Uncovered Meat: Islamic Wars in Europe and the West, Part III of III Solving the Problem (#16-03B)

Libertarian Commentary, 18 JAN 2016, #16-03B by Nathan Barton

In Europe in 2016, we are seeing a clash of cultures, caused by mass migration of, and failure to integrate, Muslims whose religion, mores, and society do NOT fit with modern European society, culture, and way of life. As a result, we see violence for the most part caused by these Muslims, and the threat of violence in response. Violence that can be, if not already, characterized as a state of war.

What is the solution? Ironically and even paradoxically, it is MORE violence.

But we live in “modern times” and surely we don’t have to repeat the mistakes of the past, right? It doesn’t have to be a dog-eat-dog world, right? Everything can be solved without violence, right? War never accomplishes anything!

Wrong. In Europe, the situation may already be beyond the point that things can be settled peacefully, if they ever could have been. Remember that Islam has invaded Europe multiple times, and been pushed back each time. First was in the 700s, through what is now Spain and into France, where the initial thrust was defeated at Tours. (It took 700 years to regain that part of Europe which was overrun then.) Second was the invasion of the Mediterranean islands and coastlines which accompanied the Turkish conquest of the Eastern Roman Empire in the 1200s. Much of that area (the Balkans) has been strongly Muslim since, but areas such as Greece and southern Italy were slowly taken back between 1700 and 1850. The third was defeated at the “Gates of Vienna” in the late 1600s, and losses slowly regained over the next 300 years, leading directly to the European imperial control of most of the Ummah in the middle 20th Century. In each of these situations, the necessary response to violent invasion was violent self-defense. Even if that self-defense later degenerated into violent aggression, defense was the right action.

But I am letting myself be diverted. This article is about what can be done immediately to at least stop innocent people from being fondled, groped, beaten, shot at, or raped; to control and counter the violence now underway. What can be done to keep women in the West from being considered “uncovered meat?”

NOT more police, NOT more clothes, NOT more government action, and NOT limits on immigration or deportation or prison. Or conversion to Islam. It is violence: defensive violence, but STILL violence. At the heart, there are two parts: acts of defense, and training.

First is to have women (and men) who are armed and trained to defend themselves and others against attack, and are willing to do so. Supposedly the tyranny promoted and practiced by Muslims is “for your own good.” Women must be MODEST in order to go to paradise, so they are forced to be modest. That is done by fear, so a fear of being raped or stoned to death is therefore “good,” so rape and stoning is “good.” This sickness MUST be countered.

But defensive violence is not enough if it is NOT properly supported. So the second part is to eliminate those who do this kind of thing. How? We probably can’t kill them all. So we have to do more than just terminate those who attack. We must teach those who WANT to do so, or even toy with the idea, that even ATTEMPTING it will result in their OWN injury and even death. The training will not work if the threat of effective resistance by their targets is not present. It will ONLY work if the threat of defending ourselves to THEIR death or ours is clear, real, and always likely.

So that ability to defend against them HAS to be real. It has to be obvious, and it has to defeat them MOST of the time to be effective. Arming is NOT pepper spray or even knives (alone). but carrying and using weapons which compensate for the different between a six-foot, hundred-kilo would-be rapist and a five-one, forty-five kilo woman or girl. It requires a weapon which can kill or seriously wound an attacker. It requires a pistol.

Together with the training and guts and assurance that if a woman is groped, she WILL be vindicated if she puts the muzzle of her pistol into the gut or gonads or under the chin of the attacker and leaves his dead body on the Marktplatz for the street-sweepers to find the next morning. A good deal of the teaching to the Muslim men (and anyone else) will come directly from the reports of such finds. (A serious potential for death could make even a Teddy or Bill keep their pants zipped up.) And it requires, in those hopefully rare cases when the woman is NOT able to disable or kill her attacker, that someone nearby IMMEDIATELY respond to eliminate the threat the successful attacker poses to anyone else, and the danger even to the actual victim if she is not dead. This is not revenge or vengeance any more than putting down a rabid dog. It is still self-defense and defense of community against a very real and immediate threat.

To do that, of course, requires both training and an ability and willingness to cooperate. It is dull and boring, and not nearly as exciting as protest marches and demonstrations, or of going out in marching clubs in plain or fancy uniforms and chasing down people of a different skin color or different signs or uniforms to beat them up. But it is effective! It works and has worked. Time and again.

The answer to tyranny is first and foremost the ability to defend yourself (or be defended by others) from it. It does not matter if the enemy you are defending against is your enemy because they are a different religion or have different societal beliefs or are “refugees” or “migrants.” It doesn’t matter if they have been brutalized by decades of war or decades of government propaganda (“education”). It doesn’t matter if they are doing it out of some sick version of love or to steal or get some perverse pleasure out of domination and torture and killing. Even those who believe that Allah’s paradise has 72 virgins for them if they die in a suicide bomb attack will be somewhat deterred by the threat of failing AND being killed by their would-be victim. And if they are killed and fail, they can’t do it to someone else, can they? All of the usual arguments for self-defense are applicable to this situation.

The events of New Year’s Eve in Koeln at the Hauptbahnhof and all these other places would NOT have happened in just one in ten of those women had carried a weapon for defense. They need not be repeated if German women will arm themselves and get and give the training that goes with it. And if German MEN will do the same. And that applies to all of Europe. The best, indeed ONLY, action needed from government is to shut up and get out of the way. Stop telling women that they are to blame, stop denying people the means to defend themselves, and let people accept responsibility for their actions.

Mama’s Note: Armed self defense, and defense of others, won’t happen in Europe until people accept full responsibility for their lives and safety. As long as they believe that any government is responsible for that, and has any legitimate authority over their lives and property, it CAN’T happen. The people defeat themselves completely when they don’t recognize and live by the natural, essential authority they have over themselves, abdicating that to others instead.

Self defense, and the “message” you detail to the would-be criminals (official and free lance) is becoming more and more effective in America, as more people accept personal responsibility for at least that. Can it happen in Europe, with centuries of suppression of individuality? We can only hope.

For more background on the need for self defense and the use of a gun:

Why the Gun is Civilization.
By Marko Kloos

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat–it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weightlifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation … and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

[Reproduced from JPFO.]

About TPOL Nathan

Follower of Christ Jesus (a christian), Pahasapan (resident of the Black Hills), Westerner, Lover of Liberty, Free-Market Anarchist, Engineer, Army Officer, Husband, Father, Historian, Writer, Evangelist. Successor to Lady Susan (Mama Liberty) at TPOL.
This entry was posted in Commentary on the News and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Uncovered Meat: Islamic Wars in Europe and the West, Part III of III Solving the Problem (#16-03B)

  1. Tahn says:

    Nathan, I certainly agree with your article. Self defense is the only way to combat the evil of aggression, regardless of who the perpetrator is.

    I do have one small comment that does not change your conclusion. I do not believe that self defense using force, even lethal force, is violence. The perp used violence in initiating the aggression, they violated the rights of the victim by the initiation. The proposed victim does not violate any rights of the aggressor, who relinquished all rights by the initiation of aggression.

    I am not nitpicking I hope, as I believe it is important to distinguish between lethal self defense and violence in the mind of the anti-gun, anti-violence liberal mind, if that is possible. Good article, keep it up.


    • MamaLiberty says:

      Can’t speak for Nathan, of course, but I don’t think violence is only connected to aggression. Firing a gun is a violent act, whether in aggression or defense. The one time I had to shoot a man to save my life, I certainly felt violent, as well as violated. I was very, very angry that he would force me into that position and necessity. I was angry for a while afterwards too. I had zero regrets for shooting him.

      There are many levels, maybe even different kinds of “violence.” Violence in self defense does not strike me as any kind of a problem. I can’t even imagine pulling the trigger and watching another human fall without feeling violence in some way. I don’t give a rat’s *** what the alleged “liberal mind” thinks about it. No amount of catering to them by changing our words will make any difference to their goal. They don’t care about anything except seeing us submit to them or die.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s