Structural Radicalism: the new description

Since the progressives are obsessed with “structural racism,” I thought it was time for another term to describe the reality of what we have. What we seem to have here is a failure to communicate. A H/T to Pepp for the inspiration from our discussion.

The new term is Structural Radicalism. So now I am saddled with defining it. But that should not be easy because of our current state of affairs, or is it current affairs of state? (Merriam-Webster)

Structural
: relating to the way something is built or organized
: relating to the structure of something

Radicalism
: the opinions and behavior of people who favor extreme changes especially in government
: radical political ideas and behavior

The integrated structure of radical political ideas and behavior. Now we have it. I suppose one could substitute ideology for opinions, and actions for behavior.

It amuses me how the word “reform” pops up related to government or even political parties. It probably ranks right up there with the most used words by politicians, though probably has as many meanings. In the context used it usually refers to change for good. That’s what they mean or imply anyway.

The problem is that we have already had de facto reform over decades now. Schools, government, culture, society in general. That’s what caused most of our problems. Their reform has percolated since the 60’s. But that reform hasn’t been necessarily good. Roe v Wade, Obamacare, EPA, Kelo decision, education, amnesty, border security, homeland security, housing, sanctuary cities, Bipartisan Campaign Reform, same-sex mariage.

Oh change has come and has people calling for a change back. Remember Obama’s mantra was “Hope and Change”. But the part no one quotes is “change you can believe in” — a faith-based campaign theme. Or the belief in nothingness, as exhibited in his record.

Of course what we got was not what you believed or even wanted. What we got was the invasion of radical mindset in all corners of the government. An infestation Over the years, the same radical ideology has invaded many state and local governments. Chicago, Detroit, San Fran, Seattle, Boston, Baltimore, NYC and Universities. Now that seeing is believing, what can you do about it? We are a nation under siege of radicals. Everyone else can see it. And how do you deal with this radicalization of our system? That is a brain buster.

So do you reason with it? That is a foreign language to them. They care as much about reason and logic as nothing. They have no credibility. Emotions are king and activism is their means. They want decisions and law based on ideology and mob activism.

We need an updated strategy

You see, many people believe that the good ideas just win but that is not the nature of radicalism. Is it enough to be right about the issue or issues? Do radicals recoil and pull back all their weapons because “yea, you are right”? So the problem is much bigger than ideas. A certain amount of these radicals will never be converted, and they ill not admit they are wrong and won’t quit. The thing is we need a radical approach to radicalism.

Someone would say but the founders were radicals. Yes, but a different kind of radical. I would call that fundamental radicalism, contrary to what we see here. They are statists, big-government radicals that infiltrated our system at the highest levels.

How do we deal with this progressive radicalism?I admit it will take a tough approach. One might say a radical opposition of the fundamental type. Where that foundational radicalism had some integrity with patriots pledging their lives and fortunes on foundational principles. That kind of unwavering devotion is needed to defeat this Marxist, statist radicalism. So there is no standard political approach with them that will be successful. Might as well talk to a wall. Power and force is all it understands. And don’t expect to reason with it to win it over.

That is why we are at a loss to combat it with any success.They don’t care about due process (Hello Obama & Harry Reid), by their radical nature. They are capable of using and twisting the process to serve their ends. Yet we see how outraged everyone got at Rand Paul or Ted Cruz when they took a tough stand. None of the outraged can tell us what to do. The common ways don’t work.

That also opens the door for economic radicalism interwoven in their activism. We see that rolling out all the time. CEO for Mozilla, gay wedding cakes, Dr. Laura I presume. But those holding the reins of power share the same ideological agenda, which is how we get to a Mayor of Baltimore issuing a stand down order to police during riots and looting. It’s how we get government agencies locking down private bank accounts of individuals, or get the IRS and every alphabet agency jumping on Tea Party organizers. Private property being seized in eminent domain. K-Street lobbyists and government spending. Foreign policy, same thing: negotiating with terrorists, demonstrating lack of will to defend the country and our posterity. It’s structural.

One proposed answer is an Article V Convention — complete with its own hazards — but we still have to deal with the systemic radicalism embedded in our system. But enough of the people have to see it as the real structural radicalism it is, first.

PS: Happy Fourth of July, Independence Day, too.

RightRing | Bullright

2 faces of Islam narrative

(Follow up from Our Muslim Tolerance Problem)

As the narrative goes: The 2 faces of Islam: peaceful vs. Islamic radical terrorism, jihad, suicide bombers, a caliphate, violent intolerance, Sharia Law enforcing.

We the public have a tolerance deficit? Obviously, they have two incompatible faces then within Islam. So someone is tolerating someone else at their own peril — guess which one? It could be that tolerance is the problem. Still, they lecture us that we just aren’t tolerant enough, which isn’t working out too well for Muslims right now. Have moderate-Muslims proved to us that tolerance is the solution?

peace sign photo: Peace Peace10.png

Let’s understand that “the West” is almost the only ones standing between these caliphate-crazed radical terrorists and the kinder more “moderate Muslims”. The radicals, whether a minority or not, stand to cannibalize the entire religion. So while the entire free world is on their hit list, Islam as a whole is on their menu just the same. You just have to know what a caliphate is.

But here is the problem: moderates, or whatever you call yourselves, there is no special pecking order. You will all be absorbed just like the Germans under the Third Reich. The truth is the West is about the only one fighting this battle. Actually, You owe us. Your religion is experiencing a coup d’état, according to the narrative. but the only ones doing anything about it are Western-allied countries. (and some of them aren’t doing too much)

You want to preach to us about Islamophobia and tolerance? Sure you see the Islamo-fascism or Islamoterrorism and either deny it or choose to ignore it. We don’t have that luxury. You spout the rhetoric that not all Muslims are terrorists. Big deal, what are your doing about it? We also take the brunt of blame from Jihadis. They aren’t forcing their 10th century barbarism on you personally, yet. But wait, it’s in the works. It can’t be soon enough for radical Imams pushing it. And since 1800 they’ve been waging war within Islam, too. Meanwhile good, peaceful Muslims just happen to mysteriously transform into head choppers and suicide bombers. Why is that?

But maybe some people have been looking at this all wrong? You know the mantra that Islamic terrorists are corrupting an otherwise beautiful, peaceful religion. Well, for over twelve years now that is the preferred verbiage. What if it is the other way around?

Is it possible the radicalized jihadis are right and the so-called moderates are the real dupes. That would mean that the accurate face of Islam is the radical, violent side. That would make “moderates” the imposters in Islam. What if that’s the case and we’ve been looking at it in reverse? Maybe the real face of Islam is that of radicals and terrorists? But no one ever mentions that possibility.

But even if they prefer to be called moderates, what they do has empowered Islamic radicals. If they won’t step up and condemn the Islamists, it is hard to really call them “moderates” then, isn’t it?

The question is where does the tolerance for radical Islamic terrorists end? That intolerance would be a good thing. Yet Muslims tell us our intolerance is the big problem. Now Obama has no aversion to the “death cult” term but stubbornly avoids the underlined source, Islamism.

However, there is a simpler and clearer way to see it.

Wild Olive website has a good description of Islam nuance. It summarizes:

In Islam there are only two states of existence, Dar es Salaam (House of Peace – under Islam) and Dar el Harb (House of War – not yet under Islam)

But let’s not talk about that face.

RightRing | Bullright

A rejection of radicalism

As someone else says “….this ain’t bean bag”. But then this is not politics, as commonly understood.

Well, politics is bad enough, I know, but this is far from your mom and pop’s politics. The Alinsky radicals don’t play “politics” that way either. This is part of the problem, and it is only my opinion for what its worth….your mileage may vary.

The point is if it isn’t conventional politics, it is radicalism. Something happened though which seems sort of odd to some people. We the people, the sane ones, saw Barack Obama coming. We knew in no time what he stood for — or what he didn’t. We knew he was a different animal, and the events just validated it.

Sure media played their games. But the people found out, researched and were vindicated by the events. We saw the fraud and misrepresentation. However, Washington doesn’t think and act the same way we do. If they learned of any of this they forgot it, or never grasped it. They assumed, as many still do, that it is just politics and it is not.

Sure progressives now are a lot of things, like extremists, but they are radicals. We need to let that soak in to the beltway mentality. You would think they would have caught on over this 6+ years. But there are some slow learners in there.

So now we have a big problem. One does not just play the same way with radicals. One cannot project the same political strategies and goals on them. The rejection of this radicalism is an ongoing effort, and something elections won’t solve by popular vote.

RightRing | Bullright

The comparison lives on, Ebola to IS

Ebola_2988634b The IS Motto: “Remaining and Expanding”

A while back I made a comparison of ISIS and Ebola (or Islamic State)  and was probably one of the first to draw direct parallels. Since then, the more I see and learn about either of these viruses the more similar they seem.

For instance, Ebola has been around since ’76 but its a naturally occurring virus. That means they may eliminate the latest epidemic but at some point it will return.

That much is really like ISIS, or Islamism itself. It keeps returning even in areas pushing natural boundaries or borders. Killing the latest strain of ISIS would only be followed by a return of Islamic terrorism under some other name.

But unlike the Ebola disease, radical rabid Islamists spread their virus in creative ways mutating almost daily. And, instead of a fear and withdraw, there is a natural attraction to it in the Mid East and Muslim world. A remote cell can be activated in any country and a willing individual radicalized just by reading their constant propaganda.

It is never politically correct to criticize the environment that breeds such an insidious and evil disease as ISIS or Islamic radicalism. In Ebola they try to use science and understanding to combat the plague. They claim knowledge is power and accurate information will only help not hurt us. It is in our interest to know about it to defeat it. So science claims.

Still Obama claimed the chances of an Ebola outbreak here is very low. In fact, he declared that it was very hard to get. Do not enact a travel ban because it could make the threat worse, he claims. We were worrying about nothing, before the exact remote chance indeed happened.

With the Islamic radicalism it is all about denial. We must deny the source, must deny its motivations, and must deny its end goals as ridiculous. Does that make any sense? Not to you or me but does to those in authority that lecture us about it. The same talking points apply to Islamicism though, when it happens…deny deny. They claim it is something happening way over in another part of the world that really has no affect here. So that was the mantra.

But they do say we have to contain Islamic terrorism there so it does not come here, or that was the assumption before Obama. He changed that. He decided until we have a case here that affects us, then we will worry about it. IOW, after the caliphate is formed, after the fatwas are drawn up, after they demonstrate they are here and serious. Then they will respond. But even then they tone down the source, laced in denial, about who they really are. Government is at work cleansing the terms. Even when it does happen, they call it something else so it technically wasn’t labeled Islamic terrorism.

Both are very much a threat to our national security. Both are dismissed as pretty much irrelevant to us in America. However, they tell us every trace of carbon is a problem. Thus, their war on coal and energy. EPA can design regs that will exterminate whole industries, and entire communities, but that is a commendable.

We are Islamophobic if we are worried about Islamonazis. We are fear mongering if we are concerned about Ebola. We are “flat-earthers” if we deny their man-made global warming agenda. We are extremists if we oppose EPA’s dictates. Now conservatives are even blamed for it all. But just don’t fear the Reaper.

RightRing | Bullright

Here come the Muslim victims

Just a rant on some very old territory.

One little Muslim, two little Muslims, three… victims.

It has already begun on the heels of the Boston bombing, Muslims are out in defense of, well, just about anything relating to Islam. They do what they always do…attack any criticism of Islamisists’ radical ideology as “criticism of all Muslims”.

Yea, that might be a good rally point for Muslims (hello, are they connecting the dots? – likely just what radicals had in mind.) but it really serves no other purpose. We get it, not every Muslim is a terrorist. But the terrorists are predominately Islamists. Do they get it?

Who has time for all this crapola being hoisted on outraged Americans? Muslims were not the victims here and they certainly were not the intended targets. Yet here they are saying Muslims are being victimized putting everyone on notice not to “generalize”. Imagine that, someone indiscriminately bombs random innocent people, and they tell us not to generalize? Go figure.

**This sounds like Obama: his administration does something and we get the lecture.

Maybe instead of spending all their time in defense of their “peacefulness”, they should be facing off, marginalizing and criticizing the Islamists for doing what they are doing? Why doesn’t that occur to them? Why don’t we hear and see it? Are they afraid?

There is one ironic note in the saga, Muslims are distancing themselves from the funeral of the eldest bomber. Imams and mosques have been asked, in the greater Muslim community in Boston, about the funeral for him and they decline to say they will hold it or hold the prayers for him. That is a positive note. Though I wonder if it is just talk?

Now if Muslims were victims of stereotyping etc. — IF it is happening — then you’d think they would focus on the source of that characterization, Islamist radicals and radicalism in general. No, they would rather blame us and “broad brush” Americans for discriminating against them.

The problem is how many times and years have we been through this. Its old. If the caliphate is the chief goal among Islamist radicals, they are all beneficiaries to the same agenda. Do they stand up and protest that agenda? Hardly. But then why is it all the rest of us, outsiders, are the immediate problem when one of them detonates something? Who are they kidding?

Seems to me we played out this act before too, we tried the dialogue route. About all we get in return is “Americans are picking on, stereotyping, and discriminating against Muslims.” But that is not the case.

I’m sorry, when people are losing limbs, their livelihood, and their very lives, my first reaction is not “poor Muslims“. So if they are not happy, then its time they face the real problem not rally up another false flag.

It is much easier for them to point to Americans lack of sensitivity for Muslims. When do I, Christians, Jews, or Americans get to be “offended”?