Predicting the behavior of the Lone Wolf
The always-admirable Richard Fernandez has written this about the Lone Wolf terrorist:
It is a mistake to dismiss the Lone Wolves as “cowardly and depraved”. On the contrary, their tactics require a willingness to die and the intelligent use of abundant dual-use materials that is rarely if ever equaled by the political leadership of the West…
…attack [Lone Wolves] do, surprisingly yet unsurprisingly. It is Western leadership that is more deserving of criticism for turning in such a poor defensive performance despite their vast resource superiority. Obsessed with looking good, timid to the point of inactivity, determined at all costs to proclaim their own virtue, the Western elites have proved singularly incapable of combating their vastly weaker foes. The ritualistic candle-lighting, trite speeches, frightened processions and self-congratulation of the political class are completely ineffective against the laser-like menace of their foes. They haven’t noticed but the voting audience is starting to.
I agree with all of that. But in addition I would add that the West has a huge problem that’s inherent in our entire system of law and punishment. Western law is designed to balance the rights of the community—including its right to protect itself—with the rights of the individual, and we have made a conscious effort that if we must err (and being humans, we are going to err) we’d rather it be on the side of protecting the individual against government tyranny.
The prospect of predicting who will be a Lone Wolf terrorist and stopping that person in time is one that falls into that dilemma. Many Lone Wolves are citizens, born in the West, and even those who are not have certain rights if they are legal immigrants (fewer if they are illegal immigrants, but we have seen that most of these people don’t fall into that category).
Another dilemma the West faces has to do with at what point we decide an act is criminal. Ordinarily, we don’t prosecute thought-crime, and if we were to decide to do so we would have fallen pretty far down the slippery slope. Until they commit a crime, what have Lone Wolves done? Expressed a jihadi thought on Facebook, perhaps? Is that—or should that be—a crime? That’s why some jihadis are caught by using agents posing as jihadis, to be witness to the plotting of the actual crime. But Lone Wolves ordinarily have no confederates and need no confederates, so agents are less likely to be able to trap them.
And then there’s the problem of numbers. At this point, there are so many possible Lone Wolves in each Western country that monitoring them would almost certainly overwhelm the systems. How to distinguish the serious ones from the mere talkers is the question. Recent travel to a country such as Syria would be a huge clue. But you can’t lock someone up for that, you can only monitor that person more closely.
In the case of a Lone Wolf, even monitoring their communications after getting permission to do so from the proper authorities would not necessarily reveal the plotting of a crime, because Lone Wolves don’t have to coordinate with accomplices. Steal a truck, drive down a street and veer off into pedestrians, and you’ve done the deed. It’s a rather brilliant parsimony of terrorist creativity, simple and effective and capable of being executed by almost anyone should they care to do so.
Of course, one might say that so many immigrants from countries known for jihadi terrorist behavior shouldn’t have been let into the West in the first place. That is where the governments of Europe have been very slow on the uptake. But those decisions are inherently difficult, too; who is okay and who is not, and from where (as Trump found out recently with his EO and its courtroom fate so far). And many of the people involved (the parents or grandparents of today’s Lone Wolves, for example) emigrated to the West long ago. Their children and/or grandchildren are native-born citizens, or at least legal residents (European countries differ on that score).
The cat is out of the bag. Pandora’s box has been opened. The horse has left the barn. The die has been cast. Take whatever expression you want, the point is that solutions are far from easy and some of the more effective-seeming ones would compromise our entire legal system and our liberties. And even then there would be no guarantee that Lone Wolves would be caught in time.
Lone wolves are radicalized by someone/something. Most of the time it is ISIS/al Qaeda internet videos. Often it is an imam preaching Wahhabi/Salafi doctrine in a mosque.
What is common to this scenario is the Wahhabi/Salafi doctrine. It has to be challenged. It has to be discredited by moderate Muslim imams and leaders.
As Egyptian President el-Sisi said, “It’s inconceivable that the thinking that we hold most sacred should cause the entire Islamic world to be a source of anxiety, danger, killing and destruction for the rest of the world. Impossible that this thinking — and I am not saying the religion — I am saying this thinking.
This is antagonizing the entire world. It’s antagonizing the entire world! Does this mean that 1.6 billion people (Muslims) should want to kill the rest of the world’s inhabitants — that is 7 billion — so that they themselves may live? Impossible!​”
And that is where you begin to solve the problem of lone wolves and of all radical Islamic terrorism.
It would not compromise Western legal system to designate Islam a vile ideology which in itself is dangerous and should be banned. In Germany, for example, Nazi ideology is banned as such. Islam is not less dangerous. Slovakia recently made such move to ban all Islamic organizations and entrance of Muslims to the country. In the West, at some point mass eviction of Muslims would be eventually realized. If liberals would not do this, the population will bring so-called “fascists” to the power to make the move. It still will be lesser evil than thousand years of Dark Ages.
Sergey:
In the US we do not ban ideologies. To do so would indeed change our system, which does not ban any particular line of thought, only actions.
In USA – yes. But in Europe there are precedents I cited. The point is Europe is heading now to the victory of nationalistic right populists, and every act of Islamic terror gives them additional public support. The only possible destination of this development is re-introduction of Inquisition at any other name, with the same eventual outcome.
“solutions are far from easy and some of the more effective-seeming ones would compromise our entire legal system and our liberties.” – Neo
Many on the “right” come up with simple sounding “solutions”, which, of course, are as “simple” and are as much a real “solution” to the problem as the left’s suggestion that we just need to “ban guns” to solve crime / murders / crazed lone wolves.
The line of thinking seems to go hand in hand with some of the responses to this post…
http://neoneocon.com/2017/04/07/i-have-a-question-for-people-who-hate-the-gope/
It is not answers we lack but the needed consensus to create the will to implement the answers. Brutal reality will in time create the needed consensus. The real question is how many innocents must be slain before objections are swept aside.
“It has to be discredited by moderate Muslim imams and leaders. J.J.
Upon what basis would they accomplish that task? The entire Islamic cannon supports the ‘radicals’ and the Qur’an, upon which Islam rests, declares itself to be Allah’s direct words, in which he repeatedly commands ALL Muslims to conduct themselves exactly as do the ‘radicals’.
“Impossible that this thinking – and I am not saying the religion – I am saying this thinking.” Egyptian President el-Sisi
The ‘thinking’ to which el-Sisi objects IS the religion, as it is embedded irrevocably within Islam’s most basic tenets and, el-Sisi knows it. At best, he can’t face it.
“In the US we do not ban ideologies.”
Didn’t we essentially do so with the Nazis? In any case, allowing millions of adherents to an ideology not only antithetical to liberty but committed to its erasure… is an untenable situation. One way or the other it will resolve itself. Perhaps the coming slaughter in Europe will prove enlightening.
Sergey:
Even in Europe there is no way that Islam itself would be banned. Islam is a religion, and the majority of its adherents in Europe (and even elsewhere; see this poll under “majorities say suicide bombing not justified”) are not terrorists or even supporters of terrorism. It’s a minority that supports terrorism, although a sizeable minority that can do a great deal of destruction.
“What is common to this scenario is the Wahhabi/Salafi doctrine. It has to be challenged. It has to be discredited by moderate Muslim imams and leaders.” – JJ
Partly agree.
Consider, how is it that people turned into nazis? into communist revolutionaries? into kkk, if we want something closer to home?
Fact is, there are always some “leaders” who look to exploit people’s own ignorance, biases, grievances, delusions for the leader’s own benefit (usually power).
The text can be anything that they use to justify their ideas. (Didn’t kkk use the bible?).
The religious aspect is just the vehicle they are using to exploit.
Putting all the blame and focus there will not itself resolve the political issue at play (though it does no more good to deny it is there either, as the dems do).
Geoffrey Britain:
No, we did not ban Nazism as a belief. See this. And it was during a time of war.
How do you ban a belief?
History has shown that when a very existence of a civilization is under threat, it produces solutions extreme enough to save itself. They can be rather toxic. The answer to Bolshevik threat was the Third Reich. History can repeat itself to some extent this time.
‘How do you ban a belief?’ By eviction or extermination of such believers. Communists, Nazi and Spanish Inquisition knew how to do such things. May be, not so drastic and more human measures would be sufficient, too. What is lacking now is political will and society consensus on reality of the threat. But this can change, and will. The present situation quickly becomes intolerable.
But that never works and even if it once did with modern technology it is now virtually impossible. The world is much more interconnected than even the beginning of the Nazi movement in the 1920s. Plus who gets to decide who the believers are? Count me out of living in that society.
Islam is incompatible with Western values. I readily acknowledge that the majority of muslims have no desire to murder me and mine. But if 25% of muslims are willing to die to establish a global caliphate, our grandchildren will be struggling to put the lid back on Pandora’s box. Its bin Laden’s strong horse, weak horse gauntlet.
In the end there will be a war against islam on a large scale and hundreds of millions will die, perhaps billions. I have a quick solution that I have mentioned before…. starvation. Islamic nations can not feed themselves, not a single one. Do it for our grandchildren. Siege is an ancient weapon. It can be done if there exists the will. The West lacks the will.
Islam is incompatible with Western values. I readily acknowledge that the majority of muslims have no desire to murder me and mine. But if 25% of muslims are willing to die to establish a global caliphate, our grandchildren will be struggling to put the lid back on Pandora’s box. Its bin Laden’s strong horse, weak horse gauntlet.
In the end there will be a war against islam on a large scale and hundreds of millions will die, perhaps billions. I have a quick solution that I have mentioned before…. starvation. Islamic nations can not feed themselves, not a single one. Do it for our grandchildren. Siege is an ancient weapon. It can be done if there exists the will. The West lacks the will.
Monitoring is largely an exercise in the political class’s need to be seen to be doing…something.
But it is largely futile, comes at enormous and continuing costs, enlarges the Administrative State, and provides no tangible benefit to any law-abiding citizen, who may be killed or maimed entirely at random by a jihadi.
Accordingly, a new balance needs to be struck between the State and its citizens. Fretting about protecting the individual against possible government tyranny is ludicrous, when we have so much tyranny already imposed upon us by arbitrary regulators and their regulations ( I have just signed my 1040, in compliance with the IRS’ myriad regs).
The new balance must resemble Justice Holmes’s dictum that an individual has no right to yell “Fire” in a crowded theater.
Expressing jihadi thoughts and desires should be a crime, as is advocating the violent overthrow of the American government. Both are expressions which may lead to harmful actions by those who have heard the malicious words, if not by the speaker himself.
Online child pornography is against the law also, for the same reason- a potential inducement to criminality.
So you civil libertarians please reconsider the folly of your thinking.
Oops.. doubt post, old fingers.
Neo, see this from your Wiki link in your response to GB:
“U.S. Congressman Martin Dies (D-Texas) and his House Committee on Un-American Activities were active in denying any Nazi-sympathetic organization the ability to operate freely during World War II.”
I believe you overstated your case.
neo,
Even IF Islam is a religion, (a position with which I disagree) its totalitarian nature cannot be honestly denied. We are at war, in that we are being made war upon. Evidently you are not yet prepared to admit it. It is not banning the belief which we advocate but its practice. Any American is free to believe in Nazism but no one is free to practice its tenets.
“Plus who gets to decide who the believers are? Count me out of living in that society.” Griffin
That’s a valid concern. Islam is placing you in the position of having to chose between two unpalatable positions. You don’t get to opt out of that choice because Islam will not allow it.
“I readily acknowledge that the majority of muslims have no desire to murder me and mine.” parker
84% of Egyptians support the death penalty for apostasy. 100% of Islamic mosques contain the same copy of the Qur’an. I agree that the majority are not murderous but that majority does support a world in which there is no liberty. As liberty cannot exist where it is forbidden upon pain of death to abandon a belief system.
GB,
Don’t look at me… I am the guy who wants to starve them into submission. 😉
Big Maq–‘Many on the “right” come up with simple sounding “solutions”, which, of course, are as “simple” and are as much a real “solution” to the problem as the left’s suggestion that we just need to “ban guns” to solve crime / murders / crazed lone wolves.
The line of thinking seems to go hand in hand with some of the responses to this post…
http://neoneocon.com/2017/04/07/i-have-a-question-for-people-who-hate-the-gope/‘
I do not see the correlation you are trying to make, so perhaps you find me obtuse. You may not mean to, but so many of your comments criticize “the right”, as though you are so superior. Reminds me of the circular firing squad for which conservatives are known. It doesn’t exist among progressives or leftists. We all know there are some jerks among us–not here at Neo’s place, but in the conservative sphere (“many”, according to you). I don’t see how focusing on them, thereby joining ranks with our political adversaries is helpful. The leftists by-and-large have the megaphone across the board. Why join in the broadcast instead of focusing on a reasoned positive point of view? And again I don’t equate anything I read in those comments you cited as being indicative of “the jerks”.
G.B., you are supposing that all Muslims:
1. Know the Quran well.
2. Accept without reservation all it contains.
3. Hate all infidels passionately and continuously.
4. Are willing to live up to ALL the precepts of the Quran.
Only a small number (10 – 20%) even come close to that description. The majority don’t know the Quran well except what their imams tell them, don’t accept all they are told, cannot hate infidels passionately and continuously (it is very hard to hold onto that kind of thing), and most, like the members of any religion, do not closely practice all the tenets of Islam.
There are three major things about the Wahhabi/Salafi doctrine that make it a threat to the world.
1. The idea of a worldwide theocracy governed by sharia law.
2. Intolerance of all infidels at all times and places.
3. Forced conversion or subjugation with taxes.
Moderate Muslims could practice their religion by basing it on the four pillars:
1. Acceptance of Allah as the one God.
2. Daily prayer.
3. Fasting at certain times of the year.
4. Giving charity (alms) to the poor.
Such religious practices threaten no one and make no attempt to merge mosque and state.
Moderate Muslims could and should reject the idea of a worldwide theocracy, intolerance of infidels, and forced conversion. Any Muslims who won’t reject those doctrines should not be allowed to immigrate to the West. Such rejection could be made a requirement for legal immigration and breaking the commitment could be grounds for deportation.
It beats trying to kill or subjugate 1.5 billion people.
JJ–“Moderate Muslims could and should reject the idea of a worldwide theocracy, intolerance of infidels, and forced conversion. Any Muslims who won’t reject those doctrines should not be allowed to immigrate to the West.”
What moderate Muslim would not easily agree to this, and thereby emigrate? What radicalized Muslim would not lie and thereby emigrate? The problem manifests when you have those among you that have lied, create the troubles and then what? Two young men shut down the city of Boston! TWO!! In Afghanistan there are moderate Muslims who would hide their radios in the walls, etc etc in order to be in compliance with the Sharia-invoking rulers. If we were to ever come to that point, what happens when you are allowed to do x,y and z, provided you are a Muslim, but if you are a Christian? Well-just look at the Copts. Sounds far out there, doesn’t it? But the present terrain of Muslim expansion happened in under 100 years and only Spain and Portugal re-converted to Christianity.
I’ll say it again how exactly are you going to ban a belief? Even if it were possible to ban organizations and groups that may be corrosive that won’t stop some guy from becoming radicalized over the internet. Are we then going to start blocking loads of websites too.
They are called ‘Lone Wolves’ for a reason and you can’t ban every nutjob out there.
If history instructs how to get rid of a religion. Or humanize one.
What does that tell you?
That’s it though. If you can just get them to adopt “live and let live” that’s a giant improvement.
J.J.,
1) It is the Muslim majority’s acceptance that their Imams and Mullahs know the Koran where my assumption lies and they do know their Koran. In fact, it is for most Imams and Mullahs, the only thing they know.
2) All Muslims accept to some degree that the Koran are Allah’s direct words, since that is the very theological basis for their faith.
3) I do not believe that the majority of Muslims hate all infidels. I do observe that an increasing percentage of the majority will condone and support the strict following of Islam’s edicts as a society’s percentage of Muslims rises.
4) That majority doesn’t have to follow all of Islam’s precepts, just support enough implementation to enact Muslim majority rule.
“Only a small number (10 — 20%) even come close to that description.”
84% of Egytians support the death penalty for apostasy…
“most, like the members of any religion, do not closely practice all the tenets of Islam.”
That’s probably true. How is that relevant to the fact that not one Muslim majority society tolerates the free practice of other religions?
“There are three major things about the Wahhabi/Salafi doctrine that make it a threat to the world.
1. The idea of a worldwide theocracy governed by sharia law.
2. Intolerance of all infidels at all times and places.
3. Forced conversion or subjugation with taxes.”
1) Allah in the Qur’an has declared that to be a theological imperative upon every Muslim. It is NOT a Wahhabi ‘doctrine’ separate from the Qur’an.
2) Total intolerance isn’t needed to conquer a society, just enough intolerance, which is done incrementally.
3) That is NOT just a Wahhabi doctrinal interpretation of Islam. Muhammad, the perfect man has declared that to be the deserved fate of every infidel with it incumbent of every Muslim to bring about that eventuality.
“Moderate Muslims could practice their religion by basing it on the four pillars”
They already do but there is no theological basis for them to declare it to be all that a Muslim need do to be right with Allah. As both Allah and Muhammad have declared the other violent pillars to be obligatory for the Muslim.
Many moderate Muslims do privately reject the idea of a worldwide theocracy, intolerance of infidels, and forced conversion. They just do it quietly both because its not healthy to publicly so declare and because they realize that they have no theological support for their rejection.
Given the Shia doctrine of “Taqiyya” and the Sunni doctrine of “Muruna”, individual assurances of having rejected the doctrines you reject cannot be relied upon. In addition, lone wolves are often the children and grandchildren of the moderate Muslims who fled the stricter Muslim majority societies.
No nuanced implementation can change the fact that Islam and liberty are fundamentally antithetical. Nor that Islam itself is a totalitarian ideology. You can’t make a boot stomping on a human face… forever… kinder.
But it is my firm contention that the West does not have to make war upon 1.5 billion human beings. All we have to do is make the consequence for all forms of jihad… unacceptable. You do that by making the consequence unacceptable for the source. Of course, we currently lack the consensual will to do so but that too will change.
Griffin,
Are you not essentially advocating Obama’s and London’s new Muslim mayor’s position? That we’re just going to have to learn to live with terrorist attacks?
Islam translates as submission, submission to the notion that there is one god, allah, and the word as revealed by muhammad must be obeyed. Islam is historically a system of conquest that is religious but more importantly political which seeks to rule every aspect of human behavior. It is still stuck in many ways to the brutality of its 7th century roots.
Yes, many muslims want to observe islam on the surface and get on with their lives, but those muslims for the most part are deeply afraid of the true believers that are ever ready to slay those ‘moderates’. There is only one way forward, islam must submit, unconditionally, to the West. Either islam surrenders and joins the modern world or we surrender to islam. Unfortunately there is no middle ground until islam unconditionally surrenders.
parker,
It is a death sentance for Islam to surrender and join the modern world for to do so, Islam must reject Muhammad’s most basic claim: that Allah is the Koran’s author. It must do so because joining the modern world is for Islam, an implicit admission tha Allah is NOT the Koran’s author. Since fallible mankind (the modern world) cannot ‘correct’ infallible and eternal Allah.
Geoffrey,
No, just that there is some kind of way to eliminate all the thinking that leads to terror. Even if we were to stop all immigration from Muslim countries and make aggressive moves to fight the radical elements here already there would still be some number of disaffected people already here that will be lured into believing what will still be readily available online and elsewhere. The Thought Police is a pretty scary proposition in itself.
I just resist the absolutism that there is some magical if-this-then-that answer to these problems.
Geoffrey Britain:
See this.
“It is a death sentance for Islam to surrender…”
Many millions of fanatical Japanese were willing to obey the emperor until death until the emperor realized the utter destruction of the emperor and Nippon was on the line. I think starvation via blockade would change a lot of minds within 6 months. Be the stronge horse.
Frog:
Note that I said you can’t outlaw a belief. But you certainly can outlaw an organization that supports the enemy in a time of war.
In order to make an analogy with Islam today, we would have to be at war with Islam. We aren’t. So Muslims are not in league with the enemy, and membership in a mosque is not outlawed. Nor in fact are most US Muslims supporters of or in league with Islamic terrorists. So there is no way to outlaw the belief known as Islam, and no reason to do so.
However, we do arrest people known to be affiliated with terrorist organizations. That would be at least somewhat equivalent to outlawing the Bund during WWII (note that the Bund was not outlawed before the war, even as war was heating up).
I hope that makes the distinction more clear. I was trying to say that even during WWII you couldn’t be arrested for merely believing in Nazism.
Western law and logic can’t deal with jihad.
Period.
That’s why the only nations to terminate jihad did so by ejecting all Muslims.
Hungary, Spain, Greece, et. al.
Jihad is compulsory for Muslims. Period.
And it’s orchestrated from the pulpit, too.
These days that can mean the Web-pulpit, also.
“No, just that there is some kind of way to eliminate all the thinking that leads to terror. The Thought Police is a pretty scary proposition in itself.” Griffin
Certainly the thought police is not the answer, that’s a case of the cure being another form of the disease.
If Muslims are quarantined with consequences that both Islam and jihadists find unacceptable, then time will eliminate the popularity of the thinking that leads to terrorism. Terrorism is the tactics of the weak and a reaction to outraged helplessness. It is my contention that the prevalence of Islamic terrorism is indeed a reaction to the inadvertent cultural intrusion of the modern world. An intrusion that 7th century Islam correctly views as a mortal threat. For them it is literally a fight to the death, so they will not willingly change their thinking.
neo,
“But their (and our) problem is that, although these moderate Muslims consider themselves to be Muslims, …”
Both the Koran and Muhammad’s words declare that Islam does not consider them to be Muslims and emphatically declares that to be the case. That not only serves as justification for the fundamentalist but leaves the moderates with no theological ground upon which to stand.
“There is no official moderate Muslim wing…” [because] “there is no moderate Islam.”
There is only Islam and it is fundamental to its very base.
parker,
I can’t imagine that starvation would ever be acceptable to the West but a consequence equally fierce would change minds. Islam and its Imams and Mullahs must be held accountable and consequence imposed. Nor do I believe them to be as physically brave as they pretend. I do not believe that once convinced that the consequences are real and implacable, that Islam will risk Mecca.
I also believe that jihadist recruitment would plummet once jihadists realized that capture ensured that paradise will be barred to them by their execution being conducted by their own beliefs in an ‘unclean’ manner. No permanent jail, no return for ‘reeducation’. No paradise, no 72 virgins and an early end to life will greatly lessen the incentive.
Liberals will fiercely oppose these solutions until they feel personally threatened enough and then just like France’s LGBT community, they will gain a new perspective on Islam.
G.B. and parker, both of your ideas are probably more realistic than mine. My desire to challenge the ideas of radical Islamic theocracy is very hard to do. For many reasons. Freedom of religion being a big one. (I’m pretty confident that the framers did not expect that Islam would ever become a problem.) Another problem is the multi-culti left, who believe Western Civilization to be evil.
Maybe the pig-fat-soaked bullet is the answer. Or economic blockade. Or both. Or, or, or? It’s frustrating to the max that we Americans cannot devise a strategy or a willingness to defend ourselves against a bunch of rageaholics who have decided they want to kill us.
The situation today is much different than it was after 9/11. At that time we were fearful of interrupting oil supplies from the ME. Fracking has changed that. I read that Saudi Arabia is slowly going broke. Iran probably is too. Keep oil prices low, restrict immigration from the Muslim countries, and wait them out. Low oil prices and economic ineptness (called Communism) brought the USSR down. The USSR was economically isolated from the free world. We also challenged the doctrine of “godless Communism.” Yet, it still took a long time. Sebastian Gorka (presently an adviser to Trump) wrote a book, “Defeating Jihad: The Winnable War,” about doing just that. So, maybe that’s what Trump will do.
In the meantime we can continue to live like a bunch of sheep being groped by the TSA, giving up our freedom for a sense of security. 🙁
I see a lot of erudition here, but no accepted solutions. Are we making sausage, like a lousy bunch of state legislators? Or making a camel, the horse designed by a committee?
We cannot have our cake of individual liberty and eat it too. My point is that our liberties have already been badly and progressively eroded, a trend that will continue unabated, so we may as well surrender the liberties of some before they kill us at random.
I realize I am not the ACLU here, an organization founded on a good principle that has become vehemently anti-religious and pretty Leftist.
The good principle of individual liberty and freedom from government intrusion will work out the same in the face of Islam. It will not work out to our benefit when a bomb goes off or a truck drives over us.
The cry of “Allahu akhbar” should chill us all to the marrow.
“You may not mean to, but so many of your comments criticize “the right”, as though you are so superior. Reminds me of the circular firing squad for which conservatives are known. It doesn’t exist among progressives or leftists.” – Sharon
So, why “criticize the right”, after all the left is THE enemy, right?
Because… not sure we are helping ourselves in these comments sections by otherwise almost SOLELY focusing on the left.
What is very apparent, and very easy, is that we can ALL here nod our heads about how bad the left is.
If that is all we want and do, and avoid any concerns or issues on the “conservative” side, are we saying all we want is our own “bubble”?
There ARE several other blogs that offer that.
.
More importantly, it may not have been all that apparent before, but 2015-16 has been eye opening wrt the actual dangers from many who claim to be “conservative”.
There is an active movement now to redefine the GOP and “conservatism” itself.
There are several in “conservative” media, who espoused a set of ideas for some time, that have recently changed their tunes. Many ideas / issues / actions, that would previously elicit yells of “RINO!!!”, are now acceptable, to these same people.
Intentional or not (they may cynically only be responding to the “market”), they are complicit in that movement.
Plenty here seem to repeat what they heard or read from these talking heads, and this is my chance to respond.
.
To me the Gramscian-March is the G-March is the G-March, no matter it’s source.
Big government is the core issue of our day. The more we advocate policies, or support elected officials, who want to continue or expand big government, we are enabling that G-March we say we fear, as we are growing that centralization of power, giving our enemies more yet to abuse.
And, as Scalia said, “It’s the structure, stupid”. The more we push for weakening the structures of our government to make it easier to make changes, the easier it will be for those who later want to abuse that power to change it in their favor.
.
There are too many here who might say they are “conservative”, or seem to align themselves with the “right”, yet advocate things that are hardly agreeable.
They will nod their heads about how bad the left are. They will express grave concern about the G-March. They will talk reverently about “liberty” and maybe even the “Constitution”.
Yet, what they advocate and find acceptable is hardly consistent with their fears and so-expressed goals.
.
Sometimes they will be pointing to some writer elsewhere as an example of a thought leader, or their particular blog post as representative of the ideas the commenter here holds. Yet, they seem to have incompletely read the example post, or the seem unaware of that author’s more complete view, which is hardly conservative.
Sometimes they seem to have given up on the idea that persuasion is needed to get things done in a democracy. They label large groups of people as entirely unpersuadeable or, worse, unredeemable. If no persuasion, then is it fundamentally a democracy they want?
Still others here have given up hope, at least as expressed in the internet world, and would be happy to see it all burn down.
And then there are those who will quite seriously openly advocate lining up the left and shooting them (or more passively seeking the same results).
.
Whatever it may be, there is plenty here to comment on, from a conservative perspective, and shouldn’t just pass by with a nod in agreement about how bad the left is, lest the wrong ideas seem to be supported implicitly by our silence.
This is one of the few places on the net that has / invites this kind of discussion, without getting drowned out by trolls.
J.J.
Sometimes one has to be cruel to be kind. Starve them to make them surrender. They are failed states and lack the resources to feed themselves. Teach them under the whip to realize they continue to exist under the generousity of the West (USA, France, Australia, NZ) to ship grain. Deny them grains, they begin to starve. Simple solution.
And their suffering does not move me to tears, it merely amuses me. They reap what they can not sow becase sand and lack of water. Cry me a river.
@JJ – you ask some very reasonable questions.
There are many who erudite with probably little actual knowledge nor deep experience in Islam, but are able to look up on the internet “scholarly” points that support their leanings.
“Eject them”, “Ban them”, “Bomb them” all have profound implications for what we say we value as conservatives.
We are looking for easy answers where there isn’t any, and seemingly underrate the consequences of the easy answers advocated.
.
ISIS / Daesh seems as much about Islam itself as the IRA was about Catholicism itself.
The religious aspect seems more the MacGuffin that serves as the hook for those who seek power.
.
So, what to do?
How many IRA supporting lone wolves have there been lately?
Perhaps there is a model worth looking at with how the UK handled the IRA?
Big Maq: You mentioned the KKK earlier. That is the model of how I would like to see Islam treated in America.
You can’t ban supremacist thought or speech here. But you can bring the full force of the law against its organizations and leaders whenever possible.
The KKK was largely sued into oblivion. I would like to see every mosque and Islamic organization inspected as closely as the KKK for terrorist links. Then bring the hammer down if any such links are found.
The KKK was also reduced to a malevolent joke by a national/cultural decision to revile white supremacism. It became unacceptable in normal society to defend KKK positions. There was no “Why do they hate us?” or let’s organize meet-and-greets so we can all get along with our Klan brothers and sisters. There was no talk about Klanphobia.
Islam is a flat supremacist ideology. Islam is not peripheral to the current conflict as your IRA/Catholicism analogy. (The Klan was a little more complicated. It did have a white supremacist Christian side as well as secular racists, but it also had its “Sons of Odin” pagan contingent, at least in the 1980s, though I’ve forgotten the real name of those people.)
“You can’t ban supremacist thought or speech here. But you can bring the full force of the law against its organizations and leaders” huxley
The reason why the full force of the law against Islam’s organizations and leaders cannot be brought (yet) is because of the commonality of Big Maq’s sentiment, “ISIS / Daesh seems as much about Islam itself as the IRA was about Catholicism itself.”
That level of willful denial is still widespread in the West. Too much “water under the bridge” to be ignorance, so its a matter of willful denial.
No such thing…
Extroverts trying to blame introversion which is why no predictable anything comes out from measuring their association level. Aspergers are almost always lone wolfs, and they do not have thought process disorders, like paranoids who also tend to be lone as do even normal people!!! at what point did Ted Kazinsky cross the line? after all Goddard loved to play with explosives as a child too. All this does is create a false narrative that exists no where in reality but is useful for distracting rubes from the real problem, the ideology and trotskite perpetual war, and control and so on.. .
the game is to ‘solve’ the problem by pruing the tree, throwing splinters in the air (cause you cant cut a tree withotu splinters is the same thing as making omlettes without breaking eggs)
The myth of the ‘lone wolf’ terrorist
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/mar/30/myth-lone-wolf-terrorist
if it describes everything, then it describes nothing.
like feminism, if it stands for both sides of an issue, it stands for nothing, and a politician can choose what they want, its powerlessness made powerful in pretend.
same thing here… there are also lone duos… ie. two people who are not connected directly.
However, this also belies the fact that even if they ARE connected they may be operating in ways that we cant see or find their connection.
this is not very hard to do, and the public has no mind to it. i tried to reveal it here, but alas, the light does not come on and then they complain that i said the light does not come on.
lets try again:
how does a lone wolf get orders and not be detected as connected
there are MANY ways, but one COMMON way still working are things called Numbers Stations!!! (And would you believe shortwave is still common?)
ALL a lone wolf needs is to know the station to listen to to get some message.. END of story… the connection may be long ago, or in college friend, or an aquaintance… our assumptions which are wrong usually cause we think like movies not like reality, and they do not include or conceieve of what is already known as we tend to try to imagine in place of research or knowing… belief trumps knowing as knowing is a special form of beleif.
After ignoring comments on spycraft, common actions, histories differences if you include them or ignore them, and more… now everyone is going to comment on that which they did not have interest in shortly before? how topical?
there are so many ways to conect people and leave nothing behind its absurd to think that just cuase our government cant find that link doesnt mean it doesnt exist. WE DENY TO ACKNOWLEGE ACTUAL LINKS THAT ARE ACTUALLY KNOWN ERASING THAT HISTORY THAN WE BOTHER TO ACTUALLY KNOW AND INCLUDE THEM!!! at least till they hit the news then everyone is a armchair expert about the OSS… (so how about the ford foundation and its desire under the state to merge with communist states as put forth by Reagans appointed government official for education? and yet, all the youngins are communist now and there are almost none who have western capitalist minds… maybe they were not wrong?)
Yes they do, which is why they changed sex in law to gender
and why the feminists forever change language and try to control thinking that way
verboten words, terms, and uses… expansion of definitions like rape to make the net larger
and all kinds of stuff we ignore… then we biatch about the outcomes and refuse to believe the pedigree..
The [ROMANTIC] image of the lone wolf [Like the Romantic noble savage that never existed] who splits from the pack has been a staple of popular culture since the 19th century, cropping up in stories about empire and exploration from British India to the wild west.
From 1914 onwards, the term was popularised by a bestselling series of crime novels and films centred upon a criminal-turned-good-guy nicknamed Lone Wolf.
Around that time, it also began to appear in US law enforcement circles and newspapers. [yeah, much like the writing of a person under a pen name influnced woodrow wilson to put us on a course to state slavery slowly over time]
In April 1925, the New York Times reported on a man who “assumed the title of ‘Lone Wolf’”, who terrorised women in a Boston apartment building. But it would be many decades before the term came to be associated with terrorism. [it was also a romatic term from jack londons stuff too]
In the 1960s and 1970s, waves of rightwing and leftwing terrorism struck the US and western Europe.
It was often hard to tell who was responsible: hierarchical groups, diffuse networks or individuals effectively operating alone.
Still, the majority of actors belonged to organisations modelled on existing military or revolutionary groups. Lone actors were seen as eccentric oddities, not as the primary threat. [with the ultimate lone wolf being the man who shot kennedy!!! who wasnt a very lone lone wolf]
=============================
McVeigh had told others of his plans, had an accomplice, and had been involved for many years with rightwing militia groups. McVeigh may have thought of himself as a lone wolf, but he was not one
=============================
Tom Metzger, the leader of White Aryan Resistance, a group based in Indiana. Metzger is thought to have authored, or at least published on his website, a call to arms entitled “Laws for the Lone Wolf”.
[the abuse of the Romatics to engender images in our minds that can both seem to explain something ex post facto, but is a great way to gather followers who may be open to such ideas. after all, you only have to pick up a pamplet on Steinway street on the way by to get some radical muslim doctrines from the same mahdi that had 9/11 terrorists, or you can pick up similar communist social justice stuff on the way to work on a book store table in spanish harlem!!!]
one
=============================
This means operatives went back underground… if you caught them by association, they cahnged their associations. if you found them by their computers, write on flash paper, read it, poof it goes… wait for call to action listening to a number station as they did in normandy… turn off your phone or leave it home when you run a quick errand… lifetime associations and patience makes for great cover… most people cant concieve of plans that include waiting for 10 years
” Ordinarily, we don’t prosecute thought-crime, ”
Well….. Perhaps we don’t “prosecute” thought crime, but we certainly do PUNISH thought-crime……..
Witness, Hate Crimes
Hangtown Bob:
First of all, I am against the separate category “hate crime,” which is a perversion of our legal system (and I believe it’s more or less an import from Europe, in concept). However, hate crime is not thought-crime, although motive (hate) is an element of the charge. But there is no crime and no prosecution for a mere thought; there MUST be a crime (a traditional crime, that is) for a hate-crime to occur.
Quote of the day!!
Big Maq suggests the British response to the IRA might be a model for us today, but it is not one that will be acceptable to civil libertarians, with its features of warrantless searches, detention without trial, and periodic shootings of demonstrators. There were no-entry zones in Northern Ireland into which the British military could not enter, rather like the Muslim-occupied banlieus of France today.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Troubles
Neo: our hate crimes are more severely punished than their “non-hate” equals. So the thought is indeed punished, albeit indirectly.
Frog:
Sentencing for crimes always takes into account things like motivation and even prior criminal record, so the fact that sentences may in some instances be greater because of the “hate” motivation is not surprising (although I disagree with it). But that doesn’t change the fact that thought-crime isn’t punished, crimes are, and hate is a motivational element that can affect sentencing length.
Here’s the reasoning behind it:
The reason why the full force of the law against Islam’s organizations and leaders cannot be brought (yet) is because of the commonality of Big Maq’s sentiment, “ISIS / Daesh seems as much about Islam itself as the IRA was about Catholicism itself.”
Geoffrey Britain: That’s a big part of it — the largely unquestioned moral equivalence of Islam with Christianity, Judaism and other major religions. I’d like to see a slogan out there: Islam = Supremacism = KKK.
I would add the money angle. I haven’t run across a good study, but we know Muslim nations, particularly Saudi Arabia, spend vast sums of money lobbying Western nations and institutions to promote Islam and that has eroded our instincts for self-preservation.
For instance, I hardly think it’s a coincidence that Huma Abedin, Hillary’s chief aide and trusted advisor, comes from a family thick with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. I would be quite curious to learn how much money reached the Clinton Foundation from Muslim sources.
Name one muslim majority nation that can fed its people without imports of grain. I triple dog dare you. Blockade them, including enforceing no fly zones. Nothing goes in and nothing goes out. That is the way to bring the jihad supremecy to its knees.
Yes, children and other ‘innocents’ will die within 6 months. I am willing and ready to trade thousands that will die in the West if we keep on going forward per the status quo against millions that will die if the West blockades the barbarians. People ultimately follow their stomaches. Its not complicated and requires no think tank pundits to nitpick out the moral ramifications. It is them or us.
I choose us.
“Big Maq suggests the British response to the IRA might be a model for us today, but it is not one that will be acceptable to civil libertarians, with its features of warrantless searches, detention without trial, and periodic shootings of demonstrators.” – Frog
Of course I am NOT claiming that every aspect is to be modelled.
BUT, there is a political (cultural?) aspect that seems to have been addressed.
I don’t know how it was accomplished, but it was stoking of tensions along religious lines that seemed to perpetuate the problem.
Seems to me that focusing on the religion and placing blame there is the easy / lazy way of attacking this problem, and without recognizing the rest, we probably won’t “solve” the problem.
But taking that approach here serves some peoples’ purposes, I suppose.
“Name one muslim majority nation that can fed its people without imports of grain. I triple dog dare you. Blockade them, including enforceing no fly zones. Nothing goes in and nothing goes out. That is the way to bring the jihad supremecy to its knees.” – parker
Need to unpack two combined ideas here:
.
1) A nation’s inability to produce has many reasons.
The overriding commonality seems to be their political organization and level of economic freedom.
Bottom Line: ANY form of authoritarian regime is bad.
Should we look at nations with majority Christian populations, and judge their performance, past and present, on the degree to which they practiced their religion? After all, there have been plenty of impoverished Christian nations historically, and still so today.
Let’s not expound on how that sentimentality is rather similar to Europeans of the colonial era.
.
2) Blockades, no fly zones, etc.
I see no problem in doing this, particularly with Iran and North Korea and their nuclear threat to us, if that would work.
There are a long string of “tools” for us to use to deal with rogue nations or threats. Not all of it is with force either (e.g. diplomacy, espionage).
But, if our focus is on eradicating the religion, or making it just about the religion, even these things will be useless.
.
I choose us, and am looking for a long term solution.
“Geoffrey Britain: That’s a big part of it – the largely unquestioned moral equivalence of Islam with Christianity” – huxley
This is where y’all have me wrong.
YOU are all making it ALL about the religion.
I’m saying that is a misdiagnosis.
As with the kkk, those seeking power can always find ways to point to the religious texts to support their own purposes, and justify almost anything.
ALSO, I’m not saying we don’t fight, as we are with ISIS in Syria / Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.. Or, that we don’t at home, aggressively using the laws we have.
We see the consequence if we totally ignore the threat and let our lack of leadership on the issue allow them to grow in power.
.
Incidentally, using “Islam” in such a broad brush is MUCH more like using “Chrisitanity” (vs “KKK”).
There are so many very separate followings and practices under each of those two labels (e.g. Coptic, Orthodoox, Roman Catholic, Luthern, Baptist, Mormon, etc. – for Christianity), that one cannot just pick one sub category to represent the whole, let alone a side organization that just used the Bible for its purposes.
One aspect of looking at the lone wolf is that, ostensibly, since he’s not tied into any radical group, hasn’t gone for training, isn’t paying dues to a wahhabi mosque, etc…then it’s Islam all byuitself that makes him do this stuffl
Unadorned, islam without madrassa of the weirder sort, just barenaked islam.
Gppd tp know.
If he had some of the aforementioned bells and whistles, he’d likely be a known wolf.
“just barenaked islam.”
So, no contact with anyone?
So, no review of propaganda on the internet?
Just sorta reads the core text itself and concludes some lone wolf act is required?
actually, in the US, we have outlawed ideologies. Being a Communist was (still is??) an ineligibility for both tourist and immigrant visas.
Delilah:
No, that’s not outlawing an ideology. That has to do with visitors and immigration, and what nationals of other countries we let into the country. It has nothing to do with citizens or people already here.
The US has a Communist Party:
What’s more, although being a Communist is legal here and is not outlawed, even if weren’t legal, outlawing Party membership would not be the same as outlawing Communist beliefs. I knew plenty of Communists growing up who were not Party members, by the way. Of course, outlawing the Party would go a long way towards hurting the Party.
“Geoffrey Britain: That’s a big part of it – the largely unquestioned moral equivalence of Islam with Christianity” — huxley
This is where y’all have me wrong.
YOU are all making it ALL about the religion.
I’m saying that is a misdiagnosis.
Big Maq: From where I stand, you are making it all *not* about religion and I consider that a misdiagnosis.
Incidentally, using “Islam” in such a broad brush is MUCH more like using “Chrisitanity” (vs “KKK”).
Facts matter. I suspect I’ve researched Islam, Christianity, and the KKK far more than you have and I’ve reached different conclusions.
I grew up in the South and I knew two people in the KKK. One was a childhood friend who became one of the top white supremacist militia guys. He was put away for ten years on various charges. I spent a fair amount of time trying to understand what had happened to my friend.
I was raised Catholic and later had a born-again experience in 2001. I went at that pretty hard for most of the 2000s. I’ve more than touched base with Christianity.
I was never a Muslim, but I have read the Quran, several books on Muhammad and Islamic history plus I’ve participated on an international Muslim bulletin board and interacted with Muslims there. Not to mention following the sad course of current events since 9-11.
This does not make me an all-knowing authority. But I have considered what I say and I’m not just some guy who read some stuff on the internet and am spouting talking points.
Big Maq: If you haven’t, I suggest reading the New Testament and the Quran.
The NT is about 140,000 words; the Quran 80,000. The average novel is about 100,000 words. Which is to say, reading these books will take more than a few hours but not a ridiculous amount of time.
Then consider which book is more likely to form the basis for a religion which has sponsored widespread, ongoing intolerance, supremacism, and violence from the time of its founder to the present day.
@huxley – interesting that you leave out the OT.
So what is the basis for comparison? The number of violent words?
The point is not that there are not some things we can point to in the “holy texts” to “prove” that one may be “more likely” to produce widespread violence.
The point is that “The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose”.
THAT is how the kkk can believe they are acting righteously.
Like the kkk, ISIS (and their sympathizers) recruit the vulnerable, so, it almost becomes irrelevant that it is one book vs the other.
.
But, if you made up your mind already that ISLAM itself in entirety = KKK, then no amount of reading and scholarly comparison will help make a convincing case to you.
You are as convinced as ISIS tries to make their recruits, that the evil is inherent in the “other’s” entire society.
“From where I stand, you are making it all *not* about religion and I consider that a misdiagnosis.”
Now you make it seem I’m arguing like a dem and not acknowledging that Islam has any presence in the nature of the threat we face.
Not true whatsoever.
It is the focus solely on the religion as the sole (soul?) problem that I see as a mistake.
If we truly believe that the entire religion is evil, and the sole source of these problems, then I imagine your focus would be eradicating it in every form.
Really, what is your limiting principle?
Big Maq: Well, from my POV you are arguing like a Dem.
You seem to have no grounding in these subjects other than what you picked up tangentially in school and random reading. And you are making the lazy college sophomore argument, “Ooh. That’s a generalization.”
Of course not all Muslims are the same. Not all slices of Islam are the same. Etc. Likewise Klansfolk and the KKK. If you want me to go fine-grained, I can go there. Can you?
But I’ll bet deep down you think the KKK is an evil ideology — though you might not admit it in this discussion — and you take umbrage I offer the slogan: “Islam = Supremacism = KKK.”
I stand by that as a slogan. The idea is to get people thinking that if a group of Americans can have a bad ideology maybe another group of humans, however large, might have another bad ideology.
However, assessing that argument requires actual information. The price of having an informed opinion is informing yourself.
Some facts as to the KKK, which seem largely ignored in this thread, redolent with charges the KKK=evil.
The first iteration of the KKK, founded in Tennessee, a border state, was to provide a semblance of order against the predations of carpetbaggers and newly-freed, unmoored slaves in the early years after the War Between The States. Predations. I understand and accept that as a social necessity, an attempt to provide law and order in a time when that had been abandoned by the victors, who were more punitive than just in the victory.
The second iteration was against the massive, primarily Catholic immigration wave from southern and eastern Europe in the ealy 20th century. That was political expression in the form of violence. Many prominent Americans, Protestants all, were members, and this iteration of the KKK was very large in membership. America was founded as a Protestant country, after all; nominally tolerant but Protestant.
The third iteration was in reaction to the civil rights movement in the 1960s and later. That is the David Duke KKK. It is also the KKK of the late Senator from Virginia, Robert Byrd, the object of great respect from his fellow Democrats.
Way too many people take the “Birth of a Nation” movie as representative of historical fact. Just as they take many fictional movies as fact. Gramsci saw that early.
@huxley – I am far from taking a dem position on this, but you can cast that aspersion if you like, as I know where I stand.
You avoided the uncomfortable question on limiting principle.
If your slogan were true to the extent you say it is (evil ideology), is there a limit short of extermination?
One needn’t go far back in history when people pointed to a group of folks and their religious text as “proof” of their evil.
One by one, steps were taken to rid that society of that evil, until the ultimate solution was adopted.
So, yep, tell me about how you’ve so studied the religion that you “know” it is inherently evil.
Maybe YOU wouldn’t go there, but the very same arguments are what get us there.