I don't know who wrote the list below, but it's pretty good. I got it here and here. Someone asked, basically, "So what do you think can be done about all this besides moral grandstanding and warning about 'our failure to act?'"The article, if you can call it that, gives seven specific answers. I'm curious how you IBA readers react to this list.
Best ways to deal with the Muslim invasion of the West:I think 4, 5, and 7 are particularly good. What do you think?
1. Deportation to countries of their origin.
2. Deportation to Muslim-only towns guarded by the police.
3. One child per family policy reinforced with sterilization.
4. Mandatory lessons about Muslim atrocities.
5. Very strict control of Muslim clergy (mullahs).
6. Tax on Muslims to recompense us for all the harm they have done to us.
7. Sermons (khutbah) and religious instructions must be conducted in the local language, rather than Arabic, so that hate speech can be easily identified.
27 comments:
I think numbers 2 and 3 are fascistic.
I think numbers 1, 2, and 3 can be taken care of by our proposed idea that Sharia is Sedition, punishable by death or deportation.
By the way, CW. This is a great post, because it will inspire discussion. Let's move it to the top tomorrow morning. We have more traffic during the work week.
Thanks, Pastorius. I like these discussions. We've got some great thinkers and knowledgeable people who read IBA.
My list would be short. I might say:
1. Deport or arrest anyone advocating Shari'a or jihad. Arrest them for sedition.
2. No more concessions to Islam. Period.
Number seven on the unknown guy's list, however, would help reveal exactly what is being preached in the mosques. So maybe that one too.
Amend #3 to say, "One wife per husband with one child per family policy reinforced with sterilization." If you just go with that alone, the problem will solve itself. There can only be so much in-breeding before a species starts to die off, right?
Although agree quite completely with the whole list - and the others added in comments!
Number one addresses the next two suggestions as well as number 5. Eliminate 2 & 3. If followers remain in their own nations and breed beyond survivabilty - so be it.
Number 4 - Absolutely.
Number 5 - Native reverts should be monitored and hold passport with restricted travel.
Number 6 will fund 1, 4 5 and 7
Number 7 - Affirmative
Most important missing guideline: Sharia is Sedition, punishable by death or deportation.(ht Pastorius)
[ . . ]
=\o/=
Hard to go with some of these without hammering human rights, and that would have to be the same for everyone. I'm in favour of offering them financial incentives to go to a country of their choice; and I'm in favour of discouraging birth, anyway (probably fiscally), because, Muslims apart, we have too many people on this planet and Muslims and Catholics just want us to add more - exponentially. And that ain't good. But it's one we do have to watch, because they do discourage contraception, I think, and irresponsible breeding is going to raise their numbers (not all their kids will hang onto the old dogmas, but enough of them will).
We've had a couple of good Channel 4 programmes here in the UK in the Dispatches series: "Undercover Mosque" and "Undercover Mosque: the Return". Both had undercover reporters in mosques. No prizes for guessing the sorts of sermons and good, wholesome advice he, and then she, uncovered.
Our authorities have to be made to sit up and take notice that citizens are demanding action. One day, the action will be violence. It's happened in our Northern cities. It'll happen in more. And there'll be innocent Muslims and other Asians who aren't Muslim getting caught up and beaten up for no reason.
I think mandatory lessons would be a good idea, not just about atrocities, but about what's called for in the Koran, just to show those whose reading of it may be a bit lax and casual that there are calls in there for infidels and kuffrs (have I spelled that right?) to be killed.
There should, yes, be strict control of imams coming into our respective countries. There seems to be an expectation that, because it's to do with religion, any damned preacher will have no difficulty in getting into the country.
Muslim-only towns would just be another ghetto. Yes, it would be guarded, but the innocent are going to get punished with the guilty.
Perhaps a fundamental thing would be to get religion out of the public square altogether, make it clear that religion – whatever religion – is a private thing, even to the point that religion seems ridiculous and plain uncool. I know there'll be religious types reading this who'll disagree, but, damn it, you've had your chance to save the world with mumbo-jumbo and it doesn't seem to be working. On the contrary, it causes friction and sectarianism. Strip people of their religious identity by ensuring that religion is seen as having nothing more than hobby status, and the terms "Muslim" and "Christian" and "Catholic" and "Sikh" and "Hindu" will mean no more than "stamp collector" and "surfer" and "Scrabble player" and "needlework enthusiast" and "model-plane builder".
Andy,
Do you agree that advocating Sharia is seditious?
Is deportation not an acceptable punishment for sedition?
Do we really have to go on and on with appeals ever time an immigrant advocates Sharia, or can we actually enforce our laws in a timely manner?
This article is by an attorney who explains what the sedition laws are (in the U.S.) and how they apply to Shari'a.
OT
For EPA more on astroturfing
#11- No Teaching Islam in the USA, especially in public schools
#12 - No call to prayers that can be audible over ten feet
#13 - Police cannot automatically say the crime that just occurred is not terrorism without proof within 48 hours
#14 - Mandatory classes in school on Islamic terror, with full video and audio with proper translation...
I like those, Aukmuntr.
In this interview (from June 2003) one of my heroes, Rita Katz, who knows a lot about the underbelly of jihad in America, had this suggestion for the answer to the relentless Islamic political invasion:
Lopez: What would you consider our most important successes in the war on terror?
Katz: One important achievement is the freezing of assets of terrorist financiers and shutting down large sources of money to terrorist organizations. Without proper funding, terrorist attacks cannot take place. Another significant blow to al Qaeda and to the global network of terrorists that had evolved out of that organization was, at least to some extent, the war in Afghanistan. It had destroyed several of al Qaeda's training camps and hampered its ability to train new recruits. The war made it more difficult for al Qaeda to orchestrate a major, sophisticated attack in the scope of 9/11.
But the success in Afghanistan resulted in only a temporary setback for the terrorists. It didn't crush them completely, but rather scattered them around the globe. This results in the large number of attacks we have seen recently on "soft targets" such as in Bali, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, and Kenya. As for the apprehension of major al Qaeda leaders, such as Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, Abu Zubayda, and Ramzi Bin al-Shibh, while indisputably important, it will never suffice as a single measure, not even when Bin Laden and al-Zawahiri are caught or killed. For every such operative, ten other volunteers are already standing in line to join al Qaeda.
The war has to be more comprehensive and to target the causes, the financing, and the education for jihad. And that is why I think that our most important achievement thus far is the profound change in the general perception of the global threat of Islamic fundamentalism to America and the West. What used to be considered a nuisance before 9/11 is now properly deemed a major threat to the free world.
That conceptual change is demonstrated in various ways. One example is the enactment of the Patriot Act, that may assist government agencies in the war on terror. Another is the increased collaboration with other countries, such as Germany and Britain, in that war. And thirdly, the government had finally realized that there is no distinction between terrorist organizations. I give, for instance, several examples in the book (Terrorist Hunter) of how al Qaeda, Hamas, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad all work together and share operatives, training, and financing. Now that our government had understood that, it has declared war on terrorism rather than on a specific organization. This conceptual change is the first and most important step in comprehending the threat and being able to learn how to combat it.
I'm an optimist, but I think she goes too far. I don't think we'll ever be done with the problem of Islam. But I think it could be strongly suppressed and restricted, and that would make a huge difference.
Her suggestions on the U.S. forcing Saudi Arabia to suppress hate in their education is a good idea.
The Muslims aren't the REAL problem.
Future historians, perhaps some Russian or Chinese Gibbon writing 'The Decline and Fall of the Anglosphere', will have an interesting job explaining how the vigorous post-World War II Anglo-Saxon civilisation, which put men on the moon and invented all of modern computer and telecommunications technologies, somehow lost its confidence to the extent that it allowed itself to be taken over by swarms of Dark-Age savages, with hardly a glimmer of resistance.
We tend to think of the causes of the Muslim problem as being external - Pakistan, Saudi Arabia etc. But the real causes are internal: the self-loathing 'intellectuals', the open-door immigrationists, the Effete Elite such as Cameron and the Archdhimmi, the post-colonialist guilt trippers, the multi-culti dumbing-down educationalists, the anti-British Brainwashing Corporation and all the rest of the smirking-class traitors - not only in Britain but in Canada, Australia and the US as well.
A healthy body can resist attacks by parasites, but Anglo-Saxon civilisation, and indeed the whole of European civilisation is very sick indeed.
To return to my first sentence, why did I write a Russian or Chinese Gibbon rather than an Islamic one? Because if the Anglosphere is destroyed by the Muslims, it will go through a stage where it is so anarchic and weak that stronger, more homogenous and more culturally self-confident civilisations will step in to take charge, and deal with the Muslims in the manner of Joseph Stalin and Chairman Mao.
Don't put too much hope in Russia or China.
Russia is reproducing at far less than replacement rate.
And, no one is killing themselves quicker than China with their one-child policy.
They will have half the population in 20 years, and few girls. They'll breed a whole nation full of angry gay men. And, their Communist Ponzi scheme will collapse because there will not be anyone left to pay taxes.
I have to think about it
Solution Zero:
Fixed bayonet, greased with bacon fat. They don't like it up 'em!
The Army's Totally Serious Mind-Control Project
Now if the military can develop this for battle, why can't we have it designed to erase Islam from the brain of captive jihadis?
First order of business should be a massive education campaign to inform every member of the public who is willing to listen of the nature of Sharia and Jihad and why they must be treated as sedition, with appropriate penalties.
Islam must be identified as a politico-religious movement intent on conquering Western insistutions and installing itself as a theocratic Caliphate. Concessions to Islam must cease, and any encroachments on the law of this land -- attacks on freedom of speech, insistence on special treatment, attempts to establish Sharia courts, etc. -- must come up against stone walls of opposition. A campaign of education about Islam's impact on women would be welcome as well. So would some sober reflection on the value of rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar's and preserving the secular nature of government.
I don't believe in trying to outbreed a problem that is rooted in philosophy. If the legal constraints coupled with birthrate discrepancies mean that we leave the hordes of Islamists with no outlet but violence, then so be it. Let the violence be dealt with according to Chicago Rules, for as long as it takes for them to get the point or lose the demographic advantage, whichever comes first.
Speaking of which, I'm trying to imagine a billion angry gay Chinese guys and all I can pickture is this big chaotic fire drill...
Well, let's stick to what's possible and constitutional ..
that means 1, upon seditious behavior of people who are not citizens, case by case. No mean feat.
The rest are blatantly unconstitutional.
Epa has a valid point about the issue of constitutionality.
Unfortunately, going through the legal system has been less than successful. I recently posted this over at THE ASTUTE BLOGGERS. How well the cases go in court depends a lot on who is sitting on the bench.
As an educator, I'm a strong advocate of truth-filled education as a strong anti-jihad tool.
The big negative: demographics. Now, I'm no advocate of mass sterilization. We've been down the eugenics road before and not only in Nazi Germany.
But our legal system could see to it that polygamy is a no-go and results in deportation.
I favor deportation because our prison system doesn't need a further burden.
And properly vetting immigrants is also essential. No more Wahhabists, including imams.
Mosques and Islamic centers should be thoroughly investigated to see if they are teaching sedition. That's not a violation of freedom of religion at all. In fact, I know a few Moslems who immigrated here, only to discover that the mosques are "radicalized." They no longer attend mosques, BTW, and cherry pick the doctrines of Islam on their own.
Epa says 2-7 are unconstitutional.
I say, no I think #5 is not unconstitutional.
What one has to remember is that Islam is not strictly speaking, a religion. It is a virulent political system posing as a religion. it is like Communism.
There is nothing unconstitutional about monitoring the activity of the Communist Party, as it is dedicated to the overthrow of the government.
Likewise, Islam, as it is dedicated to the overthrow of the government of the U.S., ought to be monitored. That means Islamic "clergy" ought to be monitored.
Epa,
Is it actually unconstitutional to require public speeches to be made in English?
RevereRidesAgain, I think you've got a great answer!
Babazee, I can't wait to hear yours.
These are all my observations, btw, not necessarily my desires...
CW...we don't even HAVE an official language.
You just have to believe that if such a law (requiring speeches in English) came to be, it would end up being challenged in the 9th Circuit in CA.
Think of it, before the law, the first thing would be to establish that all languages are NOT equal.
If it's in CA one could fashion an argument that just because school is taught in english, is no reason to establish english as an official language, since spanish is at least as important. And that's just to lay the groundwork for the law which mandated english for public speech !
No, I remain convinced that we have to attack those portions of Islam which make jihadism 'blessed' as a 6th pillar, and that is where the religion crosses into the political life of everyone.
Pasto MAY have a point on 5 when the quttbas cross over to non religious issues. I have to think about it some. Bit I have a feeling then, that Jeremiah Wright was close to the line. And so might some critical progressive rabbis I know of. The problem is how to draw such a line which is fair across the board.
Suppose you want to preach against inequality (perceived or real), and urge civil disobedience...is that over the line, and to who? Some future govt that might not be too swift? Suppose it's an executive branch which is topped by americans who happen to be muslim, and we have a future Rick Warren preaching against them?
See what I mean?
We can't have laws which pick out one group for RELIGIOUS reasons. However, I think there are oodles of places where the deen seems to require actions which are urging violence, sedition, and govt overthrow (the Muslim Brotherhood of America's 'grand jihad'). It is at that point where our individual freedoms outweigh untrammeled religious freedom.
Good point, Epa, and I see what you mean. Well said.
Post a Comment