Quote of the day—Robert J. Avrech

Western civilization is at war with the IslamoNazi world.

The problem is that Barack Obama, allegedly, the leader of the free world, does not recognize this simple truth. And that’s because he is a radical leftist who is incapable of recognizing, much less confronting, true evil.

Imperial Japans was defeated by killing lots and lots of Japanese, and incinerating their cities.

Same for the Nazis.

And that’s how we are going to defeat IslamoNazism. By eradicating these human monsters and their sanctuaries. There is no talking to them. There is nothing to negotiate.

They must be hunted down and killed.

Robert J. Avrech
September 3, 2014
How to Defeat IslamoNazism in One Easy Lesson
[Negotiating with them would be like negotiating with someone who wants to murder you. There is no compromise available.

The sooner and more vigorously we get started on this unpleasant task the lower the death toll for everyone.—Joe]

16 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Robert J. Avrech

  1. friends:

    i would simply adopt ronald reagan’s approach to the soviet union, and simply let islam know that if terrorism in the name of islam does not cease, then a couple of nukes of suitable size get tossed in through the windows of the mens’ rooms at mecca & medina.

    phhhfffftt!!!

    p.s. and, then, islam vacates jerusalem. simple as that.

    john jay
    136 s.e. 8th avenue
    milton freewater, oregon usa

    • Hitting Mecca is a REALY BAD IDEA, regardless of the provocation.

      *NOTHING* else would be quite as likely to result in an almost overnight crystallization of a *unified* Muslim world, the likes of which we haven’t seen in terms of cohesion since the great jihads sweeping the Arabian Peninsula and Levant. And one which would have as it’s cohesive goal, the extermination of the West.

      Right now, they are merely disparate mobs with common religious ideology, who frequently forget to shoot at the West because they are distracted and involved in a bit of internecine killing..

      • Destroying Mecca and the black rock would prove to the muzzies that Alah is a false god and Mohammed was a false prophet.
        Matt Bracken wrote a good piece on this attack.

        • No more so than nuking Israel into glass would “prove” that Judaism (and by extension, Christianity and Islam, because *both* use Judaism and the God of Abraham as their foundations) is false and that the Judeo-Christian god is a false one.

        • Matt Bracken is a fine novelist and a decent essayist, but in this case he’s full of s***, and unfortunately too deluded to realize it.
          By way of analogy: the temple was the core of Judaism until it was destroyed by the Romans. Ever since then, Judaism has continued on a new foundation. Religions get tweaked all the time, sometimes in major ways. Christianity had that happen at about 1400 years age; perhaps Islam is due for the same about now, it’s about that old.

      • The U.S. should never have fire bombed Tokyo or Berlin then, because that definitely only created more imperialist Japs and dedicated Nazis. We should never arrest petty thieves either, because obviously that would only enrage and unite all thieves. Best we should back off and let the savages run things, because pissing them off is the worst thing ever.

        That is, unless we’re guided by principles, which always a dangerous thing, though be it far less dangerous than cowardice, fear and capitulation.

        I’d save Mecca for after we’ve porked a few million corpses though just in case they need a little more convincing that, after more than thirteen hundred years of their bullshit, we’re serious this time.

        • Big difference, Lyle.

          Neither Berlin nor Tokyo were the *foundation* of the belief systems. They were not as critical to the ideologies.

      • I don’t know. It sounds tempting, very tempting, I realize. It might crystallize them into action… but perhaps that is the clarity that the west needs to act more intelligently, or completely.
        Bear in mind that 10% of the world’s 1.8 billion muslims support strict sharia law and murdering of infidels… but that means that 90% do not.
        Nukes might prove to a huge number of them that their prophet will not protect them, and make many abandon the faith. The big question on them is, of course, then what? Do they turn to Christianity, godless communism, animism, hedonism, nihilism, or…?
        More likely, I expect a huge fracture. Radical stay radical, some “moderates” will radicalize, some moderates will quit the faith, and there will be a huge fratricidal war between factions. I also would expect a few radical to get nukes, eventually, and use them against the west.
        Whatever path it went, it’s a potential high-risk/high reward set of scenarios that occur, and a LOT of blood will flow far from Mecca. But doing nothing will guarantee that much blood will flow in any case – Islam has a long and very bloody history, roughly a quarter million slaughtered by one scholarly account that went though the numbers.
        The question is – which way has the least innocent blood in the long run?

        • The problem is that radicals WILL NOT ABANDON their radical hatred — but they WILL bury their internal conflicts under their much greater hatred of all things Western.

          Islamic moderates (whether they remain believers or become apostate as a result) simply are not a factor. Nor have they EVER been.

  2. Reagan, Thatcher & Pope John Paul II took down the Soviet Union through a combination of military, economic and philosophical attacks against their weak points.

    The Pope built upon Polish Solidarity movement with a Catholic rejuvenation in Poland, leading to complete disregard there for the Soviet/Warsaw Pact status.

    The Soviet economy could not match that of the west, in building either a 600 ship navy (plus Britain) nor in developing new offensive and defensive weapons. A bankrupt Soviet Union demonstrated Thatcher’s dictum that with socialism, eventually you run out of other people’s money.

    I note the Chinese learned that last lesson PDQ, and dropped their command economy, with its history of Great Leaps Forward and famine, to adopt a merely kleptocratic government overseeing a relatively free market (except for the corruption inherent in the nepotistic government). That model might well last longer than Soviet communism, unless the people realize the government has no reason to rule over them so autocratically.

    As to the Islamists, how do we attack them economically, militarily and philosophically? A version of the approach used by Wilberforce and Napier against Indian suttee might work, after revenues from oil are stopped for the Islamists and they are under western military rule. A gallows next to every funeral pyre stopped the burning of widows in India. A firing squad with pigs eating the remains awaiting every fatwa-producing imam could do the same with Islamist jihadi preachers and their followers.

    Ugly? Yes! But less so than the scorched earth policy that we narrowly avoided using during the 4th quarter of 2001.

      • The problem with the genocidal “Nits make lice” argument is that you have to get them ALL, and everyone who loves them, and everyone who believes the same way.

        So, Dearborn, Michigan — you planning on nuking it to, or just building industrial scale gas chambers? How about the Philipines, Malaysia, large swaths of mainland Asia, the Turks, etc? Old World Europe will also have to be “cleansed”. Pretty much ALL of coastal Africa. . .

        Now, South America, Central America, and Australia are relativiely easy, so are New Zealand, Japan, Indochina, and Korea, and the Polynesian Islands. Not a significant concentration of Muslims there, so firing parties will suffice.

        Think I’m being hyperbolic? Nope — THAT is the policy you are advocating, once you examine the full implications. If you’re going to go all, “Kill ’em all, God will know his own!”, you have to, LITERALLY, kill them all.

  3. Progressives don’t see things in terms of good and evil so much as enemies and allies. I don’t believe Obama is incapable of seeing evil. He just thinks it’s kind of cool, looks up to it, and is finding ways to partnership with it. Never forget that Progressives, communists, Fascists, Democrats and Republicans all share something on common with the jihadists. They all hate and/or are directly threatened by the American a Principles of Liberty. They are all natural allies. That’s why, for example, that the DHS is more concerned with the likes of YOU than with jihadists.

    To the extent that the Obama admin is worried about the extreme, overt violence committed by ISIS et al, it is the same concern that the Progressive expresses toward the communist; “Don’t get so carried away. Don’t blow it for us. Take your time. Be a little more patient. We can do this if you just back off a little.”

    Their end goals are more alike than different, they definitely share a common enemy, but their tactics and some of their rationalizations are different. That can result in bitter disagreements, but those disagreements involve tactics and “optics” more than anything else.

Comments are closed.