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.

There is a very simple reason why militant “Muslims” (and also racial minorities) are free to behave like savages and barbarians on college campuses: anyone who criticizes their behavior is immediately denounced as a racist and/or Eurocentric. This is probably enough to turn off nine out of ten potential critics, including weak-kneed Hillel groups that cancel presentations for fear of offending Islamofascists. It’s the tenth one, the one who will go right down their throats, who is their problem. He or she is a very big problem because, once he gets past their strident and politically-correct bleatings, they are totally defenseless.

Here is a simple example from earlier this year. It began when a local dentist questioned the desirability of having students from Saudi Arabia at Wilkes University. He immediately received the usual criticism and denunciation from the Saudis and also Kumbaya-singing faculty members from Wilkes University. Needless to say, we were not about to permit this sort of thing in our own back yard, so we went right down the Saudis’ throats as follows. (Click on “View Image” if this is too wide for viewing here.)

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.

Perhaps at this point, no one wanted to associate his or her name with a culture that treats women as property, burns schoolgirls alive for not having their faces covered, and flogging people who talk about Christianity.

This is far from the only success with this approach. As another example, the enemy thought his use of Rachel Corrie as a doe-eyed peace martyr who was “murdered” by a “Caterkiller” bulldozer would be very effective in whipping up hatred of Israel. It did not take us long to turn Saint Rachel into our doe-eyed peace martyr, by assembling very credible evidence that the International Solidarity Movement and/or its Palestinian handlers deliberately set her up to be killed.

The Million Mom March, meanwhile, began with a seemingly-untouchable position from the political correctness standpoint. It said it wanted to regulate handgun ownership “to protect the chillllldddrennnnn.” Needless to say, it thought no one would even dare argue with anything that was for “the chillllllddrennnnnn.” We began by denouncing the Million Mom March for deceptive fundraising practices (lying to its financial sponsors and the media about firearm misuse killing twelve children a day) and then for using tax-exempt money to support political campaigns. The latter was enough to crumple up the organization and in fact inflict fatal damage; it liquidated the following year. Lesson: attack something the enemy cannot defend, and keep hitting that vulnerability until the enemy goes down and stops moving.

The Middle East Childrens Alliance is yet another organization that focuses on “the chillldrennn,” and it probably figured that no one would be so politically-incorrect as to attack an organization that delivered food, toys, clothing, and so on to children in the Middle East. This is probably why it thought it could get away with channeling tax-exempt money to the International Solidarity Movement. It is no longer doing so, although the tax-exempt A.J. Muste Memorial Institute has taken over this function. We will see how long that lasts.

It is quite likely that Al Sharpton gets a pass from the Left because of his color. No one wants to criticize him because everyone is afraid of being called a racist. We have never had any trouble as a result of calling him a racist and anti-Semite, and in fact calling him the Klan’s David Duke in blackface. Meanwhile, we crippled MoveOn.org by forcing it to take down its beloved Action Forum (formerly touted as a crown jewel in MoveOn’s organizational model but now a rotting albatross around its neck). The bottom line is that aggressive and intelligently-directed tactics kill the enemy’s credibility, even without multimillion-dollar budgets (as enjoyed by both the Million Mom March and MoveOn.org).

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.