Replies

This one is a keeper, Mayer nails this one.

Thanks for posting this outstanding article.

Thanks for finding posting this great article. I have just book marked it.

This is a great article and ties in with your constant reminder to us about the dangers of Gramsci and his communistic rantings.

bump for later reading

Indexing.

Ditto everyone above. This guy hits the bullseye. Bump for reference.

Article by Yashiko Sagamori, Candidate for Secretary of
State of California

Yashiko Sagamori 6 nov 2002

Have you ever thought that, in the unfolding conflict between the
Muslim world and the
civilization, the Muslims behave much more logically than the West?

If I believe that you are unlawfully occupying, let's say, an island
that's rightfully mine, I will send
troops to that island. Their purpose will be to suppress any
military resistance your army can
offer, and re-establish my ownership over that piece of land. There
is absolutely no need for
me to target civilians in such a conflict: from any prospective, it
would be not just immoral, but
totally counterproductive vis-a-vis my goals in the conflict.

Jihad however is not about territories. It is about a way of life.
If I wanted to destroy your way of
life, going after your military installations would be largely
futile, especially if your military might
is a billion times greater than anything I can ever dream of. Your
army, no matter how
powerful, is only a tiny portion of your way of life. Blowing up an
office building full of so called
"innocent civilians" advances my cause much farther and much more
convincingly (especially
if it causes you to engage in soul-searching instead of
exterminating me once and forever
which you are perfectly capable of accomplishing) than killing the
same number of military
personnel, precisely because those civilians are the most important,
irreplaceable components
of the way of life I am trying to destroy. Their "innocence" is
non-existent. The term is nothing
but an absurd euphemism for their absurd inability to defend
themselves. Think about it: how
can an infidel be innocent? Isn't it an obvious contradiction in
terms?

If you think I am being sarcastic, read the previous paragraph
again: I am only trying to explain
how the enemy's mentality is better suited for the conflict than
ours.

During WWII, when the very survival of our civilization was in
question (although not as acutely
as it is now), the United States treated enemy civilians in a more
reasonable manner than our
current impotent, defeatist morality dictates. Hiroshima and
Nagasaki were destroyed along
with most of their 100% civilian population despite the fact that
they had not a single military
installation in either of them. As a result, Japan surrendered. As a
result, lives of about a
million American soldiers were spared, along with probably four or
five times that many
Japanese, most of them civilians. Conclusion: Japan should not have
put the United States in
a position where even humanitarian gestures would be so murderous
for the Japanese.

In recent times, Israel is being daily penalized for killing
Palestinian "civilians". Nothing can be
more absurd, considering that "Palestinian people" didn't even exist
until after the Six Day War,
when that shameful misnomer was assigned to the largest and most
successful terrorist
organization in history. An Arab on the way to glorious martyrdom
remains an unarmed
civilian until he or she straps the explosives to his or her body.
People who organize terrorist
acts are considered unarmed civilians until their affiliation with a
terrorist organization is
proven, preferably in court. Women that lured 13 Israeli soldiers
into a murderous trap in Jenin
were perfectly unarmed civilians. Louis Farrakhan and his army are
considered unarmed
civilians. Mosques, those foreposts of Jihad spread around the
United States and Europe, are
considered off limits as religious institutions.

By the way, a religious cult requiring animal sacrifices would most
probably cause wide
spread protests and be eventually outlawed in this country. However,
the religious cult that
demands human sacrifices on the global scale -- conversion,
enslavement, or extermination of
all "infidel" everywhere in the world -- is respectfully classified
as a "monotheistic religion" and
"Abrahamic faith". In reality, it is Satan himself clumsily
disguised as a saint.

We are doomed to destruction unless we start treating Islam the way
we did Nazism. I am not
calling for an anti-Muslim genocide: our decisive victory in WWII
was achieved without
exterminating the Germans. Instead, we exterminated Nazism. Today,
we have no choice but
to exterminate the most murderous ideology that has ever existed --
Islam.

I see many parallels between today's world and the situation at the
beginning of WWII. With the
sole exception of Great Britain, not a single government tried to
oppose Hitler. If Hitler had not
betrayed Stalin, the Soviet Union would've had no reason to oppose
him either. Contrary to
the popular myth, the United States did not enter the war to stop
the Holocaust: they did it to
prevent Stalin from going all the way to the Channel and creating
the European Union a few
decades prematurely.

Today, Muslims invade civilized countries under the benign guise of
immigration. Their
influence in Europe and even in the United States is growing
steadily and will continue to do so
unopposed until we finally wake up, although it's hard to tell if
we're ever going to do it in time
to save ourselves. Hypnotized by our own impotent dogmas, we
stubbornly refuse to
recognize the never-ending Arab was against Israel, the September
11, the war in Chechnya,
the terrorist acts in various parts of the world for what they are:
individual fronts of steadily
growing Jihad, whose openly stated purpose is to destroy our
civilization and establish the rule
that would make Taliban look helplessly liberal. So far, they are
winning.

Good article.

Whereas Islam seeks a violent external overthrow as opposed to the left which has now taken the back door approach – both philosophies seek to impose a theocracy - the former seeking to impose one modeled on a rigid anti-Christian 10th century model while the latter a more modern but still anti-Christian one based upon its own religion of secular humanism and moral relativism.

I believe this is wrong. Moral relativism, multiculturalism, (facile) humanism, all these are tactics the left uses to sow destructive divisivness in and to undermine liberal, civil societies. Once the glorious revolution occurs, however, relativism is abruptly abandoned. The left (the hard left at least) is violent, totalitarian, moralistic and intolerant at heart. Their humanistic propaganda is only for egging on the useful idiots.

Antonio Gramsci bump.

He has been an icon in left thinking since the 30's. Understand how the enemy thinks and what he thinks.