The Islamo-Progressive Axis

Using the Google Images search engine, I came across this image, which is used in an entirely serious context on the website of the Bath Islamic Society. (For the uninitiated, green is the color of Islam.)

The unfortunate thing is, the Brits most vocally concerned about such ambitions are often supporters of Britain's National Front party, who sell bumper stickers like these. Opposed to "mixing of the races" and kosher as well as halal practices, it's clear that preserving England as a pluralistic democracy isn't their goal any more than it is for the Islamists.

Anyway, on to the main story. Today, ex-communist David Horowitz wrote a column in which he quotes Saddam-supporting moonbat British MP George Galloway to support his argument that an "unholy alliance" exists between radical leftists and Islamists. Asked by a Muslim interviewer how far it's possible to unite Muslim and progressive forces globally, Galloway responded:

"Not only do I think it’s possible but I think it is vitally necessary and I think it is happening already. It is possible because the progressive movement around the world and the Muslims have the same enemies. Their enemies are the Zionist occupation, American occupation, British occupation of poor countries mainly Muslim countries. They have the same interest in opposing savage capitalist globalization which is intent upon homogenizing the entire world turning us basically into factory chickens which can be forced fed the American diet of everything from food to Coca-Cola to movies and TV culture. . . . So on the very grave big issues of the day-issues of war, occupation, justice, opposition to globalization -- the Muslims and the progressives are on the same side."

A friend wrote to say, "someone needs to finish this guy off. Doesn't anyone remember the definition of sedition anymore?" I responded:

"If I may play devil's advocate for a moment and disagree. [Galloway] didn't invent the Islamo-progressive axis -- he's just helpfully confirming what we "paranoid" observers have already concluded. I understand the principle of hanging such an obnoxious traitor -- it seems unbearably wrong that a declared enemy can hold elected office. But then, few take him very seriously, at least [in the U.S.]. Did you see when he lambasted Congress a couple of weeks ago? Even Democrats were disgusted and offended. To kill him would be to dignify him."

I continued:

"We've reached a point where we (Westerners) tacitly agree that "just" saying something, no matter what position you hold, no matter how helpful to the enemy, no matter how harmful to our own cause, no matter what, can never be bad enough to warrant prosecution.

But failing to prosecute treason and sedition not only allows it to continue, it removes the deterrent and encourages it to multiply. And since the 60s, it has -- and the left has conditioned us all to call it "free speech" and feel discomfort over throwing such people in prison. Precisely the ACLU's founding agenda back when they were defending communists and encouraging desertion during WWI.

So we now live in an era of exploding, epidemic sedition and treason, raising the question: where will it end? When do we draw the line? When does it become dangerous and harmful enough that we're compelled to do something about it? If we say "never, because that's what fascists do," then the enemy's arguments gain legitimacy, spread throughout the population, and before long, you have half the country supporting its own enemies to some degree or another.

At that point, there are basically three options. (1) Do nothing, let it continue, and hope fervently that everything will turn out okay. (2) Attempt to garner political support for very limited sedition and treason prosecutions (say, limited to people who hold public office), and watch that go over like a fart in a spacesuit. Which leaves (3), hope like hell the traitors start a civil war so you can kill as many as possible and re-establish order once the smoke clears.

But if we're confining the discussion strictly to Britain, it's already too late. You only hope like hell for a civil war if victory is assured, and in Britain, it certainly is not.

My point is, if you don't deport or throw traitors in prison, and allow treason to become a constitutional right, over time, a country narrows its options to the point where only a good bloodletting can fix it.

My friend replied:

"And that's the problem. There is no "just" saying something. Michael Moore is one thing, he's a yellow-sheet propagandist, nothing more, nothing less, the idiot, full of sound and fury, but no real content. Publicly proposing an alliance with the enemy is something else entirely.

But like you said, Britain is lost. The leftists can't lose no matter what the goverment does, really. Well, they do lose, but they won't know it until they're bured neck deep and getting hit in the head with fist size stones."

Ah, but fist-sized stones are too big, because they might kill the victim too quickly.

It may sound extreme or paranoid to talk of civil war. But when a large and growing proportion of your population desires Shari'a justice, "it is well to remember there are things worse than war."

UPDATE: Well well, speaking of the Islamo-progressive axis. The Bronx AQ guy arrested by the FBI last weekend, Tarik Ibn Osman Shah, is a big fan of Ward Churchill.