he's not done for, not just yet.
john jay @ 01.31.2010
as i sit here, i cannot ever remember picking on anyone, or bullying anyone, or ever picking a fight or even particularly looking for trouble.
i have never once backed away from a fight, though i did not savor its prospect, and though i knew that i was going to be beaten. i have stood my ground. never backed away, not once, my whole life. my nose has been broken so many times, i cannot remember, and i have received split lips, cut eyebrows, lumps on the forehead and an occasional scraped ear. black eyes aren't even worth remembering, just something you wore in the summer like a white t-shirt and a pair of blue jeans, in my part of the country.
you may have surmised two things from the above.--
i have always spoken my mind, perhaps somewhat too freely for some of my compatriots.
and, i was never a very good boxer. you might say that i just never did learn not to sucker on the feint that set up the one that did the damage. so, i adjusted. i took my licks fighting my way in close, and then did my work close in and on the ground. and, i was serious in my pursuits, and pretty strong, and if i got to you, sometimes it took a broom and a cold garden hose to get me off, because when i fought i became very intent on hurting you: to me, it was not sport.
i am not so very unusual. lotsa people like me, the tough guys skipped. no, it wasn't because they would or could not win a fight, it was because the cost of it just wasn't worth the meager returns. so, i did not get picked on by anyone, and the toughs avoided me as a rather bad investment. i fought with others like me, who were earnest and had grievances. as i said, i am not so very unusual, and there are lotsa people like me.
i am who islam is gonna to fight. and, i am whom the leftist bullies are gonna fight. they will work their way past the politicians and the diplomats, and their bluff and bluster will gain them some investment. but, then they reach me. i will be standing there.
me, and those like me. because a point will come, and it comes soon, when we simply won't take this bullshit anymore, and we will step forward, and we will yield no ground, we will yield nothing, and we will fight. and we will take the split lips and the bloody nose, and we will close. and, we will fight in earnest. and, we will protect our heritage, our values and our religions, and we will suffer no more these impious indignities and attempts upon our liberties.
american democracy has always been that way. it took 60 years of contention to brew the american civil war, but when it came it was the unleashing of the wrath of g_d, brother upon brother. it took the attack upon pearl harbor to rouse the united states into involvement in world war two, and i am not so sure i am so proud that we so long in coming to the fight, but when we entered the war we entered the war to finish it, and finish it we did. we brought to their knees three totalitarian societies bent on world domination, and again it was with a fury and an anger not usually seen in even war. but, even though islam and our left do not know it, they run out of provocations.
democracies are slow to anger. the american people are slow to anger. but, here pretty soon, america will reluctantly shrug its shoulders, it will gird its loins, and it will come forth and defend its land, its heritage its, values. and islam, and our own domestic left, are going to learn that when the righteous come to fight, we come to finish it, with a pure white anger that knows no succor until the foe lies prostrate before us, vanquished. i may not see the finish of the fight, but i will sure as hell achieve the finish of it. my little part, don't you see.
that is the way my friends and i have always lived, and we are quite content, if need be, that it will be the way we pass, as well. you may rest assured that we will take plenty of company with us, when we go.
janet napolitano is right to regard me with fear, ... , she very well ought to. she picks a fight with me, she has a fight. and islam, they will not know what hit them. and, no, it will not be fair, or with rules of engagement. no marquis of queensbury. no rules, just survival.
john jay @ 01.31.2001
this received as a comment from friend dymphna this morning. i thought is important in a number of respects.—first, it reminds us to read bibliographies. second, the book reference is very good. third & finally, dymphna reminds us of the “rule of abrogation,” in itself worth remembering because the warring sentiments of islam later in the koran supplant the touchy feely stuff at the beginning, something islamic apologists always like to through up to undermine historical arguments about islam’s war waging nature.
dymphna’s work is found regularly at gatesofvienna.blogspot.com.
I read parts of that paper of Coughlin's you link. His bibliography is particularly useful. This one:
al-Misri, Ahmad ibn Naqib. ‘Umdat al-Salik (Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of
Islamic Sacred Law). Rev. ed. trans. Nuh Ha Mim Keller. Beltsville: Amana
is a real beaut. Islamic jurisprudence (which is essentially their rules for war, and war is eternal in Islam) is based on the rule of abrogation. Thus, the peaceful surahs in the earlier sections of the Koran are abrogated by the later, more murderous ones. Those sayings carry the real weight of Islamic intentions toward us.
posted by: dymphna january28, 2010 at 10:54 a.m.
the dutch will offer geert wilders the same choice as the athenian government extended to socrates. well, almost.
the dutch will extend to geert wilders the offer of death and exile. no, they will not actually physically kill him, although that is a possibility: there are plenty willing to do the dutch government the favor.
he defends by contending truth.
the truth is no defense. the truth is what got him into trouble under the dutch penal code, and the euro union charter on universal right, in the first damn place.
to the "authorities" there is an unavoidable danger in truth. it runs loose and uncontrolled, and in the end it is uncontrollable. that is its trouble, for those who run things. they care not one whit for the truth that lies in truth, they care only about that which interferes with the orderly administration of their control.
in starkly real terms, they care nothing about truth one way or the other: they really don't believe in such things. they worship power, but they believe in nothing.
as long as geert wilders is in the netherlands he is disruptive of dutch order because his personality seeks truth and he will not shy from its implications. he will not seek the haven of delusion to avoid seeing the destruction of europe by islamic immigration, by rampant sharia. those who "control" the situation turn from truth and hide in the delusion of their power, in order to hold it just a little longer.
the dutch cannot kill wilders, at least not overtly, though the arrangement of his assassination would be easily enough obtained. and, it is a very real possibility, as noted above.
what the dutch can do is eliminate him as a problem, and cast him from their midst.
he will be found guilty, there is almost no doubt about, unless the dutch jurists who are prosecuting him find in dutch law some fundamental rights inhering in dutchman to speak their minds and conscience, to speak truth as they comprehend and confront it: how likely is that sort of soul searching to be going on in the minds of men who are his prosecution, who are his persecution?
they can put him in jail for two years and disband his party.
they cannot take him from the minds of his countrymen, nor can they erase the self evident truth of the kangaroo court by which he will be convicted. so, they will attempt an informal banishment. and, the destruction of his party, all in one.
somewhere in all of this, they will offer to dismiss the charges if he agrees to exile, probably to the united states. that is the exile.
the gall of it is that they will "offer" the bitter hemlock as well, and will seek his agreement to betray his party and agreement to its dissolution and banning.
they will offer him freedom, in return for his betrayal of his adherents and supporters.
what choice will he have, will be the calculus of those who extend this offer. they will remind him, that if he refuses the "deal," he will be found guilty, and his party disbanded anyway. and, that he will go to prison. and, that when he gets out, if he attempts to raise his party phoenix like from its ashes, they will prosecute him again, all over again. and, that the penalties will have become stiffer.
these things most assuredly will be fresh, and freshened, in his mind.
what a choice he will have, as they say.
my guess is geert wilders will tell them to fuck themselves and the horses they rode in on. my guess is that he dutch officials really don't understand who they are dealing with. my guess is that he will stay in the netherlands, he will take this prison term, and he will take the next one, and the one thereafter.
geert wilders is a very smart man. he has seen this coming for a long time. he made the intellectual and personal choice to follow his own path, wherever it leads him, a long time ago. i am sure he has been offered enticing alternatives along the way, but he has refused them to face the fate he has foreseen, and which he embraces.
he will see it through.
as socrates. death does not come this time, but, surely, he will face it in the not too distant future.
this is where europe tends. and, this is where geert wilders tends with it. at least, this is the way i see it. time and truth will out. i believe this as strongly as geert wilders.
john jay @ 01.27.2010
major stephen collins coughlin, usar intel, quotes william tecumsah sherman to the following effect:
north design to conquer the south, we must begin at kentucky and reconquer the country from there as we did from the indians. it was this conviction then as plainly as now that made men think i was insane. a good many followers now want to make me a prophet. i rather think you now agree with me that this is no common war. you must now see that i was right in not seeking prominence at the outstart. i knew and know yet that the northern people have to unlearn all their experience of the past thirty years and be born again before they will see the truth. though our armies pass across and through the land, the war closes in behind and leaves the same enemy behind. … i don’t see the end or the beginning of the end, but suppose we must prevail and persist or perish. … we cannot change the hearts of the people of the south, but we can make war so terrible that they will realize the fact that however brave and gallant and devoted to their country, still they are mortal and should exhaust.
general tecumseh sherman, 1862
upon having his command restored
the civil war: a narrative – fort sumter to perryville
following the chapter “war means fighting …” 800, 801.
though war is hardly unique, the american civil war was unique in several ways. it was fought between people who were very similar, often splitting families on this or that point, and, it was fought by two armies part of the same military tradition. these armies fought as armies and not rag tag irregulars or guerillas: at the end of the first year of the war they were well trained, disciplined under fire, and hardened & steeled to battle. they were as technologically advanced in terms of weaponry as any of earth, and they were led by officer corps who had been classmates in the same military academies, who had bonded with joint service, and some who liked and admired each other as much as some hated each other.
the south is credited with having received the superior officer corps upon the split up of the american military. i don’t think so. i think that they were as evenly matched as a set of well trained twins in the boxing ring, and in being so, it was a close and bitter fight.
the advantage the south had was continually in defending upon its own soil, lending “lines of interior defense,” as the matter is put, and in having superior intelligence assets as northern armies traveled into its territory. robert e. lee’s genius disappeared at gettysburg, against union general meade’s deficiencies, when meade was conferred the same advantages generally possessed by southern generals: lee’s cavalry failed in its reconnaissance mission and no amount of valor by george pickett’s men could hold the wall they reached & breeched.
well, i digress.
take one thing away from tecumsah sherman’s remarks set forth above, highlighted in red, and something from from popeye in the title.—
when you are in a fight to the finish, then you’d damn well better be the one who finishes the fight. else you perish.
in the fight against islam we must persist and prevail, or vanish from the earth, eradicated and our memories erased. you may think me a little crazy now, as people thought sherman then, but my judgment and that of my like minded fellows will be vindicated. one way, or the other. for you see, (or maybe you don’t, as sherman noted of the north when he spoke), we are in a fight to the finish.
we’d damn well better finish it.
john jay @ 01.27.2010
the mufti of jerusalem, hitler, and exterminating the jews ... wwii and beyond ... and, the euro union is now complicit in the same scheme, imho ...
i will be brief. this is not about my thinking, but, pamela geller's. she has doggedly gone about establishing the links of islam to the nazi schemes of wwii, and her below post contributes mightily to the thesis that islam was hip deep in the nazi efforts to exterminate the jews, just as islam pursues it murderous schemes to do the same, to the present.
she has amassed fact and history to make a conclusive case.
hers is an absolutely brilliant post at atlas shrugs regarding haj amin al-husseini, the islamic grand mufti of jerusalem before, during and after wwii. i beg each of you to read it, all of it, and also the comments associated with it.
recently blueprints for the auschwitz labor/death camp have surfaced, found in an undisclosed building in germany. german archivists have suppressed the location of that building, ... , they are not disclosing the location for some reason known only to them, in contrast to previous policies on nazi era documents.
the discussion of why this may be so is fascinating.
also fascinating is the historical evidence that shows just how influential and complicit was the islamic grand mufti of jerusalem, the aforementioned al-husseini, in conceiving and advocating the german death camps, such as auschwitz.
please read pamela's post at http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com . it is a brilliant article.
john jay @ 01.27.2010
p.s. i sent the below comment to atlas shrugs.
i find it tragic that the euro union, in the guise of trying to eradicate present day european nationalism in order to prevent a reprise of the horrors of wwii, however remote such a possibility might be, invites into the midst of europeans those who were responsible along with the nazis for the death camps, and those who to this day preach and conduct terrorism towards eradicating the jews, destroying israel, and achieving the absolute dominance of the middle east and europe by islam.
it remains "
more on charles johnson at atlasshrugs2000 and jihadwatch, as they take broadsides at the left's attempts to "rehabilitate" johnson as he tries to regroup, after having divulged his true liberal sympathies, and as the left tries to bring his reputation safely intact into the fold. as his reputation isn't much, it will be something of a task, in my estimation.
but, to the point at hand. for me, at least.--
though not remembered nor remarked upon nor much acknowledged one of the first overt attacks on johnson came from this blog in a post entitled "herding cats ... the mouse that roared at little green footballs *** ... the lizard wars on 'personality' ... european nationalists and civil behavior." that post was published nearly two years ago, on 27 january 2008. you will read a lot of polemic, and a lot of prejudicial comment in the next few days about johnson, most of it pretty seriously re-hashed from previous remarks. but, you will read nothing earlier from anybody, saving pamela geller, and you will read nothing so cogent and analytical as my post.
read it. see if i brag, or simply speak fact. remember that date. 27 january 2008.
i followed that screed with another broadside on charles johnson on 24 september 2008, entitled "huck chuck ... it is time to throw charles johnson off the life raft ... he eats too much, he drinks to[o] much, and he does none of the heavy rowing ... get shed of him ... "
loud, vociferous and enthusiastic will be the chorus of those who join pamela geller and robert spencer in the attack upon charles johnson. i have to admit that i have no sympathy for him, and i will probably agree with almost everything negative said about him. he single handedly destroyed any efforts to try and establish a joint european and american effort to defeat jihad, and his efforts, his entirely & wholly destructive efforts last to this day: even yet the stigma that he cast over the whole effort prevents what is a most logical union of interests. for that i will never forgive him, and i think that his contributions in this regard hasten europe to its demise.
well, johnson will have california.
but, i will make this remark. when i wrote my little articles back then, pamela geller linked them and very graciously and gratefully brought attention to the articles and to me. baron bodissey at the gates of vienna also linked my first post, remarked upon the logic and strength of the writing, and gave it an extensive excerpt. i do not think that he remarked upon the second article.
robert spencer did not mention the first or the second article, and i think that he never has acknowledged them in any way. he did not have much to say about charles johnson at the time of the first post, and my memory just doesn't serve me very well if he had opened public hostility at the time of my second post. he has gotten on the band wagon now, and makes good and trenchant criticisms of johnson's intellectual failings: he was just a little late to the opening of festivities. you can look it up, as to the timing of spencer's entry into the fray, and if i am mistaken, i am open to being corrected by robert, and i will apologize to robert spencer for any misstatements of fact in this post. publicly, and without equivocation. period.
none of the bloggers who will now join pamela geller and robert spencer in an anvil chorus of condemnation and vitriol directed towards johnson said one word in support of pamela geller and baron bodissesy when the initial battle was joined. he is down now, if not mortally wounded at least pretty defenseless, and so the attacks upon him are now made entirely without personal or professional risk, and to my way of thinking, somewhat gratuitous on the part of those reluctant to join the first battles. fighting from safe haven may be prudent, but there is no particular virtue to be pretended in it.
it wasn't always so. at one point, it took courage to go up against him, and the only people i saw do it were pamela geller and baron bodissey.
and, i have passed quietly from notice in all of it and seldom if ever get any credit for my involvement in the battle as it was first joined.
i think that unfortunate. i fired one of the first volleys, and it was a telling analysis of his deficiencies. i joined the battle later, again, ... , and again, pamela geller was the only person to give my article any notice at all.
it was never linked or acknowledged by any of the stalwarts who now join in kicking the living snot out of charles johnson, after pamela geller took him on, and took him down, and when it posed a serious risk to her career, and to the career of baron bodissey, and when it was no mean task to do so.
on her own. with an able assist from me. which now passes unnoticed, and unremarked upon.
but, not forgotten entirely. i remember.
and, i hate to be tedious about it. but, ... , if you will read my articles you will find them much superior in analysis, and much more well thought out, then the chest beating that goes on from those who stand triumphant over a foe fallen to the ground, and who had not much to do with putting him there.
some of them might take exception to that. i am small. and, this post will go largely unread. that's o.k. i remember what happen. i have it in writing.
john jay @ 01.24.2010
i am tired. writing is hard work, it really is, it is very draining when you try to stretch your mind around things not merely a re-hash of what someone else has already explored.
i have a friend who keeps track of his blog "hits." they average about 4.5 minutes each. now, if i don't get "links" from bigger blogs on my posts, i traffic somewhere between 50 to 100 hits @ day, and i will get thoughtful comments from one or two readers. if i get a link from a big blog, i may go to nearly 500 hits. but, you know what, from all those hits i rarely elicit a single comment.
such readers from the bigger blog may follow a link, but i suspect they read little, and probably don't stay much more than the 4.5 minutes mentioned above.
they simply cannot absorb what i am trying to say, reading or staying 4.5 minutes. and, you know what, they aren't even interested in trying. well, so be it. they live in the world in which they feel comfortable, and if it is not my world and their interests are not my interests, i guess that is the way it is. they are welcome to their world, and they are welcome to and deserve just what it gives them.
and, i guess i am welcome to mine.
i wish i had more impact on the general scheme of things, but it seems to me that i don't. and, don't get me wrong, i enjoy tits and ass and thumping my chest on things we all agree on, but there are enough blogs out there that do that, one way or another, that the world doesn't need me to imitate them just to get attention.
so, i am not going to try to post very often. i will leave the blog open, but i will not write unless it is about something that interests me.
i suggest these blogs to keep up with the world, as i view it:
the above blogs cover the world i am interested in, and apparently in a far more informative, entertaining and commanding manner than i have been able to figure out. i think that they are good, and that they will keep you abreast of the world. i don't think they deal with things in the manner in which i attempt to do so, but, i don't think enough people are interested in the way i do things to bother: and, the people that read here are capable of thinking for themselves.
i am done writing posts that relatively few read, and for which even fewer are willing to put in the time and effort to comprehend or think further about the ideas i attempt to engender. i am not trying to tell people what i think, but to get them to think, and i think that by any reasonable measure i have simply failed. it has been fun, in some respects, but, in the main, i conclude only that i have indulged fantasy in thinking i have ever made any difference, whatsoever.
so, that is it.
back to being a very bad guitarist. if i am going to indulge in simply entertaining myself, at least i am going to do something that is fun.
john jay @ 01.23.2010
posted at the "comments" section: http://washingtonrebel.typepad.com/washington_rebel/2010/01/turd.html#comments . the title of the article, "turd," written by isrish cicero. the article is preceded by a photo of obama at the lectern, biden looking on. the expression on biden's face says, "i coulda been a contender," as plaintively as marlon brando ever uttered the line.
when joe biden stands besides you, and looks at you with contempt as though you did not have brain 1 in your head, you are in very very very serious trouble.
b. insane obama has a disconnect with reality. and, he is in very very very serious trouble.
were i him, i would just resign. at this point, were i him, i would be very worried that my handlers are seriously disappointed, and considering "trading me in" on a new model stooge. fungible commodities, stooges, [easily replaced].
p.s. he would be far more useful as a "martyr" at this point to his handlers, than as a presidential "symbol." were i him, i should be very worried. uneasy lies the head of a failed idiot.