The Dongola Times

(Anachronistic) Dispatches from the Kingdom of Makuria.
07th of June, 2014

Re: Safe or Soft

This is one of the good things about my own self-written blog system that actually permits me to use e-mail to both blog and argue with people. That Japanese sage called it “Lateral thinking with withered technologies.” ;-)
http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/government/a/Australian-Prime-Minister-Muslim-Immigrants.htm Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard already told them to adapt or leave in 2010 and that the mosques were being monitored.
Immigrants are easy to deal with. What do you do with citizens who are Muslims? (The craziest hate-preacher in Australia is a pure-blood Aussie.)

But you see, they cannot say that there is no problem, or even that Islam is compatible with Judeo-Christian civilisation. Even the Aussie Lefties don’t pretend otherwise. So we are already at the point where only cowardice—not ignorance of the truth—prevents people (such as Labour Party members) from acting towards Islam as they would to some other doctrine that glorifies child sex slavery, or anti-Semitism, or anti-Christianity, or genocide, or, worst of all, heresy.
http://eweb.furman.edu/~ateipen/pr_charles_speech.html from as recently as 1993. How sad that now we find ourselves in a place where we must choose to be killed or to kill.

I am not arguing about the level of the threat. I don't know what to do. It upsets me hugely. I don't really know what I am arguing about except that if we lower ourselves to their level then we are selling ourselves out to our own beliefs.
It is a fallen World, where have always had to choose to kill or be killed.
For this reason, it is not foreign to our beliefs to have to kill, especially in defence of either ourselves or those we care about. The reluctance to kill those who target our women and children is what we call cowardice. In a fallen World, that is a bad trait. Nobody ever opposes the national armed forces, for instance, even though it is widely-understood that they are there to kill professionally, efficiently, and in large numbers. And yet nobody treats a barracks like a leper colony. (Much less around prisons, where we implement the society’s intolerance and even killing.)

Should we fight Nazism and “never give up!”? What about Islam, which is even worse?
I don't want to be in this position. I can learn to shoot a gun. I can protect my family if I can. I can lie down and die. I believe that there must be a way to protect our countries but that it must be done carefully. I support your idea of seperate Islamic states however, my heart bleeds for the people whose lives will be uprooted as in India when it split into Pakistan. I always look at the experience of the people involved while I can see and understand the whole overview.
My view of dealing with the problem (not solving it) does not involve displacing Muslims from Christian countries, but it certainly segregates against their ideology very firmly, just as they do for Nazism in Germany or Génocidaire Ideology in Rwanda. (No marked mosques, no veils, no Sharia law, officially-Christian state … that stuff; but no beheadings. We are not Muslims.)

It’s true that there is little we can do, but admitting the truth should be an easy-enough start. (“Islam is wicked!” Next?)
Next, teach the opposite of Islam—or, more-precisely, what Islam was founded to oppose and eliminate—which is is classical Christianity. (“We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. …” Next?)
Next, recognise that there is a basic, fundamental right to every homestead: that it is legal to defend against invasion/forcible entry of a homestead with fatal force. (“Every home is sovereign territory.” Next?)
Last, declare your homestead a member of a Christian Free State, which provides citizenship for all Christians everywhere. http://localhost.ug/decl.pdf