Wednesday, October 01, 2008

The Bonds Between Socialist Pseudo-Nationalism and Islam

Anyone who reads the comments here regularly knows Archonix, a.k.a. Graham Dawson, who is one of our oldest readers — he’s been hanging around here almost since the beginning.

Archonix blogs at The Unoriginal Muse, and the guest-essay posted below will eventually appear there.


The Bonds Between Socialist Pseudo-Nationalism and Islam
by Archonix


In the latest issue of Private Eye (No 1129, 19th September — 2nd October), The columnist named ‘Ratbiter’* inadvertently highlights one way that we can distinguish our allies from our opponents by whom they in turn ally themselves with.

Anyone who knows anything about nationalism knows that there are two apparent types of nationalists — the real nationalists, who aim for the right of a nation to make its own decisions, and “pseudo-nationalists” who are often just socialists in disguise.

An example of the latter would be the Scottish Nationalists, the subject of Ratbiter’s column. Scotland’s grass-roots nationalist movement grew out of the idea of not wanting to be even remotely associated with the English and desiring independence from English rule. I mean it’s fair, really, because we haven’t been particularly nice to the Scots in the past — but then neither were they particularly nice to us, what with all the allying with France and so on when they thought it would be an advantage, and the constant invasions… The history between Scotland and England could fill an entire book. The point is, Scottish nationalism exists and is real, and understandable. They want their own country and their belief is that Scotland is, first and foremost, a land for the Scots. Just don’t ask the Picts what they think.

Unfortunately the Scottish National Party, the self-declared source and defender of the Scottish nationalist movement, is socialist to the core. Scotland has been dominated by Labour and the left almost since leftism was invented and their nationalism, at the political level, is filtered through this leftist lens. Labour has in turn been dominated by Scotland, with the artefact that nearly the entire Labour Cabinet is Scottish, as is much of the front bench.

The SNP stands in opposition to “unionist” or “internationalist” Labour as a “nationalist” party of Scotland. Labour wants to preserve the Union in order to maintain its power base and it does so through a combination of pandering and political manoeuvring to make Machiavelli look like a rank amateur. The SNP’s stated policy, in contrast, is independence for Scotland and then immediate accession to the European Union. I find this bitterly ironic. Can you guess why?

As with just about any socialist movement, the name is the exact opposite of the intention. As “liberals” are illiberal, “social democrats” undemocratic, and socially-minded “community organisers” neither working for the community nor particularly organised, so “social nationalists” of the SNP, as we might call them, are fundamentally anti-nationalist. Socialism’s ultimate goal is the abolition of individual freedom and the creation of a universal non-national socialist utopia. The preceding internationalism, as exemplified in organisations like the EU, is aimed at removing government as far from the people as possible in order to reduce their control over their own lives.

Speaking of The People, the other ultimate goal of socialism is the abolition of the old identities and beliefs and the creation of a new, universal socialist identity. The Soviets called it New Soviet Man, the Germans called it the übermensch but, the principle is the same — a homo superior, shaped by the state, serving the state, owing all to the state and never deviating from the will of the state. The state replaces God and faith and family and becomes the only aspiration of will.

Curiously enough, if you replace “the state” with “Allah” you find there is little difference between this socialist ideology and that of Islam. Small wonder that they find it so easy to cooperate:
- - - - - - - - -
Last month the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations condemned [Assembly Leader and SNP leader Alex Salmond] for giving £400,000 to the Scottish Islamic Foundation. The foundation is headed by one Osama Saeed, who just happens to be the Scottish National Party’s parliamentary candidate in Glasgow Central.

[…]

Saeed’s membership of the SNP is not his only interesting connection. His Islamic Foundation is in fact a front for the Muslim Brotherhood which wants to create a global Caliphate (motto: “Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. The Qur’an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.”) Saeed is an enthusiastic supporter and was furious when BBC Radio 5 accurately reported that Yusuf al-Qaradawi, spiritual leader of the Brotherhood, had ruled that wife beating and female circumcision were fine, and that gays, Israelis and apostates deserved death.

According to ‘Ratbiter’ the Brotherhood’s main aim in Scotland is to establish Muslim faith schools, aping similar schools already operating in England. These schools are known to be a source of “intolerance”, mediaspeak for the dissemination of Islamic and Arabist supremacism, and are widely resented by the native population that have to live with them.

Speaking of the media, the BBC is up to its usual tricks as well:

The Kelvinside numpties who control BBC Scotland are equally impressed and have also been flirting with radical Islamic chic. About the only Muslim voices they allow listeners to hear are those of Saeed and Aamer Anwar, a solicitor and former Socialist Workers’ Party activist who was nearly done for contempt of court after he claimed that a wannabe-terrorist, convicted of possessing CDs and videos of guerrilla tactics and bomb-making, was just “doing what millions of young people do every day — looking for answers on the internet”.

The confluence between Islam and Socialism becomes clearer the more one studies any situation where Islam is making headway. Just as the socialists allied themselves with Islam to overthrow the Shah in Iran, so have the Muslims allied themselves with Labour in England and the SNP in Scotland to progressively alter social and government institutions in order to further their goal of Islamisation. The reasons why are absurdly simple and naïve, so that one wonders whether the politicians could really be so stupid.

Why a supposedly nationalist party — in theory concerned first and foremost with its own nation’s well-being — would align itself with people like this is confusing, until you realise that the “nationalism” of the SNP is merely a convenient coat-tail to power.

[Salmond] seems to want to make the Scottish Islamic Foundation / Muslim Brotherhood the authentic voice of Scottish Islam, in the hope that it will return the favour by helping the SNP take Muslim votes from Labour… He is talking of putting representatives of the Scottish Islamic Foundation on to commissions investigating the future of Trident and sending them as ambassadors to the Middle East.

As the Labour Party has traditionally used Scotland and the North of England to maintain and power its ambitions, so the SNP is now coming to rely on Islam to power its ambitions for an “independent” Scotland. The SNP has very high approval ratings in Scotland so there seems to be little reason for turning to an external electorate but, perhaps, the party has simply observed the swing vote that Muslims provide in England and is preparing in advance for when its own constituency — the Scots — inevitably lose trust. Much of the SNP’s support seems to be based on the fact that they aren’t Labour (these days often seen as an English party due to its London-centric outlook). Scots vote for Labour in the Westminster elections because they’re more Scottish than the Tories, and because the Labour party gave them their shiny new parliament but don’t expect them to be grateful for it.

Scotland, at least in British cultural history, has always had a reputation as both the home of rabid socialists who make Che Guevara and Lenin seem laissez-faire, and penny-pinching industrialists who could make Scrooge look positively generous (it’s possible these two traits are related, but I think that would be better handled by a psychologist). Neither reputation is entirely fair but it is fair to say that your average Scot, whilst socialist at the macro level, will react harshly when that socialism is applied at the individual level. The Times article I linked in the previous paragraph demonstrates this quite aptly, where the SNP’s Local Income Tax policy, an attempt to take in more tax revenue whilst pretending to “reform” the system. Support is hovering just on the safe side of 50%, had high approval ratings until it was realised that it would be dipping an extra hand into the sporran.

Approval for that policy is now just shy of 50%, from 88% last year. It’s in areas like this where the Islamic swing vote becomes important. The SNP, acting on its socialist instincts, will use the Muslim vote to push through contentious policies just as many other European governments have done in the recent past. The fact that the “local income tax” will only affect earning households and not households whose income is derived entirely from benefits — a very large number of which are Muslim — only sweetens the deal.

Now, ‘Ratbiter’ writes from a centre-left position, along with much of Private Eye’s staff (I regularly find myself eating bits of it in frustration at how obtuse the publication can be — especially when it comes to “climate change”) which means that any “nationalism” is considered to be the same — populist, right-wing, somehow “bad” in an indefinable way. Except the SNP demonstrates that the problem isn’t nationalism, but socialism wearing nationalism’s cloak. Nationalism seen through a libertarian or free-market lens will not be authoritarian simply because that would interfere with the rights of the individual.

The idea that a nationalist party could ally itself with Islam is only contradictory when you ignore the actual politics of that party. The Islamic colonisation effort is anathema to any real nationalist party, as it would be to anyone concerned with freedom and the rights of man, but it is almost a requirement of any socialist-minded party to support Islamic immigration.

Where you see “nationalism” allying itself with Islam, be sure to check for the little authoritarian streak on its belly.

It’s usually red.

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

* Due to the “controversial” nature of Private Eye’s reportage it is common for columnists to write under pseudonyms in order to prevent costly libel actions being brought against individual writers.

15 comments:

Takekaze said...

Two things: Both hate Jews and anyone who has a different opinion. Both resort to violence because that's all they can think of.

Czechmade said...

The whole totalitarian business is base on failed linguistics.

Establish a term, which is pure non-sense and keep circulating the term so that everybody is sort of familiar with it and takes it for granted.

Take "socialism" as an example.

Pure non-sense, but very effective in dividing society in people who advocate it or are against it.

But even being "against it" you are trapped, because you are defined by your opposition to this pure non-sense.

Since by definition and no proof the "socialism" is pure good, all people opposing it are more or less evil. Those who advocate "socialism" are not doing much better. Their own interpretation of "their socialism" can be quite heretic and become even more dangerous to all beings on this planet than the retarded simpletons opposing it.

After propre research one comes to the clear conclusion that noone fulfills the noble requirements of the purely artificial and redundant term and whole population 100% of this earth should be placed into the ideological safety of Gulag and justly punished for not complying as requiered by our teminology/ideology.

Socialismo o muerte (Gulag).

The only consolation in creating an all-encompassing Gulag or staying already safely in Gulag frozen and hungry is the fact, that we fought effectively to the end the imaginary evil called "capitalism".

Two steps to creating a perfect evil:

1) define existing reality as pure evil and oppose it by the way of empty rhetorics, abstract terms. Reduce living creatures to "capital attribute cum ist/ism ending" and avoid all other attributes of these poor living creatures, since you decided on your own - they HAVE NO OTHER ATTRIBUTES as living beings.

2) Then oppose this artificial evil
created in your sick mind by creating something good by the way of an abstract haphazard antithesis:

"socialism". You could create anything else like blabla or gogo or pupu or shushu...but "socialism" is the best, since no human creature can effectively deny being part of the society...and is trapped so anyhow. So we define the social-something as Our Monopoly. We created this sickness after all, we are the copy-right holders and supreme ideologues, if not the high priests.

Every anonymous creature is automatically anti-social, against us all as a whole, against himself, by definition if it does not comply with our idiotic idea.

We can hammer every obnoxious misguided individual with our noble idea of "the people" as well. "The people" is our private monopoly and intellectual property by definition. If you want to feel good (not cursed) you should definately join us.

However we have to warn you: Besides issueing millions of fatwas, we have no idea how to run the hypothetical "society" and we do not care for such unimportant futile issues as private property or economics.

Fjordman could easily add one more point to our collective loss of our European psyche:

The abolishment of the Ancient Greek education in our schools. All
we need is contained in our common Greek heritage. Through propre philology training one is immune against all terminological misconceptions hunting us every day.

A cobweb may be created by an extremely weak creature, but its function is by comparison the strongest - comparatively stronger than any rope or wire. So is our culture or language. Devoid of our roots-knowledge we are unable to weave it - develop it further. We are benefitted by someones elese thoughts, unable to perform on the same level or better.

We are like a rich guy unable to remember where the key of his treasury are and starving to death.

"He died unable to reach for the pills kept safely 1 metre from his dead body". This is our funny story in short.

latté island said...

Czechmade: your comment made me think of the word reification, which I've probably never used, but it's so applicable to totalitarian rhetoric. And not just socialism, but all the words like diversity, tolerance, etc. The antidote for this, whenever things get too abstract, is to force people to ground themselves by providing definitions and simple evidence, not theory and hearsay.

From an online dictionary: reification - regarding something abstract as a material thing

2. reification - representing a human being as a physical thing deprived of personal qualities or individuality; "according to Marx, treating labor as a commodity exemplified the reification of the individual"

pela68 said...

Hmm, I have written about this over and over again. There are an intermarigial connection between islamists, communists and nazis. All those ideologies are authorian and protectionistic, and that is why indeed you find them in the same bed so often.

Sprinkle that with supposidely "anti facist organisations" like the Swedish AFA or the Europeian attac (who are facist organisations themselves) and you got a keg of powder ready to explode. Not just once, but over and over again...

Czechmade said...

Pela68

Media public discourse promotes an hypothetical trinity of "Abrahamic religions".

It is also a pure nonsense. There is no need to discuss here the incompability of islam, but even christianity and judaism are not in an accord and at the same level. Moreover this hypothetical trinity is a temptation to promote an evil coalition weaking the atheists, hindus, budddhists etc. An ideological human sacrifice.

Abrogation (nakhs, mansoukh) is the most prominent principle of islam.
Whoever ignores this principle, knows nothing about islam (including muslims).

But even Christianity "abrogates" Judaism in such a way that it becomes intolerable for the latter. I learnt it clearly from discussions with my Jewish friends and other hints. The public discourse tends to ignore fully this fact.

It is not enough to claim this or that - without considering prime sources. The Hebraic/Aramaic terminology defies any translation in our languages (including the Greek of the New Testament). Until we study this matter, there is very little to decide.

What I want to say, wecould do better: We should promote the term "Orwellian Trinity of nazism, marxism and islam". Than we are immune from any blame from 3 corners.

If we repeat often enough "know the Orwellian trinity" we have a solid basis for comparative studies and can spread our message.

Each time we kill three flies at once and never become a target of common accusations: For ex. racism and islamophobia accusation becomes futile. We fight 3 ideologies at the same time - European and non-European. It does not matter to us, i.e. we are impartial and just.

Powerful parties (islam, leftists) find it more difficult
to defend themselves, part 3 the weakest (the unofficial paper tiger) - the nazis are automatically involved and counted.

We keep them all the time in the
same zoo. Repeated often it can become commonplace. Our idiotic journalists start perroting our phrase and we win being clearly disassociated from all of them each time and at the same time. We save us years of counterproductive self-defence and self-explaining.

Homophobic Horse said...

Good post. Now we need one slamming the enemy in Austria who has made some recent electoral gains.

Afonso Henriques said...

My comments Archonix:

"Anyone who knows anything about nationalism knows that there are two apparent types of nationalists — the real nationalists, who aim for the right of a nation to make its own decisions, and “pseudo-nationalists” who are often just socialists in disguise."

I beg to disagree. I have been envolvig incredibily fast and I am now used to change my views radically without changing the core vallues. Because I learned something that I did not knew. Only that bit of information provokes a "great step forward".

So, there are good Nationalists and bad Nationalists. The bad Nationalists are the ones who have evil intentions like getting power just because, to serve their intentions, etc. in a word, to "manipulate the Nation". The good Nationalists are good but they can do terrible things also. It's not what they do that counts is what they intend to do, their objectives.

So, why do some good Nationalists behave badly? Because they do not have knowledge enough. I, for instance, think sometimes that I am climbing a ladder, one stair at a time. So, all good Nationalists have the potential (according to their IQ) of becoming great Nationalists. The problem is that they know very little.
I think many people also do not want nothing to due with Nationalism because "they know too litle". As you can see in America: A nine/eleven gave birth to a series of NeoCons "know little" Charles Johnson style.

"They want their own country and their belief is that Scotland is, first and foremost, a land for the Scots. Just don’t ask the Picts what they think."

Was this a joke? I really thought the Picts did not exist any more. It's like equating Catalan Nationalism with Iberian Nationalism...

"so “social nationalists” of the SNP, as we might call them, are fundamentally anti-nationalist."

Indeed, just like ETA in Spain. They take advantage of a "valid" feeling and exploit it ad aeternum to gain as much with that as possible. The Nation? F it!

"The Soviets called it New Soviet Man, the Germans called it the übermensch but, the principle is the same — a homo superior, shaped by the state, serving the state, owing all to the state and never deviating from the will of the state."

I do not share your views over Nazi Germany but that's for another topic.
I once read somewhere that Nationalism is always Socialism. It is undoubtedly right. But there is "socialism" and there is SOCIALISM. I don't think Nazi Germany was socialist, or that WWII England was Socialist or that... but Europe is.
The secret of America untill (the 60s?) WWII and in some extent untill now is a greater National-Socialism than Europe's present stupid-Socialism. It might shock many people but it is true. America never had the pure ethnic chatacteristics of Germany and as so, German National-Socialism could be more "socialist". It always will depend on your definition of Socialism but, whenever you gather a group of people to work for a common good - NATIONALISM! - you have in there a form of Socialism...

"Curiously enough, if you replace “the state” with “Allah” you find there is little difference between this socialist ideology and that of Islam."

No, you can not compare islam to Nationalism or National/Socialism. Islam is much more than that. Islam is like Rome. An Empire that will give birth to a Civilisation created by a superior race (Romans/Arabs). Islam is an idea, like Rome, an idea so powerfull it could only have come from a "superior race" (the ruling ethnic group claim to be on top) and that would be the very same "flame" of that Civilisation mastered by the superior Race. Here, when I mean superior race, is just to discern the ruling ethnicity from the others. They are superior: Mohamed is God and by extention the Arabs are closer to God than other Humans. The same to Ceaser. Superior Race is just a term I thought was the closese to what I thought.

Good article. The title fooled me however.

Morgan said...

Is there a political party in Scotland which truly advocates Scottish nationalism and not socialism wrapped in nationalism?

Czechmade said...

Afonso, still i do not know what is good n. and bad n. It reminds me of Solzhenitzyn who said "there are bad Jews and good Jews". I find this formal distinction silly. It is like saying "you know in the sea you have big fish and little fish".

What we face now is the fact that EU is preaching to us we should be ashamed to be xy and dissolve ourselves in the larger swimming pool of Europe. This is in fact an extremist idea - just nationalism reversed.

Now let me preach to the Americans:
Never feel abashed if some Europeans start preaching to you about "American ignorance". Europeans know almost nothing of each other.
I have heard the most ridiculous misconceptions about this or that.
I do not mean ignorance of mythical "Eastern Europe" - there is some little justification to it. I mean generally speaking.

Never miss the chance to quote me.

Also regarding Afonso´s comment on the Persians "that they crossed some invisible line of no return"...I do not follow. The Spaniards could be the advisory board to the Persians teaching them benefits of reconquista.

It took you 800 years and you crossed the line back! You are the shining star on the Persian sky!
Do you suddenly refuse shining?

Nationalism is a boring idea which covers milion cultural intricacies with an inert lid. In time of danger it may work well, but as a topic it tends to hide more than uncover. It tends to creat self-proclaimed experts and prophets. I prefer people who have done something specific - which definitaly gets reflected in their nation. This way the nation remains a natural highly complicated vivid organism...all commentators(nationalists) reduce their nation to something contained in their declaration of faith.

watling said...

The communist EUSSR project will see Scotland remain intact as an EU region. However, England will be split up into 9 EU regions and will effectively cease to exist.

The fact that Scotland will remain whereas England will be broken up will mean that the Scots will have prevailed over the auld enemy without having to fight. More good news for Mr Salmond.

Graham Dawson (Archonix) said...

Actually according to the maps, Scotland will be split into two pieces, north and south, with the demarcation roughly where the highlands begin. After that most of its east coast will be included in a new "region" that encompasses Denmark, southern sweden and the low germanies. The goal is to create completely anti-national regions divorced from the people living in them, to try and break down the very concept of national identity.

Afonso, forgive me for saying so, but your conception of socialism is frankly bizarre. Go off and read about it.

Afonso Henriques said...

Czechmade,

so resentfull... About Persia:

Only the light green area is inhabited by Persians.
In virtually every great Western Iranian city, Persians are ever more a minority, not like Europeans in Europe but Europeans in America.

Persians are only 50% of Iran!!!

Europeans are really bad because they are 90% on their own Nations...

Let's see what Wikipedia has to say about the home region of the Persians: Fars. The region that has been the "Nation" from which the Persian "Empire" have developed and where Persopolis is:

"Fars has long been a residing area for different natives and TRIBES FROM OTHER PARTS OF THE WORLD such as the TURKS, SEMITES, and Aryans who were under the influence of IRANIAN culture. However, the (...) Qashqai, Mamasani Lurs, Khamseh and Kohkiluyeh have kept their native and unique cultures and lifestyles which constitute part of the cultural heritage of IRAN."
(the emphasis are mine) Where are the Persians?

But probabily you do not understand what is so especial about the Persians and you see us as "the shining star on the sky" of Turks, Arabs, Malays or even Pakistanis and such.

You fail to see the great difference between the Iberian Peninsula and the Balkans (and probabily even Malta) in relation to Persia.
Please, Czechmade, for you to understand our success you will have to read this three small (really, they are small. Do not read the whole article. But please just read the subdivisions to which I've linked you) articles (the subdivisions) in Wikipedia which are the a b c of our success:

Victory on the Northern Half of Hispania

Victory on the Southern Half of Hispania

Total Victory. Mission acomplished.

The main difference between Hispania and the Balkans in one side and Persia in the other is that during those 850 years of muslim occupation our social groups were the following (excluding the Jews):

The Mozarabs:
The Mozarabs (in Spanish: mozárabes; in Portuguese: moçárabes; in Catalan: mossàrabs; from Arabic: musta'rib"مستعرب", “arabicized”‎) were Iberian Christians who lived under Moorish Muslim rule in Al-Andalus. Their descendants remained unconverted to Islam, but did however adopt elements of Arabic language and culture. They were mostly Roman Catholics of the now extint Visigothic or Mozarabic Rite.
Those were virtually always the majority. And they remained faithfull to their religion. See Visigothic rite. They are here usualy known as DIHMIS.

The Muladi:
A massive part of the muslims in the Peninsula. People of Hispanic ethnicity but who have converted to islam. They were however seen as mixed like today Bosniaks are seen as Turks.

The Mudéjar:
Muslims dwelling in land conquered by the Christians, usually peasants. Their descendants after 1492 were called Moriscos and the entire population was pushed into extinction by the end of the 16th century.

(L)Os Renegados:
Christian individuals who embraced Islam and often fought against their former compatriots. You can also say they were merceanaries.

And one more litle thing I want you to read:
Racism? Of course not. Just the normal reaction after 850 years of bloody war and cultural regression.

Can you now understand that thing of the invisible line of no return?
Where is all this in Persia? Will you please stop dismissing me as a racist and aknowledge at least half the importance of all these factors I've presented to you?

I'll leave you even one other fact, quoting from here:

"In the western part of the country (Iran), descendants of the Indo-European clan are few, encompassing perhaps five to ten percent of the men. However, on the eastern side, around 35 percent of the men carry the M17 marker." (about the "European" (Persian) linages in Iran).

Czechmade said...

"The shining star" was my irony vis-a-vis the islamic elements to be defeated. Putting it for fun in somewhat orientalistic way. Nothing directly connected with the Spanish I must say. But in fact a telling example for the Persians. See it that way. They might stick to it, esp. if you tell them so with good intention and smiling face.

The shining star for Pakistanis is Hindu India. A difficult project - since polarity takes place between the two. Right now India has more cultural influence in Afghanistan than in Pakistan. I like this softly creeping deislamization. Long way to go, I agree.

The shining star to the Turks would be their pre-islamic past stil to be traced back in their literary works. The most prominent is epic Manas in Kyrgyz 20x longer than Ilias/Ulysses: shamanic!
No polarity, let us work on Turkic people making them proud of their pre-islamic heritage.

One Turk in Prague told me they opposed islamization for 300 years!
Than he followed...look at me, i look more like a Greek. Truely he did.
Many of them consider themselves rather a mixture of Osmanic folks including South Slav/Albanian/Greek/Caucasian elements. Atta Tuerk was half Albanian half Macedonian for ex.

South East Europe might be a shining star. The polarization effect takes partly place though.
The Greeks are still "enemies". But if you dig a bit you can get very different picture too. For PC reasons no side is in hurry to publicize it.

I know the 50% Persians story.
The west is "south Azerbaijan", could be easily reunited with post-sovietic Azerbaijan. Which is another "shining star", very secularized.

Persia is lucky. It is very self-centred. No polarization effect. They can easily walk out of islam and nothing gets lost. Without losing face.

We can easily involve Persians in an intellectual debate on our level.

I am unable to comment on Malay. Polarization effect takes place internally - versus Hindu Tamils and Chinese. Losing face makes leaving islam difficult. And a funny ungrounded superiority complex too.

Let us make them slowly proud of their pre-islamic heritage. It is an easy inoffensive job: Knowing and asking friendly questions.
Currently we have a wave of islamic fashion, next one might be the pre-islamic fashion show?

Little pervasive counterjihad using local resources. No westernization...

"Show me something real...genuine.
We are not interested in your provincial MacMohammad branch office."

Yes and direct Iraqis to their great past too: Aramaic, Babylonian etc. They get also ex-muslim ideas.

Again much less chances in Egypt - sadly.

Afonso Henriques said...

Now, finally, we're speaking the same language.

Czechmade, I am indeed a pessimist.

However, when I look to those parts of the world, I don't see a weak islam, I see an ever stronger islam. I don't see them leaving islam, nor do I think that they should, I don't care. Unfortunetly, that's their culture.

But, the Persians are that little dirty exception, are they not? Unfortunateley too, the Islamic Regime plus American threats...

I don't know, but I have the idea that while Communism is strong where it is weak, the same happens with islam.

Of course, except, in non-completeley-cultural-islamic areas such as... Persia. But even there, it got strong when it was weak...

Henrik R Clausen said...

Czechmade, that was a very interesting take on totalitarian systems. I'd like to post it at EuropeNews as an article. Would you drop me a line?