Sunday, June 14, 2009

The Grozny Option

In a recent article entitled “The Age of Middle East Atonement”, Victor Davis Hanson analyzes Barack Obama’s speech in Cairo in order to highlight the absurdities of our government’s policies towards the Muslim Middle East.

In his address to the “Muslim World”, Mr. Obama used the classic rhetorical tactic of false equivalence. To him, the West and Islam are roughly the same — “They launch terror attacks against us, but we launched the Crusades against them.” This device places the two camps on an equal but opposite footing, and their antagonisms must thus be surmounted by deft compromises negotiated by a skilled mediator such as — surprise! — Barack Hussein Obama.

In his deconstruction of the Obama Doctrine, Dr. Hanson points out the futility of any attempt to placate Islam. The countries that refuse compromise and act in the most brutal fashion towards Muslims are those that suffer the least from Islamic terrorism:

Grozny turned to rubbleToday, Russia and China are much harder on Muslims than is the West. (Consider Russia’s actions in Chechnya and China’s treatment of the Uighurs.) Neither country pays any attention to Muslims’ grievances, and therefore Muslims respect and fear Russia and China far more than they do the United States.

What’s more, the geopolitical positions of the West and Islam are not symmetrical. If such comparisons were not “judgmental” — and therefore off-limits — it would be easy to demonstrate that Western Civilization is superior to Islam politically, socially, culturally, and scientifically. But in our hyper-tolerant age, such distinctions are not allowed. We’re obliged to view ourselves and Muslims as basically the same, even if they do dress funny, live in hovels, treat women as chattels, and are governed by violent and corrupt despots.

But privately the world knows that Muslims are treated better in the West than Christians are in Muslim countries. That Muslims migrate to the lands of Westerners, and not vice versa.

Not only do Christians treat Muslims better than vice versa, they treat Muslims better than Muslims treat each other. Here in the West Muslims are not only free of political oppression while they engage in their customary behaviors — cousin marriage, polygamy, pederasty, and the oppression of women, just to name a few — but they do so while supported by the infidel welfare state.

No wonder they escape to the West by the millions.

So why are Muslims unhappy with us?

[The world knows that] disputes over a border between Palestinians and Israelis do not explain the unhappiness of the Arab masses, suffering from state-caused poverty and wretchedness. That American military assistance to Afghanistan, Bosnia, Kosovo, Kuwait, and Somalia, direct aid to Egypt, Jordan, and the Palestinians, and moral condemnation of Chinese, Russian, and Balkan treatment of Muslims, coupled with a generous U.S. immigration policy, are not really cause for apology or atonement.

But for some reason, none of this VIP treatment makes Muslims grateful, friendly, or respectful to the United States, nor to any of their other host countries in the West. On the contrary, the second and third generations of Muslim immigrants are the most violent and jihad-oriented of all.

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

The Chinese and the Russians are not the customary focus of Islamic terror, despite the routinely brutal treatment they deal out to their Muslim minorities when they deem it necessary.

Or are they in fact largely spared by the jihad precisely because of their ruthless strategies towards any outbreak of jihad within their borders?
- - - - - - - - -
Now we’re entering territory that all well-intentioned PC-indoctrinated people recoil from in horror. The internal logic of the situation leads inexorably towards the hard questions that none of us really want to ask. After all, who wants to respond to terrorist threats in the manner of the Russians or the Chinese?

Consider what happened in Chechnya: the Russian Federation faced an Islamically-based terrorist separatist movement, and dealt with the problem by indiscriminately leveling much of Grozny, the Chechen capital.

By American logic, as described above by Victor Davis Hanson, Russia should be Islam’s Public Enemy Number One. You would expect Al Qaeda and other groups to react with repeated mass terror attacks against Russian cities, schools, and public transportation, on the model of the frequent and deadly terrorist incidents in India. By all rights there should also be high-profile attacks on Russian targets abroad.

But almost none of this occurs. Why?

Islamic terrorists are often described as deranged or insane. And one suspects that the actual shahids — the guys who drive trucks or strap on bomb belts to blow themselves up along with as many infidels as possible — must register quite high on any scale of psychological abnormality.

But there’s no evidence that the directors of these “martyrdom operations” are madmen. They are shrewd, self-serving, calculating, careful, and ruthless servants of a demonic ideology, but they are not nuts — when they see how the Russian government reacts to Islamic terrorism, they scale back their operations on Russian territory, and concentrate on places where they can continue their customary activities with relative impunity.

In other words, they prefer the soft underbelly of the West: the Muslim-placating dhimmocracies of Europe and North America. There they can plan jihad and get paid by the infidel governments while they do so. No wonder they prefer Malmö and Finsbury Park to Moscow!

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

In all this we are forced to consider questions that we’d rather not ask. Even mentioning these ideas makes us into “racists” and “neo-fascists” in the eyes of those timid souls who prefer not to look at the hard choices that confront us.

So is the “Grozny Option” the only option?

Are we doomed to act like the Russians?

Do we have to choose between massive brutality and total submission, or is there another way?

A hundred years ago we might have taken a different path. If the United States had reacted forcefully to the nationalization of the Saudi oil fields — if we had re-established our commercial hegemony in the Arabian Peninsula, using military force if necessary — subsequent events might have taken a different course.

If we had not dumped hundreds of billions of dollars into the coffers of despotic Middle Eastern regimes, while demanding virtually nothing in return, then we might not be held in the same contempt that we are now.

Unfortunately, a long-established pattern is in force today, and only a dramatic and brutal turnaround will be likely to convince the Muslim world that we are anything but the biggest jizyah milk-cow that Islam has ever seen.

Europe will shortly begin a battle for its very survival, and the United States may not be that far behind. After all, if you believe what our president says, America is “one of the largest Muslim countries in the world.” So whatever hard options confront the Europeans will also be ours in just a few years’ time.

As Fjordman wrote earlier today:

It is pretty obvious by now that we are facing a huge structural, economic and ideological collapse throughout the entire Western world in the near future. The crash can no longer be avoided, since our so-called leaders are doing everything in their power to ensure that we will indeed crash. We need to focus on surviving this crash, on regrouping and creating the seeds for the third generation of European civilization out of the leftovers from the coming collapse. We need to think and act like colonized people because that’s in many ways what we are now. We must reclaim our own histories and destinies.

[…]

As we know from history, things that may appear unthinkable today will appear inevitable tomorrow. We will do this or we will perish.

The more unpleasant of tomorrow’s options cannot be publicly discussed because the very structure of our political discourse makes them unthinkable. I can get away with what I say here only because this is an unimportant venue with just a few thousand readers and no advertisers to bring pressure to bear.

But no one in academia, politics, or the major media can speak frankly about the choices we will have to make in just a few short years. Being honest about such topics tends to truncate one’s career, or even one’s life.

As Fjordman and El Inglés have been at pains to point out, the options we describe here aren’t what any of us want. They’re simply what will inevitably face us if we continue to punt the hard choices and pretend we can go on living the way we have for the last sixty years.

But change is on its way. It’s unavoidable, and all the attempts to postpone it will only make it more catastrophic.

And when the future gets here, the Grozny Option may well seem a bucolic utopia in comparison.

48 comments:

Fjordman said...

Of course it's because the Russians and Chinese are more ruthless. As Machiavelli indicated, you can live with having enemies as long as they respect you and know that they will pay a heavy price if they attack you. I'm tired of being supposed to "reach out" to Muslims and "win their hearts and minds." They are barbarians and should be treated accordingly. I don't want them to like us; I want them to fear us.

babs said...

In one respect I think this will be even harder to solve in the U.S. than in the countries of Europe. We are a nation formed around a unifying "idea", not an ethnicity or even a heritage that has been shared for very long.
When Mr. Wilders talks of the culture of the Netherlands he is speaking of a shared value set that has been around for many hundreds of years. Not so the U.S. in fact, we pride ourselves on the evolution of the American culture; incorporating into our base culture the best of new immigrant's beliefs.
That is why the idea of excluding various new cultural ideas, even if they are destructive ones, is met with such outrage by a certain percentage of our population. It seems to me that Mr. Wilders has an easier task.

Profitsbeard said...

Lions, wolves, bears and hyenas used to prey on humans.

We took the proper action and armed ourselves, drove them away from our settlements, and now it is a rare fluke that a cougar kills a jogger in Los Angeles or a lion kills a fool climbing over the bars of a zoo enclosure.

Jihadists are blodthirsty jackals who need the exact same treatment.

The leadmost predatory maniacs of militant Mohammadism have to be sent directly to hell ...and then maybe the Muslims in name only will get them message and reform their death cult before it implodes around them and takes the Ummah down in a nuclear Gotterdammerung.

Only protean strength works against wild beasts.

Charlemagne said...

Were I president during 9/11 I might have annihilated Damascus with a nuclear weapon and calmly said "next?"

I might not have been president long but that action might have put a stop to Muslim aggression against the US for a long time.

Robin Shadowes said...

I'm sick of appeasing these savages ad infinitum. In one way as a civilised westerner I feel ashamed of having such barbaric thoughts at all but the more time goes, it seems inevitable that glassing MENA will be the only solution if we want to preserve our civilisation at all. Although it might probably costs hundreds of millions of muslim-lives, the other option, a global muslim ummah is even more revolting. The midevial dark ages would seem like a walk in the park compared to a göobal caliphate and this new dark ages would last a lot longer than the previous one, perhaps forever. I mean a couple of centuries of mohammedan brain washing, there would be nobody to think outside of the box anymore. Especially since the mullahs and sheiks would have made sure to erase the earlier kufr-society and history, there would be nothing for those people to relate to except islam.

Baron Bodissey said...

Charlemagne --

Why Damascus? Why not Riyadh or Cairo, since the hijackers came from Saudi Arabia and Egypt?

The Poster Formerly Known as Gordon said...

Well Baron, it appears that the answer to your questions can be found in these earlier comments.

We just have to enjoy destroying the Muslim world, just like like Malagate the Woe surely enjoyed torturing Mayor Paragiglia of Caro for 39 days to prove his mastery of his sector of the galaxy.

Right, Baron? Perhaps you should drop the crocodile tears and come out and say you want the Muslim world destroyed. Your bloodthirsty commentators like Fjordman seem to have no problem doing this.

Charlemagne said...

Baron - No particular reason. Six of one, half dozen of another...It really doesn't matter to me. Although I do hold out hope that given the opportunity the population of Iran would be overwhelmingly pro-Western and would thus spare them.

Gordo - I definitely want a part of the Muslim world destroyed. If I could destroy their will and desire to establish a global caliphate and bring an end to their war against us without bloodshed I'd be happy with that. But since we know that will never happen, we simply start killing them without mercy until they stop their jihad against us.

If they want to live in the 7th century then let's build a 100' wall around the entire ME and station guards every 1/4 mile with orders to shoot to kill should the animals attempt to escape.

Given enough time they may evolve.

You're a weak lefty Gordo who would probably make a great slave since you seem to lack the will to ever escape subservience and can't distinguish between right and wrong or good and evil.

Are you a cultural relativist as well? I usually skip your whining posts as a waste of time so haven't established a full psych profile of you.

One reason the West is in the current precarious position we find ourselves is due to Leftists who are either evil, crushed under the weight of Liberal guilt, or simply massively ignorant and incapable of understanding that our enemies cannot be assuaged or dissuaded from their mission to defeat by blowing them warm kisses over a cup of tea. The weakness of many on the left makes me want to retch.

babs said...

A Canadian, an American and an Israeli were walking along a beach when they found a magic lantern. They rubbed the lantern and a genie appeared. He told the three that they could have one wish each. The Canadian went first and wished that the Canadian soils would be ever fertile so that Canadians could feed themselves for all eternity. The American went next and wished for a great wall to be built around the Islamic world so Americans would never have to fight another war against the Moslem nations. The Israeli went next and said "tell me more about the wall that the Americans wish to have."
The Genie explained that the wall would be 1,000 meters high and 100 meters thick and that no Muslim would be able to leave their territory.
The Israeli then said "My wish is that you fill the inside with water..."

Zenster said...

Not only do Christians treat Muslims better than vice versa, they treat Muslims better than Muslims treat each other.

This goes directly at the very heart of my latest submission to GoV―awaiting final editing―titled "A Rejection of Reciprocity".

The Chinese and the Russians are not the customary focus of Islamic terror, despite the routinely brutal treatment they deal out to their Muslim minorities when they deem it necessary.

Or are they in fact largely spared by the jihad precisely because of their ruthless strategies towards any outbreak of jihad within their borders?
.

There can be only one surmise. Islam is defeated by force and force alone. The historical record makes this quite evident and our less friendly
Asian neighbors prove this in spades.

Charlemagne: Gordo - I definitely want a part of the Muslim world destroyed. If I could destroy their will and desire to establish a global caliphate and bring an end to their war against us without bloodshed I'd be happy with that. But since we know that will never happen, we simply start killing them without mercy until they stop their jihad against us.

As polite and concise of an answer as any rational being could hope to receive.

Were our places and military arsenals exchanged, the Western world would already be a glowing slag heap of molten cinders as a result of Islam's nuclear attacks.

We should be able to mark a spot and have this world's Muslim population kneel to kiss it every single day that the West has not sought a similarly prompt ending to this conflict.

Whiskey said...

Gordon's moralizing is the point. He moralizes because he cares intensely what other people think of him, something you see in a feminized society where status climbing rules and caring about being "moral" is important. Where survival is never in question.

That is coming to an end. Nuclear proliferation + Jihadis = Western cities dying. Westerners by the millions. By then it will be "too late" and for sheer survival, those in the West with nuclear weapons will launch them while massacring the Muslims in their midst. A terrible thing. Made all the worst by being AVOIDABLE.

Gordon learned exactly the wrong thing from the Cold War. THERE, it was important NOT to let conflicts escalate, and with only two players who mattered, managing that conflict and preventing nuclear war was relatively easy. That was a unique and non-replicable situation. Now we are in what Sherman termed the "killing ground" of War and as Sherman advocated, the only humane, merciful, and decent thing to do is end the war as quickly as possible to stop the killing. Policies advocated by LeMay and Patton, perhaps terrible men but those who understood killing and history -- the Thirty Years war killed a third of German Speakers. Letting wars drag on and on and on only increases the carnage.

Which is exactly what we are doing. Grozny will look like a picnic compared to what happens after NYC, DC, Chicago, and Seattle get nuked out of existence. For sheer survival America WILL wipe out half the worlds Muslims ... think on that ... killing half a billion people ... just to survive and make the thoughts of further attacks unthinkable. When it's survival, people will do ANYTHING. Which is why it's critical to avoid situations like that.

Grozny could have been avoided by tougher action by a non-Yeltsin ten years earlier. Thousands of lives spared, a city intact, and so on. The Chinese have acted swiftly to suppress terrorism figuring better to simply shoot without mercy any suspected terrorists than risk major conflagrations.

Gordon certainly does not object to China's or Russia's brutality, only that his deeply feminized culture remain feminized and decadent, focused on Versailles like amusements instead of avoiding critical survival situations.

erdebe said...

@Babs

I disagree that Wilders has the easier task. The dutch might have a longer history and an older culture, but the dutch have been brainwashed to loathe their country and culture.

You wont ever see a dutchman stand to the dutch flag or anthem (accept for football matches, olympic games and rememberance day.)

I totally envy the patriotisme that seems to be incorperated in the american spirit. This is the american backbone that will be hard to break (allthough Obama is doing his very best).

We in Holland have none of that!

Furthermore, the americans have guns at their disposal. So when push comes to shove most americans have a way of defending themselves.
And being able to defend ondeself, gives less necessity to cave to unreasonable demands.

The dutch om the other hand, are just sitting ducks.

But watch Obama. He will try to do the same to you, as our polical elites have done to europe. Stripping peoples from their culture, pride and heritage and render them defenceless!

One_of_the_last_few_Patriots_left said...

Gordon,

Where were you no 9/11? I was doing what I've always been doing:
busting my ass trying to earn a living. They (the Musulmen) came here to murder me because their THUG CULT quasi-religion defines me as an infidel dog. They have been doing this sort of thing for 1,400 years.
And you call US... "bloodthirsty commentators?" No; the Musulmen wrote the book on "bloodthirsty."
Since I do not want to see my countrymen murdered, my civilization destroyed, and the survivors turned into slaves of Allah, I am prepared to do whatever is needed to stop the Mohammedan THUGS. So far, sitting down with them for a nice little chat, paying them huge quantities of foreign aid, an BOOTLICKING them has not dissuaded them from their psychohistorical mass-homicidal trajectory. What would you suggest? MORE BOOTLICKING?? And how many more Westerners do you want to see murdered before you conclude that such an approach is innefective???

erdebe said...

@Gordon

I dont know about the muslim world, but i think Islam should be whiped from the face of the planet!

We have an obligation to our fellow human beings, to shield and/or liberate them from evil and oppression!

Such is the duty of all free man!

Czechmade said...

My fightening islam in Czech:

I say plainly islam is the biography of mohammed made/converted into a religion.

His biography is a catalogue of evil deeds and sayings.

Maybe keeping our discourse very simple - to make it spread rapidly - is a good idea. We might also have another department - to treat the subject in a very thorough - complicated way. Why not.

mace said...

The problem for the West is multiculturalism, this doctrine grants primitive tribal cultures, such as Islamic "societies" the same status as Western civilisation. Unless multiculturalism(or cultural relativism)is abandoned,the modern West will suffer the same fate as the Romans,a gradual dissolution of our society.Let the Moslems return to their thousand year sleep,we don't need them.

Czechmade said...

Groznyy: is an epithet of Ivan the Terrible/Groznyy (in Russian)

The irony is the Chechens were Christians who converted to islam in order to fight the Russians.

Now we have a somewhat similar constellation:

The Putin AND islam rule supreme in Chechnya.

My theory of polarization in action: the Russians behaving like los islamos, you need something similar to fight back, you get your "islam".

In a simplified manner you get Russians fighting Russians, the Chechens cease to exist anyhow...

A Chechen teenager said: "the two Chechen wars were quite different, the second one was purely about money".

OK - money or islam?

Wayne said...

It is also interesting that not only do Muslims perhaps fear a Russian or Chinese type response more, precisely because Russia and China are so ruthless when crushing Chechen and Uighur terrorists respectively, they are not only more feared but less hated.

I can't put my finger on it exactly, often people hate those who appease them but not give them everything, more than those who draw a line in the sand and say don't go beyond that line or else.

To the Muslims Russia and China are like a wild beast, a tiger: no one hates tigers or dangerous animals - they simply understand that you don't mess with them. But people often do hate those who are half amenable to their point of view or who make concessions.

Pandering will never ever win love, nor respect.

And I say this with no rancor at all towards Muslims, indeed I tend to get along with them very well.

Wayne said...

"The Chinese and the Russians are not the customary focus of Islamic terror, despite the routinely brutal treatment they deal out to their Muslim minorities when they deem it necessary."

In the end it may have ended up better for all if the West had simply let Russia have its way with Afghanistan in the 1980s. Surely some hypothetical Afghan Democratic Republic would have been vastly preferable to the current situation. It problably would have posed less of a threat to the outside world, and also be better off socially, with women allowed to go to school, polygamy, and other abominable folkways abolished - all this of course aided by the shooting of a few dissenters - but hey -you can't make an omelet without cracking a few eggs.

With the passage of time, it will become more and more apparent that communism was one of the greatest modernizing, and indeed Westernizing forces of the past one hundred years.

James Higham said...

Today, Russia and China are much harder on Muslims than is the West. (Consider Russia’s actions in Chechnya and China’s treatment of the Uighurs.) Neither country pays any attention to Muslims’ grievances, and therefore Muslims respect and fear Russia and China far more than they do the United States.

I've seen that at first hand.

Afonso Henriques said...

This make no sense. If you want to nuke someone, nuke Brussels, Paris, Los Angeles, New York, the Hague, etc.

The problem is with ourselves, Europeans. The muslims do not have a say at all.

Who bombed Belgrade? Bin Laden?

The flags of Kosovo and Bosnia are green?
Or are blue and golden with stars? Who's the danger to whom?

There's no need to bomb Damascus or Mecca.

One_of_the_last_few_Patriots_left said...

erdebe wrote:

"...the Americans have guns at their disposal. So when push comes to shove most Americans have a way of defending themselves.
.......The Dutch, on the other hand, are just sitting ducks."

I am a bit surprised that you seem to understand this. Over the years, I have talked to some Europeans ( and a few foolish Americans ) who thought that it is better to be a helpless sheep and that your government will protect you. The same governments that flood Europe with ultra-violent Muslims and flood the United States with hyper-criminal Mexicans.

Yes, I have guns. And I thank God for that fact, very day.

Cugel said...

The formerly known seems to be a bit confused. Malagate the Woe's depredations correspond more accurately with the practices of the jihadis, who, after all, are slavers and extortionists when not murderers.

The Baron is advocating for a Conatic, who, although inclined towards laissez faire, must sometimes act harshly in order that justice be served.

Now Mr. Formerly himself sounds rather like a verbal Sivij Suthiro; poison verily drips from his tongue. But, of course, he is not nearly as subtle or as restrained as the Sarkoy venefice.

Baron Bodissey said...

Cugel --

Nor is he as skilled. I doubt he could administer cluthe effectively without poisoning himself.

Zenster said...

Whiskey: Gordon certainly does not object to China's or Russia's brutality, only that his deeply feminized culture remain feminized and decadent, focused on Versailles like amusements instead of avoiding critical survival situations.

You certainly have selected a splendid object lesson for your theory of feminization.

Wayne: But people often do hate those who are half amenable to their point of view or who make concessions.

Much as you seem to hate America for giving you so many freedoms that you choose to abuse so freely.

And I say this with no rancor at all towards Muslims, indeed I tend to get along with them very well.

Qu'elle surprise!

Wayne: With the passage of time, it will become more and more apparent that communism was one of the greatest modernizing, and indeed Westernizing forces of the past one hundred years.

Thank you for such a frank summary of why you probably shouldn't be trusted with sharp or pointed objects. What communism was "greatest" at was killing people. Be it intentionally imposed famines or the gulag archipelago or simply freezing to death in poorly heated and ill-constructed apartment blocks, the Soviet kleptocracy literally drank the blood of its people with every swallow of food or beverage it consumed.

Due to its even more secretive nature, we will likely never know how many countless millions perished at the hands of communist China's politburo. This autocratic reincarnation of Mandarin imperialism will most probably end up making the Muslim terrorists look like so many boy scouts.

As to any "modernizing" effect, the industrial shambles and ecological disaster area known as what was once Soviet Russia says it all. Besides the Klashnikov rifle and Stolichnaya vodka, what Russian commercial products have any sort of worldwide reputation which even approaches that of Coca-Cola or Intel, or Applied Materials, or, yes, even McDonald's, or any number of globally distributed American products?

Your anti-American and pro-Islam bias says it all.

Geoffrey de Bouillon said...

It is easy to identify the Jihadis as enemies, but we will have no success defeating them until we have come to terms with out own Leftists.

Wayne said...

Zenster:

What communism was "greatest" at was killing people.

Certainly no more than Western imperialism and capitalism, probably a great deal less.

R J Rummel (actually a right-wing nutjob) has estimated deaths in from European colonialism in the 20th century alone to be about 60 million. Just one little almost forgotten 'incident' - 15 million murdered in Congo by the Belgians at the beginning of the 20th Century.

The English of course are the masters of death by deliberate starvation:
http://tinyurl.com/2eapul
http://tinyurl.com/mo8zwa

Due to its even more secretive nature, we will likely never know how many countless millions perished at the hands of communist China's politburo.
What countless millions? Evidence?
China's revolution was relatively bloodless compared to the French or even American revolutions.

What we do know is that China's life expectancy was 35 in 1949. By 1976, it was pushing 70. We also know the population at least doubled during the time of Mao (not necessarily a good thing).

And we also know that China, with about 1/6 the arable land per capita of the US, feeds virtually all her people, and performs significantly better than 'democratic' India in terms of life expectancy, literacy, infant mortality etc.

Wayne said...

This autocratic reincarnation of Mandarin imperialism will most probably end up making the Muslim terrorists look like so many boy scouts.

Just utter unsubstantiated rubbish. Mandarin 'imperialism.' What Mandarin 'imperialism?' How many troops does China have stationed overseas? --about zero I think.
What land does China now occupy or at least claim as hers which is not hers? --almost zero (apart from couple of Himalyan areas disputed by India - about the size of the Isle of Man I guess).

So what then is your definition of 'imperialism' Mr Zenster?

As to any "modernizing" effect, the industrial shambles and ecological disaster area known as what was once Soviet Russia says it all

Russia was probably the most backward country in Europe in 1917. By the time Stalin died it had defeated the greatest war machine the world has ever seen and was one of the two greatest superpowers on earth.

As for China, from being a semi-colony of the West in 1949, she is now on the way to rivalling the US economically and militarily - not bad for just 60 years in power.

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

Much as you seem to hate America for giving you so many freedoms that you choose to abuse so freely.

Sorry, but I don't live in America.

Notwithstanding this, I can see you consider 'abuse' of freedom as simply when someone has a point of view different from your own, Mr Zenster.

Given that this is so obviously the case, it can be inferred that you have a very immature understanding of what 'freedom' is really all about.

Perhaps it is you who "shouldn't be trusted with sharp or pointed objects."

Fjordman said...

Wayne: Right now, the Chinese are acting more rationally than Western countries, but they are in reality a post-Communist state. During Mao's period tens of millions of people died due to repression and misrule. Don't even try to lie about that.

Go troll somewhere else. We don't have time for this nonsense.

Watching Eagle said...

The islamists use all the Shariah-compliant PC MC assimilated weapons on the West, but not on Russia and China, because they work in the West, but not in Russia and China. Russia faces SERIOUS DEMOGRAPHIC WINTER however, and has an inconsistent policy concerning islamists outside russia. China's situation is more positive, due to their larger population size, growing economic freedom, and much smaller muslim minority. China might still survive the 3rd Jihad.

laine said...

At the moment, count on China to be "last man standing" of potential superpowers because of a huge patriotic population unadulterated by unassimilable trouble makers.

The world will one day after much suffering (the coldly pragmatic Chinese will not be gifting food or administering medicines to failed countries and populations) look back on Pax Americana as a Golden Age.

mik said...


babs said...

We are a nation formed around a unifying "idea", not an ethnicity or even a heritage that has been shared for very long.



How about not thoughtlessly repeating liberal canard?

The USA was created and built by English speaking people from British isles. The culture, the societal structure, everything came from England as existed for many years after American Revolution.

As recently as 1970 one could say without much exaggeration that all that the great immigration waves brought were pizza, sauerkraut and corrupt Irish big city political machines.

Our nation was formed and built by White Christians from Britain and successfully absorbed White Europeans forcing them to adapt language, culture and customs.
See an excellent book by always brilliant Thomas Sowell, www.amazon.com/Ethnic-America-History-Thomas-Sowell/dp/0465020747/ref=ed_oe_h.



Worked OK, by design or stroke of luck till evil Ted Kennedy wrote a law to destroy the Nation in 1965.

Propositional Nation idea was invented recently to replace existing populace of this country by, presumably, more pliant third-worlders, see http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/694268/posts.

Wayne said...

The USA was created and built by English speaking people from British isles. The culture, the societal structure, everything came from England as existed for many years after American Revolution.

So? Everything has a source, an origin. And everything changes with time. Whites are doing OK today - evebn though a significant percentage of the population is non-white.

If whites hate having non-whites around, they perhaps should have thought about this and stayed home in Europe - instead of colonizing half the globe.

Your bitterness is amusing.

Wayne said...

Go troll somewhere else. We don't have time for this nonsense.

Fjordman, have not the time to argue against your nonsense. Suffice to say that Mao is very popular in China, as is even Stalin in Russia.

Obviously from the fact that the purported victims of these communist 'monsters' do not hate them, that surely is evidence enough that much of what is said about them in the West is bs.

I would hardly expect Jews to openly praise Hitler and vote for him as a great man.

Jedilson Bonfim said...

Bombing Mecca and Medina would make a lot of sense. Mahoundians think they're protected 24/7 by allah (the imaginary), and they love to point to a fable about how stone-dropping birds once warded off a Yemeni attack against Mecca. It certainly never happened, but they say it's proof that mahound's imaginary alter-ego protects those places.

Destroy Mecca, and mahoundians will ask themselves "where was allah to protect the home of the prophet (eternal torment be upon his rotten carcass)? Where was allah to make the true believers victorious over the dirty kufr?" Carpet-bombing mahoundianism's two holiest places would cause a hell of a lot of ideological damage, if not the entire destruction, of mahoundianism.

Czechmade said...

Wayne,

Suffice to say that Mao is very popular in China, as is even Stalin in Russia."

Count them as dead alive - zombies.

Plus armies of informers - zombies.

Congratulations for counting these wretched ex-people as "alive", with longer "life expectancy".

Zenster said...

Wayne: Your bitterness is amusing.

And your vacuity is tiresome at best.

Zenster said...

Jedilson Bonfim: Destroy Mecca, and mahoundians will ask themselves "where was allah to protect the home of the prophet (eternal torment be upon his rotten carcass)?.

As Islam continues to deem itself ever more infallible, it becomes increasingly apparent that the only cure is to make Muslims abandon it wholesale. Since there will never be any "moderate" form of Islam, better that it does not exist at all.

One obvious solution is to obliterate its most holy sites, thus proving forever the incompetence of Allah.

Sadly, the one problem with Muslims is that a huge number of them would only interpret such a catastrophe as having been due to them not being "pious enough".

This could easily lead to a heretofore unknown level of ultra-fanaticism that would make modern day Islam look like Ghandism.

None of this bodes well for our world. This is yet one more reason why I continue to predict a Muslim holocaust.

Jedilson Bonfim said...

Zenster, a formerly frequent poster at Jihadwatch, Richard the Lionheart, often mentioned the possibility of civil wars in Dar al-Harb once mahoundians' encroachment of Western values, laws, democracy and notions of human-rights can no longer be hidden from the public by the mainstream media. I don't see how a mahoundian holocaust would come about, but citizens taking matters into their own hands; as some Swedes did in Vännäs not too long ago, when two Swedish girls were beaten and other two raped by muslims (and the police refused to do anything about it), seems like a more likely reaction to it. It's just too bad most Western Europeans can't count on a Second Amendment to do what's called upon them when their governments are no longer willing to guarantee them protection (but is more than willing to guarantee the mahoundians'.)

While I still think your concern about a renewed and more aggressive wave of mahoundian fanaticism as a response to the obliteration of mahoundianism's holiest sites is valid, the West could still shove down their throats the obvious fact that allah doesn't exist in the aftermath of such attacks. But, to be really honest, I don't see it happening unless Tom Tancredo is ever elected US president.

Perhaps the end of oil could be something that could have a similarly destructive impact on mahoundianism, and today I've read news on that topic which is somewhat encouraging:

World's Oil Reserves to Last Another 42 Years

Though it has taken mahoundians only about 30 years to do what they've already done to the West, 42 years could turn out to be an eternity at their disposal to wreak even more havoc on our societies than they already have. But it doesn't have to be that way. Folks like Geert Wilders give me hopes that it won't be so easy for the last few years that mahound-worshipers have got...

Zenster said...

laine: At the moment, count on China to be "last man standing" of potential superpowers because of a huge patriotic population unadulterated by unassimilable trouble makers.

China's emergence as a surviving superpower is also dependent upon its duplicitous role in fomenting global terrorism.

It continues to facilitate Islamic militants and does so with the implicit intention of bleeding America white while we attempt the exercise in futility known as "Muslim nation-building".

The rapacity of China's strategy may soon come about to bite them in a very nasty way.

As China continues to midwife trouble in the MME (Muslim Middle East), they will contribute to needless increases in the price of oil. Once bunker oil - the fuel used by container cargo ships to deliver China's shoddy goods around the world - increases in price sufficiently, the artificial benefits of China's manipulated manufacturing costs suddenly will vanish and leave them with tremendous industrial over-capacity and no one to buy their cheap crap anymore. Mass unemployment and food riots could ensue in very short order.

If America's politicians were not bought off like so many two-bit street corner whores, they would have long ago imposed trade sanctions upon China instead of rewarding it with Most Favored Nation Status as it kills us with substandard fasteners and poisons our pets.

The world will one day after much suffering (the coldly pragmatic Chinese will not be gifting food or administering medicines to failed countries and populations) look back on Pax Americana as a Golden Age.

History will likely judge the era of so-called "American Imperialism" as an period of unparalleled productivity and quality of life.

Just as Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons should go down as the single greatest strategic blunder of this new century, any Chinese expansionism or aggression will hearld a new era of dark ages for much of Asia and the outside world.

Most people have ZERO comprehension of China's 6,000 YEAR OLD RACIAL MEMORY. Muslim notions of being the Master Race pale into insignificance when compared with China's perception of its own manifest destiny.

Robin Shadowes said...

"If whites hate having non-whites around, they perhaps should have thought about this and stayed home in Europe - instead of colonizing half the globe."

You fail to take note, that the mahoundians has tried to conquer Europe from Day One. Even without White Imperialism the problems with mahoundians couldn't have been avoided. If they become victorious which they bloody well might, then us whites will have no choice but sharing our space with non-whites anyway. Thus we have an obligation to defend ourselves against this massive onslaught of mahoundians who pours into our countries on a massive scale even now. So glassing Mecca and Medina would be a bloody good start at least, wouldn't it?

Wayne said...

any Chinese expansionism or aggression will hearld a new era of dark ages for much of Asia and the outside world.

I would say the Anglo Saxon race is the most expansionist in all of human history. And the evidence for this is right in front of our noses.

So what do you mean by Chinese expansionism - most Chinese live in China - unlike say English, Scottish or Irish derived peoples.

Wayne said...

Most people have ZERO comprehension of China's 6,000 YEAR OLD RACIAL MEMORY.

So you do? Are you Chinese? Please elaborate.

Zenster said...

Wayne: I would say the Anglo Saxon race is the most expansionist in all of human history.

Thereby revealing your towering ignorance for all to see.

If you had studied history for even a few milliseconds, you might know that Islam has overrun more territory―and now extinct cultures, at its bloody collective hands―than, perhaps, any other ideology in history.

Islam has enslaved more people than colonial America and Europe combined.

Islam has slaughtered more people than Nazi Germany, communist Russia and Maoist China combined.

Yet you continue to whine and pule interminably about the horrors of White colonialism and the West's horrible colonial legacy. Why don't we examine the "scars" of Western colonialism?

Take, India. What has it got to show for a dozen or more decades of "British Imperialism"?

The largest English-speaking democracy in the entire world.

The finest rail transportation system in all of Asia.

One of the only functional parliaments in all of Asia.

One of the best educational systems in all of Asia.

One of the only quasi-functional pluralistic societies in all of Asia.

So much for the "scars" of White colonialism.

Furthermore, you clearly have no appreciation for being labeled a troll by one of this site's most respected contributors. Such immunity to the obvious is not unknow hereabouts, so I will waste one last comment on your anti-Western tantrums.

So what do you mean by Chinese expansionism[?].

C a n ... y o u ... s a y ... T a i w a n ?

V e r y ... g o o d ... I ... k n e w ... y o u ... c o u l d !

[/Fred Rogers]

Dimunitive Taiwan is the № 26―and frequently ranked as high as the 18th―economy in the entire WORLD.

Communist China, whose "cultural revolution" saw the unparalleled slaughter of untold MILLIONS and the wanton destruction of innumerable priceless historic artifacts has the unmitigated gall to accuse Taiwan of being thieves. This due to the nationalists' removal and preservation of countless treasures that would have been smashed or burnt by Mao's henchmen.

Tour―as I have―the National Art Gallery in Taipei should you question this assertion. Make trips to Asia―as I have―to experience, first hand, a culture worthy of a lifetime's study. Make dear friends in Asia―as I have―should you manage to divert your gnat-like attention span from gaming and trolling the Internet for more than a heartbeat.

Yet you have the purblind audacity to demand an explanation about Chinese expansionism.

P!$$ 0FF!

Wayne said...

Islam has enslaved more people than colonial America and Europe combined.

I'm sure most Muslims do not consider themselves 'enslaved.' Christianity for one is a bigger religion than Islam - and brought to most people by the sword or imperialism. It certainly was much of the case in pagan Europe.

But I won't continue along this vein simply because you are an idiot - when was Islam a race or a nationality?

Yet you have the purblind audacity to demand an explanation about Chinese expansionism.

Taiwan is part of China though. That is why the Taiwanese insist on calling themselves the Republic of China. Most Taiwanese and their government and their president consider themselves Chinese.

Furthermore the Taiwanese as the Republic of China claim more territory even the communist regime on China claims for China.

The Taiwanese for instance have still not renounced China's right to rule Outer Mongolia (Taiwan also of course rightly considers Tibet part of China).
http://tinyurl.com/mdzlvy

Here is a map comparing 'China' as claimed by the PRC with China as claimed by the ROC (Taiwan).
http://tinyurl.com/mgfjw2

You can see that the Republic of China (Taiwan) is far more 'expansionist' than the communist PRC.

Tell that to your Taiwanese friends next time you see them.

It is obviously beyond your limitations to distinguish between a dispute over who should rule, from a desire for territorial aggrandizement.

Wayne said...

Take, India. What has it got to show for a dozen or more decades of "British Imperialism"?

Just a few factoids:

Life expectancy:
India 63, China 71
Infant mortality:
India 60 per 1000 live births, China 30
Literacy: India 68 %, China 95 %.

China's GDP per capita is 2.2 times higher than India's.

China spends twice as much per person on health care.

The above information gleaned from a Deutsche Bank report that can be found here:
http://tinyurl.com/lotv2v

China cares more about its own people than does India, according to UNICEF.

"The agency called on India and Pakistan to emulate China, which spent 8-10 percent of government money on education and health over the past three decades, allowing rural and impoverished communities access to hospitals and schools"

http://tinyurl.com/kvucev


Zenster, do you deliberately twist the facts to suit your own agenda, or are you simply lacking in the IQ department?