very early on at this blog i wrote an article, "towards a coherent strategy of fighting the terror ... ," that was largely ignored. i like to think that it was because i was just starting up. i am going to republish it in this post, but not before making an observation.
since that time i have come to the opinion, even stronger than expressed in the post, that the left, ... , as embodied in the form of the intelligence agencies of the soviet remnant, the european leftist intelligence, the bureaucrats of the euro union, and their counterparts in the society of the united states to most definitely include the "mainstream" press & media, ... , is the well spring of the "terror" advanced against us by "islam."
i'll not go into that too deeply right now, but, a moments reflection should satisfy you that all of the various terror outfits would not exist without funding from the left in the west, and from russia. and, perhaps most fundamentally, the demographic source of most of the world's terrorists would not exist except for the subsidy of the united nations and the bureaucrats of the united nations. what is palestine, except as the u.n. supported breeding ground for muslim & islamic terror.
well, here is the link to the post.--
(published herein, january 6, 2008.)
and, i am going to set it out in full, below the "break." i hope that you read it.
john jay @ 11.17.2012
towards a coherent strategy of fighting the "terror" ... you will please note i did not say "terrorists" ... attack, attack, attack
as a preliminary note, let us remind ourselves towards whom the “terror” campaign has been waged.
it is my contention that the goals of the “terror” have not been directed towards influencing the conduct of its victims. this sounds a preposterous statement, unless we consider that the victims by and large have been ordinary folks selected totally at caprice. there is no method in selecting a crowd or a bus or a wedding party: there is not “direction” in chance.
nor have the actual victims of “terror” been much terrorized or influenced by it. they have gone on with their lives after cleaning up the mess because they have no choice: they can hardly go under a rock wait it out, now, can they? so, in the aftermath of this bombing or that bombing you will find people back in the same places, because the fact that others have died does not relieve them of getting food for dinner, bread for breaking, or making the other provisions for their daily lives. in bosnia and serbia the victims of terror braved the snipers every day, because they had to: they were not deterred from their lives.
i contend that the terror has been aimed at, for lack of better words, the literati and intelligentsia of the west, be they found in government, or in the academy, or in the arts and entertainment fields. as noted in previous posts, it appears to me that the terror is directed towards these people not to terrorize, but to persuade and influence them toward sympathy for the terrorists, which again sounds preposterous when you view it absent the context of the leftist leanings of the intelligentsia, and the dominate psychological motif of sympathy for the “victims” of western imperialism.
while the “terror” has been absolutely ineffectual in real terms, it has been alarmingly effective in garnering support in the western world in diplomatic circles, governmental circles, and in the realms of the mass media and the entertainment world, which are, the pretensions of “journalism” aside, the same thing. again, we may short hand this as the “intelligentsia.”
While the victims of terror have gone about their daily business, little moved by the horrors inflicted upon them, the intelligentsia has stared transfixed by the spectacle, and, quite literally, captivated. i cannot tell you how impressed and mortified all at once i have been by condi rice equating her experience as a young black child in the american south with the experience of palestinians: condi rice is the most pathetic victim of terror on the face of this earth, and absolute living proof of the contentions i have made thus far in this journal.
the barking dogs of islam have taken her from the flock into which she was born, and have put her into their flock by their incessant yapping, and like a good mindful sheep, she hasn’t a clue what has happened.
she is mortal breathing proof of the success of islamic terror. not the bodies that lie torn and rent and bleeding and in battered and burned parts of the streets next to shattered buses. not the soldiers who have given their lives in combat. they are not the proof of terrorism’s success, because their kin and their kind will wake the next morning, and go about their lives, because their kin and their kind will continue to fight for their heritage and their lives. no, it is condi rice who is proof of islam’s success in the terror, because she has capitulated emotionally and intellectually to the pressures brought to bear on her by the terror.
she has been successfully nudged.
the question, then, is fairly posed. how do we fight terror?
the first response is that we hunt down and kill the terrorists. we owe that to the victims to punish their attackers and to avenge their loss, and we owe that to our obligation to maintain world order. this is, however, first and foremost a military matter, and should be left to the military, which has done an absolutely admirable job by any measure of historic truth.
the second response is that the intelligence agencies of the west, to the extent they retain the capacity and will to do so, should identify the mosques and madrassas responsible for inciting these acts, and destroy them and everybody in them guilty of this incitement.
are those propositions set forth with sufficient clarity?
the following responses are more subtle.
in my view, other than adequately compensating family and survivors whose loss is total, we must acknowledge that the sum of any real impact is relatively slight on the western economies. the united states is a nation of nearly 340 million people the last i checked, and the material cost of terror is negligible. [note: this is very poorly laid out. the material cost of the war on terror has not been negligible either in money or lives. 911 was a very hard blow to the economy, and the airline industry and allied businesses. the war on terror in terms of combat deaths, although very slight in comparison to other wars, has not been "negligible on those who sacrificed their lives defending their country. this observation would apply to the wars in iraq, in afghanistan, and to servicemen and civilians who have given their lives in other conflicts. i do not change this text, or amend it, because i wish to remind myself to edit thoroughly before posting.: the author.]
not so the cost of the terror exacted upon our country, by the betrayal of our intelligentsia and their surrender to the interests of the world jihad. (and the same applies to israel, which may have, amazingly enough, politicians and leaders possessed of more cupidity than our own, and who have surrendered to their own doubts and cowardice even more abjectly than our own. it is an astounding turn from the days of menachim begin and golda meir, whatever their perceived faults.) the leftist leanings of the west’s intelligentsia have been so co-opted that it has rapidly become more anti-semitic than at any other time i can recall, and it has become so reflexively anti-america as to defy comprehension. most of the animosity has focused on george bush, but he is just a whipping boy for a deeper turmoil.
it is not an exaggeration to note that the leftist intelligentsia favors an american loss in afghanistan and iraq in preference to american victories in those theatres. this is the self hating depravity to which they have sunk.
what are the pillars of that leftist intelligentsia?
they are the press, the academy, entertainment and film, and the entrenched bureaucracy.
what do we know most about them?
we know that they as a group are physical and intellectual cowards. when the western press went into lebanon during the last war, they were accompanied by hezbollah handlers, just as press types were in the soviet union and in china during the heydays of communism. we know that they went where they were directed, talked to whom they were provided, and agreed to take and publish doctored photographs and report doctored events. we know they did this after being intimidated and threatened.
we know absolutely that they are physical and intellectual cowards, because they have displayed this cowardice and intellectual deceit before us on the screen, many times. think back to the first Iraqi campaign, as engineered by bush “41” and stormin’ norman schwarzkopf. do you remember the media spool up prior to the initiation of that campaign? do you remember that the Bradley fighting vehicle was a poorly armored aluminum coffin? that the m1 abrahams tank could not be depended upon to travel in the sands of arabia without breaking down. that iraqi cannon fire would decimate our troops? that they would die by the scores in poison gas attacks? that at least 10 to 15,000 american troops would die in the first weeks of battle alone?
do you remember the media run up to the second iraqi campaign, run by bush “43” and general tommy franks? that thousands of american troops would die in the opening days of the campaign? do you remember the horrible tolls that the armored columns of the republican guards would exact on american armor?
yet when the battles started even such doomsayers as geraldo rivera where enthralled by the success of the attack, captivated by battle so overwhelmingly favorable to american forces. they were ecstatic at the american success. for several days, anyway, until their liberal cohorts told them to silence their enthusiasms. and even then, rather than criticize the american war effort in the face of such overwhelming success, they bid their times and bit their tongues, until circumstances would give them a chance to spew their bile and try to drive a wedge between the administration and the american public. they made no criticism of president bush “43” when he issued his pronouncement that the campaign was finished, nor did they vent their spleens when the statutes of saddam came down, or the ladies came from the polling places with purple thumbs, though they had come out of their hides enough to predict the elects would never be carried off.
there was no litany of “bush lied, soldiers died” from that little prick harry reid at this stage of the game, no “principles” expounded in the face of american success, as might have been expected of people driven by belief and not expediency.
no, it was not until the al queda campaigns began in earnest that they dared bring their guns upon bush. it was not until then that the news people even dared cover the anti-war movement, that never was and never has been. it was not until then that the politicians explained that they had been lured into supporting the war because of false representations about weapons of mass destruction.
only when “the insurrection” gained a foothold did the media and the leftist politicians and the academics and the “stars” have the guts to openly support al queda and attack bush.
the intelligentsia are cowards. they have been herded, and they can be herded again. only this time, it is we who should be doing the herding, to silence their pernicious capitulation to islamic terror.
this is not wrong.
you must recognize that these people are the vichy french.
they are to be hated and despised as much as any french collaborators to the nazis of wwii. marshall petain lives in nancy pelosi and harry reid and teddy kennedy, and my god, what can be said of henry waxman and barney frank. i can barely make my fingers type the word “murtha,” surely to go down in the annals with quisling, if there remains any justice in the world: the man is a traitor to the marine corps, and to his country.
we know the fraud and blood liable perpetuated upon the world and israel by france 2. we know that this occurred because of the laziness and sympathy to the palestinian cause of the part of a lazy french bureau chief.
we know that as a group their adherence to their beliefs are superficial and largely a matter of “fashion.” now, the academicians may present a little departure from this, their adherence to these views may be more deeply entrenched and philosophically based: but, the majority of the self anointed “intelligentsia” is not really so very well educated, in my estimation. take the press, if you will. for the most part, they were journalism majors, hardly a group subjected to heavy intellectual exertion while in college and high school, and hardly a group subject to very many thoughts deeper than mere opinion and partisan wordsmanship afterwards. take the celebrities in the entertainment field, film, music, stage what have you, if you will. most were high school graduates, if that, and that group would include the sean penns, the babs streisands, the tom hanks of the world. take the bureaucrats, those dry thin mushrooms bred, cultivated, and raised in the dark basements of the world. they operate in the shadows, seldom having to justify their positions or sympathies in the sharp light of the day, and prone to simply waiting out their opposition with the confidence that they will still be there when the transients leave town to make room for the next set of transients. they operate in the shadows and in the dark, because that is the way they like it.
it was just several days ago, for instance, that we learned the great friend of the palestinians, nick burns of the state department and condi rice’s great friend, has a sister in law who is palestinian. and, of his great sympathy to palestine, as the concept is bandied about under current parlance.
well, yes, more or less interesting, my dear sir, but what is your point?
my point is, we cut them from the flock to which they have strayed, and we put them back into the flocks in which they were born.
well, interesting proposition, my dear sir, but how do you propose to accomplish this?
the short response is simple, we use the same means upon them that nudged them, tipped them into the islamic camp, in the first place. as they were frightened from the fold, they will be frightened back to the fold.
in other words, and to continue the metaphor, we use the yapping barking intimidation of the sheep dog to cut them from their new flock, and to bring them back to the fold of their old flock. we reward them for being patriots, and we punish them for being traitors.
we intimate to them in the strongest possible terms that their new found allegiances will prove extremely unprofitable to them in the long run. we take the romance out of supping with the chavez’s and ahmahdenjads of the world. we spank them and their kind for their effrontery.
and we embark on this right now.
the first thing we do as conservatives is to stop apologizing about being conservative, and stop pissing and moaning about how the left abuses and mischaracterizes us. as a matter of fact, i would not pay too much attention to the left one way or another.
the second thing we do is understand that we have nearly 4,000 years of intellectual and religious history, ethics and conviction behind us. we have the moral imprimatur to act. we are correct. history and tradition are on our side.
the third thing we do is attack islam in america, right now. we attack those who aid and abet and lend comfort to islam, right now. i do not mean talking about it, theorizing about it, or contemplating it, i mean precisely to attack, attack, attack. i mean we seize the initiative, and we never let it up.
and, as john “40 second” boyd has pointed out to us, it does not make too much difference who we attack or in what manner, so long as that attack is quick, decisive and calculated to lead to the next attack, before our enemy can figure out who we are, or why we are doing what we are doing.
we need to convince islam right now, that gathering in the united states is not a thing that will be tolerated, and nor will we allow them to build their strength unimpeded so that they may attack us. i believe it makes sense to attack islam right on the point of their initials attacks upon our political system. their point of attack is upon our legal systems, in two areas: they mean to do whatever they can to stifle the free expression of thought insofar as it impacts religious and political opposition to islam and the jihad, and they mean to suppress the free expression of thought opposing the domestic jihad. in this, of course, they are joined by the leftist politicians who would shut down conservative thought as it is expressed upon the radio talk shows and political programs in our country. the other direct point of the islamic attack is bent upon forcing accommodations to islam in our public schools: the u.s. supreme court has long held the separation of church and state, even going so far to prohibit public school system from providing space on non school hours for religious observance or activities. yet, school systems all over the country are allowing these kinds of activities, some going so far as to allow islamic prayer in school facilities during school hours.
wherever we find an islamists point of attack in the legal system, this should be the point of sharp and protracted counter attack. as conservatives we should set up funds and hire good lawyers to step in and challenge these assertions by islam, and we should take whatever other steps are necessary to preserve our free speech rights, and to prohibit attack upon them.
and, we should die in the trenches before we ever allow the u.n. to exert jurisdiction in our country over such matters, and we should die in the streets before we ever allow a leftist congress to pass “human rights” legislation such as has sealed the fate of the eurpean union and England to the muslim demographic onslaught. europeans and englishmen face conviction of criminal statutes against “racial incitement” for merely telling the truth to their fellow citizens about the perils they face, meanwhile, islamist shouted in the streets of london for the decapitation of tony blair and queen elizabeth and absolutely nothing was done about it. are we to allow this same thing to happen here, and be subject to the curses of our progeny for our abject cowardice and surrender?
that is not a very palatable prospect for me.
is this nice, or politic? no, but it is necessary if we are to survive, if we are to avoid debilitating civil war such as suffered by every other country on earth prior to ejecting the muslims, or being overtaken by them. i have sat at conferences and listened to person of lebanese extraction describe the muslim conquest of lebanon. I have sat at conferences and listened to pakistani’s describe the plight of hindu’s in pakistan and indian at the hands of their muslim conquerors. the threat they pose is very real. all warfare is unpleasant, and there is no easy way to be killed or to kill, but the depravity exhibited by muslims on the attack is truly evil.
in my mind the matter reduces itself to this.-- are we right, or are we wrong? it seems to me that doctrinally we understand our enemy and we are right about what our enemy intends. it seems to me that history, and current events, and as the two coalesce in a little tail following right behind current events, bears out and confirms our analysis.
why wait, therefore, until the magic islamic population 10% tipping point is reached to react in defense of ourselves. why on earth should we concede our enemy any advantage to be gained by waiting, when those advantages weigh very heavily against us.
it is time to start paying for our convictions.
it falls upon us.
it is as simple as that.
imagine occupying a redoubt, the defense to a great city, and on the plain before you an army begins to spread, marshalling its forces for siege, and on the horizon before you, you see the vast supply train of goods and supplies and soldiers stretching out years before you. you know to wait is to expose yourself to grave peril, as your wells are not deep, and your granaries are depleted, and your military stores and weapons are aging.
and you can see that the forces arrayed before you are weak, and susceptible to your attack. you know that you have sufficient force to safely leave your redoubt and go to the plain and defeat your enemy, to scatter his forces and send them in ignominious defeat back from whence they came. but you see further possibility lying before you, because the supply train though vast in number and extent is weakly defended, suggesting quite probably that they are very open to attack without reinforcement.
do you take the risk?
do you risk falling before the siege, playing the waiting game?
i suggest that if we have learned anything from the game theory of john “40 second” boyd that the commander imagined above chose the attack, and to continue the attack maintaining his initiative, even in the face of mistakes and miscalculations he might expose himself to along the way, for to seize the initiative should mean never having to give it up.
do you remember in the last campaign for baghdad, the daring drive up the banks of the euphrates toward the city when the supply trains lost their ability to fully keep the troops supplied, and the troops lay along the roadsides, exhausted, without adequate food and barely enough water? and how the talking heads criticized tommy franks and his command? did that stop or impede the drive to baghdad? no, it did not, because the command recognized that while mistakes might have been made, under no circumstance would a little physical discomfort impede the attack, or cause the armored columns to pause in their attacks waiting for supply trains: they would drive on, continuing to frustrate the enemy in any effort to formulate counter attack. it was a brilliant example of what boyd and whittle are postulating in terms of game theory: attack, attack, attack, even if what you do is not perfectly conceived or executed, it is better than waiting.
well, if islam lies on the plains before us, where do we attack it?
we attack it precisely in those places discussed in the article on civil war.—
at the offices of c.a.i.r.
we identify those mosques, madrassas, schools and armed compounds where the jihad is being taught, espoused, planned, and preparations are being made for making it operational.
we attack the jihad amongst its proponents, the pillar of its strength in academia, in the media, and in the arts and entertainment field.
we attack those stores and merchandisers who display clothing and other items which enable or aid and abet the jihad in any respect.
we attack the financiers of the jihad wherever they are found, and whoever they are identified as being. we attack the front men of money raising and money laundering. we attack the corporations who do business with the jihad, as well as news organizations such as al jezeer and those who traffic with them.
we attack the “diplomatic” corps of the jihad, and when one of them comes to our shores or speaks at gatherings in our country, we attack them there.
in short, it makes very little difference what we attack, so long as the attack is unrelenting, and so long as it is directed toward the jihad and toward the supporters of jihad, and so long as they are never given sufficient breathing room to gain the initiative. better to initiate civil war when it is winnable, than to initiate civil war when it is not winnable. the choice is to start things when we can prevail, or to wait until such time as we die in a noble gesture. i prefer to initiate things when we have the best prospect of prevailing, and the devil and critics take the hind most.
this is war.
it has started.
it has been declared on us innumerable times by al queda, ayatollahs, imams, mullahs, sheiks and former rock stars that it cannot be kept track of. planes have been hijacked, planes have been blown up, planes have been hijacked and blown up, defenseless old men have been thrown into the sea in their wheelchairs, shot in theatres, run down on streets, and shot in their class rooms, all by jihadists in this country and the world over. need we list the atrocities in europe and in israel, and the ongoing daily rocket attacks suffered from gaza and southern lebanon.
need we mention 9/11?
right now the campaigns in the iraqi and afghani theatres, which are most certainly in this phase campaigns against terrorist organizations, and the world wide war are going well enough that we might characterize the terror war as being in the same state or mode as was “the phony war” or “the sitz krieg” as it was fashioned at the start of wwii. it will flare up again, however, and again it shall be real enough, soon enough.
my suggestion and call is to begin it again now, and begin our active attack, while we have all of the advantage in the world.
to begin it now, so that those who have been taken over by the siren call of the jihad come to their senses, so that they make a cold hearted appraisal, that it is best that they get back to their proper flocks, because that is going to be the winning flock in this battle, and if they want to be there at the end in the survivor’s mode, they will be there with us. to be as a good sheep, and follow the nudge that we as good sheep dogs put on them, to be where they belong and say the things they should be saying.
we should begin the active fight against islam, and we should begin the active campaign to force islam’s aiders and abettors to give up their support, to give up their active encouragement of the jihad, and to once again recognize, assert and protect the interests of this great country.