The problem, according to him, is that Europeans who are mostly unfamiliar with our blog are likely to misconstrue our positions. Because we are Americans, and because we strongly support Israel, we are pegged as liberal neocon arch-Zionists or some such contradictory confection of Eurononsense.
So the Swede got me to thinking.
At the risk of degrading our reputation even further in the eyes of our Nordic detractors, I’ll attempt to lay out the current position of Gates of Vienna on Islam, Political Correctness, Multiculturalism, the EU, and all the other issues relating to our core mission.
The Left has recently become fairly monolithic in its alliance with and support for Islam. By adopting the time-honored anti-imperialist, anti-American, and anti-capitalist rhetoric of the Marxists, Muslims have managed to make common cause with Greens and Socialists across the entire Western world.
![The Speech](http://chromatism.net/current/images/speech.gif)
Such thinking, however, remains a minor strain among conservatives. The central argument on the Right is between those who believe that a “moderate Islam” exists, and those who think it is a mirage. It is personified by Daniel Pipes and Robert Spencer, one of whom believes in reaching out to “moderate Muslims” and nurturing them, while the other considers Islam itself to be irredeemable, and the idea of a “moderate Islam” a chimera.
The jury is still out on this question, of course. But in four years of blogging it I haven’t seen any signs of a moderate form of Islam. There are plenty of Muslims who are moderates, of course — people who lead normal lives, don’t brutalize their families or kill apostates, and don’t strive to institute a new Caliphate through violence, intimidation, and deception. But they are “moderates” to the extent that they don’t practice their faith. They are MINOs (Muslims in Name Only), or unannounced apostates, or Muslims who pay very little attention to their religion.
The sad fact remains that there is no significant alternative within Islam to the “radical” version if one wants to be a practicing Muslim in a faith community. Any Muslim who turns to the roots of his faith in the Koran and the hadith finds a blueprint for violence, intolerance, and bestial treatment of women and non-Muslims. He discovers that his faith requires him to make war against non-Muslims until the entire world submits to Allah, or to die in the attempt. He learns that the precepts of Islam govern his life down to the minutest of details, including which shoe to put on first and in what direction to face when urinating.
There are a few Muslim scholars who would like to abandon the hadith entirely and re-interpret the Koran to edit out the violent and intolerant parts, in order to bring Islam into line with the modern world. But these courageous individuals face insurmountable obstacles — the tenets of Islam insist that the core scriptures are the immutable word of Allah, and may not be changed or interpreted. Not only that, anyone who dares to attempt such a project is the worst of heretics and deserves to be killed.
Needless to say, these conditions tend to put a damper on Islamic revisionism.
For the nations of the West, there is always a danger that a resident community of peaceful “moderate” Muslims can mutate into hotbed of radicals.
The earliest Pakistani arrivals in the UK were moderates. The immigrants in the 1960s came primarily for the economic opportunities in Britain, and had little overt interest in Islam, radical or otherwise.
But Islam tagged along with them. They built mosques — or mosques were built for them — in their adopted home, and they attended them occasionally, marrying and raising their families in the general Islamic traditions of the old country. Their children underwent religious instruction in the mosque schools, and the mosques remained centers of social and cultural life for the immigrant community.
And somehow, three or four decades later, these same mosques were turning out young fundamentalist firebrands who were ready to die for Allah while taking as many kuffar as possible with them.
These newly-minted mujahideen were born in Britain, raised in Britain, and educated in the most multiculturally tolerant state schools to be found anywhere in the Western world. Most of their parents were moderates, their communities were moderate, and yet they were drawn to vilest and most radical version of Islam like a moth to the flame.
Why?
- - - - - - - - -
Because they decided to become good Muslims, unlike their parents, and study the Koran and the hadith. Because their instructors at the mosque were devoted scholars of Islam who understood the core meaning of the scriptures and were able to transmit that knowledge to them.
Because they became devoted, practicing, observant Muslims. That’s why.
Those who hope for an Islamic Reformation don’t realize what they’re wishing for.
Significant portions of Islam already have reformed. The Muslim Brotherhood (Al-Ikhwan Al-Muslimeen) is a successful reform movement. So is Al Qaeda. So is Hizb ut-Tahrir. All of these groups have abandoned the distorted and adulterated modern versions of their faith and returned to the original, true, pure Islam.
That’s why they’ve become murderous terrorists: Muslims who strive to recover the precepts of their faith are drawn inexorably to the violence inherent in core Islamic doctrine as defined in the Koran and the hadith.
The best we can hope for is more lapsed Muslims. More falling away from the traditions of Islam. More worldly, non-practicing Muslims who go to the mosque only when social politeness requires them to. More Muslims who never read the Koran and hardly ever spare a thought for Allah.
However, as we’ve seen in Britain, the above condition is no guarantee that future generations of the faithful won’t discover the True Religion. As long as there are imams who are well-versed in the Koran and ready to educate the young, the danger will remain.
Not only that, there’s the niggling little problem of taqiyya, divinely-sanctioned mendacity for the sake of protecting and advancing Islam. Sleeper cells of devoted radicals can be (and have been) planted in the West, mimicking moderate secular Muslims and waiting months, years, or decades until the time is ripe for full jihad.
There seems to be no getting away from it: the problem is Islam itself.
So what is to be done?
This is where I part company with many other anti-jihad people: I want to consider, define, and elaborate programs which might have an actual chance of being implemented within the foreseeable future.
It’s all very well to call for an end to all Muslim immigration and a policy of containment directed at Muslim countries. I can agree with that.
It’s all very well to demand the closure of Islamic schools, a halt to the building of mosques, and the deportation of all violent immigrant Muslims. I can agree with that.
But there isn’t a snowball’s chance in hell that these policies will be enacted. In the current political climate they are simply impossible to implement. Both major parties in the United States believe in the Islam-means-peace meme, and both of them are certain that the best policy is to make alliances with “moderate” regimes like those in Pakistan and Kosovo.
No American political figure of national stature is willing to go on record talking about the actualities of Islam. Not only would he face a full-bore media assault as a “racist” if he did, but Saudi money has been spread so widely and corrupted so deeply that our political structures are seriously damaged, perhaps irreparably. Members of the federal government are even officially forbidden to associate “Islam” and “jihad” with “terrorism”. That’s how bad it’s gotten.
As a result, if we want to effect change, we must set our sights lower.
One tactic is to avoid talking about Islamic immigration and advocate reducing all immigration to a tiny trickle. It’s not as if twenty million more unassimilated Mexicans would be good for the country, right? So close the borders and deport the criminals, regardless of their religion or country of origin. Such a policy would be immensely popular, and is at least imaginable within the not-so-distant future.
Another important tactic is to fight sharia and not “Islam”. The fact that you can’t have one without the other is irrelevant; it’s much more politically feasible to oppose sharia rather than Islam. Forcing Muslims to defend Islamic law exposes the illiberal nature of Islam, and reveals the fact that the tenets of sharia run contrary to the traditions, laws, and constitutions of all Western countries. When Islam is forced to defend sharia in the West, it finds itself in a very weak and vulnerable position.
While all this is going on, it’s important to track terrorist financing. This can be difficult, because powerful figures — former congressmen and senators, ex-cabinet members, and lobbyists for both parties — are on the Saudi payroll. Exposing these connections to the light of day is a tough job, and can be a career-killer for those whose livelihoods depend on the government or large philanthropic organizations. Even so, it’s a job that needs to be done, and dedicated people are out there doing it.
Finally, and most importantly, we must struggle to maintain our civil liberties. As recent events in Canada, Britain, Sweden, and the Netherlands have shown, freedom of speech is being rapidly degraded. If current trends continue, our ability to get the word out in a public forum will be severely circumscribed, and the task of resistance will become that much more difficult.
Just for the sake of argument, let’s imagine that United States has come to its senses, halted all Muslim immigration, and somehow successfully contained Muslims within existing Islamic countries.
What about Europe?
Millions of Muslims already live in Europe, and many of those have been there for two or three generations. With a declining native population and a high birth rate among the Muslims, Europe will continue to experience severe problems with Islamic zealots even in the unlikely event that immigration is halted.
A Muslim majority (or near-majority) in any European country would not be in the interests of the United States. A Europe overrun by Islam would pose a severe security threat to us, one that would be much more difficult to deal with than Saudi Arabia or Iran. So it’s important to look for policies that have a chance of working for Europe as well as the United States.
The problem is much more severe and urgent in Europe, and the vehicle for the approaching disaster is the EU. Even Europe-hating Americans will find it in their best interests to look for solutions that help the Counterjihad in Europe and slow the EU juggernaut.
I asserted above that none of the policies demanded by dedicated right-wingers — a halt to Muslim immigration, containment, mass deportation, the destruction of Mecca, etc. — are realizable in the current political climate.
But that climate can change at a moment’s notice. Mujahideen all over the world are desperate to get a suitcase nuke or a bucket of ricin into a major population center in the United States. Given the number of zealots who intend to do us harm, and the current sieve that we call our borders, it’s all but inevitable that a deadly catastrophe will eventually occur, devastating our economy and ushering in a brand new political climate within the space of a few short weeks.
At that point the situation becomes chaotic and unpredictable, and many of the stringent measures advocated by the Islamophobes — plus even more horrific ones — are likely to be implemented.
![Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov](http://chromatism.net/current/images/lenin.jpg)
There are some among our readers who may look forward to our rescue by the Strong Man, nationalists who long for a determined individual to break through the current political logjam and take the necessary actions.
But I am not one of them.
Strong men and authoritarian governments do not like independent-minded citizens. They don’t want people who can think outside the box.
They want sheep, and the same sheep who now submit meekly to political correctness — the ones who believe that no child should be left behind, that racism is our greatest problem, and that Islam is a religion of peace — will also be the sheep under the new regime. They will gladly assent to the policy that all Muslims must be deported and Mecca must be nuked. They’ll eagerly await the nightly television address from El Jefe Maximo, whoever he might be, and nod in agreement with his words.
Oh yes, it will be a bad time indeed. Muslims and former political leaders may well be strung up from lampposts when the day arrives.
But you and I and other people like us — people who can think and reason for themselves — will become the zeks of the new regime. After the crisis — assuming that we even survive — we’ll be breaking up rocks in quarries and hauling timber in the work camps. The new gulag will be waiting for the likes of us.
And that, among other reasons, is why I don’t welcome the prospect of the Strong Man.
Pray that we manage to achieve incremental change before the cataclysm arrives. Strive to work within the existing system, because the one that follows it is all too likely to be much, much worse.
![](http://chromatism.net/images/bar400.gif)
Note: I have reworded the first paragraph of this post to be more accurate about the location of the criticism in the Swedish blog.
98 comments:
"It is personified by Daniel Pipes and Robert Spencer, one of whom believes in reaching out to “moderate Muslims” and nurturing them, while the other [i.e., Spencer] considers Islam itself to be irredeemable..."
Spencer has never said or written any such thing. He only considers "elements" of Islam to be inimical to our values and as dangerous, but has never said even those "elements" are irredeemable (though he has noted fleetingly a few times that it is highly unlikely they can be reformed). As for "Islam itself", Spencer has never said that it is "irredeemable". In fact, repeatedly he has refused to condemn Islam in various exchanges on comments fields of Jihad Watch, for example, which I documented and analyzed exhaustively on my now retired
Jihad Watch Watch blog.
Recently, Spencer's new Jihad Watch staff member, Raymond Ibrahim, posted without a shred of critical commentary the latest incoherency by Pipes that distinguishes "moderate Muslims" from "Islamists" -- and Ibrahim's introductory blurb also called Pipes a "JW friend". My analysis of this can be found on my other blog, The Hesperado, here and
here.
Erich --
Ah, but you have a bone to pick with Robert, as is well known.
I find it implicit in all his writings that he finds Islam irredeemable, especially in this latest flap over Kosovo. But perhaps I’m reading things into it — maybe a close textual reading of him would reveal me to be wrong.
Maybe I should have chosen another candidate to be the yin to Pipes’ yang. Fjordman could fill in if necessary.
One could say there are three positions on this (leaving out the obvious fourth: "Islam's not broken" :)
1) Daniel Pipes: Islam is reformable.
2) Robert Spencer: It's hard to tell.
3) Erich: Islam is not reformable.
Of those, the Spencer position is the more intellectually honest. For in principle, some grand reformer might arrive tomorrow, reinterpret the whole set of ancient texts into a non-violent meaning, and accomplish what people have been struggling with for centuries.
In principle, of course. But we can't tell, and it's not really up to us to judge. What we can do, and that makes more sense than just stating "Not reformable" is to look at the details of what needs to be fixed.
I'm sure Spencer can come up with a truckload of relevant problems, with textual references for each and every one of them, telling the Islamic leaders: "This is your task, good luck."
Pipes assumes - and from computer science I remember very clearly that most trouble comes from bad assumptions - that Islam is reformable. He's been taking a lot of flak on his blog for this position, yet sticks to it. So what? It's good to have some diversity, and Pipes sure also knows in some details what really needs to be fixed. Pipes is a JW friend - sure, it's obvious. He doesn't agree with Spencer on everything, and he doesn't have to.
Pipes also used to believe that having Turkey join the European Union would make sense. He changed his mind about that a few years ago, and today thinks differently. I don't think his romantic notion of a reformable Islam is much of a problem.
I'm quite sure that the herd of cats that constitute the GoV regular commenters will not be of much use to some Strong Man. We're way too unruly.
Personally, I'm methaphorically banging the table over and over to get more common people take a share in politics. Just today, I asked the local grocer to write a letter to the politicians concerning certain aspects of how many immigrant shops cheat on taxes etc. I wrote a more generic essay about it, Switch off that Playstation (German version here: Dreh der PlayStation den Saft ab!), expressing my confidence that the common sense of common people is what we really need.
In Lord of The Rings, Sauron feared that the West would bring out some Great Leader to replace him, and looked everywhere to identify and stop that challenger. What Sauron missed completely was that the West opted to bring him down without setting anyone in his place.
We have tried the Strong Man in Europe enough times to realize that it's basically a rotten idea. Democracy depends on many people doing many things, large or small. This is what we need.
Oh. Islam is the Strong Man concept in perfect institutionalized form, where the word and deeds of Muhammad *still* rule the Islamic world. Any further comments needed on that?
Erich: That's just bullocks, as the British say. Spencer has never said he believes in a moderate Islam, neither has Hugh Fitzgerald or for that matter myself. I publish at Jihad Watch occasionally, too, and I wouldn't have done so if I believed they supported the "moderate Islam" myth. It's nonsense, and it's why Larry Auster's criticism of JW and Spencer is totally misplaced. Spend your energy on the real enemies instead of inventing imaginary ones. It's not like we lack real enemies...
The battles that CS are taking are important. And usually just standing the ground will suffice, for there are other battles to fight later. I remember just a few years ago (before the Motoons) that Lars Hedegaard (or someone else) would come out with a heavy OpEd piece about how bad Islam is. The friends would scramble to his defense and get a couple of letters printed to avoid the expectable character assassination.
That is not needed today: "Another OpEd about the evils of Islam? Great, pile it over there with the previous ones."
I hope CS is having a friend or two along in his online battles. It's almost impossible to shoulder such a task alone, no matter how much knowledge and debate skill one has.
Some day I should write the essay "The Greek Principles" about the rules of logic that makes one stand aloof in online discussions. Fjordman, perhaps we co-author this one?
Spencer probably is too busy doing important stuff than pondering the reformability of Islam at all :) I remember him in Brussels, having heard quite a few speeches about the problems with Islam, discarding his intended speech title: "Is Islam the problem?" Quite obviously it is.
I find GoV to be the a gentle and pragmatic source of thought on the Islam vs. Kafir issue, and I would like to hear the reasons of any Swede who actually reads the blog and thinks otherwise. Terminating Muslim immigration, and other violent measures I won't mention, would require a lot of education among kafirs to gain their support, but that level of education would obviate state violence.
I remember when Ontario, Canada, almost implemented Sharia family law. At the time I had no idea what a hell Sharia is for women trapped in Islam. Since then I have learned a lot - how honor killings and genital mutilation are intrinsic to Islam, about killing apostates, about taqiyya, and the ghastly rest. I had never heard of a 'hadith' before last Christmas. I didn't know about Aisha, the mass murders in Medina, nothing. What turned me from being suspicious about Islam to full-blown certainty that it was the devil's plan for mankind was details. That's where the devil is, and my experience of awakening informs my own personal strategy against Islam.
As H. Clausen notes above, it is getting easier to publish criticisms of Islam, but even many people who are willing to judge it by its fruits are ignorant of the texts that make it what it is. Editorials, letters to the editor, and blog postings could be more powerful by pushing in more facts about Islam. Hot little grenades like Bukhari 7.62.88 (Aisha deflowered at age 9), Abu-Dawud 38.4349 (a Jewess killed for mocking the Prophet), and Qu'ran 33:21 (Muhammad is perfect, to put the hadith in context). They're outrageous and very short to quote.
Outing the Western quislings, mocking Islam, educating the kafirs about the texts - victory is that way. There's a reason the Pact of Umar forbade the dhimmis from teaching Qu'ran to their children.
RE: MINOs:
All the intellectualizations in the world will not change the fact that at some point, a catalyst will cause a general muslim uprising against the West. The question then becomes: Who will all those "moderate", "secular" and "non practicing" muslims now enmeshed in every facet of government and civil society side with? You only get one guess.
Whatever one may think of Robert Spencer or Daniel Pipes, they are both successful in what they do.
Robert Spencer always holds out the challenge to Muslims to modernise Islam, to come out with a version that explicitly rejects Jihad and supremacist ideology. There is a bit of tongue in cheek here. He has never given the tiniest bit of advice how it can be realistically achieved, though has repeatedly pointed out the great difficulties that lie ahead for any moderniser.
Daniel Pipes own work on Islam, particularly on his website, has convinced many of his readers that there is no such thing as a moderate Islam. And yet Daniel Pipes continues to assert the contrary. The more he says there is a moderate Islam, the more vociferous his readers claim the contrary. This is terrifically effective propaganda.
So why do they do it. We must remember that we are all operating in a liberal political climate. To operate successfully in this climate, the person has to appear to be a liberal. Only then will that person reach a wider audience. Therefore Pipes asserts the existence of a moderate Islam, while Spencer asserts that a moderate Islam can be invented. Both hold out the possibility that Islam can be part of the Western liberal order.
In fact, both, consciously or otherwise, are subverting the liberal order, or using it effectively. I believe that if Robert Spencer or Daniel Pipes adopted a far harder approach to our Islam problem – such as a ban on Muslim immigration, then they would effectively marginalize themselves. That would be a serious loss to the anti-Jihad effort.
Baron Bodissey,
as a contributor to said Swedish blog, I would like to point out the fact that the critique against GoV has entirely taken place in the comment section.
In the short post in question we simply linked, in a appreciative manner, to your post on the situation in Norway.
Our blog is is generally critical of the Pax Americana and zionism overall, but it hardly seems fair to label us as meanspirited detractors based on second-hand information regarding the opinions of commentators to one blog post.
Just as we applaud good things in American culture, we intend to continue tipping our readers to posts of particular interest at GoV. That goes for any other blog, be they American, French or written in the Holy Land.
Florestan --
How good to see you here!
Yes, I knew that the criticism of us at your blog was only in the comments (even though I couldn't actually read it).
I was careless in my wording of the first paragraph in this post, and I have adjusted it accordingly. Thanks for pointing it out.
Two small points-
Long before approaching a Muslim majority, Europe will cease to be Europe. There can be no first world Muslim civilizations. Rather than being a security threat, they may more resemble Britian after the Romans left. There will be no reason for trade, commerce, or the movement of citizens bewteen Europe and America. And it seems likely we will use the many examples of war and dysfunction Europe will offer on the way as warning in cleaning up our own foolish ideas.
Last, though strong-men and authoritarian governments do not like citizens who think outside the box, neither does advanced democracy in the thrall of equality. You have decribed this already in your post.
Tocqueville foresaw that philosophic systems that destroy human individuality will have secret attractions for men who live in a democracy. He worried that the worst threat to the democratic system would be that mediocrity would not only be encouraged, but enforced. But he also saw that great men left the stage in a democracy immediately when danger passed, essentially unwelcome,and only find their way back for short periods in renewed times of crisis.
It is our task to determine between the strong-man, the great leader, and the empty suit.
xlbrl --
Yes, you're right about what advanced democracy does to independent thinkers. Fortunately, the consequences rarely involve death or incarceration.
My opinions would preclude employment in government, the media, or academia, but they will not (yet) land me in jail.
So I'll take what we've got now over what's likely to replace it.
The MINO's are largely opportunists. They're here for the economic benefits but will go with the strong horse when Islam asserts itself.
Among all the readership here, do any of you know a single case from your kids' schools, your workplace, observing store employees etc. of a hijab-wearing woman uncovering her hair and adopting western dress?
The only cases I'm aware of are those of young women who defied their families and were killed for their disobedience, sometimes being lured back by their women relatives. The hijab traffic is all in the opposite direction. This observable outward sign tells you that so called moderate Islam has no traction in western countries. Bin Laden's second in command, Zawhiri has said that hijab-wearing Muslima are soldiers in the Islamic army.
Power mad murderer, pillager and rapist though he may have been, Mohammed dreamt up a brilliant cult because it is a closed system, unreformable.
Whoever mentioned the possibility of a "Great Reformer" is mistaken. The system is totally decentralized so that no one contemporary voice will ever hold sway over believers like the Pope over Catholics. Any would-be Reformer would by definition be apostate, denounced by several imams and killed.
All Muslims bow to the Koran and Hadith, the example of Mohammed. Since the Koran was dictated by Allah, it is considered perfection and cannot be reformed by mere humans. Mohammed's example, what is known of the historic figure is to Westerners no more worthy of respect than Atilla the Hun or Genghis Khan. Muslims are taught to revere what was either a madman with psychotic visions, or more likely a psychopath who thought up a nice little schtick to get himself a gang and lots of loot. Whatever his heart desired - a six year old bride, whatever, it was uncanny... Allah told him to go for it. And the idea of a bordello stocked with virgins as a heavenly reward, that was attractive enough to young Arab men who are certainly not getting any here on earth to blow themselves up 14 centuries later.
Muslims schooled in western countries (where rational thought and skepticism still hold some sway despite the best efforts of leftists) but who remain hyper-protective of a lecherous brigand as their holy role model are not amenable to reason. You can't deprogram what has been fed into them with their mother's milk and/or their imam-indoctrinators, especially since the West is stupidly reinforcing their faith with the allowances for praying 5 times a day in school or workplace, footbaths in public spaces, halal foods on demand and hauling off to the nearest human rights commission anyone who rightly laughs at, or otherwise derides this bizarre belief system.
They're like Scientologists writ large, except worse with a history of destruction and forced conversion.
Well, Baron, my point may be that you cannot prefer what we have now in vapid leadership over some other worser future thing, because mediocrity cannot sustain itself. A civilization not advancing is declining.
So we will come to a strong leader, whether noxious, or one who loves liberty and knows how to re-affirm it. Such a man would have you in his government.
It is ironic you of all souls would have to be defended in a Sweedish blog that Swede found worth the trouble. That does not encourage my estimation of their good sense. It is especially dismaying when even impending disaster does not concentrate our minds and cure the affectations of even our better classes of citizen.
There are some among our readers who may look forward to our rescue by the Strong Man, nationalists who long for a determined individual to break through the current political logjam and take the necessary actions.
But I am not one of them.
Strong men and authoritarian governments do not like independent-minded citizens. They don’t want people who can think outside the box.
This is certainly true, but its certainly better than the alternative if for no other reason than that the European People as a whole will be given a second chance for survival.
The hard fact of the matter is that for every day that the insanity that compels the governments in Europe and the rest of the West to replace the peoples (and therefore the culture and values) of their native countries with alien and hostile peoples, the closer we get to the really undesirable 'fork in the road'...in other words, the decisions that will have to be made will not have many pretty outcomes, and they're only going to get worse the longer this goes on.
Baron: ... there’s the niggling little problem of taqiyya, divinely-sanctioned mendacity for the sake of protecting and advancing Islam. Sleeper cells of devoted radicals can be (and have been) planted in the West, mimicking moderate secular Muslims and waiting months, years, or decades until the time is ripe for full jihad.
This is the ultimate deal-breaker and, as of now, probably one of the most obscure issues on the table. songdongnigh puts it well:
songdongnigh: All the intellectualizations in the world will not change the fact that at some point, a catalyst will cause a general muslim uprising against the West. The question then becomes: Who will all those "moderate", "secular" and "non practicing" muslims now enmeshed in every facet of government and civil society side with? You only get one guess.
Taqiyya permits even the very worst proponents of radical Islam to infiltrate our country at almost every level. That MINOs (Muslims In Name Only) are such a peril in and of themselves only serves to highlight just how dire a threat taqiyya is.
Baron: Another important tactic is to fight sharia and not “Islam”. The fact that you can’t have one without the other is irrelevant; it’s much more politically feasible to oppose sharia rather than Islam. Forcing Muslims to defend Islamic law exposes the illiberal nature of Islam, and reveals the fact that the tenets of sharia run contrary to the traditions, laws, and constitutions of all Western countries. When Islam is forced to defend sharia in the West, it finds itself in a very weak and vulnerable position.
To date, this is the one honking chink in Islam's armor. Shine a bright enough light on shari'a and even the most liberal stomach is turned. This is why I continue to advocate the classification of shari'a as a massive and ongoing violation of Human Rights.
Given enough exposure, feminists, gays and all others but the most hardcore liberals will shy away from Islam. Banning shari'a achieves a host of important goals. First and foremost, it neuters several important avenues of jihad. No polygamy inhibits slow demographic jihad. A ban on shari'a serves to repel many hard liners who would relocate elsewhere. Lack of any accommodation for shari'a would decrease the probability of polarization being spread by radical imams. Finally, banning shari'a would be a clear and unmistakable message that devout Muslims are not welcome in Western society.
There are some among our readers who may look forward to our rescue by the Strong Man, nationalists who long for a determined individual to break through the current political logjam and take the necessary actions.
But I am not one of them.
Nor am I. Democracy and authoritarianism are immiscible and make poor bedfellows. Those who lust after power rarely appreciate a second opinion. Keeping America strong means having a strong electorate and NOT strong leadership. A Strong Man hierarchy is one of the surest paths towards people serving the government instead of the other way around.
Keep fighting the good fight, Baron. Your above summary is supremely well put. Without sage minds like your own, our prospects are far more bleak. All of us are duty bound to do our best to change one mind at a time. It is our only hope.
xlbrl: There can be no first world Muslim civilizations.
At day's end this is all that matters. Human productivity is the bedrock of all civilization. Islam is one of the most stagnant and unproductive cultures on earth. A single glance at the MME (Muslim Middle East) cuts this fact in stone.
Lombard1985: [Per the Baron - "Strong men and authoritarian governments do not like independent-minded citizens. They don’t want people who can think outside the box."]
This is certainly true, but its certainly better than the alternative if for no other reason than that the European People as a whole will be given a second chance for survival.
The only reason for this is that Europe is so far gone to where one of its only alternatives is their time honored tradition of the charnel house. Trust a Strong Man to swing wide its doors one more bloody time.
Most appalling of all is that Muslims do their level best to justify themselves being herded into the cattle cars. Never have I seen such a repellent culture take so much pride in its Neanderthal ways. Even hardcore liberals can barely hold a candle to Islam's energetic celebration of ignorance and barbarity.
There is a bit of tongue in cheek here. [Spencer's approach to 'reformed' Islam]
Indeed there is. And I don't see it as a cave-in to liberalism (which I don't care squad about - it's just spinelessness), but as dangling a nice price just a bit out of reach for those who want it.
It's much better to be in the game, hold the prospect of reformed Islam in view, and then watch a lot of people jump in vain for it. These people will be the ones proving it impossible by their failed efforts.
Excellent posts DP111 & Laine.
I believe a reformation of Islam is impossible because of the example of the Prophet himself. A violent, duplicitous, lust-crazed paedophile who practised what he preached - with zeal. To reform Islam a total re-write of Mohammed's life would be necessary and I just cannot see that.
As regards the "Stong man" option, I think a better option exists. A strong party option, a nationalist party who put the needs of its own people first and foremost and whose policies are geared towards creating self-sufficiency.
I believe such parties - Vlaams Belang, Front National, The BNP, Party for Freedom, Liga Nord etc. -will be the ones who save Europe without a "strong man" hell-bent on controlling people.
They are the ones spreading the message about Islam and slowly but surely, people are waking up to what Islam is.
I don't believe the Strong Man stands a chance much better than a snowball in Hell. Even getting a tiny bit of cohesion in the Western world today is neigh to impossible, and it looks like we'd descend into chaos even without the challenge of Islam.
Sometimes I think of Islam as simply a focus point to make us realize that we're forgetting our culture and our ways.
do any of you know a single case [...] of a hijab-wearing woman uncovering her hair and adopting western dress?
Yes, I know of such a case. A cleaning lady at work used to wear the hijab. One day she came without, and I asked her what had happened.
It turned out that her boyfriend (from the Middle East) had turned very violent on her, and she had asked the police for help. They had suggested her to drop the Hijab, so it was clear that she was not the property of Islam or the boyfriend any longer. So she did.
Wether me giving her a book about Muhammad's life contributed anything remains unknown.
Henrik --
I don't think the Strong Man is even on the horizon right now. But if Manhattan became a radioactive crater, the horizon would be dramatically relocated.
An event like that is the "discontinuity" that El Ingles talks about. It's hard to predict what happens afterwards, because the nature of a discontinuity is to usher in a chaotic situation (in the mathematical sense), which is inherently hard to predict.
That's why the Saudis and the appeasers of the Saudis are united in their attempts to stop the loose cannons like Bin Laden. A successful major strike by the mujahideen would create a new poltical climate, and the comfortable positions of *all* the existing leaders and bureaucrats would be in jeopardy.
Events at that point become unpredictable, but there is a lesson to be learned from history: in times of great suffering and national trauma, the Strong Man tends to emerge. It has happened over and over again.
The Great War, especially when followed by the Great Depression, was such a discontinuity. It left in its wake a whole host of strong men -- Mussolini, Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Béla Kun, and Franklin Delano Roosevelt, just to name a few in the Euro-American sphere.
None of us knows what will happen when the current power structure gets blown all to hell. But historical precedent can help give us a general idea.
Baron: That's why the Saudis and the appeasers of the Saudis are united in their attempts to stop the loose cannons like Bin Laden. A successful major strike by the mujahideen would create a new poltical climate, and the comfortable positions of *all* the existing leaders and bureaucrats would be in jeopardy.
I wonder if this explains the half-hearted manner in which the Global War on Terrorism is being prosecuted. Restrain only a few select players but do not go whole hog against the actual infrastructure. As Srdja Trifkovic notes:
The elite class has every intention of continuing to “fight” the war on terrorism without naming the enemy, without revealing his beliefs, without unmasking his intentions, without offending his accomplices, without expelling his fifth columnists, and without ever daring to win.
Given the foregoing, it becomes clear why why Western leaders are not "daring to win". An example is targeted assassinations. This exceptionally effective and low-collateral-damage method of neutering political Islam would open the door for all political leaders to be declared legitimate targets. Thus—out of craven self-protection—they countenance even the most vile sorts of despotism in order to stay out of the crosshairs. It is little more than a form of "Guild Mentality" that seeks to keep the top echelons of political power a thoroughly "closed shop".
The careerist nature of politicians—most of whom would be hard pressed to earn an honest living—makes them leery of upsetting their own tidy, and rather lucrative, bureaucratic applecart. In the process, a massive conflict of interest is generated in that crisis resolution is given over almost entirely to the stripey-pantsed diplomatic set and kept out of the hands of more efficient uniform-wearing problem solvers.
While kinetic military conflict is not the solution to everything, continually negotiating with an enemy whose "divinely-sanctioned mendacity" automatically precludes any success and whose goals are entirely NON-NEGOTIABLE in the first place, is nothing but a form of insanity.
Muslim conduct in the Israeli—Palestinian conflict provides a perfect a micro-scale model of the West's macro-confrontation with Islam. America's State Department and the EU's appeasement of these genocidal Palestinian thugs mirrors a much wider spread practice of fawning over the Oil Ticks in general.
All of this is done at a very dear cost to quality of life in both the West and the MME (Muslim Middle East). A tyrannous, violent Wahabbist theocracy is left in place even as they are allowed to degrade the security and productivity of all Western nations. All of this is done to preserve the status quo of an elite political circle whose dystopic globalist multicultural vote-whoring has long ago betrayed those who put them in office.
Small wonder that they're all petrified of even minor changes much less any major ones. Their fear is only compounded by the ever-widening spectrum of threats arrayed against the flimsy political house of cards that they inhabit. Most ironic of all is how this collective inaction exponentially increases the danger to their own exclusive little playland.
The traitor elite march side-by-side with Islam as they sow the whirlwind that will topple all of them like so many tenpins.
Muslim Youths
Muslim youths are angry, frustrated and extremist because they have been mis-educated and de-educated by the British schooling. Muslim children are confused because they are being educated in a wrong place at a wrong time in state schools with non-Muslim monolingual teachers. They face lots of problems of growing up in two distinctive cultural traditions and value systems, which may come into conflict over issues such as the role of women in the society, and adherence to religious and cultural traditions. The conflicting demands made by home and schools on behaviour, loyalties and obligations can be a source of psychological conflict and tension in Muslim youngsters. There are also the issues of racial prejudice and discrimination to deal with, in education and employment. They have been victim of racism and bullying in all walks of life. According to DCSF, 56% of Pakistanis and 54% of Bangladeshi children has been victims of bullies. The first wave of Muslim migrants were happy to send their children to state schools, thinking their children would get a much better education. Than little by little, the overt and covert discrimination in the system turned them off. There are fifteen areas where Muslim parents find themselves offended by state schools.
The right to education in one’s own comfort zone is a fundamental and inalienable human right that should be available to all people irrespective of their ethnicity or religious background. Schools do not belong to state, they belong to parents. It is the parents’ choice to have faith schools for their children. Bilingual Muslim children need state funded Muslim schools with bilingual Muslim teachers as role models during their developmental periods. There is no place for a non-Muslim teacher or a child in a Muslim school. There are hundreds of state schools where Muslim children are in majority. In my opinion, all such schools may be designated as Muslim community schools. An ICM Poll of British Muslims showed that nearly half wanted their children to attend Muslim schools. There are only 143 Muslim schools. A state funded Muslim school in Birmingham has 220 pupils and more than 1000 applicants chasing just 60.
Majority of anti-Muslim stories are not about terrorism but about Muslim
culture--the hijab, Muslim schools, family life and religiosity. Muslims in the west ought to be recognised as a western community, not as an alien culture.
Iftikhar Ahmad
www.londonschoolofislamics.org.uk
Baron,
"Ah, but you have a bone to pick with Robert, as is well known."
My bone is irrelevant to whether what I say about Spencer is factual, or not. (This is exactly the same elementary position Spencer himself uses on his Islam-apologist critics, when they attempt to repudiate the facts he adduces on the basis of his supposed biases, rather than actually address the facts themselves.)
"I find it implicit in all his writings that he finds Islam irredeemable...— maybe a close textual reading of him would reveal me to be wrong."
The problem with Spencer is that sometimes he says things that make it sound like Islam is irredeemable, then other times he says things that don't make sense if he also thinks Islam is irredeemable, such as:
1. "Islam is more multifaceted than Nazism, and involves many beliefs, some good, some bad. You are comparing a huge 1400-year-old tradition over many nations with 12 years of Germany. If you met a Nazi in 1938, you would know what he thinks. But the fact is that when you meet a Muslim today you can have no certainty about what he thinks or knows."
http://jihadswatch.blogspot.com/2008/05/robert-spencers-two-hats-keep-your-day_20.html
2. "Islam has meant many things to many people at different times. There are Muslims that know nothing of what I am saying here. This is a fact that must be reckoned with." [One wonders, "reckoned with" exactly how? In terms of policy? What types of policy?]
http://jihadswatch.blogspot.com/2008/05/robert-spencers-two-hats-keep-your-day_20.html
3. "As I have said many times, there is no "true Islam." But jihadists make recruits by presenting their Islam as the true Islam, and by pointing out chapter and verse of the Qur'an, as well as the example of Muhammad and the rulings of the schools of Islamic jurisprudence." [If for Spencer there is no "true Islam" then there is no Islam to condemn as irredeemable, only a mutation over here, contrasted with a mutation over there.]
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/017126.php#comments%22%3Ehttp://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/017126.php#comments
4. "Interviewer: Do you agree with her [Oriana Fallaci] that the Islam is indeed a problem (in the US and Europe)?
"Spencer: Elements of Islam are the problem. Muslims who reject them sincerely and work against those elements are not the problem." [Sounds very Pipesian!]
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/020395.php
5. “I am not ‘anti-Islam’.”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/017114.php
6. “To say that Islam is a dangerous, violent religion is simplistic and misleading because Islam is many things.”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/011577.php
"Maybe I should have chosen another candidate to be the yin to Pipes’ yang. Fjordman could fill in if necessary."
Bill Warner would be a much better candidate for, if not exactly the polar opposite of Pipes, at least more clearly disengaged from his incoherently half-assed Ismology (tacking an "-ism" on the end of Islam in order to solve the problem).
Fjordman:
"Erich: That's just bullocks, as the British say. Spencer has never said he believes in a moderate Islam"
Where did I say Spencer says he believes in a moderate Islam? I merely adduced what Spencer has said, and it does not square with a position that would unequivocally condemn Islam as incapable of being moderate. (In my follow-up comment to Baron, just above, I adduced Spencer quotes with citations further backing this up.)
"I publish at Jihad Watch occasionally, too, and I wouldn't have done so if I believed they supported the "moderate Islam" myth."
They neither support that myth, nor do they unequivocally reject it, but instead make statements regularly that don't make sense if they do indeed reject the myth. As I have argued before, it would be better if Spencer and Fitzgerald simply refrained from making overarching analytical statements about Islam's moderation or lack of it and Islam's evil or lack of it, since they can't seem to do so without muddying the waters with equivocal incoherence -- and should just stick to what they do best -- which is a lot of other things aside from this one species of analysis.
@iftikharA --
Muslim youths are angry, frustrated and extremist because they have been mis-educated and de-educated by the British schooling.
And this differentiates them from other British school children? Exactly how?
Muslim children are confused because they are being educated in a wrong place at a wrong time in state schools with non-Muslim monolingual teachers.
Then their parents ought to do what Catholic and Jewish parents do for their children: teach them the tenets of their faith outside of school.
This particular victim card is so old and ratty one can hardly read the markings on it any longer.
Actually, whether it's legible or not is beside the point by now. We've all long since memorized this lecture. The problem with saying something over and over again is not that people will start believing it, the larger problem is that people will quit listening.
Muslim youths are angry, frustrated and extremist because they have been mis-educated and de-educated by the British schooling.
Nah. The 'frustration' probably stems from what they have been raised to believe was holy is now contrasted with the sharp light of reason, which tells us we can believe our senses, our logical thinking and our scientists.
Screwed-up religion falls by the wayside when exposed to the light of clarity and common sense. But it can be a painful process indeed, and the religious zealots are defending their power base with every possible trick in the book.
Don't trust them, they're just in it for power and money.
IftikharA: There are fifteen areas where Muslim parents find themselves offended by state schools.
Only fifteen? You've got to be kidding. Anyway, its a fair trade for the fifteen no-go zones that Muslims have established. I'll bet that if Muslim youth stopped fulfilling every worst stereotype of themselves, the Britons might be amenable to some changes. So long as Muslims continue to clamor for preferential treatment, be it halal food in schools, private access to swimming pools and a host of other outrages, they will continue to get the back of England's collective hand and deserve it.
Dymphna: This particular victim card is so old and ratty one can hardly read the markings on it any longer.
Yet that card is marked just like every other one in Islam's deck. Be it dealing from the bottom or shamelessly palming aces, Islam will cheat whenever possible. It will go on squawking about inequality and mistreatment right up until they finally get a taste of enough genuine mistreatment to make them finally shut their collective yaps.
Islam and their multiculturalist shills have rigged the game for so long that all honest players pushed away from the table long ago. The collection of saps, suckers and dupes that stay for the fleecing deserve it in spades. The rest of us are quietly waiting outside the saloon doors with kosh in hand.
IftikharA
This is the same long list of moans, and whingeing that I've seen from you on many Western websites that are trying to find a solution to the problem of Islam in the West. That there is an Islamic problem, even you admit, as no other ethnic/religious group such as Hindus or Sikhs, have the same problem as Muslims do - or atleast you think they do. And as no other ethnic/religious group finds the same degree of discomfort in the West as Muslims, it must follow that the problem is created by Muslims, and that it is innate to the problem that Islam creates for its adherents, when they are out of their cultural geography.
There several solutions to the problem, and websites such GoV are trying to find a way that will satisy Muslims, and yet not be discrimanatory to other ethnic/religious groups, at the same time do not damage our own culture. You will readily admit, that patriotism and loyalty to our nation, demands that we concern ourselves first and foremost with our own cultural safety. We readily extend that same liberty to any citizen of a Muslim nation, and will never demand that a Muslim nation change its culture, or make significant allowances to satisfy a surfing Californian, for instance. Ofcourse no Muslim nation will ever make such changes, so it is pointless to even ask.
As I've already pointed out to you on another site, your proposals on special educational institutions for Muslims, taught by Muslims only, in their native language, and state funded as well, is religious Apartheid, plain and simple. It is in fact, going beyond even the rigidities of the apartheid system in South Africa. Such a system is morally repugnant, and should be rightly rejected by anyone who cares for social unity and peace within the nation.
Ofcourse it is nice to see your comments on GoV, and I look forward to your response, preferably without moaning and whingeing.
zenster wrote: The rest of us are quietly waiting outside the saloon doors with kosh in hand.
LOL. I can picture that. I'm still laughing. Only a kosh??
Defiant Lion wrote: Vlaams Belang, Front National, The BNP, Party for Freedom, Liga Nord etc. -will be the ones who save Europe without a "strong man" hell-bent on controlling people.
Appropos of this
A meeting of extreme-right European political forces -- planned for Sept. 19-20 in Cologne.
The right-wing extremist groups Pro Koeln and Pro NRW are organizing the event, with the aim of issuing a declaration opposed to the purported "Islamification" of Europe.
Big names in xenophobia
The meeting will be attended by some of the most inflammatory names in European race politics, including Jean- Marie Le Pen of France, Austria's Heinz-Christian Strache, and Belgium's Filip Dewinter.
The Anti-Islamization Congress
I dont know much about others except Filip DeWinter. He is pro-Israel and unlikely to be a Holocaust denier.
Thanks BTW.
"A meeting of extreme-right European political forces..."
The fallacy of labelling: the mere superimposition of a label does not substitute for reasoned argument, based upon direct evidence supplied with verifiable references, substantiating a claim. When it comes to critics of Islam, the "right-wing" label has become popular; and one can almost count on the correlation that the more they crank up that label ("extreme right-wing"; "extremist"; and "inflammatory"), the more likely those labelled are more rationally opposed to Islam.
Slight correction to my last post:
"When it comes to critics of Islam, the "right-wing" label has become popular..."
I meant of course "When it comes to critics of Islam, the "right-wing" label has become popularly applied..."
Henrik,
1) Daniel Pipes: Islam is reformable.
2) Robert Spencer: It's hard to tell.
3) Erich: Islam is not reformable.
Excellent systematic categorization.
Myself, I'm in group 1. The way to reform Islam has been lined out by me here.
Florstan: Our blog is is generally critical of the Pax Americana and zionism overall.
Well, I'm not generally critical of zionism, and I'm rather torn about Pax Americana. Yes it has created death and chaos around the world (but its impotence and inaction), but at the same time its the continuation of Pax Britannica.
And we do not exactly seem to be agreeing about Catholicism.
However, with Florestan and Aloysius, who are running this blog "Beska droppar", the more I read their blog and the more I discuss with them, the more I intuitively feel that I have met my best soul mates so far on Swedish soil.
More on-topic:
The "Strong Man": A Straw Man?
Aside from other groupings we can describe among the general category of anti-Islam analysts, there is this one:
1. Those who worry that the Western response to the menace of Islam can become too strong (e.g., opening the West up to the rise of a "Strong Man" and/or the West going down the "slippery slope" toward genocide).
2. Those who believe the concerns of the #1 camp are not only exaggerated but also set up a false dichotomy that tends to compel a softer, fuzzier approach to the menace of Islam.
3. Those who really do want a Strong Man and genocide against Muslims.
It's safe to say that those in the #3 camp represent a minuscule proportion.
As for those in the other two camps, neither group has solid evidence to back up their positions, as both the concern (#1) and the relative lack of concern (#2) are predicated upon potentials and hypotheses, as well as analogies from history.
Also, the #1 camp tend to assume that the European model applies equally to North America, even though nothing warrants such an application. The Europeans have a vivid memory of a recent past when actual Strong Men did rise up and commit atrocities. America has no such history, and seems to be a healthier polity in that regard.
Further, the #1 camp, in their evocation of the historical specter of actual Strong Men from European history, forget that those Strong Men were not fighting a real menace, as we are today with Islam, but a manufactured menace (the Jews, Capitalists, Masons, etc.).
Additionally, the #1 camp seems to be relying upon the fallacy of the Either/Or, thus forcing a bracketing-out of degrees along a spectrum: Either there will be a Strong Man who will be 100% evil and undermine Western democracy / Or we must tie one hand behind our backs when we fight Islam. I don't see much plausible support for this stark choice; when Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and locked up journalists, was he being the dreaded "Strong Man"? When George Washington put down the Whiskey Rebellion with violent force, was he being a "Strong Man"? When the greatest liberal President of the 20th century, FDR, interned large numbers of American citizens of Japanese, Italian and German descent in the rational pursuit of our self-defense, was he being a "fascist Strong Man"?
There are many things we can and must do to respond to the menace of Islam that should take into account the actual nature of that menace, and not rely on theoretical paradigms disconnected from that menace. If innumerable Muslims impossible to sufficiently distinguish from ostensibly harmless Muslims are reasonably suspected of plotting various attacks of various kinds in various locations throughout the West which we may well not be able to identify before the attacks happen (from poisoning water supplies, to poisoning food products, to using chemical and/or biological weapons & suitcase nukes in various ways in various venues from shopping centers to airports to power plants to busy public places) -- not to mention the likelihood of an increasing phenomenon of "sudden jihad syndrome" in various spontaneous and unpredictable places --, and when we know their fanaticism knowns no bounds (not even suicide, not even the collateral damage of fellow Muslims, including women and children) -- then we must ratchet up our preparation for self defense. (The aforementioned does not even mention the dangers of a growing "steal jihad" that is paradoxically symbiotic upon our fears of terrorism + our dominant PC culture; nor does it account for the staggering costs our businesses and governments have had to bear in the fear of attacks on nearly every type of public place.)
Excessive and theoretical hand-wringing over the specter of a "Strong Man" may well serve to inhibit our sufficient proactive self-defense -- even if some of the hand-wringers do not intend this effect. At any rate, I'll be damned if I wait until after an American city gets destroyed and a million or two Americans die, before we start taking rationally ruthless measures.
And just because rational ruthless measures are currently unrealistic in light of dominant PC, doesn't mean I have to stand down from the most rational position.
The Hesperado
Erich, if you don't think we've had a Strong Man before in the USA, you're wrong. Maybe you've only been reading the liberal version of history.
We've had at least 3 -- Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, and Franklin D. Roosevelt. The first 2 got their powers during wartime, but Roosevelt obtained his during peacetime.
Read Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg for some of the juicy details on what went on under Roosevelt. It's all well-documented and fully sourced.
He was quite fascistic, and all in the name of progressive causes.
Woodrow Wilson is one of the weirdest presidents ever. His effort to get into the European Great War succeeded, big way. That probably extended the war by 1½ year and led to the humiliations of Versailles. Which, in turn, gave a certain person a platform he'd abuse severely.
Franklin D. kept the Great Depression alive (18 % unemployment) throughout the 30's, promising but never delivering an end to the crisis.
The 20th century was the age of the Strong Man, who'd stand for Unity, Strength, Progress and Change. Something to believe in, something to sacrifice your own stuff to the 'common good' for.
I hope that time is over. For good.
Erich,
3. Those who really do want a Strong Man and genocide against Muslims.
A strong man must lead to genocide? This is the most ridiculous liberal hysteria I read in a long while here at GoV.
2 Florestan
"Our blog is is generally critical of the Pax Americana and zionism overall"
Maybe I don't understand something, and its very possible, but why the hell Europeans are so critical of Zionism? Zionism is kind of Jewish nationalism, as I understand it. I can see a few reasons, please add your own if you know better:
1. Desire to exclude Jews from European agenda because they are considered to be not enough clean Europeans. Similar argument may be that Middle East is not Europe and its better keep away from it.
2. Too much of socialism and liberalism in Zionist movement
3. Unwillingness to take sides in the greater Judeo(Christian) - Muslim divide.
First is about purity. But taken to the extreme, the same purity will also exclude most Eastern and Southern Europeans, who may be considered not clean enough. The believer in such purity will finally find himself alone. He will also lose all territories, because as soon as they are not "pure" enough they are abandoned.
Second is about Jewish problems. However, same problems exist in any Western nation. Baron has shown it before very clearly.
The third is a vague ideological reason, but it may be the case. It is the attempt to reduce the problem to purely racial, national or material-cultural divide. To stay away from ideas. But that's exactly what Islam is about. I am afraid, the one who is driven by materialism, will finally find himself under the power of Islam. That's why I believe that neocons, as misguided as they are, still posses some influence, whereas isolationists generally no. Ideas may be wrong, but without ideas you cannot expect to be noticed.
Baron,
"Erich, if you don't think we've had a Strong Man before in the USA, you're wrong. Maybe you've only been reading the liberal version of history.
We've had at least 3 -- Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, and Franklin D. Roosevelt."
Apparently you didn't read my post carefully. I specifically mention Lincoln and Roosevelt. But are they the kind of "Strong Man" you don't want? The kind that worries you? Do you really think Roosevelt was on a par with a Hitler or Mussolini? Not only do we need a Lincoln or Roosevelt today in the face of the menace of Islam, we could do with an even "stronger" leader than them -- and he would still be safely incomparable to a Hitler or Mussolini.
Conservative Swede,
Quoting my post -- 3. Those who really do want a Strong Man and genocide against Muslims
-- you responded:
"A strong man must lead to genocide? This is the most ridiculous liberal hysteria I read in a long while here at GoV."
You evidently didn't read my entire post carefully.
First, I was criticizing the apparent tendency of the main article writer (Baron) for his ostensible premise/conclusion that a Strong Man is
a) necessarily a bad thing
and
b) a bad thing because it must be analogous to the model of a Hitler or Mussolini.
It is this faulty premise/conclusion that causes too many people today (including among the anti-Islamic camp) to link the Strong Man to the unacceptable excesses of their analogous model (including genocide).
It should have been clear from my prior post that I find this model, and the anxious concern underlying it, to be not only faulty, but positively counter-productive to our present needs for self-defense, as it tends to lead to policies that soften the ruthlessness we need to defend ourselves against the unique threat presented by Muslims.
My #2 point in my prior post specifically de-coupled the Strong Man from the excesses that so concern some people, and it should have been clear that I support a Strong Man to help us in our fight against Islam (particularly an American Strong Man), since I am not burdened by the anxiety that such a figure would in fact lead us down the "slippery slope" of genocide -- nor any other slippery slope of concern.
Odd that you condemn me, when I seem to be agreeing with you, but you fail to condemn Baron -- who was the one more or less advocating the position you mistakenly locate in my post!
Erich,
I read your first post again and I still do not understand it, and it still seems to suggest that you connect a Strong Man with genocide, but never mind.
Now you write:
I support a Strong Man to help us in our fight against Islam
Very good. So do I. The other people are dreamers. A group of ministers ("care-takers") have rarely been able to do any better than maintaining a society. To lead, and to create something qualitatively new, a leader is needed.
Regarding the Baron's view I have already answered him here.
A Strong Man would lead to more freedom, not less. But people are as usually scared of change, and cling to their nominal freedoms of the current order.
Erich --
I most certainly do not want another FDR. I don't want the nationalization of the means of production or government intrusion into every aspect of personal life.
People actually went to jail for having unacceptable opinions under Wilson and Roosevelt. Look it up.
Setting aside such principles as two wrongs don't make a right.
Wouldn't it be interesting if muslims were subjected to the same restrictions in non-muslim countries
as non muslims are in muslim countries?
Sauce for the goose etc,
Well, regarding Florestan and his blog "Beska Droppar". His co-blogger Aloysius just declared that I'm blocked from commenting any more. The reason is that I told him that he's out of his mind.
He had just before said that he found the exchange between me and another commenter, who is a David Duke supporter, interesting and that he wished we would support each others position better with arguments, be more polite, etc.
So I told him he's out of his mind, and he responded by banning me.
Taking David Duke and his supporters seriously enough to wish for a penetrating discussion about it is truly deranged. And anyone who think I would waste my time on that is out of his mind. So I have clearly been wrong in what I said above in my assessment of the owners of this blog. It seems that I have been mistaking politeness for substance. And these fellows apply their polite respect indiscriminately to include David Duke fans.
Florestan and Aloysius have an informed and good position regarding Islam, but I realize now that I should have taken more interest in what they mean by being "generally critical of... Zionism overall". I also gotten a better sense by now what kind of things that are keeping people together at the portal www.motpol.nu.
I honestly have no idea what to tell a person that do not find that David Duke is nuts (and his followers insane) just by reading a few pages by him. Well, I told him that he's out of his mind.
Anyway, I do not think that GoV needs to worry about accusations of being neocons etc. from people at www.motpol.nu.
My, my, my...
Few understand Swedish here. Therefore, most are likely to believe and support Conservative Swede whatever the veracity of his... little resumé. Not a very nice method, no...
Conservative Swede was most favorably received at Florestan´s and my blog, "Beska droppar". At first. Yet, he managed to be the first person ever banned from the blog. Ever. And it certainly wasn´t for political reasons. I believe it says everything a civilized person needs to know.
Conservative Swede seems to know the truth in every worldly matter. Good for him. However, I do not. Therefore, I like to listen to others´ point, be their name "Conservative Swede", David Duke - or even the devil, if he were to try to make a point. I simply try to judge what is being said - not by whom it is being said. My mistake was to think that Conservative Swede was of the same mind. I shalln´t make this very mistake again.
As to GoV, I find it very difficult to believe that its founders will obey CS:s sectarian ruling. Time will tell.
(www.motpol.nu is simply hosting several rather different blogs, which I have already told CS. There is no editorial line at Motpol and therefore no basis at all for CS:s last sentence. But does truth still matter? I wonder.)
hellosnackbar: two wrongs don't make a right.
Agreed. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Three do.
And, yes, corresponding reciprocity is the minimum acceptable level of active anti-Islamic measures.
Aloysius refers to my "little resumé" as if there was something objectionable about it ("not a very nice method"), but still he doesn't counter my account of the event at any point. To the contrary, he confirms the very story I told.
To me, the point of a discussion when a person shows support for David Duke, and makes clear it's rock solid, and Dansk Folkeparti is denounced as bourgeoisie wimps who never achieved anything, and Israel Shamir is brought up as the example that the person is not against all Jews, etc.; this is the moment when the discussion is over for me, and the other party has shown himself to be insane.
Aloysius however, instead describes this as a highly interesting point of the discussion where he wants to hear more penetrating arguments from both sides. But that attitude is no way characteristic for the willingness for good debate. Instead it's a robotic repetition of "I like to listen to others´ point", which by its mechanical nature loses it meaning. Someone claims that the Earth is flat and Aloysius says "very interesting" and wants to hear more.
Yet, he managed to be the first person ever banned from the blog. Ever. And it certainly wasn´t for political reasons. I believe it says everything a civilized person needs to know.
Aloysius, let me explain one thing to you. When you speak in such big words about the case you claim to have against me, but do not spend a single word in presenting the case, then this will only result in your position looking very weak.
You are essentially saying to the GoV readers "Hey you don't understand Swedish, so don't listen to CS, believe in me instead, but I won't give you any details".
I was banned for saying to Aloysius that he was out of his mind for wanting an open discussion regarding David Duke etc. Political or not? I leave to the readers here to decide.
Conservative Swede seems to know the truth in every worldly matter. Good for him. However, I do not.
Well maybe Israel was complicit in 9/11 as David Duke claims? How could we really know... (wondering, wondering)
But even so, I fail to see how Aloysius manage to take it from there into a matter of my ego. David Duke positions are insane, period. My ego does not enter into the picture.
www.motpol.nu is simply hosting several rather different blogs, which I have already told CS. There is no editorial line at Motpol and therefore no basis at all for CS:s last sentence. But does truth still matter? I wonder.
Aloysius, instead of going after my person and describe me as someone twisting the truth, why don't you just back up your claim? All you need to do is to refer to the motpol-blog that is pro-sionist, and it would take the sting out of my characterization.
As to GoV, I find it very difficult to believe that its founders will obey CS:s sectarian ruling.
This sentence is funny on so many levels that I do not even know where to start.
So I skip it and instead end by saying that out of the people at Motpol, Aloysius and Florestan are the ones that have some good stuff in them. Some of the people of Motpol are rotten to the core. Many are deluded, so are Aloysius and Florestan. But they are more intelligent and intellectually honest than the rest, so they might get out of it. The day they have left Motpol, we will know that they have.
I should add that Aloysius and Florestan are significantly more intelligent and intellectually honest than the others at Motpol that I have encountered.
I would also point out that Oskorei has a good and very interesting blog at Motpol (haven't read it for almost a year though).
Do you really think Roosevelt was on a par with a Hitler or Mussolini?
Hitler no, Mussolini absolutely. FDR kept the US in a state of poverty for a decade and lead the country to a war that could have been avoided, was it not for the Great Depression that FDR and his predecessor Herbert Hoover created.
This permanent state of crisis is central to fascist rule, as it makes people give up their self-determination and leave control of their lives to some 'higher' authority - who usually turns out to be absolute dorks.
Conservative Swede,
I have little time to spare to-day. I shall, however, say this.
I do feel you misrepresent what happened, mostly by omission. One need only to read my blog to see that. Here is not the place to translate the lengthy debate that took place. In any case, such is not the point.
Were you to insult Baron B, I´m certain there would be some consequences. This is the point. People should be able to disagree without scorn and name-calling. You cannot, and it is sad.
(As CS well knows, since I have told him, Florestan´s and my blog is independant from other Motpol contributors. As a matter of fact, "Beska droppar" is also hosted by Blogger, just in case.)
Aloysius --
You haven't been a reader here long enough to know that Conservative Swede has insulted me a few times. He doesn't call me an asshole or anything -- that would violate the rules, which he abides by -- but he knows how to put in a dig every now and then.
But I count him as a friend even so. He likes to be provocative and difficult to get his point across, but he's often right. I've learned to ignore the syle and examine the substance; he usually manages to point out the truth in a place where I'd missed it.
Difficult and provocative is worth living with when it leads to the truth.
Dear Baron,
This may well be, and I for one am not known by my friends to be always an easy person. Nor is provocation something I always shun. Still, one has to state one´s point in a somewhat civilized way and to give arguments for it. Simply calling people mad or else is of little help in a debate.
I sincerely hope that CS will make a little effort to see the awkwardness of the position in which he put Florestan and me. For I should be very happy to have his comments anew.
Thanks for your kind answer. And for an important blog.
Aloysius,
Still, one has to state one´s point in a somewhat civilized way and to give arguments for it. Simply calling people mad or else is of little help in a debate.
People here know well my debating style, and it's not to simply call people mad and not give arguments for it. And many people here can actually read what happened over at your thread, so don't try to distort the truth.
Instead I gave a lot of myself over there, feeding the thread with everything that is needed for a good discussion. I made a real effort, but I can see now that it was all wasted, thanks to the low level of the other participants (so low level that I do not even care what they think by now).
However, I make an exception for David Duke and people who take him seriously. I won't waste my time in giving arguments for why Duke's positions are insane. To suggest to I need to do so in order to be seen as "civilized" in your eyes is truly insulting to both my intelligence and honour.
Your awkward position is something you put yourselves in by staying friendly with David Duke supporters, while taking them seriously. I suggest that you drag yourselves out of this awkward position by starting to challenge the position of David Duke and his supporters.
I would also be interested in hearing your motivation for being against Zionism.
CS,
Whatever your debating style in general might be (and I for one find it far too harsh whenever anyone disagrees with you, but I kept this to my self hitherto, since I try to find common ground when feasable), your behavior as soon as Duke was mentioned is nor worthy of any debate. "You´re a fruitcake" does not count as an argument in my world (and I didn´t even mention Duke...). Besides, I can assure you that your opponent´s viewpoint on Beska droppar cannot be accounted for by sheer madness. I might add that PC people react in this very manner whenever many of your opinions are put forth. As you must already know.
I am fairly well read. I am ususally intelligent enough to follow a debate. I try to remain open to truth independently of prejudice and social pressure. If that is not enough for you, well, we won´t find it easy to discuss or debate, whatever my view on zionism migt be. Also, I am not at Catechism and you´re not my parish priest.
Why this whole business of zionism is such a litmus test to you, I cannot fanthom.
What is a fruitcake anyway, and what exactly makes it bad?
Is this some kind of homophobia or what?
CS-- Have you actually gone to david duke's website and read his articles and listened to his speeches or are you just condemning him out of hand by second-hand hearsay? I don't see why agreeing with David Duke suddenly makes an argument wrong or no longer worth talking about. David Duke opposes third world immigration into the West. Does this mean everyone else who takes that position is wrong and insane, because David Duke has it? That's the sort of irrational argument-making which can make any conclusion and win any argument without having to think or prove anything.
If David Duke is wrong about something like 9/11, well then he's wrong about it. If he's right about something like black crime rates, well then he's right about it. Each opinion must be argued independently based on the facts and merits, not based on identity. If Hitler is pro-highways, does that means anyone else who is pro-highways is insane?
You'll find yourself closer in agreement with David Duke than say Sarkozy, so try and have some perspective and not just automatically vilify the right, that's just falling into the left's trap. "I'll viciously condemn the guy to the right of me so that I can still get respect from my leftist friends." To hell with that. David Duke is a much better friend to the west than Mccain and his amnesty plan, Gordon Brown, or Zapatero. At least he's not a traitor to his own country/people.
This is what Yorkshire and Humberside MEP Richard (the Commie) Corbett has to say about Islam, opposition to it, and the EU's attitude: "It is not just the new techniques of spreading racist propaganda that are being used, but new types of racist message. Take for example the anti-Islamic propaganda and the portrayal of Islam in much of our popular press. It is presented as an evil, extremist religion, threatening our own culture. Yet to judge Islam on the acts of a few fundamentalists would be the same as judging Christianity on the basis of the Spanish inquisition.
In fact too few people in Europe realise how much Islam is part of European culture. The great Greek Classics, so often quoted as being the origin of European culture only survived through the work of the great Islamic universities when Europe went through the dark ages. And our mathematics - the foundation of our technological society - was developed in no small part by Arabs who gave us, among other things, our system of numbers and our algebra - itself an Arabic word."
So now you know.
(Taken from 'A Europe free from discrimination' on Corbett's website.)
Pure lies. We got our greek classics from Byzantium, and we didn't need them to develop ourselves anyway. Arabic numerals were in fact invented by Indians and Archimedes was already doing calculus long before the arabs were piddling around with algebra.
Furthermore Islam all across the world creates the same impoverished backward unfree human rights abusive countries, it isn't extremism but simple statistical reality. Out of the world's hundred or so muslim countries, there isn't a single good one and many terrible ones. How is that judging Islam by a few fringe extremists? Just judge Islam by its average and the answer is still obvious, they are degenerate.
These people are allowed to say anything because it's hate speech to argue the other side. Unfortunately without reasoned arguments for both sides it means the level of discourse is so low, people so illogical and ignorant, that nothing is said in public debate anymore. One has to wonder if all world history and geography combined hasn't convinced people of the central fact of Islam's depravity, what will?
Also it's time to stop allowing 'racist' to be an argument in itself. So what if it is a racist message? Race is a biological reality and also a fundamental value to every group. Don't pretend blacks don't call each other 'brother' and 'sister', they didn't vote for Obama over Clinton 95% to 1% because of policy differences, latinos don't have 'la raza', japanese and chinese and koreans don't have isolationist immigration policies, for nothing. Go to any college campus or phonebook and you'll find thousands of jewish organizations, black organizations, hispanic, vietnamese, korean, japanese, etc. The only group you won't find are white racial organizations. Nor is it due to whites being well off and not needing to organize, as we perform below the jews and asians who still organize militantly in every field. No, it is simply because we listened to this tripe about racism while everyone else laughed all the way to the bank. Everyone on earth is racist and everyone should be, or they are a sick dying land.
Whites make up less than 10% of the world's population and are losing territory everywhere on earth. If we continue to refuse to be racist, we will simply go extinct. This will not end racism, because everyone else is still just as racist as always. All it will end is white culture, achievements, genes, and looks. The world will be the poorer for it, and we ourselves will have lost everything. If you die in a community and with kin, almost all of you that matters is passed on. If your entire race dies nothing survives, the entirety of your self is eliminated from the entire future of the universe. It is the worst thing that can possibly happen.
DP111: LOL. I can picture that. I'm still laughing. Only a kosh??
Ya gotta take 'em alive for interrogation purposes. What happens after you disconnect them from the car batteries is another matter entirely.
Baron,
"People actually went to jail for having unacceptable opinions under Wilson and Roosevelt. Look it up."
1. Those kinds of actions did not harm the sociopolitical fabric of America. America became even more free and tolerant and socioculturally dynamic in the decades following FDR.
2. I support jailing people who make seditious statements in a time of great danger as we are in today, like Noam Chomsky or Ward Churchill or Pastor Wright.
3. Your economic concerns about FDR are irrelevant to the menace we face from Islam. His internment of Japanese-Americans, Italian-Americans, and German-Americans was the right thing to do. The majority of American people agreed. The U.S. Supreme Court has never ruled his decision was un-Constitutional.
4. Your economic concern about FDR, furthermore, is a red herring: you don't know that a new "Strong Man" who will tackle the menace of Islam is going to institute economic programs like Roosevelt's.
Conservative Swede,
I realize now that I should have taken more interest in what they mean by being "generally critical of... Zionism overall".
I have yet to encounter anyone who seems to express a reasonable criticism, distaste or discomfort for "Zionism", who does not turn out to be a crypto-Jew-hater with dismaying leanings toward grandiose conspiracy theories about history and diabolical cabals of Jews, Masons, Illuminati, etc.
diamed wrote:
"David Duke opposes third world immigration into the West. Does this mean everyone else who takes that position is wrong and insane, because David Duke has it?"
No, but David Duke is dangerous and evil for other positions he takes (not the least of which is his conviction that Jews are a greater menace than Muslims). One can surely do better than to adduce David Duke for positions we need to defend, and take, with respect to the menace of Islam. I'm sure Hitler himself was correct about certain things; does that mean we should listen carefully to what Hitler supporters say as though they would offer anything of value?
The posture of Aloysius, then -- from what I have gathered -- is impermissible. While it is arguable that a David Duke acolyte should be allowed to articulate his warped views of the world, if only for our pedagogical purposes of understanding such a warped mentality better, he should not be allowed to sit at our discussion table, as Aloysius seems to be saying, in the spirit of believing there might be anything of moral or political worth to be found there.
Erich --
I don’t know why I bother arguing with you. But here goes…
1. Those kinds of actions did not harm the sociopolitical fabric of America. America became even more free and tolerant and socioculturally dynamic in the decades following FDR.
This is true, but not relevant. We left the Strong Man behind, but much of the damage he did (in increased federal bureaucracy, taxes, and meddling) remained.
2. I support jailing people who make seditious statements in a time of great danger as we are in today, like Noam Chomsky or Ward Churchill or Pastor Wright.
You’re doing one of your straw man numbers again. I’m not talking about sedition. Under Wilson a guy was put in jail for charging too little money for what he wanted to sell. Under Roosevelt, during the Depression, businesses had their doors broken down and their premises raided if they failed to display the “Blue Eagle”. Read up on this stuff, then come back.
3. Your economic concerns about FDR are irrelevant to the menace we face from Islam. His internment of Japanese-Americans, Italian-Americans, and German-Americans was the right thing to do. The majority of American people agreed. The U.S. Supreme Court has never ruled his decision was un-Constitutional.
Another straw man. I specifically talked about what Roosevelt did in peacetime. And I never said that I opposed internment. War is different. The coming war will likely be very different.
4. Your economic concern about FDR, furthermore, is a red herring: you don’t know that a new “Strong Man” who will tackle the menace of Islam is going to institute economic programs like Roosevelt’s.
Yes, that’s true. My specific assertion was that I DON’T KNOW. None of us knows.
I said that a grievous catastrophe, Pearl Harbor X 1,000, is likely to presage the arrival of the Strong Man. History gives plenty of reason to believe that it’s likely.
But the situation will be chaotic, and cannot be predicted in any detail.
Diamed,
Check out your friend of the West here:
Two clips from MEMRI with David Duke
I strongly recommended this for everyone to see.
There are both video clips and transcripts. I suggest you start with the first clip. In the second clip, pay attention to how David Duke says how he admires Ken Livingstone.
Sarkozy does not even come close in sucking up to Muslims the way David Duke does.
Diamed, you have lost all my respect. Your obsession with them Jews has made you lose all sanity.
Good night, Diamed!
PS. Erich, you are such a breath of fresh air :-)
Henrik:
A fruitcate is like Parliament in that it may contain nuts, has gone soft in the middle, is liberally soaked in brandy and tends to fall apart when poked.
T'ain't a "homophobic" comment. Saying someone is a fruitcake is saying they're soft, nutty and probably full of alcohol. A loon, in other words. A crazy person.
Aloysius,
I haven't said anything like "fruitcake" or "sheer madness", but I have given up at this point in trying to correct your distortions. And it's truly ironic how you come here playing the part of the victim when it was you who banned me from your site.
I might add that PC people react in this very manner whenever many of your opinions are put forth.
The objection against Duke is not that he's too un-PC, but how he holds literally insane conspiracy positions, is traitorous and in general a load of poison. There is a certain kind of people who sticks to the simplistic idea of the more un-PC the better. I didn't quite expect this from you, though. Islamic supremacism is of course the most un-PC thing there is, so there is no surprise that David Duke ends up on their side.
If that is not enough for you, well, we won´t find it easy to discuss or debate, whatever my view on zionism migt be. Also, I am not at Catechism and you´re not my parish priest.
Why don't you just present your criticism of Zionism, instead of circling around the issue.
Why this whole business of zionism is such a litmus test to you, I cannot fanthom.
No it's not, which is easily proven by the chronology of this thread. Take a look at Florestan's first post and my answer to it. QED.
Seriously, Aloysius, you spend a lot of time in trying to paint my question to you as disingenuous and unfair. Why don't you just answer the question instead? What's your problem with Zionism? Instead of just talking about how you are in favour of debate, engage in it!
Also you still haven't given me the link to the Motpol blog that is pro-Zionist. Could it be that there isn't any? Is there even one that is not anti-Zionist?
I'm happy to discuss with you and you seem to be a nice guy. It doesn't matter that I was banned from your site, since you are here now. And the discussions there were not very good anyway. So let's engage in debate! Don't be like the cat on the hot tin roof. Spill it out. Tell us what's on your mind.
I must have eaten too much frutcake, what I wanted to say about the two video clips from MEMRI with David Duke was the opposite of what I said:
I suggest you start with the second clip. In the first clip, pay attention to how David Duke says how he admires Ken Livingstone.
And apart from the Ken Livingstone admiration we have the alignment with Cindy Sheehan from the David Duke fans, etc., etc. The worst of Islam and the worst of leftism, in addition to lunacy anti-Jewish conspiracy theories, etc. He surely takes the prize.
Baron,
"Another straw man. I specifically talked about what Roosevelt did in peacetime. And I never said that I opposed internment. War is different. The coming war will likely be very different."
We are talking about the menace of Islam, and how a Strong Man can help with that. Thus, adducing examples of previous putative Strong Man who did bad things unrelated to military menaces is irrelevant.
When you add that "War is different" -- we are in a peculiar situation today where we are in a war, but our side doesn't sufficiently realize it yet. And for that, a Strong Man would be enormously helpful -- to galvanize the West (with its significant numbers of a "Silent Majority" who increasingly resent and fear Islam's metastasis) into the realization that the West is, in fact, at war, and at war with Islam, not merely a "Tiny Minority of Extremists Who Are Trying to Hijack a Wonderfully Ethnic & Diverse Religion of Peace".
While your parallel point may well be correct -- that only horrible attacks in the future may suffice to so galvanize the West; nevertheless, I think it's premature and counter-productive to rule the Strong Man out of hand categorically as one helpful arrow in our quiver of responses to the menace of Islam.
"But the situation will be chaotic, and cannot be predicted in any detail."
So your advice is to wait until after horrible attacks and ensuing chaos before we really get our self-defensive shit together?
The name of the fellow that Aloysius banned me for not wanting to discuss David Duke with (or rather for expressing how utterly silly the idea was), his name is Jonas de Geer. In the Wikipedia page about him we find a quote where he says:
"Swedens ethnic and Christian traditions are fully compatible with respect for Arabic culture and Muslim religion, but incompatible with the new world orders cultural and economical program."
Same old, same old. All in character; you can predict it like clockwork. Respect for Islam. Same as from Lawrence Auster, Jim Kalb and the other usual suspects.
But hey Diamed, he said that he is against the current cultural order, so that must be great, right?
The Greek classics survived *in spite of Islam*. Had Islam not wrecked havoc on the Christian countries from the 7th century onwards, we would quite likely have discovered and utilized them much earlier.
Also, note that when they came to Europe (Library of Toledo was one source), they inspired dramatic progress in philosophy, science and technology, which came to benefit the population at large. In the Islamic countries, the text were supposed to be worshipped, not used, and the benefit for citizens was nil. There was no fertile ground for Greek philosophy to set roots.
Today Jonas de Geer writes for "Folkets Nyheter". Here is an article from that publication paying homage to Ahmadinejad's Holocaust Conference:
Epokgörande konferens i Teheran
I wonder if Jonas de Geer managed to get there himself.
And take a look at the photo. Ahmadinejad is shaking hands with a Jew. That proves that he's not an anti-Semite. Quite as Jonas de Geer proved to me that he's not categorically against co-operating with Jews since he's being friendly with Israel Shamir. And as David Duke dedicated his book to Israel Shahak, which shows that he's not an anti-Semite.
Thanks CS.
"Ahmadinejad is shaking hands with a Jew. That proves that he's not an anti-Semite."
Yes, this kind of argument is rather common. This is of a piece with those who are "anti-Zionist": many of them have no problem allying themselves with Jews, as long as those Jews behave like proper dhimmis, or have cultivated a kind of self-hatred about Judaism (thus indulging in morbid criticisms of the Talmud and of Zionism as much as do the anti-Zionists, as well as fantastic criticism of the diabolical influence of Jews on "globalism", per Noam Chomsky). Thankfully, the number of those types of Jews are fairly unrepresentative of Jews in general. However, a phenomenon of little less concern is a broader and more diffuse (and therefore less pathological, but still obstructive to our self-defense) acclimation of a significant minority of Jews to politically correct multi-culturalism (PC MC). This acclimation reflects a paradoxical feature of Jewish culture, in that it shows their ability to be progressive and tolerant, etc., but simultaneously shows them to contain a tendency to participate in progress and tolerance even when that progress and tolerance becomes excessive and deleterious, as it does with the sociopolitical phenomenon of PC MC. But again, Jews are hardly singular in this latter respect: indeed, the entire West is afflicted with PC MC -- high, low and middle; Jews, Christians, atheists and agnostics; Left, Right and Center.
Only a relatively small minority has seemed to be capable, thus far, of waking up and shaking off the ridiculous, and increasingly suicidal paradigm of PC MC that has become dominant and mainstream throughout the West over the past 50-odd years.
The Hesperado
Baron,
P.S.: The only way I can make logical sense of your attention to the economic concerns of a Strong Man is that you consider the potential eventuality of bad economic programs of a Strong Man to be worse than horrific attacks by Muslims on us + ensuing chaos which may well result from our voluntary collective refusal to follow a Strong Man.
While I can understand that kind of choice from people who would refrain from genocide even if genocide was the only way to stop horrific Muslim attacks on us, I think putting the possibility of bad economic programs above Muslim attacks + ensuing chaos is setting the bar a tad low.
Erich --
I think you and I may mean different things when we refer to “the Strong Man”.
Roosevelt was only marginally a Strong Man. He was a Strong Man wannabe. Stalin was the real thing, the strongest ever.
When I refer to the Strong Man, I mean someone who can and does have his political enemies killed at will, by the thousands. Who has hundreds of thousands of people detained on the flimsiest of pretexts. Who enters into wars with little regard for the consequences to his own people.
While your parallel point may well be correct -- that only horrible attacks in the future may suffice to so galvanize the West; nevertheless, I think it's premature and counter-productive to rule the Strong Man out of hand categorically as one helpful arrow in our quiver of responses to the menace of Islam.
I am not dismissing him out of hand. I think we are likely to end up with him. I’m just not looking forward to it.
So your advice is to wait until after horrible attacks and ensuing chaos before we really get our self-defensive shit together?
No. My advice is to be lucid, keep your eyes open, don’t be fooled by mirages, and strive towards something we can actually manage to attain.
People who long for the “Nuke Mecca” phase without any intervening steps may well get their wish, but when they do, they’ll hate living under the regime that’s necessary to carry out such a program.
The only way I can make logical sense of your attention to the economic concerns of a Strong Man is that you consider the potential eventuality of bad economic programs of a Strong Man to be worse than horrific attacks by Muslims on us + ensuing chaos which may well result from our voluntary collective refusal to follow a Strong Man.
Not at all. Centralized control of the economy damages a country and weakens it, eroding its war-making capabilities. Henrik is right — Roosevelt weakened the United States during the Depression. We would have been stronger in 1941 without all that wasteful statist control through the 1930s.
Baron,
Your points here are well taken, However, I do not agree that we will hate to live under the regime necessary to carry out this sort of program. We will enjoy it, but in a very different sort of way that we enjoy the society we live in today.
For example, killing the enemy and being triumphal is great fun and great satisfaction, when it's considered righteous and not marred by Christian/PC guilt. We will lose some freedoms and gain others. But overall, we will gain survival. It's a good deal, and the only deal we would live to appreciate.
I'm looking forward to it. A society of unity aiming for the common good, instead of atomistic individualism and internationalism. Such a soft and warm embrace.
But you are right, it will be very different. And it takes some drastic rethinking before being able to appreciate it.
Baron,
"Not at all. Centralized control of the economy damages a country and weakens it, eroding its war-making capabilities. Henrik is right — Roosevelt weakened the United States during the Depression. We would have been stronger in 1941 without all that wasteful statist control through the 1930s."
1. We contributed immensely to the victory of WW2. I have the fact that we won WW2 on my side; you have the hypothesis that we could have won better had we done X, Y and Z and not done A, B and C.
2. It is difficult to imagine how the gargantuan project of galvanizing a nation that was not really internationally oriented up through the 1930s into a superpower capable of #1 could have been done without the drastic economic measures FDR took.
3. It's an interesting theory that FDR caused the Great Depression, when he wasn't even President then.
4. The Great Depression of the 20s was a world-wide phenomenon, and only if Wilson was some kind of a diabolical Bond villain could he have been as responsible as you and Henrik make him out to be.
5. Finally, we the West are overwhelmingly capable now of sufficiently managing the menace of Islam for the purposes of rendering us significantly (not perfectly) safer: it's not economic factors limiting us: it is purely psychological/ideological postures that are hampering our rationality to deal with this problem -- i.e., PC MC.
Erich --
You consistently misrepresent my positions, arguing with things that I don't assert andf ascribing ludicrous opinions to me. I don't know if you misunderstand me, or imagine that I mean something other than what I say, or if there is some other reason.
So this is my final attempt.
It's an interesting theory that FDR caused the Great Depression, when he wasn't even President then.
I never said such a thing, thought such a thing, nor implied such a thing. I would never entertain such a bizarre notion.
I said: "Roosevelt weakened the United States during the Depression. We would have been stronger in 1941 without all that wasteful statist control through the 1930s."
I stand by my assertion.
The Depression started before Roosevelt, but he deepened it and made it last longer because of his statist economic policies. Most major non-leftist (i.e. not Paul Krugman) economists agree with this notion. Some of them are not even supply-siders.
Conservative Swede --
You're probably right, as usual. But I'm still not looking forward to it.
I'm old and set in my ways, and the prospect of living in an even more authoritarian society than what we have now fails to excite me. It may be necessary for our survival, but it's not something I relish.
The Law of Unintended Consequences is likely to rampage through the future you envisage. And you can't get away from the fact that, in the kind of regime we're describing, people like you and me usually end up in the camps or get shot.
Baron,
I imagine myself as the advisor of the Strong Man, but I might get disappointed of course :-)
And otherwise I will just shut up and enjoy life. This is what I prefer to do really.
Baron,
While I did not exactly say you said that FDR created the Great Depression, I agree it was somewhat injudicious for me to imply it as I did.
However, you did approvingly cite another commenter here (Henrik) on a related point (namely, that FDR's policies worsened the effects of the Great Depression), yet you never distanced yourself from his statement he made prior to your approving citing of him, to wit:
"the Great Depression that FDR and his predecessor Herbert Hoover created." -- Henrik.
(I can understand with so many comments, that one might have slipped past your notice.)
Also, I got the Wilson part wrong; now I know, from Henrik, that it was Herbert Hoover who was the diabolical Batman villain (with FDR as his Penguin) who created the global crisis called the Great Depression.
2. It is difficult to imagine how the gargantuan project of galvanizing a nation that was not really internationally oriented up through the 1930s into a superpower capable of #1 could have been done without the drastic economic measures FDR took.
This 'galvanizing' is similar to the one undertaken by Bismark, Garibaldi, Mussolini and others who wanted to turn a diverse amalgam of states and nations into a Unity State with Strength and Power to project itself upon the world.
3. It's an interesting theory that FDR caused the Great Depression, when he wasn't even President then.
If you had read what I wrote, you'd have noticed that it was "FDR and his predecessor Hoover". Hoover was the original architect of the Great Depression, and was voted out of office with a landslide for his idiotic policies. FDR continued them with a better propaganda department.
4. The Great Depression of the 20s was a world-wide phenomenon, and only if Wilson was some kind of a diabolical Bond villain could he have been as responsible as you and Henrik make him out to be.
My, do we confuse things here :)
Wilson was responsible for meddling into the European Great War. That led to quite a bit of killing and destruction, gave Imperial Germany the opportunity to install an evil regime in Russia, and led to the devastating treaty of Versailles. Those could have been avoided had Wilson not been so hellbent on war and to such an extreme degree able to suspend the US constitution.
The Great Depression was in the 30's. OK?
I'm not holding Wilson responsible for that. OK?
The Great Depression took off at a stock market crash. That it well known. But it wasn't caused by the crash, it was caused by the idiotic state control measures of Herbert Hoover, taken over by FDR after Hoover had been kicked out. If only Hoover had learned from Harding, the do-nothing president of 1920 (who reacted to a similar crisis merely by lowering public spending), the economy would have bounced right back without lasting damage.
Source for various bits: The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History
Erich --
When I said I agreed with Henrik, it was a specific reference to what he said about FDR making the Depression worse. It doesn't mean I always agree with everything he says. Just ask him. :)
But read his comment just above here -- I thinks he makes the case very well for a number of other issues. What he says about Wilson Harding, Hoover, and FDR is generally true.
It's hard to rethink that period when you have to unlearn everything you were taught in school. I've been working on it for the last 30 years or so.
(My answer to CS disappeared, it seems; therefore, here´s another try.)
CS,
So many things seem to be a matter of ego with you... The matter at hand is very simple, but you try to lead the reader´s attention in another direction. Not that the matter at hand is important. Not in the least: a clash of wills in the light of eternity... I would never hade drawn attention to it my self. Y o u made it into something to debate for hours. Well, I won´t do it. Here is my final (call it "playing the victim" if you pease):
1. I simply will not put up with people who become rude any time they do not get their way (se here). This is the only reason for your ban from Beska droppar (no matter whatever latitude the Baron allows you here). The only and single reason. Nor is this ban by definition eternal (as my answer to the Baron proves, see above). You shall simply have to be polite.
2. My concern is not Zionism, antisemitism and the like. Nor is it yours, you say. Well, you certainly behave as if it were of extreme importance to you (I´m glancing at your latest comments). Important enough to alienate people whom you were praising only a few days earlier. Well, my concern is the survival of Europe and its people, of France, of Sweden, of the Catholic Church, of my family, of Plato, Mozart and Proust, of women with blue eyes... For this reason, I refuse to fight those who, however imperfectly, share my concern. This includes Jonas de Geer and you.
3. Conspiracy theories are sometimes true (wholly or in part), sometines not. I do not make them (as such) a litmus test in much.
4. You know my terms for a dialogue. They are simple and rather generous. They are, in fine, not negociable.
(Someone, here, made a silly joke about fruitcakes, asking sophistically what the problem migt be with them - it reminds me of school... - It made me realize my English might be at fault: I used "fruitcake" to translate a special Swedish phrase of insult questioning the opponent´s mental health. If "fruitcake" means something else, please adjust to my intentioned meaning, since I can´t change my original comment.)
'Someone' was me.
And while I like fruitcakes, apple pie in particular, my rhetorical question had a different intention: To discourage name-calling and ad hominem attacks.
Next time someone uses another slang-like derogative, I'll probably do the same. Be forewarned :)
Mr. Clausen,
If I misunderstood you, I apologize. I, too, find name-calling tiresome.
Aloysius,
Important enough to alienate people whom you were praising only a few days earlier.
You are the one alienating yourself by treating David Duke positions as respectful opinions. And I have veraciously said that you are out of your mind for this. I fail to see how you could complain about my debating style, since it's only you who have distorted the truth in this thread. While I have only told the truth (and your behaviour have helped in proving that I'm right). Some truths hurt (and life is a bitch) and some people just cannot handle the truth. There's not much I can do about it.
Your debating style is obviously to not address any factual issues at all, but instead only addressing meta-debate and me as a person. I do it the other way around, and find that superior. Your comments here are littered with remarks of how things mainly seems to be a matter of ego to me, and more of the same kind. And we had the example before when you instead of giving a simple counter-example, decided to characterize me as someone twisting the truth. Wouldn't it have been simpler, and more honest, just to give the counter-example? (or maybe you didn't have one). This is your debating style, and it's a mystery to me why you are so proud of it.
I find it essential when addressing another person as a person, that the truth is told. And you are truly out of your mind for wanting to have David Duke supporters at your table for what you consider the good and essential debate. Who are you going to invite next? Ken Livingstone, Cindy Sheehan, Bashar al-Assad, Tariq Ramadan? I would sooner sit at a discussion table with Muammar al-Gaddafi than with Jonas de Geer.
"Well, my concern is the survival of Europe and its people, of France, of Sweden, of the Catholic Church, of my family, of Plato, Mozart and Proust, of women with blue eyes... For this reason, I refuse to fight those who, however imperfectly, share my concern."
well said.
Bottom Line:
If a Strong Man came along and was able to deport all (or even most) Muslims from the West (or even only from America), and he also instituted some economic policies that were objectionable to some people but not to others, I fail to see how anyone on anti-Islam websites such as this one could possibly not support that Strong Man. If Baron or Henrik or anybody else here would hesitate for 10 seconds to think about it, then you are orienting yourself in such a way that endangers my life and the lives of my loved ones, by having ass-backwards priorities in a time of great danger.
If Baron or Henrik or anybody else here would hesitate for 10 seconds to think about it, then you are orienting yourself in such a way that endangers my life and the lives of my loved ones, by having ass-backwards priorities in a time of great danger.
I reject your fascist sentiment.
As I've said many times before, we do not need Yet Another Strong Man (you can call him YASM, just for kicks). What we need is such a widespread knowledge and activity in civil society - just ordinary citizens doing what's right - not Big, Strong Men duking it out over our heads.
For instance, the real heroes of opposing Islam are pretty much ordinary citizens. One author here, one MP there, some activists, a newspaper doing cartoons - small things that make sense - and a big difference in the end.
If only our governments will protect us against Islamic violence etc - classical state stuff - we'll take care of insulting Islam until it falls apart by itself.
DL, thanks for the article!
I had stored the link a little while, then went back to read it and thought: "Wow - good stuff", and came back to post it again, which of course is kindof silly.
H/T to you for finding it. We agree that this is important stuff.
The NeoCon ways (and now I use that as a derogative) of the US government is getting us into trouble, not out of it.
As I said, CS, you´ll have to monologue from now on. Good luck.
Aloysius,
Good luck.
Thanks, and thanks for posting this. I'm glad that inspired you to sending on this torch (here's my post about it).
It's good how we are all connected in spite of differences.
typo above, should say:
I'm glad that I inspired you to sending on this torch
I'm glad I did.
Indeed it is. "Quam bonum habitare fratres in unum", as the Psalmist puts it.
Post a Comment