Saturday, April 19, 2008

The Forest, the Shmoos, and Pundita

It’s a peculiar job I’ve taken on here, an American peering through the cloudy transatlantic glass trying to make sense of what’s going on in Europe.

I’ve learned a lot in the last three years, but there’s still a lot left to learn. Denmark and Britain mostly make sense (the latter in a discouraging way), but I doubt that I’ll ever fully understand Sweden or Norway. I just keep plugging away, reading the tips, watching the videos, and posting both the appalling and heartening bits and pieces that come my way.

It’s hard to get the big picture. Last week Pundita and I began a conversation on the topic, with each of us filing a report afterwards detailing whatever portions of the elephant’s anatomy that we had managed to grasp.

I concluded by saying, “From where I stand I can’t see anything but trees. It’s not possible to see the forest. None of us can. But it’s occasionally entertaining to imagine what a forest looks like.”

Now Pundita has responded with her peek at the forest: “Gates of Vienna Forest and Cultural Counterjihad”. She’s no more European than I am, but she understands very well the need to pay attention to Europe and try to understand what’s happening there:

…GoV is not a milblog; it focuses not so much on armed conflicts as on political-cultural ones. Unlike Vienna in 1683, modern Europe is not in conflict with invading Muslim armies. Rather, Europeans (to include Anglos) are battling each other over issues connected with Muslim settlements in Europe and immigration of large numbers of Muslims from non-European regions.

For readers outside Europe who haven’t been following this story:

The battles have been bloodless — so far — except for scattered incidents of ‘bullying’ carried out by one faction against another — usually those calling each other “fascist” or “Nazi” from one side and some variation of “Quisling” from the other.

And there have been numerous violent incidents carried out by non-European Muslims against the Europeans in the countries where Muslims have settled. (And to a much lesser extent hate crimes have been carried out by Europeans against Muslims.)

Yet those who speak of European “dhimmitude” are imprecise to the point of misleading. Dhimmi is associated with conquered peoples and the Muslims haven’t conquered so much as a micron of European soil.

I must confess that I frequently use the phrase “European dhimmitude” myself. But it’s obviously not meant to be taken literally — the aboriginal Europeans are not (yet) serfs in their own lands. I use the phrase prodromally, to represent the Eurabian future that inevitably awaits if events continue on their present course.

“Dhimmitude” describes a certain mindset, a lack of cultural confidence, an eagerness to surrender before the battle is fully joined. It’s a shorthand descriptor for a decadent and licentious culture that seems perversely intent on destroying itself.

Last night in the comments Laine pointed out the resemblance between Western European elites and the Shmoos. Shmoos were an imaginary animal species created by the late cartoonist Al Capp, and appeared in the comic strip Li’l Abner:

The ShmoosThe Shmoo loved to be eaten and tasted like any food desired. Anything that delighted people delighted a Shmoo. Fry a Shmoo and it came out chicken. Broil it and it came out steak… The Shmoo satisfied all the world’s wants… The Shmoo believed that the only way to happiness was to bring happiness to others.

[…]

Ironically, the lovable and selfless Shmoos ultimately brought misery to humankind because people with a limitless supply of self-sacrificing Shmoos stopped working and society broke down.

The analogy fails in one important way: Shmoos could behave the way they did and yet avoid extinction because they multiplied extremely quickly. Europeans, of course, scarcely multiply at all.

But back to Pundita:
- - - - - - - - -
To whatever extent Europeans now feel overwhelmed by Muslim populations it is the Europeans who created the situation. It evolved from European government policies, and with the tacit and even overt approval of the majority in European societies that accepted large numbers of Muslim immigrants.

Protests against the situation have launched an ever increasing political-social struggle that has received very little attention in the American mainstream media — and I suspect the same is true in Canada.

Even when there is coverage, it’s done in a narrow and piecemeal fashion; e.g., reporting on the number of votes received by a ‘extreme’ right wing party in say, France, and which has ‘something’ to do with immigration.

This narrow coverage, when applied to European electoral politics, results in a simplified and distorted account of European trends.

A preoccupation with celebrity political personalities and the “horse race” was made evident this past week in the wake of the Italian elections. The vote was a major Southern European electoral earthquake, with its epicenter in Tuscany and Lombardy, but leaving the entire region rippling with aftershocks.

The Greens and the Communists — the Italian branch was at one time the largest Communist Party in Europe — lost their representation, and the Lega Nord scored an amazing success. But what did the American press see?

“Berlusconi Back in Office”

Berlusconi is just an afterthought in all this, the tip of an enormous iceberg of change. But to the American MSM, it’s the horse race that counts, and nothing but the horse race, all day, every day.

Pundita continues:

You can’t get a handle on the struggle through such reports. You can’t understand the myriad issues unless you follow European blogs specializing in the issue, and keep up with press reports in several European countries. Yet this tack can bring you up against the language barrier if you are not fluent in a range of European languages. And it requires a big investment of time for someone who’s just trying to see the big picture.

That’s where Gates at Vienna comes in. There are other North American blogs that routinely or sporadically report on various aspects of the European struggle. But GoV specializes in discussing the struggle.

We do indeed, because the European struggle is the most important of our time. The fate of the entire West hinges on what happens in Europe over the next two decades.

And the struggle is very definitely going to be played out, in some fashion, in North America — and here I would not exclude Mexico. Not today, not tomorrow, but it’s on the way and could end the two-party political system in the USA. Thus, what we can learn from the Europeans can avert much grief down the line.

Western countries — Europe, the USA, Canada, Australia, and all the other components of the “civilized world” — have already bought their tickets for the upcoming millennial event. Europe just happens to be first in line at the gate.

Pundita has much more to say about the global ramifications of these issues. Go over to her post and read the rest.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

American opinion about events in Europe consists mostly of fantasies and half-truths spun out of press reports, misinformation, disinformation, wishful thinking, and schadenfreude. Depending on the predilections of the blogger or reporter, “Europe Is Doomed”, or “Support Grows for European Far Right”, or “Anti-Immigrant Sentiment Emerges in Europe”. Forget the elephant’s tail — these reports don’t begin to describe even a single bristle.

But Europeans themselves are not immune from simplification and over-generalization. Whether optimistic or pessimistic, they are all writing on the basis of incomplete information.

Nobody, not even the most alert and well-informed European, has a complete picture about what’s happening. Government statistics, with their lacunae and rampant politicization, resemble those of the Soviet Union in its heyday. Newspapers, television, and radio are either state-controlled or state-intimidated, and generally downplay or fail to report news that runs against the multicultural party line.

Opinion polls are laughable. Even when the questions aren’t tendentious — designed to elicit the “correct” answer from a respondent — the polls are conducted in an atmosphere of political repression that discourages honest responses. Considering that the left-wing vigilantes at Expo can access people’s phone records, would you tell the truth to a telephone pollster if you were a Swede?

So anyone — European, American, or otherwise — who says with certainty that “Europe is doomed” or “Europe will be all right” is either blowing smoke or whistling past the graveyard. Nobody knows.

All of us are groping in the dark, because adequate information isn’t available. Not only that, the situation is chaotic, and a chaotic system may change state without warning. Cause and effect still apply, but even when every actor in a chaotic system behaves rationally, its future state is not predictable except in the short term. The differential equations simply aren’t solvable.

All we can do is gather information and observe, hoping that the wisdom of crowds will sift the data and give us a clearer picture of what is happening.

Backward I see in my own days where I sweated through fog
               with linguists and contenders,
I have no mockings or arguments. I witness and wait.


—Walt Whitman, from “Leaves of Grass”

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

Pundita concludes her post by settling on a sidebar category for Gates of Vienna:

From all this, perhaps Baron and Dymphna can forgive me for fussing about how to categorize GoV for my blogroll. I will split the difference between “Counterjihad” and “The War for Civilization” by naming the category “Cultural Counterjihad.” And I might include this essay in the category by way of explaining my view of Gates of Vienna.

Next step? I would suggest a project to list and categorize the major debates arising in different European countries with regard to immigration/assimilation issues and preserving European cultures. Nothing fancy; maybe in chart form.

“Cultural Counterjihad” will serve just fine. And as for the next step — we’re working on it.

50 comments:

Paul said...

So...

"So anyone — European, American, or otherwise — who says with certainty that “Europe is doomed” or “Europe will be all right” is either blowing smoke or whistling past the graveyard. Nobody knows."

So... Is there a similarity between the Muslim invasion of Europe and the current Obama-Clinton contest? Though the MSM has tirelessly censored all negative reports on Obama until the past days, the truth finally emerged through You Tube, and Clinton strategic information releases.

When the Muslim 'guests' finally threaten the power players on the left, then perhaps we'll see strategic information releases about our Muslim neighbors. Give it a little time. Maybe it'll take some Euro-Elite's daughter to suffer Islamic disciple on the streets of Sweden, or France, or Britain... Maybe it will take something more extreme. We shall see.

Sagunto said...

[quote: Pundita]
"..Yet those who speak of European “dhimmitude” are imprecise to the point of misleading. Dhimmi is associated with conquered peoples and the Muslims haven’t conquered so much as a micron of European soil.."

Misleading? Let's just see about that.
I have a book here, edited by Robert Spencer: "The myth of Islamic tolerance: how Islamic law treats non-Muslims" (2005). In it, Bat Ye'or presents Dhimmitude as a concept to use in historical research, instead of the term (Islamic) "tolerance/toleration", that would imply a moral and subjective connotation.
That's the way she describes dhimmitude as a historical category. But Dhimmitude is a concept with a wider scope and more aspects than just historical ones. Even in a historical sense it is used by Bat Ye'or for regions not yet conquered by Islam:
"Thus dhimmitude should encompass the comparative study of all dhimmi groups, for territories were not just conquered; their Islamization could take three or even four centuries, while some regions had already been Islamized by migrations prior to their military and political conquest. The study of dhimmitude, then, is the study of the progressive Islamization of Christian civilizations."

There you go. Perfectly in line with the current study of Europe as it becomes more and more Islamized by the day.
In the next section there's an article by Mark Durie, titled "The Dhimmitude of the West". No footnote here from Robert Spencer that Mr. Durie is misleading the reader with this imprecision.

Of course that's because everybody, including Bat Ye'or herself, knows what aspect of Dhimmitude is described here: the attitude/behaviour of appeasement or in slightly stronger terms I might add: self-Islamization. In the article Durie even stays close to Bat Ye'or in using the concept to describe:
"an Islamic phenomenon" that "defines the condition of submissive surrender to Islamic rule without conversion." Later on, he adds:
"dhimmitude is manifested not only in legal and social structures but also in a psychology of inferiority, a will to serve."
Enter the attitude bit. No problems whatsoever, 'cause it's understood that it describes, in the words of Bat Ye'or, "the Spirit of Munich," i.e. a posture of appeasement and preemptive submission.

It could always be argued -and perhaps Pundita didn't mean to incite such academical hairsplitting, that the "-tude thing" was never supposed to refer to attitudes any more than latitude refers to the attitudes of Latinists (Hmm, bad example), but what can you do? It's out there, everyone knows what it means and experts can use the concept to study the historical aspects in detail if they want, so where's the problem?

Sag.

Zenster said...

Pundita: The battles have been bloodless ...

With all due respect, horsehocky!

It is difficult to imagine the Madrid and London atrocities as being "bloodless". While I understand Pundita's general intent, it is really only Europe (and the West) that has not yet declared war. Islam has done a swell job on all fronts and it remains for the West to grasp the fact that this war has already begun.

Be it Iran's embassy takeover, bombing the Marine Barracks in Lebanon, the attacks on our African embassies, attempts to sink the USS Cole or the 9-11 atrocity, Islam has been quite clear about its intent. For just this once it is not Islam's fault that the West is not listening.

All taqiyya and kitman aside, Europe and America have ZERO excuse for not understanding that we are at war with Islam. The Muslims have spilled vast quantities of Western blood and we must now return the favor.

Each Scandinavian rape, each French Carbeque, each Dutch murder or assault are all skirmishes that Islam constantly wages against the West. Our post-colonial guilt and a sense of being the elephant in the henhouse makes Westerners embarrassed to even admit that we are dying the death of a thousand paper cuts. Islam continues to modulate the low intensity nature of its attacks in order to nimbly skirt the threshold of massive retaliation or nuclear war. Yet, for them, this is Total War, even if we in the West refuse to admit it.

Due to context differences, it is difficult for Westerners to comprehend that Muslims are weaponizing our own culture against us. Moral and cultural relativism blind us to the fact that Islam in no way holds dear the essential liberties and rights we prize so highly. We have great difficulty in understanding that our own freedoms largely do not exist within the Islamic world and thereby blinker ourselves from noticing how Muslims turn our humanity, generosity, kindness and sense of fair play directly against us.

Such monumental ingratitude defies Western comprehension and challenges our own unwillingness to shed all niceties so as to properly deal with this barbarous foe. We have not yet become able to repay this cruelty in its own coin and thereby reap atrocity after horrible atrocity because of it. This sort of viciousness can only be countered by using an anti-venom of equal or greater brutality. Appeals to reason or attempts to negotiate will not result in anything more than those efforts being turned against us as well. It is the Islamic principle of hudna and we only continue to serve Muslim ends by pretending that they cannot possibly be as savage as they seem.

This refusal to acknowledge the depth of our foe’s enmity only vitiates them and lends greater vigor to their hostility. Western reluctance pulls our punches and cushions what should actually be a swift series of devastating blows. Our own counteroffensive must so demoralize Islam that it loses all taste for violence on such a scale. Failure to match or exceed the tempo of Islam’s predatory onslaught gives credence to the viability of proportional war when nothing of the sort exists. Islam—despite its military weakness—is playing for all the marbles. Our reticence in answering this challenge with significant force almost entirely neuters the value of our current—more limited—efforts.

Even as Islam stabs at us, we still do not bind our enemy so that they cannot grope with their free hand for other even more devastating armaments. Our hesitation gives Islam time and opportunity to grasp hold of truly diabolical weapons that only guarantee a descent into madness of such magnitude that we all will wonder whatever became of our once pleasant world.

Yggdrasil said...

To me it is quite simple. What we are witnessing is either the death, or the renewal of Europe.

A renewal is usually called a renaessance - a rebirth og the classic greek and roman heritage.

That has been my project - from the beginning of my work with SIAD and SIOE.

Today, i think the process i irreversible - after the Fitna movie. Europe is on a course to democracy, free speech, Socrates and so on.

In the next 200 - 300 hundred years the seed that have been planted will ripen, and the european culture will be predominant. Giving peace to mankind.

Reversepsycology said...

You Yanks are missing the point in no uncertain terms, if you believe that there is no hope for dhimmi Britain anymore.

You don't understand the British press.

There hunting in packs with every story of ridicule they can possibly find, simply to "go after" our despotic government.

Instead of being spoon fed your news from the pages of the British press, and believing that it is no more than everyday fact, just watch for yourselves, in the results of the forthcoming local and mayoral elections on May the first.

New Labour carnage!! - Gordon Brown humiliated!! - The end of an eleven year crusade by the politically correct left to destroy my Country from within.

Gordon Brown is both statistically and percentage wise, the most detested leader in the history of the British Isles.

Now that takes some doing!!!

Every "Sainted" leftist cause: (political correctness - immigration - Multiculturism - Islam - Racism) are being attacked with an open venom that has been missing for over a Decade now.

We're not finished - infact we haven't yet begun.

Just watch!!!!!!

Were coming out of this living hell - whilst with "Obama" your about to taste this leftist poison for yourselves.

Keep away from him!!!!

VinceP1974 said...

Reversepsycology:

God save Great Britian!

turn said...

I dearly hope yggdrasil is correct but trends aren't positive for Europe and the US.

Many are saying this might be the Chinese century... or the Indian.

Maybe we're just incapable of recognizing that our civilization can fall--although history is replete with examples.

What I think I understand is that we will have to return to our roots in matters of law and legislation. The ethanol lobby has succeeded in triggering food riots around the world--unintended consequences.

Extra-constitutional 'rights' like a right to privacy have lowered our birth rates and our morals.

Extra-constitutional 'rights' like a taxpayer funded pension and medical care are fueling ever-increasing immigration of those that wish to share few to none of our ideals.

Incessant meddling with free markets is devastating the dollar.

(I'm not having a good day.)

I think this a good time to revisit master essayist Bill Whittle's You Are Not Alone.

Isaiah 11.11
"In that day the Lord will reach out his hand a second time to reclaim the remnant..."

It's said that civilizations commit suicide. If so, then it must be due to bad decisions.

Like the Irish monks that preserved the writings of the Greeks and Romans during the long Dark Ages maybe we should put at least a few eggs in a basket to be kept safe and secure should the possible become the inevitable.

Afonso Henriques said...

Excellent post! This is exactly why I have Gates of Vienna in such high estime. Keep doing the good work.

I also have to highlight the comment of Zenster whith whom I agree 98%.

But Gates of Vienna is a great space because here we change ideas and we think seriously.

So I will protest. Baron, those Europeans (at least. The others are just hypocrites) who say that Europe is doomed... they do know what they are talking about. I understand them and they are indeed rght. If you come over here, if you think about it, if you try to be rational, that's the only conclusion you will get: Europe is doomed. Those of us who do not believe this are not being rational, as I am not, because we do just that, we believe.
It is a kind of mystical or messianic way, we see Europe as some special entity that will refuse to fall despite all the reallity in her shoulders. I could exemplify that to you or your commenters but I won't in order to not de-moralise you Americans.

Another aspect worth noting is that you people from the other side of the Atlantic are always talking about vague things that I can hardly understand, especially in this non Latin language that I do not master perfectly. You speak about ideas, cultural this, cultural that, democracy... the Brazilians are always taling about fun and happiness despite how miserable they are (after all, people are not happy, the best we can achieve are some happy moments that will - in a maybe too Portuguese feeling for you to understand - lead to unhappiness when one remembers those good moments that have passed and will not return)...

Sorry for that, anyway, you speak too vague.
I don't really care about the islamization of Europe.

What I care about is the de-Europeanisation of Europe, if you know what I mean or if I spelled it right.

I also think that culture and genetics are intrinsically related and that one depends and shapes the other. Muslims are not worst than other immigrants, it just happens that they have a political agenda because they were able to create such a great civilisation islam is. Despite being savage, barbaric, semitic whatever you want they have for centuries threatened European Civilisation and few peoples can be proud of that. The muslims do.

The De-Europeanisation of Europe.
How is Obama western? I can not see him other than an alien!
What you Americans have to decide is weather is it morally right to have an European Europe. Because you can not help us (and you too) if you are not pro European but just anti muslim.
That's where we have to draw a line, what is morally correct and what is not. When the great war pours in, the more extream will be in charge, those wll hunt all "ethnics", they will not ask Are you a muslim when one individual does not look European. The same will happen the other way around.
Americans (especially white americans, the others I know they can do this exercise) try to imagine you are one of a non muslim non European minority in Europe and you see the muslims being hunted. What would you think? Whould you not think I and my family are the next ones on the hatred list because we are different? Would you not feel sorry for the muslims? With all the "hate whitey" ideologues out there, you can easily see that it is not as linear as you like to think, Americans.

That's why I am saying that we have to be pro European and not just anti this or anti that.

That's why I am sayng that we have to discuss what is morally right or wrong. Concearning other "ethnics" and not just muslims.

(I had to erase a long text in which I talked about my experiences with "ethnics" and I was profiling my multicultural neighbourhood at the doors of Lisbon. The conclusion, you can read below.)

One thing is ceertain, there are good people and bad people in all races, all religions, all professions, all sizes, etc beauty or uglyness does not determine weather a person has a good caracther or not.

This is the thing that is polemical. This is what we have to discuss:

Is a European Europe morally right? If so, can we detatch gentics and culture as the Americans have done so well?

Well, the second question I can answer you now. In Europe? NO you can not. Because the death of Europe will be when Europe is based, like the United States, only and primordially in ideas.
This is just what the European Union wants to do and when that day arrives, Europe will stop being Euroe, it will die and it will be the United Stats of Europe.

It will be the saddest day of all, not just to Europe but to all the Humanity, consciently or not, the greatest treasure on earth would be lost forever.

Bilgeman said...

Pundita:

"The battles have been bloodless — so far — except for scattered incidents of ‘bullying’ carried out by one faction against another — usually those calling each other “fascist” or “Nazi” from one side and some variation of “Quisling” from the other."

Yes...bloodless. They were bloodless because the Eurostatists capitulated before ever the battles were truly joined.

You give the game away by your choice of language in the very next paragraph:

"And there have been numerous violent incidents carried out by non-European Muslims against the Europeans in the countries where Muslims have settled. (And to a much lesser extent hate crimes have been carried out by Europeans against Muslims.)"

There it is...in a nutshell. The mindset indicated by terming violence by the immigrant party "violent incidents", while violence carried out by the native party as "hate crimes" is why so many of us see Europe as very badly in need of "cultural Viagra".

And let's face it, kids, when you need chemical stimulation to do what SHOULD "come naturally", you're kinda on the last lap...y'know?

Look no further than the sad case of Lionheart the Brave for the proof of the puddin'
(And thank the local constabulary for making Luton the best place 'round England to buy dope, eh?).

"Yet those who speak of European “dhimmitude” are imprecise to the point of misleading. Dhimmi is associated with conquered peoples and the Muslims haven’t conquered so much as a micron of European soil."

Pundita, you don't get it. You just don't get it.

When I enslave your mind, I have captured not just your soil, but your everything.

Slaves,(and dhimmis), do not share in their masters' victories.

Pundita said...

To Sagunto, Bilgeman, Zenster:
I'm still trying to get to a point that Conservative Swede raised last week that I consider a mega point, which was under my radar until CS brought it up. And I have yet to answer Fjordman's pointa. But I have read comments for this GoV post and I see I must defend some of my points. I am writing as fast as I can and should have my reply up within a hour. I will try to keep my replies very short, which of course could easily lead to additional counterarguments, but at least I will have defended.

To Afonso:
Re your remark: "Another aspect worth noting is that you people from the other side of the Atlantic are always talking about vague things that I can hardly understand, especially in this non Latin language that I do not master perfectly. You speak about ideas, cultural this, cultural that, democracy."

WELL SAID. You have articulated the US-Euro divide when it comes to understanding key issues. Many Euros are battling to save their society from being overrun by jihadis. Meanwhile Americans lecture the Euros about preserving the ideals democracy.

Some of the American responses are almost funny. You're in the trenches taking incoming fire and along comes a professor of philosophy and asks, "Have you stopped to ponder the morality of war?'

Yeah, it's an important question but not while you're dodging grenades. There has to be a sense of priorities about the arguments, and Americans have to understand more about this.

Zenster said...

Pundita, I can confidently speak for many of us in saying that we look forward to your considered reply. Thank you for checking in. This promises to be a most interesting and worthwhile exchange.

VinceP1974 said...

Some of the American responses are almost funny. You're in the trenches taking incoming fire and along comes a professor of philosophy and asks, "Have you stopped to ponder the morality of war?'

Oh that annoys the hell out of me.

Pundita said...

Bilgeman wrote:
"Yes...bloodless. They were bloodless because the Eurostatists capitulated before ever the battles were truly joined."

That was also my point, so I'm not clear on your criticism of that passage.

You also wrote:

"There it is...in a nutshell. The mindset indicated by terming violence by the immigrant party "violent incidents", while violence carried out by the native party as "hate crimes" is why so many of us see Europe as very badly in need of "cultural Viagra".

I struggled with the wording of the paragraph you highlighted. After studying your criticism I would have done better to put "hate crimes" in parenthesis to underscore that this is how the state tends to interpret the situation; e.g., if Muslims are carrying it out, it's "violent incidents" but if Euros do it, it's "hate crimes." Or at least I should have elaborated in order to be precise. So, good catch.

However, to be very precise, there are true hate crimes on both sides. Yet we need to carefully distinguish between these and tactical strategies. For example, the most destructive of the Paris riots do not seem to have been actual riots. Reportedly, and from a good intelligence source, they were organized for the purpose of gaining a tactical objective against the government. They were only made to look like riots.

That's not hate crime, and it shouldn't even be termed "violence." It is most precisely defined as asymmetrical warfare.

Re Sagunto's comments:

I knew when I wrote the passage in question that it would be controversial and that Bat Ye'or and/or Spencer's points would figure in the criticism. So for a few minutes I considered adding a link to the Wikipedia article on Dhimmitude, which addresses Ye'or's points on dhimmitude. The term is actually a French invention (according to Wikipedia) and the "tude" connotes something different from dhimmi.

I chose instead to make an unequivocal statement because in truth "dhimmi" is neither appeasement nor self-Islamization. This does not mean the latter phenomena do not exist; indeed, they are very real. But conquest is also very real.

It is twaddle for Europeans to speak or think of themselves as conquered. "Conquest" was when Soviet tanks rolled into a country and shipped the country's government off to a gulag.

As to why I was very strong on this point: Because the enemy finds the concept of dhimmitude to be very useful. Why? Because it helps set up a sense of inevitability in the target population.

This tack is an old story with Muslim generals, by the way. During the Muslim invasions in India centuries ago, Turkish generals would find Brahmin priests in India that could be bribed. The priests would then do an astrological chart and tell the king that conquest by the Muslims was inevitable because it was written in the stars. So great was the faith that some of those kings had in their astrologers that they didn't rouse their armies to fight when the Turks showed up.

Be very careful with this dhimmitude business. It is one thing for scholars to wrestle with the concept. But for the rest: when they put you in chains and ship you off to the labor camp, that's when you are conquered. Until then, you ain't dhimmi.

To Zenster:

1. You misread the passage. When I wrote about the battles being "bloodless," I was specifically referring to the conflicts between *Europeans* about how to deal with the Muslim situation in their countries. I wasn't talking about Muslims.

To repeat the passage, which I addressed to readers who were not familiar with the conflicts between Europeans:

"For readers outside Europe who haven't been following this story:

The battles have been bloodless -- so far -- except for scattered incidents of 'bullying' carried out by one faction against another -- usually those calling each other "fascist" or "Nazi" from one side and some variation of "Quisling" from the other."

2. I really shouldn't be addressing the rest of your comments because I said I would keep my replies short and confined to defending my post. But I will say that you're opening up a huge dialogue when you write:

"Islam continues to modulate the low intensity nature of its attacks in order to nimbly skirt the threshold of massive retaliation or nuclear war. Yet, for them, this is Total War, even if we in the West refuse to admit it."

Let's assume for a moment you're completely right. How then do you respond to total war? Pretty much the same way that the Allies responded to the Axis powers during World War 2. In other words, you open up different fronts and fight in different ways.

That's exactly what is going on in the war against al Qaeda and their clones, and against the governments that wage asymmetrical war under the guise of "terrorism."

And don't assume all those governments fighting us are Islamic. I don't recall the exact title of the book but you can find it easily if you Google "'Unrestricted War PLA China."

Of course, now the Red army's bright idea for "unrestricted war" against the United States is coming back to bite them among China's Muslim populations. That is what I call poetic justice.

And thanks for the kind words; the feelings are mutual.

Pundita said...

Finally, to Baron:

The example you used to carry forward my point about poor reporting on the Europe situation is perfect -- so perfect I'm going to publish it at my blog.

And you nailed how the US mainstream media acts. European readers, take notes on what Baron wrote because it will help you understand why Americans have so much trouble understanding Europe.

The American two-party system of government has spawned a view of reality that really does stuff everything into a race between two horses approaching the finish line. So when you talk to Americans, keep what Baron wrote in mind:

"A preoccupation with celebrity political personalities and the “horse race” was made evident this past week in the wake of the Italian elections. The vote was a major Southern European electoral earthquake, with its epicenter in Tuscany and Lombardy, but leaving the entire region rippling with aftershocks.

The Greens and the Communists — the Italian branch was at one time the largest Communist Party in Europe — lost their representation, and the Lega Nord scored an amazing success. But what did the American press see?

“Berlusconi Back in Office”

Berlusconi is just an afterthought in all this, the tip of an enormous iceberg of change. But to the American MSM, it’s the horse race that counts, and nothing but the horse race, all day, every day."

YES THAT'S THE WAY IT IS IN THE USA, AND IT INFLUENCES HOW THE US PRESS COVERS POLITICS OUTSIDE THE USA.

Bilgeman said...

Pundita:

"That was also my point, so I'm not clear on your criticism of that passage."

I was commenting on your use of the term "battles". This presumes at least two sides, armed and willing to do and suffer violence to enforce their subjective realities.

I see an Islamist Army...where are/were the others?

From where I sit, these "battles" have actually been serial episodes of craven pan-European surrender.

Some "battle".

You spoke of being in the trenches and taking incoming fire, where has the ougoing fire been?

If you're not planning to shoot at anyone, why would you enter a trench in the first place?

Just remain seated at the cafe and wave a white hankie while sipping espresso from a demi-tasse.

Save a spot of bother, that way.

"However, to be very precise, there are true hate crimes on both sides. Yet we need to carefully distinguish between these and tactical strategies."

There you go again with the military terminology: "tactics" and "strategies" and such.
You need two sides to play at that, and I see evidence of only one side willing to shed blood.

In all too many of the Euroranks, I see only anachronistic socialists and the King of the Belgians, et al, trying desperately to cling to their perks and power.

Frankly, it looks a lot like the AFL-CIO labor movement in the USA...a bunch of corrupt geezers giving speeches and bestowing awards on each other for the photos in their house newspaper organs while their former membership evaporates, and their never-to-be-realized future membership passes 'em right by (on the way to work).

The buffoonery of politico-economic irrelevance.

BTW...there's no such thing as a "hate crime". It is an unword, a neo-Marxist social control mechanism designed to instill passivity and fear into a target population segment so that they actively shun resistance to the assault.
Because of it's profitable adoption by elements of the state security and propaganda apparats, it works.

" It is most precisely defined as asymmetrical warfare. "

Yes...asymetrical warfare.

Sitting quietly and obediently in uniform in a trench while some foreigner lobs grenades at you.

Works for me.

turn said...

1st and foremost--there have been no battles on the Euro or American fronts--only attacks.

"It is twaddle for Europeans to speak or think of themselves as conquered. "Conquest" was when Soviet tanks rolled into a country and shipped the country's government off to a gulag."

Sorry. Conquest is when there is no fighting back--a surrender by the attacked/invaded party.

Some European countries have already admitted surrender. Their people may yet disagree.

Europe is ahead of us provincials in many aspects. Many positive and many negative. However, it's not a good idea to dismiss us or p*ss us off.

The bulwark and the stopgap--that is us.

nikolai said...

The elites and the rest--that's the distinction. The elites are 99%dhimmi--the rest aren't.

Interesting times.

(The Wisdom of Crowds--if we win, the essence of that book needs to be built in stone into the western democracies imo.)

Pundita said...

VinceP1974 quoted me:

"Some of the American responses are almost funny. You're in the trenches taking incoming fire and along comes a professor of philosophy and asks, "Have you stopped to ponder the morality of war?'

then remarked "Oh that annoys the hell out of me."

I don't know exactly what annoyed Vince so I can't comment on his remark. But I am returning to the comment section to note that when I re-read what I'd written in haste, I was annoyed with my analogy. It contradicted observations I made in a post that Baron published last week.

The analogy made me seem anti-intellectual and it denigrated philosophy and the importance of studying things from a deep perspective.

I don't want to burden the reader with my attempt to clarify, beyond noting that my emphasis should have been on the need for prioritizing situations when we analyze them.

Bilgeman wrote:
"If you're not planning to shoot at anyone, why would you enter a trench in the first place? Just remain seated at the cafe and wave a white hankie while sipping espresso from a demi-tasse."

Roger that. As for your remark that I keep using military terms, well, that's ridiculous. Over and out.

All joking aside, I do use a lot of military terms and analogies, come to think of it.

I guess that's what seven years of closely following reports on a very hot war can do to some people's lexicon.

And I have a number of readers who are military/intel types, even though Pundita is not a milblog, which does influence my language and point of view.

However, I really did not notice how much I use military analogies, until you pointed it out.

And as you also made clear, this can lead to distortions of 'truth on the ground.' -- oops, it really is hard for me to speak outside the military/intel lexicon LOL.

Your observation has sharply reminded me that there is a point at which a handy lexicon is counterproductive, if it doesn't accurately convey your thought. It then becomes mental laziness to use the lexicon; trying to excuse this by saying 'I was rushed,' does not wash.

Can I speak about the situation we were discussing without invoking a military mindset? That would be an interesting and instructive exercise for me. So -- thanks.

With regard to your comments about "hate crime" -- I am in total agreement. I have become strongly aware of the term because of the current Free Speech/Section 13 issue in Canada, which revolves around citizens defending themselves against state-backed charges of "hate speech" and "hate crime."

So your comment is worth passing along to the Canada Free Speech Brigade -- oops, there I go again with military terminology.

Over and out -- oops! I mean, "Goodbye for now." I will decamp -- er, leave -- the comment section until the next time GoV does me the honor of discussing one of my posts.

VinceP1974 said...

VinceP1974 quoted me:

"Some of the American responses are almost funny. You're in the trenches taking incoming fire and along comes a professor of philosophy and asks, "Have you stopped to ponder the morality of war?'

then remarked "Oh that annoys the hell out of me."

I don't know exactly what annoyed Vince so I can't comment on his remark. But I am returning to the comment section to note that when I re-read what I'd written in haste, I was annoyed with my analogy. It contradicted observations I made in a post that Baron published last week.


Pundital: I was agreeing with you.

Yggdrasil said...

@ reservepsychology

It is very heartening to hear that the brits are finally putting up a fight.

Seen from at danish perspective i have wondered what happened to the brits, and been not a bit worried about you guys.

This fight cannot be won alone, we are, for good or bad dependent on oneanother.

Well we danes took the first swings on the islamists - lets hope the brits will follow up with some more.

But i must warn you, talking is not enough, action is what counts - and that is the hard bit. The politicians and intellectual "elite" are basically cowards, and it is very hard to make them take any serious action on anything.

Perhaps the brits will set the example in this field.

Good luck :-)

Sagunto said...

Hey Pundita,

Thnx for your comment, appreciate it. I also appreciate scholarly sound and well researched works, above Wiki-knowledge.
I would never use Wikipedia to support any point I'd like to make. Scientifically speaking it often is of questionable value, to say the least.

Kind regards from Amsterdam,
Sag.

Sagunto said...

[quote: Pundita]
"..As to why I was very strong on this point: Because the enemy finds the concept of dhimmitude to be very useful. Why? Because it helps set up a sense of inevitability in the target population.."

So that's your point then?
To accuse leading experts in the field of the study of Islamization of "misleading" the public, because the concept of the Dhimma is used by jihadists for propaganda purposes? Well thank you for your clarity. At least that gives me the opportunity to say that -however I salute your wish to exchange viewpoints, this warning of yours borders on the nonsensical.

Your logic would for instance have ruled out the entire scientific discipline of Oriental Studies, and the scholarly investigation of Islam itself, because the concepts under investigation have been used throughout history by jihadists in the process of Islamization. Well yes, that's what you get isn't it, when you study Islam you'll soon find out that Islam is used by Muslims to spread.. well: Islam. To slightly exaggerate my point in order to be absolutely clear: you'd argue that the scientific study of Middle Eastern Islam is dangerous because Edward Said found the concepts very useful in his anti-Western propaganda-piece named "Orientalism". See what I mean?

Kind regards from Amsterdam,
Sag.

Post Scriptum:
the real threat to the scientific study of Islam and Oriental Studies is the fact that, escpecially in the US, but in Europe as well, more and more academic chairs are financed by Middle Eastern Islamists -wealthy through the oil we paid for, and indeed pay so dearly for. So, indirectly, we finance our own anti-Western propaganda and the gradual corruption of academia. Your point would, Pundita, in its consequences only add to that and I'm sure you don't want to leave the critical study of Islam to Salafists alone, do you? It would be like asking the butcher to score his own meat.

Afonso Henriques said...

Pundita,

first of all I am sorry of being one of your inquisitors, I know how bad it feels to have to answer every people on earth...

But I just wanted to say the following:
You replied to my comment:

"You have articulated the US-Euro divide when it comes to understanding key issues. Many Euros are battling to save their society from being overrun by jihadis. Meanwhile Americans lecture the Euros about preserving the ideals democracy."

Yes, I am glad you agree with me. And though I despize that kind of yankee lecture, I can attest that there is indeed a moral problem. As I have previously said,

"One thing is certain, there are good people and bad people in all races, all religions, all professions, all sizes, etc beauty or uglyness does not determine weather a person has a good caracther or not. "

Will we treat all the muslims the same just because their faith is islam? And the other "ethnics"?

It is a great moral or ethical problem.
If we are to discern the good vs bad muslims, we can get what happened in Scotland, we can also be unfair to some bad ass muslim teenager that says what he says just to impress his friends, etc etc.

If we do that knd of discernment, we will loose strenght, it will be ridiculous to fight.

That is the ethical problem I find worth discussing.

You, Pundita, then continued:

"Some of the American responses are almost funny. You're in the trenches taking incoming fire and along comes a professor of philosophy and asks, "Have you stopped to ponder the morality of war?'
Yeah, it's an important question but not while you're dodging grenades. There has to be a sense of priorities about the arguments, and Americans have to understand more about this."

The thing is, I don't believe we are already at war; I can see a much, much darker future on the horizon... I think that we must discuss what is and what is not morally wrong, or we face the possibility of a new Holocaust.

I think the Jews haven't done half this new "ethnics" are doing to Europe and we all know what happened to them. I fear that the Jewish Holocaust will soon be just a fairy tale compaired to the new Holocausts that may arise in 50 years time, in Europe.

Regards.

Bilgeman said...

alfonso:

"Meanwhile Americans lecture the Euros about preserving the ideals democracy."

Yes, I am glad you agree with me. And though I despize that kind of yankee lecture, I can attest that there is indeed a moral problem."

Just out of curiosity, where do you think democracy originated?

Was it in a university? A think tank? A cathedral?

I don't think so. I read my classical history and it's pretty clear that democracy was born in the No Man's Land between two opposing armies locked, loaded, and ready to fight.
(That's why we have elections in democracies, to determine who has the bigger "army").

From my side of the shore, the lecture isn't about preserving the ideals, but rather the fundamentals of democracy.
And that means showing up ready to make them bleed more than they make you bleed...wherever that takes you.

Morality and ethics are things that an be debated only AFTER you have won.

"Will we treat all the muslims the same just because their faith is islam? And the other "ethnics"? "

If that's what it takes.

Can I quote you some French history?

"Kill them all...God will know his own."
(Bummer for the Cathar heretics, eh?).
If you're Portuguese, the Reconquista wasn't very selective in it's methods, was it? But it worked.

As I've said on other threads, though, we can (and we are), preventing the necessity for future holocausts by striving to "corrupt" their societies with our cultural and political exports.

On defense, we need to hold the line and protect our base long enough for our (more or less)common weltanschauung to dampen the fires of their religious zealotry...as it dampened our own.

The schwerpunkt here is that, like Saddam's armies when the trumpets sounded, they (analogously),drop their weapons, change their clothes and go home quietly...or surrender to us for a hot meal, a warm sleeping bag, and a "Baywatch" video.

Even BETTER if they don't show up in the first place.

So far, I'd say that they have been more effective in this strategy aganst Europe than Europe has been against them.

turn said...

bilgeman wrote:

"And that means showing up ready to make them bleed more than they make you bleed...wherever that takes you."

As long as it's clearly understood that bleeding doesn't always mean literal blood.

We're bleeding wealth here and I'm reading reports that the UK is also.

Forgive me for what may be the worst mixed metaphor of all time: We are bleeding spine.

Collectively we are guilty of choosing schmoos; the consequences of which have been understood for quite a while, but collectively we continue to vote for not just the redistribution of wealth but the redistribution of responsibility.

Maybe dhimmitude should be re-redefined. Maybe it's a state where the citizen/subject gets enough to get by, paying the jizz, and taking it with enough KY to not make much noise. Sound familiar?

Sagunto said...

Yes @Turn,

That surely sounds familiar.
It was described by Hilaire Belloc is his evergreen: "The Servile State" (1913).
The political aspect of Dhimmitude that you describe here, was the central theme of his book.

Read it. You won't regret.

Sag.

Zenster said...

Pundita: How then do you respond to total war? Pretty much the same way that the Allies responded to the Axis powers during World War 2. In other words, you open up different fronts and fight in different ways.

That's exactly what is going on in the war against al Qaeda and their clones, and against the governments that wage asymmetrical war under the guise of "terrorism."


I wish like Hell that you were right but the current war on terrorism is being prosecuted in a "law enforcement" mode. The amount of damage or demoralization that needs to occur—and the time frame in which it needs to happen—cannot be inflicted using a “one-bullet-at-a-time” strategy. You yourself recognize that World War II tactics are needed. The West has yet to embrace them in any real sense.

Whether it is because our political leaders are too morally fastidious or merely spineless, they continue to believe that the current war-fighting doctrine will win the day. Fighting the Afghani and Iraqi conflicts has consumed on the order of ONE TRILLION dollars. Where shall we unearth the extra several trillion dollars needed to take this fight through the other one or two dozen Muslim nations that need pacifying?

And don't assume all those governments fighting us are Islamic. I don't recall the exact title of the book but you can find it easily if you Google "'Unrestricted War PLA China."

Of course, now the Red army's bright idea for "unrestricted war" against the United States is coming back to bite them among China's Muslim populations. That is what I call poetic justice.


Thank you very much for drawing communist China into this discussion. In the long run they will make the terrorists look like a bunch of well-behaved Boy Scouts. Already we are seeing the invisible hand of China influencing American foreign policy with respect to Iran. Decisions must be made that encompass China’s increasing dependence upon Iranian oil exports even if America continues to boycott Iran. However, I really do not think that China will experience anywhere near the discomfort from their indigenous Muslim population because of the communists’ draconian policies.

This is probably a good lesson that the West needs to take a page from.

Bilgeman: we can (and we are), preventing the necessity for future holocausts by striving to "corrupt" their societies with our cultural and political exports

I ask again that you measure your solution against the time line that currently confronts us. Were this 50 years ago, I might—and probably would—agree with you wholeheartedly. Sadly, this is an age of nuclear proliferation and we do not have the luxury of waiting several decades for the erosion of these puritanical and fanatical cultures to happen. The low intensity war needed—exactly as with what is going on right now—to buffer Western civilization from Islam’s depredations while your “cultural erosion” takes place is simply too costly. The risk of a stray nuclear attack or even a conventional one that destroys some irreplaceable Western treasure like Notre Dame or the Louvre is simply too great.

While preventing a Muslim holocaust is, indeed, a laudable concern, we must also not shy from inflicting some real harm upon those who wish nothing less on us. Islam has yet to feel even a fraction of our pain. Until that happens, count on a continuous stream of even more horrific Muslim atrocities.

As I mentioned: “Western reluctance pulls our punches and cushions what should actually be a swift series of devastating blows. Our own counteroffensive must so demoralize Islam that it loses all taste for violence on such a scale.” Islam continues to run up a butcher’s bill that can only be repaid in its own coin. Just as any major wildfire usually cannot be contained without setting backfires, so will the subjugation of Islam require fighting terrorist fire with fire.

More than ever before, I am now convinced that—following each successive Islamic atrocity—a Muslim metropolis should have vanished in exchange for their perfidy. A strategy of counter-violence in equal or greater measure seems to be the only thing that will force Islam to recognize our displeasure. The 9-11 atrocity should have seen Kandahar instantly turned into rubble as a lesson to Mullah Omar that Afghanistan’s harboring of al Qaeda carried a steep penalty. After the Bali, Beslan, Bali II, Madrid and London attacks, other large Muslim cities should have been carpet-bombed as well. I cannot identify any other approach that might have gotten Islam’s undivided attention in the manner we required. If Muslims are so enamored of “strong horse” politics, we should be giving it to them in full measure.

I can only foresee that the West will need to inflict sufficient pain upon Muslims for supporting terrorism until it becomes obvious that such advocacy carries too high of a price tag. To date, our punishment of Islam has been anything but that. Instead, the West has expended much of its own precious blood and treasure helping eliminate radical opposition to intensely corrupt Muslim governments who have absolutely no intention of curbing anti-Western jihadism. If the rulers of Afghanistan and Iraq were truly sincere about modernizing their respective nations, they would NEVER have allowed the re-installation of shari’a law.

Make no mistake—call it “asymmetrical” if you wish—however you label it, Islam has declared and launched its version of Total War against the West. Regardless of its capacity to wage what we might call “Total War”, this is what is happening. Our unwillingness to respond with Total War is only upping the butcher’s bill. The breathing room we give Islam only allows it to pursue atomic weapons and thereby further paint us into the nuclear corner of a Muslim holocaust. We are killing Islam with kindness.

Afonso Henriques said...

Bilgeman,

"Just out of curiosity, where do you think democracy originated?
Was it in a university? A think tank? A cathedral?"

Well, first of all I have to say that Democracy is not a good thing per se. It is a "way" not an end.
The objective of democracy is to assure a better life. If democracy can not acomplish its objective, well bring the dictator on!

Many Americans, and you seem one of them, take Democracy as an end. As if democracy would put a smile in the children's face. It does not.

That's why you go here and there export democracy. Democracy is just a way to an end.

Now I will answer your question. I don't know. I am sure it wasn't in that side of the Atlantic though.
You know, I heard it was in Greece. I also know that we had many Italian states during the Dark Ages that could be qualified as a democracy.
I can also mention that the modern concept of democracy may have been born in XVII century Brittain, when they got a republic and stuff. When they created an English pairlament or something. I don't know exactly where democracy originated, it wasn't in the U.S.A. though.

But I am getting a little too anti democratic after reading Julius Évola. I can tell you what's wrong with democracy in a near future if you want. I can only say that we may be able to built something better than democracy.

MMuy favorite kind of democracy was the ancient Roman kind.

Democracy is a bit too Marxist for me once it dilutes the vallue of any person and reduces it just to the vallue of a number. And yes, I am a fascist who wants to put humanity at a higher level (that's why I like(d) the U.S.A.)... it's another conversation...

"From my side of the shore, the lecture isn't about preserving the ideals, but rather the fundamentals of democracy."

Can you please explain to me why is democracy such a good thing? And I will not refer to how the best men gets the same importance as the worst in the democratic process, neither am I going to refer what the lunar caracter of democracy has done against the femenine women, once the lunar atracts the solar and as so the women start to get more manly.
I will only ask. Why do foreigners have the same right than I do to influence the democratic process in my own lands. I am telling you, you can throw the "fundamentals" of democracy down the river because due to those same principles our leaders have become most coward than they ever were. Why? Because they need to manipulate and dissimulate to win in this game of democracy.

"Morality and ethics are things that an be debated only AFTER you have won."

Here I disagree. That's why the nazis are still being hunted for the holocaust. Or was it morally correct if they had won? Is it the Dresden bombing morally aceptable?

"If that's what it takes."
Is it? That's what I am asking you.

"If you're Portuguese, the Reconquista wasn't very selective in it's methods, was it? But it worked."
Yes, that's why we had the Inquisition after that. To clean our blood from Jewish and Muslim blood and to assure the controle of the Catholic Church.
Do you aproove the Inquisition?
In a way, we have to be glad for that, I mean for the Catholic Church involvement in the Reconquista. How I miss that Pagan Catholicism before the Vatican II.
So, in my opinion the Reconquista was a good thing, though we could have done it better.

Zenster,
we are not dealing with states, we are dealing with individuals.
Killing the inocents one would kill to destroy a great muslim city for a tny terrorist atack in London or Madrid would be ethically and morally wrong.

Also, it would strenghten the muslims. Because it would be such an injustice that they would see that they would be fighting the just war against us. China would join as soon as it look profitable to them to weaken the West, just as the United States did to Europe during the First World War. This time, the big China could well turn against Europe and the West.

Am I wrong or are you both supporting a virtually all white Europe as it was once?
You people are getting more radical than me if that's the case. Good for the cause though.

Zenster said...

Afonso Henriques: we are not dealing with states, we are dealing with individuals.

Far from the truth. We are dealing with an ostensible religion, a majority of whose followers seek the destruction of Western civilization and actively contribute to it. We most certainly are NOT dealing with mere individuals. The network of funding, training and indoctrination that stretches from the smallest mosque all the way through Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and into Western countries is exceptionally well organized and enjoys substantial state support.

It is only our turncoat intelligence agencies that refuse to reveal this complicity. Here is but one example involving previous Saudi ambassador to the USA, Prince Turki al-Faisal: (Although dated, this remains a superb example of treachery by our putative allies.)

Turki admits to meeting bin Laden four or five times in the 1980s, when the Saudi-born terrorist was being supported by the West in Afghanistan. Turki also admits meeting Taliban leader Mullah Omar in 1998. He says he was seeking to extradite bin Laden at the request of the United States.

However, the legal papers tell a different story. Based on sworn testimony from a Taliban intelligence chief called Mullah Kakshar, they allege that Turki had two meetings in 1998 with al-Qaeda. They say that Turki helped seal a deal whereby al-Qaeda would not attack Saudi targets. In return, Saudi Arabia would make no demands for extradition or the closure of bin Laden's network of training camps. Turki also promised financial assistance to Mullah Omar. A few weeks after the meetings, 400 new pick-up vehicles arrived in Kandahar, the papers say.

Kakshar's statement also says that Turki arranged for donations to be made directly to al-Qaeda and bin Laden by a group of wealthy Saudi businessmen. 'Mullah Kakshar's sworn statement implicates Prince Turki as the facilitator of these money transfers in support of the Taliban, al-Qaeda and international terrorism,' the papers said.

Turki's link to one of al-Qaeda's top money- launderers, Mohammed Zouaydi, who lived in Saudi Arabia from 1996 to 2001, is also exposed. Zouaydi acted as the accountant for the Faisal branch of the Saudi royal family that includes Turki. Zouaydi, who is now in jail in Spain, is also accused of being al-Qaeda's top European financier. He distributed more than $1 million to al- Qaeda units, including the Hamburg cell of Mohammed Atta which plotted the World Trade Centre attack.

Finally the lawsuit alleges that Turki was 'instrumental' in setting up a meeting between bin Laden and senior Iraqi intelligence agent Faruq al-Hijazi in December 1998. At that meeting it is alleged that bin Laden agreed to avenge recent American bombings of Iraqi targets and in return Iraq offered him a safe haven and gave him blank Yemeni passports.


Afonso Henriques: Killing the inocents one would kill to destroy a great muslim city for a t[i]ny terrorist at[t]ack in London or Madrid would be ethically and morally wrong.

Your grasp of reality is tenuous at best. Let us examine the 9-11 attack. What sort of impact did that one atrocity have upon America and the world? I was most certainly not "tiny".

Almost 3,000 lives lost. In cold financial terms that represents untold millions of dollars in lost wages.

Destruction of the WTC Complex. Easily FOUR BILLION or more in damages.

America's post-9-11 economic downturn. HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS lost.

Global downturn in airline traffic and tourism. More untold HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS lost.

Increased security and waiting times at all airports. BILLIONS of new scanning equipment and BILLIONS in new wages for increased security. More untold BILLIONS lost and still being wasted in terms of lost productivity while people undergo extensive searches and long gate waits.

America alone probably lost more than ONE TRILLION dollars due to the 9-11 atrocity. The global damages most likely exceed TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS.

Is the financial rape of our planet a "tiny" thing? Islam and its attendant crimes continues to cost our planet untold billions of dollars. That money has to come from somewhere and where it comes from is ordinary taxpayers like you and me. By supporting jihad, Islam is robbing this world of desperately needed money.

Now, multiply the damages to infrastructure and tourism due to the Bali, Madrid and London atrocities. The loss of income, jobs and overall decline in quality of individual life is almost incomprehensible.

Yet, you maintain that Muslims should not be made to pay for their financial and moral support of terrorism. Do tell.

Also, it would strenghten the muslims. Because it would be such an injustice that they would see that they would be fighting the just war against us.

You are dangerously close to the old "killing terrorists only breeds up more terrorists" argument. Once Islam suffers enough of a physical loss, Muslims will be forced to realize that theirs is not God's cause. By NOT having done sufficient damage to Islam, we have only reinforced and perpetuated Muslim perception that they are enacting God's will.

China would join as soon as it look[ed] profitable to them to weaken the West

In case you hadn't noticed, China has already joined in. Where do you think all the RPGs and Klashnikovs come from? China is only a sub rosa player so that they can remain immune to economic retaliation.

just as the United States did to Europe during the First World War. This time, the big China could well turn against Europe and the West.

Absolutely not. China does not have sufficient military strength to simultaneously fight Europe and America. What's more, so much of China's wealth is concentrated in American treasury notes that a war with the USA is utterly against their interests.

Am I wrong or are you both supporting a virtually all white Europe as it was once?

You are dead nuts wrong. Race does not enter my equations. Barbaric savages attempting to impose a vicious, misogynistic and oppressive political ideology upon our entire planet do. The vast majority of Muslims seek a global caliphate and it is the West's sole obligation to ensure against such an outcome. It is Islam's responsibility not to get the vast majority of Muslims killed because of their delusions of adequacy.

Please let me know if I have to spell out to you exactly what sort of worldwide death toll can be expected should the global caliphate come into being. BETWEEN ONE QUARTER AND ONE HALF OF THIS PLANET'S POPULATION COULD PERISH IN SUCH AN EVENT.

The West is entitled to use whatever means are at its disposal in order to prevent Islam's ascendancy. Instead of bombing a few cities, perhaps you would prefer that America, Australia and Canada merely stop shipping wheat to the MME (Muslim Middle East). Then, not just a few million would die but untold millions would begin starving in a few weeks time.

However much you seem to think that my approach is excessive, most other effective measures involve far greater loss of life.

I welcome some suggestions on your own part (or anyone else's) as to how this conflict can be resolved in the short term without using massively disproportionate retaliation. Long-term solutions need not apply. Islam’s steady acquisition of nuclear weapons makes irrelevant all long-term strategies. Please be sure to carefully explain your ideas.

Sagunto said...

"..Long-term solutions need not apply.."

.. Sjit ;-)

Ok, short term.. no violence, here goes eh.. nothing:
Create a fund, sort of a commercial investment programme. The idea is: let the people take a share in a massive operation that will pay Muslim women to move/return to Islamic countries. The European political elites (the Eurabians) have exquisite contacts in the Islamic world and they are supremely suited to convey the message, which in fact will be sort of a reversed Eurabia (Aibareu, ok not quite): they will accept our Muslim women, who come with a little pocketmoney and we'll see whether we in Europe are then still sufficiently motivated to keep buying their oil. Should such a business go to the stockmarket, their shares would sky-rocket in no time. Still tryin' to come up with a decent name for this company.. (Ticket Home Inc. ; Return the Favour Ltd. ; Vaderetro Corp.)

The economic effects will not go unnoticed, boosting the share of Vaderetro Corp. even more, 'cause it will cut costs of welfare substantially. Besides, there will be no more need for ambitious leftist govt programmes spending millions of euros on Muslim no-go areas in our cities. As soon as the first results are booked, the birthrate among European aboriginals will immediately go up, creating a new baby-boom without first repeating WW 2. Now, wouldn't that be nice?

Okay, perhaps the people of Europe should force their politicians (or else vote for others) into confiscating Saudi Arabian investments and assets, just to be sure to make this a business opportunity the sheikhs can't refuse.
Well that's only Europe of course, but America will do fine (oh well), provided Europe doesn't fall. So Americans should invest all money they didn't lose in Vaderetro shares. There never was such a bona fide opportunity!

Apart from that, I still think the people should strife to dismantle the EU. Hmmm, talkin' long term again.. sorry.

Sag.

Bilgeman said...

Alfonso:

"The objective of democracy is to assure a better life."

Who filled your head with such notions?

The objective of democracy is to foster the politico-economic framework where a better life is possible. Just because you have a vote doesn't mean that you cannot also lead a miserable existence in a hellish dung-heap.
But your odds of living a miserable existence in a hellish dung-heap are infinitely better if you have no vote at all.
Because no-one in a position of power need care about your wretchedness.

"Can you please explain to me why is democracy such a good thing?"

Because you're a bastard.
I know this because I, too, am a bastard.
Fact of the matter is, humans are pretty much a pack of heartless bastards. So giving any of us power over the rest would inevitably lead to a nightmare for those wretches governed.

By default, then, the best thing to do is have all of us bastards exercise one vote each, thereby necessitating that most reviled sublimity: compromise.

" Why do foreigners have the same right than I do to influence the democratic process in my own lands."

Because you have sovereignty issues,(which is another discussion).

"Morality and ethics are things that an be debated only AFTER you have won."

Here I disagree. That's why the nazis are still being hunted for the holocaust. Or was it morally correct if they had won? Is it the Dresden bombing morally aceptable?"

Of course it was.

And had the Nazis won, the Shoah would certainly have been morally correct...if it had been acknowledged at all.

There would be any number of highly-regarded academics holding PhD's in Eugenics to assert that this was so. And a great deal of political opinion, reinforced through the mass media, to drive home the point.

In one sense, history is the rationale delivered after the fact.

Zenster said...

Sagunto: a massive operation that will pay Muslim women to move/return to Islamic countries

First off, thank you for making an honorable attempt.

Second, wouldn't Muslim women be the least willing to be repatriated back to their misogynistic shari'a law hellholes?

they will accept our Muslim women, who come with a little pocketmoney and we'll see whether we in Europe are then still sufficiently motivated to keep buying their oil

Here, you get much closer to a potential solution. Sadly, I believe that military measures are still much more likely to succeed than anyone in Europe or America actually finding the courage to implement whatever sort of Arab oil boycott.

I will certainly concede that this would be one of the most swift and devastating economic measures to bring the MME (Muslim Middle East) to its knees. In fact, to your immense credit, yours is one of the least violent strategies imaginable. Sadly, few Western politicians are sufficiently disconnected from the MME's financial petroleum web to make this possible. I submit for your consideration how elected officials of nearly every stripe were found entangled in the Iraqi "Oil for Palaces" scandal. Otherwise, your suggestion would, by all rights, carry the day.

perhaps the people of Europe should force their politicians (or else vote for others) into confiscating Saudi Arabian investments and assets

Here you very admirably come much closer to the truth. Might I ask that you please peruse my final reply to dru222 at the “Dutch Gays Turn to the Right” thread? There you will find a set of—what I consider to be—functional deterrents against Islamic terrorism. Please note how a food embargo along with appropriation of MME oil fields are among the possible candidates that I suggest. Moreover, I would certainly appreciate your own assessment of the various measures that I mention.

Apart from that, I still think the people should strive to dismantle the EU. Hmmm, talkin' long term again.. sorry.

Please do not be sorry. No apologies are necessary. Your observation that the EU represents a fundamental stumbling block to defeating Islam is right on the money. Yes, it is long-term, but—peacefully—dismantling the EUSSR is one of the least violent ways of enabling Europe to take action against its Muslim colonists. I only wish that any or all of your suggestions carried even a fraction of the weight needed to overcome the current threats that Islam poses to the West.

Sagunto, thank you very much for making an honorable effort at addressing this, admittedly, thorny issue. I look forward to future comments by yourself.

Bilgeman said...

Zenster:
"I ask again that you measure your solution against the time line that currently confronts us. Were this 50 years ago, I might—and probably would—agree with you wholeheartedly."

Ahh, but we have been corrupting them for 50 years. In my view this is precisely WHY their more reactionary elements have their knickers in a twist, wrapped themselves in their interpretation of the Koran, and embarked on this "Poor Man's Jihad".

We discussed this at length on another thread, I believe.

"Sadly, this is an age of nuclear proliferation and we do not have the luxury of waiting several decades for the erosion of these puritanical and fanatical cultures to happen. The low intensity war needed—exactly as with what is going on right now—to buffer Western civilization from Islam’s depredations while your “cultural erosion” takes place is simply too costly."

The prevention of corrupt, and unbalanced,(in the politico-military sense), Muslim nations developing nikes IS the other twin thrust of Middle East policy for the foreseeable future. Costly or not.

"The risk of a stray nuclear attack or even a conventional one that destroys some irreplaceable Western treasure like Notre Dame or the Louvre is simply too great."

No, Zenster, it is not too great.
If asking some 18 year-old from the trailer park or the projects to lose his legs for the next 60-odd years to protect our way of life isn't too great a burden, then what do I care about a couple of French buildings full of pretty pictures?

Face it, we're going to get nuked sooner or later, to a greater or lesser degree.

When you get into a scrap, you figure on losing a few teeth and breaking a few knuckles at the very least. If you don't realize that, you don't get into a fight in the first place.

We just have to have the sand to be able to give 'em more and harder lumps than we receive.
I sense you're down with the counter-punch.

"While preventing a Muslim holocaust is, indeed, a laudable concern, we must also not shy from inflicting some real harm upon those who wish nothing less on us."

Well, it might NOT be so laudable an effort. Time will tell.

It's sad, really. I've lived in the Muslim world and travelled there fairly extensively. I do not hate those people.
I refuse to be seduced into seeing them as some Borg-like agglomeration of zealous faith-bots.

There's a lot of 'em who are decent folks, only wanting to go about lives remarkably like ours and be left the heck alone.

If we reach out to them, and allow them to reach out to us, we can be powerful allies. Let's not consign them to perdition without long and hard consideration.

Zenster said...

Bilgeman: We discussed this at length on another thread, I believe.

Yeah, we did, mate. Ergo, I'm a bit reluctant to hash over all of this.

The prevention of corrupt, and unbalanced,(in the politico-military sense), Muslim nations developing nikes IS the other twin thrust of Middle East policy for the foreseeable future. Costly or not.

This is absolutely right. Yet, it seems to be a back-burner issue even for Bush et al. I'd be a lot happier if the West at least had the resolve to confiscate Pakistan's nuclear arsenal, trash Iran's nascent R&D effort and serve general notice to the MME (Muslim Middle East) that WMD work of any sort will result in swift military intervention and harsh economic sanctions. This isn't happening, which is why I agitate for more severe measures that represent actual war-fighting. The current conflict in Iraq is far more broad-based than mere WMD intervention. Were our efforts limited to “smash-and-grab” drive-bys that ruin a given nation’s WMD capacity, we would not be experiencing anywhere near the military casualty rate or hemorrhaging money by the multi-billions.

Quite obviously, if the West possessed sufficient courage to engage in massively disproportionate retaliation, then additional bombing of nuclear weapons laboratories would not be an issue. Mind you, I’m not looking to wipe entire nations off of the map. I’ll leave that sort of genocide to Ahmadinejad and his fellow Muslims. I just want to see a major hurt put on the terrorist sponsors in a way that might inspire citizens of those countries to take more active measures towards deposing their evil governments.

[the risk of losing important cultural repositories] is not too great.
If asking some 18 year-old from the trailer park or the projects to lose his legs for the next 60-odd years to protect our way of life isn't too great a burden, then what do I care about a couple of French buildings full of pretty pictures?


Notre Dame and the Louvre are but examples of what the West has to lose. What about the Library of Congress? The Statue of Liberty? Simply because we have achieved more than Muslim cultures automatically means that we have more to lose. In many respects, Islam intentionally keeps Muslims in abject poverty so that they will find paradise more attractive than everyday life. This self-inflicted deprivation is evident in the total lack of industrialization and absence of widespread modernization throughout the entire MME.

I refuse to sit back and wait until some jihadist scum decides to devastate one or another of our cultural treasures just because he can. We DO NOT OWN THESE TREASURES, we are their custodians and it is not our right to place them in danger through inaction. These collections of artistic wonders are meant to serve as inspirations for untold thousands of future generations of artists. THEY CANNOT BE REPLACED nor can we afford to do without the contributions of those artists who will be inspired by them in the future.

Shall we allow our society to be pared down of its past achievements all in the nebulous hope that a bunch of political gangsters will eventually lose sway over a yet-to-be-distracted crowd of followers? Islam has no right nor any justification for the destructive rampage it is engaging in. Muslims continue to support Islam despite an increasing awareness that it is becoming a harmful force in the world at large. Enough damage has been done already whereby a message must be sent—not just to the government sponsors of terrorism but also—to all Muslims under terrorist regimes that their lives are being put at risk because of continued support of terrorism by them. I refuse to see Western civilization shorn of its splendor solely due to reluctance over reading Islam the riot act. Attaching massive penalties to their continuing campaign of defilement cannot happen too soon.

These are not mere vandals who would deface our world. Muslims seek to eradicate whole volumes of our historical legacy. The Mona Lisa and Old Masters’ works would be heaped upon bonfires if Islam had its way. The Gutenberg Bibles would join them in the flames after they had wiped their @sses with them first. Michelangelo’s David, the Pieta and other priceless statues would be sledge hammered into rubble. This is what Islam wants for our world and I’ll have none of it.

If several million Muslims must die in order to dissuade Islam from its current program of defacing Western civilization, then so be it. Over the last millennia, Islam has contributed all of jack $h!t to humanity save the enslaving or erasing of entire cultures from our world. Read the Koran, watch “Fitna”, this is what Muslims hear on a daily basis and DO NOT object to. Far too many Muslims know DAMN WELL what Islam intends to do and I’ll not stand for it.

Face it, we're going to get nuked sooner or later, to a greater or lesser degree.

When you get into a scrap, you figure on losing a few teeth and breaking a few knuckles at the very least. If you don't realize that, you don't get into a fight in the first place.


Pure horseradish. The West currently possesses adequate military might needed for suppressing all potential nuclear threats to it in the near future. What’s lacking is backbone and little else. Again, if several million Muslims must die in order to convince Islam of the error of its ways, then let’s get to it. Why wait for them to do what they’ve already sworn themselves to do? We know very well that Islam wants to destroy us. Why on this green earth should we sit idly and put up the potential loss of irreplaceable heritage? If it’s war Islam wants, then let’s give it to them in good measure. Better that than letting Islam acquire a few nuclear weapons to use against us and thereby bring about a worldwide Muslim holocaust.

This is the exact path that the world is currently following. However cruel my own suggestions may sound, they are an attempt to avert far greater loss of life.

We just have to have the sand to be able to give 'em more and harder lumps than we receive.
I sense you're down with the counter-punch.


Hokay so, finally, we’re seeing eye-to-eye. I knew we could find some common ground.

Well, it might NOT be so laudable an effort. Time will tell.

Thank you for having the grit to eyeball what most people cannot bear to examine. Islam is so devoid of all redeeming features that there is the distinct possibility its continued existence may be of no further use to our world. I have yet to see anyone name a single redeeming feature of Islam. I invite anyone to do so now.

There's a lot of 'em who are decent folks, only wanting to go about lives remarkably like ours and be left the heck alone.

I’m sure there were a lot of Japanese and German people who fit that category back in 1941. We bombed the living crap out of them and today they are viable participants on the global stage. To date, nothing—save the hidebound and recalcitrant nature of Islam itself—indicates that a similar program of dissuasion cannot yield the same results.

If we reach out to them, and allow them to reach out to us, we can be powerful allies.

I doubt that in the extreme so long as Islam remains in its current form. Without a dramatic sea change in Islamic doctrine and practices, no alliance with the Western world will be possible. That those changes involve the near-total revision of Islam makes them so unlikely as to almost guarantee large-scale or Total War.

Let's not consign them to perdition without long and hard consideration.

Please consider this comment and all of my others to be part of that process of “long and hard consideration”. I have invested many thousands of hours of my recent life educating myself about Islam and investigating all possible avenues around and through this conflict. Speaking as an eternal optimist, the conclusions I have reached are staggeringly grim. All of this is due to Islam’s death obsession. There is little to be found in the way of middle ground when everything teeters on a knife-edge separating paradise from Hell. Remember:

ISLAM WOULDN’T HAVE IT ANY OTHER WAY.

Afonso Henriques said...

Zenster,

"Far from the truth. We are dealing with an ostensible religion, a majority of whose followers seek the destruction of Western civilization and actively contribute to it."

Yes indeed Znester. You are absoluteley right. I have said, tough, that there are many other problems bigger than islam per se. Islam, in my view, is just the only problem that have a well designed strategy. But you are inequivocally right. What I was trying to say is that our actions are against individuals, we do not have the power (yet) or we simply don't want (The West) to atack a religion because, we all know it, it is "racist" or something like that. That was mmy point. Also, we are directing our, lets call them actions, towards individuals and not towards any other entity.
But I do agree wth you.

"It is only our turncoat intelligence agencies that refuse to reveal this complicity"
We all know it and we all know why is it so polemical to show it to the outside world. After all, will we estigmatize an entire 50 zillion people?

Thank you for the piece of information, Zenster.

"Let us examine the 9-11 attack. What sort of impact did that one atrocity have upon America and the world? I was most certainly not "tiny"."

I agree, it was not tiny.. But just because it was in America and... well... directed against the World Trade Centre in New York's downtown...
It would be unnoticed if it were in say... Africa.

Just for you to understand what I am saying, here goes an example: Here in Portugal, few weeks after the 9/11 attacks, the "Radical" television, aimed to teenagers and young adults, owned by a highly respected member of the mainly (so called) right wing party (that is, in my humble opinion, centre-left)
passed some footages of the attack with the legends: "Mommy, did you know that America was attacked?
- Yes, it was.
-But how, isn't it America that always (strike) atack (the others)?"
And this kind of Americanism is from "the right"!
It shows how it was "Ohhh, America was attacked" than "Ohhh, it was an attack".

The thing is, if you destroy a big muslim city, you will not kill three thousand lives; you will kill probabilly millions of lives or at least several tens of thousand. This is not morally correct, at least to my standards, especially when the victim's only sin is to be islamic (and s-o-r-r-y, but in their own lands)!

Concearning your calculations. I never looked to the situation like that. Thankks for the Economics lesson!

"Is the financial rape of our planet a "tiny" thing?"

Yes, compaired to the distruction of entire cities.

"That money has to come from somewhere and where it comes from is ordinary taxpayers like you and me."
A lesson, really.

"you maintain that Muslims should not be made to pay for their financial and moral support of terrorism."
Yes I do. Only the perpetrators are to be blamed. That is my view on justice and I defy you to show me I'm wrong. Also, Multiculturalism in the very heart of the West is way more "distructive". No hundreds of trillions of dollars can repair the "brownisation" of London. The unique carachter of London as a unique and great English city was destroyed forever and it is priceless. So, before we start making the world pay for what it has done to us, we shall put the world out of our homes. I am hoping you to understand what I am saying and not to reduce all this to racism, or something in that line. Do you understand me? How the hell can you disagree?

Every "ethnic" rape is a trauma for life... and the inocence of a girl is also priceless, what about hundred or thousands or tens of thousands... Also, when the rape is commited by an "ethnic", the victim will remember it each time she sees an "ethnic" which is, at least, particulary cruel. THe worst, it could be easily avoidable. I really hope you can understand my point and I am not sure I am making sense right now.

"You are dangerously close to the old "killing terrorists only breeds up more terrorists" argument."

No Zenster, I do not. Not at all. I am no American, but I give you credits on that. You are much better than this feminine generations of European men leading with criminals.

The point is: Killing innocents only brngs more terrorism. Look at Iraq, Vietnam... when one feels is right, one gets strenght from the soil.

And we have done a lot to islam. We have colonised them. Only Saudi Arabia was not colonised, as well as Persia, Afghanistan and Turkey.
But both Persia and Turkey were ridiculed by European states and Afghanistan was heavily influenced by us. What they have now is "rape mentality". Profane the divine!

"In case you hadn't noticed, China has already joined in."

Yes, I have noticed. But I think that we haven't seen nothing yet. Before 2012 China will swallow Taiwan and Korea will be unified. Hopefully without any major war, involving great powers. Than, China will push on Eastern Russia and Japan for power. Then, China will really start, just start, to join in.
And refering to immigration. I heard that there are 200 million males under 45 years old in China who can not get a Chinese women. Where are the doors opened to immigration? I can see the European females as "the perfect target". Also, "sexual frustration" is a great base to build an army upon. And the Asiatic tribes have done it well in the past against Indo European peoples. Look at Central Asia, and in a minimum, but really minimum in Turkey.
China has done nothing yet if one thinks what China can or may want to do.

"China does not have sufficient military strength to simultaneously fight Europe and America. What's more, so much of China's wealth is concentrated in American treasury notes that a war with the USA is utterly against their interests."
Yet. I wish you are right, but I am more pessimistic. Of course that China will not invade Europe (well, at least with armed soldiers) but it can create a buffer zone so that in the (near) future it has those capabilities. Also, create divisions among the Asiatic peoples of Russia, creating a Chechnya here and there, would be a plausible way China may follow.

"he vast majority of Muslims seek a global caliphate and it is the West's sole obligation to ensure against such an outcome."

They always have. Actually, their only problem is to find a leader. And the one that erases Israel has a good chance. They will create one, sooner or later. I also think that we can not eliminate islam. The only thing I think the West can do is to throw multiculturalism to the garbage and to prevent the caliphate to penetrate European soil, as we have hisorically done (More or less).

"BETWEEN ONE QUARTER AND ONE HALF OF THIS PLANET'S POPULATION COULD PERISH IN SUCH AN EVENT."
So... What if all the nuclear power plants explode or if the Marcians come in?
The Caliphate will not start killing as if it was a great joy. It would be just another islamic empire... big deal. We have China and even the U.S.A. and Russia. Why not one more Empire? If I could trade this (well, the one I see in the future) European Union for that islamic little Empire, we would have the caliphate implanted right now.
It really does not scares me. Take the nukes out of them though. And I am the one who lives 350Km from Morocco!

"Instead of bombing a few cities, perhaps you would prefer that America, Australia and Canada merely stop shipping wheat to the MME (Muslim Middle East). Then, not just a few million would die but untold millions would begin starving in a few weeks time."
Yes indeed. We would not be killing them, we were just stop the lunatic grow of them. They do not have the ressources. Why are there so many? Is there something wrong with Nature? No, it is humane stupidity. i am very Darwinistic in this regard, and realistic too. From every little child you save in Africa will come up more five. We are not solving the problem, we are delaying it. It's sad but it is true.

"However much you seem to think that my approach is excessive, most other effective measures involve far greater loss of life."

You may be right but, I don't think I am responsible for sustenting the third worlders. It is not imoral. Imoral is to kill them. I hope you to understand it. If you can't understand what I am saying, I can be more clear.

"I welcome some suggestions (...) Long-term solutions need not apply. Islam’s steady acquisition of nuclear weapons makes irrelevant all long-term strategies."

Well, what we can do (but will not happen) is throw multiculturalism away and make Europeans first class citizens in their own countries; encourage the "ethnics" to live; not help the "ethnics" (being ruthless); do not help the muslims, make only the trade we have to; atack them if they do not want to give us oil (neocolonialism); let them die out from superpopulation; attack violently and rapidly in order to take Pakistan's nuclear weapons (or other islamic bombs); controle North Korean borders (bomb anything that gets in or out); be nice to other Nations, do not interfere (like American~Europe relations prior to World War One)

Now, what we can do in a near future (what is plausible). Press our governments to help the Jews and sh*it on the Palestinians; press them agaist multiculturalism (radicalise to the right Nationalism;
Savage Capitalism regarding third world Nations; Moral Traditionalism); Show our middle finger to ONU and other supra National entity every time we get a chance. This would weaken the muslim states. Do not support muslim States in Europe!

Now what I want Americans to do.
Stop being babies, raise your kids right, stop voting for Obama and Hillary! Then, do not invade Iran. A nuclear iran is a much greater threat to Moscow than to your people. You have to make Russia do the dirty work regarding Iran.
One important thing: The Cold War is over. Russia is as much western as you Americans right now!

The best way to stop the muslims is to strenghten European civilisation (the West). And, just look to your backyard. Things are not looking good in Latin America. don't care about them. They will only have the power we give to them so keep the power in your hands.
Ah! and, also, do not export democracy. It's not worth.

Afonso Henriques said...

Sagunto and "Vaderetro Corp"

Well, I don't know what that means in English, but in Portuguese, Vaderetro (Vá de retro) means "Go (away) back".

It is a common expression: "Vá de retro, Satanás!" (Go (away) back, Satan).
It is used by ladies, wholly Catholic Ladies, to send something they do not like back.
It, aplied to muslims, has the exact meaning.

Resuming: Great Name!


Bilgeman,

"The objective of democracy is to foster the politico-economic framework where a better life is possible."
Well, it's what I said. To provide a better life. If we can have a better life in a ditactorial regime. Well, bring the dictator in!

"But your odds of living a miserable existence in a hellish dung-heap are infinitely better if you have no vote at all."

I do not agree with you at all. Look at Germany in 1931 and in 1935. Before 1939, before the war had stareted, Hitler was better than any democratically elected chanceller in the Weimar Republic. In Portugal the same. A big share of dictators came to power because democracy was not working. It is good. At the beginning, the worst is to take them out. But, well, look at Franco! I am not defending dictators nor am I demonising democracy. All I am saying is that democracy is not the paradise many Americans claim it to be. In a quiet ignorant way. Also, look at the third world democracies! As some guy said, democracy is a luxury for whites. Not that I agree but I wouldn't like to live in a third world democracy. Would you? I would take the Arab Emirates or Qatar anytime. Zimbabwe, Pakistan? Never!
I could explain the faults of democracy if you want me to do so. But, hey! I am an elitist bastard!

"Because you're a bastard."
Wow... you're tongue is real sharp. Actually, where I am from this insult is much more offensive than any insult I can recall in English. Any way:
"I know this because I, too, am a bastard."
Yes, we are all bastards! Your point being...

"Fact of the matter is, humans are pretty much a pack of heartless bastards. So giving any of us power over the rest would inevitably lead to a nightmare for those wretches governed."

Have you ever wonder why and how the nobility became the, well, nobility?
Humans have to (ideally) to gave way to their bests. That's the whole concept of Nobility. It had its flaws, but at least the majority of our leaders weren't bastards. I am not exactly a monarchist, but can explain to you what I think if you want.

"By default, then, the best thing to do is have all of us bastards exercise one vote each, thereby necessitating that most reviled sublimity: compromise."

My bloody elitism does not stand so many bastards. This is a bastardized Nation. My Nation is not a bastard Nation (well, more or less) so I do not apreciate being rulled by bastards. But I am assuming that there are an elite of non bastards, lets put it that way.

"Because you have sovereignty issues,(which is another discussion)."

Touché or would it be Touchet. Bloody French people!

"Of course it was."

You bastard!

"In one sense, history is the rationale delivered after the fact."
I don't see it that way. History is what we make of it. Through actions, not through re writing it.

Also, I think I am all for "positive" eugenics! (scarry huh!)

"If asking some 18 year-old from the trailer park or the projects to lose his legs for the next 60-odd years to protect our way of life isn't too great a burden, then what do I care about a couple of French buildings full of pretty pictures?"

F*ck you!
So, do you really feel more for the 3000 people killed in 9/11 than for the distruction of New Yorker downtown? It was a symbol! How dare you! Humane life is too much valued nowadays!

What are we without our personal treasures? What are we withou out Civilisational treasures? Well, a deficient civilisation like Islam!

"It's sad, really. I've lived in the Muslim world and travelled there fairly extensively. I do not hate those people.
I refuse to be seduced into seeing them as some Borg-like agglomeration of zealous faith-bots."

Yes I agree. Muslims are human beings. Let them live in peace!
But in their desertic own lands. Get them out of Europe!

Zenster said...

I Wrote: "BETWEEN ONE QUARTER AND ONE HALF OF THIS PLANET'S POPULATION COULD PERISH IN SUCH AN EVENT [i.e., The Establishment of a global caliphate]."

Afonso Henriques: So... What if all the nuclear power plants explode or if the Marcians come in?

It is flippant nonsensical replies like this that have made me swear off responding to most of your posts. Your alternative scenarios are many orders of magnitude less propbable than the possibility of an Islamic caliphate. They are also ridiculously irrelevant.

The Caliphate will not start killing as if it was a great joy.

You are quite obviously delusional. The earth's Jewish population would be hunted down like animals.

It would be just another islamic empire... big deal.

Most of which were built upon mountains of skulls. Yet, you dismiss such barbarism with disturbingly puerile nonchalance.

We have China and even the U.S.A. and Russia. Why not one more Empire? If I could trade this (well, the one I see in the future) European Union for that islamic little Empire, we would have the caliphate implanted right now.

To demonstrate just how astoundingly off-base you are, here is a set of cocktail napkin calculations to show what a global caliphate would bring:

1.) Extermination of all Jews:
Some 13.5 MILLION people, world-wide would most likely die at the hands of their Muslim oppressors.

2.) Extermination of all homosexuals
I'm going to use what is called a "wildly exaggerated figure" for the sake of including the bisexual and transgender community plus other deviants who would all be put to death. Thusly, some 10% or 600 MILLION people would fall into this category. The remaining factors that follow are much more difficult to quantify.

3.) Armed resistance to Muslim encroachment:
I think it's safe to say that nearly everyone here at Gates of Vienna would perish fighting a Muslim attempt to overrun America. World wide, the numbers would most likely exceed that of the Jews. We'll place it at a meager 100 MILLION.

4.) Women denied access to medical care:
This is a huge number because under Islamic law women would only be able to be seen by female doctors—an exceedingly small fraction of this world's medical practitioners. I’ll use the figure for global female cancer deaths as an example of how reduced early intervention will escalate avoidable deaths, especially among women. That figure will be more than 3 MILLION per year.

5.) Execution of political prisoners:
Toss in another 10 MILLION.

6.) Execution of those who refuse to convert:
I’m going to use the world’s population of Catholics as a figure representing those who would adamantly refuse to convert or cooperate and be put to death. While the number would likely be much higher, this figure would approach over 1 BILLION.

We now have a total of 1.726 BILLION people who would die within the first year of Islam establishing its global caliphate. Millions more would die each year due to Islam’s heavy-handed shari’a law and its demands for capital punishment. Women would keep dying in droves due to the unavailability of female doctors. Emerging homosexuals would be killed as with many other deviants, be they political, religious or otherwise.

Do the math. The global caliphate would rise upon dead bodies numbering greater than this world’s entire Muslim population. My Iranian friend Ray agrees with me that the number who would perish would be closer to HALF this world’s population but that is far more speculative than the conservative numbers I’ve posted above.

So, the question remains:

HOW MUCH LONGER ARE WE TO PUT UP WITH AN IDEOLOGY WHOSE ULTIMATE GOAL IS TO BRING ABOUT THE DEATH OF MORE PEOPLE THAN ITS OWN FOLLOWERS?

I’ve stated before that if Muslims cannot abandon their quest for a global caliphate, then I would just as soon see all of them perish rather than the larger numbers who would ultimately die by Islam’s brutal hand. The numbers—approximate as they might be—do not lie.

It really does not scares me. Take the nukes out of them though. And I am the one who lives 350Km from Morocco!

Pardon me, but your craven self-interest is showing. You are not at all worried about the ultimate Muslim goal of world domination but want band-aid symptoms like Islamic nuclear weapons taken care of. Yours is the sort of shortsightedness that will bring about the coming Muslim holocaust. Such a dismissive attitude, save only for the most pressing issues in your own quarter is exactly what has brought things to such a crisis already. Far too many Western leaders were content to put up with low intensity jihad so long as the oil kept flowing.

Now they see that the low intensity jihad was just a screen for ratcheting up the stakes. Suddenly all the stalling and worthless negotiating has come to naught and Islam’s low-budget Total War increasingly requires that the West address it as actual World War. This, when Western leadership has nowhere near the dedication to its own well-being or the moral fiber to do so. Too many Western politicians are only in it for the money and could not be bothered with their own electorate’s ultimate survival. For that, may they all rot in everlasting Hell.

VinceP1974 said...

Historically 270M people have been killed in Jihad:

FP: You refer to 270 million deaths at the hands of Political Islam. Can you shed light on that figure?



Warner: The figure of 270 million is a rough estimate of the death of non-Muslims by the political act of jihad. It is calculated as such:



Africans




Thomas Sowell estimates that eleven million slaves were shipped across the Atlantic and fourteen million were sent to the Islamic nations of North Africa and the Middle East. [1] David Livingstone estimated that for every slave who reached the plantation, five others died by being killed in the raid or died on the forced march from illness and privation. [2] So, for 25 million slaves delivered to the market, we have the collateral death of about 120 million people. Muslims ran all the wholesale slave trade in Africa. Death toll: 120 million Africans



Christians



The number of Christians martyred by Islam is nine million.[3] A rough estimate by Raphael Moore in History of Asia Minor is that another fifty million died in wars by jihad. So to account for the one million African Christians killed in the 20th century we have: 60 million Christians



Hindus



Koenard Elst in Negationism in India [4] gives an estimate of eighty million Hindus killed in the total jihad against India. The country of India today is only half the size of ancient India, due to jihad. Death toll: 80 million Hindus




Buddhists



Jihad killed the Buddhists in Turkey, Afghanistan, along the Silk Route, and in India. The total is roughly ten million. [5] Death toll: 10 million Buddhists



Jews



The jihad in Arabia was 100 percent effective but the numbers were in the thousands, not millions. After that the Jews submitted and became the dhimmis (servants and second class citizens) of Islam and did not have geographic political power.



This gives a rough estimate of 270 million killed by jihad.

Afonso Henriques said...

Zenster,

"It is flippant nonsensical replies like this that have made me swear off responding to most of your posts. Your alternative scenarios are many orders of magnitude less propbable than the possibility of an Islamic caliphate."

I was ilustrating how you are a little over the top. Who would lead that caliphate? You don't have what is need to create it. Yet. We are facing so many dangers just for being alive...
You have to understand that we have already lived with many islamic empires and we are still here, don't we? It will be difficult, but it would be /interesting/ times to live.

"The earth's Jewish population would be hunted down like animals."
No, well yes. But they would fled to Europe and America. Also, if you cut off that Palestinian issue, Jews and muslims have historically been friends, right? The Jews would live. Once in Europe or America, would the muslims attack them? Of course no. What we have to do is stand firmly for Israel.

"Most of which were built upon mountains of skulls."
Like the others.

"Yet, you dismiss such barbarism with disturbingly puerile nonchalance."

It's the world, man. We are protected Human beings. Look at Tibet, China, Zimbabwe. What a hell, go down the border to Mexico or El Salvador, hang with some poor youths and you will understand why they want to come here so badly.
I live in the poorest country in Western Europe, it has much flaws. I recall a Brasilian immigrant (middle class "Western" Brazilian) who publically said: "You people, you don't know what real problemsare. You live in paradise and are not aware of it."

In a way, he was indeed right. Don't matter how bad the West is right now, because right now, we are still living in paradise when looking to most of the rest of the world.

"Extermination of all Jews"

I doubt. But once you are so certain of it, I would apreciate to know how you think it will happen.

"Extermination of all homosexuals"

All homossexuals are in Europe and Europe derived leftist societies. I am start to think that your Caliphate Empire is not an empire but a world dominated by islam.
They would not kill gays because gays, as a visible minority, exist only in decadent European societies.

"nearly everyone here at Gates of Vienna would perish fighting a Muslim attempt to overrun America."

But the caliphate is in Africa and Asia!
They would not dare...
You are talking about a world under islam, not a United Islamic Caliphate, only in majority muslim lands.

"Women denied access to medical care:"

Not to women. To muslim women. The women would die, they would have less babies and the muslim power would decrease. It's not so bad after all.
It is indeed a sad thing. To see how muslim treat women. But as long as those women are their women I, and we, do not have the moral high ground to intervien. Here in Portugal we have a popular say: "Entre marido e mulher, ninguém mete a colher". Meaning "Between husband and wife, nobody shall put his spoon". It means that one shall not interfere between cupples. Of course, there are exceptions. When one does not treat women with the respect (their culture) demanded.

"We now have a total of 1.726 BILLION people who would die within the first year of Islam establishing its global caliphate."

Zenster please understand, I AM STRONGLY AGAINST AN ISLAMIC GLOBAL CALIPHATE THAT CONTROLES THE WHOLE WORLD. I WOULD BE ONE OF THE FIRST TO JOIN THE FIGHT. What I could tolerate is AN ISLAMIC "LOCAL" CALIPHATE. An Empire consisting on all muslim majority continuous lands or countries united into a single unity. This does not scares me.

"HOW MUCH LONGER ARE WE TO PUT UP WITH AN IDEOLOGY WHOSE ULTIMATE GOAL IS TO BRING ABOUT THE DEATH OF MORE PEOPLE THAN ITS OWN FOLLOWERS?"

My opinion is, islam is immortal, you can not kill islam. The islamists do not have any real power. We gave that power to them. What we have to do is strenghten our lands, concentrate the power on us, throw Multiculturalism down the river and the muslims will be no threat.

"I’ve stated before that if Muslims cannot abandon their quest for a global caliphate,"

The Catholic Church will not stop either. Muslims definetley can not abandon it. It's in their blood, and I can't blame them. We, as Human beings, have to proove that we disearve our lands.

" You are not at all worried about the ultimate Muslim goal of world domination but want band-aid symptoms like Islamic nuclear weapons taken care of."

I am not being selfish.
I do not want unstable Nations (such as France) ostentating Nuckear Weapons. It is a danger to Humanity. Also, I am not worried about the ultimate muslim goal because, honestley, I can not see that happen.
And I've stated before that we are not talking about the same thing. You are talking of a world under islam, I am talking of a single Islamic state streaching from the Northern African Half, all the way up to Russia's border's, and Indian border's also. Then, it may continue trough the current muslim South East Asian lands. That, would be a great player and we would know that it is not our friend.
It would be scarrying but would also force the West to stick Multiculturalism in the closest whole possible and to strenghten it self á lá Cold War.

"Yours is the sort of shortsightedness that will bring about the coming Muslim holocaust."

I see it as inevitable now. Not because of me, of course.

Regards, Zenster.

Bilgeman said...

Zenster:

"I have yet to see anyone name a single redeeming feature of Islam. I invite anyone to do so now."

It's resurgence has brought Christians together despite our own doctrinaire and dogmatic differences...not so long ago we used to burn each other.

So there IS that.

"Notre Dame and the Louvre are but examples of what the West has to lose. What about the Library of Congress? The Statue of Liberty?"

We have copies of every painting, text, and blueprint...the originals can be destroyed, but the essence will not be lost.

The edifices? They can be rebuilt.(On a sidebar note, this is one thing that really pisses me off...the Twin Towers should be exactly rebuilt, but with an extra floor each...there's yer "symbolism" for ya.)

"I refuse to sit back and wait until some jihadist scum decides to devastate one or another of our cultural treasures just because he can."

Nor do I, Zen. But OTOH, I'm not willing to napalm some infant so that some French painting doesn't fall off the wall it's hung from.

I would observe that Islamic countries have some vulnerable treasures of their own, too.

"These are not mere vandals who would deface our world. Muslims seek to eradicate whole volumes of our historical legacy. The Mona Lisa and Old Masters’ works would be heaped upon bonfires if Islam had its way. The Gutenberg Bibles would join them in the flames after they had wiped their @sses with them first. Michelangelo’s David, the Pieta and other priceless statues would be sledge hammered into rubble."

In many ways, the Islamic world is where it is today because they did precisely that kind of thing in the Caliphate.

Imagine a West where there was no Copernicus or Galileo. A West where scientific research was limited by the Religious Right,(or whoever, I'm speaking of contemporary American politico-cultural environment here)...that's where THEY are.
And rather than realize and admit the mistake they made in promoting and continuing the interpenetration of wordly and religious authority, along comes Sayyid Qutb, who perversely declared their error to be their strength... Osama bin Big-f*cker certainly seems to have bought it, but not all Muslims do, and that is vital for everyone to remember.

Islam is NOT monolithic, no more so than Christianity is.

"The West currently possesses adequate military might needed for suppressing all potential nuclear threats to it in the near future."

No we don't.

Stop thinking in a conventional militaristic sense, it's hobbling you.
All it takes is one lucky man with the will and the right components, and then say "bye-bye" to one of our cities and it's inhabitants.

You DO know that a Hiroshima-sized blast can be effected with an artillery piece today, right? 15 kilotons is considered a "tactical" nuke.

"Thank you for having the grit to eyeball what most people cannot bear to examine."

I once considered the efficacy of salting the ground around the Kaaba with anthrax spores or other nasty communicable delayed-effect bio agent.
And I'd seriously drop some neutron weapons on the zip codes where Osama bin Pig-f*cker might be squatting.
I can calmly entertain some pretty horrific stuff.

The thing is, though, that would be counter-productive in the sense that our Muslim allies, and potential allies, would be given a pretty compelling grievance against us...and that course of action might be just what the Islamicists WANT.

I don't see the need to do more of their recruiting for them than absolutely and unavoidably necessary.

For all their noise, they're a wee tiny minority of Muslims, and if this were not so, we'd have been thrown out of Afghanistan and Iraq on our asses, and we'd have suffered constant wholesale terrorism and riots here in the West.

"Without a dramatic sea change in Islamic doctrine and practices, no alliance with the Western world will be possible. That those changes involve the near-total revision of Islam makes them so unlikely as to almost guarantee large-scale or Total War."

Which is why we need to find the next Caliph Abdulhamid, or allow Muslims to find him themselves, and do,(or not do), what we can to help his,(or her), ascendancy.

"Read the Koran, watch “Fitna”, this is what Muslims hear on a daily basis and DO NOT object to."

I find the same kind of preaching in the Old Testament, and can point to any number of historical Papal edicts that say much the same things.
I don't take 'em seriously, or the nice Methodist folks down the street would be in trouble.

The thing I hear when I watched "Fitna", the Mullahs and Imams' sermons were calling on Man to do the work of God.
This is a perversion in any faith.
This is how Lucifer became Satan, is it not?

(BTW, I understand that Islam shares much of our own beliefs about the origins of life found in our Old Testament,and the history of Heaven, and that is an advantage,since we can roughly relate to each other at that level).

What we all must bear in mind is that when you have allowed yourself to be seduced into doing "God's Work"...to "become as Gods yourselves", you are then utterly blind to the Evil that you inevitably do.

Evil does not create Goodness, it only calls out more Evil. It's how it propagates...it's nature.

Murdering innocents to establish the theocratic Caliphate is Evil.

Nuking innocents in response to that abomination is also Evil.

The difference between the Pig-f*cker and myself is that when I contemplate my own Evil deeds, i don't attempt to "dress them up" in the rags of Righteousness, or promise myself 72 virgins as a paradisiacal reward.(I've HAD a virgin, she was a PITA, I don't want 71 more,see?).

So I'd probably make a lousy recruiter for any kind of militant cause...
...but then I'm not recruiting for one.

Sagunto said...

@afonso

[quote]
"..Sagunto and "Vaderetro Corp"

Well, I don't know what that means in English, but in Portuguese, Vaderetro (Vá de retro) means "Go (away) back"[...] It, aplied to muslims, has the exact meaning. Resuming: Great Name!.."


Thnx for the info afonso.
Vade retro in England would mean exactly the same as vade retro means in Holland or anywhere else in the world, because it's Latin.


@bilgeman,

[quote]
"..We have copies of every painting, text, and blueprint...the originals can be destroyed, but the essence will not be lost.."

Original lost = essence lost.
In fact, the mere possibility itself to easily produce and reproduce countless copies, has already destroyed the whole idea of "essence" in art. Your comment is a reflection of that loss.

Well, with that cardinal point cleared, I reckon the Counterjihad can move forward again ;-)
To keyboards!


@zenster,

Thanks Zen, for your constructive comments the other day. My attempt at your challenge (for the minimal-violence scenario would indeed be one heck of a job) was a swift and spontaneous one. On second thought though, I think there might be something of value in it, and I don't mean the return on y'r investment in Vaderetro shares ;-)

I'm pretty positive, almost certain, that somewhere some very ambitious economist already figured it all out, the whole deal: lock, stock.. the lot. But for obvious reasons, Political Politeness ranking high among them, he decided long ago not to put too much effort in promoting his views.

So now, all I have to do is to find this man. One thing I know for sure: it must be a Dutchy.
The Dutch have always been, well perhaps not álways, practical -bordering on a seeming lack of morality, of settling things in a matter of fact way.
So he's Dutch. That narrows it down to a mere 16 million candidates. It's a he, that's for sure and I won't bother to explain the obvious to the odd feminist reader out here. So that's about 8 mill to go then. He must have thought it up in the eighties, when Political Courtesy stood on the brink of descending into PCness, in fact, that happened just as he concluded the first draft of his dissertation. That would make our man about fifty-five up-to sixtie-ish by now. A seasoned college professor, quietly peddling towards his pension. Roughly speaking, there must be about ten large institutions (institutes? whatever..) where he might be hiding his spectacular plan. So I'll ask around in academia.

As soon as I've caught this fish, we'll have something to fry over here, in which case I'll report with a eh.. full report, that might live up to the standard of quality of the Baron et al. ;-)

Until then, kind regs from Amsterdam,
Sag.

Bilgeman said...

Sagunto:

"In fact, the mere possibility itself to easily produce and reproduce countless copies, has already destroyed the whole idea of "essence" in art. Your comment is a reflection of that loss."

Okay...then why bother holding a Rembrandt canvas as more valuable than a human life if the "essence" has already been lost?

Put it this way: would you, like Isaac, sacrifice your son for a van Gogh?

How about a Warhol?

Thought not. And nor should you.

Sagunto said...

@bilgeman

[quote]
"..Put it this way: would you, like Isaac, sacrifice your son for a van Gogh?.."

Did Isaac sacrifice his son? I know good old Abe didn't, 'cause the pity of the Lord stayed his hand. One day this pity may rule the fate of many.. and eh, well, I'm mixing things up here, sorry ;-)

No bilge, I wouldn't sacrifice my son for a Van Gogh; my son and I (and my daughters, fearsome Dutch giants they will be) would defend the legacy of Van Gogh (both Vincent and the recently slaughtered Theo) with both of our lives.

Sag.

Afonso Henriques said...

Sagunto, sorry for the ignorance.
Here, it is so "purely Portuguese" that it does not sound Latin at all. I sometimes forget that I do speak Latin. It was just so familiar that it couldn't be "foreinger", what about "old dead Italian".

Thank you for the (oh so obvious) information though. I wouldn't get there by myself.

Bilgeman, just wondering...
Do you think there is something worth dying for?

Sagunto said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sagunto said...

Okay @afonso, no sweat.

@bilgeman,

So let me illustrate that bold statement of mine just a bit, with some further specification:

Van Gogh - "La guinguette" gardencafé at Montmartre - Nice work, but nothing to actually die for. I see my son's lost two fingers though.

Van Gogh - "The Potato Eaters" - a bit overestimated i.m.o., nevertheless they should bloody well keep their filthy hands off our Dutch potatoes, so my son valiantly offers his entire left hand for it, while I feel a sudden and sharp sting in my side.

Rembrandt - "Night Watch" - often the aim of vicious attacks by loonies, this one is worth a serious fight. I lose one arm and alas, my son is slain. Daughters chase the cowering muslimani in deadly pursuit.

Hieronymus Bosch - "The Last Judgement" - Definitely dying material! What wonderful work of Dutch art could be more suitable to give your life for, defending it?
As I lay mortally wounded, gazing around me at the foes I've sent to their 72 virgins, I see that my daughters, now redhaired instead of blonde, pick up both our swords to carry on. We do love a good piece of art over here, you see?

Kind regards from Amsterdam,
Sag.

Zenster said...

Afonso Henriques: But the caliphate is in Africa and Asia!

Remember this line? "To demonstrate just how astoundingly off-base you are, here is a set of cocktail napkin calculations to show what a global caliphate would bring:"
[Emphasis Added]

WHAT PART OF GLOBAL CALIPHATE DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?

My comments are based upon a world ruled by shari'a law. Your entire reply ignored this and is just so much rubbish because of that. It is this sort of inanity by you that makes me so reluctant to respond to your comments.

Bilgeman: It's resurgence has brought Christians together despite our own doctrinaire and dogmatic differences

That is only an indictment of Christianity and not any sort of commendation for Islam. Christianity would have most likely achieved its relatively peaceful unity even in Islam’s absence. What’s more, rallying one given faith towads unity by making war upon it is not a virtue in any sense of the word. Thank you for playing, please try again.

the Twin Towers should be exactly rebuilt, but with an extra floor each

I could not agree with you more. They should have been resurrected as a direct and intentional thumb (or two) in Islam's eye.

Copies, rebuilds and backups aside, neither should we even give Islam the sheer enjoyment of inflicting any more wounds upon our national psyche as they did with the 9-11 atrocity.

In many ways, the Islamic world is where it is today because they did precisely that kind of thing in the Caliphate.

That’s as may be but I still refuse to let Islam inflict a similar retardation upon Western civilization.

And rather than realize and admit the mistake they made in promoting and continuing the interpenetration of wordly and religious authority, along comes Sayyid Qutb, who perversely declared their error to be their strength... Osama bin Big-f*cker certainly seems to have bought it, but not all Muslims do, and that is vital for everyone to remember.

Then those Muslims had damn well better start acting like they don’t buy into Qtub’s horseradish. To date, there is very little evidence that supports this. My determination to use massively disproportionate retaliation is specifically intended to motivate these silent—and, in my book, tacitly approving—Muslims to start taking action against their jihadists. Once they arise and begin stringing the imams up from lamp posts, the bombing can stop in a heartbeat. But it’s long past tea to sit twiddling our thumbs waiting for these mute objectors to $h!t or get off the pot.

Islam is NOT monolithic

For all intents and purposes, their universal belief in the Koran makes Muslims monolithic. Shi’a, Sunni, Kurd, Sufi, I could give a rip. Until they begin some serious editing of the Koran, the West has no choice but to regard them—one and all—as the enemy. Furthermore, their near-unanimous adoption of shari’a law also disqualifies them from any segregation. Even the friendly Kurds like to stone their adulterers. That cuts no ice with me.

No we don't [possess adequate military might needed for suppressing all potential nuclear threats].

I argue that a well-effected policy of deterrence and some undeniable displays of our displeasure could bring about a real sea change in Islam’s aggressiveness. We also do have the resources to seal our borders and inspect all cargo from suspect nations, just not the political will. Yes, I will concede that we would still be open to a one-in-a-million shot of some Islamic loon sneaking in a nuke but a little butt kicking right now would go a long way towards encouraging Islam to do some self-policing.

The thing is, though, that would be counter-productive in the sense that our Muslim allies, and potential allies, would be given a pretty compelling grievance against us...and that course of action might be just what the Islamicists WANT.

This is where we part ways. Koranic doctrine makes it impossible for the West to ever hope for any successful alliance with Muslim nations of any sort. Period. Look at our wonderful allies, the Saudis. Some 15 of the 19 9-11 hijackers were Saudi Arabians. Saudi textbooks still contain anti-American screeds and Saudi children are still taught that we in the USA are dogs and monkeys. SOME ALLY. Do I need to go on about Pakistan and how they continue to shelter porcine-penetrator bin Laden?

Taqiyya and kitman simply confound any possible chance for reliability or trust. What’s more, there is no verifiable way for Islam to sincerely reject taqiyya in any genuine sense. This is why I continue to foresee the complete eradication of Islam from our world. At its very core, Islam is so irrevocably tainted and elementally flawed that it is FOREVER incompatible with modern civilization.

Murdering innocents to establish the theocratic Caliphate is Evil.

Nuking innocents in response to that abomination is also Evil.


NOWHERE do I advocate first-use of nuclear weapons. What I do think is that it will take some dramatic shots-across-the-bow to make Islam pause in its cloven-hoofed tracks. Playing the nice guy gets you precisely nowhere with Muslims. Islam needs a clear demonstration of what their own doctrine invites upon them. The sooner we deliver the counter-punch, the fewer of them that will be required.

Sagunto: Original lost = essence lost.
In fact, the mere possibility itself to easily produce and reproduce countless copies, has already destroyed the whole idea of "essence" in art. Your comment is a reflection of that loss.


Touché. Supremely well put.

Bilgeman: Put it this way: would you, like Isaac, sacrifice your son for a van Gogh?

I’d like to think that any son of mine would appreciate fine art enough to where he might lay his life on the line defending it from barbarian vandals. I certainly would. Surrender up those treasures and there is little else to lose. Too bad I can’t post any graphical images of my own artwork, or you might have an understanding of why I feel so strongly about this. I invite you click on this link, or this link to view a tiny glimpse of my own artistic vision. Both styles are my own invention along with the computer controls adapted for their digital construction.

How about a Warhol?

Hahahahahahaha. You so funny. While I would fight to the death to protect Warhol's right to artistic expression, I wouldn't defend his trash with a capgun. Find some PoMo wanker to lay down his life for some oversized soup can labels. I'll be standing watch on the Rembrants.

Sagunto: No bilge, I wouldn't sacrifice my son for a Van Gogh; my son and I (and my daughters, fearsome Dutch giants they will be) would defend the legacy of Van Gogh (both Vincent and the recently slaughtered Theo) with both of our lives.

Spot on! Lose your artistic freedom and you may as well kiss your sorry @ss goodbye.

Bilgeman said...

Alfonso:

"Bilgeman, just wondering...
Do you think there is something worth dying for?"

Absolutely, but you've got that backwards.

There are many things worth KILLING for.

(The dying part is something that inescapably goes with the killing, it's something you risk, not something you aspire to...unless you've got "issues"...like never having had any human female poontang).

There are also many things worth NOT Killing for.

If I can acheive victory without killing anybody at all, I would prefer that method.
If i can achieve victory by killing some, while leaving others alive, I would do that also.
And if I have to kill every m*thaf*cka on the continent in order to win, then I'd regrettably get busy.
If I gakk it following any of those paths, well, bummer for me! I guess someone else will have to pick up my slack.

I'd say we're now well between the former and the middle, as opposed to the middle and the latter options.

As they teach us in the Marines, the Mission takes Priority.

Zenster said...

Bilgeman: ... you've got that backwards.

There are many things worth KILLING for.


No wonder I never need to shower after our online exchanges. I really like your priorities and your thinking in general. Very Pattonesque, in this case, and often outside the box. Something I'm rather fond of myself. Rest assured, should the opportunity devolve to me, I'll pick up your slack, mate.

[Hoisting one in your direction]

Sagunto said...

@all,

Before this topic will sink away and join the ranks of archive-veterans, I'd like to conclude with a fitting quote from G. K. Chesterton about patriotism:

He said:
"..The true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him.."

Now ain't that a quote to die for? I love it. It is on that solid basis, which inspires trust, pride in the achievements of ones forefathers who still have rights just as future generations have, that I know the fight against Islam (and other totalitarian doctrines) will continue. Hate is a state, useful for a day or two but in the end self-defeating. Love is everlasting, and it will conquer! ;-)

Kind regards from Amsterdam,
Sagunto

P.s.:
@Zen, I will take you up on the Vaderetro plan, soon as I've got more info handy.