Ahead of Iranian President Hassan Rouhani’s landmark European trip kicking off this weekend, French officials reportedly nixed plans for a formal meal in Paris with President François Hollande following a dispute over the menu. The Iranians, according to France’s RTL Radio, insisted on a wine-free meal with halal meat — a request based on Islamic codes that amounted to culinary sacrilege in France, a nation that puts the secular ideals of the Republic above all else.I mean, there's nothing wrong with halal meat. It tastes fine. Ate a lot of it in Iraq when we'd go outside the wire, and I enjoyed every bite of it. No wine, though...
Islam has always been good at the full spectrum of Total War, including psychological warfare, economic warfare, asymmetrical warfare, guerilla raiding, slave economies, and pushing enemies to extinction while riding the wave of militaristic victories.
ReplyDeleteThat's why they always ensure mosques are higher than churches. That is why they replace the Bible on the podium for interfaith congresses, with the Koran before talks begin.
And people are so blind, so weak, and so many traitors surround the place, that people refuse to see.
In its own way, this is part of Islam's stalking horse. Once a culture starts sending the right signals, they will escalate their invasion.
I am aware that many object to the severity of my language; but is there not cause for severity? I will be as harsh as truth, and as uncompromising as justice. On this subject, I do not wish to think, or speak, or write, with moderation. No! No! Tell a man whose house is on fire to give a moderate alarm; tell him to moderately rescue his wife from the hands of the ravisher; tell the mother to gradually extricate her babe from the fire into which it has fallen;—but urge me not to use moderation in a cause like the present. I am in earnest—I will not equivocate—I will not excuse—I will not retreat a single inch—AND I WILL BE HEARD. The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal, and to hasten the resurrection of the dead.
— William Lloyd Garrison, "To the Public," from the Inaugural Editorial in the January 1, 1831, issue of The Liberator
When slave lords posted bounties paying for citizens to lay violent hands on abolition speakers, this was the slave culture's way of gut checking their foes, to see if anyone had the fiery heart of fury and death on their side. When it turned out that these abolitionists preferred free speech, not violence (except John Brown), they decided the Northern Abolitionists were Quakers, Shakers, and various other weaklings that would refuse to fight.
They didn't count on Abraham Lincoln being a nationalist. For Islam's 1400 year history, while they made mistakes, they are still around. So those mistakes weren't fatal for their way of life. Nor has slavery been destroyed in this world.
The threat posed by anti-slavery organizations and their activity drew violent reaction from slave interests in both the Southern and Northern states, with mobs breaking up anti-slavery meetings, assaulting lecturers, ransacking anti-slavery offices, burning postal sacks of anti-slavery pamphlets, and destroying anti-slavery presses. Healthy bounties were offered in Southern states for the capture of Garrison, "dead or alive".[10]
ReplyDeleteIn the fall of 1835, a mob of several thousand surrounded the building housing Boston's anti-slavery offices, where Garrison had agreed to address a meeting of the Boston Female Anti-Slavery Society after the fiery British abolitionist George Thompson was unable to keep his engagement with them. The mayor and police persuaded the women to leave the building, but when the mob learned that Thompson was not within, it began yelling for Garrison with cries for his lynching or tar and feathering. The mayor managed to sneak Garrison and an assistant out a window, but the mob pursued, captured him, tied a rope around his waist, and dragged him through the streets of Boston. The sheriff rescued Garrison from lynching by arresting him and taking him to the Leverett Street Jail for his own protection.
The Democrats started aggressions far before they decided to fire on Fort Sumpter. It is what is now forgotten, probably because the Reconstruction of history succeeded when the Democrat party rose once again in the South.
The difference between pre Civil War 1 and pre Civil War 2, is namely that the technology has changed and the culture has changed. Pro slavery and anti slavery forces also have a different mix of types as well. The warriors and killers back then, only aligned with anti slavery forces late in the game.
Taking on free speech advocates was easy back then, they didn't even have bodyguards as Ayan Hirsi does now. Yet they forgot one thing which their dynastic slave lord fellows refused to tell them. It's one thing taking on a pacifist and another thing entirely to take on Sherman and Sheridan's armies. As well as people who fight and win duels.
Whenever Leftists hear talk of excusing the Left's evil from moderates like you, Grim, the faster you accelerate this conflict to its inevitable conclusion. They think they're winning, so they will pull more of their strategic reserves into motion. Until finally, they convince even the neutral nationalists like Lincoln that there can be no compromise.
As there can be no compromise between the Oath Keepers and the Oath Breakers.
It's one thing taking on a pacifist and another thing entirely to take on Sherman and Sheridan's armies. As well as people who fight and win duels. Whenever Leftists hear talk of excusing the Left's evil from moderates like you, Grim, the faster you accelerate this conflict to its inevitable conclusion.
ReplyDeleteDon't misunderstand me. I'm no moderate. I do not believe in inevitability in history, though. I believe in free will -- otherwise, what's the point of defending liberty? -- and therefore in a capacity to avoid even strongly suggested 'inevitabilities.'
I also believe in evil. I do not at all excuse it. As a Christian, however, my war against it sometimes involves trying to save souls, as well as sometimes killing evildoers. Of the two, the first is to be preferred. It's the one God prefers. It is harder to choose, because it entails greater risks: an unkilled enemy remains dangerous. As I said recently, though, safety is not the ideal at which we are meant to aim.
Reality is too close to the Onion, sometimes.
ReplyDelete