The more I look at the counterjihad movement, the more I realize whoever is the most organized will win. The only reason such small percentages of the population have so much influence in Western countries is that they are organized and the forces against them are not.But this is, of course, changing. With the Anti-Jihad Caucus and ACT! For America, the counterjihad movement is beginning to organize. Another important contributor is Jeffery Imm. In his long article, (part one and part two), he has proposes an organized battle plan for this long war. I think it's pretty good. What do you think?
I. A Single Focused Message for the Campaign Ahead
II. Why We Will Win the War against Islamic Supremacism
III. A Daring Agenda for Equality and Liberty
III.A. Focusing the Debate on Islamic Supremacism versus Equality and Liberty
III.B. National Human Rights Campaign Network to Challenge Islamic Supremacism
III.C. Political Action to Fight against Islamic Supremacism
III.D. Expanded and Coordinated Resources
III.E. Coalitions for Equality, Liberty, Freedom, and Independence
III.F. Mobilizing America - One Town Hall at a Time
IV. A Shared Understanding on Why All Americans Must Oppose Islamic Supremacism
V. We Reject All Supremacism Because We Are Americans
VI. The Courage of Understanding and Compassion
VII. A Campaign of Hope, Not Hate
16 comments:
Why not just name the enemy, Islam, instead of beating about the bush with some stupid made-up term of "Islamic supremacism"? Imm is just as PC as Daniel "Mr. Islamism" Pipes. So there are zillions of them. What's the big deal? There are zillions of us, too, and we outnumber them 4 to 1.
Anonymous, I agree with you. Amongst ourselves, the initiated, we need only call the enemy "Islam."
But when you start out that way with people who are not initiated, you will have a hard time getting any further. Jeffrey Imm and Daniel Pipes are making public appearances. They are reaching many uninitiated. How can they be heard? One way is to soften the message a bit, make it more understandable, by calling it Islamic Supremacism or Radical Islam, and then hope to get people interested enough to understand that the terms are redundant.
Do you talk to uninitiated people? What do you say, Anonymous? Do you call it Islam? How do people react?
I just realized you said we outnumber them four to one, and it just occurred to me that that's why you feel perfectly unafraid of naming the enemy Islam.
But I think Bill Warner and Daniel Pipes and even Robert Spencer use terms like Political Islam and Jihadists in order to more effectively get their message across to a wider audience — an audience that would reject their message immediately if they simply called the enemy Islam. Does this make sense to you?
I think it is important to tell the truth, but it is also important to reach people outside of those who already know, and it is not false to call the enemy Islamic fundamentalist or any of these other names. It will not prevent those newbies from later grasping the much more horrible truth that it is Islam that provokes violence, intolerance, hatred, and political action, and not some "perverted" version of a "hijacked" Islam.
So I'm sure all the readers of the IBA totally understand your point and agree that the right name for the enemy is Islam, but these writers who use watered-down terms can still be useful for all of us. We can share those articles with a wider group of people and hopefully pull more of them into the cause.
It only took 55 visionaries to found the US-
They wrote - they met- and they organized...
we can do the same....
I like your outline...plan....
C-CS
Thanks, Christian Soldier. It's a good plan. Jeffrey Imm has a good head on his shoulders.
It wouldn't take a large number of people if we were organized and effective. The more I look into ACT! For America, the more I think they're on the right track. My wife just became a chapter leader for our city. Are there any other chapter leaders or members here on the IBA?
Christian Soldier, have you looked into it? I think you ought to become a chapter leader in your city too.
In my view, Islamic supremacism is a good term. It goes to the heart of the matter of the conflict. I also think that the word "supremacism" has the proper connotation.
When I call the enemy "Islam," some people react with knowledge. That group is typically (1) Christian evangelical and (2) over age 55. My guess is that they didn't study from all those politically correct, multiculti texts which now prevail throughout our educational system at all levels.
I also have contact with some younger people who are aware. Again, they are Christians OR Arabs or Indonesians who are not Moslems.
Last week I had a chat with my neighbor (age 60), who knew more about the tenets of Islam than I until 9/11 arrived. Now that she is a school administrator who has a lot of contact with Moslem parents and children, she has had some cultural contact as well. Anyway, I told her of my upcoming lesson plan for American Government: assigning the viewing of the film Obsession, copies of which I have for every student, courtesy of the Clarion Fund. She laughed! As if to say, "There you go again with that Islam stuff." I conclude that she no longer believes we have much to worry about because airplanes aren't flying into buildings. She, of all people, should know what's been happening with the stealth jihad in social studies texts and curricula.
As for Act! For America, we have no chapter in my area as far as I know. I do know the head of the VA chapter of the United American Committee. He's had no success in getting others to join. People are asleep or they don't want to spend time required in getting involved!
I have always thought that ideas are the beginning of our battle against Islam. Naming the enemy is very important. And then, after that, we must state what we believe.
I my opinion, that begins with a foundational statement of what we believe in, not what we fight against.
As small a light as we are here at IBA, that's why we have the IBA Mission Statement at the top of the blog, proclaiming that we are "The Parallel Government of the Entire World".
It is meant to be humorous, but at the same time, the ideas, which are after all, only a restatement of the ideas of the Declaration of Independence, are ideas upon which we can all agree.
And frankly, anyone who does not agree with that basic Mission Statement, is my enemy just as much as any Jihadi.
Many of us "counter-Jihadis" are very good at pointing out what's wrong, and not so hot on stating what is right and important. I think if we are lacking anything as a movement, it is exactly a foundational statement about Liberty and the Individual upon which we can agree.
To my mind, what we have to do is restate the Decalaration of Indepence and the Constitution. This is what we are fighting for. To some extent, and this is where it gets dangerous, I think we have to restate these principles for modern times. The EU and the various parties of Europe, and frankly the rest of the world, have to be in agreement with us. If we merely throw America's foundational papers at them, they will say, 'What? You want us to become America"?
One way to look at this challenge we face is it is an opportunity to redefine, and thus refine, Freedom, and to spread the foundations of such to more nations across the entire world.
The EU has been a tremendous failure in stating its foundational beliefs. If I am not mistaken, many of the European countries do not have a foundational document like the Constitution. Instead, they progressed haphazardly, in fits and starts, towards a freedom which was born of agreements and legal rulings. As such, this is the way they are also proceeding with building the EU "Constitution".
One of the things I like about Jeffrey Imm's plan is that it does contain a positive proclamation. However, it does not lead with that positive proclamation.
As Christian Soldier said, it only took 55 men to start what we now call the USA. So I say, if not us, then who?
Might as well give it a shot.
LOL
If we fail, at least we will have done something interesting, and we will be able to have a free good laughs at our own expense.
By the way, Citizen Warrior, just for your info, the Center for Vigilant Freedom believes they have already done this foundational work. Maybe you ought to take a look at their various sites. I don't agree with them, but you might find a lot of what they do to be worthy.
Another organization that is worth looking into is Stop the Islamisation of Europe.
Foundational work is what it is. The battle has not really begun yet because the "uninitiated" are still the vast majority. The 52% who voted for Obama are the tip of the iceberg when it comes down to issues such as sharia and will not even begin the process of initiation until the right 2x4 hits them squarely between the eyes. That 2x4 will be in the form of an assault on a massive scale against America conducted manifestly and undeniably by Islamists for the express purpose of crippling us as a nation. It may be violent, it may be economic, or a mixture, but it must identifiably originate from that source. We may get our next real chance with the "manufactured crisis" at the start of the Obama regime, the one we are supposed to blindly trust him to deal with.
Meanwhile, the "uninitiated" are trying to figure out who stole their 401Ks, who made their houses unsellable, and who is cutting their retail sales to the bone, blaming Bush and deleriously congratulating themselves for electing a president who is part black which means we are FORGIVEN for George Wallace and Obama is THE ONE who is going to HEAL our souls and SAVE us from this DEPRESSION and CHANGE it all for the better. They think they will expiate our sins by reaching out to an implacable enemy they refuse to believe even exists.
I agree with Imm that we have to extend this fight out of the internet and into the town halls, but at this stage trying to concentrate on those who still have their heads firmly up their butts is a waste of time and energy. We need to reach as many as possible of those who are at least partially awake so that they will be able to stand up beside us in town meeting when the Obamatons are trying to shout us down.
Pity those who are still asleep, still blind, still captive, yes, but remember that they hold open the door for the enemy. Start with the ones who are willing to hold their shoulders against that door, and teach them to identify the enemy when he knocks.
I like "Islamic supremacism" too, because we already understand what supremacism is, and we already successfully deal with the ideological battle on that front, so we have a successful model.
AOW, the director for ACT! for America told me he is completely swamped because he has so many people starting new chapters and wanting to get involved.
Maybe the difference is in how successfully the two organizations reach people with their message. I don't know.
I agree with most/all of what's said above, but as I was reading, it suddenly occurred to me that we may be wasting time reinventing the wheel.
Wouldn't it be nice to have a neatly summarized list (region by region) spanning the centuries, of every concerted effort that's been tried in resisting this malevolent system, and how those efforts panned out for the resisters.
Obviously no one has been entirely successful, as the threat still exists for all. But regional successes were probably preceded by many efforts that initially failed. In looking at those failed efforts (lost information?), we could avoid many missteps.
I'm particularly intrigued (read frustrated) by the sociocognitive barriers to resisting a 'positive' movement (i.e. yes we can take your stuff and subjugate you) vs a 'negative' movement (hey guys, let's STOP those guys from taking our stuff and subjugating us).
I have a hunch it's all been thought out and tried before, many many times, and that the successful strategy may ultimately be to create a mirror-image 'positive'. (i.e. Sorry, but we're going to take your stuff and subjugate you. Don't like it? Ok then explain why subjugation and plunder is WRONG. If you make your explanation really, really good, we just might reconsider. But please don't give us any of that crap about it being wrong for us but right for you. That makes us MAD)
I wouldn't be the one to compile such a list of historic resistance strategies - but perhaps Bostom, Pheres, Spencer, and/or VDH could slap one together quickly with a kind of editable chain letter.
I agree, Pastorius. What are we fighting for? That question needs to be answered clearly. And that's another one of the things I liked about Jeffrey Imm's work. I have often characterized it as human rights, rights for women, free speech, freedom of the press, etc. Imm says "liberty and equality." I like that. It's nice and simple. And it encompasses all of the things I believe we are fighting for, and all the things the Jihadis are fighting against.
Liberty and equality.
RevereRidesAgain, I've been thinking along those lines too: Concentrating attention on those who are already aware of the situation or are at least OPEN to learning about it. And not wasting time on people whose minds are closed. The edge of understanding will slowly creep out to them, and in the meantime there are enough already who know what's going on to get a lot done.
Since I'm in contact with a lot of people daily, I run into many who are uninitiated, and of course, I can't seem to stop myself from trying to interest them in the topic, but I think it would be a waste of time to spend much time if they are just "devil's advocate" people.
Anonymous #2: I think the "positive" angle is not "we can take your stuff and subjugate you," but rather what is it we are FOR. We are against jihad, obviously (we don't like being blown up). We are against Shari'a, but why? Because it is unfair to women, it prevents the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, etc. So it is against things we are FOR.
One way to define ourselves is antijihad or counterjihadis, but we could also define ourselves as "Defenders of Freedom." Of course that definition doesn't touch on the specific enemy: Islam. That's the only problem with it. Anyone got a positive definition of what we're FOR that specifically applies to being against jihad?
"Anonymous #2: I think the "positive" angle is not "we can take your stuff and subjugate you.."
Yes, CW I'm sorry I didn't make my meaning clearer. The point is better expressed using the words "proactive" and "reactive" rather than positive and negative, which invoke a moral aspect. I hesitated as I wrote them, and then opted for single quotes to try to convey I wasn't using them in the usual sense while simultaneously stressing that from our enemy's perspective, conquest and pillage are seen as positive - a badge of glory, honor, and success.
Interestingly, your final sentence (paraphrased) nicely captures the problem in its essence - basically 'can anyone think of a proactive way to define our reactive response to proactive jihad.' And make no mistake, our response is reactive, since we'd all be doing something else in the absence of a third jihad.
I'm basically troubleshooting the idea that we can prevail by being even better at being "who we already are" as opposed to reinventing ourselves in some sense. Also, I don't think that suspending "our nature" in certain situations especially with regard to survival, automatically means we step out on a slippery slope.
A willingness to "be more like our enemy" when as a form of STRATEGY could force our enemy to QUICKLY formulate an argument explaining exactly why supremacism (including theirs) is no longer unacceptable on Earth. Cha cha cha Change!
"No terms but fight or death were offered. No reparation or apology could be made. . . . The red light of retribution played on the bayonets and the lances, and civilization--elsewhere sympathetic, merciful, tolerant, ready to discuss or to argue, eager to avoid violence, to submit to law, to effect a compromise--here advanced with an expression of inexorable sternness, and rejecting all other courses, offered only the arbitration of the sword." Churchill understood that Western culture and civilization embody an idea of justice based on reason and inclined toward moderation, while barbarism lacks any reasoned principle of justice or progress or moderation. - Winston Churchill
Woa, I just noticed my quick google, cut, and paste of that WC quote accidentally included a blogger's own apt commentary at the tail end of it. Obligatory link back to one Jeff Nuding :-)
http://dadmanly.blogspot.com/2005/02/different-churchill-different-time.html
Gah! Don't you just wish comments were EDITABLE for like an hour or so after you first post them?
...supremacism (including theirs) is no longer unacceptable...
Oh yea, that's what I meant :-(
Post a Comment