Steve Cliffe

The repeated defiance of the world’s leadership to recognize and name the current fight

against totalitarian theocracy is endangering people in every nation that has any place for

freedom in its belief structures. Training individual and small group survival is my forte

and passion. It requires me to recognize all aspects of the situational arena in which one

lives to instruct effectively. The mindset and ethos required to defend against asocial

violence must possess an understanding of the philosophical principles that form the

social context people try to maintain to prevent the chaos of an amoral society. The

reason for this need to understand the functioning reasons behind social constraints is to

recognize when the contract is being breeched and thus the constraints to asocial response

removed.

The very first principle to be successful in defending oneself in any kind of asocial attack

is to recognize that there is an attack underway. This is the quintessential act which

precedes all others. If you don’t know you are being attacked you are going to be the

unwitting victim. In many instances, this would be like the barrister in England who

refused to recognize the asocial nature of the attack when, giving the two criminals his

watch, wallet and everything else of value was repeatedly stabbed and died asking why

they were doing this since he had complied with their demands. He did not recognize the

attack as something to ACT against, rather he still thought of the exchange as a social

event to be dealt with on a social level, through discourse. As Ayn Rand would advise,

recognize that A is A. You cannot change fact or truth by wishing or rhetorical device.

The second is to realize that it was a course chosen actively by the person who is acting,

with complete disregard for the value structure, moral and ethical code you have chosen

to live your life by. They seek only to impose their will by use of force without moral

consideration. Criminals, terrorists, theocrats, union goons, politicians who see

bureaucracy as a self-fulfilling and self-vindicating institution which may use overt force

to compel their citizenry; all are examples of groups who chose at some level to function

amorally. And because they have chosen to step outside the bounds of the social doctrine

and use violence to inflict trauma and their will upon others, they have given up the right

to insist on being treated with the rights and privileges of citizenry and can be acted upon

by their intended victim without that victim having to worry about guilt or social

condemnation for their actions. Only active, intent response can counter an intent

initiative of action. A is A.

This is the crux of self-defense on a personal level.

I submit that it is no different on a national level or cultural level. We are in a conflict of

cultures that has been actively pursued for roughly 1400 years. Many of our ancestors

faced this very threat and have twice repelled the massive military onslaughts against the

religious and social constructs of any nation who did not submit to their demands. The

reason for their success was simple, they recognized the attacks as attacks and responded

in order to defeat them using all such measures as was necessary in a force on force

setting. They did not talk nor concern themselves with anything other than the reality of

the moment; this culture seeks to kill us, our culture must kill them. Just like street

violence, one wins and asserts their will, one loses and submits to the trauma, either

dying or surviving in dhimmitude.

We are not fighting a branch of Islam, we are fighting the cultural reality of what Islam

and its jurisprudence are; a system of world government that compels through force the

compliance of its membership, the systemic destruction of any other competing social

hierarchy and killing of all who would actively oppose it through whatever means

necessary. It consists of the theocratic guidance of the Qu’ran, the social interaction

dictates of the Shari’ah, and the indoctrinal expectations of the Hadiths.

It is not a religion in the sense that the western hemisphere recognizes a religion. There

can be no separation of church and state under Islam, to do so would directly counter the

jurisprudence of the Islamic tenets of behavior. The state is for all intents and purposes

Allah and his expression on earth of Islam is compliance to and of the state to the

principles laid out by the warlord Mohammed when he began constructing his doctrinal

writings after achieving military victory over contended trade routes.

Until we recognize and name this fact as something that this is EXACTLY what our

leaders say it is not, a cultural battle that can have only one survivor where Islam and

another belief system/culture intersect, we will continue to enable those who see us as

less than.

We cannot co-exist with those who are doctrinally correct in their Islamic faith. The

“moderate Muslims” we are told are around us may not support the drive of expansion

and destruction of all non-Islamic cultures, but they are moderates only insofar as they

choose to disregard the instruction of the Islamic tenets. The Qu’ran specifically

admonishes Muslims to never regard any non-Muslim as friend and to use the Qu’ran to

lie to enemy’s if the goal is in fact to spread Islam and further the goals of establishing

hegemony throughout the world as one Islamic nation. Times where violence has not

been ongoing are dictated by the Qur’an itself; when the Islamic forces are weak and in

disarray they may seek peace to regroup, of a period not more than 10 years in length, but

they may never seek peace in a time of military superiority. Since each act of jihad is

considered an act of war for the expansion of Islam, regardless of the location of the

violence, it does not take too much effort to trace the doctrinal adherence to this policy.

The naming of the “Western Mecca” as some are calling the new mosque to be built on

the site of the 9/11 attacks is a statement of staggering proportions on multiple levels.

First the date of attack being the anniversary of the breaking of the Siege of Vienna and

the dedication of the mosque scheduled for this date are brazen statements to the Islamic

faithful. It tells them that Islam is again on the expansion to claim all of the earth for

Allah after the terrible defeat and retraction suffered post 1638. Secondly, and most

disturbing from the perspective of societal survival, is the compliance and ignorance of

the western world population and its leadership in this current trend. The Islamic world

will see this as a willingness to be subjugated, and with subjugation, acceptance of the

reality that either a state of dhimmitude will exist until our culture is completely erased,

or the purging through slaughter as was and is seen in the majority of the caliphate

expansionism of Islam.

We need to name this cultural nemesis. We need to recognize the big picture in this and

how its 1400 years drive to become the world dominant force can and is being harnessed

by another country which sees itself as doctrinally committed to actively pursuing an

asymmetrical war against the United States; China. We need to fight it with the

understanding it will show us no quarter if given the chance to gain military and

numerical superiority in the west. We need to see this for what it is; a direct and intended

threat to our very survival. To do otherwise is to actively commit societal and cultural

suicide. A is A.

Comments are closed.