Political Islam is Islam's ideology about unbelievers, kafirs.
An Ethical Basis
for War Against Political Islam
This newsletter is one of a series on the subject-Newsletter #9
The Near Enemy
We have two sets of enemies. The far enemy is the politics of Islam. The near enemies are the dhimmi apologists, fueled by ignorance and multiculturalism and political correctness.
Our universities present Islamic history as a glorious triumph. Humanity's greatest moment came in the Islamic golden age. The Crusades were Western evil. Cultural self-loathing manifests in showing the history of the West as oppression and Islam is seen as liberating. Women's oppression under Islam is seldom discussed in feminist classes. Israel is condemned and jihadists are presented as "freedom fighters". Christianity is criticized, Islam is praised. Leftist/liberal/progressive intellectuals give frequent speeches at universities while conservative speakers are sometimes forbidden to speak or toughs are allowed to drive them from the stage.
The dhimmis and the oppressed does not exist in universities. Muslims dictate what will be said about Islam in textbooks.
The news media rarely publishes anything about the Islamic doctrine. Most Islamic terror is never mentioned. The dots are never connected. Each event of Islamic violence is seen on its own and never as part of a pattern. The media love to follow up any bad news about Islam with Muslims speaking "nice".
The near enemy finds good reasons not to publish Mohammed cartoons, and find reasons to feel good about being a dhimmi. The near enemy criticized the Pope when he gave a historic quote about Islam's violence even when Muslims killed Christians in protest and called for the Pope's death.
A public policy of political correctness and multiculturalism forbids criticism of Islam as being racist and violent.
The elites have a solution for Islam. War is evil and causes suffering. If you treat people well, they will treat you well. This is a logical fallacy that if we treat others well they will treat us well. That is true, if and only if, they follow the Golden Rule.
So if the Golden Rule inspires you to be non-violent, and if the person you are dealing with also practices the Golden Rule, all is fine. But if the other person doesn't follow the Golden Rule, then they can take advantage of you.
Let's take three brief historical examples. The Buddhists of ancient Afghanistan were the descendents of Alexander the Great's warriors. The warriors had been converted to pacifism by Buddhism. Along came Islam and killed every single pacifist who would not convert to Islam. The result is that Buddhism was annihilated in Central Asia.
Martin Luther King applied Gandhi's non-violence to civil rights and it worked. Why? American culture was infused with the Golden Rule and we changed. If Martin Luther King had tried non-violence in Mecca to protest Arabia's religious apartheid, he would have been imprisoned or driven out. Islam does not follow the Golden Rule.
Gandhi used non-violence to shame the British over their rule of India and it worked since the British honored the Golden Rule. But when India practices tolerance with Muslims in India, they get taken advantage of every time.
Pacifists are idealists, not pragmatists, so they claim that any historical failure of pacifism is due to the fact that they just were not pacifistic enough.
All pacifists are social parasites. Every pacifist lives in a nation that was created by blood, since every nation's borders were a result of a violent struggle. Every pious pacifist depends upon someone else to do the dirty work of violence to protect them.
Pacifism can be seen as the societal version of AIDS. AIDS destroys the body's ability to defend itself against infections. Pacifism destroys a society's ability to defend itself against aggression.
Politics is a matter of perception. What pacifists don't know is that Islam sees them as not as a kind and reasonable people, but as dhimmis. Dhimmis are indistinguishable from pacifists. They both submit to Islam on whatever issue is at hand.
An Ethical Basis for War
Let's define the situation:
There is no compromise that is logically possible between dualistic ethics and ethics of unity. There is no halfway point between honesty and deceit, freedom and slavery, equality and dhimmitude.
So the choice is between submission and annihilation or war and freedom. The third choice is dhimmitude, or a slow death, since every dhimmi population becomes Islamic over time.
We propose that to preserve our ethical civilization we must defeat political Islam. The question is: how shall we conduct this war?
copyright 2008, CBSX, Inc. dba politicalislam.com
Use this as you will, just do not edit and give us credit.