Jack Wheeler's New Movement Against Radical Islam Uses Anti-Communism Strategy

World Net Daily ^ | December 2, 2006 | Jack Wheeler (?)

[Jo Nuvark]

WASHINGTON – Two conservative activists deeply involved in the anti-communism movement of the past are planning a broad strategy of re-creating those efforts in a new mass movement to fight radical Islam. Jack Wheeler, a strategist credited with formulating "the Reagan Doctrine" that helped bring down the Soviet Empire, and Steve Baldwin, a former California legislator and the executive director of the Council for National Policy, have teamed up for what they describe as the creation of an "Anti-Islamofascism Movement."

"One cannot write the history of the Cold War without acknowledging the key role played by the American Anti-Communist Movement," they write in a memo to conservative leaders. "It was a broad movement involving many different organizations that, for decades, kept its focus on the defeat of the Soviet Empire. And it succeeded."

[neverdem]

The ongoing "war against cancer" is America's war without end.

So are the war on some drugs which happens to finance our enemies in the war on terror. If you have one war too many, I suggest giving up war# 2, the war on some drugs.

Cancer patients surviving longer

"About 64% of cancer patients now survive five years after being diagnosed, a rate that has been climbing since the 1970s, when half of patients lived that long, says the Annual Report to the Nation on the Status of Cancer, 1975-2001"

[Jo Nuvark]

You make a very good point. Hopefully we have both learned from this exchange.

[tarheelswamprat]

The initial statement could leave the impression that cancer is a single disease when there are well over 100.

Again, that is irrelevant to the point being made. The number of variants of cancer has nothing to do with the fact that once a "cause" gets government funding for research, there is a built-in incentive to structure and focus that research in directions which insure the perpetuation of that government funding, and a concomitant disincentive to actually solve the problem. This basic principle applies whether the cause is a War on Cancer, a War on Drugs, a War on Poverty, or a War on Heart Disease, to mention just a few.

This is basic stuff, fundamentals of human nature and all that. Once there is an essentially unlimited, i.e. government source of money, with an associated, usually unaccountable bureaucracy to manage it, these things take on a life of their own, and continuing the program becomes a higher priority than achieving the ostensible objective.

Furthermore, while there will no doubt continue to be many noble, committed researchers in the programs who sincerely believe in "achieving the goal", "finding the cure", "helping the people", etc., the hard-nosed people who manage the money and reap the profits understand fully that actually finding that cure will bring the whole unlimited government funding gravy-train to an end, and human nature being the way it is, they will manage the program in directions which avoid that outcome.

Jo made a joking, but dead-on correct observation about that obvious and indisputable characteristic of these types of government-funded "wars" or crusades. And, as I said previously, none of that had anything to do with how many types of cancer there are, or, e.g. how difficult the problem is compared to the moon landings. You interjected several points about those tangential matters, all of which I acknowledged. However, the essential truth and correctness of her initial observation of how these programs operate remains unchanged.

[Jo Nuvark]

[...once a "cause" gets government funding for research,
there is a built-in incentive to structure and focus that
research in directions which insure the perpetuation of
that government funding...]

YOU get it! Sometimes it's not worth trying to explain.
But I'm glad you took the time. This is really beautiful.

[neverdem]

YOU get it!

What does our country produce any more besides the results of basic and applied hard sciences? We do have a balance of trade problem with the dollar being devalued. Defund the social sciences from gov't largesse.

[tarheelswamprat]

Thank you for taking the time to share your ideas on this topic. It's apparent that we have very different and irreconcilable views about both the effectiveness and the legitimacy of government funding/control of these types of programs.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[joesbucks]

Jack Wheeler. Now there's a name from the past.

[potlatch]

And we could use more like this.........

[devolve]

Now there's a pair of winners!

[potlatch]

Yes they were!!

[backtothestreets]

"Let's not talk about failure before we get started."

It is good to discuss failures from the start so they can be addressed and defeat avoided. Consider what I wrote a warning to their fledgling undertaking. I believe I understand what they seek to accomplish because they have cited our anti-communist strategy employed at the onset of the Cold War.

Then too is my personal perspective of Islam that holds all Islam responsible, not merely radical Islam. Those that culture the perspective only radical Islam is at fault include President Bush. It is not a perspective I held prior to 9-11, but I did give President Bush my support of his position after the attacks in hopes Muslim would combat radical Muslim. This has not come about, and confirms my earlier conviction all Islam is at fault.

I absolutely commend you for contacting these people. I have done likewise, and I wouldn't have had I wanted to see them fail. Like yourself, I am not rich, but dedicate myself to helping as best I can.

You yourself are probably much like me in your perspective of Islam too. Is it only radical Islam that imposes Sharia law? Of course not, but it is only Islam that imposes Sharia law.

I find it most helpful to at times state my positions with analogies. I'll try one here.

Imagine you had me come to treat your home for an infestation of termites, and the treatment I provided killed only the adult termites doing the damage at the time. You would be pleased with the immediate result , but greatly disappointed later when the termite larva resumed the assault on your structure. It is the same with Islam. Islam gives birth to radical Islam, and has done so throughout its history. Defeating the radical Muslims of today will not defeat the radical Muslims of tomorrow. Only defeating Islam can provide that relief.

[Libertina]

Thank you for the ping! BUMP

[dixiechick2000]

Yes, ma'am!
We need more like those two!

What a pair they were.

Jack Wheeler bump!

[nutmeg]

bookmark

[archy]

"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property - either as a child, a wife, or a concubine - must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.

"Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen: all know how to die. But the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytising faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science - the science against which it had vainly struggled - the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome."

--Winston S. Churchill

[Jo Nuvark]

[...were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the
strong arms of science - the science against which it
had vainly struggled - the civilisation of modern Europe
might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome...]

Wonderful Churchill quote.

I woke this morning wondering if Christians (who see
the fall of civilization coming), believe the rapture
is imminent; and so the righteous cowar from the fight.

Woe to us. War against the wicked is emphatically
justified no matter the time or the season.