MUSLIM RAMPAGE: The Ancient War & Orlando

As Fox News reports:

A gunman who federal authorities say had possible ties to terrorism opened fire early Sunday morning at a packed Orlando nightclub, killing 50 people and wounding at least 53 more in a bloody scene that ended hours later when police stormed the building and killed the shooter.

The gunman was identified as Omar Mateen, Rep. Alan Grayson said during a Sunday morning press conference. Mateen was a U.S. citizen, Grayson said, though that was “not true of other family members of his.” Mateen, 29, lived in Fort Pierce, Fla. He was born in the U.S. to parents of Afghan origin and was a Muslim, Fox News confirmed.

Authorities were going through Mateen’s belongings on Sunday morning trying to identify a motive for the attack, Grayson said.

“More likely than not that it was an ideologically motivated attack,” Grayson said, though he said it was unclear if Mateen was linked to any terror groups.

This is part of an ancient war: The West vs. Islam. It has been going on for nearly 1300 years. Westerners may not realize it, but what happened in Orlando, like what happened in Paris and Belgium, is part of a global clash of ancient cultures. This is not new.

Not everyone gets it. Elsewhere, in Los Angeles, a man was arrested the same morning with a large weapons cache just ahead of a large Gay Pride parade. Little information is available yet. It might be something, might be nothing. But in response to the man’s arrest, a city councilwoman in West Hollywood said this about Orlando:

“We are hearing absolutely devastating news reports from Orlando this morning… Gun violence on the LGBTQ family during Pride Month makes me sick. The deadliest mass shooting in America happened to LGBTQ people on Latin night.”

Ah, I see. “Gun Violence” is what killed the people in Orlando. “Islam? What’s that? No, no, no. Don’t get distracted by petty details, like the killer’s pledge of allegiance to ISIS. It is the National Rifle Association who has blood on their hands.” 

American liberals are going to have difficulty with this one. On the one hand, they fancy themselves the bulwark against Islamophobia and bigotry in the USA. On the other hand, the highest moral virtue celebrated by American liberals is support of homosexuality. But now they’ve got an Islamic radical shooting up a gay bar. Who can they blame? If the shooter were a white male Christian, it’d be easy: all white male Christians are to blame. Shame on them all. If the shooting were at a Trump rally instead of gay bar, they could blame the victims instead: “Tsk-tsk! We told you such hateful rhetoric would get you in trouble. Serves you right!”

Lest their heads explode, American liberals need to find a third party to blame. It didn’t take long, as this screenshot from Instapundit shows:


Obama, unsurprisingly, did not mention Islam in his address on the shooting, choosing to instead blame – what else?  – the resistance of voters to gun control. In Obama’s world, Charlton Heston is more to blame for what happened tonight than a Moslem Imam in Orlando who recently called for the “compassionate killing” of homosexuals.


Leftists in the West do not take seriously the threat that is posed to them. They don’t study history. They don’t have a clue about anything that happened in the world prior to the Civil War. Slavery in America is as far back as they usually go.

Islam is a religion of conquest. It is deeply rooted in military tradition and honor. Young Moslem men are raised with a militant outlook. This is what carried Islam on a conquest of all North Africa in the 6th century. In 711, Moslems invaded Spain and conquered the entire country. They would’ve conquered France too, but were stopped by Charles Martel. It then took another 700 years for the native Spaniards to kick them out; not until 1492, the same year Columbus sailed the ocean blue. This was the longest period of real warfare in history.

But Islam was far from finished. The Ottoman Turks, a Muslim empire, invaded through the backdoor of Central Europe multiple times. Twice, they marched as far north as Vienna, Austria – right up to the foot of Germany. They were turned back, but only after a fierce struggle.

Starting near the year 1600, the West left Islam in the dust both economically and technologically. The West stopped paying attention to its old archenemy until oil entered the picture as a precious resource.

But the old archenemy had never stopped paying attention to the West. The historical tension has always lurked beneath the surface. The inability of Islam to conquer the infidels of Europe, and the USA by cultural extension, has been a source of deep rage and humiliation for Islamic radicals throughout history. Bin Laden once said that the worst civilizational catastrophe in human history was “The Tragedy of Al-Andalus” – the Christian re-taking of Spain in 1492 – because Islam lost it’s foothold in Europe. There are Moslem radicals out there who are still butt-hurt about this, nearly 600 years later. Meanwhile, 90% (maybe more) of people in the West probably have no idea that Spain was ever under Moslem control. Very few Americans know anything of world history beyond the Revolutionary War.

Things got even worse when the Western countries carved up the Ottoman Empire among themselves after the first World War. The former residents of the Ottoman Empire haven’t forgotten. There are probably still a few impossibly old Arabs left from that time period. They remember the humiliation like it was yesterday.


Many Leftists in America fancy themselves “radical”, which is why they wear the Che Guevara t-shirts. But these people don’t understand radicalism. They think sit-ins and protest chants are radical. These things are silly, not radical. True radicalism is violent. Let me put it this way: when you’re willing to kill for the cause, you’re radical. When you’re willing to die for the cause, you’re the most radical of the radical.

In Russia of 1881, radicals with the left-wing socialist group People’s Will assassinated Czar Alexander II. He had been a reformer in his time. He abolished the feudal system earlier in his reign. He was replaced by Alexander III after his death, who was a real tyrant. He began the great Russian governmental tradition of mass repression and deportation to Siberia. His response to his dad’s murder was simple: Kill all the radicals. Incidentally, one of the terrorist radicals he executed was Ulyanov Lenin – Vladimir’s older brother. The Lenin family clearly got the last laugh on that one.

Under Alexander III, radicals had no luck. They were curb-stomped by authorities repeatedly. But then Nicholas II took over after his father’s death. He was weak-willed. Poor domestic and foreign policies, like engaging in World War I, destroyed his legitimacy among Russians. In 1917, democratic socialists staged a successful revolution and forced the Czar to step down. But the democratic socialists were promptly overrun by the communist Bolsheviks. The democratic socialists were not radical; the Bolsheviks were.

Communists had been trying to seize power for years. But Alexander III kept them under control. It wasn’t until a weak Czar took the throne that the country underwent a revolution. But there were no assassinations to achieve it. Nicholas II gave up power willingly. And the eventual Communist Revolution was not against the Czar, but the new socialist provisional government. The democratic socialists did not take the Communists seriously.  Then the Communists seized power and killed all the democratic socialists.

My point is this: Alexander III had the will to resist Communist radicals. He used their own attacks against them as motivation to arrest and execute their members. The majority of Russian peasants supported this. He did not have to execute many; only a small minority of Russian leftists were terrorists. It took the rising to power of a weak Czar, and then a weak revolutionary socialist government, to give the Communists their shot. When the will to resist disappears – when the radicals are not taken seriously – this is when radicals will start running the show.

Already, the radicals have established this: “You do not have freedom of speech. Defame Mohammed, and you’re a dead man.” Media outlets throughout the West have roundly obeyed. What is next?


Liberals today do not take Islamic radicals seriously. In major cities across Europe, and to a much lesser degree in the United States, there are thousands of unemployed, unmarried young men who resent the society around them. Out of these thousands, only a small percentage needs to be willing to fight for the cause. Of that small percentage, only a precious few need to be willing to die for the cause. In France, it took only 4 Moslems with AK-47s at the Charlie Hebdo office to send a message to the entire world: “Mohammed is off-limits. Mock him and you’re next. Praise Allah.”

In Paris on November 13th, 2015, it took only 9 to send this message to the world: “Paris is at our mercy. We can shut down the whole city if we want to. Nobody in public is safe. Praise Allah”

Yesterday in Orlando, it took only one to send this message: “I’m willing to die for the cause. I can strike anywhere. I take no prisoners. Allah be praised.”

Some people will want to blame Islamophobia for inciting Moslems to attack Westerners: “They wouldn’t kill you if you weren’t such a bigot, you hater!” With the Orlando shooting being at a gay bar, I predict that many liberals will pin the blame on homophobia, in addition to the absence of hardcore gun control. But they will avoid the key term “Islam”, as President B. Hussein Obama did in his speech yesterday. None dare call it Islam.

But we know what motivated the killer. He was already known by the FBI for Islamist tendencies. Some reports say he pledged allegiance to the Islamic State, and pledged to wage jihad. Furthermore, it’s the Ramadan month: a typical time period for Islamic attacks. It’s obvious to me: he was motivated by Islam. To insist otherwise is to ignore nearly 1300 years of history. These are people who harbor deep hatred and resentment of Western success; the success that was promised by Allah to Moslems, not the Western infidels. But throughout history, Islam has lost to Western Christian infidels again, and again, and again.

Westerners may have forgotten. But the Islamic radicals haven’t. They’re looking for revenge.


Islamic radicals play for keeps. They are willing to pay the ultimate price: death. Western liberals, on the other hand, aren’t. But they boldly declare, “We have freedom of the press! Freedom of assembly! Freedom to live the lifestyle we choose!” 

The Islamic radical loads his AK-47. *CLICK* “No, you don’t. But you do have the right to die. Think of it as a late-late-late term abortion, if it makes you feel better. Praise Allah.” *BLAM*

My solution to this is the same it’s always been: the great equalization. People should be carrying guns. If you’re packing an AK-47 in a room full of unarmed people, then you’re A-#1, Duke of New York. If Omar walked into the gay bar with his AK-47 and was met by even one person pointing a gun back at him, things might’ve turned out differently.

As it stands, Western liberals do not like this idea. They’d rather throw you in jail than allow you that right. They’d prefer a room full of homosexuals to be powerless against armed Islamists who want to kill them.

And even if sweeping gun control is enacted, what about 3D printing? Functional guns can already be 3D printed; I’ve talked about it here. It will render the entire law moot.

Islamic radicals are sending a message. Let’s see if Western liberals receive it.

Tags: , , , , , ,

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: