Friday, August 18, 2006

Since we aren't serious...

I have been beating the drum about the risk of disturbing the Western bees too much
  • for some time

  • The problem is that there is currently no way to transmit general public anger to the missiles. They are controlled by politicians, who are the craven tools of media and their polls. Those media do not want us to respond effectively, and will treat anyone advocating effective response with blackout and then the harshest criticism.

    The only effective response other than genocide is direct attack on the persons of those who encourage and subsidise jihad. That means impoverishing and killing very powerful men who have no direct- in the sense of provable criminal liability- connection with the actual murderers. It means seizing assets, including the oil weapon, from countries who will mouth anti-terrorism platitudes. Mistakes will be made.

    And the very WORST thing it will require is that discretion be used without endless public debate, scrutiny, and second guessing. If we kill the wrong tyrant, our response should be "He should have been a better friend", not gallons of tears. Killing a counter insurgency means forcing open choice on others. Killing a religious war means killing the idea.

    (Hold up, I'm having a thought.)

    Really, it's not a world wide counter insurgency, it's a world wide religious civil war. The jihadis are quite as much citizens of our world as my Confederate ancestors were of the United States. Western liberty of thought is no more historically inevitable than abolition was. We and the jihadis share competing life templates is all. Theirs- narrow codes of personal behaviour, subjection of women, tightly limited expression, criminalisation of homosexuality- are pretty much the historic human state, and do not differ much from the European template of four centuries ago. Or four minutes ago if you ask Pat Robertson about buggers.

    My point is that since it IS a civil war, we really do have to STAMP OUT the very idea of "Islamism", which I define as using the power of the state to enforce, or recognise, the behaviour requirements of the Moslem faith. That means Ataturkism at home. No hijab on the street. No time off to pray or for Ramadan for government employees. Islam and its adherents get no more recognition than Catholics or Amish.

    And it means fighting our enemies abroad, and our enemies are EVERY ADVOCATE OF ISLAMISM. Every one of them. Every Emir, every Madrassa, every newspaper. Every riyal spent on encouraging murder. Every cell tower and lap top that calls for jihad. You might think it, but if you express it, we'll be after you like white on rice. And we have really big ears, and our aim might be poor.

    Which is the third point of the trident, we have to force people to decide which side they are on, and act on it. Only when the populations of Moslem countries are as upset about bombings as they are about bacon will we turn the corner.

    We have to be overt about it. We can't just be against airplanes blowing up. "Please don't kill us" is not an aim. And it's defeat, because it's really "please kill us after you reduce the rest of the earth, and us, to the point of submission that killing us is the only thing left."

    We have to say NO. We have to make support for sharia as inexpressible as is support for another great Moslem institution, slavery. We have to make it clear that Islam may only be a private matter, not a public institution. Once we accept that responsibility our course will become much easier.

    The problem is, who will say these things? They are unsayable in public because they will always be designated as racism, intolerance, paranoia, or some other evil by any media or educational outlet.

    Don't think that mushroom clouds over Paris or London or New York will make a difference, they won't. Do you really believe that a few hundred thousand dead westerners will make the New York Times editorial board say "We were WRONG. Kill millions. We won't complain."

    Hell, we won't even dispose of Terry Nichols.

    Which leaves us with three concieveable futures.

    1. More of the same bombing outrage/tough talk/appease/repeat cycle. Eventually we will allow the world to become so chaotic that China steps in to restore order.

    2. Public anger so pervasive and powerful that it installs serious people in authority. These serious people will come from no current large political machine, by definition they are not serious. Dark horses, third parties, or revolution. Don't look for much proportion or moderation from them.

    3. The jihadis finally DO fuck with the wrong people. They blow up a school in the Ukraine, an airport in India, or a train station with a French nuclear submarine captain's family inside it, and a serious leader does what we aren't tough enough to do. What harm would befall Belarus or Esthonia, or Capitaine de Vaisseau D'X, if one of them puts a few megatons on Mecca or Riyadh?

    No comments: