Saturday, July 26, 2008

What Can We Do?

The essay below, written by Westerner, was originally posted on Lawrence Auster’s blog in October 2007. Last winter the author asked me to re-post it here at Gates of Vienna. In the thick of events I put it aside for later, and then forgot about it. Westerner wrote me again yesterday to remind me, so here it is.

But first I’d like to talk about Westerner’s proposed program in order to clarify my own stance towards it.

The Beast of 666Parts of it — such as destroying Iran’s nuclear facilities — are prudent and desirable. Other prescriptions — such as the one calling for the destruction of Mecca and Medina — I find imprudent and immoral. This is not to say that such drastic steps can never be prudent or moral. The firebombing of Dresden, for example, was unthinkable in the fall of 1939, but by February of 1945 it had become quite thinkable.

When the survival of an entire people is at stake, no option can be ruled off the table. As we come closer and closer to that point, more and more unthinkable things will be thought about by more and more people.

But the West isn’t at that point yet. Whatever you may think of Westerner’s policy suggestions from a moral standpoint, they are — with the possible exception of the destruction of Iran’s nukes — politically impossible, and will remain so indefinitely.

Under the circumstances, prescriptions for what “we should do” are just so much air blowing past the lips of powerless people.

We must make it an invariable policy… we can easily seize the regions where most of that oil is located… We should then, using nuclear weapons, proceed to…

Who are “we” that might do these things? Define “we”.

We, that is the writers of this blog and anyone who is likely to read it, cannot do any of these things. Not only that, if “we” means the leaders of the United States or other Western countries, then it’s easy to see that “we” aren’t going to undertake them anytime soon, and certainly not in my lifetime.

I can devise cogent policies that are eminently intelligent, thoughtful, logical, and supremely just, but it won’t do me any good. The people who make the grand decisions are far from the world I inhabit, and think very differently than the people in my circle.

I’ve been banging this gong for a long time, but I’ll bang it one more time: We are a small group of like-minded people scattered throughout the Western world, gathered in loosely interconnected networks which have at most a modest influence on local affairs. We are largely excluded from any voice in the corridors of power.

When I move from the prescriptive to the normative in my writings, I recommend that the focus be on what is actually achievable for the distributed networks of the Counterjihad. Legislative initiatives, demonstrations, protests, lawsuits, lobbying our elected representatives, fundraising, publicity, recruiting, and improved communication — all those are achievable. As time goes by, our reach may extend, but for now grand policy remains beyond our grasp.

To his credit, Westerner acknowledges that his essay is designed not as an action plan, but as a way of making people aware of what he thinks must be done.

Now I’ll let him have his say:

Dealing With the Islamic Threat
by Westerner


In recent years, several knowledgeable writers — including Serge Trifkovic (The Sword of the Prophet) and Ibn Warraq (Why I am Not a Moslem) — have described what Islam is actually like, both in theory and in practice. It is not a religion of peace, but rather an intrinsically expansionist movement, and serious Moslems wish to establish the rule of Islam over the entire globe. They will accept temporary truces, but are resolutely determined to continue their struggle until total victory, and will utilize whatever methods are necessary to achieve that goal.

The nature of the Islamic state that they seek to impose on us is clear, both from their ideology and from their history. It will not include either freedom of speech, or freedom of the press, or freedom of religion, nor will it include equal rights for women. Those non-Moslems who are neither killed nor forcibly converted, will be dhimmis (lacking the normal rights of citizens, and subject to special taxes and humiliating treatment). Since Muhammad himself held slaves — and, indeed, enslaved formerly free persons — it will be blasphemous to allege that slavery is immoral. No vestige of our democratic system will endure.

However, although the writers mentioned above correctly state the nature of the Islamic threat to our country and our way of life, they do not say how we can counter that threat. The same is true of such other writers as Melanie Phillips (Londonistan) and Mark Steyn (America Alone).

Larry Auster is somewhat better, because he not only takes the Islamic threat seriously, but has a plan of action for defending our society. He suggests (quite sensibly) that we should defend ourselves against terrorism by refusing to accept immigrants from Moslem countries, and sending home those who are already here. He also suggests that we must destroy the Iranian nuclear facilities, and should prevent any other Moslem from acquiring nuclear weapons.
- - - - - - - - -
However, although Auster’s suggestions are advisable, they are still inadequate. Even if an American president (and a sufficient number of congressmen) were to become convinced that Auster is correct — and even if the president proceeded to carry out those suggestions — the world would still contain a sizable number of Islamic states, most of which contain a large, powerful Islamic establishment dedicated to the spread of Islam throughout the world. Furthermore, many of those states possess enormous reserves of oil, and the wealth that those reserves lead to. In a few years, that American president would leave office, and sooner or later would be succeeded by a leader who is less convinced that Islam is a mortal threat to us and must be opposed by such firm measures. Auster’s suggestions, therefore, even if adopted, will only bring us a brief reprieve.

We cannot be safe unless Islam is crushed; that is, so reduced in strength that it can no longer threaten the free world. To some readers, this may seem impossible: How can a movement which boasts of 1.2 billion followers ever be crushed? But we should not despair. Remember, just a few decades ago, the Communists ruled far more territory — and a considerably larger fraction of the world’s population — than the Moslems do today. The West is far stronger than the Moslem world, and if we use our assets wisely and act boldly we can crush Islam permanently. Our overall strategy for doing so should include the following steps:

1. We should start by thoroughly destroying the Iranian nuclear facilities. (Yes, we could triumph even if Iran obtained nuclear weapons, but only at a far greater cost.)
2. Next, in order to protect our homeland from Moslem terrorists we must adopt a policy of not accepting any immigrants (or even tourists or students) from Islamic countries, and by deporting all foreign Moslems who are already here, whether illegally or legally. (It is not that most Moslems are terrorists, but rather that most terrorists are Moslems, and that by keeping Moslems out of our country we can greatly decrease the frequency of terrorist attacks in the United States.)
3. We must make it an invariable policy that we will not permit any predominantly Moslem country to build or obtain weapons of mass destruction. (Pakistan obviously represents a special case, since it already possesses nuclear weapons. However, even though the present government is reasonably friendly to us, we cannot permit them to keep those weapons, nor the facilities producing them.)
4. There are various ways in which we can eventually reduce our (and Europe’s) dependence on Middle Eastern oil. However, those programs will take decades to carry out. The only way in which we can quickly break both the financial power of the Moslem states and our dependence on their oil reserves is forcibly to seize the oil fields in the Middle East. The states bordering the Persian Gulf are all weak, and if we make up our mind to do so we can easily seize the regions where most of that oil is located, drive away the people who live there now, and produce the oil ourselves. These, of course, are acts of war, and would be immoral if done solely to enrich ourselves. However, the Moslem world is already at war with us, and we are fully justified in taking such actions to defend ourselves and our way of life.
5. Our government must then embark on a policy of persistently denouncing Islam. We should repeatedly state and broadcast that Muhammad was not “the messenger of God,” but rather was a false prophet. We should also tell the world that he was a bloodthirsty tyrant, and a cruel, greedy, and lascivious man. (The truth of these statements is amply documented by ancient Arab writings.) Islam cannot be defeated if, in an attempt to avoid hurting anyone’s feelings, we continue to ignore these truths and continue to speak of Islam and its founder respectfully.
6. Finally, we must demonstrate — in an absolutely unmistakable way — that the Moslem religion is not favored by God. The most convincing way of doing this is by (after suitable warnings) totally destroying several Moslem holy sites, including Mecca and Medina. We should announce in advance the dates when those places will be destroyed, and that Allah is either unwilling or unable to protect them. We should then, using nuclear weapons, proceed to vaporize each of those sites in sequence. (In order to avoid unnecessary loss of life, the first two or three such sites should be sparsely populated, and the inhabitants of Mecca and Medina should be given a reasonable length of time to evacuate.)

Since most Moslems believe that the truth of Muhammad’s statements were demonstrated by his military victories, the total destruction of those cities cannot be reconciled with Islam. It is therefore probable that over the course of a century the number of Moslems in the world will drop drastically. Some Moslems will convert to other religions; some will become agnostics or atheists; and those who remain “Moslem” will break up into many small sects. In any event, bereft of military power, oil — and the diplomatic power that brings — and money, Islam will lose much of its appeal and will cease to be a menace.

It may be objected that this program involves the killing of a large number of people, many of them innocent. So do all wars. We did not choose this war; it has been forced on us. And just as we were justified in killing millions of Germans and Japanese to achieve victory in World War II, we are justified in killing large numbers of Moslems to maintain our independence and freedom from the Islamic menace. Note that our victory in World War II did not occur until about eight million Germans — and a similar number of Japanese — had been killed, a far greater number than would be killed by the program suggested here.

Of course, this program cannot be carried out by the United States — or any coalition of Western nations — until there is sufficient popular support for it. The purpose of this article is not to cause the immediate adoption of this program, but rather to create an understanding of what needs to be done. It is vital that when an American president is elected who understands the gravity of the Moslem threat, and is willing to take strong action to counter it, he uses that window of opportunity to deal a crushing blow to Islam, so that the threat does not continue.

If the current trend of events continues, within a generation or two the West is headed for a violent civilizational conflict without precedent in recent history. But, for the time being, regardless of what any of us think of Westerner’s ideas, they will not be implemented.

I asked earlier: Who are “we”?

It seems more and more likely, given the acclamation that repeatedly greets the Immanent Messiah of Hope and Change, that the answer is: We are the ones we’ve been waiting for.

And then we’ll get what’s coming to us. As events unfold, some or all of the policies proposed by Westerner will likely be implemented.

The people who implement them, however, will not appeal to ordinary folk like you and me. Along with nuking Mecca and occupying the oil fields, they will remove what’s left of our civil liberties, militarize our societies, imprison and execute those who disagree with them, increase the power of the state, nationalize our economies, and enact powerful controls over the entire populace via the media, the schools, and all public institutions.

Because that’s what happens when drastic emergency situations arise, when an entire civilization as at stake. The people who undertake actions that kill or impoverish hundreds of millions of people are the same kind of people who do all those other nasty things. Men who are that ruthless will act just as ruthlessly to preserve and extend their own power. You can’t avoid it; it’s a package deal.

When the time comes, we won’t be doing those things. They will.

204 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   1 – 200 of 204   Newer›   Newest»
Dymphna said...

When the time comes, *we* won’t be doing those things. *They* will.

And they will be doing these things equally to *us.*

Such Armageddon thinking helps no one.

As for deporting all the Muslims...get real. Many are American citizens of several generations. Their industry conttributes much to the country.

BTW, #6 is just what bin Laden uses as his form before attacking: warn them and then go in.

Jeez. This is pornographically violent and ill-considered.

I'm sorry it was posted.

Natalie said...

Oh dear. I am going to say something that will be controversial and probably much disagreed with. But here goes.

I don't really think the ideas presented in Westerner's essay are really that bad. Honestly, I've had pretty much all six of those ideas for a little while because I don't really see any alternative in dealing with Islam. I do not think a reformation will ever take place, given the very nature of the religion. Sure, that would be nice, but it's not going to happen.

Islam has been on the path to world domination since its creation. It's been going strong for 1400 years now and doesn't show any sign of stopping. These people are not going to go away or just leave us alone, so ignoring them isn't an option. Nor can we negotiate with them. You simply can't negotiate with people who want you dead. It's like negotiating with Hitler (sorry to bring him up, but I do feel this example is valid). Look where that got us: a terrible war with unprecedented casualties.

Therefore the only solution left is to fight back against Islam with the same ferocity with which they fight us. Sure, the death of millions upon millions of people doesn't sound like the best thing to moral people, but what choice do we have? We could be morally superior, so to speak, and not take such drastic action, but in that case we would be dead, or in the best situation, living as dhimmis. Sorry, but I'd rather be tainted morally and still alive than be moral but dead.

We're between a rock and a hard place, as they say. This subject is tough to think about, but it's only going to get harder. There will be tough decisions to be made in the future. But I am certain of one thing: I personally will do absolutely anything to avoid having the world go Islamic.

Conservative Swede said...

I think Westerner's suggestions are very good (but a bit too weak in some aspects). He has included all the suggestions that I have had since a few years back. Very good! I will have reason to comment more upon this.

Good on you, Westerner. Now we are talking!

Conservative Swede said...

Baron,

The people who implement them, however, will not appeal to ordinary folk like you and me. Along with nuking Mecca and occupying the oil fields, they will remove what’s left of our civil liberties, militarize our societies, imprison and execute those who disagree with them, increase the power of the state, nationalize our economies, and enact powerful controls over the entire populace via the media, the schools, and all public institutions.

You make it sound like it's something bad. It will surely make things different, but not bad. We already had all this, to a lesser, degree during WWII. This time around it's bigger campaign so it will all have to go deeper and longer time, but there are actually many good sides of this.

Let's look at some of the things you write one by one:

militarize our societies

People forget that the Roman Republic was a fully militarized society. And this is the model for the political system that we still hold in highest esteem, a republic for free men with checks and balances.

Would that deprive us of our civil liberties? No, it will only change their nature. Will we be more or less free? In my view we will be more free.

And a militarization of the society is a good thing, especially for the men. It's a good way turn around our feminized societies 180 degrees. There are so many sides of a militarized society that is great and create enthusiasm (even good old fun), but that is so denigrated in today's society.

increase the power of the state, nationalize our economies

It wouldn't make sense to take it so far, since Big Government will only cause weakness of the society. Yes, Capitalism will have to scrap its internationalism and comply with national/civilizational interests. And under fulls-scale war there will have to be WWII-style national plans and government control of relevant parts of the economy.

enact powerful controls over the entire populace via the media, the schools, and all public institutions.

Also good. There's no other way to de-program people from political correctness, multiculturalism, post-modern liberalism, etc.

imprison and execute those who disagree with them

During wartime, traitors will have to be dealt with harshly of course. The question is if we will go through a decade or two under harsh conditions in wartime, and then come of the tunnel with a relaxation of the harsh aspects of this "deal". Or if we will end up in a more permanent state of war (shouldn't be necessary if we play our cards right). But even so, the Roman Republic can be described as being under a ore or less constant state of war, and it was not a totalitarian society in any way. To the contrary it's our model for how to build the best possible political foundation for a free society.

The best side of this "deal" is how we will once again have societies organized in service of the common good.

Conservative Swede said...

Regarding the nuking of Mecca and Medina. Islam has been around for 1400 years. Nukes have only been around for a little more than 60 years. Islam is seriously begging for having these sites nuked. So it's just a matter of time before it happens.

If it doesn't happen early, nuclear proliferation will make sure that eventually an Islamic nuke will hit us. After a finite number of Islamic nukes upon us, we will eventually nuke Mecca and Medina.

So there is no stopping this. The only open question is how much destruction, death and mayhem the world will suffer from before that event takes place.

Armance said...

Along with nuking Mecca and occupying the oil fields, they will remove what’s left of our civil liberties, militarize our societies, imprison and execute those who disagree with them, increase the power of the state, nationalize our economies, and enact powerful controls over the entire populace via the media, the schools, and all public institutions.

Actually we will reach a point when this sort of drastic measures will be simply unavoidable. Maybe not in our lifetime, but the next generations will witness such a society. It's the fault of our irresponsible, blind, spineless, dumb leaders and elite, because they are unable and unwilling to stop the Islamic expansion right now. When the Turks besieged Constantinople, the priests and theologians were debating about the sex of angels. This is what our politicians are doing now. If we don't remove the idiotic political elite which is leading the West nowadays, our grandchildren will pay bitterly for the mistakes and weakness of their ancestors.

Henrik R Clausen said...

Pulverizing that accursed black stone in Mecca actually makes sense, for a rarely-mentioned reason:

Stone worship is an affront to Islam anyway, where it is clearly stated that Allah is abstract, all-pervading and all-powerful, and that nothing happens without him willing it. If it goes *poof*, there are two rational options to explain it:

1) Allah wills it.

2) Allah is false.

In both cases, getting rid of it should be fine with Muslims:

The stone worship and all the associated Hajj/Umra rituals are merely relics from Arab paganism and should have been done away with centuries ago.

Using nukes to accomplish what a single Tomahawk missile could do is crazy, of course.

Except if we've been nuked first. Telling Iran that nuking Mecca would be the direct and immediate consequence of nuking anything from their side would be an interesting new Balance of Terror. Would a crazy Islamic leader put their venerated stone at risk just to get rid of a few million Jews?

Hypothetical ideas, of course. But doodling with what might take place can make a difference in the long run.

Showing that Christianity is a real and sensible religion, and protecting those who convert, is workable here and now. Insulting false prophets and senseless stones make sense, but works best when also offering a usable alternative.

Religion can be good for humans. It's not all about fear and obligations.

Erich said...

dymphna wrote:

"As for deporting all the Muslims...get real. Many are American citizens of several generations. Their industry conttributes much to the country."

First of all, the writer "Westerner" did not propose deporting "all" Muslims. Under point #2, he specifically limited it to:

"deporting all foreign Moslems who are already here, whether illegally or legally."

I frankly think Westerner is being too soft here. I support deporting truly all Muslims. I am puzzled by dymphna's demurrer. What makes a Muslim citizen any less suspicious than a Muslim non-citizen?

And secondly, dymphna's argument that "[t]heir industry conttributes much to the country" is irrelevant to the more important question of our safety, which is the main reason why deportation is a consideration. We would not be deporting Muslims because they don't have any "industry" to contribute.

Per said...

@Conservative Swede
Are you seriously arguing that the civil liberties and democracy of the Roman Republic would be acceptable in the west? The Roman Republic permitted and thrived on slavery and did not grant women anything approaching equal rights, lest the right to vote.
Your ominous warning that traitors would have to be dealt with harshly and your yearning for totalitarian control of education and the press certainly makes me wonder whether you would defend the execution of people merely for speaking against the state. The state of freedom of dissent during World War II was actually not so curtailed in America and Britain as your comparisson would suggest, so perhaps what you have on mind is something like the Roman proscriptions during Sulla.

Henrik R Clausen said...

Per, while CS tends to go a bit on the edge at times, he has an important point here. Rome had a very clear distinction between citiens and non-citizens. Being a Roman citizen granted you rights and protection that a non-citizen didn't have, and becoming a Roman citizen was not trivial.

The Roman Empire fell exactly when they started granting citizenship to just about everyone who asked.

Per said...

@Henrik R Clausen
I agree, but what I am talking about is the Roman Republic and its development towards permanent authoritarianism. The development did not start with the decline of the empire but rather with the militarization of Roman society brought about by rich patrons use of standing legions to further their own political goals.
The erosion of the Republic and its checks and balances was thus presaged by the need for militarization and the empowerment of strong leaders through emperial politics. Militarization of the republic began with the growth of the state.
Sulla's dictatorship was temporary, but the republic never was returned to its former might and what came after Caesar's mild dictatorship was not democracy resembling the old republic but mass prosscriptions under the triumvirate and later despotism under the principate.
Now it may well be that such a development would be inevitable during an all out confrontation with Islam, and that's the reason why I favor a quick and dirty solution, rather than a corosive stalemate eating our democracy and civil liberties from within.
During the exigency it may be necessary to grant the government more power than would be acceptable during normalcy, but censorship, militarization and capital punishment for treason is only a means to and end and, I hope not, a permanent feature of cultural reinforcement.

rohan said...

I'm not sorry it was posted. Westerner brought up some good points. There will come a time, soon, when the U.S. and other countries based on the natural rights of men will have to decide if they want to win against the repulsive cult of islam. To do so they will have to do everything necessary, some of which may be horrifying. If you don't want to win, don't start the fight. Of course, islam doesn't have that confusion. They know what they want. This IS a fight for our existence.

Graham Dawson (Archonix) said...

Being a Roman citizen granted you rights and protection that a non-citizen didn't have, and becoming a Roman citizen was not trivial.

Which, oddly enough, had a profound effect on christianity. If Paul had not been born a Roman citizen he would have been beaten to death half way through the second half of Acts and the pauline epistles would never have been written.

Zenster said...

Here we have yet another uncomfortable exercise in Thinking the Unthinkable. Please pause to reflect that a large number of Muslims currently have zero problem with enacting Westerner's catalog of horrors upon us Infidels. It's also safe to say that if Islam were in possession of the weapons and technology required to mount such an attack on the West, it already would have happened. A solid analogy for this lies in how Israel would no longer exist if the Palestinians possessed Israeli military technology.

It is a basic axiom of military strategy that an enemy must be confronted with equal or greater might. While nuclear weapons have altered that equation to a minor extent, the overall premise remains unchanged. Now, back to the original postulate. Given that Islam fully well intends to inflict its own version of Westerner's catalog upon the West, what are our options?

Negotiation:

This is simply out of the question. Taqiyya precludes any possibility of sincere or productive dealings with Islam. For a concrete object lesson, look no further than Israel’s dealings with the Palestinians. Furthermore, Islam's goals are totally non-negotiable. So, no matter how we might wish, there is nothing to negotiate. Those who advocate negotiation with Islam are either delusional or traitors with little difference in the fate they deserve for it.

Mutual Assured Destruction:

While MAD may have worked against the communists, there is little to indicate it would have any efficacy in dealing with those who prize death and martyrdom. This is complicated even more by the fact that many Muslims would rather see an Earth devoid of all human life than one contaminated by disbelief. Such a nihilistic vision would see all Muslims in their paradise and every Infidel properly banished to Hell. Furthermore, the necessarily wide scope of MAD cannot avert or deter ongoing low-level terrorist attacks. Jihad would proceed apace, uninhibited by any overarching balance of power or terror.

Containment:

While attractive for its seemingly benign qualities, containment cannot in any way halt further terrorist atrocities. An enduring hallmark of fanaticism is determination and no existing battery of countermeasures can provide adequate protection from those who are truly determined to perpetrate further terrorist atrocities.

In the foregoing trio of options we have eliminated, in succession, all benevolent diplomatic, strategic and tactical ploys. Where does that leave us? We are left in the position of incapacitating Islam. When eradicating vermin, one does not aim to merely wound the rodents or insects in question. That does not end the infestation. In a likewise manner, any accommodation with Islam will result in an eventual resurgence of hostilities. It is the inescapable nature of Islam and this has been demonstrated repeatedly throughout history. To quote Niccolò Machiavelli:

For it must be noted, that men must either be caressed or else annihilated; they will revenge themselves for small injuries, but cannot do so for great ones; the injury therefore that we do to a man must be such that we need not fear his revenge.

Islam’s deceitful and supremacist character multiplies tenfold the need for eliminating any possible retribution. The requirement for this does not derive from Western military doctrine but is strictly due to Islam’s own intrinsic nature. It is not some minor bacterium or virus that can be inoculated against. Islam’s virulent nature is akin to Ebola or the bubonic plague. Any other organism that is intent on surviving cannot tolerate its presence.

One way or the other, Western nations must find a will to survive. Survival demands that Islam is, not just defeated, but eradicated for all time. Just as Islam intends to cleanse the earth of all competing cultures, so must Western civilization mobilize to remove every last trace of Islam from this world.

There is only one reason why the nature of this situation is so binary. It lies in Islam’s total intransigence and voluntary intolerance for all other ways of life. This adamant opposition to conciliation of any sort is further complicated by qur’anic doctrine being totally hidebound and crystallized in the form it had some 1,000 years ago. This renders Islam incorrigible and immune to any moderation. Since rehabilitation is not an option, eradication becomes necessary.

Once the West’s survival is accepted, the only other remaining question is how many Muslims will have to die in order to successfully eliminate Islam. Please recall that coexistence with Islam simply is not possible. Therefore, Muslims—as a corporeal manifestation of Islam— must cease to exist. This can be achieved by them converting away from Islam or by dieing. There are no other options. How many Muslims must die towards that end is strictly up to Islam. Sadly, Islam would sooner have all Muslims die than see itself perish. This is an incontrovertible aspect of its death obsession.

All that remains is for the West to set about killing all Muslims who prize their ideology more than life itself. Would that there was some other way of assuring Islam’s demise. There is not. Rest assured of one thing above all others:

Islam wouldn’t have it any other way.

Dymphna said...

Well, Zenster, 848 words is a tad long, but at least you're breaking it up into chapters.

Thanks.
_______________________

@Archonix --
If Paul had not been born a Roman citizen he would have been beaten to death half way through the second half of Acts and the pauline epistles would never have been written.

Actually, Luke is given credit for Acts. It is the record of the Jerusalem church, led by those who had known Christ personally.

Those who people Acts didn't get along with Paul. He was uppity for a "second generation" type.

For fun, read (compare) Galatians 2and Acts 15. They are descriptions of the same meeting, but told from very different points of view. Acts claims they ordered Paul to put in an appearance; Galatians claims it was Paul's idea to go to Jerusalem.

IOW, there were factions from the git-go.

Losing some of the Pauline material wouldn't have been a bad idea. He sure can lecture you up one side and down the other on correct behavior.

OTOH, I Corinthians 13 is timeless and beautiful in any language, any version of Christian scripture.

As for him being beaten to death, the authorities killed him anyway. He may have been a Roman citizen, but he was first and foremost a Jew.

Armance said...

Zenster,

excellent analysis! Really great and inspiring. I love the quote from Machiavelli (a Western classic regarding the knowledge on politics and human nature in general) and your comments on it. I think Zenster's comment deserves a separate thread on GoV. For those who still have doubts, it's a demonstration that we don't have too many options left in fighting against Islam. As Oriana Fallaci said once, our only rational path if we want victory is to fight passion over passion, fire over fire.

Zenster said...

Dymphna, you are to be commended on overcoming your own dislike for this topic and airing it here at GoV. As the Baron noted:

When the survival of an entire people is at stake, no option can be ruled off the table. As we come closer and closer to that point, more and more unthinkable things will be thought about by more and more people.

The more that people are exposed to "Thinking the Unthinkable", the better the chance that whatever does happen will have been more thought out.

Right now, far too many people are being ruled by their feelings, especially so with the Liberals. Those feelings, as with most decent human beings, tell them that "these people can't possibly mean to take over the world".

Only credible and reasoned discussion is going to change any of that. At least for those whose thinking can be changed at all. The sooner that these discussions take place, the more likely it is that pre-emptive measures will be taken instead of what promises to be far more horrible "reactive" responses to the very terrorist atrocities that lack of pre-emption literally assures.

As is made clear in my original comment, my own outlook on the current situation is exceptionally grim. This is not my preferred way of thinking but a direct reflection of Islam's own brutal and vicious nature.

I meant to close my previous comment by saying that given how the seriousness of this situation is all but dismissed out of hand by the powers that be, Westerner's catalog of horrors will most likely represent a best case scenario that will elude us in favor of far more hideous outcomes.

Plainly put, this entire planet will have gotten off lightly if Mecca and Medina are the only places subjected to nuclear attacks.

What is "Occupation" said...

Great comment all around...

The Plan should be as follows:

Destroying iran's Nuke sites as well as their ability to refine oil.

At the same time, taking out the oil fields of iran & Arabia...

Then the destruction of the 3 holiest sites in islam.

The choice is clear...

either murder the black gold & rock, OR there will be a major war...

Islam does believe...

Get it through your minds...

THEY BELIEVE...

and they will not change their pov UNLESS we PROVE to the that ALLAH is not blessing them

Destroying the black rock is a FINE way to change Islam...

Now for all of those that get all whimpy...

How would you like it if they did that to you?

well speaking as a JEW...

My Temple has been destroyed 2 times and MANY thousands of my small meeting places have been destroyed by BOTH Christian and Islamic forces..

The destruction of the Temple in Judaism FORCED us to change from a TEMPLE CULT into a group that survived by supplanting temple offerings into doing prayer and "good deeds"...

Islam CURRENTLY has it's 5 pillars...

ONE of the VAPORIZED would force them to CHANGE...

Graham Dawson (Archonix) said...

Dymphna, you'll see no argument from me on that point, though I find that the most common accusation against paul on "lecturing" comes with his apparent and alleged views on women. this might be an interesting diversion when you've got the time. :)

Essentially Paul got a bum deal from lack of cultural context in latter generations. As it were.

I'd love to have a long discussion about the details - it's always details that make for the most entertaining debates - but I'll leave it, lest I derail an otherwise fascinating thread.

Zenster said...

Thank you for the kind words, Armance. I'd love to spend my weekend morning doing something else rather than parsing out why it's likely that a huge chunk of this world's population will perish for their refusal to abandon a barbaric ideology.

What you see is me doing my best to change this world one mind at a time. Be it strangers I meet on the street or people who read my words on the Internet: Many, many minds will need to change before the West's survival is assured.

It is out of an obligation to all humanity so it can have a life worth living, a life of freedom and dignity, that I do this. A world ruled by shari'a law can only come about through the moral abdication of decent people on an unimaginable scale.

Armance said...

A world ruled by shari'a law can only come about through the moral abdication of decent people on an unimaginable scale.

Really, sharia is the most frightening thing in Islam (more dangerous than jihad itself) and the most frightening totalitarian set of regulations that ever existed in history. Sharia is the end of human race as we know it. A world governed by sharia means an earth devoid of human beings and populated by Islamic androids.

I agree with any measure, no matter how violent, to stop the spread of this perverted law. If it takes nukes, so be it!

Conservative Swede said...

Very good discussion. My opinion is somewhere between the ones of Henrik and Zenster. Once again it's from the Romans we can learn how to deal with the situation. The solution lies in the concept of Carthaginian peace (read what I wrote about it here first)

We have learned a lot from the Romans, don't forget that. And we can still learn more. Whenever our civilization has been thriving it's when its been the most inspired by Rome (And no Per, the founding fathers of America didn't hold Sulla as their ideal. It was the legacy of the 500 years of the Roman Republic apart from Sulla that impressed them. I just think that the founding fathers of America display quite some more wisdom on this issue than you do.)

So let's apply the model of Carthaginian peace to the situation at hand:
Quite as Henrik's approach it was a precision job, but with the awareness that in order to resolve the problem one needs to obliterate Carthage (in our case Islam) as a political entity, and in order to facilitate that the operation has to be more large scale.
Zenster's approach is large scale alright, but it lacks the precision. Carthaginian peace was not about "killing them all".

Let's take Henrik's suggestion as the starting point. It's excellently designed, with restraint and precision. And it focuses on the most important thing: proving to Muslims that Allah is false. Zenster brings up the point of how Muslims do not care about human lives, not even their own. But he doesn't take it to its conclusion. Since Islam does not value human lives, the essence of the destruction of Islam as a political entity cannot be about killing Muslims (least we literally kill them all of course). To eradicate Islam, and throw it on the dustbin of history, we need to destroy what they value. And this is the focus that Henrik has.

An important aspect of Henrik's suggestion is also how it is in essence an act of mercy. Over a billion people are trapped and enslaved in this mental prison we know as Islam. Convincing them, beyond any doubt, that Allah is false, is the way to release them from this agony. Seen from such a perspective I fail to see why people always repeat how such an attack can only be motivated as retaliation (and would otherwise be immoral for some strange reason). To me that is like the doctor saying "I won't cure the patient unless he attacks me first". Is it only if they nuke us first that we'd consider it worthwhile reforming Islam?

But Henrik's suggestion is too narrow. Destroying the black stone will surely change Islam. It will be a huge shock to them, but they will manage to find a way out of it. This tenet of Arab paganism will be reformed out from Islam, naturally. But he Hajj will continue just like before. Mecca is so much more than the black stone. The Muslims will continue to turn there for prayer, and continue their pilgrimage there, following all traditions of it like before; instead of watching the Kaaba they will watch "Ground Zero" instead. There's so many ways for Islam to deal with this really, e.g by announcing how Allah has now sent them another piece of meteor stone, which they put up on display.

No, here I have to refer to Zenster's point, reminding us of what Machiavelli concluded: "men must either be caressed or else annihilated; they will revenge themselves for small injuries". Destroying the black stone is just an injury. Islam will turn back on us with great revenge.

No Islam must be eradicated. And this is the reason why Mecca has to be completely destroyed; burned to the ground. I must be a massive manifestation that scatters any hope of ever rebuilding it again. This is the decisive blow against Islam. Turning towards a place, five times a day, which is just rubble will not strengthen your faith, it will eat you up from the inside. And you cannot go on pilgrimage to a place that doesn't exist. Two of most important pillars of Islam effectively eliminated. Medina should be destroyed in the same way, of course, so they won't start turning there for prayer.

All in all it has to be a massive power demonstration showing beyond any doubt that it's not Allah that rules this planet but the civilization with the greatest means to apply violence and destruction, i.e. us. This is the way to break the evil spell of Islam. And it's an act of mercy.

There's quite a lot more to say on this issue, but this will have to do as a start.

xlbrl said...

Sophocles,Seneca,Camus,Revoral,
Churchill,Paine,Balzac

The true problem, the true threat, is within us, not from Islam.
Islam's cruelty, which is extreme and unchanging, is born of weakness. All cruelty is born of weakness. How natural it is for them to destroy what they cannot possess, to deny what they do not understand, to insult what they envy.
But as it is very cruel so it is very weak. It can only have been made eventful by discovering a similar weakness and partner in the West. Or, was it the other way around?
The most civilized people are as near to barbarism as polished steel is to rust.
So powerful is this force within us that we even see it as more practical to fight nuclear wars with the enemies we have enabled then to conquer the disease within us that empowers them.
This is not for the first time.
Liberalism has transformed the self-critical spirit of Western Civilization into a self-destructive one. By all means let us overcome the immediate threat of cruelty so that the Left can provide the next two. Or, perhaps, we will care to see that evils, like poisons, are diseases that no other remedy can reach. None has.
I have never once seen it suggested that we deport those native Americans who corrupt the young and commit sedition openly. I would. The Constitution is not a suicide pact. Can it be that this is seen to be even more impractical than nuclear war, or is it that they are too often family?
When God decides to destroy a thing, he entrusts its destruction to the thing itself. Every bad institution of this world ends by suicide.

Conservative Swede said...

What is "Occupation",

The destruction of the Temple in Judaism FORCED us to change from a TEMPLE CULT into a group that survived by supplanting temple offerings into doing prayer and "good deeds"...

The destruction of the second temple provides an even better example in my view. The utter destruction of Judah as a political entity, in 70 A.D., deprived Judaism of the political foundation for being a law religion. All the verses about criminal law, how to wage war, etc. became obsolete and inoperative. While Judaism was never a law religion in the strongest sense as Islam, with an unalterable divine law, it was indeed a law religion. But it is no longer. How could it be, without having a political entity as its base.

Same with Islam. The utter destruction of the core of Islamic empire will just as thoroughly change Islam. I expect that a watered down version of Islam will survive, where the political aspects of the Koran verses have become obsolete and inoperative.

People claim that Islam cannot be reformed, since the text of the Koran cannot be changed. But as I point out here, the texts of Judaism was never changed, still it was thoroughly reformed.

So the reformation of Islam is possible through (and only possible through) the destruction of Mecca. Both of which people repeatedly say that we cannot do. But I say: Yes we can!

I might also say "We are the ones we have been waiting for". Islam has been around for 1400 years. And in spite of how the obvious waý to deal with Islam is to terminally defeat the Islamic empire, which includes the destruction of Mecca, in 1400 years it has never been done. The Muslims have simply been too fierce a warriors for anyone to have gone through the trouble.

But today we live in happy times and it can be easily facilitated by modern projectiles. And with the invention nukes there's no other possible outcome of this than the destruction of Mecca. Put Islam and nukes together in a laboratory environment, and the outcome will always be a destroyed Mecca. So the ways things are setup it can only eventually lead to a giant showdown. And we are the chosen ones. Finally we've got the means in our hands to put a final end to this cancer of our planet, and we have come to a point where we've got no other choice but to do it.

Surely the situation looks hopeless. We are feeling like Churchill in the middle of the '30s, seeing it all clearly, but without power to deal with it in a way that would save tens of millions of lives. But us being powerless today does not matter. The time for showdown and then conclusion will come nevertheless. Most probably after an unnecessary tens of millions of dead people, of course; we live in times when my suggestion of saving tens of millions of lives is considered immoral. But the showdown will come and Islam will be destroyed.

tomcpp said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
xlbrl said...

Swede--
Yes, the Founders were extraordinarily wise. They saw Islam for what it was, and in fact it was Jefferson's experience in negotiating with Muslim terrorist and kidnappers while ambassador to France that brought about his determination to annihilate the Barbary Pirates when he became President. This audacity shocked and impressed the most powerful navy in the world--the British.
But these same Founders spoke openly that there was one thing even worse than Islamism, and that was atheism, for they had seen the practical effects of both. Regrettably history shows us Islamist do not convert; they become atheist. Frying pans and fires.
Perhaps rather than the Carhaginians we can find a better example in the Bahai faith in Iran. Widely famous now for their peaceful ways even under the persucution of Islam, as recently as 1960 they were as viscious as the next sectarian faith in the Middle East. Then the Shah put his boys on them with a vengence, and this very remarkable tranformation occured.
Or, we could do Carthage. Or, we could bend over.

Baron Bodissey said...

tomcpp --

Gates of Vienna's rules about comments require that they be civil, temperate, on-topic, and show decorum. Your comment violated the last of these rules. We keep a PG-13 blog, and exclude foul language, explicit descriptions, and epithets. This is why I deleted your comment.

Use of asterisks is an appropriate alternative.

--------------------------

tomcpp said...

You forget one tiny little detail about the nuking mecca thingy :

mecca is perhaps 20 years old. Seriously. Look at some photographs of the kaaba, or even of it's inside. It's f***ing plastic ! It should be seriously corroded tin, but it's f***ing ... plastic.

The building itself has been made with large stones and cement. Not 1400 years old. Sure as hell not even 100 years old and quite certainly not even 50.

So Mecca, while maybe it existed 1400 years ago (apparently there are those thinking it was on the other coast of the red sea, a Jewish colony amongst black peoples), it probably did not exist on its current location.

The one thing you people miss about islam is that it's all fake. Google for "christopher luxenberg" to get an indication.

Here's a partial list of "inconvenient truths" :

-> the quran is not in arabic, but in syrian arameic, a jewish language, much more similar to hebrew than to arabic. Maybe 10 people actually know the language of the quran, 5 of them work in the vatican, I got taught by one of them and he's also "in the employ" of the vatican, if indirectly
-> there is no single individual that is the mohammad of islam. You will immediately get this impression if you read his biographies. A few phenomena that appeared in his body and disappeared again :
* a total inability to tolerate any kind of noise whatsoever (even 3 people in his immediate surroundings was too much)
* a large black spot, growing, right smack in the middle of his face. When it expanded it caused massive headaches
* a guy so fat he could not climb a small slope without someone pushing him
* a guy that could ride a horse VERY well (that means, if you're in the know, max 60kg)
* a guy that got a christian education in Damascus, and travelled there regularly
* a tradesman, good at negotiations, at points a scribe, certainly good at math, ...
* an idiot totally unable to write anything down
* a guy that wrote down random and confusing sentences on anything he could find laying around
-> mecca was conquered, and the kaaba destroyed, not once, not twice but three times. On all three occasions the actual object inside the kaaba was not stolen, but shattered and it's remains spread. Yet now, nevertheless the cube contains a large black stone

Do you seriously believe that one single individual did this ?

You do not need to discredit islam in order to defeat it. After all even muslims don't believe in the accuracy of islam. It's very name tells a different story "submission". Read up on what "hisbah" means (the central duty of any muslim). Islam is not a religion to be believed oneself, like christianity is, but something to be imposed on others. A muslim is not someone who voluntarily believes islam, but someone who is, for whatever reason, militarily dominated by islam.

Islam holds together for the same reason nazism did : you declare to be following the leader (fuhrer vs prophet) in 10 or less little words and you are to consider yourself superior to others.

The only thing that will stop it is a fight. Then again, left to it's own devices, islam will collapse VERY quickly. But it cannot be stopped peacefully.

Actually if you believe in darwinism, this is a good thing : either you fight, and kill enough of them to stop it, proving your ideology is better, or you don't, in which case you should die, for your ideology is worse (darwin applied to "memes", ironically this seems to mean at the time that creationism is a superior ideology to darwinism according to darwinism)

Conservative Swede said...

Xlbrl,

Your position that since Jefferson saw atheism as worse than Islam, and therefore we should follow the historical example of the Bahais.

Sorry, I'm not able to take this seriously, even less make any sense out of it.

So we should not destroy Islam, because they might become atheists. You must be kidding! Oh that Abrahamic connection...

It's like I always say, we cannot generally trust Christians more then liberals in this fight against Islam. As I have pointed out many times in my blog, this is also true for Lawrence Auster.

Many Christians seriously fear the spread of atheism more than the spread of Islam. Well, I'll say this much. I would have respected these Christians if their concern would have been confined to the spread of atheism in their own society. But they fact that they fear the spread of atheism in an alien society (and to such a degree that they rather not save our civilization because of it), shows how they are universalists to the core, and do not have the well-being of our own society as their primary concern. And it shows how the very roots of our current suicidal paradigm comes from Christianity.

Conservative Swede said...

Tomcpp,

mecca was conquered, and the kaaba destroyed, not once, not twice but three times. On all three occasions the actual object inside the kaaba was not stolen, but shattered and it's remains spread. Yet now, nevertheless the cube contains a large black stone

I haven't heard of that, but nevermind, it provides some perspective on Henrik's suggestion.

I think we can safely assume that the Muslims have at least an extra black stone in storage somewhere in Saudi Arabia. In the case of a missile attack on the black stone, they will claim that it was miraculously saved by the grace of Allah, display it in Al-Jazeera, and the Muslims will take this a a proof strengthening their belief in Allah as the almighty one.

However, I do not expect that they have a whole extra city of Mecca stored in a cupboard somewhere.

xlbrl said...

Swede--
I did not actually propose a theory. You did. Perhaps it will be Carthage, in time.
I looked at the great change in the Bahai because--it was a great change, yet within a religion.
You cannot greatly respect the wisdom of the Founders and simultainiously disrespect their great fear of atheism. Pick one.
Atheism has brought on more death and terror in it's short sway than any other ideology. And it is an ideology, not the lack of one.
It is possible to believe all these things and be an atheist. Eric Hoffer did. Similarly, many Enlightenment thinkers who had themselves lost their faith lived in dread of what might happen were the vast bodies of men to lose theirs.
It has not been established that that a formerly Islamic culture suddenly given to atheism would be a solution, because we have no example. The reason you were presenting your point of view in the first place was in behest of not simply killing everyone who is Islamic, which seems very productive indeed.
Under the circumstances, and not having answers I am not willing to improve upon, I have voluntarily increased my tolerance level of others so I may not miss a clue. That does not by itself make one less prepared to stand up straight if the time comes sooner rather than later.

Conservative Swede said...

Xlbrl,

You cannot greatly respect the wisdom of the Founders and simultainiously disrespect their great fear of atheism. Pick one.

Interesting ad-hoc rule... However, it's the wisdom of the Romans which I greatly respect. And the founding fathers agree with me about that. But it's OK, they do not have to agree with me about everything.

Atheism has brought on more death and terror in it's short sway than any other ideology. And it is an ideology, not the lack of one.

OK. So you are concerned that if Muslims would turn away from Allah en masse, that they would start killing each other and there would be an increased terrorist threat etc.?

It has not been established that that a formerly Islamic culture suddenly given to atheism would be a solution, because we have no example.

If you are so deeply concerned about that, I suggest you side with the "kill them all" option.

Erich said...

Re: the most radical solution proposed above -- genocide (with the genos here being of course not a biological race but a unifying trans-national culture), there is no reason why we need to proceed to that ultimate step. Deportation of all Muslims from the West should be implemented first. This would, of course, necessarily entail two types of physical violence against Muslims:

1) Physical penalties for those Muslims who refuse to submit to deportation, or who try to flee from authorities, etc.

2) The ongoing enforcement of the logical conclusion of Deportation -- namely, that Muslims after Deportation must remain in an extensive swath of land (roughly equal to most of the current lands in the O.I.C.), and if any of them try to leave that swath, they will be killed (this would be a kind of reverse of the "Iron Curtain").

Even my proposal above is currently unthinkable because of PC; the genocidal proposal is of course even less feasible.

P.S.: And I don't think destroying Mecca would cow and therefore tame Muslims. It would more likely serve to inflame them all the more, even if they might hunker down to seethe, and plot and plan revenge for the future.

Zenster said...

Con Swede: Zenster's approach is large scale alright, but it lacks the precision. Carthaginian peace was not about "killing them all".

You have misinterpreted my meaning. My original comment makes quite clear that it is Islam that must be eradicated and not all Muslims. Yes, an unfortunate byproduct of this necessity is that any Muslims incapable of abandoning their barbaric ideology will most likely need to perish, but that is another matter.

Furthermore, most regulars here at GoV know quite well that my preferred first course of action is for Western militaries to begin targeted assassinations of Islam's clerical, financial and scholastic aristocracy. To quote an old Danish saying:

Go to the horse's head, not it's tail.

Decapitating Islam should be our first priority. The damage done through a few hundred or thousand killings could quite possibly change the entire course of history. Rest assured that not killing Islam's aristocray will most definitely lead to a holocaust of one sort or the other.

Since Islam does not value human lives, the essence of the destruction of Islam as a political entity cannot be about killing Muslims (least we literally kill them all of course). To eradicate Islam, and throw it on the dustbin of history, we need to destroy what they value.

Again, I must correct your perception that my attention is focused solely upon killing Muslims. Islam's incapacitation is the top priority.

An important aspect of Henrik's suggestion is also how it is in essence an act of mercy.

Here, we are all in total agreement. Long before participating at GoV I had already begun to maintain that freeing Muslims from Islam's slavery is almost a moral obligation for the West. While this notion smacks of how communists felt a similar degree of motivation about freeing us capitalists from our wage slavery, Islam is a patently evil force in dire need of dismantling.

Is it only if they nuke us first that we'd consider it worthwhile reforming Islam?

This is why I continue argue vigorously in favor of pre-emption. A great first step is to kill any Muslim on earth that openly talks of making terrorist nuclear attacks, starting with Ahmadinejad.

But Henrik's suggestion is too narrow. Destroying the black stone will surely change Islam. It will be a huge shock to them, but they will manage to find a way out of it.

Any awareness of how endemic cognitive dissonance is throughout the entire MME (Muslim Middle East), makes clear that Muslims will rationalize away just about anything.

Bearing in mind my unshaken opposition to first-use of nuclear weapons in the MME, I can only go on to agree that obliterating Mecca with an atomic bomb is one of the few ways to adequately conveying both the West's displeasure with Islam and the total fallability of Allah.

As Islam proves more and more intractable my own opposition to first use will probably be eroded. Therefore, I am obliged to register my recognition of the merit contained in Con Swede's reasoning.

Barring Total War in the MME, some sort of warning shot will need to be fired across Islam's bow. As with Machiavelli's observation, the blow we land should be one that does not heal. There must be a permanent record of just how foolish Islam was to constantly provoke the West.

What's more, reverence for the kabaa itself is seen by some Muslim extremists as a form of idolatry. So, its destruction will be reconciled away by some portion of Islam. As What is "Occupation" observed, amputating an entire pillar of Islam will force Muslims to realize that change must begin.

In an old joke, a farmer rents his mule to a traveling salesman only to watch the poor city slicker struggle furiously to get the animal to budge. The farmer calmly walks up to the mule with a 2x4 in hand and staggers it with a blow right between the eyes. He turns to the salesman and tells him, "First you've got to get the mule's attention."

Politely put, we have yet to get Islam's "attention".

All in all it has to be a massive power demonstration showing beyond any doubt that it's not Allah that rules this planet but the civilization with the greatest means to apply violence and destruction, i.e. us.

Obliterating Mecca or Medina aside, this still remains the bottom line. Clearly, rolling up Iraq's sidewalks in a few weeks did not sufficiently convinve the remaining MME that the party is over. Some other even more dramatic demonstration of power is required. I certainly invite others to begin suggesting what other exihibitions of power might persuade Islam to change its ways.

People claim that Islam cannot be reformed, since the text of the Koran cannot be changed. But as I point out here, the texts of Judaism was never changed, still it was thoroughly reformed.

My only objection to such optimism is that Islam's supremacism is reliant upon the exact violent passages that must be expunged from the qur'an. Judaism never aspired to imposed a global caliphate and was better served by moderating its own interpretation of their religious texts. No such option exists for Islam without a devastaing loss of face.

It must be remembered that Muslims regard humiliation as worse than death. This is the root of "honor" killings and even of terrorism itself. The humiliation of externally imposed reformation is more than adequate to trigger a mass death wish. It is for this same reason that I declare Mutually Assured Destruction an inadequate countermeasure against Islam.

And with the invention [of] nukes there's no other possible outcome of this than the destruction of Mecca. Put Islam and nukes together in a laboratory environment, and the outcome will always be a destroyed Mecca.

This is a crucial point and one that cannot be ignored. As Wretchard observes in his “Three Conjectures”:

Even if Islam killed every non-Muslim on earth they would almost certainly continue to kill each other with their new-found weaponry. Revenge bombings between rival groups and wars between different Islamic factions are the recurring theme of history. Long before 3,000 New Yorkers died on September 11, Iraq and Iran killed 500,000 Muslims between them. The greatest threat to Muslims is radical Islam; and the greatest threat of all is a radical Islam armed with weapons of mass destruction. [emphasis added]

Left unchecked, Islam will precipitate its own holocaust. To ignore this fact is not just insane, it leaves the West open to terrorist nuclear attack. This is why Iran’s nuclear weapons project should be shut down and even why Pakistan’s atomic arsenal should be confiscated. While Western minds reel at the prospect of using nuclear weapons, Muslim salivate at the very thought of it. Once proliferation occurs within the MME, a holocaust is only a matter of time.

The time for showdown and then conclusion will come nevertheless. Most probably after an unnecessary tens of millions of dead people, of course; we live in times when my suggestion of saving tens of millions of lives is considered immoral. But the showdown will come and Islam will be destroyed.

Islam’s destruction is the only acceptable outcome. It will be a supreme moral challenge for the West to understand that military pre-emption costing hundreds of thousands or even more than a million lives will be far more humane than allowing the inevitable holocaust that Islam is sure to precipitate.

Natalie said...

Atheism has brought on more death and terror in it's [sic] short sway than any other ideology. And it is an ideology, not the lack of one.

xlbrl, you cannot possibly be serious. What "death and terror" has been brought about by atheism? Absolutely none whatsoever. What has brought about death and terror is Islam, that horrible cult. Normal religions (like Christianity, Judaism, etc.) and those who don't believe in a religion (i.e. atheists) have not recently, en masse, brought about anything terrible. Islam is the enemy, not atheism.

Beorn Otto Bethati said...

Westerner

I think your assessment is too negative and your remedies are too severe. if you think of the situation as a conflict between civilization and barbarism you will see that civilization is winning. China, Russia, and India are civilizing very quickly. Neither China nor India will put up with any truck from Islam. Russia is also very tough. North and South America are already civilized and have quite low Muslim populations. In Africa, Christianity is kicking Islam's butt, and once Africa becomes Christian, civilization will soon follow. It is only in Europe where barbarism is winning. The way I count that, Civilization is beating Islam 6 to 2. That is better than a century ago. Even then Civilization was winning 2 to 1. So, our next president may throw Europe under the bus. He won't last forever, and the next after will be fiercely pro-civilization.

xlbrl said...

Natalie--
It is plain that I could not have understood you, because it is not possible you do not believe Marx, Lenin, Uncle Joe, the Chairman, and many lesser characters were not more serious players than Mad Moud, OBL, Muammar, all the assorted Mohammeds. And all in only one century of work. They are the gift that keeps on giving through their living counterparts and old fans in the West which continue to bring us Islam on a platter.
As Camus pointed out, no great work has ever been based on hatred or contempt. But he was not speaking only of the Koran. He noted that to ensure the adoration of atheist existential theories, belief was not enough; a police force was needed as well.
We are easily warned of the similarities between Islam and atheism by their present odd arrangements. Remarkable, really. But so was the Hitler-Stalin pact. The Islamist have made plain their admiration for each.

Erich said...

All the supposed atheist political movements -- the various Communisms, Fascism, Nazism -- were really quasi-religious neo-Gnostic movements that wanted to conquer the world and liquidate what they perceived as "enemies" of their vision. Among those "enemies" were most extant religions. Thus those regimes were indeed anti-religious; but that doesn't mean they themselves were not motivated by a form of religious obsession. The philosopher Eric Voegelin called them "ersatz religions" -- movements that rejected and tried to replace religion with a "world-immanent" orientation that "immanentized the eschaton".

For heavy reading on this, try:

http://journal.telospress.com/cgi/reprint/2002/124/173.pdf

I therefore agree with natalie's implication: there has never been an actual atheist polity, so we cannot judge whether an atheist rule would be mass-murderous. Nevertheless, I have noticed among many atheists a lot of irrational hatred of religion and of religious people (and part of their irrationality is the tendency of the majority of them, it seems, to treat all religions as bad irrespective of the differences, thus rendering Islam and Christianity as equivalently baneful -- which is preposterous and reveals a serious deficiency in the thought of the majority of activist atheists. And if this attitude were ever translated into a general political movement that had power, one wonders how they would want to "take care" of the "problem" of religion.

Erich said...

Correction: that link I gave in my last post is actually a rather misguided critique of Voegelin, and won't clarify much to anybody seeking information about Voegelin and ersatz religions.

Lawrence Auster said...

In the below entry posted tonight at VFR, I summarize Westerner's argument and my response to it

In October 2007, VFR published a modest proposal on the Islam problem by a well-known author writing under the name "Westerner." He argued that the separationist policy I have proposed of rolling back, containing, and using military force to quarantine Muslims within the historic Islamic lands would not be sufficient to make the non-Islamic world safe, because Islamic regimes would still exist and continue to seek ways to harm us. He therefore proposed a policy aimed, not at containing and disempowering Islam, as the separationist policy does, but at destroying it.

In pursuit of this objective, Westener urged, among other radical steps, that—after due warnings are given to allow civilians to evacuate—Medina and Mecca be "vaporized" with nuclear weapons. In this connection he made two points. First, the attack on Mecca and Medina would not be in retaliation for any particular attack on the West. Given that Islam has been at war with us unbelievers and our ancestors since its inception 1,400 years ago, no further casus belli is needed. Second, since Islam requires external success for its claim as the one true religion to be validated, the destruction of its holiest sites will discredit the religion in the eyes of its adherents, leading them to abandon it over the course of the next century, perhaps converting to Christianity. Thus Islam could be eliminated at the relatively low cost of destroying a few evacuated cities without mass killings of Muslims.

I replied to Westerner that while such drastic measures as he advocated may possibly be called for at some future point, we are not anywhere near that point now. So we should carry out the separationist policy, consisting, most importantly, of getting almost all Muslims to depart voluntarily or involuntarily from the West, thus removing forever the immediate Islam threat from our own societies, and only then consider whether further steps are still required. Even those who strongly favor Westerner's nuclear option ought to recognize that we must remove Muslims from the West and confine them within the Muslim world before launching an all-out war of destruction against Islam. Otherwise, the all-out war of destruction will be going both ways, in our own lands.

Westerner's article has now been republished at Gates of Vienna. Since GoV specializes in the Islam problem as this site does not, the piece has attracted many more comments and a more intense discussion than did the original posting at VFR and so serves a useful purpose. One of the topics being debated is whether waging all-out war against Islam would turn the West into a militaristic, unfree society.

Lawrence Auster said...

While Erich has dealt effectively with Dymphna's initial comments on the deportation idea, there is one comment of hers he didn't respond to. She said that we could not consider making Muslims leave, because "Many [Muslims] are American citizens of several generations."

In fact, not counting Black Muslims, about 60 percent of the Muslims in the U.S. are IMMIGRANTS. Prior to 40 years ago, there were virtually no Mideast Muslims in America. So, of the Muslims now in the U.S., 60 percent are immigrants, and of the remaining 40 percent, the majority are most likely FIRST-GENERATION, meaning that they are the first generation born in this country, and a minority are second generation. So the statement, "Many Muslims are American citizens of several generations" is simply incorrect.

In her automatic rejection of the deportation idea, Dymphna gives the impression of having never before considered or discussed the possibility of initiating an out-migration of Muslims from America. This is genuinely surprising, given the hard-line reputation of GoV of which she is co-editor, and the fact that anti-Islamization blogs have been debating the idea for years.

Caballaria said...

The destruction of Mecca will not damage Islam, only heighten its bloodlust.

If the Vatican were nuked, would Catholics leave Catholicism? They would not. How many Americans ceased to be American after 9-11? If mecca is physically destroyed, the Muslims will continue to pray facing it, and they'll still pilgrimage to ground zero, even if it consists of just rubble.

Do Muslims need to know that Islam is favored by god in order to remain Muslim? That is an inversion of cause and consequence. People don't become or remain Muslim because they think Islam is favored by god, they think Islam is favored by God because they are Muslim.

After centires of Muslim free fall, the belief that God favors Islam is already a contradiction of facts. These people don't rely on facts, they rely on whatever the local imam tells them. If the imam tells them that America is powerful only because they made a deal with Satan, they believe it.

Which brings us to the real problem: Islamic secular power. As long as Islam has the power, the people will believe anything they're told. See what happens in North Korea, after the fall of Communism, they still believe that Communism is the future of mankind. They believe so, because the Communists there control the media, the schools, the public discourse. So do Islamic clerics in the Middle East.

Nuking Mecca is also the kind of Geneva convention breaking behaviour that would horrify and alienate the West itself from the anti-jihad cause. Remember we can defeat Jihad on the battlefield without having to resort to attacking non-military targets, as we did in Afghanistan and Iraq. If there wer a nuclear exchange between us and them, wouldn't it be wiser to attack military targets, so as to 1-disarm them and 2- not undermine our own popularity at home?

Besides, I find it crazy that Mr Westerner would nuke Mecca without any specific casus belli. Nuking Mecca could make some extremely remote sense only if it were a deterrant, in other words we tell them: stop jihading around or else we nuke Mecca. But we know all too well that deterrance doesn't work with Muslims, so even this would be totally pointless.

By the way, Westerner really believes that if you tell all Muslims in Mecca to leave Mecca, they would really leave Mecca? If I know Muslims, they would all flock to Mecca and tie themselves to the holy site, all waiting to get nuked and go to meet the 72 virgins. No wait, the Saudis would actually force people to stay there, particularly women and children, so they can say the West kills women and children. Of course you can say: if they want to die let them die, but the fact is, it would be a great propaganda victory for them because they would then be able to paint us as baby-killers in the eyes of the world.

The only way to defeat Islam was concisely stated by Ann Coulter: invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity. Failing to do that, at least take away the nukes from them, find energy sources other than oil, and keep Muslims out of the West.

Another think we could do is use PORK, the only form of deterrance that works with Islam. If you wrap the corpse of dead shahid in pork, they no longer will be able to enter heaven. Now this will discourage them from attacking us! We could even threaten to strike Mecca and other sites with a salvo of missiles loaded with pork if they do something that we don't like! Now this would force them to treat us well!

However all this talk of how to deal with Islam is pointless, because it ignores the real problem: liberals that are preventing us from doing anything. The home front is the biggest front. It would be relatively easy to defeat Islam if we had a free hand. What's the point of discussing wheter we should nuke Mecca when we can't even stop Jihadis from coming to our countries because liberals won't let us do that? Let's talk about how to defeat liberals instead! That is the real problem.

Terry Morris said...

Auster wrote:

In fact, not counting Black Muslims, about 60 percent of the Muslims in the U.S. are IMMIGRANTS. Prior to 40 years ago, there were virtually no Mideast Muslims in America. So, of the Muslims now in the U.S., 60 percent are immigrants, and of the remaining 40 percent, the majority are most likely FIRST-GENERATION, meaning that they are the first generation born in this country, and a minority are second generation. So the statement, "Many Muslims are American citizens of several generations" is simply incorrect.

Yes, LA, but you can imagine what it would be like if many Muslims actually were American citizens of several generations.

Give them two to three more generations of protection and empowerment (one of the fundamental tenets of the CAIR mission) in the West, and Dymphna's incorrect statement will then be correct.

And when you boil it all down, what is Dymphna's statement but a call to permanently establish and empower Muslims in the West?

What is "Occupation" said...

caballaria said...
The destruction of Mecca will not damage Islam, only heighten its bloodlust.

If the Vatican were nuked, would Catholics leave Catholicism? They would not. How many Americans ceased to be American after 9-11? If mecca is physically destroyed, the Muslims will continue to pray facing it, and they'll still pilgrimage to ground zero, even if it consists of just rubble.


You speak and it shows your lack of knowledge of Islam

DESTROYING the Black Rock would damage islam, thus ending one of the 5 pillars of Islam..

Please go and LEARN about Islam, then speak

xlbrl said...

Erich--
You make the point that the lethal atheist movements, or movements that were atheistic, were by varying degrees forms of religions themselves. Or as one sage famously put it, when man stops believing in God, he will not believe in nothing, he will believe in anything.
You are pointing out that this does not need be true in every case, and it is not. Hoffer, Santayana, and many other fine men come to mind. Regrettably, as you have sugested, they will remain exceptions.
Islam is the single religion closest to atheism at its root. That is why, unlike other religions, conversion is more often seen to be straight to atheism, not other religions.
I don't know if Coulter is joking, to make a point, about converting them after an invasion , but that should be taken as a joke, because there is nothing to indicate that will ever be an option.
So it seems to be reform the unreformable, atheism, or perhaps, to borrow a term used to describe lapsed Mormans, we could hope to see Jack Muslims. There is nothing promising until they decide they like life more than death.

laine said...

Islam is at its base a death cult where the believers' first preference is to kill infidels to terrorize-convert and for loot but who are welcoming of death even for themselves as a blessed release from the hellholes they make on earth. Over centuries the death cult was countered and fought to a standstill, then beaten back into its cave by the life cult of Christianity.

That life cult has lost much of its - well, life, sapped by a secularism that went too far. It is right that there be separation of church and state, that a state be secular. However, the usual suspects, leftists and militant atheists have helped grow the government to ungainly size in hopes of attaining the totalitarian state they crave. In the process, they have done their best to denigrate and marginalize Christianity, a pillar of western enlightenment and liberal democracies, all of which are successful by any world standard.

Meanwhile, all countries ruled by the death cult are failures by the same standard. Those with oil have been propped up only by western technology.

We are hoist by our own petard. Our own oil-based civilization has given the death cult the money and the tools to pursue their destructive goals on a global scale instead of confined to their sand dunes. Meanwhile, our own societies have been infected by a leftist cancer that bores away within and enables its fellow totalitarianism in the mistaken belief that the Left will eventually dominate Islam after using it as a battering ram against western foundations instead of the other way around. Only in China and possibly India will it play out the latter way, where they have the numbers (the billion population club) and the ruthlessness to stamp on Islam.

Of course, the West has been punching above its numbers for some time and has to be eliminated first. China would love Islam to do its dirty work for it.

We would probably be OK without our leftist quislings giving us away on every front and the impossibility of turning back Muslim immigration or third world immigration in general that threatens western society as long as the Left hold sway.

Therefore I agree with Caballaria that it's liberals who have to be converted or sidelined first. It seems a near impossible feat as the entire country slides left with the two leftmost candidates ever running for POTUS. Nevertheless, that is the first task if we are to ensure our cultural and probably physical survival.

awake said...

I agree with Baron here. Regardless of the validity of military action against Islam in some capacity in the future, (I also feel that destroying the black rock of Mecca is an exercise in futility), does not offset the reality that we are no where near reaching that conclusion in the West.

I understand that “Westerner's” pov is not necessarily a tangible solution, but rather presented as an inescapable conclusion at some later date, in “Westerner's” estimation. That may or may not prove true.

The separationist policy, the restriction or even cessation of Muslim immigration and subsequent deportation that is advocated by Auster and others, (although I do not perceive an absolute and complete determination of either by Auster's explicit statements), while certainly perceived as less extreme than direct military influence, is also quite a bit away in terms of realistic achievability.

The current climate of political correctness and the global western embrace of the perceived value of diversity through multiculturalism totally prevents such offered solutions from materializing and leaves the West currently paralyzed and unable to protect itself from the onslaught of Islam.

To what value is the realization that Islam is as an ideology, inherently evil and supremacist in nature, when that education has little to no traction in mainstream perceptions?

What positive result will occur with a moratorium on Muslim immigration when illegal immigration is tolerated and even encouraged?

The counter-jihad movement must educate non-Muslims en masse to what Islam’s ultimate objective is, (no matter unpleasant that realization is), and actively pursue to affect legislative initiatives at levels where it has influence. PC MC wasn’t constructed and implemented in a day and it is logical to assume that it will not take a day to see its requisite destruction either, but its eventual destruction is paramount in this struggle if Islam is to be stunted.

It is illogical to assume that Islam can be destroyed, per se, unless one is willing to accept the concept of killing over a billion people, and even then, it will exist as an ideology, albeit one with greatly reduced influence and power. Instead of trying to destroy Islam, why not figure out a way to strip it of its protective label as a religion, and properly identify it as a socio-political ideology, bent on the destruction of all non-Islamic institutions and the establishment of a global ummah governed by Shari’ah law?

Maybe then, after we quit bandying on about how Islam is a great Abrahamic faith, the West can actually get past identifying the problem and begin the tedious process of proposing feasible solutions.

The side discussion related to atheism, while certainly valid, seems a bit misplaced here in this thread, in my opinion.

Armance said...

I agree that we fantasize about nuking Mecca, deporting the Muslims or stopping immigration while we are still not able to deal with the traitors in our midst. I don't know what is more difficult: to convert a Muslim to common sense or a liberal?

Erich said...

I agree with awake and armance concerning the problem of political correctness. However, I think the best way to undermine it is for all people of intelligence and good will to articulate the logical conclusion, full steam ahead, all cylinders going. The longer we do this and the more of us who agree to do this, the more effect we will have over time.

The problem with trying to "educate" Infidels in a polite, moderate, and incremental way is that it tends to support and enable the very same PC paradigm that is crippling rational discussion, by playing its games by its various complex (and often incoherent, yet still internally logical) rules.

PC MC (politically correct multi-culturalism) is like a vast block of ice, a sociopolitico-cultural iceberg. Instead of carefully and with gingerly caution chipping away at it with fine-pointed ice-picks, I think the better tack is for a slowly galvanizing and coalescing movement of us who are waking up to apply HEAT -- i.e., the heat of the logical conclusion that Islam itself is the problem, and therefore so too are ALL Muslims who actively support and who passively enable Islam.

Lawrence Auster said...

Baron Bodissey and others in this thread argue as follows:

"Solution X may be what we need to do for our survival, but the support for X does not exist, therefore Solution X is not a good idea and I disagree with it." This is to argue backward, in a way that is very common among conservatives, and shows a failure to grasp the radical nature of the challenge before us.

Obviously, any kind of solution to the Islam problem that is favored by serious Western patriots will be completely outside current accepted thinking. Therefore any solution offered by anti-jihadists is going to lack current support and seem completely out of the question—by current standards.

Bodissey and others implicitly imagine that the solution they seek could be arrived at within the current liberal assumption that govern our world. But that is false. It is modern liberalism itself—the belief that all people and cultures are basically the same and that discrimination against and exclusion of any group or religion are the greatest sins—that is leading us to our destruction. Therefore it is the liberal world view that must be challenged and defeated. For Bodissey to say, "Solution X is no good, because the liberal orthodoxy would refuse to support it," is to give up the battle without having even tried to fight it.

What Western patriots need to grasp is that Western survival requires and assumes the defeat of liberalism. Those who are not prepared to challenge liberalism on a fundamental level will not be able to save the West.

Thus any policy that the participants in this discussion favor—ranging from stopping all Muslim immigration, to designating Islam as a political ideology and placing legal restrictions on it, to initiating Muslim out-migration, to the quarantine of Muslims within the Muslim lands, to the more radical and violent steps that Westerner and others have proposed—all these policies ASSUME that the West will have gone beyond its current liberalism. The defeat of liberalism is the assumed starting point of all our proposed solutions. Therefore the end of liberalism should not be seen as some distant, impossible goal, but as the indispensable condition of our survival. To believe in the West and in our own life as Westerners, is to believe in the defeat of liberalism. Those who are unwilling to challenge liberalism may offer a lot of lip service about defending the West, but they will eventually yield to its destruction.

So how do we get from here to Solution X? NOT by saying, "There's no support for it." NOT by saying, "We have to wait for liberals to change." NOT by saying, "Let's spend the next 20 years telling people that Islam is a mortal threat to our civilization, but never telling them what they can do in order save themselves from this threat." No. We get to Solution X by making our case, our WHOLE case, including the diagnosis (Islam is a mortal threat to us) AND the possible cure (my own preferred cure is the removal, disempowerment, and permanent quarantine of Islam; others have their preferred cures and we should continue discussing them). By making our WHOLE case, we persuade people (1) of the nature of the problem, (2) of the only possible solutions to the problem, and (3) of the fact that these solutions are not possible within liberal assumptions, because liberalism is a suicidal ideology, and therefore we must renounce liberalism.

It's the WHOLE case that will persuade people and move them to the position that will make Western survival possible. Not a quarter case, not a half case.

Lawrence Auster said...

When I talk about defeating liberalism, I usually add definitions and qualifications which I neglected to do in my above comment. By "defeating liberalism," I do not mean destroying every aspect of liberalism as a historical set of beliefs in Western society, such as the belief in the individual, the belief in liberty, and so on. I mean something more narrow and more specific: the defeat of the rule of modern liberalism. Modern liberalism, which became the dominant Western belief system starting around the end of World War II, makes tolerance and non-discrimination the ruling values of society. This is what must be rejected. This is not to reject tolerance as such, or the whole range of virtues and attitudes that over the centuries have been called "liberal." It is not to call for dictatorship or repression or a regime of total uniformity. Rather, it is to say that liberalism can only be non-destructive to our society if non-liberal values are the highest values and supersede liberal values. For example, the survival and sovereignty of a nation are non-liberal values. In any conflict between the liberal values of tolerance and non-discrimination, and the non-liberal values of national sovereignty and survival, the non-liberal values must be pre-eminent. But at present, under the rule of modern liberalism, it is the opposite. The liberal principles of tolerance and non-discrimination rule, and non-liberal principles are, at best, let in through the back door, as an "unprincipled exception" to the ruling liberalism. This is what must change. This is what I mean by the defeat of liberalism.

Natalie said...

xlbrl, you're wrong. Your view on atheism are actually quite offensive. Islam and atheism are not alike at all. How can you say that? No evil has ever stemmed directly from atheism. There are good atheists and bad atheists, as well as good Christians and bad Christians. And atheists don't hate religious people per say--they just dislike religion itself. And no matter how much they disagree with religion, atheists would never en masse advocate the murder of religious people just because they believed in God. Islam does--if you're not Muslim, you're not fit to live, in their view. This is a completely different perspective than an atheist's.

Baron Bodissey said...

Mr. Auster --

I’d like to believe that what you say is so.

But there is as yet no evidence that laying out the “whole case” has any effect whatsoever on the political process. We, with all the facts at our disposal and all our well-marshalled arguments, reach a pitifully small subset of the public, most of whom already agree with us.

Organization and action are required. The organizing and action I contemplate must be at least partially doable within my own lifetime, or I lose interest in the process.

Therefore I concentrate on limited goals that move in the right direction. They may not achieve the end result desired, but they are feasible within the constraints we labor under.

We are at Step A, and we need to get to Step Z. I’m looking ahead to Step B, Step C, and maybe Step D on a good day. I have faith that others will be working on Step H and Step R after I am gone, and that one day, perhaps within the lifetime of my grandchildren, Step Z will become a reality.

But I am impatient with people who do no more than talk. In my book, only concrete steps in the desired direction comprise serious commitment to the cause we all share.

They may be mere baby steps, but talk without doing is not even a baby step.

Lawrence Auster said...

A correspondent recommended Zenster's comment, describing it as "amazingly clear and succinct." I read it and wrote back:

Yes, Zenster’s logic is clear and succinct, but lacks moral limits. It leads him logically to the amoral language of pure power, in which he repeatedly refers to other people as bugs, vermin, bacteria, etc. to be exterminated, exactly the way Lenin and Hitler spoke of their respective "enemies." A clear and succinct logic that leads to our assertion of absolute power over other human beings and their reduction to bugs has taken a wrong turn. It is a temptation of which we must beware.

Lawrence Auster said...

Baron Bodissey writes: "I am impatient with people who do no more than talk."

I have no idea what he means by this. Writers by definition are people who "talk." By talking, they attempt to persuade other people of views that they believe are better and truer than the prevailing views. As more people come to believe and to argue, say, that Muslim immigration must be stopped and reversed, that view will enter the mainstream and become part of the mainstream political debate. That would signal a major change in our politics. Yet it would consist of nothing but people talking.

Baron B. writes: "But there is as yet no evidence that laying out the 'whole case' has any effect whatsoever on the political process."

But how could he see evidence of this, since only a tiny handful of people have been making the "whole case"? Indeed, he just said of himself that he doesn't believe in making the whole case. So evidently he is not among those who have been laying out the whole case. Yet he says he sees no evidence that laying out the whole case has any useful effect. Obviously, first we have to do it! And that is exactly what I am urging people here to do. That's what "talking" is about. If more and more people make the whole case, the whole case will start to be heard, and will start to change the way people think and talk, and change our common notions of what is true and acceptable to say, and that, even by itself, as I said, would mean a radical change in our politics, and would lead in turn to more substantial changes.

Ultimately, of course, what is needed is a political organization or network of organizations advocating specific measures. But what would such an organization be doing? It would, essentially, be talking! In fact, all politics, short of being in political power and being able to pass and executive laws, consists of talking.

awake said...

A case against Islam needs to be built. Understanding Islam's built-in apologetics and its deceitful duality, which is purely intentional in my estimation, is a process.

As an analogy it is akin to building a case against a violent criminal in a court of law. Saying the person is a menace is just a statement, without facts to support that statement and required to build a case against that person.

Islam's texts, while apparent to most if not all people reading this particular blog thread, is enigmatic and convoluted to the average person in the West. Without specific knowledge of what is contained in the doctrine of Islam, how can it be labeled as evil? Moral fallacy applications aside, how can Islam be seen as a threat, when mainstream apologetics repeat the Islam is peace mantra ad nauseum?

No, the case against Islam needs to be built. There is no skipping ahead to Z from A regardless of how valid we understand arriving at Z is. Ideological leaps of that magnitutde simply have not occured historically, independent of whether PC MC existed at the time or not. To expect an otherwise expedited version is a utopian fantasy. Baron's valid illustratory point about Dresden was obviously missed by some on this thread.

Step A is to reveal the central tenet of Islam, its mandate for world supremacy and global implementation. Over time, the words of the unclassified texts themselves supported by the words of those who support them will begin to build a case against Islam.

Once examples of intolerant components of the Islamic doctrine are acknowledged in a relative majority, then we at least have a foundation for their being supposedly taken out of context.

Similarly, when we then see overwhelming evidence supported by the words and actions of Muslims, "misinterpreting" their own doctrine and commiting the sin of "out of context" comprehension, a pattern will develop and further build the case against Islam as is accepted by the mainstream.

This is the process. Subsequently, Muslims based on their immutable texts and based on their actions that are supported by these texts, will come under harsher scrutiny. Then and only then will the concept of discriminating against immigration of a particular group not be me with outright ridicule and scorn.

This is not working within the paradigm of PC or modern liberalism or whatever label you so desire, but rather an effective solution to circumvent it in the absence of a tangible solution to destroy it.

Nearly everyone agrees that cancer is bad and wishes for a cure, but that sentiment and proclamation alone does nothing to achieve that desired, yet lofty goal.

Baron Bodissey said...

Mr. Auster --

I’ll answer your arguments point by point.

Baron Bodissey writes: "I am impatient with people who do no more than talk."

I have no idea what he means by this. Writers by definition are people who "talk."


Yes, this is quite true. Obviously, this venue is a talk shop, and when I am here I am a writer.

But when I transmigrate from this pixellated medium and assume corporeal form, I am more than a writer. I’m involved with a number of activities that relate to organizing and action. Some of these I may write about; some I may not. And some of the actions I describe in my writings may be related to my own work outside of Gates of Vienna, but without my mentioning any such connection.

In order for such actions to be successful, some things must remain unsaid. The Tao Te Ching, as I have mentioned before, offers sage advice (Chapter 36): “Fish cannot leave deep waters,/And a country's weapons should not be displayed.”

So talking occurs here, but other things are also occurring elsewhere.

By talking, they attempt to persuade other people of views that they believe are better and truer than the prevailing views.

Exactly. We are in complete agreement here.

As more people come to believe and to argue, say, that Muslim immigration must be stopped and reversed, that view will enter the mainstream and become part of the mainstream political debate. That would signal a major change in our politics. Yet it would consist of nothing but people talking.

All true except for the last sentence. Other things besides talking occur, and they occur long before everyone is convinced of the truth of your arguments (or mine). Action may begin with a local demonstration to protest the institution of segregated swimming for men and women at a municipal pool. The organization and action to effect such a demonstration may do more to bring people into the cause than you or I could ever do in our writings. And, most importantly, this may well happen without them ever being aware of the “whole case”.

I know a fellow in Europe who is working with organized groups of ex-Muslims in several countries, helping them to find secure residences and assume new identities so that they can avoid being killed for their apostasy. He is arguably doing more to advance what we espouse than all the writing I will do for the rest of my life.

Indeed, he just said of himself that he doesn't believe in making the whole case.

Indeed, I have NOT.

I occasionally lay out the whole case myself.

To be clear: it may someday become necessary, moral, ethical, and imperative to raze Mecca, pulverize the rubble, bulldoze it flat, and sow the ground with salt. We haven’t come to that pass yet, but we may reach it someday. It grows more likely with each passing day of our feckless policies towards Islam.

But we aren’t there yet, and I strive to find ways to arrive at our goal via a different route.

I think laying out the whole case occasionally has value, but the effectiveness of my mission may be better achieved by concentrating most of the time on the itty-bitty baby steps. They’re not nearly so entertaining or newsworthy, but they are what will eventually get the job done.

If more and more people make the whole case, the whole case will start to be heard, and will start to change the way people think and talk, and change our common notions of what is true and acceptable to say, and that, even by itself, as I said, would mean a radical change in our politics, and would lead in turn to more substantial changes.

In this you are correct. Someone has to do the job of laying out the whole case, and you are one of the very best practitioners of that art.

But the body must have many members, and not everybody can be the Head. I am just the pinky finger of the Counterjihad. I wiggle occasionally, and don’t do much else. But, in my own small way, I help maintain the grip on the pommel of the sword.

Ultimately, of course, what is needed is a political organization or network of organizations advocating specific measures. But what would such an organization be doing? It would, essentially, be talking! In fact, all politics, short of being in political power and being able to pass and executive laws, consists of talking.

Ultimately, of course, you are quite correct. We are at Step A, and ultimately we must arrive at Step Z.

The big question remains: How do we get there?

The answer is: We get there by a lot of little steps. None of them is very interesting or exciting. None of them will make me rich or famous. No one gets their photo on the cover of Time magazine for doing these things. But all of them are necessary, and they are my primary focus.

I have to have faith, because I will be long dead before our work is done.

Conservative Swede said...

Lawrence Auster,

Ultimately, of course, what is needed is a political organization or network of organizations advocating specific measures.

Ultimately?? How long are you prepared to wait really?

In fact, all politics ... consists of talking.

That's a very strange view of politics indeed. And even for the parts that could be seen as talking, there is a big difference between talking and talking: between being an isolated voice or to connect to people, getting organized, networking. And there's more than talking. E.g. publishing a book, I consider more than talking. Also holding a public meeting; a street manifestation, constituting a organization etc.

Of course from a sort of nihilistic perspective this could be seen as just words. But there are words that not just describe the world but that changes it. Yes you can act with words, and we often do. A trial in court could of course from a nihilistic perspective be seen as just words. But anyone seeing it in that way has not understood the nature of a court trial. The verdict of a trial changes the word. For someone coming from outside of our society, from another planet, it could be seen as just words. But the judge acts with words here. Same with the priest when wedding a couple, his very words changes the world; he acts!

In the meantime Baron Bodissey and a lot of us here are networking, organizing, acting.

Erich said...

I agree pretty much with Auster's argument above.

An analogy would be: did the Abolitionists of the 19th century couch their arguments in the form of "Let's work for partial slavery, because otherwise people will think we're too radical, and we won't make any progress with our reform if we put it too strongly and talk about freeing the slaves completely..."
?

Zenster said...

Lawrence Auster: It leads him logically to the amoral language of pure power, in which he repeatedly refers to other people as bugs, vermin, bacteria, etc. to be exterminated, exactly the way Lenin and Hitler spoke of their respective "enemies."

Please consider not being quite so selective in how you quote my comments.

The use of a term like “vermin” is only for the explicit purpose of demonstrating how pest eradication must be complete and thorough. Such eradication was in direct reference to the elimination of Islam and not Muslims. It is why that analogy was immediately followed by the sentence:

“In a likewise manner, any accommodation with Islam will result in an eventual resurgence of hostilities.”

You also seem to ignore my closing statement in that comment where I mention how:

“Would that there was some other way of assuring Islam’s demise.”

Furthermore, you have evidently elected to ignore my response to Conservative Swede where I stated:

“My original comment makes quite clear that it is Islam that must be eradicated and not all Muslims.”

You also managed to disregard my additional clarification:

“Again, I must correct your perception that my attention is focused solely upon killing Muslims. Islam's incapacitation is the top priority.”

Finally, my closing statement makes vividly clear that I do not view this world’s 1.5 billion Muslims as vermin.

“It will be a supreme moral challenge for the West to understand that military pre-emption costing hundreds of thousands or even more than a million lives will be far more humane than allowing the inevitable holocaust that Islam is sure to precipitate.”

If you require still further proof, I direct your attention to the following paragraphs:

“Furthermore, most regulars here at GoV know quite well that my preferred first course of action is for Western militaries to begin targeted assassinations of Islam's clerical, financial and scholastic aristocracy. To quote an old Danish saying:

Go to the horse's head, not it's tail.

Decapitating Islam should be our first priority. The damage done through a few hundred or thousand killings could quite possibly change the entire course of history.”

If that does not make clear my hope to avoid a Muslim holocaust there is little that can. If I truly thought that all Muslims were vermin, you would see the “kill ‘em all” meme appear in my writings. Please note that it most certainly does not.

xlbrl: Atheism has brought on more death and terror in it's short sway than any other ideology.

I advise you to consider how the fear of atheism—in the form of communist socialism that you are clearly referring to—also led to one of the greatest moral crimes of the last century. Look up Bishop Alois Hudal and his complicity in allowing some of history’s very worst mass murderers escape all punishment for their crimes of Genocide. His and the Vatican’s fear of communism’s godless atheism allowed countless high-ranking Nazis to go unpunished for their crimes against humanity. Please read ”Aftermath” by Ladislas Farago to gain a better understanding with respect to this monumental travesty of justice.

Natalie has been doing an admirable job of refuting you, so I’ll leave that task in her capable hands.

Erich: Nevertheless, I have noticed among many atheists a lot of irrational hatred of religion and of religious people (and part of their irrationality is the tendency of the majority of them, it seems, to treat all religions as bad irrespective of the differences, thus rendering Islam and Christianity as equivalently baneful -- which is preposterous and reveals a serious deficiency in the thought of the majority of activist atheists.

I’ll ask that you please provide some cites for your suggestion about how atheists display “the tendency of the majority of them, it seems, to treat all religions as bad irrespective of the differences, thus rendering Islam and Christianity as equivalently baneful”. That is far too illogical to be accepted on face value.

I would also ask you to please consider how the dim view that many atheists often have regarding organized religion might derive from centuries of being tortured and murdered at the hands of religionists for their disbelief. I’d say that’s quite enough to make anyone a bit squirrelly.

awake said...

Erich wrote:

"An analogy would be: did the Abolitionists of the 19th century couch their arguments in the form of "Let's work for partial slavery, because otherwise people will think we're too radical, and we won't make any progress with our reform if we put it too strongly and talk about freeing the slaves completely..."

No they did not. They did however build an ideological and moral case against slavery (although not neccessarily rooted with the best of intentions, but rather the reality of economics, which culminated in a long and bloody war.

It was a process, nonetheless.

Erich said...

awake's descriptive argument of what he calls "the process" -- to which Baron Bodissey also basically subscribes -- does not take into account the peculiar nature of the politically correct multi-culturalist (PC MC) paradigm. According to the PC MC paradigm, facts do not have their normal rational effect, and amassing facts, and pointing them out, do little to change this sociopolitical & psychological problem.

No matter how many facts of

1) Islam codifying bad things (through texts and dusty traditions)

2) Muslims saying bad things

and

3) Muslims doing bad things

we pile on the table before a person whose mind has been pedagogically deformed by PC MC, it rarely suffices to change the paradigm they labor under, by which Islam is always exculpated, and by which the vast majority of Muslims are always exculpated. For no matter what data you adduce about #1-2-3 above, the PC MC paradigm has ways to fit that data in "explanations" that dilute the force, and the point, of that data.

If PC MC were not mainstream and dominant, this would not be such a big problem. But it is.

Therefore, I advocate our movement, and all our members, to just knuckle down, and forge ahead with the logical conclusion, the radical presentation. This is the best way to make cracks in the PC MC iceberg.

As long as we continue to couch the problem of Islam in partial language, we are actually enabling the PC MC paradigm, for it feeds on the logic of partialism, gradualism, in order to construct Alternative Realities (ever Alternative to Islam) that explain the pathologies emanating out of the Muslim milieu.

And even if we couch it in partial terms that we think should be to their satisfaction, the PC MC people still tend to resist us and vilify us, suspecting that we are proposing a total condemnation of Islam and all Muslims! Thus, in using partial language, we are playing their game, enabling their logical rules, yet getting insufficient returns for our efforts. Indeed, the PC MC machine seems to be getting stronger, more stubborn, and more concretely elaborate institutionally, legally and propagandistically in the years after 911. That is, to a great extent, due to a subliminal fear that PC MC have that our logic is indeed viable and that if that logic is permitted the light of day of public discourse and policy debate, it will lead down that inexorable "slippery slope" toward genocide. The Muslims are the New Jews as well as being the New Blacks.

Conservative Swede said...

Erich,

Isn't it rather ironic that you parade yourself as the one wanting to go all the way, while in fact you dare not. Failing to see the ultimate symbolic significance of the complete destruction of Mecca, instead fearing the reaction of the Muslims.

Similar with Auster in his answer to Zenster. Zenster's argument is (after being misrepresented) discarded solely after being morally judged. Auster does not deal with the factual and practical sides of Zenster's suggstion. He thinks is suffices to just denounce it as morally incorrect. But as we know moral correctness is the foundation for political correctness. That's not a proper way to argue, Auster! You even violated Godwin's law.

It's a bit tiresome with people who are using a lot of verbiage on how tough they are and how much further than anyone else they are prepared to go, when they are instead among the ones that are not prepared to go far enough. And when they are sort of out of touch about how to communicate a message well to the general public.

Lawrence Auster said...

Of course Baron Bodissey is correct that my definition of politics was incomplete. Activism, demonstrations, networking, organizing, are politics. A demonstration by people in a small town saying, "We reject this special accommodation to Muslims in the public pool," is politics. This is true. But I think it is besides the point that Baron B. and I were discussing. His argument was for making a partial argument about Islam, e.g., waiting for liberalism to allow us to speak the truth about Islam, or spending years instructing people on the nature of Islam while staying away from proposing actions to be taken against it, while I was saying that we can and should make the whole case right now, including the diagnosis, the cure, and the rejection of liberalism that prohibits a cure.

In other words, I was talking about the case about Islam that people who talk (rather than people who demonstrate against sharia at a public pool) should make. There's no conflict between activism and making the whole case. There is a conflict between making the whole case and declining to make the whole case, with the latter based on the belief that we should spend decades educating people on the nature of Islam and waiting for the grip of PC to loosen before we say what we think ought to be done about Islam.

Indeed, Baron B., after saying that it is not true that he doesn't lay out the whole case, returns to his main point, which is that he favors lots of little steps. If his "little steps" refer to the "talking" part of politics as well as to the "activist" side of politics, then he has affirmed that he does not favor laying out the whole case, at least for himself.

Finally, while there is no conflict between the "organizing" side, and the "talking" side, my own primary interest is in the talking, because without the whole case being made, where is all that organizing going to lead?

As for Zenster, his point on his qualifying language, which he says I missed, is well taken. At the same time, I would say that, even with qualifying language added, the use of "vermin" analogies when speaking about an enemy creates a definite impression, and probably ought to be avoided.

awake said...

Erich wrote:

"awake's descriptive argument of what he calls "the process" -- to which Baron Bodissey also basically subscribes -- does not take into account the peculiar nature of the politically correct multi-culturalist (PC MC) paradigm."

On the contrary. Acknowledgement of the paradigm was obvious in my explicit words and an intention to circumvent it through a stepped process was clearly offered. You are just reluctant to abandon your utopian principle of destroying PC MC outright, and thus restoring proper order, which in your estimation, is the only way to go.

Besides, "knuckling down and forging ahead" with the radical presentation of Islam, you offer optins to destroy PC itself, and attempt to render anyone who seeks to attack the problem of Islam, while simultaneously recognizing the major obstacle that PC MC presents, from a different position, a matter of form over substance, as a sell-out.

I guess we can all plod forward and continue to shout "The end of the world is nigh" on the street corners due to the abject threat that Islam poses, but I have a sneking suspicion that resources would best be served elsewhere.

That is a most curious position indeed, from where I am standing.

Conservative Swede said...

Let me take a concrete example: the new Berlusconi government in Italy,. Are they following Auster's and Erich's "recipe for success" by beginning with presenting the WHOLE case as the very first thing? No, not at all. Instead their steps of action is the complete reverse of Auster's and Erich's road map.

Off the record Berlusconi told the prime minister of Romania, when they met, that it's not really Romanians this is all about. The Berlusconi government has not talked at all about Muslims and Islam from what I have seen. But by taking things step by step they are getting things done like nowhere else. People simply are too uneducated, do not know enough, have too little experience, for us to present the whole case about Islam, smack like that!, to them. Try it, and they'll stop listening. They have to be educated step by step.

In Italy it's easier to bring up the problem with gypsies (and in some contexts it's easier to refer to the problem as "Romanians"). And this is what the Berlusconi government is doing. I'm actually very impressed by the brilliant fingerspitzgefülen of Berlusconi in everything he has done so far. And he has gone very far. Just recently he put the whole country under a state of emergency (this relates to the side-discussion about militarization of the society, and as you see it's not such an unreal, far away thing after all).

In fact it is easier to argue for a stop of ALL immigration, to the general public, than a specific stop of Muslim immigration (maybe not in America, but surely in Sweden and the rest of Europe). People simply know very little about Islam. They need to be educated first, and already that is a big effort. So this is the first step. Before this has been achieved, before the awareness about the true face of Islam is firmly represented among the general public, it becomes pointless to push for deportation of all Muslims at the arenas directed at the general public. The first and current step is about educating people about Islam. The person that surely does most effective work on that front is Robert Spencer.

So what do the lone crusaders Erich and Auster make out of that? They spend an obsessive amount of time in attacking Robert Spencer. And they are not the least embarrassed in doing so and at the same time lecturing the world around them that they certainly know the only true way to get things done. It has never struck them how very lonely they are.

If you want to learn something about how to get things done, two guys sitting in their pajamas behind their computer all day, without an organization or network, is not what you are looking for. Instead watch and study Berlusconi and his minsters in action. This is the way to present the case. This is the way to get things done. Step by step.

As Italians they know their Machiavelli really well of course. Very encouraging!

awake said...

Lawrence Auster wrote:

"There is a conflict between making the whole case and declining to make the whole case, with the latter based on the belief that we should spend decades educating people on the nature of Islam and waiting for the grip of PC to loosen before we say what we think ought to be done about Islam."

The time it takes to get the true and vital message across in the face of the obstacle of PC is partially irrelevant. The case must be made based on its merits, not its urgency. That being said, your opinion of where it should occur in protocol is a valid position, but not neccessarily a validated one.

I hardly think any major players in the counter-jihad movement are reluctant to honestly implicate Islam in the definition of the problem.

Every day a Warner or a Spencer or an Auster point out the direct correlation of the core mandates of Islam and the current words and actions of its adherents, it is in spite of the PC paradigm, not because of it. Some commentaters believe the appropriate conclusion is to forthrightly profess step Z, where others simply accept that step A is not near complete, at least in their opinion.

lmg said...

Absent from Westerner's proposal is any inkling of what the other side would do. They won't just sit there. And by "the other side" I don't just mean Muslims. The West is chock full of native born, non-Muslim citizens who would love to see our civilization come down. Our government and institutions are infiltrated by traitors, fellow travelers and incompetents that would frustrate or sabotage any action. Going forward with any plan without knowing how the enemy will react would be like invading Iraq and expecting the population to greet us as liberators.

It would be necessary to "war game" any plan. Perhaps multi-player role playing games and simulators would be helpful, but I don't know. But actions and counter actions need to be worked out several moves deep.

Zenster commented, "Sadly, Islam would sooner have all Muslims die than see itself perish. This is an incontrovertible aspect of its death obsession." Am I the only one with a strong feeling that Allah is Satan?

Conservative Swede said...

Berlusconi is simply marvelous. Not only is he the best politician we have seen in the West, since I do not know when. But he's also a good joker.

In his speech yesterday he said, with reference to the garbage crisis in Napels that he has now solved, that "In Singapore you get 7 lashes for littering, unfortunately I cannot introduce that in Italy."

And when summarizing his achievements of his first months in office he says that the reason that he's only done things in the interest of the Italian people is because he's the one representing the real left-wing politics (a wink to Prodi who never achieved anything at all).

awake said...

As a final note, and to echo Swede's and Baron's respective positions, to which I subscribe, I remit the analogous offering of Erich for critical analysis:

"An analogy would be: did the Abolitionists of the 19th century couch their arguments in the form of "Let's work for partial slavery, because otherwise people will think we're too radical, and we won't make any progress with our reform if we put it too strongly and talk about freeing the slaves completely..."

As I recall, Jefferson explicitly, with tacit support from Adams and Franklin, realized the abomination of slavery. This was the pre-independence era.

Unfortunately, the three were compelled to table that ideal in order to garner the support of the southern colonies against the Brits, colonies that probably would not have agreed if the cessation of slavery was on the itinerary.

They had the foresight to recognize that ending slavery, while a moral imperative, was nothing in comparison to the immediate need to break free of England's rule.

In hindsight, it is easy to criticize this behavior, as some undoubtably do, but historically it drives home the point of a stepped process of dealing with slavery, while correctly prioritizing the imminent concern of the necessity for independence.

This is an invaluable historical lesson.

Lawrence Auster said...

Erich's comment of 8:24 p.m., in which he responds to the idea of a long-drawn out "process" of explaining Islam, is very well stated. Our side's attempt to get the liberal mainstream's assent on certain facts about Islam will always be wasted by the evasive rationalizations of Islam by liberals that can go on forever, the common point of which is always that Islam is not the problem, but some other factor is the problem, such as poverty (Barack Obama), despotism (G.W. Bush), being left behind (Bernard Lewis), and on and on. (See my collection of Non-Islam theories of Islamic extremism.)

Here's the upshot. If the Islam critics are saying, "Islam is bad, it's a threat to our whole civilization and way of life," with the liberals denying that it's bad, and with the Islam critics themselves never adding a "Therefore, we need to do such and such about Islam" onto their warnings about Islam, any positive effect on the audience's mind is neutralized. As the audience sees it, it's not clear that Islam is bad, because (1) the liberals skillfully excuse Islam, and (2) even the Islam critics don't really seem to think Islam is that bad, since they never say that we should do anything about it. If people keep warning about a horrible danger and never suggest a response, why should anyone take the warnings seriously? The net effect of the debate on the public is thus a wash: Islam doesn't seem bad.

But if the Islam critics say, "Islam is bad, it's a threat to our whole civilization and way of life, and here is what we must to do about it," suddenly there is a coherent picture being presented which ties the analysis of the Islam threat to a concrete solution. People may still reject the argument, but now at least they are being given an argument about Islam that is serious, which wasn't the case before. The seriousness of the analysis of the Islam threat is underscored by the seriousness of the proposals to deal with it, such as stopping immigration, expelling sharia believers, etc., and also by the seriousness of the critics themselves who are willing to take such an unorthodox stand. The Islam critics with their radical proposals have now become the active parties in the exchange, with the liberals having to respond to them, rather than the liberals being in charge with their endless false soothing explanations that Islamic extremism has nothing to do with Islam.

The public is now being given a complete picture, rather than just analysis that has no logical conclusion and no practical point.

Baron Bodissey said...

Mr. Auster --

Indeed, Baron B., after saying that it is not true that he doesn't lay out the whole case, returns to his main point, which is that he favors lots of little steps. If his "little steps" refer to the "talking" part of politics as well as to the "activist" side of politics, then he has affirmed that he does not favor laying out the whole case, at least for himself.

I’m not at all against laying out the whole case. I’m just not in favor of doing it over and over, as an exclusive activity, without actually trying to begin the steps necessary to effect the change we all desire. Laying out the case is not enough.

As I said before, our audience is not large enough for our making the case to do the job. Additional steps are necessary; otherwise we will still be making the case to a mostly non-existent readership the day full sharia arrives on our shores and Islamization is complete.

Finally, while there is no conflict between the "organizing" side, and the "talking" side, my own primary interest is in the talking, because without the whole case being made, where is all that organizing going to lead?

Well, what are your goals?

My primary goals are (in order of importance):

1. Halt the Islamization of the West.
2. Scrap the policy of mass immigration into our countries.
3. Re-establish the constitutional Republic that the USA used to be, and thus restore our ancient liberties.
4. Remove the iron grip of PC from our throats.

#1 is most important to me, but #4 and #2 may have to be pursued first to accomplish it. The order in which we execute these endeavors is an argument worth having.

However, in my opinion the most ineffective and energy-wasting activity that goes on within the Counterjihad is the incessant denigration, insults, infighting, and pronouncing of anathema on those who share the same goals but with whom one simply disagrees. Nothing can serve the cause of Islam more effectively than our pointless and incessant bickering.

None of us has a lock on the truth of what’s going on. Nobody knows the best way to accomplish the ends we desire. None of us, not even the most advanced counterterrorism expert or Arabic studies scholar, can lay claim to certainty about what should be done. This is uncharted territory.

A little humility is in order.

Kidist said...

Let me take a concrete example: the new Berlusconi government in Italy,. Are they following Auster's and Erich's "recipe for success" by beginning with presenting the WHOLE case as the very first thing? No, not at all. Instead their steps of action is the complete reverse of Auster's and Erich's road map.

Well, it's Berlusconi coalition that bulldozed a mosque in the city of Verona. They apparently had all the education they needed, and even named the park after the woman who went for the whole case scenario.

It works.

Lawrence Auster said...

There's a saying, "Without a deadline, there's no reality." Here's a variation on that saying that is highly relevant to this discussion:

"Without a 'Therefore,' there's no reality."

awake said...

Auster wrote:

"Here's the upshot. If the Islam critics are saying, "Islam is bad, it's a threat to our whole civilization and way of life," with the liberals denying that it's bad, and with the Islam critics themselves never adding a "Therefore, we need to do such and such about Islam" onto their warnings about Islam, any positive effect on the audience's mind is neutralized."

Not entirely true. The statement, "Islam is bad" means nothing without substantiating facts about Islam, those inherent to the written doctrine, interpreted by their authorities and those acted upon in current practice by Muslims. The foundation, or case if you will, against Islam must be effectively made and marketed.

Your position that this is a dire problem, with a finite time left for successful execution to thwart is noted, but this is not a question of substance, but rather of form, and it cannot be proven why your position over Baron's will prove to be more effective and efficient, for time's sake.

Just reading your latest entry at your site, with regards to this thread, you are less concerned with immigration and deportation, and seem to be outrightly opposed to "nuking" Mecca, but rather you advocate a constitutional amendment to ban the practice of Islam in the US, (and I assume the West in totality as well).

You certainly do appear to shoot for the stars, and to me it is admirable, but your logic seems disconnected. To me, your suggestion to skip all median issues and steps to arrive at your goal is akin to being cold, and instead of donning a jacket, you propose to pull the Sun closer to the Earth.

I just don't follow.

Conservative Swede said...

Oh yeah, the bulldozing of the mosque in Verona is a good example. No "therefore". Just simply bulldozing it and naming the park after Oriana Fallaci. Sometimes a "hint" is stronger than a "therefore".

"Therefores" are excellent and perfectly have a place in the discourse. But by the end of the day actually bulldozing a mosque down beats a "therefore the mosque must be removed".

"Pure power" does the job. Then add a bit of poetry when naming the remaining spot.

smith said...

Conservative Swede,

"Isn't it rather ironic that you parade yourself as the one wanting to go all the way, while in fact you dare not. Failing to see the ultimate symbolic significance of the complete destruction of Mecca, instead fearing the reaction of the Muslims."

It's not "fear" of Muslim reaction that motivates my rejection of the bomb Mecca proposal, it's the high likelihood that it will only serve to inflame Muslims. The proponents of the bomb Mecca proposal seem to think it will cow Muslims and make them more docile. I think they are wrong. When faced with a crazy enemy, why should we do something that inflames him? The only logical reason left is for the principle, but that is hardly worth inflaming hundreds of millions of crazy dangerous Muslims.

If I knew that bombing Mecca would make them more docile, I would support it.

Meanwhile, the best course of action is total deportation of all Muslims from the West: this should be our goal and stated up front, even though it will take years for its practical wisdom to melt the PC MC iceberg.

smith said...

Sorry -- the nickname "smith" is me -- "Erich". Somehow, my "Erich" account became inactive.

smith said...

awake,

("Erich" here, under another account called "smith"):

Your first objection to the Abolitionist analogy only serves my argument: for the "process" worked to a great extent because the Abolitionists did not couch their stated desires and goals in limited language!

Yet you believe we should go along painstakingly couching our language in limited terms to help the "process".

I think the "process" will be better served, and will hasten the meltdown of the PC MC iceberg, by us NOT couching our language in limited terms -- just as the ultimately successful Abolitionists did not sugarcoat their demands!

Kidist said...

"Pure power" does the job. Then add a bit of poetry when naming the remaining spot.

The mayor of Verona's words were:

"My citizens do not want this takeover."

It wasn't about power at all. It was about recovering their space, their square.

It just happened that the woman to whom they dedicated this square also said:

"The increased presence of Muslims in Italy and in Europe is directly proportional to our loss of freedom."

They were following the logical conclusion of her words.

awake said...

Erich wrote:

"The proponents of the bomb Mecca proposal seem to think it will cow Muslims and make them more docile. I think they are wrong. When faced with a crazy enemy, why should we do something that inflames him? The only logical reason left is for the principle, but that is hardly worth inflaming hundreds of millions of crazy dangerous Muslims."

So, all talk and no action. I expect ConSwede will shove that statement upp your arse with a cnadle on it.

Just for clarification, I do not support ConSwede's proposition either, but not for the same reasons that you do. I have no concerns for Muslim agitation if it comes to that. nor do I feel the need to give ample warning to Muslims before Mecca is razed, as Westerner originally suggested.

I just don't expect to encounter a logical end of that without the proper pretense. That being said, if it indeed does come to that, my conscience will indeed be clean and devoid of any moral conundrum.

awake said...

Erich, you are a bit behind, my smithy, but will surely catch up to the discussion.

Conservative Swede said...

Erich,

It's not "fear" of Muslim reaction that motivates my rejection of the bomb Mecca proposal, it's the high likelihood that it will only serve to inflame Muslims.

If we exclude any knowledge we have of human nature and historical records of how empires have previously been defeated/destroyed, then of course we could be left with doubts. But I suggest that we instead should make use of that knowledge.

In order to defeat an empire, the empire must be defeated. It's as simple as that. You make the mistake of seeing Islam as a religion, and Mecca as a holy site. Therefore you turn a blind eye to how Islam is an empire. The destruction of Mecca has to be done the right way. There are several aspects of this. I will have reason to come back to the issue.

Meanwhile, the best course of action is total deportation of all Muslims from the West: this should be our goal and stated up front, even though it will take years for its practical wisdom to melt the PC MC iceberg.

This idea of "melting" seems like magical thinking to me. If one is not connected in dialog with another person I fail to see how any influencing is going on. If the dialog is cut off, I fail to see how there is any melting going on.

smith said...

awake,

("Erich" here again),

Your second objection to the Abolitionist analogy (Jefferson, et al.) includes the fact that there was another gigantic problem standing in the way -- the struggle against England. Of course, if there is a second great struggle standing in the way, that can militate the first problem.

But my analogy derives its meaning from the fact that our #1 problem is the same as the thing under analogy! There is no gigantic #2 problem that would reasonably force us to dilute our language and activism with respect to the problem of Islam, as there was with Jefferson vis-a-vis Slavery and the problem with England!

awake said...

Erich wrote:

"But my analogy derives its meaning from the fact that our #1 problem is the same as the thing under analogy!"

But my analogy rings truer. Islam and PC are simultaneous problems. Both need to be curbed. The only argument is in what order and how!

That is irrefutable.

Conservative Swede said...

Awake,

So, all talk and no action. I expect ConSwede will shove that statement upp your arse with a cnadle on it.

Watch you language, boy! It's not appreciated.

smith said...

CS & awake,

I'm all for destroying Islam. But destroying simply one or two cities, whose destruction will most likely whip them into a more epilectic lather than before, while the vast majority of Muslims are spread out in a global diaspora outside those two cities, is hardly "destroying" the enemy. It's just plain foolish.

Conservative Swede said...

Kidist,

The mayor of Verona's words were:
"My citizens do not want this takeover."


Which is an expression of pure political will.

Pure will -> pure power -> and finally poetry on the top. That's a fine formula for me.

awake said...

"Your second objection to the Abolitionist analogy (Jefferson, et al.) includes the fact that there was another gigantic problem standing in the way -- the struggle against England. Of course, if there is a second great struggle standing in the way, that can militate the first problem.


I disagree. The secondary problem of PC, or is it Islam, I can't tell anymore, is a simultaneous concern, but seperate in nature.

The only question is what problem is a priority in your estimation, and how should it be dealt with.

My preference is the stated problem of Islam, building a case against it. I have yet to hear a preliminary solution by you on how to eradicate PC, but rather define Islam in anti-PC terms and wait for its inevitable destruction.

That is not sound advice going forward.

awake said...

Watch you language, boy! It's not appreciated.

7/28/2008 11:52 PM

Boy?

Conservative Swede said...

Erich,

I'm all for destroying Islam.

Now that so much interest has been given to this, I will spend some time to write down more carefully my plan for how to destroy the Islamic empire.

But destroying simply one or two cities, whose destruction will most likely whip them into a more epilectic lather than before

If things are done the wrong way it could lead to this. But by understanding the concept of what it means to destroy an empire, and in addition knowing the nature of Islam, we are able to do it right.

while the vast majority of Muslims are spread out in a global diaspora outside those two cities

Sure, we cannot have Muslims in such large numbers among us when doing it. But Westerner does not seem to suggest so, and I definitely do not suggest so. And given the natural order of events, the awareness of the need to destroy Islam comes after the awareness of removing Muslims from our lands.

smith said...

awake --

"my analogy rings truer. Islam and PC are simultaneous problems. Both need to be curbed. The only argument is in what order and how!"

You didn't propose an analogy. You were simply refuting my analogy. In any analogy, there are two things -- the thing under consideration (A), and the thing (B) that might help illustrate why A is cogent.

In my analogy, here are the two things:

1. The problem of Islam / the problem of PC making the problem of Islam difficult to solve

2. The problem of slavery / the problem of 19th-century society resistant to abolishing slavery.

The analogical example (2) has two parts that mirror the two parts of (1).

In my analogy, I pointed out how the historical example of 2 showed that people did not have to couch their stated goals in limited language, but went full steam ahead, and it worked.

In your refutation of my analogy, you brought up a previous period, the late 18th century, when there was a second looming problem that was deemed by Jefferson, et al., to be more exigent. This is irrelevant to the conditions of my analogy, the 19th century, and the fact that bold unlimited language in fact facilitated the "process" of Abolition.

awake said...

So, Erich, do you acknowledge that Islam is a problem, while likewise in the same period, so is PC MC or is it different in comparison to the perceived simultaneous problems of slavery and English imperialism in the analogous example that I provided.

Or is it it simple semantics that that was not an analogy at all, like "being caught between a rock and a hard place"?

Conservative Swede said...

Lawrence Auster,

while I was saying that we can and should make the whole case right now, including the diagnosis, the cure, and the rejection of liberalism that prohibits a cure.

Isn't the real reason for your approach, that your real goal is to defeat liberalism? That's why you want to jump directly to step P. The steps before interest you little, since they do not specify the terminal ending of liberalism. But neither are the steps after of much interest to you, since you are not interested in defeating Islam. It's liberalism that you see as the real enemy. Islam you see as more benevolent and therefore worthy of surviving; a grace that you are not willing to give to liberalism.

Furthermore, you spend a disproportionate amount of time attacking (and often fiercely) conuterjihad people working on steps A, B and C. Why? For the same reason. People walking up this staircase like 1,2,3 are not seen as having proven their anti-liberal credentials in your eyes. The usage of liberal arguments against Islam is seen as a way of promoting liberalism by you, and is therefore attacked by you. It goes along with your declared agenda. Defeating liberalism--our prime and only real enemy according to you--is your focus.

awake said...

ConSwede wrote:

"Isn't the real reason for your approach, that your real goal is to defeat liberalism?"

Agreed. Auster sees the end of modern liberalism as a pre-requisiste to deafeating all enemies, especially Islam.

It is a valid point, but his follow through is inconsistent, at least in my opinion.

Baron Bodissey said...

A clarification is in order. In my comment above I said this:

However, in my opinion the most ineffective and energy-wasting activity that goes on within the Counterjihad is the incessant denigration, insults, infighting, and pronouncing of anathema on those who share the same goals but with whom one simply disagrees. Nothing can serve the cause of Islam more effectively than our pointless and incessant bickering.

Mr. Auster has since written me several emails requesting that I make it clear that I was not referring to him when I described fellow members of the Counterjihad who complain, insult, denigrate, and nitpick those with whom they are in basic agreement, and who should in fact be their natural allies.

Naturally, I was not referring to him in my description. He has been unfailingly polite in his comments here, all the while concentrating on the topic at hand. I regret any implication that he might be among those thin-skinned folks who pick fights over trivial differences with their friendly interlocutors.

Conservative Swede said...

Awake,

Agreed. Auster sees the end of modern liberalism as a pre-requisiste to deafeating all enemies, especially Islam.

Auster wanting to defeat Islam? I don't think so. Instead he argues against it, and in favour of limited war.

But Islam has declared total war upon us, and we should answer accordingly.

laine said...

Wherever I go in real life,(as opposed to the blogosphere) whether it's a charity fundraiser, golf course, kids' school, work, whatever, I am vastly outnumbered by liberals. In my experience, going the Auster recommended "whole enchilada" route in the short time one has in most contexts just gets you called a bigot and the conversation is over with everyone at the table shunning you and discounting anything that comes out of your mouth in future.

With libs who never fight fair (instead of marshalling and refuting facts they name call) more cleverness is required. Actually, you can't convert a real lefty. Our hope is merely to move the person who isn't yet committed on the subject but is open to arguments out of the lefty's sphere. We're trying to rope the so-called "mushy middle".

I have to admit, I'm not very good at cleverness because I believe facts and logic should win the day even if baldly presented, but in the real world they do not. Presentation counts. Ask Obama. He doesn't have a fact to his name, and more than lefties are being swept along.

The socratic method appears more useful than mere recitation of facts. Try to lead someone to conclude for himself that something is unfair or off kilter instead of merely declaring it is so. And instead of giving a huge wad of info to a fallow mind where the person stops listening half way through and starts discounting you as some fanatic, less is more. If you can trip up even one or two of the leftist knee-jerk superficialisms, your work will be done and you can move on to being a pleasant dinner companion so that the person you've freshly inoculated associates the shot of information he got with someone solid, believable, nice, rather than a canting bore labelled bigot by others at the table.

e.g. 1) How many majority Muslim countries are there? (Most have no idea it's over 60). 2) How many have human rights as evolved as here? (the answer is none). 3) How many give their minorities equal rights to the majority? (Answer: none). I wonder why we accept criticism for not being perfect from countries who are not even adequate in their handling of human rights? Why don't we encourage them to raise their standards from dismal to mediocre? Wouldn't that do more for human rights over all than trying to go from A to A plus ourselves?

I'm tired, maybe this isn't the best example but I think people get my drift. As I said, I'm not very good at staying calm in the face of massive ignorance and chipping away at their smug self-assurance with a smile on my face, but that is the way to win friends and influence people.

smith said...

awake,

"So, Erich, do you acknowledge that Islam is a problem, while likewise in the same period, so is PC MC or is it different in comparison to the perceived simultaneous problems of slavery and English imperialism in the analogous example that I provided."

All analogies suffer. There's a famous saying "analogiae claudicant" (= "analogies limp"). The main problem with analogies is that the 2nd thing being used as an analogy is not exactly the same as the main thing on the table. But this should not ruin the use of analogies. All that is needed is a little imagination, flexibility and intelligence. And if the interlocutor thinks the analogy does not work, then he should present an argument specifying why.

Tanstaafl said...

It's easy to get Auster to make his own "vermin analogies". All you have to do is examine liberalism a little more deeply than he does.

How did the suicidal dogma of non-discrimination become the ruling value of society after WWII? Where did what Erich calls "the politically correct multi-culturalist (PC MC) paradigm" come from? What does it have to do with cultural marxism? What does that have to do with marxism? How did neo-liberals convince Westerners that the most heinous sins imaginable are racism, sexism, homophobism, and islamophobism? How did they convince us that the older, more traditional sins of materialism, promiscuity, and fraud (among many others) are now values to be celebrated?

More important: why?

Isn't it odd that in our own homelands the White Christian Western man is the fattest, most politically correct target? Is it because we're so powerful that we just don't care, or because we don't have the power to stop it?

The West's weakness doesn't come from neo-liberalism alone. Neo-conservativism also harms us. Neo-cons think it proper to squander the lives of our predominantly White Christian military men by sending them to every corner of the world to keep it safe for plutocracy and to prevent a second holocaust. Not necessarily in that order. Meanwhile they smear as xenophobes any Westerners who want our own streets and borders policed.

The threat is not only from islam. The West has been invaded by the third world. Our neo-lib and neo-con leaders argue and point fingers. They disagree about who to bomb next. But they agree on the third world invasion of the West. They all welcome it, and they side with the invaders. To stop the invasion we Westerners must first and foremost remove from power and prosecute those who have betrayed us. That done we can address our external threats. Otherwise the West will decompose. Either path will be bloody.

Conservative Swede said...

Erich,

I'm all for destroying Islam.

I realized that I need to ask you this:
You are for destroying Islam, but you have not got any clue of how to do it, or?

Lawrence Auster said...

Tanstaafl writes:

“To stop the [Third World invasion of the West] we Westerners must first and foremost remove from power and prosecute those who have betrayed us. That done we can address our external threats. Otherwise the West will decompose. Either path will be bloody.”

Just so that people can understand where Tanstaafl is coming from, with his calls for the "bloody" prosecution of internal enemies, he wrote a few months ago at his Age of Treason website:

"Jews are not the only enemy, and not all Jews are enemies. I'm not going to sugar coat what I have to say any more than that.... I'm not being coy. I've just realized and said flat out Jews are my enemy."

I commented on the above and had more quotes from Tanstaafl in my article, "I am attacked for not being an anti-Semite."

Zenster said...

Baron: He has been unfailingly polite in his comments here, all the while concentrating on the topic at hand.

Selectively quoting a person's comments out of context and then ignoring multiple challenges for such overt misconduct is something I would hesitate to call "polite".

Mr. Auster has revisited this thread more than once since being called on his lapse of forensic ethics and has not seen fit to explain or defend his reasons for it. This only further reinforces a perception of selective engagement that ill suits an honest forum like Gates of Vienna. While I might expect to see such underhanded tactics at LGF, I certainly find them out of place here.

xlbrl said...

I am struck by the single sentiment offered by Baron, which never fails to increase in relevance just in ratio to intelligence: What is needed first is a little humility.

The defence of the ego comes to dominate over the thread of discussion. This is less true at GOV than elsewhere due to the example of the blogowners, but as threads gain in length and passion they contribute less and less to the discovery and furthering of understandings.

M. Mason said...

First time poster at Gates of Vienna; I followed the link at View From the Right to your interesting discussion. What follows here is a somewhat different version of comments that I posted at VFR about the subject.


Over the last few years we've finally arrived at the point in this debate where even some secular liberals aren't just relativizing the totalitarian claims of Islam anymore, but instead have come to feel their own self-interests threatened to justify taking certain actions against it. Predictably, though, their response is to suddenly lurch to the opposite conclusion of relativism-- that a massive, pre-emptive campaign of overwhelming military power launched against the Muslim world to deliver a fatally "crushing blow" to it now is the only real game in town, agitating for their own version of a "Final Solution" to the Islam problem by forcing the issue to an ultimate showdown.


But conservatives who hold to a Christian worldview are going to ask: what is the objective moral basis for launching these sorts of proposed pre-emptive military campaigns at the present time to utterly "crush" Islam "permanently", to incinerate Mecca and Medina, etc. etc. ? And unfortunately for those who advocate this type of strategy, a purely secular-based politics is fundamentally incapable of dealing with that issue. At best, it can only call for the supposed "necessity" of such urgent action immediately by arguments that both begin and end solely with man himself as the measure of all things and his own self-interests as he perceives them. Shorn of transcendent validation to justify such draconian actions taken against the entire Muslim world at the present time, a political philosophy like this must therefore frame the issue essentially as a Nietzschean will to power struggle in which only the strongest one survives.


For such people the strategy that Lawrence Auster has proposed of isolation, containment and policing of the Muslim world within it's historic lands seems too measured, too constrained by other moral considerations, too much like a counsel of merely doing "all that needs to be done at the present time to quarantine and disempower Islam to insure our own safety and no more." In short, for many secular liberals a message like that comes across as simply too conservative and too Christian.


But I believe his is the correct response, for there is no way either to define or constrain the proper use of power on such a massive scale without the safeguard of transcendent objective truth as a moral guide, otherwise morality is arbitrarily reduced to power and the state itself becomes nothing but a weapon of power. There may indeed come a time—and in my view probably will—when much more forceful measures will be both necessary and morally justified to deal with an implacably hostile Muslim world in response to their future actions against us. There is also the distinct possibility that this may even eventually come to resemble something like the scenario that "Westerner" has described. But we are certainly not at that stage now, and in any case I stand in opposition to a state that manifests an innate hostility to both divine truth and it's restraints and claims the source of all morality in itself to justify it's actions.

Erich said...

CS,

I'm all for destroying Islam.

I realized that I need to ask you this:
You are for destroying Islam, but you have not got any clue of how to do it, or?

My response:

A person can be all for something, but if that person thinks that something cannot be done, then the person seeks the best possible alternative.

Destroying Nazism and Japanese Imperialism was difficult enough, but it was made practicable by

1) the geographical concentration of the enemy, particularly in cities within a single country

2) the relative ability to acknowledge defeat by the Germans and Japanese after sufficient physical destruction re #1.

Though the Germans and more so the Japanese had a fanatical streak that made them obstinately pursue fighting to the end, I believe Muslims are far more fanatical, both because of their unique ideology, and because that ideology is far older and historically organic than were the relatively short-lived and artificial ideologies of Nazism and 20th century Japanese Imperialism.

Implicit in #1 is the fact that unlike other enemies, Muslims are dispersed throughout the globe and have more adherents. While Communism through a kind of satellite structure was spread out in various countries around the world, there was never the degree of terrorism we see with Islam, nor anywhere near the pathologically grotesque nature or fanatical devotion that we see among Muslims. And again, Communism was a short-lived and artificial ideology, while Islam is historically rich, almost a milennium and a half old, and culturally organic (not to mention spiritually rich, albeit pneumopathologically).

I.e., it's stupid to think that Islam can be destroyed, given the above factors. The best we can do is ruthlessly manage the problem:

1) Deport all Muslims from the West

a) kill the Muslims who resist or try to circumvent #1

2) Set up a new Iron Curtain around the lands to where the Muslims have been deported, and kill the Muslims who try to leave.

Will this be possible to implement perfectly? Of course not. Even if we had the political will to do this, there would still be holes in the system, and the West would probably continue to be plagued into the indefinite future with rogue cells of underground Muslims who have slipped through the net and who try to attack in various ways. But once the vast majority of Muslims have been removed, and once the system is in place warranting the liquidation of any Muslims who defy the order to leave, there will be a much easier way to defend ourselves.

Lawrence Auster said...

I'm amazed at Zenster's comment about me. He writes:

Selectively quoting a person's comments out of context and then ignoring multiple challenges for such overt misconduct is something I would hesitate to call "polite".

Mr. Auster has revisited this thread more than once since being called on his lapse of forensic ethics and has not seen fit to explain or defend his reasons for it. This only further reinforces a perception of selective engagement that ill suits an honest forum like Gates of Vienna. While I might expect to see such underhanded tactics at LGF, I certainly find them out of place here
.

What kind of mad hysteria is at large today that it becomes impossible to engage in a simple intellectual exchange at a web forum without having charges of "quoting out of context," "ignoring multiple challenges," "overt misconduct," "lapse of forensic ethics," "selective engagement," and, finally, "underhanded tactics" worthy of the über smearer himself, Charles Johnson, being thrown at me?

To establish the record, let's start by looking at my original comment on Zenster:

Yes, Zenster's logic is clear and succinct, but lacks moral limits. It leads him logically to the amoral language of pure power, in which he repeatedly refers to other people as bugs, vermin, bacteria, etc. to be exterminated, exactly the way Lenin and Hitler spoke of their respective "enemies." A clear and succinct logic that leads to our assertion of absolute power over other human beings and their reduction to bugs has taken a wrong turn. It is a temptation of which we must beware.

Zenster then replied to my 85 word comment with a 665 word comment defending himself and explaining that he was not comparing Muslims as people to vermin, but Islam.

In reply I wrote:

As for Zenster, his point on his qualifying language, which he says I missed, is well taken. At the same time, I would say that, even with qualifying language added, the use of "vermin" analogies when speaking about an enemy creates a definite impression, and probably ought to be avoided.

So I replied to Zenster's complaint, and I forthrightly admitted that I had failed to note his qualifying language. When one says that another person's point is "well taken," that means that one is conceding the other person's point. Yet Zenster, filled with hurt rage, claims that I have completely ignored him.

Also, in my above reply to Zenster, after conceding his point, I repeated my main idea, that the kind of language Zenster used, of total eradication of Islam as though it were an infestation, is a kind of language to be avoided, because it gives people the sense that they are subject to no moral limits on their own behavior toward others. I was expressing an opinion about Zenster's position. I was not misrepresenting him, I was not lying about him, I was not smearing him personally, I was not calling him names, I was not doing any of the things of which he now accuses me. I was expressing my opinion about the moral implications of the language that he used.

Also, in my initial comment, I did not "selectively quote" Zenster, as he accuses me of doing, because I did not quote him at all. I simply paraphrased and characterized what he had said and commented on it. However, since he accuses me of selectively and dishonestly misrepresenting him, let's now take a look at the passages in his original comment where he equates Islam to lower life forms:

"When eradicating vermin, one does not aim to merely wound the rodents or insects in question. That does not end the infestation. In a likewise manner, any accommodation with Islam will result in an eventual resurgence of hostilities."

"It is not some minor bacterium or virus that can be inoculated against. Islam’s virulent nature is akin to Ebola or the bubonic plague. Any other organism that is intent on surviving cannot tolerate its presence."

"Survival demands that Islam is, not just defeated, but eradicated for all time. Just as Islam intends to cleanse the earth of all competing cultures, so must Western civilization mobilize to remove every last trace of Islam from this world."

"This renders Islam incorrigible and immune to any moderation. Since rehabilitation is not an option, eradication becomes necessary."

"Please recall that coexistence with Islam simply is not possible. Therefore, Muslims—as a corporeal manifestation of Islam— must cease to exist."

"All that remains is for the West to set about killing all Muslims who prize their ideology more than life itself."

Thus Zenster compares Islam to "vermin," "rodents," "insects," "infestation," bacterium," "virus," "Ebola," and "bubonic plague." As I said in my original comment, this is exactly the kind of language that Lenin used about property owners and Christians, and that Hitler used about Jews. I did not attack Zenster personally on this point. I did not say or imply that he is a Communist, I did not say or imply that he is a Nazi or Nazi-like. I said that, as we know well from the history of the 20th century, language comparing an enemy to insects and bacteria and calling for the enemy's absolute extermination puts people in a position where they feel beyond any moral limits in their own conduct, and that this is something to be avoided.

Further, notwithstanding Zenster's claim that he was only comparing Islam to bugs and vermin and not Muslims as people, please note that he explicitly calls for, not just the eradication of the religion, but the extermination of all Muslims as Muslims, the death of every believing Muslim on earth: "Therefore, Muslims—as a corporeal manifestation of Islam— must cease to exist.... All that remains is for the West to set about killing all Muslims who prize their ideology more than life itself."

Finally, I just have this to say. The fact that Zenster would equate me with the lowest type of unethical character assassin, simply for offering an intellectual criticism of his language and pointing to the moral dangers such language creates, shows how impossible it is to have serious intellectual discussion today, not just on the politically correct left, but on the right. Some terrible decay has occurred in our culture, a reduction of everything to the personal, so that people think that if their ideas are criticized, that means that they are being personally attacked and smeared, which in their minds then justifies unlimited personal smears against the person whom they falsely accuse of having smeared them. I've run into this insanity from Robert Spencer and his supporters, and now I encounter the same thing at this site. It has become a major disincentive to engaging in discussion at web forums with other anti-jihadists.

Captain Willard said...

First, a thanks to Lawrence Auster for his links to this conversation. It is a very interesting one. Second, all this chatter about "the wisdom of Rome" in dealing with modern Islam - 2008 Islam - leads to one very cogent question: which Rome? The Rome of the Rape of the Sabine Women? The Rome of Scipio and Zama? The Rome of the First Triumvirate? The Rome that let Varus's Legions go unavenged when Rome itself was at the height of its power? 476 Rome? No - we have a far more recent and much better example of how to impose a "Carthaginian Peace" on modern Islam, an example that makes anything Rome ever did to its enemies pale by comparison. And this strategy was summed up best by its architect: "If you kill enough of them, they stop fighting." If Islam itself is truly the enemy - and nearly every poster here asserts that it is - and we are indeed in a war with it, then enough about Roman "wisdom"; a little Curtis LeMay wisdom seems much more relevant in discussing any serious program that Western governments could undertake to defeat it. Sadly, the simple fact is that we have neither the will nor the stomach to undertake such a strategy that as short a time ago as 1945 was seen as a quite reasonable way to wage war against ones sworn enemies; look at the very first comment in this discussion which considers the rather mild military measures considered by the original poster to be "pornographic." And that commentator is somehow officially associated with a blog whose avowed purpose seems to be to discuss how to fight Islam! No, I fear we are in for a great many disappointments in the years ahead as the West continues to quiver fearfully and retreat from the aggressive assault of Islam, and the first comment in this thread is part and parcel of exactly why: when even folks who pretend to understand the threat of modern Islam on the march express squeamish reservations about actually fighting it, we are indeed on the losing side. "But how exactly," the "concerned" and "civilized" ask, "would that work?" "What would be the targets, or would it simply be indiscriminate firebombing, a' la Dresden and Tokyo circa 1945?" One hears such dreary inquiries every time the subject is raised, but there, too, in such questions do we cede the argument to the enemy. Dresden and Tokyo were not firebombed because they were stacked to the rafters with "innocent" civilians; they were firebombed because large numbers of "innocent" civilians were part and parcel of the machinery of war being waged against the Allies, and that machinery and the civilians who helped make it run were BOTH deemed legitimate targets. The former was targeted, but the fact that the latter hung around and helped make that machinery go made them every bit a legitimate target as a row of rail cars loaded with Tiger tanks. And if the West were truly serious about its "war" with "militant" Islam or its "war on terror," it would make war the way it did when it was last serious about actually winning (as opposed to simply not losing, which is a different thing), and which is within the memory of some still living, the events of which occurred scarcely two generations ago. But, alas, it is not, and there we are.

Lawrence Auster said...

I realize that I was too mild to Zenster in that I dealt only with the general moral implications of his language, and not with the substance of what he is actually saying.

He writes:

"Therefore, Muslims—as a corporeal manifestation of Islam— must cease to exist.... All that remains is for the West to set about killing all Muslims who prize their ideology more than life itself."

Since 9/11, I have consistently said that I am interesting in hearing every reasonable proposal, no matter how extreme it may seem, for how to protect our civilization and the world from Islam. Calling for the physical eradication of every believing Muslim on earth is not a reasonable proposal. It is monstrous.

Rusty Mason said...

laine is correct to say that we cannot really convert liberals. Liberalism is too ingrained in our society now. It will only be destroyed by circumstance, i.e., by whatever arises to quell the resulting chaos.

ConSwede, Baron, and those who say that we must do something now are also correct. We have gathering around us now thousands of awakened, potential activitists with no good leadership. The young and the weak ones simply self-destruct, and I suspect that most of the more capable ones just drop out. Their attitude is, "So what? What can I do? No one else is doing anything about it." These people need intellectual leadership, direction, something to keep their hands and spirits occupied while they fight what they can now and prepare for their and their families' futures.

I think Larry is correct when he focuses on the disease of modern liberalism, but I'm not sure how effective we can be against it through just reasoning and argument alone. If we are to be successful, then we must follow Tans advice and go after the vanguard of Liberalism while at the same time organizing action for something better.

All institutions have been corrupted, major crises are hammering down very soon. Get the new activitists busy in constructinve activity, get them moving now, educating them as they go. Their successes will draw others, who can then be enlightened, even if only partially, into even more constructive action.

Zenster said...

Mr. Auster, I missed your brief paragraph at the end of a much longer reply by you to the Baron. I am not attempting to smear you. I am seeking clarification which you have only now seen fit to provide in detail. For that I thank you.

Your concern over use of language derives its merit largely from the fact that we live in an abhorrently Politically Correct society. I'm glad that you are able to understand the important qualifications that were purposefully inserted in my writing. They are there for a reason.

Your initial comment seemed to dismiss my own discourse out of hand for what I considered selective reasons. While it was my own mistake to let your third comment escape my notice, this is a rather long thread. I hope you will note that I make a distinct effort to highlight people's screen names in bold font. I do this specifically so that people will readily notice when I quote or address them.

I have no problem with people constructively criticizing my ideas. In fact, I usually welcome it because external observations can help me to modify my own views when they are in need of it.

I still maintain that Islam needs to be purged from this planet. There is no "polite" way of expressing such a notion without watering down its meaning. Modern civilization and Islam cannot coexist without continual bloodshed, something that I have grown rather sick of.

More than likely you are unfamiliar with the body of my writings.Perhaps if you were more aware of them my overall meaning might have been more clear.

I have posted at length in an effort to identify a functional deterrent against Islamic terrorism. To date, there seems to be no viable way of doing this. If you have any suggestions, I would welcome them.

Due to such a lack, I have had to conclude that Islam must be destroyed. The urgency of this task is due to rapid proliferation of nuclear weapons technology. The West has only a decade or two, at most, to dismantle Islam before we come under nuclear terrorist attacks.

The strength of my language is intended to reinforce that sense of urgency. Again, your reply at length was what I sought and its previous absence had given me an impression of the usual hit-and-run tactics that I have encountered elsewhere, though thankfully not very much here at Gates of Vienna.

Some questions:

Do you think that Islam can be moderated or rehabilitated?

Do you regard shari'a law to be a wholesale violation of human rights?

Do you think that it is possible to negotiate with Muslims in good faith?

Do you think that there exists a functional deterrent to Islamic terrorism?

Do you think that defeating Islam is a top priority?

Do you think that there are any non-military measures which can defeat Islam in a timely manner?

Captain Willard: this strategy was summed up best by its architect: "If you kill enough of them, they stop fighting." If Islam itself is truly the enemy - and nearly every poster here asserts that it is - and we are indeed in a war with it, then enough about Roman "wisdom"; a little Curtis LeMay wisdom seems much more relevant in discussing any serious program that Western governments could undertake to defeat it.

Some frank language when it is badly needed. Thank you.

Erich said...

Lawrence Auster on his site VFR commented on M. Mason's argument above thusly:

"I definitely sense in some of the GoV commenters, and in commenters elsewhere, the combination of secularism with unrestrained will to power that Mr. Mason describes."

Two observations on this:

1. To the degree that this may accurately pertain to some, let us call them Immanentists (rather than "liberals" or "atheists"), this could explain the semi-conscious dread that PC MC people have about condemning Islam and the inexorable "slippery slope" toward genocide that would supposedly surely follow: what they are dreading is actually that tendency in themselves that they are more or less successfully repressing and keeping at bay through the irrational mechanism of reverse racism and the PC MC paradigm that protects Muslims -- from their own will-to-power "final solution".

2. So, while this may be accurate for some Immanentists , there is the other side of this coin -- or mirror-image -- of the problem of the West's inability to deal rationally with the problem of Islam. This mirror-image seems, to me, more demonstrable from actual positions expressed, explicitly or implicitly: Namely, that of modern Christians who have lost the ability to be ruthless against a deadly foe. (While the ulterior will-to-power of the Immanentists usually has to be teased out as an implication, the limp-wristed quasi-pacifism of too many Christians is rather more explicitly expressed.) A good deal of this may be explained by a "liberalization" of modern Christianity (or as I like to put it, the deformation of Christianity (along with the West in general) by PC MC), but I also think it seems to be an inherent tendency in Christianity that may be more, or less, accentuated depending on historical-cultural factors.

There is, among too many Christians, altogether too much naive and uncomprehendingly unilateral "inter-faith bridge-building" going on between Christians and Muslims; far too much lurking pacifism based on a utopian eisegesis of the New Testament Jesus; far too much "hate the sin not the sinner" balderdash; and, here and there, an uncomfortable amount of respect for Islam as a "strong moral faith" over against the evil decadence of "faithless modernity".

Erich said...

zenster,

Islam is uniquely numerous in members, geographically dispersed across the globe, and fanatically motivating more than any other ideology.

Given these factors, utter Islamocide would be an impossible task to accomplish (not counting the PC that stands in the way of even beginning to think about proposing it in the West).

You are ignoring the waxing and waning of Islam throughout history. Specifically, you are ignoring an approximately 300-year-period when the West was both globally powerful and not corrupted by PC such that it was uninhibited in horning in on the Third World through Colonialism and in doing so interfered massively all over most parts of the Muslim World. As a consequence, do you think it was mere coincidence that Islam was more docile during that period, relatively speaking? Similarly, on the other side of the coin, Islam only began to show signs of a revival when the West's Colonial Empire -- along with its sociopolitico-cultural institutions and attitudes -- was dismantled by the Westerners themselves in earnest, in the years after WW2. Another coincidence?

If the gargantuan project of utter Islamocide is virtually impossible, a ruthless management of the problem of Islam is not. You imply that management of the problem of Islam will leave us exactly as vulnerable as we are now to the menace of Islam; but history shows that this is not the case. All we need (and even this is a tall order, given the mainstream dominance of PC MC throughout the West) is to regain our former rationality and apply it to the threat of Islam, and over time Muslims will hunker down again.

Additionally, an Islam that is internationally isolated (under the kind of geographical quarantine I proposed above, echoed by Auster) will of itself become quickly weak, for Muslims have no talents, no industry, no psychological-sociological-cultural ability to sustain the kinds of institutional and infrastructure health necessary to mount any kind of significant attacks. Under such a geographical quarantine, will Muslims cease to be a threat to the West? Of course not. Will that threat become considerably -- and therefore sufficiently -- reduced, rolled back to the levels of the way it was during Western Colonialism or even better? There is no good reason to think why not.

As for Willard's argument -- we do need more Curtis LeMays; but we cannot prosecute a war on Islam in the same manner as the one we prosecuted against two geographically distinct States which were sufficiently concentrated so as to help to cripple them with bombing campaigns, for the enemy in Islam is far too numerous, too geographically dispersed around the globe, and far more fanatically inspired even (and that's saying a lot) than were the Nazis and Japanese in WW2.

Zenster said...

Lawrence Auster: Calling for the physical eradication of every believing Muslim on earth is not a reasonable proposal. It is monstrous.

How do you reconcile the "monstrous" fact that many tens of millions of Muslims fully well intend to subjugate or kill (same difference), every single unbeliever on earth? Do you honestly think that there is some nice way to negotiate a path around this fact?

My assertions are direct reflections of Islam's own policies. As I noted in my original comment, military victory requires reciprocity of force. However "monstrous" my ideas may be, they are derived from the actual intentions of Islam.

Once again, you also bypass other countermeasures I have suggested. Nowhere do I maintain that killing all Muslims of faith is a valid starting point. I have already mentioned how vital it is for the West to begin a campaign of targeted assassinations against Islam's aristocracy. This was mentioned in the specific hope that far greater loss of human life might be averted. Yet, you have elected to ignore that and focus solely upon the maximum logical extension of my earlier conclusions.

If you are willing to answer the handful of questions I posed in my last comment, we may be able to reach a better understanding.

Tanstaafl said...

By all means, anyone concerned about the survival of the West who wonders why philo-semitism is good and required but philo-Whitism is seen as silly or racist should look into where I'm coming from and why. In particular you should research and try to understand for yourself the answers to the questions I posed above.

I am pro-White. Auster calls himself an anti-liberal, a traditionalist, but I argue he is, above all other concerns, pro-jew. My criticism of him is not that he doesn't share my values. My criticism is how he disguises his values and where they conflict with mine. It is most obvious in his fathomless hypocrisy concerning liberalism.

If you suspect that political correctness and multi-culturalism has something to do with the West's problems you might want to understand where Auster is coming from. You might want to question, as I do, why one half of the West's jewish/White alliance is considered above reproach while the other half is politically incorrect to defend.

Zenster said...

Erich: If the gargantuan project of utter Islamocide is virtually impossible, a ruthless management of the problem of Islam is not. You imply that management of the problem of Islam will leave us exactly as vulnerable as we are now to the menace of Islam; but history shows that this is not the case. All we need (and even this is a tall order, given the mainstream dominance of PC MC throughout the West) is to regain our former rationality and apply it to the threat of Islam, and over time Muslims will hunker down again.

I have zero problem with the ruthless managment of Islam. Current managment policies are totally ineffectual.

I fully support reverse immigration and imposing a qur'antine on the entire Muslim world. It's just that there would remain a heavy burden of policing both the borders and institutions contained therein.

For example, there would have to be some way of forcefully halting all Islamic WMD research and development. An adjunct to this would require stopping the development of all vehicles capable of delivering such weapons. Even with vigorous efforts towards those ends, there is simply no way of guaranteeing that terrorist nuclear devices would not be manufactured and used against the West.

This is why I continue to agitate for the total dismantling of Islam. Just like Nazism and Japanese Imperialism, Islam needs to be crushed. Yes, it is far more entrenched and the task will be exceptionally onerous. Yet, the fact remains that Islam is fundamentally incompatible with modern civilization and there is no chance of any accommodation or parallel existence. Ergo, my grim outlook.

Again, the one thing that could get Muslims and their terrorists to "hunker down" would be the scraping away of Islam's top tiers. When spewing about the Global Caliphate gets you dead, we'll hear much less about it.

Even then, I sincerely doubt that such a campaign will turn the tide. This is why I have persistently advocated the use of Massively Disproportionate Retaliation. Nowhere have Muslims felt even a fraction of the West's pain. For every terrorist atrocity, enough Muslims need to die whereby they finally begin to resent the misfortune that jihadism and its supporters bring upon them.

Finally, let me make one thing crystal clear. I have no love of killing. Islam does. It is because we are confronted with such barbaric savagery that my opposition is so fierce. There are very few effective ways of dealing with an all-or-nothing ideology. That is why my own suggestions so often take the form of all-or-nothing measures.

Conservative Swede said...

I have expanded upon my comment above to Auster, the one starting with "Isn't the real reason for your approach, that your real goal is to defeat liberalism?", and made it into a blog post:

Auster explained

Also, Auster still hasn't answered me about this.

Lawrence Auster said...

How does a reasonable, mild-mannered fellow like myself trigger such madness?

Conservative Swede claims that I'm a phony defender of the West, because I really just care about asserting traditionalist Christianity and putting down secular liberalism.

Meanwhile, the anti-Semite Tanstaafl claims that I'm a phony defender of the West, because I really just care about defending the Jews and putting down whites.

Could it be that each of these individuals is seeing me through the lens of his own distorted obsessions?

Also, Tanstaafl tells GoV readers that he really gets the goods on me in a certain article of his, which he links. I recommend you read his article to get an idea of the workings of his mind. I also recommend my comment to it, entitled, Am I an orthographical fifth columnist?

Zenster said...

Lawrence Auster: How does a reasonable, mild-mannered fellow like myself trigger such madness?

Just lucky, I guess. How about if we all try to keep this thread on track by continuing to discuss Westerner's original ideas?

Conservative Swede said...

Too much time has been spent on moral panic over Zenster's suggestions. The problem with this is that it diverts the attention from a real discussion. The attitude of "If you kill enough of them, they stop fighting" is an age-old wisdom, with many practical applications. I fail to see the reason for morally panicking about it.

However, when it comes to Islam this simply doesn't work. Muslims do not care enough about human lives for it to work. I can see where Zenster's reasoning comes from, and it catches some important aspects of reality: 1) Islam needs to be destroyed, 2) we need to speak to Muslims in a language they understand. And the language they understand is the language of power and violence. In theory Islam could be reformed by killing them continuously until they learned (or perished). But it just doesn't work in practice. The Muslims care too little about human lives, are too much prepared to die in battle, and won't give up because their faith is too strong. It would just mean an awful lot of killing, and too little result for it.

No, we should use the language of power and violence to destroy what they really care about. Essentially, what we need to kill is Allah. By destroying the Islamic empire in an impressive power demonstration. we can break the spirit of the Muslims. Muslims will now have big problems in believing anymore that Allah is almighty and the owner of this planet. Allah will start bleeding to death, as Muslims en masse will leave their religion.

The holy sites should not just be pulverized (and named after Oriana Fallaci), they should be forever occupied. Thusly it will make the Hajj impossible, and even the prospect of being able to do it any time in the future inconceivable. In fact, I think that probably one should just destroy Mecca first. And only after that, when the Muslims have redirected their prayers and Hajj towards Medina, should Medina be destroyed in a similar manner. This in order to demoralize the Muslims even more, and create the feeling of total hopelessness. Which will lead to disbelief in Allah, and subsequently to the denunciation of Allah, and masses of Muslims will be set free from their mental prison.

Of course we need to remove most of the Muslims from our lands before such a power demonstration. Also we need have such military might, while having deprived the Muslims of theirs, so that any prospect for them of hurting us in inconceivable. These are the strategic conditions that have to be fulfilled before going for the job. No other moral conditions have to be fulfilled however, no further casus belli is needed; and also it's an act of mercy not an act of revenge.

Finally Zenster, your suggestion of targeted assassinations against Islam's aristocracy also belong to the category of age-old wisdom, and yes such a suggestion belongs on the table for a problem of this magnitude. But also here I will say that because it's Islam it won't work. Your suggestion amounts to cutting off all the heads of a hydra. While it will hurt them severely, the heads will eventually grow back. No, we need to go for the body for the kill. I.e. we need to attack their faith.

All in all, I think it will be fairly easy to destroy Islam, once we have collectively understood that this is what we need to do, and set up on the task. Deprive them of the oil money, expel them and confine them, deprive them of any nukes, render them harmless in conventional warfare, destroy their holy sites and do it artfully in the most demoralizing sort of way, leave it to fester. It shouldn't be too hard to demoralize and ridiculing the Muslims considering how superstitious they are, even pig lard is a weapon against them.

Lawrence Auster said...

I owe Zenster no further replies and no courtesy after his unhinged smear job on me, for which he hasn't even apologized, though he thanks me for my reply and admits that he foolishly attacked me without seeing my comment where I said that his earlier complaint about me was well taken.

Also, while he still describes my initial comment as a "hit and run" attack on him, he does not notice that in that comment, I said his position was logically succinct. It was his "vermin" language I was objecting to. I do not dismiss out of hand the logic that Islam intends our destruction, and that that program, combined with the possible or likely acquisition of nuclear weapons and delivery systems by Islamic states in the near future, poses a grave risk to us, which means that we must use mass destructive force against at least parts of the Muslim world in our own defense.

I've had this same discussion with David Yerushalmi and my reply here is the same. We have the ability to know if any Islamic regime is developing nuclear weapons and we have the ability to destroy such regimes. And that is what we should do. To protect ourselves from Islam, or even from nuclear-armed Islam, we do not need to exterminate every single Muslim on earth. We just need to destroy those regimes and terrorist groups that actually threaten us.

That readiness is a key leg of the Separationist strategy, which consists of (1) rolling back Islam from the West; (2) quarantining Muslims and the Islamic world as a whole from the rest of the world; and (3) placing military bases at the margins the Muslim world that would keep a close watch on it and be able to destroy any Muslim regime that threatened us.

As for Zenster's questions, I have a lot of writings on this subject too. Why doesn't he read them? Having wasted my time earlier today with his hysterical smear job to which I needed to write a reply, now he wants to waste my time further by subjecting me to a questionnaire. I have nothing further to say to Zenster until he grows up—whatever his chronological age happens to be.

Here are some of my articles and blog entries:

The Search for Moderate Islam, Part I Does it exist? [FrontPage Magazine, January 2005]
The Search for Moderate Islam, Part II: If it doesn't exist, then what?
Concluding page of Part II [Where I lay out the civilizationist/separationist strategy]
If we can't democratize Islam, and we can't destroy it, then what?
(My most concise statement of Separationism)
Separationism (I quote several writers with separationist-like ideas)
Proposing disengagement from Muslim world, September 2001
Kemalization and other strategies
Is Separationism practically feasible? [I answer Fjordman's questions]
Separationism does not mean withdrawal
Better Living Through Separationism
Dreher on Separationism
Objections to the contain and isolate idea
Google results
Australia urges sharia believers to leave
Separationism: as good an idea in Dutch as in English
As Muhammad created Islam, will Muhammad destroy Islam? [Pros and cons of the separationist strategy.

Conservative Swede said...

Auster,

As usually instead of engaging in discussion you lower yourself into attacking the character of your interlocutors. The fact that an anti-Semitic nutcase appeared in this thread does not make my argument less valid.

Conservative Swede claims that I'm a phony defender of the West, because I really just care about asserting traditionalist Christianity and putting down secular liberalism.

You are trying to save your weak position by framing it as Christianity vs. secularism. That is far too cheap to be bought by the intelligent readers here. And this is not what the world looks like, instead Christianity and liberalism predominantly overlaps.

Unlike you I do not attack the person but the doctrine you adhere to: traditionalist conservatism. But it seems impossible to discuss this doctrine with you since you never defend it with rational arguments, but always with personal attacks. It makes me think that I have found the weak point of traditionalist conservatism that cannot be defended.

Let's repeat the argument, and we can leave you out of this, because it's not about you but about the doctrine of traditionalist conservatism, so it can be discussed entirely rationally and without personal attacks.

According to traditionalist conservatism, liberalism is evil, our main enemy and the cause of everything that is wrong with the West today. Islam is treated with more respect, not seen as exactly evil, and unlike liberalism, not in need of being eradicated. As with some other Christians, traditionalist conservatives hold a special respect for Islam for being an Abrahamic monotheistic religion. On the other hand, liberals that attack Islam using liberal arguments are regularly attacked by traditionalist conservatives. It's seen as a way of spreading liberalism and must therefore be stopped.

Anyway, all in all traditionalist conservatism gets many things right for steps A, B, C, D,.. and at least half-way and more up the stairs. But then we come to O, P, Q, R, it's a different thing. No sorry, I was wrong. Traditional conservatives are not even with us in the beginning of this staircase, they are attacking the people working on steps A, B, C.

awake said...

Auster wrote:

"Some terrible decay has occurred in our culture, a reduction of everything to the personal, so that people think that if their ideas are criticized, that means that they are being personally attacked and smeared, which in their minds then justifies unlimited personal smears against the person whom they falsely accuse of having smeared them. I've run into this insanity from Robert Spencer and his supporters, and now I encounter the same thing at this site."


Except that you weren't criticizing Spencer's "ideas", but rather his consistency regarding what you perceived to be his position on Muslim immigration, even in light of the multitude of examples he provided showing otherwise. In reality, you were openly questioning his sincerity and credibility, not his "ideas".

That is not the same thing.

You questioned his ultimate usefulness in the counter-jihad movement as a valuable solution analyst, and attempted to render him a mere scholarly interpreter of Islamic texts and doctrine.

You did ultimately provide a singular example, or rather another commenter provided it for you, that was so off-topic and related to a charge by a commenter that Spencer and Fitzgerald were identical in positions, but on that rather weak example alone, you decided that the discussion was over in your favor, and then sat tucked away safely in your incubated world at VFR.

Your original and explicit words in response to Katya alerting you to a recent Spencer proclamation about Muslim immigration were:

"I'm glad he said it, but having gone through Spencer's flirtations with the immigration issue before, I'll only believe he has "joined up" when he writes a full length article arguing seriously for the cessation of Muslim immigration--not just a throwaway rhetorical question in a blog entry."

This is thinly disguised disdain, in my opinion, and no retreat, even in light of the seven examples provided shortly afterward that contradicted the single example that you provided.

This coming from a man who has layed down the gauntlet to gain his acceptance as "joined up" on Muslim immigration, to do what he himself will not even do--call for the complete unexcepted cessation of all Muslim immigration.

Arrogance and hypocrisy comes immediately to mind.

Conservative Swede said...

Auster: I've had this same discussion with David Yerushalmi

Yes I followed that debate. Unfortunately, Yerushalmi started to personally attack Auster by referring to an aspect of his view as "irrational", so Auster was forced to break off the debate with him.

Here is Auster's account of the hideous rudeness of Yerushalmi, where Auster also exposes his Oedipal behavior pattern. All derived from the usage of the word "irrational".

Tanstaafl said...

I trust the adults here can come to their own conclusions as to what is reasonable, mild-mannered, or madness.

What concerns me is the way in which even here - in the middle of a discussion of how to best defend the West from islam, including extreme measures such as whether or not to bomb mecca, deport muslims, and even "crush islam" - we see the use of precisely the same smear tactics that have been used to pathologize and break the spirit of White Westerners.

It's not an unsolvable mystery why pushy minorities are afforded privileged status in Western society. It's just taboo to discuss it. As long as even supposedly staunch defenders of the West allow their ideas and speech to be regulated by any pushy minority who puts their own values and priorities first the West will continue to be invaded and decompose.

Conservative Swede said...

I wrote:
Islam is treated with more respect, not seen as exactly evil, and unlike liberalism, not in need of being eradicated. As with some other Christians, traditionalist conservatives hold a special respect for Islam for being an Abrahamic monotheistic religion.

This description is supported by what Auster wrote at his site just today:

Moreover, this containment of the Muslim peoples can be accomplished without violating their dignity and essence as Muslims. If we sought literally to suppress and destroy Islam, we could be justly accused of practicing cultural genocide. But if we simply contain the Muslims in their historic lands where they can have no power over us, that would not be harming them, even under the terms of their own religion...

It is no shame for a Muslim to accept defeat, because he views it as temporary, and so he waits patiently for future jihadist opportunities to arise. The wait can be very long--centuries, in fact. And that should be just fine with us...

For us to aim at literally destroying the entire religion of Islam, as some people advocate, would put us in an insane position. No. We must do what is doable, and what will render us and the rest of the non-Islamic world reasonably safe. To aim at eradicating Islam from the earth is like aiming at eradicating evil from the earth. It is a form of madness, which the Western tradition has repeatedly warned us against...


Eradication of liberalism is the very essence of traditionalist conservatism. While it considers the destruction of Islam as insane. Such is the doctrine of traditionalist conservatism, and that's all we need to know about it.

The day this total war turns hot we need more than such a half-hearted stance against Islam, because this is what would be truly insane. In the face of such a formidable enemy we must muster all our mental focus against him. An half-hearted approach only aiming for limited war and treating the monsters with respect, is a sure formula for failure.

Limited war has been the paradigm of the United States since WWII and it has left the world in chaos. Most of the cases has been utter failures: China, Vietnam, Iran, Lebanon, Somalia. And even the cases that succeeded have been half-measures: Korea, Afghanistan, Iraq. The idea that war can be successfully waged with the left-hand and without the mental focus on total victory is simply bourgeoisie crap. It's easy for a philosopher in a tower to line out such ideas, but for the soldier in the field, he needs a proper and categorical motivation, and this is where the war is waged.

Possibly a whole-hearted approach won't take us all the way, it's an open question of course. But what is sure is that half-measures will surely make us lose.

Erich said...

zenster,

It sounds like we are roughly on the same page. I would underscore this rough similiarity by pointing out that the two supposedly contradictory positions -- Islamocide and Ruthless Management -- are as the saying goes "six and one-half dozen of the other".

I.e., when we factor in the enormous difficulty of trying to implement Islamocide, it is likely to be a massively sprawling (in space and in time) project where the goal of "eliminating" Islam will not be realized but during which Islam will be inflicted with horrendous wounds that will make us safer.

From the other side of the coin, were we to implement a policy of Ruthless Management, it would very likely necessarily involve lots of killing anyway.

I thus don't see much of a difference between these two positions (as long as the Islamocide is not framed as a megalomaniacal bloodlust), with one important exception: if we agree that many Muslims will remain alive under either project, the project of Ruthless Management (entailing Total Deportation) will be more doable, since it would be debilitatingly complex (if not downright dangerous) to try to kill sufficient numbers of Muslims to make a difference, when so many millions are spread out throughout the globe. Better to extricate Muslims and isolate them. That way, we have a better vantage point to manage them.

The danger of Muslims developing WMD if they were truly isolated is virtually nil, since Muslism don't have the intelligence to develop and deploy them without Infidel talent and materiel.

Erich said...

Lawrence (Auster),

You wrote:

"To protect ourselves from Islam, or even from nuclear-armed Islam, we do not need to exterminate every single Muslim on earth. We just need to destroy those regimes and terrorist groups that actually threaten us."

Unlike in past wars, the threat from Islam is mostly unrelated to individual states. And Islamic terrorist groups are notoriously difficult to pinpoint as well as dispersed in ways difficult if not sometimes impossible to track. The predominant threat comes from an amorphously trans-national shadowy network, in which often seemingly harmless and ordinary Muslims are participants on a variety of levels from passively enabling, to indirectly aiding, to directly aiding, to actively plotting and implementing. Thus the recourse to bomb in a pinpoint fashion would only help a little, but not with the main problem and danger.

This reflects the more general problem about Muslims: since we cannot sufficiently tell the difference between harmless Muslims and dangerous Muslims, we must, in the context of our collective self-defense, rationally treat them all as dangerous.

Zenster said...

Lawrence Auster: I owe Zenster no further replies and no courtesy after his unhinged smear job on me, for which he hasn't even apologized, though he thanks me for my reply and admits that he foolishly attacked me without seeing my comment where I said that his earlier complaint about me was well taken.

Permit me to congratulate you on confirming Conservative Swede's unflattering estimate of yourself. You have no apology forthcoming from me. I have sought better clarification (and possibly mutual ground) by inviting you to state your positions on some very basic issues regarding Islam.

I am unwilling to parse through a large body of your work to get what should be some simple answers. Answers, I might add, that would help a lot more people at Gates of Vienna besides myself gain insight into your thinking.

Instead, you've insisted on being far more thin-skinned than myself even as you engage in the personalities that you decry. It should be clear from the reactions and exchanges I have with others here in this thread that I have made previous sincere efforts to conduct useful discussions. That you decline to do so now says more about you than it does about me.

Conservative Swede said...

Erich,

I cannot see why the destruction of Mecca couldn't be done in addition to your Rutheless Management policy. If the Muslim world has first been rendered essentially harmless, there is little risk. But the opportunity is great. With a successful outcome we'd break the spirit of Islam, and it won't be necessary with a perpetual ruthless management.

Islam has never before been properly defeated. It's never been tried. I can think of no other reason than fear, for not trying it. I suggest that history supports the idea that this would work. E.g. the religious supremacist cult that had evolved in Japan came to an end by the total defeat of them in WWII. Notice that when defeating such an empire it has to be defeated symbolically too. Such things as the humiliated Hirihito in the photo beside MacArthur had great effect in crushing the Japanese's belief in him as a God (the son of the Sun Goddess).

While the caliphate was defeated in WWI it was never symbolically defeated. To Westerners the political reality of the world is encapsuled in a map (that's why they tend to believe that Palestinians are a people of their own, since they have a special coloured spot). So if there is no coloured spot on the map saying "Caliphate", then the Islamic empire has been defeated, right?

The problem is that this is not how the Muslims see it. Their empire extends into the transcendental. If Allah is unhurt the empire is still vital. And their prime identity is not according to the coloured spots on a political map, their prime identity is that they belong to the Ummah. The pivotal manifestation of Allah on this earth is Mecca: the city itself, the giant mosque, the Kaabah, the black stone, and all ceremonies and rituals that are connected to it such as the Hajj and the prayer.

Take all this away from them, and do it in such a way that it leaves no hope for it to ever come back. Are you seriously not willing to try this? Do you seriously not think that this will seriously crack their strong belief in Allah? While many other actions would surely just lead to strengthening their fighting spirit (such as e.g. nuking Teheran), this one is designed to crack it. Nothing would break their faith in Allah like this. And without an immovable faith in Allah the whole jihad becomes pointless for them; meaningless. How can Allah guarantee 72 virgins in heaven if you die in battle, if he cannot protect Mecca? Does he even exist? This will kill their fighting spirit, and then continue to eat up their belief in Islam from the inside.

The snake will keep rattling for some time after we have cut the head of it, so we need to keep it at a distance during that. But the snake cannot keep moving for long without its head.

Conservative Swede said...

Zenster to Auster:
Permit me to congratulate you on confirming Conservative Swede's unflattering estimate of yourself....

Instead, you've insisted on being far more thin-skinned than myself even as you engage in the personalities that you decry.


I think by now everybody will be able to imagine quite well how the email exchange between Auster and me went--which happened a year ago and which since then is forever part of the personal drama that Auster always brings up whenever he mentions me at his blog--in which I was allegedly personally hostile, insulting, rude, unhinged etc.

Maybe one day I will publish my words from those emails, and I think you will be able to quite well imagine Auster's part by now. There's not a single rude, insulting or hostile word in what I wrote to him. Not a single one! But a lot of (let's call it) "thin-skinned" verbiage from Auster himself, usual style.

geza1 said...

This has been a fascinating thread so far. It seems that most people here have the right idea but are busy arguing with themselves over which steps to take in order to make their policies a reality. We must first deal with reality, however. The fact that most people in the West are apolitical liberals is a fact. Therefore arguing from a strict traditionalist perspective will not be effective because Islam threatens orthodox Christianity just as much as it threatens hedonistic liberalism and some people are rather fond of the latter! So as much as it may make traditionalists and conservatives cringe, liberal arguments against Islam must be made, especially those pertaining to human rights abuses.

Also, "defeating" modern liberalism before Islam simply is not practical because it will take too long and with liberalism working on borrowed time as it is, we may not have to do anything to ensure its demise, quite the opposite with Islam.

The best approach is to educate the masses and elected officials about the threat and support sympathetic officials to the hilt. The has to be done through incrimental steps and will probably involve far more networking than writing. Blogs are only useful for this purpose in order to hash out ideas and get the most recent news feeds. They are not good for raising awareness about the issue and only the most hardcore Islam news junkies need apply. As Baron pointed out, blogs are talkshops. Books are slightly more important but eventhough Spencer's books are popular, they are still preaching to the choir. They are published by a conservative press and most liberals will not touch his books if they found out that Spencer was on FOX News and found a sympathetic audience. So clearly, if the anti-jihadist movement is to be successful, writing blogs and books and laying out "the whole case" will not even get us past step A let alone convince the pundits and elected officials to change our immigration policy vis-a-vis Muslims.

Aggressive neworking would be more effective and you probably wouldn't need a fallacy proof argument as to why Islam is bad for the West. Complaining about the effect Muslims have on your area to your officials would drive the point home. Of course, you couldn't be direct about it but you would have to start somewhere like complaining about city funds going to footbaths in public washrooms, Muslim swim classes, your children being served halal food at school, etc

As for the "nuke Mecca" option, that should not be left off the table even if the time for it isn't now. Muslims have done far worse crimes to non-Muslims and obliterating a city would be piffle compared to how they have obliterated entire countries and remade them in Muhammad's own image.

Immigration restrictionism is also important but that too has to be done in incrimental steps and that cannot be tackled until cultural Islamization in the West is effectively reversed. But let us keep in mind that even if the net out-migration of all the Muslims in the West was successful, that would not be end of our problems due to the nature of neoliberal capitalism and the oil weapon. The Islamic empire must be dealt with at one point or else it will threaten us again in the future like it has repeatedly done through out history.

Zenster said...

So, enough already.

Conservative Swede: Too much time has been spent on moral panic over Zenster's suggestions.

I heartily concur.

No, we should use the language of power and violence to destroy what they really care about. Essentially, what we need to kill is Allah. By destroying the Islamic empire in an impressive power demonstration. we can break the spirit of the Muslims.

This is what I mean in terms of eradicating Islam. My own personal opposition to first-use of nuclear weapons continues to impede further agreement on the destruction of Mecca.

The profound rub in this matter is that if Mecca is destroyed, it most certainly needs to be done using nuclear weapons. A stilted alternative would be to demolish it with conventional explosives and then use biochemical agents to render the area uninhabitable but, as I said, that is merely a contrived option.

Your entire proposal is internally consistent in that Muslim power politics are such a core element of their ideology that they must be spoken to in clear language of violence. To that extent, the nuclear destruction of Mecca is on target, so to speak.

Caballaria's response does merit some consideration in this:

By the way, Westerner really believes that if you tell all Muslims in Mecca to leave Mecca, they would really leave Mecca? If I know Muslims, they would all flock to Mecca and tie themselves to the holy site, all waiting to get nuked and go to meet the 72 virgins. No wait, the Saudis would actually force people to stay there, particularly women and children, so they can say the West kills women and children. Of course you can say: if they want to die let them die, but the fact is, it would be a great propaganda victory for them because they would then be able to paint us as baby-killers in the eyes of the world.

However, sorting out those intricacies can be reserved for a later time if desired. It is far more important to focus on how to dismantle Islam.

Conservative Swede: The holy sites should not just be pulverized (and named after Oriana Fallaci), they should be forever occupied.

As this is Islam's favored historical tactic, I see no big problem with it.

Thusly it will make the Hajj impossible, and even the prospect of being able to do it any time in the future inconceivable.

I had also proposed taking the shrines physical hostage in order to achieve a similar goal of disrupting the haj. Both approaches have the shared objective of breaking Islam's pillars.

In fact, I think that probably one should just destroy Mecca first. And only after that, when the Muslims have redirected their prayers and Hajj towards Medina, should Medina be destroyed in a similar manner. This in order to demoralize the Muslims even more, and create the feeling of total hopelessness.

Again, your internal consistency is difficult to dispute.

No other moral conditions have to be fulfilled however, no further casus belli is needed; and also it's an act of mercy not an act of revenge.

Agreed on all counts.

Finally Zenster, your suggestion of targeted assassinations against Islam's aristocracy also belong to the category of age-old wisdom, and yes such a suggestion belongs on the table for a problem of this magnitude. But also here I will say that because it's Islam it won't work. Your suggestion amounts to cutting off all the heads of a hydra. While it will hurt them severely, the heads will eventually grow back. No, we need to go for the body for the kill. I.e. we need to attack their faith.

As I noted earlier, I have my own doubts as to the efficacy of this measure. It is largely so that we can say, "We tried." The qur'an itself still serves as the nucleation site for more of the same aggression.

What it would do is slow down jihad by anything up to a decade. For that reason alone it still has merit. Plus, it would serve notice to Islam that the West no longer tolerated Islamic supremacism.

Your arguments are rather convincing, Swede. I'd certainly like to hear what others have in the way of suggestions to break Islam. At day's end, Islam has to go. It will be nice if it can be done without the Muslim holocaust that Islam is currently precipitating. The current political climate is doing exactly nothing to avert such an outcome, so I continue to predict it.

Zenster said...

Erich: It sounds like we are roughly on the same page.

I agree.

I.e., when we factor in the enormous difficulty of trying to implement Islamocide, it is likely to be a massively sprawling (in space and in time) project where the goal of "eliminating" Islam will not be realized but during which Islam will be inflicted with horrendous wounds that will make us safer.

The very nature of Islam causes its destruction to require wholesale slaughter. This is no fault of the West's. Islam intentionally turns Muslims into automatons so that any risk of defalcation is minimized. It purposefully makes the task of defeating it so grusome that even some stronger enemies might quail at level of violence needed.

From the other side of the coin, were we to implement a policy of Ruthless Management, it would very likely necessarily involve lots of killing anyway.

Islam wouldn't have it any other way.

Better to extricate Muslims and isolate them. That way, we have a better vantage point to manage them.

Which is why I long ago concluded that reaggregation of Muslim populations in their countries of origin will probably be required.

The danger of Muslims developing WMD if they were truly isolated is virtually nil, since Muslism don't have the intelligence to develop and deploy them without Infidel talent and materiel.

I sincerely think you underestimate this problem. A typical pharmaceutical plant can churn out enough anthrax spores to kill this world's entire population. Nuclear weapons aren't the only game in town. This is why I foresee the need to maim Islam so severely that it simply cannot survive at all.

Zenster said...

geza1: Also, "defeating" modern liberalism before Islam simply is not practical because it will take too long and with liberalism working on borrowed time as it is, we may not have to do anything to ensure its demise, quite the opposite with Islam.

Ergo, the urgency I continue to express. It's nice to see someone else perceive this fact. If we divert our energies away from dismantling Islam, it may well cost us several major Western cities. The economic devastation that could cause would make the whole liberal problem look like a molehill.

The Islamic empire must be dealt with at one point or else it will threaten us again in the future like it has repeatedly done through out history.

Which is why I continue to agrue that separationism is insufficient to the task. In a war, you don't shoot to wound, you shoot to kill. We are at war with Islam. 'Nuff said.

Kidist said...

It is a pity that GoV has allowed the mild sabotage of this important discussion by four posters who also seem bent on attacking Mr. Auster.

Especially after he generously wrote on his website:

The big Gates of Vienna discussion on what to do about Islam continues, and I have posted several comments there myself. I recommend that you check it out. It remains a remarkable fact that free political debate about a life and death issue facing our civilization only takes place on the Web.

I suggest that awake, Conservative Swede, Zenster and Tanstaafl read the many posts and comments at VFR, some provided above, on how to tackle Islam, rather than endlessly repeating (to each other) their apocalyptic scenario.

GoV is widely read. I hope this won't be a testament to this otherwise excellent site.

Zenster said...

Kidist: ... rather than endlessly repeating (to each other) their apocalyptic scenario.

I invite you post your own scenario as some sort of alternative. Perhaps it has escaped your attention that Islam is an apocalyptic ideology. That makes it pretty difficult to imagine confrontations with it that are not apocalyptic in nature.

You also seem to be lumping me in with those who "sabotage" this thread. Please note that I made a concerted effort to re-engage Mr. Auster despite our prior disagreement. Instead, he chose to withdraw from the discussion.

Also, consistent with the high caliber of this site, you'll please note that absolutely no one told Mr. Auster that he was unwelcome in any way.

Lawrence Auster said...

Regarding Zenster's latest comment about me, I know some people want the personal aspects of this thread to cease. However, it's not merely “personal.” Something significant is happening here, affecting our very ability to carry on useful discussion, and attention should be paid.

Here are some of the things Zenster said in his initial comment about me:

"quoting out of context," "ignoring multiple challenges," "overt misconduct," "lapse of forensic ethics," "selective engagement," and "underhanded tactics" worthy of Charles Johnson, the most notorious smear artist in the conservative Web.

Even after Zenster acknowledged that I had not ignored him and even thanked me for replying to him, he did not retract these vicious characterizations, he did not apologize for them. Yet he wanted and expected me to continue a complex conversation with him about Islam, and he even presented a list of questions for me to answer. I told him that based on his immature and unacceptable behavior I had no further interest in conversing with him. And for this Zenster concludes, not only that I am "thin-skinned," but that every smear Conservative Swede has ever made against me is true!

Thus the rubber meets the road in the demented "open" environment of the Web. People, mostly overwrought, younger men with no character development and no notion of their own or other people's dignity, feel that they can say anything they want. On the basis of no facts, they call you unethical, dishonest, underhanded. And then they still expect you to talk with them. And if you don't, that only proves that in addition to being unethical, dishonest, and underhanded, you're also thin-skinned—the ultimate sin in post-sixties society where being nonjudgmental and cool is the ultimate virtue. In the world according to Zenster and thousands of young men like him, he has no obligation not to smear others, but others have a positive obligation to let themselves be smeared by him.

It's a social phenomenon that makes mutual respect and self-respect impossible, since self-respect is derided as being thin-skinned. I don't pretend to understand the phenomenon. But as long as it exists, the notion of generating any serious conservative thought in open Web forums is highly questionable, and people interested in worthwhile discussion will have to look elsewhere.

Conservative Swede said...

Kidist,

It is a pity that GoV has allowed the mild sabotage of this important discussion by four posters who also seem bent on attacking Mr. Auster.

I think it is great that Auster has participated here. I just wish he would have spent less time engaging in personalities, and more time in actually discussing. Why does he decline from rationally defending his positions?

Auster does not want to defeat Islam. He thinks it's "insane", "madness", that it's "playing god". And in some cases he even refer to it as "monstrous". But he still hasn't made clear why. Liberalism on the other hand he considers as truly evil and in need of being defeated. How come he is harder on liberalism then Islam? Why does he think that liberalism deserves to perish but not Islam?

This is a rather odd position, and one in need of explanation. I just wish, and I think many with me, that Auster would take the time to actually defend his position.

What's your take on it, Kidist? You haven't engaged in this discussion yet. How would you describe your own views?

awake said...

I have no problem with Auster's positions, but since he won't respond to me directly and instead continues to use an idirect ad hominem attack on me, which he has elaborated on several posts at his blog, I felt the need to respond.

This is typical Larry. I entered the fray here on this thread opposing his position (respectfully, and on-topic), and supporting another, and he, in spite of the ability of being able to address my critical comments directly, chose to ignore me and referred to me dismissingly as "Spencer's supporters" (even though he referred to me more than once on his blog as "Spencer's chief Auster attacker").

Knowing damn well who I am, since he posted several e-mail exchanges from me on his blog, while simultaneously assuring his readers that he blocked them, in his attempted holocaust against Robert Spencer, he chose here, more than a week after the last foray, to throw in another dig, directly aimed at me, in all of Auster's sole self-perceived, subtleness.

He is rank with liberal elitism, lacking the "cojones" to say that I should be prohibited from commenting at this site. His constant reference to "smear campaigns" belies his liberalism. He stopped just short of labeling "Zenster" an Islamophobe.

His dubious modus operandi supercedes his "ideas" in my book.

Kidist said...

CS asks: What's your take on it, Kidist? You haven't engaged in this discussion yet. How would you describe your own views?

Fair enough question, except that in you rush to make your points, you forgot that I made one too. Although I think my example was too insignificant for you.

I mentioned a non-PC, non-liberal action which also retaliated against Muslim presence with my example of a Catholic Italian city deciding that it had had enough of an ever-encroaching Islamic presence. The city did this by simply removing an Islamic edifice!

How simple, and how direct is that?

If enough Muslims fear that their places of worship will not be accepted in Western cities, then what are the chances they'll feel safe and secure there?

What will they do next? How about they just might start leaving? As some apparently are doing in, for example, Denmark, or talking about leaving anyway.

That was my contribution to the discussion. The words of a writer inducing the actions of a mayor, which starts the slow step of removing the dangerous presence of Islam in his city.

Conservative Swede said...

Auster: Regarding Zenster's latest comment about me...

Seriously Lawrence, if you indeed have something more to say that contributes to the discussion, then by all means post it here. But the sort of personal bickering you now posted does not belong here. Post it at your own site instead, that'd be the proper place.

If it is indeed as you say, that Zenster represents a highly significant social phenomenon of the demented post-sixties society that you feel the urge to warn the public about, then by all means use VFR to write an article about it.

Your five last comments here have been attacks on people on a personal level, and haven't furthered the discussion forward -- four of which have been attacks on Zenster.

So if you have any more arguments, views or anything else constructive, please come up with it. If you only have more personal attacks on Zenster -- Zenster who has been one of the most constructive participants of this discussion -- then I suggest you post it at you blog.

I agree with you about one thing and that is that there are some problems with an open web forum. It's vulnerable for people that come in and derail a good discussion. Anyone who followed this thread can see that Zenster has been at the very center of the theme of this thread all the way along, and has engaged in constructed and open-minded dialog with several different people -- this is exactly what a good discussion is all about! While you have derailed from this discussion since quite long ago.

Conservative Swede said...

Kidist,

Fair enough question, except that in you rush to make your points, you forgot that I made one too.

Yes I saw that, of course. But my question was about your views regarding the discussion of this thread. You haven't engaged in that or expressed any opinion of your own. For example, what do you think of the suggestions in Westerner's article? Or about any of the other major themes that have been discussed in this thread?

laine said...

The apocalyptic anti-Muslim scenarios are just so much pie in the sky if large numbers of westerners remain so ignorant they do not recognize the ongoing war and make all meaningful action impossible.

In addition, there's a large cadre of communist ideologists who work full time with great success rolling back the West's puny self defense measures such as they are. They have used the Iraq war to put offensive measures out of play.

Our main problem in the West is inability to get the truth about Islam into the MSM and daily consciousness of the ordinary citizen. This is purely a liberal left roadblock.

Most of the MSM carries Muslim and leftist generated Islamic disinformation ad verbum and ad nauseam.

Most western citizens are completely unaware of even the basics, the duality of what infidels are told vs what Islam actually does to infidels:

e.g. "the religion of peace" with peace used in the English language way instead of the Islamic way as the peace of submission to Allah. There will be no peace on earth (by the Muslim definition) until there is a world caliphate. (As we can observe from Muslim on Muslim violence, there will be no peace then either).

Westerners do not understand that Islam is a totalitarian ideology wrapped in religious trappings. It has the worst of both worlds.

Westerners need to be told that as infidels they have no rights - to their property, their country, their very lives. The ground beneath their feet is Dar el Harb, the Land of War until they are subjugated.

They are unaware their choices in a Muslim dominated area/world are: 1)forced conversion,
2) dhimmitude as inferiors to Muslim citizens and owing extra tax for the privilege of supporting their superiors
3) death.
There is no choice "none of the above".

Westerners who think Muslims are their friends need to learn about taquiya and that Islam prohibits friendship with infidels on pain of being called apostate.

Westerners do not understand sharia and that devout Muslims must agitate for it wherever they settle. (Perhaps that is the one way to differentiate Muslims who are compatible with Western interests. They must reject sharia and work publicly against it.)

Islam is a one way street. It is the most active proselytizing religion but you cannot leave it with impunity. At any time any Muslim could carry out the death penalty against an apostate.

Here's a wrinkle that I did not know until recently. Any land that has ever been claimed for Allah is his for all eternity even if Muslims lost control of it centuries ago. (This is why Bin Laden keeps banging on about Andalusia).

Westerners suckered by the "peaceful" verses quoted from the Koran by taquiya-masters do not know about the concept of abrogation, by which the earlier peaceful verses are abrogated or trumped by the later warlike commands when Mohammed didn't have to use honey anymore because he had marshaled enough force.

Westerners do not notice the complete double standard where Muslims must be accorded all rights in Western countries but non-Muslims are persecuted in every Muslim country.


No need to go on. Most everyone here knows all these things. My point is these are basics and not one Westerner in a hundred knows them.

They are also woefully uninformed on the UN and that this "world government" is wagged by communist and Islamic totalitarians whose policies (enviro-mentalism, obedience to sharia tenets like no criticism of Islam or Mohammed) are inserted like socialist tentacles into democratic nations' laws.

This stuff is so damning that if it reached public consciousness, most westerners would be on side against continued Muslim immigration/colonization at the very least.

Forget the fantasies of nuking Mecca until we learn to "nuke" the left wing biased media and academia.

Can anyone deny that they have managed between them to make the number one concern post 9/11 and sundry bombings in Europe not guarding against further Muslim aggression but guarding against mythical Islamophobia? Fear of racism has literally been made greater than fear of an existential threat. This is suicidal.

Based on world events and study of Islam, there should be a healthy fear of Islam in the West. The Liberal Left is preventing it and thereby threatening our survival.

Tanstaafl said...

The topic is what can we do to save the West from islam. My point is: which West?

My West does not include political correctness, cultural marxism, multi-culturalism, anti-White anti-racism, or endless accusations of insufficient philo-semitism. These phenomena are all related. They predate and have made possible the ongoing invasion of my West by hostile third worlders, including muslims.

I'm so sorry if this point distracts anyone from the earnest debate about who is offended and who "we" should bomb.

Carry on.

irishcarney said...

What would be far more effective than merely destroying that black rock they worship in Mecca would be to carve from it an enormous statue of a crowned Christ with His foot on a prone Mohammed's face, or on a cracking and crumbling crescent, while holding up a cross and a (straight, Christian) sword.

Instead of being able to indulge in romanticized nostalgia for a vanished sacred object such as Jews do for the Ark of the Covenant or Christians for the Holy Grail, Muslims would then be confronted in an ongoing unavoidable way by the permanent and utter defeat, the weakness and falseness, of their religion.

Zenster said...

Tanstaafl: I'm so sorry if this point distracts anyone from the earnest debate about who is offended and who "we" should bomb.

Don't hand me that crap. No you're not worried about "who is offended and who 'we' should bomb."

geza1 already nailed this to the mainmast by observing how:

... "defeating" modern liberalism before Islam simply is not practical because it will take too long and with liberalism working on borrowed time as it is, we may not have to do anything to ensure its demise, quite the opposite with Islam.

If you are so obsessed with internecine societal issues that any correct appraisal of the real threats currently facing us escape your grasp, that is your problem and not mine or anyone else's.

Permit me to suggest that your routine resort in identifying fractious internal social issues is the exact same sort of horse hockey that stagnates Islamic societies.

How about we deal with all those millions upon tens of millions of Muslims that want us dead before we worry about thinning our own ranks? Emkay?

Conservative Swede said...

Laine,

The apocalyptic anti-Muslim scenarios are just so much pie in the sky if large numbers of westerners remain so ignorant...

It still makes sense discussing it, since there are so many ways of doing it the wrong way that would fail or backfire. The day it's time to do it, this discussion should already be over and have reached a consensus.

The discussion is also essential in the way that in order to know how to destroy Islam properly, you have to fully understand its nature. And even though the people discussing here are top tier, I would say that there are still several ones that hasn't yet taken in the full nature of Islam. And grasping all of Islam's nature is important in everything we do. The understanding of how to destroy Islam encapsulates much wisdom of the nature of Islam. So it is valuable knowledge in itself.

Tanstaafl,

My point is: which West?

Italy for starters.

PS, The wonderful Berlusconi government has now launched the military to help keeping order in the country. Nice! (the country is in a state of emergency). That's what I call leadership!

USorThem said...

I also find this thread fascinating and thank all posters for their insight. I am particularly pleased to see L. Auster at GoV directly engaging with the group.

I've read Westerner's and Zenster's plans of attack against the global jihad. I am also aware of Auster's Separationism plan. Of them all, I think Auster's plan makes the most sense for the main reason that it acheives the goal of isolating dangerous Islamic regimes in a way the leads to our protection at minimal costs and minimal loss of life (yes, even muslim life) compared to the extent of death and destruction called for by the other plans. Also, of the 3 plans, Separationism could be the most politically expedient.

That said, I disagree with Auster's position that demands all anti-jihadists worthy of our respect, identify and call for a halt to all muslim immigration to the West as a condition precedent to those anti-jihadists be taken seriously. Auster labels those anti-jihadists "who with passionate urgency and a deep sense of mission warn that Islam is a mortal threat to Western civilization, but who never once mention the main factor that has allowed the Islamization of the West to occur, namely the mass immigration of Muslims into the West, and who never once mention the only way to stop the Islamization of the West, namely, to stop (and, at least to some extent, reverse) Muslim immigration as the Usual Suspects. It is a fair statement to say that these anti-jihadists need to come around to acknowledge the ugly truth about the drastic solutions that will be needed to save western civilization and that they should, sooner, rather than later, be ready and willing to make the whole case to their audience. But these people should not be marginalized and treated so disrespectfully as Auster treats them. According to Auster these Usual Suspects, including Pipes, Steyn, Melanie Phillips, Horowitz, et. al, and countless other thinkers and writers on the threat of Islam, are dishonest hypocrites and cowards. Does Auster think these well respected writers and intellectuals find it worthwhile to engage him and his ideas when he so readily marginalizes their efforts? I think not. These so called Usual Suspects are very valuable in educating the masses. They a very learned people who need our support, protection, and encouragement. Instead , Auster attacks them by calling them dishonest, cowards and hypocrites, and worst of all the smears, he unforgivingly calls them "LIBERALS"!!!. Because many anti-jihad writers do not loudly scream for halt to all muslim immigration, this does not make them cowards liars and hypocrites and liberals worthy of scorn.

Auster makes the valid point that "attention should be paid" to the way discourse is conducted here at GoV and on the Web in general, and complains about smears being made against him. Yet, it doesn't seem to occur to Auster that he and CJ are 2 of the most notorious offenders when it comes to heaping disrespect onto important leaders of the anti-jihad movement. More people need to learn about the global jihad. Claiming that so many of those trying to conduct that education should not be taken seriously, are hypocrites and cowards, is demeaning, unnecessary, and anti-productive to the movement.

Weeks ago, while Auster, Spencer, Awake and Erich were engaged in Islamosphere Blog Wars 2.0 , Spencer tried to sum it up and end it by saying the following:

"Those who are aware of the problem of jihad need to put aside what differences we may have and stand together -- Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, whatever -- and fight against the jihad and Islamic supremacism, or it will surely triumph. That unity is farther off, and more needed, than ever."

I agreed with that sentiment but then I asked Spencer why he could not see past the differences of the European political parties who are trying to fight the jihad and that he refuses to support. His answer was: " I cannot support race supremacists or neofascists. VB says they are not that. If they are not, I have nothing more to say about them."

So you see, even Spencer, who provides the greatest intellectual leadership in this movement, indeed finds some differences that he either cannot, or will not overcome for the sake of unity. That is sad.

And to me, that is the crux of the problems between the divergent viewpoints expressed in this thread. Everyone here knows the danger we face. And all those usual suspects are also aware. From this observers viewpoint, neither Auster nor Spencer really believe it worthwhile to see past the differences among the varied anti-jihadists viewpoints. Either we agree to look past those differences and agree to disagree, or we perish.

Auster's Separationism deserves more serious consideration and discussion in and outside the blogosphere. My gut feeling is that it is given short thrift because the doctrine's creator has alienated the available pool of promoters of his ideas with his offensive verbal conduct. Auster should be willing to see past the differences of all those usual suspects, and give them the respect they deserve. Likewise, Spencer should see past the differences he has with the VB/BNP in the name of unity against the global jihad and actively support those groups.

Tanstaafl said...

Zenster, I'm well aware of islam's tenets, its history, and the threat it poses to me and my family's future.

I am also aware however that by virtue of the color of my family's non-jewish white skin we are right now considered both de jure and de facto second class citizens in the West. We live in a part of the US that third world invasion is rapidly transforming into mexico. There are latino gangs in the schools. Areas it is no longer desirable or even safe to go. Many of my countrymen celebrate this, especially the ones in control. As far as I can tell it has very little to do with islam.

I see clearly that in Europe, and to a lesser extent in other areas of the US, the most troublesome invaders are muslim. Overall I see the invasion of third worlders as a more fundamental threat than Iran's nuclear facilities. It really is tragic if this is considered an incomprehensible or unacceptable view here. I'm pretty sure it has more to do with the point I raised above than any failure in my character or sanity.

ConSwede, yes what's happening in Italy is good news. I'm also encouraged by and applaud the SVP, BNP, and Vlaams Belang.

Zenster said...

USorThem: "Those who are aware of the problem of jihad need to put aside what differences we may have and stand together -- Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, whatever -- and fight against the jihad and Islamic supremacism, or it will surely triumph. That unity is farther off, and more needed, than ever."

This is something I have been shouting from the rooftops for the last several months. How gratifying to know that some major league players are putting this ball in motion.

Every other form of belief and thought will need to unite against Islam's death threat or face extinction.

All other religions, large or small, must overcome their titty-fingered disdain for folks of other faiths if they expect to escape the sewage tsunami that is Islam.

Tanstaafl: Overall I see the invasion of third worlders as a more fundamental threat than Iran's nuclear facilities.

Then you are jumping over dollars to pick up dimes. The nuclear obliteration of several major Western cities would do more to ruin this world's economy than another few decades of unbounded immigration. This is not to belittle the massive damage of relentless immigration, but to focus clearly on the nexus of most dire and impending harm.

Keep your eyes on the prize.

Yes, the "being white automatically makes you racist" school of modern liberal thought is repulsive in the extreme. Yes, it needs to crushed like the intellectual cockroach that it is. But all of us had damn well better find a way of uniting against Islam's more pressing threat if we want to have any hope of being around to address those other niggling social issues.

Rollory said...

I must say I'm very impressed with how Mr. Auster has conducted himself here. He's done a better job of discrediting himself, and providing vivid examples of why he doesn't actually ever accomplish anything, than anybody else could hope to do for him.

In one sense it's a shame.

As for the general discussion, I think the talk of steps A, B, and C prior to steps P and Z, and the Italian example of just doing stuff that is needed, is good. To what extent can this be applied elsewhere? Capturing national power is not something to be relied on, particularly in the US where the progressives have so much invested in it. Is it possible to do things on a more local level? Seems to me a big part of it is getting the cooperation of local police departments: they are the ones that actually impose rules.

Conservative Swede said...

Zenster,

Then you are jumping over dollars to pick up dimes. The nuclear obliteration of several major Western cities would do more to ruin this world's economy than another few decades of unbounded immigration.

Hm. Since the demographic effect of this immigration grows exponentially, a coming few decades in the same style will have a multiple times worse effect then the decades that went. In a few more decades of unchecked immigration, half of the West will be "Bosnia" and lost.

This is a much bigger damage than one or a couple of nukes could do. In fact, given the absurdity of the times we live in, an Islamic nuke upon us could be the very thing that wakes people up, and becomes the start of good times.

Sorry, I did actually pay attention until now that you referred to ruin to the "world's economy". Sure, any time we are nuked the world economy would go into a steep recession. How is this any bad in the context of the problems that face us?

USorThem said...

Zenster,

Just to be clear, the part of my post you quoted in your last comment are the words of Robert Spencer, not me.

Conservative Swede said...

Since I expressed dissatisfaction about Erich's approach initially in this thread, I would just like to say now that he's been one of the best sport's in this discussion. He has had a very good mental focus on the ball in this debate. Together with Zenster he's been the one who has been engaged most in open-minded and constructive dialog here, i.e. in rational interaction with people who differs.

I would also like to say that I'm sorry for having referred to Tanstaafl above as a "nutcase". That was unfair and uncalled for, the unfortunate result of hasty writing.

xlbrl said...

geza 1 writes that it is not practical for liberalism to be defeated before Islamism. That is the opinion of most on this thread.
Yet it is the disease of Islam that is exactly the tool most available to use in illuminating and eradicating the disease of liberalism. In a simpler way, we are seeing the sick "environmental" policies of the left exposed by the damage they are causing ordinary people.
Islam is available as a tool as well as a challenge to show people that both are indefensible.

Zenster said...

Conservative Swede: This [decades worth of immigration] is a much bigger damage than one or a couple of nukes could do.

A very few strategically placed atomic weapons could destroy the global economy and leave it in ruins for several decades. If South Korea’s shipyards—second largest in the world—along with the Straits at Malacca and Hormuz were all obliterated, the impact upon worldwide shipping could bring international business—including crude oil movement—to a grinding halt.

Some excerpts from, Facing the Terrorist Threat in the Malacca Strait, by Eric Watkins:

Much of the world's economy depends on the security of shipping that passes through a narrow body of water in Southeast Asia known as the Strait of Malacca. … the Strait of Malacca extends some 900 km from its widest point, about 350 km between northern Sumatra and Thailand, to its narrowest, less than 3 km between southern Sumatra and Singapore.

Because of its small size and high volume of traffic, said to be around 50,000 vessels a year, the Strait of Malacca remains one of the most important shipping lanes in world, and that importance is expected to increase - especially in terms of oil transport. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), about 11 million barrels per day (b/d) currently passes through the Strait of Malacca, but that is set to climb as oil consumption in developing Asian nations rises by an estimated average of 3% per annum between now and 2025. China alone will account for one-third of that increase, which will see demand growth doubling to nearly 30 million b/d in 2025 from 14.5 million b/d in 2000. According to the EIA, much of the additional supply will be imported from the Middle East and Africa and "most of this volume would need to pass through the strategic Strait of Malacca." [3]

… Noting that the narrowest point of this shipping lane is the 1.5-mile wide Phillips Channel, the EIA says "This creates a natural bottleneck, with the potential for a collision, grounding or oil spill (in addition, piracy is a regular occurrence in the Singapore Strait)." [4] If the Strait were closed, nearly half of the world's fleet would be required to sail nearly 1,000 km further, generating a substantial increase in the requirement for vessel capacity.
[emphasis added]

Just sinking a supertanker in the Malacca straits could choke off traffic long enough to cause significant harm. There have already been cases of pirates—read, “terrorists”—commandeering and then abandoning the helm of a large tanker for the sole purpose of temporarily steering one in order to gain ship-handling skills. Combined with closure of the Hormuz channel and destruction of South Korea’s massive ship building yards, the outcome is enough to give most strategic planners heart palpitations.

In fact, given the absurdity of the times we live in, an Islamic nuke upon us could be the very thing that wakes people up, and becomes the start of good times.

Despite any truth to this notion, I still consider it to be the very worst of worst-case scenarios. There are far too many other alternatives when it comes to increasing public awareness about Islam’s threat to just sit back and wait for a nuclear terrorist attack to do the job. I’ll not pin such irresponsibility upon you, Swede, in light of how hard you work at anti-jihad, but it is still a cynical and unacceptable outlook.

Sorry, I did actually pay attention until now that you referred to ruin [being done] to the "world's economy". Sure, any time we are nuked the world economy would go into a steep recession. How is this any bad in the context of the problems that face us?

If there are going to be several million deaths, I would rather see them happen within the borders of the MME (Muslim Middle East). It is they who are hastening the advent of a WMD exchange and they should be the ones who suffer for it. A global recession would kill people all over the earth. Joblessness, homelessness, starvation, freezing to death in winter, dieing of heat prostration in summer are all distinct possibilities if such a worldwide economic crisis happened. Again, that is simply unacceptable.

USorThem: Just to be clear, the part of my post you quoted in your last comment are the words of Robert Spencer, not me.

Fear not, that’s why I left quotation marks bracketing the excerpt from your comment. If the passage had been yours alone, the cite would have been shown only in italics. Thank you for clarifying, though.

xlbrl: Yet it is the disease of Islam that is exactly the tool most available to use in illuminating and eradicating the disease of liberalism. In a simpler way, we are seeing the sick "environmental" policies of the left exposed by the damage they are causing ordinary people.
Islam is available as a tool as well as a challenge to show people that both are indefensible.


Agreed, but only in that order. As I noted before, the West would be insane to dissipate itself in a civil war against liberalism that allowed Islam to gain even greater strength.

Erich said...

CS,

Thanks for your comments above. Just on one point you made a while back, I agree that bombing Mecca would be a helpful thing in the context of after deporting Muslims and (imperfectly) fencing them into the Muslim world. However, I still oppose it as something to do while there are millions of Muslims within the West. If Muslims can wig out over cartoons and teddy bears, that will surely galvanize them unprecedentedly.

USorThem -- on Spencer and others who make too big of a deal about differences, my philosophy is simple: differences and disagreements are OK, in fact they often can be helpful to maintain a vibrant and productive atmosphere of fine-tuning our movement's agenda. The problem comes when people get all prickly and grave about differences and then start drawing lines and excluding people (Spencer declared me anathema simply because I critique certain aspects of his methodology, and he furthermore has treated me in outrageously flippant and mean-spirited ways -- and yet I do not anathematize him, I think he's a good asset overall to the anti-Islam movements (though, being human, he's not above benefitting from critiques). Thus, differences are okay and are not by themselves divisive, but getting so huffy about the differences that you start having enemies lists is not only silly, but truly divisive.

For more on this general theme, interested readers can read my blog essay False Unity from my blog, The Hesperado.

Conservative Swede said...

Erich,

Very good. Then we very much agree, I think. Of course, neither I nor Westerner ever suggested destroying Mecca as an alternative to the deportation of Muslims, but as an addition to that plan. You are quite right in that the things have to be done in the proper order. As I illustrated it earlier in this thread, even if you successfully manage to cut off the head of the snake, the body will rattle for quite some more time, and you don't want to be close then.

awake said...

Erich wrote:

"...on Spencer and others who make too big of a deal about differences, my philosophy is simple: differences and disagreements are OK, in fact they often can be helpful to maintain a vibrant and productive atmosphere of fine-tuning our movement's agenda."

"Thus, differences are okay and are not by themselves divisive, but getting so huffy about the differences that you start having enemies lists is not only silly, but truly divisive."

This coming from a man who dedicated a year of his life "critiquing" Spencer's and Fitzgerald's far too numerous analytical shortcomings (in Erich's estimation), culminating in the penultimate post at that "Jihad Watch Watch" site titled "Robert Spencer's Two Hats: Keep your day job."

The genuity in Erich's former statement quite frankly requires a willful suspension of reality.

As blatantly obvious as that is, it is another topic altogether.

Zenster said...

Whatever dissension aside, I'd like to echo Conservative Swede's appreciation for Erich. His patient and useful contributions added a lot to this discussion. Great job and a lot of constructive exchange for a +100 post thread without any overt trolls.

laine said...

"West would be insane to dissipate itself in a civil war against liberalism that allowed Islam to gain even greater strength".

What am I missing here? I fail to see how these sweeping changes to immigration and fantasy deportations or nukings can ever take place without confronting and outvoting liberalism.

Right now, even known terrorist bombers and jihadis captured in action as well as Muslim Brotherhood tentacle organizations in the US are defended by a phalanx of American liberals. The New York Times routinely gives away anti-jihad strategies on its front page.

Just how is this crowd who now control Congress and are predicted to get the White House too going to be talked into your gutsy moves against Muslims? They won't let you act even against terrorists, let alone ordinary Muslims who haven't done anything overt yet.

I'm not sure even a major Muslim nuclear strike against an American city would convert hard core liberals who crawled out of 9/11's rubble like cockroaches claiming it was our own fault. But the mushy middle would swing over to commonsense and survival tactics. They are not mentally ill like lefties, just followers.

Believe me, right now, if they heard this raving about deporting and killing millions of Muslims, without the groundwork of understanding what Muslims have in store for them, they will simply conclude that WE are the crazies the leftist media and academia paint us as.

Conservative Swede said...

Laine,

If you only think small and never think big, you will never get anywhere. It's necessary to lift ones eyes from the nearest trees to be able to see the whole forest.

And outvoting liberalism has been achieved in Italy. So it's not so far fetched.

Erich said...

After quoting me about my beliefs in unity-with-disagreement, awake wrote:

This coming from a man who dedicated a year of his life "critiquing" Spencer's and Fitzgerald's far too numerous analytical shortcomings (in Erich's estimation), culminating in the penultimate post at that "Jihad Watch Watch" site titled "Robert Spencer's Two Hats: Keep your day job."

First, the penultimate posting on my Jihad Watch Watch (JWW) site (which I formally retired over two months ago after writing over 130 essays since the middle of May, 2007) was titled "Strike three...". The one awake refers to was the antepenultimate posting.

Secondly, anti-Islam person A critiquing anti-Islam person B in mature and intelligent fashion, as I did on JWW, does not constitute A anathematizing B. My intent was not to destroy or undermine Spencer's following, but to criticize what I considered to be major flaws in his methodology. The simple co-existence in a movement of people earnestly criticizing fellow members does not necessarily constitute intent to expel those fellow members.

Thirdly, the title of the antepenultimate posting refers to two different things Spencer does -- 1) occasionally offers general analyses of the problem of Islam; 2) amasses the horrible mountain of data about Islamic texts, traditions and news and ably engages in debates about same with Islam apologists. My posting argued that Spencer should give up #1 because his analyses use flawed methodology, but he should by all means "keep his day job" of pursuing #2, for the good of the anti-Islam movement. This is hardly divisive or overly denunciatory of Spencer. For one thing, he spends more time doing #2 anyway; it's not like he's married to offering up general analyses of the problem of Islam. But I argued in that essay and many others that his methodology and assumptions are too flawed for him to be of use in that specific department.

As for whether earnest and dogged criticism constitutes the establishment of division within a movement, I maintain that over-sensitivity to this is what really causes division -- as we see most flagrantly with Charles Johnson. If a member of a movement engages in persistent criticism that is nevertheless mature and intelligent in presentation and reasonable in intent, then it cannot be divisive, except to over-sensitive recipients. For those who think that my criticisms somehow established divisiveness, they would have to present an argument using several representative essays of mine (which, of course, they would have to show they have read carefully). So far, I have received lots of sparks & fire from Spencer and awake to this effect, but not a cogent argument substantiating same.

Conservative Swede said...

Erich,

Regarding Spencer. In my opinion he should stick to doing #1 occasionally as he's doing now. It's very good if a person in his position does it, even if it's not done methodically (then some people will say he should not do it at all, and some that he should do it full time, but that's just how it always is).

Regarding Jihad Watch Watch. As I already said to you elsewhere, I think it is certainly taking it too far to start such a site if you indeed find Spencer useful, and you see the two of you as fellow members of the same movement. And it's obvious that you and Spencer do not get along, but I don't find it interesting enough to find out why.

Anyway, your appearance in the discussion thread here has shown everybody abundantly clear that you are not defined by being Mr JihadWatchWatch (a site which you have also ended). You are a very good discussion partner and I hope you stick around.

And message to Awake: You should try and discuss something else than Spencer with Erich. He's an interesting guy with a good mind.

awake said...

CS wrote:
"And message to Awake: You should try and discuss something else than Spencer with Erich. He's an interesting guy with a good mind."

I certainly do and have done so at his blog and at JW for a couple of years at least. Unfortunately, his defunct blog and far too often, his main blog, devolves into a negative critique of Spencer, even on threads dedicated to someone other than Spencer.

When Eric, consistently refers to Spencer's dialogue as "slippery" and "weaselly", it as obvious that the objective analysis has taken a back seat to his personal vendetta against Spencer.

That you have witnessed and acknowledge that overt fact is comforting enough, for I do not wish to derail this valuable thread, so I will not discuss this any further here.

Unfortunately, I just could not let Erich's attempted spin to justify his continued personal disdain of Spencer stand unchallenged.

Erich said...

CS,

Don't worry, this will be my last word on this off-topic (though related) subject.

"Regarding Spencer. In my opinion he should stick to doing #1 occasionally as he's doing now. It's very good if a person in his position does it, even if it's not done methodically"

The problem is not that Spencer is not "methodical", it's that his overarching analyses on the problem of Islam have crucial flaws, and given this, he should refrain from dabbling in that particular department. If he chooses not to refrain, that's okay too. And then if someone else comes along, like me, and persists in pointing out what they see as those crucial flaws, that's okay too. I just don't get the posture of awake who wants to deny the validity and role of internal criticism in a movement. Again, as long as that internal criticism is couched maturely and intelligently, does not descend to vulgar crudity, is not neurotically obsessed, and/or is not masking an agenda of sabotage -- then it's part of the dynamic organic life of any movement. Only totalitarian movements try to squelch internal disagreements and criticism.

Of course, there is a phase in any movement where they must come to a decision about one or more steps of concrete action to be taken, and in that phase there is a pivotal moment where some kind of consensus has to be attained, immediately preceding the concrete action. That consensus, in democratic-type movements, does not have to be total, it can be a simple majority, and those disagreeing can simply register for the record their disagreement, but nevertheless, as members of the movement, assent to the overall decision to act. (Thus we have in the American jury system an example where all 12 jurors must come to an agreement before a verdict is handed down; or we have the Supreme Court decisions that only require a majority of the 12 Justices to agree.)

The anti-Islam movement is not currently in that final phase, let alone hovering over that pivotal moment where agreement must be reached before some concrete action is to be taken. We are in the discussion phase, and it has been lasting a few years now. In this phase, it is silly and counter-productive to affect a rigid, defensive, and hyper-sensitive attitude about internal criticisms.

You went on to write:

"(then some people will say he should not do it at all, and some that he should do it full time, but that's just how it always is)."

Exactly. Just because I come along and say (and argue persistently my case) that Spencer's analyses have flawed methodology in certain key respects, so what? I merely represent one person doing something in a widely-varied Division of Labor. If my critiques are baseless, then Spencer will not be harmed. If my critiques have merit, to the degree they have merit, and to the degree that Spencer and/or followers of Spencer digest them and try to readjust, that will be good for the movement. If Spencer can get harmed by stupid malicious people who scurrilously exploit constructive criticism, then that is a weak reed upon which to try to build a movement. One might as well pack up one's bags and close up shop, if one has to worry about dissent so much, one thinks the movement is jeopardized by sincere, mature, intelligent internal criticism. Only totalitarian/fascist movements cultivate this kind of paranoid, hyper-defensive concern.

"Regarding Jihad Watch Watch. As I already said to you elsewhere, I think it is certainly taking it too far to start such a site if you indeed find Spencer useful, and you see the two of you as fellow members of the same movement."

And I do not begrudge your right to have this opinion. I think JWW represented time worth taking, you think it didn't. We disagree. Life goes on. Perhaps you or awake might someday present an actual counter-argument to those I constructed on JWW. Or perhaps both of you don't have the time and think it's not worth the time. Perhaps someone else will come along, in the spirit of Division of Labor in the movement, and try to refute various arguments I made on JWW.

There is a curious posture -- mostly evinced by awake and Spencer, not so much by you -- of resisting the dynamism of the life of the organism that is a free human movement, where disagreements are unavoidable because its members are free human beings. Spencer and awake almost seem to have a neurotic phobia about this normal nature of a free human movement. (Again, I am talking about mature, intelligent disagreements, not obviously unacceptable styles (crudely vulgar, insulting, etc.).)

Just a note on awake's last response:

"Unfortunately, his defunct blog and far too often, his main blog, devolves into a negative critique of Spencer, even on threads dedicated to someone other than Spencer."

The phrase "too often" is subjective, as is the characterization "devolves into". At the least, awake would have to make a case in order to persuade people other than awake that his subjective opinion on these features of my main blog The Hesperado is persuasive.

"When Eric, consistently refers to Spencer's dialogue as "slippery" and "weaselly", it as obvious that the objective analysis has taken a back seat to his personal vendetta against Spencer."

First of all: Out of 136 essays on JWW, I used the term "slippery" twice (with reference to Spencer, that is; I used it more often with regard to the "slippery slope" to genocide which is IMO an irrational concern by PC people). Out of those 136 essays, I used "weaselly" some 15 times (other than those that used it once, there were 2 essays that used it twice, 1 that used it 3 times).

Secondly, and more importantly, the sheer presence of terms like "slippery" and "weaselly" does not, by itself, prove that their surrounding context was not a cogent argument, and awake's mere assertion that they do is untenable.

"Unfortunately, I just could not let Erich's attempted spin to justify his continued personal disdain of Spencer stand unchallenged."

The word "spin" used in awake's quote above is simply a label affixed, sweepingly and vaguely, to the corpus of "Erich" -- with the apparent expectation that the label alone, or in conjunction with the unargued assertions represented by the rest of his post from which the above quote was culled, should persuade readers who have not yet decided to agree with awake about his opinions. If any person would be persuaded by unargued assertions spiced with derogatory labels, that would be his problem; and if awake might take comfort in those kinds of people who can be so persuaded, that would be his problem. Reasonably intelligent individuals, however, will either require actual arguments to be persuaded, or will simply ignore the whole issue, having concluded that "Erich" and "awake" are not worth the time necessary to investigate and therefore to come to an actual conclusion one way or the other.

Lawrence Auster said...

I hadn't looked at this thread in a couple of days, and just checked it out. The discussion has continued, consisting to a large extent of obsessive attacks on me by a handful of commenters, all of which inadvertently confirm what I said in my last comment, that certain people portray my legitimate intellectual criticisms of well known conservative and anti-jihad writers (as well as my legitimate disagreements with certain commenters in this thread) as personal smears, which then, in my adversaries' minds, justify real smears against me as a person. Thus one commenter, "UsorThem," after saying he agrees with my idea of Separationism, launched into an extended attack on me for having "marginalized" Robert Spencer, Melanie Phillips, et al. How could I, a truly marginal writer, marginalize, or even attempt to marginalize, established mainstream writers with far larger readership than my own? Yet none of this matters to UsOrThem. Here's how he characterizes me:

“Claiming that so many of those trying to conduct that education [about Islam] should not be taken seriously, are hypocrites and cowards, is demeaning, unnecessary, and anti-productive to the movement.”

This is a despicable lie, having no other intent than to portray me as the complete opposite of what I am and to discredit me in people's eyes. When did I ever say or hint that Spencer's education about Islam was not to be taken seriously? When did I ever try to discredit Spencer as such? My criticisms of him have related to certain specific issues which are well known, not to the entirety of his work. I have repeatedly praised him as the most important Islam critic in America. But UsOrThem doesn't care. He sees me through the prejudicial filter that has been constructed about me at the anti-jihad websites and he attacks me on that basis, recklessly ignoring the facts.

But as bad as UsOrThem is, Conservative Swede is far worse. He has gone beyond crazed attacks on me to out and out lying. He writes:

"Auster does not want to defeat Islam. He thinks it's 'insane', 'madness', that it's 'playing god'. And in some cases he even refer to it as 'monstrous'. But he still hasn't made clear why. Liberalism on the other hand he considers as truly evil and in need of being defeated. How come he is harder on liberalism then Islam? Why does he think that liberalism deserves to perish but not Islam?"

Now of course anyone who has followed this thread and the related discussions at my site knows that what I referred to as "monstrous," etc., was a commenter's proposal that we exterminate every believing Muslim on earth. So Swede is engaged in a deliberate effort to portray my views as the opposite of what they are, to represent me as having said that defeating Islam would be "monstrous" and "insane," whereas, in fact, everything I have written on the subject for the last several years is aimed at putting Islam in a position where it has no ability to harm us, i.e., at defeating it. True, I don't think we can destroy Islam, short of killing all Muslims on earth or destroying every Muslim country on earth.

DP111 said...

Laurence Auster

As you rightly state, Robert Spencer, as well as Daniel Pipes, have a far greater readership and public profile then you have. Now you have criticised them both for not advocating an end to Islamic immigration, as one of the first steps that we can realistically adopt. As far as the policy is concerned, you are correct.

However, both Spencer and Pipes, if they adopted the policy that you advocate, will have entered the political arena. This will have implications

1. They would then be open to political attacks from all and sundry.
2. It would damage their academic credibility as regards Islam, such that the really useful work they do, would be dismissed out of hand.

Not only would their political impact be minimal, but also they will have lost all credibility as honest, apolitical and unbiased commentators on Islam. Such an outcome would be disastrous for all of us.

Moreover, it requires a particularly thick skin to be in the political arena, and neither of the above, has it.

It is up to a leading politician to pick up on the work of Spencer, Pipes and Bostom, or use their knowledge to push for a restriction in immigration of those who are particularly unsuited to Western civilisation.

Horses for courses – let Spencer and Pipes do the work that they feel most qualified to do, just as you do in your blog.

I read your VFR blog regularly, as I do GoV. Your analysis of Liberalism as the cause of many of our difficulties is excellent.

Erich said...

Thanks for your compliments as well, zenster.

And back a little more on-topic, but briefly:

On laine's objections, I agree strongly with laine's overarching premise -- that politically correct multi-culturalism (PC MC) is an overwhelmingly dominant and mainstream force that stands in the way of most of our proposed solutions to the problem of Islam.

But: I tend to disagree (along with Conservative Swede and others) with laine's conclusion -- namely, that because of this PC MC impediment, we should only slink around proceeding very carefully and gingerly, walking on eggshells to make sure we do not displease our PC MC masters. I think there is concrete value and force in merely having more and more people, slowly but surely, joining the conversation, presenting it aggressively and in no-nonsense terms, and spreading it around. Most major sociopolitical movements in the last century or two went through a phase like that. It's part of the process of change. (Auster's remarks above, about the value of "talking" were apropos in this regard.)

Of course more needs to be done. But that should not substantiate claims that the discursive phase is completely impotent and therefore useless.

Erich said...

dp111,

You wrote:

"However, both Spencer and Pipes, if they adopted the policy that you advocate..."

Right there may be the crux of a fallacy: Speaking for critics like myself (I'd have to let Auster speak for himself), Spencer doesn't have to "adopt a policy". All he has to do is two closely related things, much less ambitious than "adopting a policy":

1) articulate his personal opinion, along the lines of -- "Speaking personally, I think, from everything I have learned about the danger of Islam, we should work toward ending all immigration of Muslims to the West. I am not a policy-maker, nor do I have much influence as a policy consultant; this is only my personal opinion. Now, if you will excuse me, I need to get back to my day job, which is amassing the mountain of horrible data about Islamic texts, traditions, history and current news, and occasionally participating in round-table discussions & debates with Islam apologists who try one way or another to deny or whitewash that mountain of horrible data."

2. The second thing I ask Spencer to do is to avoid making remarks here and there of breezy analysis that contradict #1 or that appear to be sufficiently inconsistent with #1 as to arouse confusion (at best) in the reader.

Conservative Swede said...

Hi!

I have written my answer to Auster in my blog:

Auster against properly defeating Islam

Zenster said...

Lawrence Auster: Now of course anyone who has followed this thread and the related discussions at my site knows that what I referred to as "monstrous," etc., was a commenter's proposal that we exterminate every believing Muslim on earth.

Please, don't restrain yourself. Go ahead and mention my screen name in direct connection to your feelings of revulsion. I only ask that in doing so you make sure to mention how I place much higher priority upon targeted assassinations and other well-investigated forms of functional deterrance.

Speaking of which, I will repeat my request that you please demonstrate some good will by rejoing this discussion and answer the few questions I posed you. To wit:

Do you think that Islam can be moderated or rehabilitated?

Do you regard shari'a law as a wholesale violation of human rights?

Do you think that it is possible to negotiate with Muslims in good faith?

Do you think that there exists a functional deterrent to Islamic terrorism?

Do you think that defeating Islam is a top priority?

Do you think that there are any non-military measures which can defeat Islam in a timely manner?

In closing: I don't know you from Adam. I've never once visited or commented at your web site nor am I inclined to, as of yet. I still believe that this entire debate would be better served if you contributed some earnest answers to the basic questions I pose. Not because they are my queries, but only due to how they might better explain your own position.

If required, I'll gladly post my own unmodified answers to these same questions. Any reply by you most certainly deserves that degree of reciprocity. Any lack of reply upon your part will be construed as an unwillingness to engage people in earnest.

Conservative Swede said...

Zenster,

Auster just gave his estimate of GoV over at his site:
"This fury I've generated is really something. They see themselves as an orthodoxy that cannot be challenged."

Someone should talk to the Baron about this orthodoxy. Why is everything so stiff here and cannot be challanged? The Baron must be doing something wrong in the way he's running this site. And it's a pity that this whole thread has just been a this orthodoxy that nobody challanged.

This in addition to the other things he writes in that post (e.g. I'm now promoted to "evil". It's rather amazing. Auster cannot even make himself call Islam evil! But I'm the evil of the evil) might mean that he's not coming over to answer your questions.

So here I try to answer them instead:

Q: Do you think that Islam can be moderated or rehabilitated?
A: No.

Q: Do you regard shari'a law as a wholesale violation of human rights?
A: It's a violation of everything human.

Q: Do you think that it is possible to negotiate with Muslims in good faith?
A: No.

Q: Do you think that there exists a functional deterrent to Islamic terrorism?
A: Two steps: 1) getting them out of here, and 2) pulling the plug of their whole business (such as I have suggested)

Q: Do you think that defeating Islam is a top priority?
A: Yes, but things has to be done in the proper order. First we need to get the West back in order.

Q: Do you think that there are any non-military measures which can defeat Islam in a timely manner?
A: No.

Conservative Swede said...

USorThem,

You have just been nailed as a liberal over at VFR. Indeed you are being used as evidence "that liberalism is indeed a kind of mass mental disorder".

Sorry, but once they declared you a liberal there's no way you can prove them wrong.

Erich said...

Here's my take on the whole Auster thing:

First, I have only known Auster for a couple of months. I have not read much of his writings, just the recent stuff, and not all of that. I have had a healthy amount of email correspondence with him in this time that I have known him. I first got to know him when I sent him an email about Spencer, and he reciprocated with sympathy about my complaints. Many of my comments in the last couple of months have been published as comments on his VFR site.

I'm not an "Austerian". I find some of his ideas helpful and cogent and refreshingly politically "incorrect", others either uninteresting or positively objectionable (though usually not seriously enough to get me in a lather).

In the time I have known him, I must say he has a curious personality that seems sometimes excessively thin-skinned and prone to latching onto things that are best left alone (e.g., he repeatedly chided me like my Aunt Ruth for addressing "awake" in comments after "awake" had insulted me numerous times).

That said, I think some of the people here on this thread have also gone out of their way to make pointed digs at him that are not only silly, but seem calculated to get a rise out of him. So it takes two to tango. Auster is not the only one here going off on personal tangents for no good reason. And Conservative Swede in some ways seems the most egregious -- reflecting my problems with Spencer. If Conservative Swede's suggestions to me to lighten up about Spencer have any merit, then so would the same suggestion to Conservative Swede about his fixation on Auster.

At the end of the day, I think it's fine to critique anybody within the anti-Islam movement, as long as we keep it on methodology and substance, and stay off the personal. Auster does have a rather curious and ingenious way of combining the two and psychoanalyzing his critics, which I think is unhelpful.

I have learned, painfully, that the best way to foil a person who seems to have a habit of getting ad hominem against you is to remain dispassionate, impersonal and stick to the facts. Frankly, I only get personal when I find someone who deserves friendliness. Why waste personal argumentation on people you wouldn't want to have as friends? Not everyone can be friends. If we limited the anti-Islam movement to only our "friends", we would have a small movement indeed. Friendship should not be a cheap thing tossed about for anybody to pick up. It's a personal thing for each individual to give to another as he or she sees fit. But even if we may not be friends (for now), we can be civil associates in a movement that keeps its eye on the ball of a life-or-death problem: Islam.

Graham Dawson (Archonix) said...

If I may... the problem is that people keep latching onto personalities and making them into more than they really are. Some people are born on a pedestal, as it were, and others are thrust upon them. Yet others put themselves there... in all cases when you put someone on a pedestal, when you raise them up as a beacon and invest everything in them, their negative traits will inevitably come to the fore. Presidents, kings and leaders of all strips are placed above us and expected to be somehow better yet they always stumble and reveal themselves as merely human after all.

This is where the whole cult of personality comes in. See, it has two sides. The first is the one that everyone knows, exemplified by Obama now, and Tony Blair in his earlier days as prime minister: the man on the pedestal can do no wrong in the sight of his venerators. The man on the pedestal didn't just stumble and nearly fall off, no, it was the wreckers shaking his pedestal and trying to knock him down that made that happen and he should be congratulated for being so capable as to stay balanced and calm in the face of such hatred and violence and so on... Obama didn't misspeak, he was misquoted. Blair didn't promise that, you just put words in his mouth... cult of personality. I could mention another political leader who abused that cult a long time ago. You probably know who.

The thing is, like everything, this cult has its polar opposite. Just as love and hate are simply positive and negative expressions of passionate interest (or obsession perhaps), so there is a negative cult of personality, one where someone can do no right. One where, no matter how much good someone does, they aren't doing it "my way" so they aren't right at all and have to be pushed over. This is one of those ironic things; by spending so much time attempting to occult the object of the, ah-heh, cult, the negatively perceived personality is placed on a pedestal too. They become rather more in the eyes of their detractors than they actually are. Witness the whole Bush Derangement Syndrome, where Bush apparently is able to suck out people's wills and eat their babies whilst simultaneously being deviously smart and an incapable idiot.

The solution, simple, but not easy, is to not place people on these pedestals. We acknowledge the contributions of people like Spencer in their area of expertise; we don't try and make them into figureheads or try to make them do everything for everyone. Don't place them on pedestals and expect the world, because they inevitably fall off and disillusion those who thought they could do no wrong. I have someone else in mind as well, here, but I won't mention them...

You see I agree with Erich on this point: making things personal is never a good idea. Ever. It insults others, but it also makes your arguments into something personal too, and their dismissal becomes a personal slight because of their personal nature.

The thing is, personal argument comes in many forms. Asking people to do things they are either incapable or unwilling to do becomes a personal argument, in a way; it places a burden on the person asked and, if they are incapable or unwilling to carry that burden and reject it, then that rejection becomes a personal insult because it is effectively rejecting your idea of how something should be done. Spencer, for whatever reason, either can't or won't engage with certain political ideas. That's his choice, or his restriction, or maybe he simply can't understand the idea. Who knows? It's evident that, at this point, asking him to take on these ideas simply isn't possible. You can't criticise him for that any more than you can criticise someone with vertigo for staying away from the edge of a cliff.

Or, you can, but you have to bear in mind that no man can perform every task. Refusing to see that simple truth leads to putting people on those dreaded pedestals.

The same can be applied to groups as well... there are some very good examples of this cult of "group personality" on display at the moment. In the positive realm there's Denmark which, as a group, s being elevated very high. Denmark deserves it in a lot of ways. The country is doing pretty much everything right... but it's not doing everything right, and the risk is that we might well elevate them too high and be gravely disappointed when they make a mistake - and, worse still, be tempted to brush aside those mistakes as "outside attacks". Realism demands that we expect some disappointment now and then.

And on the converse there's Vlaams Belang and the "european right" who, it seems, in the eyes of certain people, can do no right and have to be rejected. This mythical european right-wing monster is sitting on a pedestal more akin to a target stand, invested with powers and abilities that simply don't exist.

And then there's the jews, who have two cults arrayed about them; for some they can do no wrong, for others they do no right. In both cases they're a bit of a fiction placed on a pedestal and elevated above everything else, investing them with all sorts of odd traits, positive and negative, that would be considered bizarre for anyone else.

All I'm saying, to echo the Baron's sentiment from a few post ago, is that we need a little humility. Humility is essentially realism, and it requires not only that we acknowledge our own strengths and weaknesses, but that we acknowledged the strengths and weaknesses of those around us as well. Humility will sit back and let someone with more ability take the fore but it will also accept that others cannot perform certain tasks, and bring itself to the front to do so, without criticism of those others and without complaint. True humility is perfect individuality. It is confessing what you can and can't do without deprecation or exaggeration and accepting what others can and cannot do without complaint or judgement.

So what I think we ultimately need is a realistic assessment of our individual abilities, and perhaps enough humility to admit that we shouldn't expect others to do our bidding in all things.

latté island said...

I'm horrified to see that Conservative Swede and Auster have been continuing their personal stuff at their respective blogs, as well as here, and it even seems to be escalating. I admire both of them very much, but I think someone needs to do an intervention, because they won't stop on their own, and they're making a mess and making GoV and View from the Right have the kind of petty partisan vibe that made me spend less time at LGF, for instance. Can Baron B. or some other adult mediate this ASAP? And it should be by private e-mail, not at a blog. Enough already.

Baron Bodissey said...

So Swede-Boy is Dr. Evil now, hey? Does that make Zenster his Mini-Me?

Latté island --

I can’t mediate with people who don’t want mediation. Medication might be better than mediation.

And before any specific person takes offense, I was not referring to you in that last joke. It was just supposed to be funny. We could use some humor around here right now.

The problem with mediating this scuffle is that we have laid down four basic rules about discourse at our blog, and if people adhere to them, then I’m honor bound to allow the discussion to continue.

Admittedly, commenters on this thread have tiptoed up to the boundary and poked their fingers across it, but I’d rather let it slide and see where the discussion does that derail it by deleting comments and admonishing the perpetrators.

My position has been, and remains, that infighting amongst people who are basically on the same side is a terrible mistake and does us grievous harm. The energy expended on it could be more usefully invested in the task at hand.

And I’m not talking about simple disagreement -- I thrive on disagreement. I’m referring to a series of pointless activities, including:

1. Denigrating one another’s intelligence.

2. Applying loaded labels -- liberal, PC, etc. -- to one another.

3. Mind-reading -- presuming to know the secret motives for another person’s position.

4. Being thin-skinned -- insisting on taking offense at others who may only be disagreeing with you using a less-than-optimum amount of tact.

5. Arguing the inarguable -- failing to see that not all disagreements can be resolved, and that we will have to either live with the tension of disagreement or splinter into subgroups. A prominent example is the existence or non-existence of God. You can argue one side or the other for a thousand years -- and people have -- but the issue cannot be settled by argument. Many of our issues here are the same: they are not logically demonstrable, and cannot be determined via reason.

Unfortunately, every time I make the above points in a post, it causes commenters to jump into the pit and start punching each other in the snoot.

Why? I don’t know. I presume there are some people who just love a fight.

And, based on our recent traffic, there are evidently thousands of people who don’t want to join a fight, but love to watch one.

As a result, I’m of two minds. This is all ugly and unpleasant, but it seems to be good for business.

So -- I’m ready to hand out more boxing gloves. Here, take a pair.

Moshea bat Abraham said...

Not that I'm opposed to taking a hard line with Muslims, but there's a problem with #6:

Finally, we must demonstrate — in an absolutely unmistakable way — that the Moslem religion is not favored by God. The most convincing way of doing this is by (after suitable warnings) totally destroying several Moslem holy sites, including Mecca and Medina.

Gentiles have been trying this one on us Jews for thousands of years, and we're still not convinced that our faith is not favored by God. Heck, our most sacred site, the Temple at Jerusalem, has been destroyed twice, and has yet to be rebuilt a third time. Not to mention that a few decades back, a third of us were wiped out in the space of a couple of years.

Maybe this is a Jewish peculiarity, but I doubt it. I find it unlikely that anything will convince the faithful that their faith is not favored by God.

eatyourbeans said...

Do you think tempers flair this way at oncologists' conventions? Their area of interest and ours have points in common, don't they?

Dr EatYourBeans, if he understands Dr Auster correctly, agrees that liberalism has undermined the health of the patient, and that part of the treatment must be directed towards the purging of it. He also agrees with Drs Swede and the others that there are meantime growing and very malignant tumors that urgently need to be dealt with. Whether by the knife, by radiation, by removal by containment, or by destruction of their source and nourisher, he cannot say. But he places the total cure of the patient above all other considerations, and will be watching with the greatest interest the therapies being tried at Dr. B's clinic in Italy.

Erich said...

Graham wrote:

"It's evident that, at this point, asking him [Spencer] to take on these ideas simply isn't possible. You can't criticise him for that any more than you can criticise someone with vertigo for staying away from the edge of a cliff."

There is another reason to critique Spencer (and to critique any analyst): and that is to point out any flaws perceived in his methodology. This other reason is larger than Spencer, and involves the broader issue of analytical methodology on the problem of Islam, which is a general concern for all people in the orbit of the anti-Islam movement.

The logic of those who belong in the "Protect Spencer from all Substantive Criticism" camp (PSSCC) seems to be:

1. If someone substantively criticizes Spencer, then he is likely to be a saboteur.

Or:

2. If by chance the critic of Spencer is not a saboteur, the very existence of the critiques (e.g., on a blog) will serve to undermine Spencer's valuable work because Islam apologists will exploit it.

When people in the PSSCC (which includes Spencer himself) engage in #1 it has usually reflected poorly on them, insofar as they have accused critics who by all appearances were comporting themselves in mature and intelligent manner, and whose only crime was persisting in questioning Spencer after he persistently tap-danced around their questions. By accusing these critics of "sabotage" or insinuating same, the PSSCC comes off as paranoid and hypersensitive about substantive criticism.

When people in the PSSCC (which includes Spencer himself) engage in #2, they have yet to explain exactly how these Islam apologists would be able to exploit the critiques such that their exploitation would have any practical effect of undermining Spencer's agenda. Absent any cogent explanation, it seems the PSSCC people are mainly operating out of vague fear lest such undermining might possibly happen. This is not only silly, it is detrimental to the intellectual health of a movement, and also fosters bad habits of paranoia, personality cult, irrational group-think, etc.

And the corollary & implicit message from the PSSCC people to all critics of Spencer seems to be: If you must criticize Spencer, do it very lightly and infrequently -- do not persist or dig deep in any substantive way. Criticism with these kinds of limits is not acceptable in any free society (whether that be a sociopolitical movement, or a polity) which derives a good deal of its strength from intellectual health and freedom.

Zenster said...

Baron Bodissey: So Swede-Boy is Dr. Evil now, hey? Does that make Zenster his Mini-Me?

Bwahahahaha! Thank you, Baron, I needed a good laugh this morning.

The problem with mediating this scuffle is that we have laid down four basic rules about discourse at our blog, and if people adhere to them, then I’m honor bound to allow the discussion to continue.

And you deserve nothing but the highest praise for it. Few other sites permit such freedom of expression, especially with respect to Politically Incorrect thought. You perform an invaluable service in that even the most radical—or, in some cases, ill-thought-out—ideas can undergo scrutiny and evaluation.

Thus, you help stimulate thinking processes that otherwise might never occur for some individuals. Additionally, certain significant issues and concepts are given a chance to incubate that is often denied them at less scholarly or fair-minded sites.

One superb example of this was how a discussion of Europe's relatively unarmed population inspired some American gun owners to establish channels whereby individuals from the Continent could travel here in order to receive arms handling and live-fire training.

Just that one active anti-jihad effort could save numerous lives if Europe devolves into a violent civil war. In an analogous vein, your site also provides bandoliers of mental ammunition for those who agitate against Islam's colonization of the West.

I have nothing but admiration for your work. Let the show go on.

Conservative Swede said...

Erich,

I must say that I admire your integrity. But you know of course that any balanced description, where both the strengths and weaknesses of Auster are pointed out, is considered a hostile personal attack by him. You saw how USorThem was just treated. And this is how his whole vendetta against me started too.

Regarding my part in this I have not treated yourself any different than Auster in this thread. If you ignore Auster's dramatized description of the events and instead go back in this thread and look at what has actually been written, you will find that my treatment of you and him are virtually identical. So by implication you are then claiming that my treatment of you has been egregious, etc. Do you truly think so?

That said, I think some of the people here on this thread have also gone out of their way to make pointed digs at him that are not only silly, but seem calculated to get a rise out of him.

You will really have to give an example here, because I fail to see where I have done anything like that. Yes I have repeatedly been criticizing the doctrines of traditionalist conservatism, and yes I can observe how this makes Auster freak out. He's unable to come up with any intellectual defence against it, and can only stoop into personal attacks. But if Auster is so hypersensitive, is that really my fault?

Auster has gotten this whole debate where he wanted it. It was an exceptionally good debate, but now he has derailed it completely, and now it's all about him., as so often otherwise. I fail to see why you and Latte and other commenters buy into his characterization of what happened here. Auster's descriptions surely aren't reliable. According to him we are all here now a bunch of deluded liberals, sticking to our orthodoxy that nobody challenges, etc., etc. (For anyone who hasn't read what has been written about this thread at VFR, I suggest you do it. It's truly parodic.) Auster started this whole thing by picking a fight with Zenster. A fight that he was unable to handle, and from then on it was all sour grapes. I was not even involved so far. Auster did it all himself, as usually.

So I fail to see why you are buying into Auster's characterization of what happened here. Does the hypersensitive party have the privilege of interpretation? Would you also say that the Danish Muhammad cartoons was a "pointed dig" against the Muslims? Surely, these Danes were aware of how hypersensitive the Muslims are, quite as I'm aware of how hypersensitive Auster is to critique of traditionalist conservatism. But we cannot let the hypersensitive ones define the terms of debate.

I have learned, painfully, that the best way to foil a person who seems to have a habit of getting ad hominem against you is to remain dispassionate, impersonal and stick to the facts.

But this is just what I do too. Read my comments here and my blog posts. I regularly ignore the heaps of ad hominems that Auster is pouring over me. My arguments are very good, so I just repeat them. And intelligent people know that good arguments stand on their own legs, and will ignore the personal dramas enacted by Auster.

If Conservative Swede's suggestions to me to lighten up about Spencer have any merit, then so would the same suggestion to Conservative Swede about his fixation on Auster.

If Spencer had been in the habit of obsessively writing a long line of blog posts which only purpose was to personally attack you, I would have been in no position to suggest to you that you should lighten up. And you know it! (Let me also add here, regarding the feud where you have been involved, that I have also been telling Spencer and Awake to lighten up.)

Spencer has surely been seriously distracted by attacks from you and Auster. But if he's not distracted he does a lot of very useful work. Auster on the other hand is always engaged in personal feuds with a long range of people around him, most of which have been created by himself. This is a constant. It's a major feature of the articles he publishes on his blog, it's a big chunk of the meat of the whole VFR enchilada. So my "fixation" does not distract Auster from anything he wouldn't be doing otherwise. It does not change the entropy of the universe, as it were. Instead I consider it an improvement of the state of things if he is attacking me. Thusly I distract him from attacking and distracting other pundits that should be left alone to do their important work. I'm prepared to do this sacrifice for the common good.

Auster's behaviour is very intimidating. This makes almost all people back off. Auster himself never learned to back off. Auster also plays it dirty e.g. by posting private emails. So if they do not back off in the first place, they will do so soon enough. I just don't think that it is fair that this sort of behaviour should pay off. It's a good thing for people to back off, of course, because it's truly a waste of time to engage in these feuds with Auster. The problem though is that it always gives Auster the last word. By selectively posting parts of the exchange at his site, he makes sure that his version of the story becomes the final word (if there even is such a thing as "the final word" for Auster). And a lot of people actually buy this! Take Latte for example who is expressing her despair. But the root of despair is a deluded view of reality. I'm simply trying to help people to see things clearer here.

Whenever Auster backs off, I back off too. Such is the deal. I did back off almost two weeks ago when it seemed as if Auster had decided to back off himself. He had threatened to post our private email conversations, and I answered that that's all fine with me, and only to my advantage. And after that he seemed to have given up. And unlike how Auster would have done it, I didn't make a post with a victory dance about it, but simply let the whole thing go. Then less then a week ago he was at it again with a new post. A post that I ignored; I'm not easily triggered, and it's actually impossible to keep up with all the junk that Auster is posting. But when he picked the fight with Zenster here, and turned the whole thing into a personal drama about himself, I found it expedient to bring up my critique of traditionalist conservatism again. Especially since it was completely on-topic in this thread.

So Erich, Latte, etc., if you are truly concerned about this whole thing, I suggest that you bring it up with Auster. I'm all fine with leaving it aside.

Conservative Swede said...

Erich,

Previously you wrote;

CS,

Don't worry, this will be my last word on this off-topic (though related) subject.


But you just couldn't stay away from it could you?

eatyourbeans said...

Apologies, but I didn't have the attention span and patience to follow this thread very closely, but I would like to respectfully dissent from the Baron's warning;

The people who undertake actions that kill or impoverish hundreds of millions of people are the same kind of people who do all those other nasty things. Men who are that ruthless will act just as ruthlessly to preserve and extend their own power. You can’t avoid it; it’s a package deal.

True, times of great danger call for men and, perhaps, women that we all prefer not to know about. But their day isn't necessarily permanent. A perfect example is the notorious "Bomber Harris", who directed the systematic firebombings of German cities during WW2. By accounts he was a happy old murderer who loved his job and did it very well. Still, the war safely won, Bomber was swiftly disowned, Churchill leading the stampede away from him. So I'm not too worried about they getting out of hand. I just hope we still have enough of they.

On this point, I also think there is value in our soberly and dispassionately, without hatred or false delicacy, directing armies, navies and air forces against the Islamic enemies, even though we are at present nothing but a handful of isolated bloggers. Events will lead others to have similar conversations, and together our conversations will form a climate of opinion in which the Bomber Harris's among us will find their confidence and their avocation. So our role is to summon the demons.

Of course, if our Islamic friends were to score another coup like 9/11, then our foolish governments might be the ones who summon them. It woudn't be the first time. Their voice will be much louder than ours.

scottw said...

This will fix Islam in the US anyway-

Thursday, February 08, 2007
A Proposed Constitutional Amendment
Background and justification to Amendment 28

Whereas Religion is defined as an institution dedicated to improving social conscience and promoting individual and societal spiritual growth in a way that is harmless to others not participating in or practicing the same;

Whereas the United States of America was founded on the ideals of individual rights, including the individual right to practice one’s religion of choice, or no religion, and that there would be no compulsion of religion, nor state sanctioned religion, nor a “religious test” for participation in the body politic;

Whereas Islam includes a complete political and social structure, encompassed by its religious law, Sharia, that supersedes any civil law and that Islam mandates that no secular or democratic institutions are to be superior to Islamic law;

Whereas Islam preaches that it and it alone is the true religion and that Islam will dominate the world and supplant all other religions and democratic institutions;

Whereas Saudi Arabia, the spiritual home of Islam does not permit the practice of any other religion on its soil and even “moderate” Muslims states such as Turkey and Malaysia actively suppress other religions;

Whereas Islam includes as its basic tenet the spread of the faith by any and all means necessary, including violent conquest of non-believers, and demands of its followers that they implement violent jihad (holy war) against those un-willing to convert or submit to Islam, including by deception and subversion of existing institutions;

Whereas on 9/11/2001 19 Muslim hijackers acting in the name of Islam killed 3,000 Americans, and numerous other acts of terrorism have been directed at the American people around the world;

Whereas representatives of Islam around the world including Osama Bin Laden (architect of 9/11), the government of Iran including Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, HAMAS, Hezbollah, and other Islamic groups have declared jihad (war) on America, and regularly declare that America should cease to exist;

Whereas there is no organized Islamic opposition to violent proponents of Islam;

Therefore: Islam is not a religion, but a political ideology more akin to Fascism and totally in opposition to the ideals of freedom as described in the United States Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights.

Be it resolved that the following Amendment to the Constitution be adopted:

Article I

The social/political/ideological system known around the world as Islam is not recognized in the United States as a religion.

The practice of Islam is therefore not protected under the 1st Amendment as to freedom of religion and speech.

Article II

As representatives of Islam around the world have declared war, and committed acts of war, against the United States and its democratic allies around the world, Islam is hereby declared an enemy of the United States and its practice within the United States is now prohibited.

Article III

Immediately upon passage of this Amendment all Mosques, schools and Muslim places of worship and religious training are to be closed, converted to other uses, or destroyed. Proceeds from sales of such properties may be distributed to congregations of said places but full disclosure of all proceeds shall be made to an appropriate agency as determined by Congress. No compensation is to be offered by Federal or State agencies for losses on such properties however Federal funding is to be available for the demolishing of said structures if other disposition cannot be made.

The preaching of Islam in Mosques, Schools, and other venues is prohibited. The subject of Islam may be taught in a post high school academic environment provided that instruction include discussion of Islam’s history of violence, conquest, and its ongoing war on democratic and other non-Islamic values.

The preaching or advocating of Islamic ideals of world domination, destruction of America and democratic institutions, jihad against Judaism, Christianity and other religions, and advocating the implementation of Sharia law shall in all cases be punishable by fines, imprisonment, deportation, and death as prescribed by Congress. Violent expressions of these and other Muslim goals, or the material support of those both in the United States and around the world who seek to advance these Islamic goals shall be punishable by death.

Muslims will be denied the opportunity to immigrate to the United States.

Article IV

Nothing in this amendment shall be construed as authorizing the discrimination against, of violence upon, nor repudiation of the individual rights of those Americans professing to be Muslim. The individual right of conscience is sacrosanct and the practice of Islam within the privacy of home and self is strictly protected to the extent that such individuals do not violate the prohibitions described in Article III.

Originally posted at -

http://pedestrianinfidel.blogspot.com/2007/02/proposed-constitutional-amendment.html

USorThem said...

To CS, and fellow whacked-out liberal cranks,

Not to worry. Just this day at VFR
there is a comment by Adele G:

...GoV is a nest of whacked-out liberals--!

followed by Auster saying:

Meanwhile, Baron Bodissey allows his site to be used by these complete cranks.

I had no idea this thread had been so active since falling off the main page 2 days ago. I see that I have missed alot...

I also did not realize Auster had replied to my comments here at GoV while he did post essentially the same reply at his own VFR blog. And when he did post that at VFR I took the time in sending my proofs to him by lengthly email showing that my post was NOT full of despicable lies. I provided direct links to his writings where he has called people such as Steyn, Spencer, Hirsi Ali and many, many others dishonest hypocrites. His reply to that was a refusal to even read past the first sentence of my email and said that he "didn't have time to waste" reading the rest of my lengthly reply.

A sampling of Auster's treatment of those he disagrees:

Mark Steyn is a con-artist and a traitor:
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/007033.html

Conservatives are cowards and all "Usual Suspects" are hypocrites:
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/010781.html

(A usual Suspect is any anti-jihadist who doesn't "make the whole case" against Islam by calling for a halt to muslim immigration. Auster's list of Usual Suspects is quite extensive. Steyn, Pipes, Phillips, Horowitz, Gaffney ( I don't know if Spencer is still one of this elite group - he used to be) and there are many, many more.)

Spencer, Phillips and the "Usual Suspects" are all dishonest http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/006998.html

Spencer is a naive liberal.
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/009728.html

Auster says: "But UsOrThem doesn't care. He sees me through the prejudicial filter that has been constructed about me at the anti-jihad websites and he attacks me on that basis, recklessly ignoring the facts."

Mr Auster, I spend considerable time trying to persuade others to come around to your views on Separationism. I was booted from LGF while trying to discuss the need for muslim immigration and deportation because I believe it is the best solution to the global jihad. When I spend time at other anti-jihad websites it includes time spent convincing others to come around to the Separationist viewpoint. Your knack for pissing off almost everyone who means anything in this movement makes that chore much more difficult. But who am I to tell Lawrence Auster to cool his jets.

I see you through your own writings, no one elses. If anyone is being reckless it is you. Do I really need to go thru VFR to count and list the number of persons you have attacked without provocation. You have alienated many good people, who would otherwise be glad to call you an ally, with your writings about their hypocrisies and dishonesty, and cowardliness. That, sir, is foolish and reckless.

Zenster said...

Con Swede: Auster started this whole thing by picking a fight with Zenster. A fight that he was unable to handle, and from then on it was all sour grapes. I was not even involved so far. Auster did it all himself, as usually.

It's nice to know that I'm not the only one who saw things this way. Fortunately, it's Auster's own loss and not ours. He threw away a chance to obtain a massive new audience for his ideas in favor of acting like some sort of spoiled adolescent.

UsorThem: His [Auster's] reply to that was a refusal to even read past the first sentence of my email and said that he "didn't have time to waste" reading the rest of my lengthly reply.

Curious that, coming from someone who couldn't be bothered to answer a handful of basic yes-or-no questions about his own field of expertise and who, instead, insisted that others read through what surely were his own lengthy replies. Am I sensing a pattern here?

Conservative Swede said...

USorThem,

Auster's list of Usual Suspects is quite extensive. Steyn, Pipes, Phillips, Horowitz, Gaffney... You have alienated many good people, who would otherwise be glad to call you an ally

The list is incredibly long if we also include smaller bloggers that he alienated: e.g. David Yerushalmi, me, Vanishing American, John Savage, and these are just the ones that comes at the top of my head. He does handful every month.

And this is why it is so deluded by Latte Island and other VFR readers to be horrified over the fact that there is a brawl between me and Auster. Doesn't she read the VFR site otherwise? Doesn't she follow the public executions of good people regularly taking place there? Or is she all OK with it as long as it is a quick kill? Or is it that she dislikes all these other people so much that she thinks they deserve to be savaged by Auster? And it's only because she likes me (blows a kiss back) that she's now concerned?

Latte, I'm really confused how you could be horrified about it. This is the sort of stuff that you go to read at VFR in the first place. You have to admit that your reaction appears as irrational.

Conservative Swede said...

USorThem,

Follow what's happening through this page:
http://govcomments.blogspot.com/

Conservative Swede said...

Zenster,

in favor of acting like some sort of spoiled adolescent

According to Auster you where the adolescent in all this:

"mostly overwrought, younger men with no character development and no notion of their own or other people's dignity, feel that they can say anything they want. On the basis of no facts, they call you unethical, dishonest, underhanded. And then they still expect you to talk with them."

His characterization of you as a public menace #1 at the level of James Dean or James Cagney is really something for the records.

Zenster said...

Con Swede: His characterization of you as a public menace #1 at the level of James Dean or James Cagney is really something for the records.

Wait a minute, you mean I'm allowed to push a grapefruit into some insolent woman's face or drive my Porsche at breakneck speeds?

What's the downside to all of this?

Enquiring minds want to know!

Conservative Swede said...

Zenster, I'm not sure about the grapefruit. Do you have any smaller fruit?

VinceP1974 said...

I didn't read through this whole thing, but I had once suggested nuking Mecca would destroy the Islamic religion since Mecca was where the Kabaa was.

I since read in a number of places that Islamic eschatology (or perhaps the Twelver Shiia only) holds that in the future Mecca will be destroyed.

So much for that idea.

awake said...

Auster has responded.

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/011119.html

Tanstaafl said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Henrik R Clausen said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
latté island said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Baron Bodissey said...

Tanstaafl --

Gates of Vienna's rules about comments require that they be civil, temperate, on-topic, and show decorum. Your comment violated the first of these rules. Name-calling serves no useful purpose here, and detracts from the conversation. See our rules of discourse.

I also deleted a couple of other comments that referred only to the name-calling. Sorry, guys.

Henrik R Clausen said...

Zap!

May I suggest studying a little rhetoric while we take a break?

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 204   Newer› Newest»