Thursday, February 24, 2011

Ripe for the moon god's harvest

I read a comment today that went like this:
I am sooo having this issue with some who complain that jihadists want American Christians all dead, ... their solution? KILL them all.. Hello?? I think I thought up a new term 'Christian jihadists'
Well, darling, this begs the question: given the premise that jihadists want to kill us, what is the solution, if not killing them first? As far as I am concerned, there is only one viable solution, if they continue to pursue worldwide dominion, and that is to fight back. Killing your enemy is actually sometimes necessary. The only other option is to be slaughtered, or in the case of Muslim rule, become ahl al-dhimmah. Death before dhimmitude, I say. If you disagree, let me quote that great patriot, Samuel Adams:
If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.

What would Sam Adams say to this dhimmi?
However, despite the neocon assertion that it's our "freedom" that Muslims hate, it is largely our foreign policy that pisses off the rest of the world, including the Muslims. With our military and merchant forces encircling the globe, we've become the British Empire; the sun never sets on the American Empire. Between our "entangling alliances" with foreign nations, the CIA's seemingly insatiable appetite for meddling in foreign affairs, and our non-stop military interventionism abroad, we've been poking the hornet's nest quite a lot the last few decades. It's completely fair to say that, in our quixotic quest to bring "freedom and democracy" to the world, we've created new enemies and inflamed existing enmities.

We need to get our noses out of the affairs of other nations; we need to return to the principles of the Founding Fathers, both Federalist and Democratic-Republican alike.

President Washington, in his farewell address, said:
The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop.
This is how Jefferson dealt with jihad.

President Jefferson, in his first inaugural address, said: is proper you should understand what I deem the essential principles of our Government... peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none...
Bear in mind, though, that it is equally true, with regard to the jihad, that ultimately it would not matter if we actually did adhere to a Jeffersonian foreign policy. After all, Jefferson himself was forced to send the Navy and the Marines to "the shores of Tripoli" to kick the crap out of the Muslims that were attacking our merchant ships unprovoked and demanding tribute from the US.

These seem like nice folks we can reason with.
Understand this: the entire end-game of jihad is world domination. The jihadists will not stop until the entire earth has been conquered for their false god Allah. If you don't believe that, you're woefully ignorant of the incontrovertible historical fact of 14 centuries of violent jihad, beginning with the moon god's pedophile "prophet" Mohammed, during which roughly 270 million Christians, Buddhists, and Hindus have been slaughtered in the name of Allah. You're also ignoring modern Muslims themselves; they're not exactly shy about proclaiming their goals.

As Daniel Pipes stated in a 2002 article:
...violent jihad will probably continue until it is crushed by a superior military force... Only when jihad is defeated will moderate Muslims finally find their voice and truly begin the hard work of modernizing Islam.