Common Sense About Israel

Storm Shelter
1

Civilizations are not morally equal, and thinking that they are is a fundamental flaw in liberal thought. In the present world, the most ethical and prosperous nations were those whose cultures grew out of Judeo-Christian principles. Coinciding with higher level cultural ethics was a concordant rise in technological superiority. It is no accident, that Western countries are presently besieged by invasions of have-nots from other countries, people who’ve been subjected to misrule and tyranny. For example, you don’t see multitudes trying to sneak into Zimbabwe, Haiti, or Somalia.

Liberals are foolish too regarding claims of ownership of land. Tracing proper ownership back to original inhabitants is abject fatuity. Were that the case, most of you in this forum should be required to sign your deeds over to Native Americans, and perhaps the Native Americans would find themselves in a rights problem with descendants of pre-historic humans.

Because of religion and perhaps in spite of religion, Western Civilization has flourished. The same cannot to be said for Islamic civilization, whose chief ambition of its adherents is world conquest, imposing its ethically-flawed governance on more ethically advanced peoples. Common sense, which is a hallmark of the Maga Movement, logically rejects Islamic imperialism.

The left in America, which I believe is committing political suicide, suffers from a faux sense of tolerance. Tolerating incarnate evil such as Hamas is complete and abject stupidity.

This brings me to a recent book by the eloquent Melanie Griffith entitled *The Builder’s Stone: How Jews and Christians Built the West – and Why Only They Can Save It. Griffith’s interpretation of what is transpiring in Israel is a monument to common sense.

Watch the clear thought espoused by Griffith in this excellent video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zalz7tPUCtEexcellent video.

2

Claiming that “Western Civilization has flourished” because of or in spite of religion is a lazy, cherry-picked narrative that ignores the messy, complex forces behind historical progress. The West didn’t “flourish” purely because of Christianity—if anything, scientific and philosophical advances often happened in defiance of religious dogma (Galileo, the Enlightenment, separation of church and state). Meanwhile, the Islamic world was a beacon of intellectual progress while Europe was stuck in the Dark Ages. Algebra, medical advancements, and even foundational ideas in philosophy and governance flourished in Islamic civilization while medieval Europeans were still burning people at the stake for heresy.

Saying that the “chief ambition” of adherents of Islam is world conquest is not just factually wrong—it’s a racist, xenophobic talking point straight out of an extremist propaganda manual. Islam, like any major religion, consists of billions of people with diverse beliefs, cultures, and political ideologies. Some Muslim empires were expansionist—so were European Christian empires, the Mongols, the Romans, the British, and the Americans. Singling out Islam while ignoring Western colonialism and imperialism is both hypocritical and intellectually bankrupt.

The phrase “imposing its ethically-flawed governance on more ethically advanced peoples” reeks of supremacist nonsense. Who gets to define “ethically advanced”? Western societies, which engaged in colonial exploitation, genocide, and slavery? The same “ethically advanced” nations that launched brutal wars in the Middle East, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians? Painting an entire civilization as backward while ignoring Western atrocities is not just historically illiterate—it’s morally repugnant.

“Common sense, which is a hallmark of the Maga Movement”—this is pure self-congratulatory drivel. Common sense is not an argument, and slapping a political label on it doesn’t make it any less idiotic. “Common sense” has been used to justify everything from flat Earth theories to racist policies. Real intellectual discourse is based on evidence and critical thinking, not vague, populist slogans.

The conclusion that “common sense logically rejects Islamic imperialism” assumes that Islamic civilization is inherently imperialistic—a claim that was never proven, only asserted. This is classic circular reasoning:
Premise: Islam is imperialistic.
Conclusion: We should reject Islam because it is imperialistic.
Evidence: The premise itself.
That’s not logic—that’s ideological brainwashing masquerading as an argument.

This is a Masterclass in propaganda and stupidity

This statement is nothing more than a crude, poorly reasoned attempt to push a supremacist, anti-Islamic agenda while pretending to be logical. It ignores history, misrepresents facts, and appeals to tribalism instead of reason. If this is the kind of “common sense” that certain political movements champion, then they’ve abandoned intelligence altogether.

Also, the author is far right wing author Melanie Phillips. Melanie Griffith is the actress daughter of Tippi Hedren and Peter Griffith, from titles like Working Girl and Mulholland Falls.

3

The dad from Family Guy?

4

As a followup to the misdirection of Bikki - there has been a shift in how Republican and Democratic parties engage with certain Islamist-leaning countries. The irony of the post compounds below…

  • Republican Ties to Saudi Arabia and Gulf States
  • Traditionally, Republicans have maintained strong ties with Saudi Arabia and other Gulf nations, largely due to oil interests and arms deals. The Trump administration, for example, strengthened the U.S.-Saudi relationship, even after the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi.
  • The administration also supported Saudi Arabia’s stance in the Yemen conflict and continued arms sales despite bipartisan opposition.
  • The Abraham Accords and Strategic Alliances
  • The Trump administration brokered the Abraham Accords, which normalized relations between Israel and several Arab nations, including the UAE and Bahrain. While not directly linked to Islamism, it reshaped alliances in the region, sometimes at the expense of traditional U.S. partnerships with Palestinian authorities and Iran.
  • Republican Stance on Turkey
  • Under Trump, the U.S. maintained a relatively warm relationship with Turkish President Erdoğan, despite Turkey’s increasing authoritarianism and support for Islamist factions in Syria and Libya.
  • Sanctions and criticism of Turkey’s actions (such as purchasing Russian S-400 missiles) were more pronounced under Biden’s administration.
  • Democrats’ Harder Line on Certain Islamist-Regimes
  • The Biden administration has taken a tougher stance on Saudi Arabia, particularly on human rights issues. Biden also re-engaged with Iran diplomatically, whereas Trump withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal and adopted a “maximum pressure” campaign.
  • Democrats have been more skeptical of unchecked arms sales to Gulf countries and have pushed for more accountability regarding human rights abuses.
  • Shift in Republican Isolationism and Support for Non-Traditional Alliances
  • The rise of the America First doctrine under Trump led to a more transactional foreign policy, where alliances were maintained based on immediate U.S. economic and security interests rather than ideological alignment.
  • This sometimes resulted in support for Islamist-leaning regimes when it served economic or geopolitical purposes.

Overall, while Republicans have historically positioned themselves as tough on Islamist extremism, their recent approach has often been more pragmatic and business-oriented, leading to strong relationships with countries like Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and even the Taliban in negotiations. Meanwhile, Democrats have taken a somewhat more critical stance on these relationships, particularly concerning human rights and democracy issues.

Stretching beyond irony…during his tenure, Trump strengthened relationships with certain Muslim-majority nations, often prioritizing their strategic and economic interests above our traditional alliances with predominantly Christian nations.

“You are like a small child who wanders into the middle of a movie and thinks he can tell everyone watching what’s going on.”

5

Nah, the dad from Halloween

MV5BMjU5MzkyNTEtNzYzYS00ZGJkLWJkMTUtMjRjYTViYTAxM2JiXkEyXkFqcGc@.V1
MV5BMjU5MzkyNTEtNzYzYS00ZGJkLWJkMTUtMjRjYTViYTAxM2JiXkEyXkFqcGc@.V12640×1125 268 KB

She does have an interesting life. At 14, she started dating a 22 yr old Don Johnson from Miami Vice. Weird how all of those Trump supporting actors and musicians have had so many underage romances, like Pedo Nugent. She was also in Roar with her mother and stepfather Noel Marshall where several of the lions turned on them leading to her having to have facial reconstruction surgery, the attack still visible in the final edit of the movie.

6

Your argument Warden reminds me of a piece written by C. Wright Mills where he described the conflict between grand theory and abstract empiricism. My post was an attempt to denote the generic trend of conflicting political forces in today’s world… Indeed, I find Islam a negative political influence on the political evolution of Western Civilization.

Religions, while being mankind’s worst inventions, do attempt to instill universal ethical behavior which can only be regarded as commendable. Religion has furthered the installation of moral and in some cases legal codes of respective civilizations. Conversely, history is replete with abominable behavior committed in the names of invented gods. Today, while not all Muslims are not terrorists, most terrorists are indeed Muslims.

Yes, I believe in the supremacy of ethics of Western Civilization. The turmoil in Europe, for example, is a perfect example of the clash of religious political beliefs. Correspondingly, we are witnessing the rise of rebellion throughout Europe against Islam, which is accentuated by the MAGA rebellion in the United States.

That the ultimate goal of Islam as being universal control of all humanity is unarguable.

7

Mills argued that both approaches were flawed and advocated for a middle ground, a “sociological imagination” that connect individual experiences with large societal structures. Mills was primarily critiquing the American academic and political elite. Invoking Mills would require a more direct analysis of how elite power structures influence the debate. Instead, your judgement jumps into a broad claim about Islam and Western civilization, which clearly doesn’t relate to Mill’s concern. A more appropriate use of his ideas would be to analyze how Western narratives about political conflict (such as the framing of Islam as a “negative influence”) are shaped by power structures, media, and academic institutions. Instead, the statement seems to apply Mills in a way that justifies an ideological stance rather than critically examining it.

If you wanted to use Mills properly, one might argue that western discourse on political conflict often falls into the trap of abstract empiricism—focusing on isolated data points (terrorist attacks, immigration statistics) without connecting them to broader geopolitical realities (i.e. Western interventionism).

Alternatively, the debate around “Western Civilization” often relies on grand theory…an abstract, romanticized notion of progress that ignores the material and historical complexities of global political evolution.

In either case, a more nuanced application of Mills would demand an examination of who is shaping the discourse, why, and to what effect, homie.

  • According to FBI reports, the majority of terrorist attacks in the U.S. over the past few decades were not committed by Muslims. Right-wing extremists and white supremacists account for a larger percentage of domestic terrorist acts.
  • Europol’s annual terrorism reports indicate that in Europe, most terror attacks are committed by separatist and far-right groups, not Islamists.

That is logically inconsistent with someone who favors Russia over the United States. Russia positions itself as an alternative to Western Civilization’s ideological, political and cultural dominance. Russian political philosophy, especially under Putin, promotes multipolarity—the idea that different civilizations (Western, Russian-Orthodox, Chinese, Islamic, etc.) have distinct values and should not be subordinated to a singular “Western” ethical framework. If one supports Russia, they are implicitly supporting the critiques of Western ethics, making it illogical to claim that Western Civilization ethics are supreme.

The turmoil in Europe is mostly secular and not religious. Protests in France, the UK and other countries (the Yellow Vest movement, pension reform strikes) are rooted in economic grievances, not religious beliefs. The war in Ukraine is a geopolitical power struggle between NATO/EU and Russia, not a religious war. While tensions are high regarding immigration, they are more often framed in cultural or nationalistic terms, rather than purely religious conflicts. Secularism is dominant in European politics, with separation of church and state being a core principle. Even far right nationalist movements like Hungary and Poland invoke Christian heritage, their rhetoric is about nationalism, immigration, and sovereignty rather than actual religious doctrine.

8

No, that’s Peter Griffin.