Friday, July 10, 2009

A Pinnacle of Self-Destruction

Alexander Maistrovoy, a journalist with the Russian-language Israeli newspaper Novosty nedely, offers this guest-essay, which has been published previously at Canada Free Press and Islam Watch.


A pinnacle of self-destruction
by Alexander Maistrovoy


Can a tango of a murderer and a suicide be considered “The Clash of Civilizations”?

It is difficult to say the clash of which civilizations Samuel Huntington meant. Those who think he wrote about Islamic civilization on the one part and the West on the other part, make a mistake. There is no such conflict, it is inherently impossible. The events of the latest decades show that the civilizations in question are far from clashing. On the contrary, they co-operate and complement one another.

Any conflict assumes that both parties have ideological oppositions, pride, courage, and desire to fight. If one of the parties has neither principles, nor will to resist, or at least aspirations to survive, the conflict does not exist. There is a simple absorption of one civilization by another, a kind of submission or assault. The situation becomes even more hopeless if one of the parties not only obediently submits to an aggressor and tyrant, but meets the conqueror with readiness and enthusiasm.

Can there be a conflict between a sadist and a masochist; hatred and self-hatred; aggression and self-flagellation? Certainly not. Such pairs complement one another ideally.

It is difficult to find more hatred of the West, than in the West itself. Listen and read what the representatives of the Western elite — academicians, novelists and show-business stars — say, and you will find no difference in their ideas and those of the leaders of Taliban or “Al Qaeda”. Do the judgements of Tom Hayden differ from those of Mukdata al Sadr? Is Noam Chomsky or Susan Sontag different in their statements on the USA from Mullah Omar? Sean Penn hates America as strongly as the Islamists do.

“Washington prepares genocide in Afghanistan … The plan is ready, and will be carried out even if it causes the destruction of several million people within the next several months. But it excites nobody.” It was told shortly after 9/11. By whom? Perhaps, by Bin-Laden or Ayman Zawahiri? No, it was told by Noam Chomsky, a liberals’ idol on both sides of the Atlantic.

Who described 9/11 as a “natural result of culture of violence, hunger and brutal exploitation”? It was a Nobel Prize Laureate Dario Fo. Who enthusiastically, with certain ecstasy and voluptuousness, wrote after the bloody orgy: “America, now it’s your turn to understand how ruthless hatred can be!”? It was neither Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, nor Nasralla nor Bashar Asad. These words belong to a popular British short-story writer Martin Louis Amis.

Here is the statement of a French philosopher Jean Baudrillard, one of the pillars of Postmodernism: “It was ‘Al Qaeda’ who did it but we had longed for it”.
- - - - - - - - -
And what about professors? Could the rhetoric of Osama Bin-Laden be compared with triumphal delight of Dr. Richard Berthold from University of New Mexico after 9/11: “Anybody who blows up the Pentagon gets my vote.”

David C. Hendrickson, a professor at Colorado College, compared George W. Bush to Stalin. Poor Stalin … A refined sadist and pathological murderer, he would turn in his grave if he heard the professor. To be compared to Bush, who had not managed to destroy a handful of badly armed terrorists in Baghdad for five years. If Stalin’s Red Army had occupied Baghdad, not only terrorists, but Baghdad itself would have stopped their existence in a week’s time. And not a single one of the present liberals would! have uttered a word of protest. The reason for it is: they admire force, and Stalin was the embodiment of force.

The weak-willed politics of the present Western leaders is just a number of attempts to appease aggressors. It is the reflex of servility and worship of force that impregnates the cultural establishment of the West.

The liberals’ passionate hatred of their own civilization reminds us of revolutionaries — communists and anarchists of the beginning of the last century — and their hatred of capitalism. At first sight we observe a certain ideological continuity. However, the initial impression is deceptive. Lenin, Trotsky and their followers had quite distinct political aims: firstly, full “redistribution” of property and its transfer it to the new “proletarian” elite; secondly, the world revolution and world supremacy. The first task was completely fulfilled. All of the czarist Russia elite: aristocracy, nobility and merchants were either killed or expelled. Stalin came close to the fulfillment of the second task. However, the inconsistent economic policy and the systemic crisis which struck the former USSR prevented the realization of this grandiose plan.

What are the aims of the Western liberal elite? They are none. There is no need to expropriate anybody because, contrary to the Russian marginal-revolutionaries, they belong to the ruling establishment. As for the second purpose, their dominant position allows them to effectively and successfully promote liberal values to the most gloomy and musty corners of the modern world. Instead they consistently and purposefully destroy foundations of their own civilization, support the most ominous forces which dream of the destruction of a free society.

There is one more essential moment. Revolutionaries of the beginning of the 20th century were representatives of national minorities (Jews, Germans, Poles, Latvian, Georgians, Chinese). They despised Russia and Russian culture because they themselves were considered to be men of the meaner sort. On the contrary, the Western liberals are hundred-per-cent Americans, Englishmen, Frenchmen and Spaniards who according to the logic of things have no reasons to hate their countries and wish their destruction. Nevertheless, they are afflicted with desire to see their culture writhing in agony at the feet of triumphing Islamic fanatics and ordinary gangsters and demagogues like Hugo Chavez and his kind.

So, we see a case of causeless, self-destructive hatred. This senseless and absolutely irrational self-hatred could be explained by only one thing: the suicide syndrome characteristic of cultures in their last stage of dying. In lack of ideals, vital forces, and even instinct of self-preservation they surrender themselves to barbarians, with flattering and even masochistic humility give themselves up to rough and despotic conquerors.

… When Alaric entered Rome, he was amazed by a great number of Romans who like Germans wore bearskins and worshiped German idols. Rome had submitted to barbarians long before it fell into their hands. There’s a paradox in the fact that Alaric, Theodoric, and other German leaders did their best to preserve the heritage of ancient Rome. However, one can never expect the same from future conquerors of the West.

If you wish to understand the essence of post-modernism read Michel Foucault, a French historian and philosopher. He wrote: “The death of God does not restore us to a limited and positivistic world, but to a world exposed by the experience of its limits, made and unmade by that excess which transgresses it.”

The West comes back to a starting point of the human being’s existence: chaos, senselessness, boundless permissiveness. According to all laws of dialectics, such a system cannot exist for long time. Chaos requires suppression, a ruthless supervisor, a despot who will cruelly return human beings to their bounds. It will be fanatical Islam, and the Western elite is eagerly waiting for it. So the words of Archbishop of Canterbury Dr. Rowan Williams about the inevitability of Sharia Law in Britain seem quite natural.

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

Shall we see a true conflict of civilizations? Maybe, yes. Possibly, fast developing, dynamic India, and powerful China complete with other Far East “dragons”, and Russia restoring its role of the “Third Rome” can resist the arising Islamic Caliphate. Probably also splinters of the Western Christian civilization will remain in Australia, New Zealand, some countries in East Europe or Latin America. But for the West it will be of no importance…

32 comments:

Zenster said...

Listen and read what the representatives of the Western elite — academicians, novelists and show-business stars — say, and you will find no difference in their ideas and those of the leaders of Taliban or “Al Qaeda”.

This should stand as one of the most searing condemnations possible of Western Liberalism.

What are the aims of the Western liberal elite? They are none.

A more concise explanation of the Left's philosophical malaise cannot be found. This is the unending existential ennui that so plagues its vapid devotees. Life, without reason of any sort.

Probably also splinters of the Western Christian civilization will remain in Australia, New Zealand, some countries in East Europe or Latin America. But for the West it will be of no importance...

However lamentable it may sound, I think you sorely underestimate the galvanizing effect a truly horrific large-scale terrorist atrocity might have upon the American public.

Even were the sheep not to look up, our military still possesses sufficient love for this great nation that they might act unilaterally and respond in kind, or better, to our attackers.

I would have to witness such a grim spectacle first-hand before I could ever believe that America will go silently into the night, regardless of what the White House Whore intends.

Watching Eagle said...

Concerning Constitutional solutions:

Zenster, I appreciate your fleshing out of your theory of military intervention. I agree that it would be constitutional, and is possible. However, the federal Government now does so many things that are unconstitutional, I doubt that the "Magic Paper" of the constitution will save us, people must have a plan to do so.

The great weakness of the Right is that it fails to plan to de-power and defeat its enemies (change the world in a proactive way). Instead it determines its goals based on issues, rather than outlining the cause (major objective) and then supporting the issues and goals that will make the cause a success.

For generals to pull it off, they need a certain level of support. Another thought-- How do you know that America will suffer an WMD attack first? Why not attack some small peacenik Western country first ( and see what we do)? Your strategy seems to assume that the jihadists will be stupid enough to walk into our trap. It is not impossible, but I question whether putting all of one's eggs into the basket that "our foes will rush into our trap" is a sufficient strategy for saving the West.

Another factor: One reason that the Soviets didn't nuke us was that they were afraid of dying, but another reason was that they thought they would conquer the West by infiltration anyway, in a few decades.

How exactly does a WMD attack on America futher the establishment of the Caliphate anyway?

When Qaddaffi and Yusuf al Qaradawi are saying things like "Is it necessary for the Islamic conquest of Europe to be by the sword? No! This will be a peaceful conquest!!" Do you think that Jihadists aren't listening, or that they can't put two and two together?

The Oil won't last forever, so the Islamists want to get Jizya from the West to stay alive. Why destroy something if you can conquer it without a fight in "a few decades".

I suggest you read the books I mentioned. I look forward to seeing your recommended reading list.

Watching Eagle said...

The sole goal of the Left is to Destroy "western Imperialism", which they think caused the collapse of Communism.

Hey Leftists, be careful what you wish for-- When "western Imperialism" is gone, YOUR IDEAS will be in THE DUSTBIN OF HISTORY, for they are "western".

Watching Eagle said...

One more question:

Zenster, has the following possible future scenario ever occurred to you:

In 2050, we will have quantum computers, Inter-languages translating phones (One calls me in China, I pick up the phone, he speaks in Chinese and I hear him in perfect English) , and intelligent robots in the cities of Europe; which will exist alongside the beatings, stonings, amputations, and decapitations of Shariah; in provinces of the Eurabian Caliphate such as The Grand Emirate of the Netherlands, the Sultanate of Britainistan, the Sultanate of Swedenistan, and the Sultanate of Andulsia? And that the capital of the Eurabian Caliphate will be either Londonistan or Rome, with the quantum computers, intelligent robots, and language translating machines visible on the streets??

Zenster said...

Watching Eagle, please consider posting this off-topic reply in its original thread. The Baron and Dymphna are pretty generous about keeping active threads open for "the duration".

It would be far more constructive to have all inquiries and replies in a single repository. Do rest assured that I will be happy to respond there.

Zenster said...

Watching Eagle: In 2050, we will have quantum computers, Inter-languages translating phones (One calls me in China, I pick up the phone, he speaks in Chinese and I hear him in perfect English) , and intelligent robots in the cities of Europe; which will exist alongside the beatings, stonings, amputations, and decapitations of Shariah...

Please forgive my insouciance but I have a difficult time believing that Islam, in its current form, will be any sort of world power, much less even in existence, in "2050".

My only answer to your question involves whether Islam is even capable of adopting the advanced technologies you predicate in your question.

Hell, Saudi Arabia can barely deal with camera cell phones (three different links). Auto-translation telecom systems that permit phone sex regardless of native tongue (so to speak), will hardly be received any better.

Zenster said...

Watching Eagle: Hey Leftists, be careful what you wish for-- When "western Imperialism" is gone, YOUR IDEAS will be in THE DUSTBIN OF HISTORY, for they are "western".

NOW, you're talking, Tiger!

Robin Shadowes said...

Even if they conquer Europe without much violence, there will be blood shed later. Large amounts of blood. Kuffar blood. They might want to preserve as much of our infrastructure for economical reasons but those who built it, they care nothing for. Once Europe is fully conquered, when it all is a done deal, they have nomore need for the kuffar. There will be genocides on a scale thatt would make Hitler, Stalin and Mao blush in comparison. All people that are of no use to them will be ruthlessly slaughtered. The rest will be either forcibly converted to mahoundism or reduced to slave labor only. America probably stands a better chance to survive than us. We are probably already lost. The mahoundians hasn't taken over formally and officially yet but in reality they already rule over Eurabia.

laine said...

"We are probably already lost. The mahoundians hasn't taken over formally and officially yet but in reality they already rule over Eurabia."

Yes, consider what they have achieved with low numbers under 10% of the population thanks to the magnification of their power by Western elites who thrive on the stench of any totalitarianism.

The result is that complete Muslim lame-o's, small time stumblebums and thugs are allowed to strut about Dodge raping and vandalizing while the Left ties up any non-complacent authorities or citizens in PC shackles.

Chief dhimmis like Obama hate the societies they now rule and are devoted to destroying. They are more concerned about the rights of captured Muslim terrorists than of American conservatives.

The USA is not far behind Eurabia and Obama may singlehandedly put the United States ahead in the dhimmi sweepstakes. He's already announced that America does not consider itself a Christian nation and that it is one of the largest Muslim nations (obvious wish fulfilment, as neither statement is true yet).

What may turn out to be the major difference is that perhaps 40% of Americans will not be willing to go quietly and they are the ones who are armed. The percentage of Europeans who are kicking up a fuss is miniscule and all they have is rocks. Their police and military are already weakened or co-opted into PC pods who will follow government orders to neutralize rebellious citizens, whatever it takes.

Darrin said...

Go and watch Clint Eastwood's "Gran Torino" and tell if it isn't an allegory on the state of Western civilisation and its (lack of) future.

Robin Shadowes said...

laine, I don't know if you are familiar with Alex Jones and NWO conspiratists like him. Some of that stuff like the FEMA camps give me the creeps. Like they are already prepared for the coming genocide. But then again, at least you have one advantage. You have guns. All we have to defend ourselves with is baseball bats and kitchen knives at best while the muslim thugs have guns. The only citizens with arms are the hunters and they're not many enough to save us all. I think it is delibarate that they don't allow us to own firearms. They just want it to be easy to round us up when it's the right time. I haven't heard about similar camps as the FEMA ones over here but I guess there are secret camps anyway. After all, we ethnical natives are still a majority and they need death factories so that they can decrease our numbers as fast as possible and as comfortable for themselves, the elite that is. As white ethnicals we are all that they hate with western civilisation, we represent capitalism and imperialism and must thus be annihilated for the greater good of their new communist islamic utopia. You can't make ommelette without cracking a few (million) eggs.

Czechmade said...

As those 68-ers conquered the West without one shot, anybody else to do the same.

But there is also a global harmony:

The West has to wait until the leftist generation dies out, the same is valid for Iran, Iraq, China and many other places.

Those people are sick beyond repair.

From time to time we should be able to test, whether those guys are dead enough, as they do in Iran every day right now. The Western and ME or Chinese collaborators are maximum silent about it. But Iran is a real hope.

As a protestor said on aljazeera:

"We are not Iraq, Afghanistan or Pakistan." But that much is beyond comprehension of the classical Western anti-jihadi. The leftists are correct in their silence about it in the West not joining any Iranian demonstration - they clearly defined their preferences long ago. But what about us?

It is a shame that aljazeera gives much more space to them than anybody in the West.

The Iranians are the only folk on this planet, who decided to rather die than renounce their quest for freedom.

The non-leftist Westerners do not like to see it. They prefer to focus on a marginal figure Moussavi to have an alibi and sort of satisfaction from their preconcieved wisdom.

By crushing Uighurs China does a favour to the West showing clearly all those islamic regimes willingness to collaborate with them and care zero for "muslims".
Just keep your power. It is a slow erosion of their anti-Western rhetorics in process. Note it and use it as an argument 100%. Their acute head-aches come from concept of democracy, not really from the West.

Iranians declared already "death to Islamic republic" and have switched also the islamic concept to shaheed-e-democracy. Martyrs of democracy.

Sometimes you like to be slow in understanding - like in crumbling of USSR.

Czechmade said...

Correct: anybody else can do the same.

Those leading leftists in the West are quite old. But followed closely by a school/university generation, which is as much clueless - now they are around fifty.

Compare it to the Baatist generation in Iraq or pseudoleftist mullahs in Iran. How old are the communists in China or Vietnam?

The next generation has very different views. They may be still silent, but they numbers are huge.

Focus on them. Try to study them.

Afonso Henriques said...

"Yes, consider what they have achieved with low numbers under 10% of the population thanks to the magnification of their power by Western elites who thrive on the stench of any totalitarianism."

Because at 10% they always bug "the other".

Compare this to the formidable opposition they face whem they reach more than 25% like in Bosnia/Serbia, Macedonia or Montenegro...

I really think the United States is worst off.
It really is about demographical replacement. All Western European countries are still more then 85% European, right?

And in Europe, we feel that this is our land - wether one's leftist or right wing we think this way. We only diverge in *what to do* with our land.

This is a very powerfull process that can lead to a continental-scale "Reconquista" any time in the future.

America, on the other hand, is already two thirds or three fourths white. It's white population continues decreasing, and more important than that, there's no thinking pattern that can lead to America make a "Reconquista" in the future.

According to American dogma, everybody has the same right to that land. There's not a people who owns the land. But a "community".

It's pretty much the difference between soft Nationalism and soft Patriotism but it is still there.

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

And Czechmade, what do you suggest "we" to do regarding Iran?

Let it go man...

Czechmade said...

Afonso,

simple, first pay attention.

Once surprized by the current events, it is to late to do the homework. Whatever you may think now must be 100% clueless.

Western sovietologists - overpayed and highly esteemed - were absolutely clueless in the end.
Now we do not have even that.

Analyzing the Only party speeches did not bring much over decades. There was some mute understanding and balance between the party bosses and those specialists. Later on - those people had no trouble to start making business with the local communists. A high treason never studied or mentioned anywhere.

Now the West being even more clueless and minding for ever good business first will more or less indirectly support the common Iranian regime. Obama made the best out of it - playing a complete pro-regime clown just few weeks before the uprising. There may be some clashes in the media and democracy-for-democracy shows, but basically our politicos do not care.

The Iranian community in the West did not believe in a change either. Now they do. At this stage they want separation of religion and state. But the events might bring them much further.

Then we have to push with them - avoiding silly compromises and recycling thus islam in future as we do so well in Iraq and Afghanistan. As it was done with the ex-communist leftist ideology in ex-communist countries recently.
We payed dearly for the "velvet revolution". An absolutely silly imported media notion.

Given the amount of the regime violence in Iran now and before, it might be easier to push to the end. Our knowledge of the totalitarian islam should be combined with their knowledge and yield clear strict results: No islam at all in the West AND Iran.

Euro Referendum 2009 said...

I think the Martin Amis quote is wrong. It sounds like Amis himself was paraphrasing a common Muslim response to 9/11.

Amis has gone as far as saying that he sometimes feels that Muslim will have 'to feel some pain' before they realise that they cannot behave with impunity in the West.

Richard

ChrisLA said...

While I am outraged by the arrogance and intolerance of the Islamist agenda, I believe that there are non-political obstacles to the spread of Islam. The most populous Islamic country is Indonesia, but Muslim's failed to convert the natives of Borneo and Bali because of their love for pork. I seriously doubt if Islam will eradicate beer, bacon, BLT, and the holiday ham from Western civilization. Also, women in the West will never accept second tier status, as Muslims are discovering even with their own.

Chechar said...

I’d like to comment on a couple of different sentences in the main article:

“So, we see a case of causeless, self-destructive hatred.”

There’s a definite cause for all of this mess, as I am starting to explain in my blog. On the other hand, if you wish to understand the essence of the Islamists’ hate read this article by Robert Godwin.

“Probably also splinters of the Western Christian civilization will remain in Australia…”

I wouldn’t be so optimistic… Recently I became furious with a couple of white Australian administrators in the English Wikipedia. For politically-correct purposes they removed the whole section which recounted infanticide in the past by aboriginals. (Since such practices demonstrate that Westerners were far less barbarous than aboriginals, the denial of aboriginal infanticide by whites is closely related to the understanding of Western self-hatred, as shown in the discussion linked in the last paragraph of this blog entry.)

Watching Eagle said...

Important Points:

Zenster, I checked your links and it proves the point I was trying to make.

You said,

"Please forgive my insouciance but I have a difficult time believing that Islam, in its current form, will be any sort of world power, much less even in existence, in "2050".

Islam will not exist in 2050, or at least not be a world power??? Islam has existed for 1387 years, and please note The 3rd. Jihad is expanding.

Listen ALL of you fellow readers-- based on the sum total of my study on The 3rd. Jihad, the world I described is EXACTLY WHAT ALL THE TENS OF MILLIONS UPON TENS OF MILLIONS OF JIHADIS ARE WORKING TO TURN INTO REALITY.

'Infidels' will likely have invented these technologies by then. The point is that Islam will not stop technology, but that technology WILL NOT STOP THE THIRD JIHAD. The goal is to get the West to submit to the Oasis Code (Shariah) I should have mentioned in the scenario that the "morality police" will be patrolling the streets of Europe as well.

You also said,

"My only answer to your question involves whether Islam is even capable of adopting the advanced technologies you predicate in your question."

Islamists have been exposed to all of our existing technologies, but it has NOT 'westernized' them. On the contrary, they are using Western Technology and tactics to defeat the West (by gaining endless concessions).

By the way, the year 2050 is significant, for Ali Musa, an American Imam in Washington, D.C. has stated that America will become an Islamic State by 2050.

If 'secular progressives' are not removed from power, I find it very hard to believe that THE WEST WILL EXIST, MUCH LESS BY ANY KIND OF WORLD POWER in 2050.

My prediction (based on current trends) is that the accomodation of Shariah in the West will become the chief 'Progressive' social issue in public debate in 10-15 years. (Other issues will be 'pushed to the margins').

Robin Shadowes is absolutely right. The "secular progressive" governing class will be LIQUIDATED WHEN THE EURABIAN CALIPHATE IS ESTABLISHED. They will try to milk the West of Jizya. In "the golden age of Islam", muslims were a minority, and they assimilated the technology of the dhimmis (Assyians, Indians, Copts, Persians, Spanish, etc) into their society and claimed them as "Muslim inventions". They also discouraged conversions, since they wanted to maintain their tax base (Something the 'secular progressive' governing class doesn't have the sense to understand).

Laine is also right. I thought Islamization would not affect America a year ago, but with Obama I'm not sure anymore.

Zenster said...

Chechar, thank you for the excellent link. It is required reading for anyone who even wants to pretend that they understand Muslim animosity towards the West.

I have written at this web site about Ijtihad numerous times. My article, "What The Hedgehog Knows", examined Islam's abandoning ijtihad for the blind imitation of taqlid.

I also mention ijtihad during a comment in the earlier article, "Loyal Disobedience or Unlawful Arrogance?".

In addition, I have made numerous references to ijtihad in my recent comments here as well.

Chechar's blog link goes on to note:

Unfortunately, just when the West was breaking away from a primitive "hand-me-down" form of mythic knowledge, and turning down an historical road that pointed to the Renaissance, Enlightenment, and Scientific Revolution, Islam took a wrong (but very emblematic) turn which involved "closing the gate of Ijtihad," or independent analysis.

According to Daniel Pipes, the adage "better a hundred years of repression than a day of anarchy" encapsulates the dread of social disorder, or
fitna, that "lies deep in Islamic civilization.".

The above observation lays groundwork for why the West is subjected to such enduring hostility by Islam:

In short, it is a battle between the cognitive/emotional past and present of the human species, no different than if we had somehow entered a time warp and were fighting the barbarian hordes of Genghis Khan. Even when logical, formal operations thinking is employed by the terrorists, it is in the service of perverse paranoid-schizoid envy and sadism, so that they have no interest in designing planes, only crashing them; building magnificent skyscrapers, only destroying them; curing disease, only spreading it. The very real problem we are facing is an adversary with a dangerous combination of primitive psychological development but access to sophisticated weapons and technology that their level of cognitive integration could never have produced on its own. If it could have, the human race would have been extinguished several thousand years ago by barbarians with weapons of mass destruction. [emphasis added]

This harkens back to a point I have made several times of late as to how if Islam possesed the West's nuclear arms and we did not, none of us would even be alive to write or read these words.

I still tend towards the optimistic view of ChrisLA but admit it will require some major changes in orientation for American's to fully resist Islam.

Sebastian said...

I look for the day that the U.S. military will fulfill its destiny as watching eagle prophesies.
Aristotle taught that some people were born slaves and some masters, it is their inner nature which makes them such. Western democracy has degenerate men and women in positions they could never achieve in a Hobbseian world.
The result is that we find people who want to submit and admire brute displays of power because of a weak, slavish nature. Not only are they impressed but inexplicably persuaded and submitted by it. I think this would explain the seeming irrationality of it.
This slavish nature naturally is in awe of power and finds itself responding in a slavish effeminate way towards dominance, whether that cocky dominance is legit or not. A parallel way to describe this liberal sick behavior is in terms of submission and dominance, male and female principles which cross biological gender boundaries. Islam is just a male principle, one of dominance which is culturally enshrined in Islamic cult. Todays western

Zenster said...

Watching Eagle: The point is that Islam will not stop technology, but that technology WILL NOT STOP THE THIRD JIHAD.

We already have the technology to stop the third jihad in a matter of mere hours. It is only the will and the apparent presence of less drastic options that preclude a hasty resolution of this entire mess.

What you seem to forget is the enormous difficulty that Muslims in general have with inventing, manufacturing or operating anything more complex than a bowel movement. A halt to technological exports would see the MME (Muslim Middle East) go into an industrial collapse within less than a year.

My prediction (based on current trends) is that the accomodation of Shariah in the West will become the chief 'Progressive' social issue in public debate in 10-15 years.

My own prediction is that possibly within ten years those who sought to accommodate shari'a and Islam in general may already be facing charges of treason, if not being hunted down like the mangy curs they are.

Laine is also right. I thought Islamization would not affect America a year ago, but with Obama I'm not sure anymore.

I must sadly concur. Should Obama endure a complete four years in office, there is almost no limit to the incredible damage he might do to our country. It's enough to make an agnostic pray for divine intervention.

Zenster said...

Sebastian: I look for the day that the U.S. military will fulfill its destiny as watching eagle prophesies.

Please indicate exactly where Watching Eagle does that. A quote with kink or post title will suffice.

Watching Eagle said...

One other point: the islamists are adapting their arguments from the Leftist traitors.

As to what Czechmade said, he is right about the 68-ers (what I call the Western Cultural Revolution [1963-1979]). The problem is that many of those 68-ers didn't REALLY BELIEVE in 'diversity' and
'multiculturalism' as the be all and end all, they were just invented to prepare the way for communism. However, now the new generation REALLY DOES BELIEVE in 'diversity' and 'multiculturalism', which will make it harder and harder to stop concessions to Islam [especially since Muslims are 15% of the European population under 15 now].

Concerning Afonso, he made an apples and oranges comparison. The Serbs WERE RULED BY SHARIAH for 500 YEARS. (1389- ca. 1900) They remember, and that is why they resist. The rest of Europe DOESN'T have a CLUE.

It's a pity that we picked the wrong side (for our interests) in Bosnia. America should have at least stayed neutral.

As to United States being worse off, because of the % white population, he is misinformed. Granted, mass immigration has caused us problems, even though many hispanics have assimilated.

BUT DON'T CONFUSE MEXICANS WITH MUSLIMS. Hispanics are benign by comparison. As to White Europeans feeling it is 'their land' you do, but the governing class doesn't. Concerning Spain, the Muslim population has more than doubled in the past five years, and KSA and UAE are paying muslims welfare to settle in Spain! Adding to the trouble is that Spain's Native population is rapidly aging and shinking, and Andalusia may be the first Sultanate to be established in the 21st Century.

Zenster said...

Watching Eagle: One other point: the islamists are adapting their arguments from the Leftist traitors.

My only argument against your point would be that Leftists are handing Islam its talking points on a silver platter.

Hispanics are benign by comparison.

Only within the immediate context of resisting Islamic jihad. Mexican illegals in particular still infect American society with all the worst Third World practices of graft, bribery, black markets, gang actitivies and trafficking in drugs or humans. This is damaging America's economy and―due to gradual acceptance of these sordid practices―our ability to discern how similar behaviors in Islamic societies are so inimical to a healthy culture.

An analogy would be that illegal Mexican immigration is innoculating Americans against the quick onset of a much stronger reaction to Islam's more virulent disease. This enables many Americans to de-emphasize the threat that Muslims pose because we seem to be surviving the illegal Mexican influx just fine (which we most definitely are not).

Adding to the trouble is that Spain's Native population is rapidly aging and shinking, and Andalusia may be the first Sultanate to be established in the 21st Century.

Due to proximity and an appallingly low population replacement rate of only 1.1, the Muslim reconquista of Spain is almost a foregone conclusion.

Sebastian said...

zenster,
I refer to watching eagles 10:30p
post from yesterday.? Where he writes that sound thinking conservative forces do not have a plan to defeat our enemoes within but have bought into the idea of working with them or accepting them as legitimate. I the next paragraph first sentence he says if the generals are to do it they need a cerrain amount of support.
All the best.

Robin Shadowes said...

"'Infidels' will likely have invented these technologies by then. The point is that Islam will not stop technology, but that technology WILL NOT STOP THE THIRD JIHAD. The goal is to get the West to submit to the Oasis Code (Shariah) I should have mentioned in the scenario that the "morality police" will be patrolling the streets of Europe as well."

The Morality Police is already here but so far only in the ghettoes. The kuffar are not affected by them - yet. That might change in the next 12-15 years if we don't get rid of the PC MC-crowd. Then any citizen, muslim or kuffar alike will be stopped in the street if their behaviour is in some way offending the MP or if the dress code is wrong. They will be publicly abused in the street and possibly even taken away, possibly to never been seen alive again. Muslim and non-muslim alike. Their headless bodies will wind up in the ditches outside the city/town/village whatever.

Zenster said...

Sebastian: In the next paragraph first sentence he says if the generals are to do it they need a certain amount of support.

Thank you for the reply. Watching Eagle's comment is a direct response to my own postulation that America's military will not tolerate any Commander in Chief who refuses to promptly respond in kind to a terrorist nuclear attack. This is my own position and one that Watching Eagle has been debating in the "Drawing the Line" post at Gates of Vienna.

I invite you to peruse that post for better insights into our ongoing debate about possible American response to a terrorist nuclear attack. (My comments begin at 7/07/2009 3:44 AM)

Watching Eagle said...

More modulations:

Zenster said--

" It is only the will and the apparent presence of less drastic options that preclude a hasty resolution of this entire mess."

I would add at least three things to the List (that drive my posts and my coming book).

1) A "progressive" governing class that pursues perverse self-actualization (Self-actualization without regard to survival) that has caused insanity by reason of Hubris.

2)A belief among Westerners that their civilization can't REALLY be conquered and/or wiped out (we've been in the driver's seat for a long time), and thus a lack of the desire to avert failure at any cost

3)(partly due to a lack of understnding of history) A lack of knowledge of our external opponents (the Reality Borg [Islam]), AND a very GRAVE MISUNDERSTANDING OF OURSELVES (think of Sun Tsu's quote in "The Art of War" here).

When you say,

"What you seem to forget is the enormous difficulty that Muslims in general have with inventing, manufacturing or operating anything more complex than a bowel movement."

I agree with the 1st two verbs. However, there are 2 sayings--

"Were there is a will, there is a way" -English proverb

"We must either find a way, or make one"-- Hannibal

Taken together, this means that even muslims can learn to operate Western technology and tactics if they want to impose Shariah BADLY ENOUGH. And few can understand just HOW BADLY Islamists want a Eurabian Caliphate. I see them using technology, tactics, and strategies invented by the West (in a Shariah-compliant way, of course) to gain concessions to Shariah ALL THE TIME, while I do not see them conquering lands militarily through "terrorism" (though we invented all the weapons they use for that, too).

And,

"My own prediction is that possibly within ten years those who sought to accommodate shari'a and Islam in general may already be facing charges of treason, if not being hunted down like the mangy curs they are."

May it even be so: However (Alas!!), I think you MUST ADMIT that the last eight years have NOT been encouraging AT ALL, for one who would like things to move in that direction. (You need to read Londonistan (Melanie Philips); Unholy Alliance (David Horowitz), and The West's Last Chance (Tony Blankley), to see just how bad the problem is.

If I were in charge, I would have some "creative" ways to do justice to these traitors-- ones that would not 'deprive' traitors from experiencing their 'fair share' of "cultural diversity". (Like getting the Taliban to provide them with a "memorable experience")

For something like you say to happen, our society MUST DRIVE 'progressives' from POWER FOR GOOD.


But he did admit--

"My only argument against your point would be that Leftists are handing Islam its talking points on a silver platter."

Very well spoken. The MO of the Islamists seems to be "We MUST FIND the ways WESTERN TRAITORS MAKE FOR US"

or "We must add YOUR biological and technological distinctiveness to OUR OWN"{since they can't invent anything [productive] new themselves}

As the years have gone by, I have seen the Muslims grow more sophisticated and more confident.

To be continued...

Watching Eagle said...

Continued..

"An analogy would be that illegal Mexican immigration is innoculating Americans against the quick onset of a much stronger reaction to Islam's more virulent disease. This enables many Americans to de-emphasize the threat that Muslims pose because we seem to be surviving the illegal Mexican influx just fine (which we most definitely are not)."

Very good point. I hadn't thought of it that way, but I agree. I said what I said because I am tired of hearing 'Progressives' say that muslim populations of larger sizes in the West can be tolerated, because Hispanics are a larger % of the U.S. population than Muslims are of the EU-27 (now).

I believe that the U.S. probably took in too many immigrants in the first great wave (1880-1924) for our own good. Multiculturalism makes the problems of mass immigration much worse than they otherwise would be.

PRCalDude said...

Superb essay, as usual

Natalie said...

I'm a bit late in commenting on this (I didn't see it until now because I was out of the country) but this is an absolutely excellent essay.