« taken to task, a letter in responding to ghandi post | Main | not all cretins become diplomats ... »

February 13, 2009


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Wow. What can I say, except: THIS IS A MAGNUM OPUS!!

72 days between posts, jjj, but this was exceptionally worth the wait!!

I think I shall retire from the Net now, since after this I have nothing new to say!

VERY well done, amigo.

Logical American

John Jay:

Are you familiar with David Selbourne?


And my dead body.

Brilliant and tragic.

The "long march through the institutions" has become a relay race, and Jihad has the final baton -handed off by BHO, Pelosi and the Useful Idiots.

I also am not optimistic, but am planning meeting with my state reps to determine whether they are contemplating secession resoutions, and if not, why not. I sent them all letters to that effect last week.

I am trying to mount a legal challenge to at least four parts of the "stimulus" as unconstitutional on their faces.

I will not go quietly. Although with suppression of public and electronic dissent coming quickly, I am not sure anyone will hear anyway. God will hear, I guess.

I am a Christian - I do believe, as the Book of Hebrews states, that this is not really my "home" and that, like Abram, I am looking for that eternal city. However, I have an obligation to fight for what is right, to fight for those weaker than I, to be a witness to the rights given by "Nature and Nature's God" to all human beings by virtue of their birth while I draw breath.

I am nobody. I am just someone who thinks we are endowed with inalianable rights and whose Grandfathers, Father and Uncles all saw action in WWI and WWII. That that should have been in vain is almost more than I can bear.

God, it feels like we are all Ann Frank writing in our virtual diaries.

I will quit rambling now.

Thank you and God bless you and all who labor for freedom and peace for every human being.



logical american:

in reply to your question about david selbourne, i confess that i do not know who he is.

i am assuming from the present context that he writes about matters political and/or historical.

i will google the name in a little bit, and see what he is about.

i would also not mind if you just told what it is that you think i should be aware of. if his ideas stand as criticisms of mine, i would not mind hearing about that. or, if my ideas are similar to what he has already written, i would not mind being told of them, and would in fact like to read him to see how my positions relative to these matters might be fine tuned or improved: if i have missed a beat in all this, and you think it critical, i would not mind be apprised of that.

we are here a short time. we might as well improve while we are here, or if we are in error, we might as well correct it. and, if you think i am spot on, i would not mind hearing that either.

but, no, i do not know who david selbourne is. i shall try and rectify that this evening.

john jay



i am quite moved by your remarks.

first, thank you for you kind words, they are very encouraging.

second, thank you for your efforts, and thanks to your family for their service and sacrifice.

third, you are somebody very special, and that is a person who fights and tries, and is determined to make a difference, even to the point of drawing her last breath while doing so.

i find your attitudes admirable, to tell you the truth.

again, thank you for your kind remarks.

john jay



thank you very much.



logical american:

i googled david selbourne and found out that he is an historian, and also followed a link to a most interesting article he authored on sept. 9, 2006, entitled "can the west defeat the islamist threat?...", at the following link: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article633407.ece (if it doesn't work here, simply type it in on the command line.)

he is pessimisic about the west prevailing in the conflict with islam, for any number of reasons, but they may be summarized in two words, faith and doubt, e.g., the strenght of islam devirative of faith, the weakness of the west lying in doubt and confusion of its values.

you will note that the title to my essay is highlighted by two question marks.

i do not hold to the view that the defeat of the west is inevitable, or historically determined. far from it, i believe that the west could easily defeat islam militarily if only it would properly apply the power it possesses, and if only it were not afraid to do so.

and, i believe two simple expedients, quite easily capable of humane administration if followed, could defeat islam demographically, and those being prohibition of islamic immigration into the west, and deportation and exclusion of muslims already living in the west.

i think selbourne absolutely correct in his observation that the religious values and aims of islam are incompatible and irreconciable with the aims of western democracy.

i disagree with him vehemently that recourse to the basic tenets of the free markets and the ideals of democracy are of no utility to the west: by contrast, i think we must return to the wellsprings of our ideals to recover our faith in our civilization and in our politics.

but, thanks for the referral to selbourne. i enjoyed what little i have read.

john jay

p.s. if you know him, ask him to drop by for his comments and thoughts. i should think it fun.


respectful correction: not over your dead body,but, over their dead bodies. "their" meaning, specifically, those who would kill us (americans, jews, israelis, westerners) for sake of jihad or communist take-over.

there is a commandment in the torah that says if a person is coming to kill you, you are obligated to kill him first. it doesn't say you are obligated to engage in some kind of dialogue towards some 'peaceful' accomodation or agree to some 'peace process' etc. it says what it says for a reason: if someone is coming to kill you, you have no choice but to kill them first. you don't know if they will stop, if they are open to talking about it (LOL)...
personally, i don't like the idea of killing anyone and hope i never, ever have to. but if someone is coming to kill me or my family, guess what?, i'll do everything i can to stop them. and i ain't talkin' about, "gee buddy, sit down, let met pour you some tea and let's talk about this anger you're feeling".
is it possible, if one is sufficiently evolved spiritually to look at such a person or thru prayer stop such a person from killing? yes, it is. but the torah has that as a commandment, not a suggestion, for a very good reason.

what concerns me is the apparent total lack of awareness in contemporary society of gordon allport's 'the nature of prejudice' where he says that hate-speech becomes hate action; that's why it is so dangerous!
as the saying goes, when someone says he's coming to kill you, believe him; and kill him first.
what i am advocating here is the most basic self defense.
israel was quite correct in going into gaza as it did; unfortunately the gov't didn't have the juevos to finish it. same with lebanon 06.
but it can't afford to do that now with iran, or hezbollah in the north.
america saved the world from saddam hussein and a potentially jihadi iraq.
anyway, i appreciate your in-depth analysis. here is my favorite quote:

"what, is your soul dead, that these things are not fresh to you every day? were these defiled bodies not your compatriots, your family, your fellow citizens? have you no sense of link to them, at all, sufficient to lend you understanding?

have you no feeling, no emotion? no humanity?"

but i liked the reagan lobbing nukes into the kremlin's window also.

i hope and pray that america, israel and the west will find vocal, eloquent leaders en masse who are willing to stand up and holler about this and silence those cowardly idiots who support our destruction.

ozero can't remain president and the jihad can't stand if enough good people stand up and say "no more!!!".

the key element here is prayer. king david provides answers as always, for he was set upon by many crazies, kings and family members.

"those who pass thru the valley of thorns, they transform it into a wellspring" (psalms 84)

how is this done? if we look at king david it is done by cultivating, practicing strong faith in the Master of the Universe.

i was told several years ago, after 9/11 by a very wise rabbi who said that what's going on is a war about G-d. the jihadis wish to impose their warped view on the rest of us. so, the rest of us, armed with Truth. and i mean Truth with a capital "T" that rhymes with "P" and that stands for "peace, prayer and persistence".

and that capital "T" also stands for "Torah". i know the lefties and libbies hate that. they just hate it. so do the jihadis.

well. sorry folks. you either see it now, or see it later. but you're gonna see it. guaranteed by the wisest of the wise over the millenia.

isaiah wasn't kidding when he said that the world will be filled with the knowledge of G-d like waters fill the seas.

our only question is how we travel to that point, which could come at any moment.


Hi Interesting article.

The General western literature of "primitives" is not very real . It just finds an easy way to distinguish. I think this article errs in that unimportant aspect .

Consider Primitive Rome - Before it was christianized - It respected freedom of speech - even by strangers who thought they had a new prophet in Jesus, who has been killed in a foreign land, simultaneously they would have claimed Roman gods were false etc - This would have been revolutionary in ancient Rome, but they allowed the free speech.

Islam as Modern Islam claims it is not based on birth. It is universal and so on...That way it should have better claims to modernity than ancient Rome. Many european and conservative scholars looked to Islam this modern way.

You wrote: ...the continued vitality and function of the modern democratic nation state, founded, as it is, upon free market economies and free speech to distinguish it from tribal forms where birth and complex legal systems mattered. Through the above two example, I have shown that Rome would be more primitive but it had free speech, and hardly any one would claim that they had restrictive business. Islam is not based on birth, Islamic brotherhood spans nations, however in 21st century you can't critique their faith as you could do to Romans in primitive era.

My point is there is a general weakness in understanding of the "primitive" lifestyle in the west. I am proud of modernity, but one doesn't have to say that this "porkulus" is the "real progress", there was progress yesterday as well as mistakes, so also day before that.

I do share the concerns of free speech, and free market. Actually that interest landed me this post. But setting it in terms of birth and primitive is way off in my opinion - as I argued with examples of Islam and Rome. My post is about an unimportant aspect of your thesis. Your thesis has right emphasis, right concerns and great analytic.


No. I would think Jay meant what he said..."over my dead body." That is the whole point of what he wrote. The West has lost its will to fight...to the death... Our adversary has not. His is the will to fight to that point. Many of us do not have the same will and therefore cannot understand his point.


Thanks gfmucci for your comment. I commented in previous post on Gandhi in this blog. Gandhi would have said the exact same thing :- "over my dead body." .


John, not to self-promote, but one of my first blog posts in 2006 analyzed this same challenge--you might find it interesting?


Also, who is this "Phil" of whom you speak? ;- )


inspired essay.

the left needs to see it and be willing to read it.

what part of this will they not understand?


Really, seriously, use standard capitalisation. The text is practically unreadble otherwise.


I wonder how much it would cost to obtain a surplus Soviet nuclear submarine and two submarine-launched nukes, and then use the sub to launch the nukes against Mecca and Medina. Killing Islam may well be within the reach of private hands with money. There's also the possibility that going after the Left first could yield a quick kill, and then we could concentrate ALL our attention on Islam after that.


The Left has historically always had a "satellite" goon squad with which to indirectly threaten the free countries and their populations. Until 1991, it was the USSR: "We better be nice to Red radicals all over the world, or else it will provoke the Kremlin to blow up the world." I recall that this argument was quite stunningly effective on college campuses, esp considering its intellectual ludicrousness.

Yes, the mighty Bolsheviks keeled over, and now the Left is using the Islamists as their satellite allies. But as I have noted elsewhere, Islam is much more problematic than communism because it explicitly lays out a model of society BASED ON THE PAST. And that model is such a noxious brew of misogyny, homophobia, sexual repression, apartheid, and book-burning [tell me I am wrong on even one], that not even the most glassy-eyed leftist can admit it as a viable model for any PROGRESSIVE.

There was always "cognitive dissonance" between the Left and the Red Empire, but they always had some lame excuse for their atrocities, remember?:
1--"The capitalists tried to strangle the revolution in the cradle."
2--"They had to rebuild from the civil war."
3--"They had to steel themselves against fascism."
4--"They had to win the war."
5--"They had to ensure against another Western attack."
6--"They had to guard against a Western NUCLEAR attack."
7--"They feel they are surrounded."
8--"They feel threatened by China."
9--"The feel threatened by Carter's human rights talk."
10-"They feel threatened by Reagan's violent bluster."
11--"They feel threatened because the Empire is falling apart..."t

RIGHT UP UNTIL THE END!! But they always pretended that, once he latest crisis was over, that NOW the Asiatic Bolsheviks wd calm down and reform their society into a benign one.

With Islam they have no such pretense. And modern Net communications means that free people can see first-hand what these bug-eyed savages have in store for us.

Either we are all Spartacus, or we are all Daniel Pearl. Coward or not, that is a VERY easy choice.



The problem is, why are men of the West so docile? This is particularly so in the case of Britain. This is a martial and militaristic island par excellence that made even the Japanese appear pacifist. What ever happened? It cannot be because women are in the majority. Women have been the majority for a long while, but that didn’t make men any the less assertive and robust. The normal response of men when their community or nation is attacked is to counter attack. What did we do after London 7/7? Nothing. Instead we sat back and congratulated ourselves that no Muslim in Britain was attacked, and we are “oh so civilised”. The same happened in Bombay after the train bombs. Indians did nothing, and the liberal Times of India and other papers were sanctimoniously congratulating themselves as to how civilised Indians are. There should have been some response, which of course could have been dealt by the police in the usual way. However, the message would have gone out to the authorities, as well as to Muslims - “Watch it, don’t push us”. Instead, the message that has gone out to the authorities is – “Ignore British men but be careful not to antagonise Muslims”. That is one of the fallouts, and is clearly evident in the Geert Wilders affair. Lord Ahmed claims he did not threaten parliament with 10,000 Muslim (violent) demonstrators – he does not need to, as the message has already been understood and digested by the authorities and Muslims, and Ahmed simply displays that.

Men, particularly Western men, are not behaving as men should.


As I noted in the previous post, Lord Ahmed claims he did not threaten parliament with 10,000 Muslim (violent) demonstrators – he does not need to, as the message has already been understood and digested by the authorities and Muslims, and Ahmed simply displays that.

The authorities are well aware that anything that upsets the Muslim community, a minimum of 10,000 Muslim fanatics brandishing placards – “Britain beware, 9/11 is on your way” etc, can be easily mobilised. So there is no need now for any Muslim leader to issue threats. The government has understood the message without it being mentioned.

There is another aspect to this immediate mobilisation of young Muslim men at the drop of a hat, which affects us all. Fjordman writes, that in Europe, any altercation on the street involving Muslims and other people, or the police, leads to hundreds of Muslims gathering at the spot in a matter of minutes. This can only happen if the there is a communication, command/control and conveyance system to facilitate such a rapid response.

1. Communication - the mobile phone does that

2. Command centre - the mosque or its affiliates

3. Conveyance - in most European cities the taxi service is operated by Muslims. This provides a quick and reliable service to take Muslim units to the confrontation zone.

4. Combat ready young men.

The result of this integrated system is that in any confrontation, Muslims, though a minority, are able to have local superiority in numbers at the confrontation zone. This system allowed them to gain superiority even over the London MET, as apparent in the recent Gaza demonstrations.

What Muslims have done is something quite unique for a group of people who have come as immigrants. They have set-up Rapid Response units in all the major cities of Europe. From these locations they can mount effective responses in smaller towns, even when they do not have any presence there.

In your article JJ you mentioned arming yourself. I suppose you also mean that all patriots should do so. But even then, all we will have is a group of people who are armed but disorganised. Unless we have an informal militia like Muslims do, organised around a religious centre, and thus hiding under a garb of sanctimony, we will fail. Muslims, as one notes, are not just organised politically but also militarily with Rapid Response units, and yet not seen as such.

More importantly how do we defend our country from being colonised, and packing the colonisers off.



i thoroughly enjoyed your remarks, and your criticisms of my treatment of "primitive" histories was pretty well taken.

there is a lot of history out there, out there. laughing.

my remarks were focused on the development of free markets in the west, and democracy in western europe from the medieval & renaissance, ... , and were not intended to be as all inclusive as your focus.

but, thanks for your very kind remarks. i hope you come back, and i hope you write again.

john jay



it is a positive mystery, isn't it?

the english man was once enough man to earn the respect and service of the ghurka: anyone who thinks them purely mercenary is something of a dolt.

and, ghurka's still serve alongside elite english troops, among the best in the world.

so, why are english and euro men such passive pussies?

as i say, a constant source of wonder to me.

john jay



er yup.

john jay



re: your post from '06

hell, i probably stole it from you to do this one.

will take a gander later this evening.




your second letter re: the islamic "rapid response" units in england and europe really fascinated me.

some time ago i receieved add copy with regard to radio communications to the faithful from mosques, and the like.

i shall forward you letter to the person who sent me that info, and i shall do it immediately after posting this.

john jay



some time ago i received a copy of an advertisement for radio communications systems designed specifically for mosques.

to broadcast to the "faithful." i shall send a copy of your post regarding islamic "rapid response" teams to the person that sent me that add.

thank you for this most helpful information.

john jay



Havnt received the message so far.

I will see if I can get in touch with Fjordman, and see if he can shed any further light.

The comments to this entry are closed.