Give Us The Bastards Back

Hafez al-Assad.  We need people like him, and on the right side.

Hafez al-Assad.
We need people like him, and on the right side.



This is not going to please many of you, but I think in these days of atrocious persecution of Christians in Muslim Countries there are a thing or two that must be said without half words.

The Arab democratic experiment – an experiment which I had initially greeted, considering the Iraqis far better than they proved to be – has failed. It has failed so appallingly, that we are now in front of an entire region utterly desirous to sink into a pit of bloody ferociousness, as clearly seen in those Countries where they managed to do so; whilst only clearly non democratic regimes – like in Egypt, or in Saudi Arabia – can still control the mob.

The question remains whether in those prevalently Muslim Middle east Countries people are Muslims because they are savages, or are savages because they are Muslims. I tend for the second, seen that the Christian minorities present in many of those Countries do not show the same, ahem, character traits. But in the end, the conclusion is the same: you can’t throw pearls before swines, or democracies before Arabs. I once thought it was possible. I saluted GWB’s attempt to change the world for the better, in deed for once rather than just with stupid rhetoric. But now I am cured.

I see, at this point, only three possible outcomes.

1. The Muslims keep massacring each other, and the worst among them keep massacring Christians like it’s Turkey Shooting Day. The West whines, and does nothing. The Pope, the President of the United States and the main Western leaders talk of peace in a tired manner, whilst the massacre goes on undisturbed.

2. The US and their allies decide to act, and start bombing the ISIS villages and installations like it’s Doomsday, making clear that anywhere near a possible ISIS target – real, potential, or simply suspected – is the wrong place to be and not conducive to a long life, and that the dear supporters of the Religion of Peace will have to extirpate the cancer from their midst with their own hands if they want the bombs to stop falling. Still: that in the end a definitive victory will not be possible without boots on the ground all those of you who have read three things about military strategy know all too well for me to bore them.

I really can’t see any other way, and question the grasp of reality of all those who think otherwise. Talking of peace with the ISIS is, if possible, even more senseless than talking of religion with Stalin. When they die, they will get the message. Not one second before.

But then we have to ask ourselves how the West – if the West is smart; which it isn’t – is to deal with the region.

My solution is not very idealistic, but very practical: bomb the bastards as needed, and then put in power a handful of your bastards. People who know what they must do to stay alive and enjoy a life of luxury and privilege.

Forget democracy, progress, civilisation. They clearly haven’t deserved it. They can’t deal with it. It is what it is.

Put there a handful of bastards able to speak the only language that counts in those parts – violence – and take care that they do not touch your own interests, starting from the safety and tranquility of the Christians. If they deliver, they will be allowed to live, and the West will close its rhetorical and democratic eye whenever necessary. If they don’t, they’ll end up as dead as Gaddafi whilst the next bastard gets his chance.

In the Middle East, Realpolitik is the only option, because every so little amount of practised idealism leads to suffering without end.

Violence, fear, and the constant threat of the Western wrath. This is what works with them. They react to it rather well (Saddam docet). Give it to them, then.

And please, don’t give me the next “give peace a chance” song whilst another Christian community is dispossessed. Diplomacy isn’t made in the kindergarten, and reality has a terrible way of reminding us what happens if we do. Obama’s support to the revolts in Egypt, Libya, even Syria is the epitome of diplomatic and humanitarian suicide for the sake of the kindergarten.

Let us get back to sound diplomacy. Our bastards everywhere, and woe to them if they touch our interests. This is what works.

Can’t you see with your eyes that this is the only way with these people? The “religion of peace” makes it impossible for them to avoid massacring each other and massacre other people, unless they are either united by a common enemy or under a man ferocious enough to keep them quiet.

Give war a chance. Give violence a chance. Give fear a chance.

In the Middle East, it is the only way. 



Posted on August 8, 2014, in Catholicism, Conservative Catholicism, Traditional Catholicism and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 24 Comments.

  1. Mundabor didn’t it down on you that maybe democracy is not as good as some people consider it to be. Democracy was revived by masons after the French Revolution. It doesn’t reflect hevenly order with Christ as the King of All Universe (Pantokrator).

    • Didn’t it dawn on you that democracies have given Europe and the West unprecedented welfare and peace.
      Pope Pius XII thought that democracy was the best protection for Catholicism in Catholic countries.
      Which actually remained true until the clergy set up to de Catholicise them.

  2. Next, how about a similar statement of support for rearranging the political, sociological and economic tyrannies of that very same Latin America which is a cesspool of ill-bred ignorance, superstition and self-destruction that has gifted the world The Imbroglio Bergoglio?

  3. izlam is a barbaric murder cult that calls itself a religion. It is patriarchic “to the nines” and misogynistic to boot. It is satanic in that it uses violence, sectarian hatred and lies to advance itself. And, just as homosexuals choose the faux-appellation of “gay” to describe their perversion it uses “religion of peace” to describe itself.

    Barbarians know and are ruled only by barbaric methods. This is not, in any vital way, a civilized philosophy. It is pure “might makes right.” It understands only what it preaches… submission. Not to God but to earthly power.

  4. I more or less agree. A reporter from the US met Saddam in the early 80s, and cheered his overthrow. Later events, he said, showed that many of the Iraqis were as brutal as their boss.

    Here’s one caveat: we tried the stong man approach in the 70s and 80s, and it got us suicide pilots with razors, mace, and 3000 dead in 90 minutes. All the rage towards their rulers can blow back on us, the money.

    • In my view what got us 9/11 is Clinton’s inability to adequately recognise the threat, which actually developed outside of the “trusted bastards” system. Egypt, Saudi Arabia, even Syria with the old man actually kept the dynamite in a safe place.
      But yes, is a delicate game. It will at time require to get rid of some of them, other will think they can do without the West and will look for other allies, like perhaps China or Russia.
      But the alternative seems to me three million boots on the ground, or Christians persecuted everywhere.

  5. We are faced with grave, serious Islamic extremism that needs to be confronted. Insofar as that goes, I can agree.

    But I do not know that I can affirm your entire analysis, with all due respect. We could look at Iran. An Islamic theocratic regime, not some secuarlized strongman one. And while life is not wonderful for Christians, Jews, and Zoroastrians, they do serve in parliament, aren’t being murdered, beaten, or expelled left and right, and don’t have their houses of worship torched or decimated.

    There aren’t even Muslims fighting each other there with armed force.

    • They aren’t Arabs. They are Persians.
      They would be extremely incensed at hearing the comparison.
      They are also more homogeneous: Persia is a nation in a way Iraq never was.
      But then again they are also Muslims, and therefore dangerous, violent nutcases. If they had the Bomb, it would be only a matter of time before they drop one on Israel, come what may.

  6. And to think that past concilliar popes bent over backwards to apologize to this ‘religion of peace’ for the Crusades that stopped them from swarming Europe killing Christians as they went. The world condemned the Crusades, I wonder what the Christians suffering at the gentle treatment of the religion of peace are thinking now?

  7. I do not agree in putting one of them in charge. They will use the money we send to fight us. The problem of the world is the decolonization western countries did after WWII. Because it was wrong to decolonize and it was made in a wrong manner. Western countries believed they could control that countries making what you are suggesting and in order to implement that they invented countris give them a flag a territory and toll them you are free now.
    Western countries should colonize again Middle East and almost all Africa again or watch how they kill themselves.

    • The problem with this is that the West is too stupid to realise in certain cases colonies aren’t a bad solution at all. They also would not be ready to pay the cost (financial, and human) or the civilisation work. Lastly, the pressure would grow to spend big amounts of money on the locals, which again would lead others to question the wisdom of keeping soldiers there and go through the hassle just to avoid savages killing each other.

      I prefer the “trusted bastard” solution. It costs less, it lets savages deal with savages, and is clean enough for the obese and obtuse Western voter.


  8. Iraq had a king: it must have a king once more.

    • Fine, but what would a king manage if the ethnic groups keep fighting each other? They would only compete for who kills the king first.
      It’s not that they would say “oh, we have a King now. You don’t touch a King!”.
      Plus, a King has more difficulties with the occasional massacre of ISIS madmen. I’d trust an Assad or a Mubarak with that. Less prestige to defend, and less image worries…

  9. Mundabor,
    I mostly agree with your position. It was a big mistake to remove dictators who did provide relatively stable, non-revolutionary governments you could live with if you refrained from activism against the regime, who kept in check some of the more radical Islamic movements (who have deep popular support in much of the region), and generally tolerated Christian minorities. (Saddam’s deputy prime minister, Tariq Aziz, was a member of the Chaldean Catholic Church. No persecution in sight back then.) If they stepped too far out of line, they were amenable to diplomacy, threat of sanctions, and, if necessary, limited military campaigns. Much further back, you could even call a crusade… if you were Pope, that is… imagine that…! A Pope who cared for Christians… but I digress.

    “Forget democracy, progress, civilisation. They clearly haven’t deserved it.”
    Nobody has deserved democracy in my opinion. It inevitably devolves into ochlocracy. As was known in the Western tradition at least since Plato and Aristotle, the behavior exhibited by democratic citizens is not compatible with behavior needed to sustain good, sound popular government. Once people find out they can vote themselves shares of the treasury, and change the law so as to “normalize” their favorite sins, any democratic society will degenerate into a bankrupt version of Sodom. It’s only a matter of time. Thanks, but no thanks. But then I am a reactionary who does not believe in popular sovereignty. I do not care whether people have elected their tyrants. If they are tyrants, and if people are suffering under their yoke, they have a bad government. Conversely, if people are happy, morals are intact, and religion is flourishing, who cares whether the ruler calls himself king, general, president or whatever?
    As to progress, I’d rather know exactly what goal we are to progress towards, before I sign up for that. Generally, progress means becoming more “modern”, more like what the West has become today. That’s certainly what neoconservatives meant by it when they tried to force it on the Middle East.
    Civilization, yes, now we are getting somewhere. That is a desirable goal, but I would prefer to restore it here first, before exporting some degenerated “modern” version of it.

    • I think you are too pessimistic about democracy.
      A people raised to sound values will carry democracies to great height. The Roman Republic, the British Empire, and the United States themselves have prospered for centuries without “voting themselves shares of the treasury”, whilst countless dictatorships or kingdoms around them faltered and became dust. But then again this requires that people are educated to the right values. If they forsake them, a democracy will automatically – by its own very nature – register the new sentiment of the population and accompany them to destruction.

  10. The British “discovered” in WW2 that Arabs are lazy, at least when employed as stevedores on the docks of Cairo. They also had “spiritual” leanings towards the nazis (due to the Jewish question) but kept them in check because they were being paid by the Brits.

    The former is because they are still desert barbarians (preferring any work be done by their circumcised women) as a general rule and the latter because they are members of a horrific murder-cult they call a religion.

    As individuals Arabs are no different from anyone else. As members of what passes for their culture they are horribly corrupted. Persians (Iran) as a general rule are more civilized. But that faux-religion of theirs’ really messes with their minds and makes everything their country does suspect.

    On the other hand they do seem to support hetero-marriage and still consider homosexuality a perversion so maybe they’re not all bad. (ha ha… of course their beliefs make them so.)

    • It is no coincidence that White men with balls ruled all the planet until sixty years ago. It was because – not to put too fine apoint on it – the black, brown, yellow and intermediate shades of beige never had the balls of the Whites. The same is true of the Romans, of course.

      When the Western civilisation has forgotten its strenght, the others have started to believe they are strong themselves. Which they aren’t, as they are reminded every time a conflict arise. But heavens, every time it needs countless devastation and persecution to persuade some Western government to move their ass.

      Peace is the new god. Savages may lay waste entire parts of a country, and the Western government will wake up only if absolutely necessary to preserve votes at home. The Christians in Iraq must hope this summer is very poor of other news.


  11. Interesting discussion. I am by no means really knowlegeable about this, but I believe the majority of 9-11 goons were Saudis, and that that kingdom funded with billions of oil money wahabi radicalism big time….so the dynamite wasn’t kept in place.

    I do think you are correct–Clinton was too busy with the pizza delivery girl to really pay attention…he should have JDAMed bin laden when he had the chance.

    • Ah, it depends.
      Yes, they were saudis, by the brigate Rosse were also Italians. There are many Saudis. fact is, Saudi Arabia keeps at least their people in check. That they also sponsor radical islam is a secundary problem compared to the difference ebtween them and, say, Iraq.
      Always to remain by the comparison, Iran is also a sponsor of terrorism, but it can’t be said that they tolerate the level of savagery of ISIS at home, or that their country is at concret edanger of becoming such. They are more civilised for once, and they are less sectarian and moroe homogeneous too.
      If the West chooses to pick their bastards, they’ll never have the ideal batsards, merely those they can hopefully work with.

  12. One would have thought Christian Europe gave the West “unprecedented welfare and peace”; thence despoilt as the nascent democracies squandered this inheritance, like so many wayward children. It’s said that more blood has been spilt in the last century than in all prior history, but I cannot remember where…

    • True, the spoilt child has not wanted to heed to the counsel of his wise parents; but there were no wise parents around, they were all smoking cannabis and reading hans Kueng.

      The comparison of Europe with other continents is not appropriate: Arabs would have incinerated the world if they had had the atomic bomb, and they would gas each other no end if they had the opportunity. Look at the way Saddam made a genocide in time of peace(and I bet he would be considered a stern but reasonable man with any Iraqi standard) to have an idea of what ISIS would do in a WWI scenario.


  13. And Catholicism (CHRIST-ianity) is the best protection for democracies.

%d bloggers like this: