6/10/2007

Why the Peaceful Majority is Irrelevant

by Paul E. Marek


(This was e-mailed to me from a friend. WIth a little Googgling, I was able to find the source of this peace. It comes from Isreal National News.)

History lessons are often incredibly simple.

I used to know a man whose family were German aristocracy prior to World War II. They owned a number of large industries and estates. I asked him how many German people were true Nazis, and the answer he gave has stuck with me and guided my attitude toward fanaticism ever since.


“Very few people were true Nazis,” he said, “but many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was one of those who just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we had lost control, and the end of the world had come. My family lost everything. I ended up in a concentration camp and the Allies destroyed my factories.”

We are told again and again by experts and talking heads that Islam is the religion of peace, and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace. Although this unquantified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the specter of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam.

Read more...

3 comments:

Cato said...

It doesn't matter who is pointing the gun at you at that instant. Most Muslims actually are, in some way or another, sympathetic to the jihadists or against the US and liberalism. We should not care about collateral damage if we are to goto war with them; the power of a military comes from the people and if you destroy the people's will to fight (see: Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Tokoyo, Dresden, Sherman's March, etc.) then you win the war. Otherwise it's just a ceasefire.

666 said...

Cato:

Modern warfare and technology have allowed the fanatical weeds to give the tall timber hell. Nuclear bombs won't stop the few without destroying the many. It seems that our choices are to drown them in vinegar or win them over with honey.

When you say "liberalism," are you speaking of old liberalism or new liberalism?

Cato said...

"Liberalism", as in the classical meaning of it. Not socialism. Those people like the state controlling their lives already.