Rub the Islamofascists’ faces in the dirt...

Here's the inimitable and indefatigable "Israel-Firster" Bill Levinson of Israpundit.com on his latest campaign against the "Islamofascists", a campaign which includes a pre-emptive strike against all charges of racism Bill and his hordes of cyber keyboard-warriors might face when unleashing their strategy "against screaming baboons or chimpanzees". Note: these are just a few snippets of Bill's thinking. I've added a bit of emphasis...

Don’t just stand up to them on college campuses, humiliate and demonize them.
By Bill Levinson

Once you get past the lance points, it’s a lot like killing rabbits.

The Earl of Uxbridge in Sharpe’s Waterloo (while hacking through the shaft of a dead French lancer’s weapon to get a souvenir).

We add that, once you get past the strident politically-correct rhetoric that calls you a racist (untrue) and Eurocentrist (damn proud of it), humiliating and discrediting Islamofascists and their sympathizers is about as sporting as slaughtering sheep–in a meat packing factory.

The Earl of Uxbridge’s advice about fighting lancers carries over into political discourse. In most cases, unfounded fear is the only thing that stands between us and overwhelming victory. During the horse-and-musket era of warfare, the cavalry lance’s perception was far more effective than its substance (at least in engagements with mounted opponents). The sight of the oncoming lance point, with more than a thousand pounds of man and horse behind it, was often enough to terrify neophyte cavalrymen into headlong flight. As later explained by then-Lieutenant George S. Patton (Saber Exercise of 1914), however,

32. In attacking a lancer, rapid approach is even more important than against a swordsman. The only moment of danger is when the point of the lance comes within the first reach of the fully extended saber. If, at that moment, the swordsman lunges, forcing the lance to the outside, he is safe and the lancer is at his mercy.

In other words, the lancer had to rely on perception as opposed to substance, which is a very bad strategy against an opponent who knows what he is doing. The same is true of the Left’s standard reply to criticisms of minorities or Third Worlders.

This was designed to effectively end the argument and paralyze the opposing side with overwhelming shock, and it worked; not one single reply was forthcoming from either the Saudis or the Kumbaya-singers. Note some key characteristics about the content:
(1) It eliminates the “racism!” argument in advance by stating that the individual students have the right to be judged by the content of their character (per Martin Luther King) as opposed to their ethnicity or country of origin.
(2) It continues with inarguable facts about Saudi Arabia.
(3) It undercuts support from feminists and women’s rights advocates by pointing out how Saudi law defines women as half-human.
(4) It suggested that other Saudis may have been planning a terroristic attack against high school students.

We therefore advocate similarly-aggressive tactics against Islamofascists on campus. Those who disrupt pro-Israel or other events should be photographed and videotaped, and the pictures and movies posted all over the Internet. The faces of the disruptive individuals should be clearly identifiable. They and their organizations should be denounced as subhuman, barbaric, uncivilized, and unfit to participate in a community of scholars. This is not racism because a behavioral choice (screaming like a baboon or chimpanzee) is not a race. Intentional disrespect should be directed against them and their so-called religious beliefs, while militant “Islam’s” treatment of women and gays should be brought to the forefront of the discussion.

Campus administrators who support their disruptive behavior should be denounced as unfit to hold positions of responsibility or trust at the university. While one must use some discretion in questioning a person’s fitness for his or her job, it would seem that tolerance of disorderly conduct or even assault (as directed against Hillel students at another university) would in fact reflect on campus officials’ fitness for their jobs. Alumni should be encouraged to withhold donations, this being the kiss of death for any university president. In any event, a far more aggressive doctrine is called for, and, in our experience, it is extremely effective.

Much to my surprise, the 'article', over at Israpundit, hasn't received any comments yet. What are they waiting for?!