perversities, prejudices and what makes them do certain things under certain situations. Moreover, a philosopher, because he is a deep thinker and spends much of his time contemplating the particulars of human nature, would be better equipped to come up with a viable solutions to America's rhetorical "war on terror."
Earlier this year in a surprise debate with a former liberal professor of hers, Dr. Mary Grabar made the following prescient remarks on Plato:
I think that's a big misconception about "The Republic." In the literature, the claim is often made that Plato was advocating a totalitarian government. But my understanding is that the dialogue is not to be taken literally. Rather, the philosopher-king is the reluctant ruler, motivated not by ego or personal gain. His motivation is the love of wisdom and justice. These ideas, indeed, form the basis for our republican form of government, in contrast to a popular democracy ruled by the masses. You may recall Thrasymachus. … Speaking as a philosopher, I am convinced that America's current military strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan is not only ineffective, but generates increasing numbers of fanatical Muslims championing jihad – something to die for.
No wonder our cause in the war on terror is lost before it begins and will only get worse unless President Bush and his war advisers start reading (and following) the enduring and wise admonitions of Plato's "Republic" and begin fighting a war of ideas, a war of philosophy, a religious war against the Muslim infidels like those battles waged by the great philosopher-kings of old – in primeval times when Christian monarchs like Charles "the Hammer" Martel (686-741), Charlemagne (742-814), Richard the Lionhearted (1157-99), Elizabeth I (1533-1603), Jan III Sobieski (1629-96) and Peter the Great (1672-1725) all fought so valiantly against the Muslim menace, face to face.
As President Bush implements his ill-fated military "surge" in Iraq, I wish he understood that he doesn't need more troops to be sent to this 21st century Vietnam; he needs one adviser that has read Plato's "Republic" to give him a crash course on how to follow the tried and true strategies of the magnificent philosopher-king.
Three thousand years ago, David, a future philosopher-king, was born. A young, anonymous Jewish boy on the back hills of Judea asked his king as the armies of Israel cowered in fear before the dreadful Philistine giant, Goliath, the simple but sublime question: "Is there not a cause?" That same teenage boy took a rag and a rock, ran onto the battlefield to confront this 9-foot-9-inch infidel giant, popped him in the head with his slingshot, killing him, and chopped off his head with Goliath's own sword. Now, in my humble opinion, that boy was a real man! Would to God that America, Britain, Israel and all nations of good will had a philosopher-king to deliver us this day from our two greatest enemies – liberalism and Islamic hegemony.
-------------------------------------------------------
Ellis Washington, former editor at The Michigan Law Review and law clerk at The Rutherford Institute, is a graduate of John Marshall Law School and a lecturer and freelance writer on constitutional law, legal history, political philosophy and critical race theory. He has written over a dozen law review articles and several books, including "The Inseparability of Law and Morality: The Constitution, Natural Law and the Rule of Law" (2002). See his law review article "Reply to Judge Richard Posner." Washington has just completed the manuscript to his latest book, "The Nuremberg Trials: Last Tragedy of the Holocaust" (2007).
This is very true. Until the early-mid 90s Muslims who came to this country often acted very un-Muslim. It was a relief to them to get away from the suffocation back home. But then the Imams trickled and (with them) the enforcers. Now even the West isn’t a safe have from Islam.
Plato's ideas are dangerous for liberty, especially the one about philospher kings. (Frickin' Teddy Kennedy thinks he is a philosopher.) Read The Ominous Parallels by Leonard Peikoff. Scroll down to the review, "Brilliant Analysis of the Roots of Authoritarian Ideology, July 23, 2005," at the linked page to see why I mention this book in this context.
ML/NJ
you may be correct, but not being able to tell the future, I simply have to say all bets are off, even on a smaller scale attack. Americans are angry, me included, I am armed as are a near majority of other Americans. Firearms could possibly flow into the streets with ammo, readily available, and if the situation was really bad, Americans would grab up the firearms and well .....Would America sit on her hand or would people perceived as a threat be removed? I do not know, but I would not want to be a muslim or a mex, if an attack comes. This is only an opinion. The reaction to such an attack may be worse than after 911, the same as now, or ‘a who knows’. I do know some things the media hushed up after 911, for security purposes. There could be widespread news blackouts this time.....I just would not want to be inside this country if I were to be perceived to be a threat....and suspicion after the attack could bring actions whereby news organization would be shut down, if they didn’t keep quiet, while Americans clean house, or while Americans are killed by our own government for daring to try and clean house....Like I said earlier “I am worried”. and only time will tell the tale.
here’s a video on one of the things our troops are doing in Iraq - shhhh - don’t let theMSM or the libRats know -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dH80g_Mkin0
everyone should save this YOUTUBE video and email it tio everyone .
Another article
http://abcnews.go.com/WN/story?id=3349958&page=1
ping
Unfortunately, the piece starts with one of the oldest wrong-headed ideas to plague our civilization: that rule by philosphers will be virtuous.
The decisive refutation of Plato was offered by Lenin and Mao, not in their writings, by virtue of which I submit that they were philosophers, but by their actions while ruling. Rule by philosophers proved to be inhuman and inhumane, rather than virtuous.
W.F. Buckley Jr.’s comment, “I would sooner live in a society governed by the first two thousand names in the Boston telephone directory than in a society governed by the two thousand faculty members of Harvard University,” comes readily to mind.
It is a dose of Western philosophy—existentialism as imbibed by Sayyed Qutb—that transformed traditional Islam (bad enough as it was) into the horror of early 21st century militant Islam. Suicide is forbidden in the Koran, and even the twisted version of martyrdom promoted by Mohammed did not trump that prohibition until the existentialist idea of absolute commitment as the source of ‘authentic meaning’ got added to the mix by Qutb and the other early theorists of the Muslim Brotherhood.
Philosophy will not fix it. Only a bloody and horrific defeat at the hands of Western arms, or the grace of God will amend Islam.
We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war. ... Ann Coulter
A little refinement and boom, there it is.
Perhaps an Inquisition?
First thing that must happen is an outright admission that we are now in a religous war. Nobody is going to say that publicly who is in a position of power. The only time a war based on religous conviction can ever be won is when one side or the other is totally eradicated. Anyone who does not realize by now that their goal is the total eradication of the “infidels” is just plain skipping through the clouds.
One thing to note is that the West is not particularly religious anymore, even so it's ironic that the West doesn't manange to project any revulsion to the ultimate mind-control religion, islam. Islam to the modern, liberal Western mind fits the template of a set of beliefs possessed by a downtrodden race that industrialization has passed by or oppressed, and we are ultimately to blame, in their view. Modern liberals cannot put themselves into the head of the fanatical muslim, because it's so foreign to their experience.
Some forms of cancer respond favorably to radation therapy. I honestly wish cancer wasn’t so devastating but when it attacks sometimes there is no other treatment. Yeah, I know, pretty PC reply.
Any attack by individuals inside our nation will be regarded as an attack on the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness God granted America. And I have to take a swipeat our politicians....no I will wait till the end.
So can some political leaders maybe say this.....
Those who would attack America and her citizens would have a short cloverleaf. Hello Mecca, I will not, I refuse to stay on hold very much longer. I would not want to be America's enemy, therefore I have trouble relating to the mindless fools. America is a vicious foam at the mouth to one swing with one hand, and when she gets her dandruff up, She can really start to fight. Seen her in action, She (America) is not to be trifled with.
Now there are those, in the world, who question America at her every step. Many of America's enemies pray everyday for her demise, but the Lady holding the torch and the ledger of life, does not sleep. She is always awake. She invites her enemies to come out into the open and debate or at her enemy's choosing fight. America has held her tongue. I know America's enemies do not wish the debate, our enemies (should I name them) do not wish to hear what has to be heard. We are Americans. We offer truth, faith, love, and justice. America has always been a visionary place. We see our enemies. The Lady Liberty is not asleep. Even though sometime our people in D.C. forget. America is not simply a place made up of politicians. America and America's citizens are much, more.
But for our enemies to think America will not respond when America's citizens are murdered, and innocent lives are lost, then I again must simply say with a smirk, and a one finger salute or MORE I will stand up and give America everything I have. How many of our leaders in D.C. want to join me?
But then I am jerked, kicked, punched and sent loopy -e- loop, all bloodied and snatched back into reality. I wish I could say I have served, but I have not. But to the Men and Women who serve, in all our activity of the attempt each and every day to maintain Law and Order, here and abroad, you are Loved, Appreciated, and your front line Service call may arrive someday. If I am in the area when or if a catastrophe occurs, and you have not told me to leave or stay out, I will be there. Because the Lady Liberty is who She is, and such is the answer of why.
A Muslim spent a week on the space shuttle as a payload specialist in 1986. Five times a day, he faced in the general direction of Mecca and prayed.
Sadly perhaps, this is impossible to disagree with.
I cannot find fault in the article except in this partial statement. Personally, if the _____ does happen now or later, I prefer the location of our forces. If we leave, yes they will kill one another. This is the way of islam. Therefore America has to be in a location best suited for retaliation for any attack. The environment would suffer for years, not to mention people would lose their lives if Israel is attacked with nukes or something similar and the same should it happen to US. The 'surge' may have ultimately saved lives. Sometimes one has to force the enemy out into the open. Turkeys do not come to the dinner plate without being called. At the very least, more times than not.
At the end of WWII, peace with Japan was in the offering and Halsey had been advised to show a friendly face. When Bill Halsey was asked what he would do if attacked by Japanese airplanes, he replied “shoot them down in a friendly manner”.
From memory, but it’s close.
Iraq is about 60% Shiite. I guess some of my former liberalism must have crept in, since the Shittes were (and still are) the underclass. Being an underclass means a majority can be a minority. Or...I just mistyped, or... maybe I’m just too lazy to prufereed?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.