Saturday, July 18, 2009

Rollback

Below is a guest-post by Free Hal, a first-time contributor from the UK. Under the assumption that the welfare states of Western Europe cannot avoid collapse sometime in the next few decades, his essay explores the possibilities for rolling back Islamization within the context of a post-democratic Europe.


Rolling back Islam in Europe, without violence
by Free Hal


“In the last few years it has become obvious that we are living in the twilight of the Western democracies.”
Baron Bodissey

“I think it’s clear, that every man that is to live under a government ought first by his own consent to put himself under that government”
Thomas Rainsborough (1610 — 1648)

Following the European elections, some commentators are starting to discuss the implications of rolling back Islam in Europe.

Geert Wilders:

I have a clear message to all Muslims in our societies: if you subscribe to our laws, values and constitution you are very welcome to stay and we will even help you to assimilate. But if you cross the red line and commit crimes, start thinking and acting like jihad or sharia we will expel you the same out of our countries.

Wilders is specific. As El Inglés has noted, Wilders’ plan implicitly revokes Muslim citizenship, by making it conditional on good behaviour.

But Geert Wilders is serious about enforcing assimilation. On Danish TV, he said:

“if you commit a crime, if you start thinking about jihad or sharia, then it’s very clear, we will send you away, we will send you packing, we will strip you of the Dutch or Danish nationality,” he said. “It is a red line. Abide by the rules, you are welcome to stay, and if you don’t we will send you away the same day.”

Asked how many Muslims Wilders thought were responsible for causing problems, Wilders said: “Millions, tens of millions.”

Geert Wilders concludes the interview (at 8:13 minutes) by saying how many would be liable to expulsion:

“Like I said, if I talk about the numbers, 70% of the prisons, many people wanting to implement sharia of the caliphate — are denouncing democracy — you are talking about millions now, and unfortunately it will increase if we don’t stop the immigration and if we don’t start acting against people who act against our free societies and our values and our rule of law.”

People are increasingly prepared to discuss the implications of the conflict that Europe’s elites are brewing up. It is a relief to be able to talk openly, after a long time when even trivial measures like immigration adjustments, or public library stocks, have been derided as dangerously rightwing.

I would like to use this increase in openness to suggest that state attempts to roll back Islam in Europe will either fail or result in carnage. I examine the approaches of Geert Wilders in this Danish interview, and El Inglés’ approach in two articles, “Surrender, Genocide… or What?”, and “To Push or to Squeeze?”. Then I offer a method which can roll back Islam without ethnic cleansing or genocide.

Geert Wilders’ approach

He was not exaggerating that “millions, tens of millions” of European Muslims would be liable for expulsion. Will his approach work?

Suppose a European government adopted the mild integration measures advocated by Christopher Hitchens or Melanie Phillips (restrictions on immigration, “sending messages” about “Islam-ism”, rejecting Sharia finance, etc.).

If the other side don’t respond, then the next step is to try to stop the growth in European Islamic populations. This is much harder in practice than in theory. Islamic demographic growth comes mainly from higher birthrates and the importation of spouses. The state can’t realistically prevent Muslim births. And it is unrealistic to expect democratic European states to prevent ‘family reunification’.

Stopping a European Pakistani from visiting Pakistan, marrying his cousin, and bringing her back to Europe, would require the cancellation of an entrenched legal right. And for reasons of ethnic discrimination. No government could do this and retain its democratic and diplomatic credentials.

And such a prohibition could be circumvented. Suppose a European Muslim visits Pakistan, where he marries and impregnates his cousin. Do you then exclude his child? If so, then suppose the European Muslim is the woman. She marries her cousin in Pakistan and gets pregnant there. Do you prevent the baby returning with her to Europe? If so, then what if she gives birth in Europe — do you deport the baby?
- - - - - - - - -
A government prepared to go that far would be more likely to countenance simple expulsion. Simple expulsion is much more likely in the context of collapsed European state authorities. The warlords and dictators who would probably follow such a breakdown are unlikely to adopt costly and sophisticated administrative measures out of squeamishness about physical force.

On the other hand it is difficult to envisage democratic European governments reducing immigration at all, because they need a stream of young immigrants to keep the welfare pyramid scheme going. Welfare schemes are what most Europeans vote for. A government that threatened the welfare state would be quickly replaced, and welfare implosion is more likely than Muslims aggression to be the trigger for European breakdown. It will be interesting to see how Geert Wilders squares his approval of the welfare state with his aim of reduced immigration.

My point is that a government that wants to radically slash immigration is unlikely to be one that depends on promises of welfare and is, therefore, unlikely to be a democracy. On the other hand, undemocratic regimes opt for simple expulsion, not immigration reform.

So, suppose European Islamic numbers expand. What then?

The next step is Geert Wilders’ proposal to expel people who “think or act like jihad or sharia”. The aim is to force European Muslims to assimilate.

I don’t think Wilders’ approach would work, for three reasons.

First, there would be too many ways to evade the policy.

How do you identify people who think like jihad or sharia? The policy would simply force European Muslims, following the principle of taqiyya, to lie low until their numbers are greater. And even if you could weed out all disaffected Muslims, you would have to repeat the process every generation because basic Islamic tenets are unlikely to change.

Nor would it be possible to stop mainstream political parties courting Muslim votes with sharia-friendly promises.

Second, the aim is impracticable.

The legal minefield of making Muslims’ citizenship conditional on good behaviour will mean re-writing key portions of the Dutch constitution.

For example, Article 1 [Equality]: “All persons in the Netherlands shall be treated equally in equal circumstances. Discrimination on the grounds of religion, belief, political opinion, race, or sex or on any other grounds whatsoever shall not be permitted.”.

Or Article 6 [Religion, Belief]: “(1) Everyone shall have the right to manifest freely his religion or belief, either individually or in community with others, without prejudice to his responsibility under the law.”

It will also mean secession from the EU (breach of human rights and Single Market law). No bad thing, you may think. But a sudden breakdown of the EU would probably break European state authorities, and the Europe-wide economy, and there is no way to control the effects of that. It is hard to see how a post-PC Europe, so long stripped of the language to discuss ethnic issues, with fragmenting state authorities and free-falling economies, could apply such methods with the necessary restraint.

Third, it will be ineffectual.

If the Dutch prison population (pdf) is in the region of 15,000, and the average Dutch prison sentence (pdf) is roughly six months, then Wilders’ approach, unhindered, would lead to a maximum deportation of about 20,000 people during the first year or two. But fewer after that, because recidivists will have been expelled and the remainder will keep off the grass.

The measures will otherwise be simple to avoid: don’t rant about sharia, don’t blow up buses, don’t carry jihad banners, don’t tell an official your views. The Islamic enclaves will continue to grow, as separate as now.

So, suppose Geert Wilders’ approach fails to secure genuine assimilation. What do you do?

The next step is to make life in Muslim enclaves so horrible that people inside stop reproducing and leave. This is what an angry Europe will very likely end up doing, sparked by the collapse of its welfare states.

El Inglés

Now let me take El Inglés’ view in two articles, “Surrender, Genocide… or What?”, and “To Push or to Squeeze?”.

In both essays, El Inglés presents the three main methods for reducing the Muslim population of Europe:

1. through pressuring them, in whatever fashion, to decide to relocate (Option 1);

2. through deporting them (Option 2); and,

3. through large-scale violence which, taken to an extreme, would constitute genocide (Option 3).

In “Surrender, Genocide… or What?” he sees a simple choice for European states:

“I therefore predict that Europe is being swept into a position where it will be forced to choose between relying overwhelmingly on option three and surrendering.”

El Inglés modifies this view in “To Push or to Squeeze?”, and predicts that:

European countries seeking to de-Islamize will move into Option 1 (Standard), supplemented as described above by small amounts of Option 2. As this proves insufficient (which it will) these tactics will segue into Option 1 (Enhanced) — [i.e. “using far more inconsiderate and uncivilized means to tighten the squeeze on Muslims, including means that are well beyond the pale at present in any polite discussion of the problems resulting from Islamization”]. In some countries more and more Option 3-type violence will be incorporated.

Put simply, this is a choice between genocide and ethnic cleansing. In “Surrender, Genocide… or What?”, El Inglés thought, correctly in my view, that a drive to get Muslims to leave Europe would either fail or end up in genocide. In “To Push or to Squeeze?”, after reflection, he thinks ethnic cleansing should be enough to do the job.

The reason I think “ethnic cleansing” is appropriate shorthand for El Inglés’ “Option 1 (Enhanced)” is that it is the forced removal of an ethnic population from an area. Ethnic cleansing usually involves large-scale bloodshed, which is why it is generally reviled. I think El Inglés is describing ethnic cleansing at the lower end of the scale.

I mean no disrespect to El Inglés. Like him, I don’t debate the morality of ethnic cleansing right now, just the efficacy: will it work?

The term “ethnic cleansing” began in the Yugoslav Wars of the 1990’s. There, tactics were simple — killing and detention to scare unwanted populations over the nearest border.

I think ethnic cleansing would fail in western Europe for the reason El Inglés gave in “Surrender, Genocide… or What?”: ethnic cleansing isn’t feasible by aeroplane.

First, the methods outlined in “To Push or to Squeeze?” include: draconian legislation banning the hiring of illegal immigrants, reduced access to public services and quality of public infrastructure, refusal of re-entry for Muslims, assiduous deportation of Muslim criminals, and violent attacks by non-state actors. However, many of those problems are features of daily life in, say, Pakistan and Algeria. In the former Yugoslavia, the choice was a choice between one second-world territory and the next. The choice for Europe’s Muslims would be between a wealthy and over-generous western economy and a third-world hole. Anyone who has experienced Lahore will wonder if it is possible to make conditions in Paris or Luton so bad that Pakistan seems alluring.

Second, there’s the problem of Islamic territorialism.

Territory is all in tribal society. Jihad is central to all Islamic traditions (please see Robert Spencer on this). We see further evidence in Europe’s self-segregating “communities”, i.e. enclaves.

Palestinian self-destructiveness, the creation of Pakistan in 1948, the 1971 Pakistani genocide in Bangladesh, and now Darfur, all suggest that Muslims are prepared to live in misery, and see large numbers of Muslims die, rather than cede control of territory to non-Muslims. It would be simple for Islamic countries to refuse refugees, which they will surely do to prevent the loss of European enclaves.

The refugees themselves would have to contend not only with the poverty, grime and disorder of Muslim countries but also the shame of defeat. Arab states go to some lengths to prevent Palestinian refugees from entering, and the treatment of those Palestinians who get through is callousness itself.

This internalised shame alone could make it impossible to ethnically cleanse European Muslims. You would have to make Islamic enclaves worse than Muslim homelands by a wide margin to overcome the prejudice that refugee Muslims would face on return to the old country. This could only be achieved by systematic violence.

Third, systematic violence won’t work.

The cost to the European country would be too high. Violent ethnic cleansing suffers from the problems that El Inglés recognises in (International Condemnation, Severing of Diplomatic Ties and Trade Links, Refusal of Airlines, Surge in Terrorist Activity, and Massive Riots). The accompanying instability would also scare investors and crash financial markets.

The airport bottleneck would be easy to block, with a handful of suicide bombers, perhaps financed by Islamic states. Muslims have a peculiar propensity for killing their own. A few downed planes will convince remaining Muslims that it is more dangerous to leave than to stay. There is no way to prevent this.

Fourth, ethnic cleansing assumes a functioning self-control on the part of European states which simply won’t be there.

In addition to ethnic division, European states face fiscal breakdown, the collapse of welfare, and chronically dependent populations. This is an explosive cocktail. Swathes of Europe might revert to warlords and dictators.

It is historically unwarranted, to put it mildly, to assume that European authorities will be in a position to keep order, let alone finely calibrate the pressure on Muslim enclaves. Reflect on European history for two minutes, and the results of ‘non-electoral discontinuities’: the French Wars of Religion, the Italian Wars, the Dutch Wars of Independence, the Thirty Years War, and the appalling persecutions of the Jews. There is a regrettable propensity to descend to violent extremes.

This is the main reason why I disagree with El Inglés’ that low-level ethnic cleansing might work. I don’t think the means will be there to apply it, and I don’t think it would be seriously tried.

Would it be right?

Morality

Ethnic cleansing would be wrong for two reasons.

First, I don’t think you can justify genocide, even if you claim to be saving western civilisation.

Second, Europe’s history is characterised by extreme highs of creativity, and extreme lows of ethnic violence. The methods for saving European civilisation might cause some to ask if it is worth saving.

It is difficult to recruit people to a cause that you can’t persuade them is right. People won’t want to dirty their hands with it, especially the people you need to lead a cause.

This moral choice has to be made early on. If you start with low-level ethnic cleansing (Option 1 [enhanced]), you must be prepared to go further if necessary — you can’t give up half way. What if it doesn’t work — what next? Can you go that far?

For myself, I would not be prepared to participate in a really violent population transfer, and certainly not genocide, for the selfish reason that I don’t want it on my conscience, even if it means is the loss of western civilisation. This admission may condemn me as a weakling, but my guess is that there are others like me.

I don’t want to decry El Inglés’ flair, nor his willingness to break dangerous taboos. And I agree with him that Europe’s relationship with Islam is unravelling, pointing to a violent breakdown of democracy.

Which is why I think it is important to find non-violent means to resolve Europe’s ethnic divide. I appreciate that this prospect sounds impossible, and perhaps disappointing to some.

So I will proceed straight to my proposal now.

Self government

The solution may seem strange. I propose it because I see Europe’s ethnic divide as a partial cause of the end of democracy which we are seeing on the continent.

The solution I propose is self government — a system of organising society without the state.

Crime flourishes when there is no functioning state authority, a situation that is likely in Europe in the coming decades. Trade stops because contracts can’t be enforced. Poverty and danger prevail.

If that happens, people can provide order for themselves by entering into private legal pacts regulating behaviour — sets of rules requiring them to stick to agreements, not to steal, and not to kill, etc.

A private pact serves two purposes: first, signatories can keep trading because people know they can be forced to stick to their bargains; second, the criminal rules in the pact enables signatories to live with others because others can get them punished if they commit crimes against people who observe similar rules. The model is one of reciprocity.

People who don’t sign up to a pact are vulnerable. They are poor because they can’t trade, they can’t trade because people can’t force them to keep to their bargains, people can’t force them to keep to their bargains because they haven’t signed up to an enforceable contractual code. They are vulnerable to the crimes of anyone stronger or craftier.

If you think this is a fanciful scenario, ask yourself what the alternative is? What do you do if the state authorities collapse — turn into Somalia? Don’t think Somalia exaggerates the depths that Europe will sink to under the triple whammy of fiscal collapse, ethnic division, and welfare dependence.

Rolling back Islam without violence

I refer to this system as “self-government”. I don’t deal with its economic, social and civilisational benefits here, but its ability to roll back Islam without violence.

Discrimination without coercion

A self-governed people are free to live by any prejudice they like, unlike the citizens of a state. This is because the rules of a legal pact are based on individual choice, not on state compulsion.

Under the state, you have no choice but to obey — democracy doesn’t change that. This compulsion means that, to avoid killing liberty, the state has to set limits to its omnipotent power: Bills of Rights, Human Rights, Fundamental Declarations. A democratic state without those limits goes the way of Iran.

But a self-government system doesn’t need such restrictions because, unlike a state system, it claims no sovereignty over people other what is voluntarily given to it. And the subscriber can cancel it if he chooses. Don’t like the part of a proposed pact? Don’t join. Don’t like a something in the pact you’re signed up to? Then leave.

This means your pact can contain as much prejudice as you want, a bit like your living room. If you refuse to let left-handed people sit on your sofa, who is harmed except you? You may end up lonely and sad, but if someone feels humiliated, they don’t have to go into your living room — they had no right to go in there anyway.

Similarly, a private code can exclude any religion or group it pleases. Those excluded don’t have to submit, because they don’t have to join. They can set up their own pact.

The principle of consent is a natural safeguard at the heart of a self government system. No-one can claim sovereignty over you that you haven’t given them. Discrimination may not be pleasant, but it doesn’t lead to fascism because it isn’t backed by compulsion. For example, neo-Nazis might choose to live in isolation and poverty, but their hatred will only harm themselves.

The point here concerning the Euro/Islam rift is that Europeans can choose to exclude Islam from the areas they own, without reverting to fascism.

A self-government pact could include a rule outlawing Islamic practice and symbols on land owned by its members. It would have no jurisdiction over those who don’t belong to it, and Muslims can practice what they choose on land they own. In the same way that I can prohibit the practice of Islam in my living room — a Muslim can still practice it in his own house. In fact, a self-governing territory is likely to restrict Islam because, for all the official liberal platitudes about the benefits of this aspect of multiculturalism, most ethnic Europeans perceive Islam as having contributed no benefit and much harm to modern Europe and will prefer to live without it.

Is this fascist? Such discrimination is deep and wide already, in people’s choices over where to live. The most PC official reports show that Europeans won’t live with Muslims, and Muslims won’t live with Europeans — the official phrase is “parallel lives”. Whatever the euphemism, the separation is stark. Visit the Islamic area of any European capital. The suddenness of the transition can be shocking, and you can almost identify the kerbstone that marks the boundary.

Are the members of the public fascists for making that choice? If so then both sides are equally un-PC because Muslims are no more keen to live with ethnic Europeans than ethnic Europeans are to live with them. If so then you are condemning most of the population.

I am not responsible for the existing widespread ethnic division — there is plenty of that without my help. My aim is to resolve it without violence.

Fluid boundaries

The boundaries of a self- government system are fluid and shifting as people join or leave, bringing their territory into it. Self-government is based on consent, and expands by agreement. It imposes law on new land by the choice of the people who own it. If I own an acre of land, the law which prevails there is the law of the pact I sign up to. I am the owner, this is the law I subscribe to, and if you enter then you must accept it.

States expand by force. If, as seems likely, Europe descends into another dark time after its welfare democracies capsize, the authorities will clear Islamic areas by force. But under a self-government system non-Islamic areas can expand by commercial means — members can buy up Islamic-owned land piece by piece, shrinking the Islamic enclave as they do so.

As a prelude, self government does away with Europe’s welfare states, which have done so much to attract parasitic patterns of immigration and then to encourage segregation, whilst rendering native populations dependent.

Islamic areas will fare badly without the welfare. Badly educated, tribally fragmented, hostile to innovation, highly criminalised, they will quickly revert to poverty. The ugliness of life in destitute Islamic enclaves will encourage the sale of Islamic lands to self-governing non-Muslims, at which point those lands become inaccessible to Islam. Non-Muslims might buy up entire blocks as their former local authority owners disappear. Wealthy non-Muslims may put together counter-Islamic expansion funds for this purpose.

Islamic societies, being tight-knit, fast growing, and insistent on rights, are well suited to territorial state politics, under which areas are settled, controlled, and then expanded. But their economic and intellectual backwardness, and aversion to contractual freedom, make them poorly suited to control based on contract and agreement. Commercially able Europeans could simply buy up Islamic enclaves piece by piece, whereupon the new owners’ laws prevail.

Flexibility

This method doesn’t rule out the use of force where necessary, e.g. in response to an attack from a Muslim enclave. Suppose an Islamic leader were foolish enough to launch a raid on a neighbouring non-Islamic borough. The non-Islamic borough could authorise bounty hunters to extract reparation by seizing, say, ten blocks from the Islamic enclave. I don’t advocate this because, beside the suffering of war, there is the instability and capital flight which armed conflict generates.

Or suppose an Islamic enclave were to make itself a bridgehead for attack against surrounding areas, fed by Arab weapons, fighters and oil-money. There would be nothing to prevent a self-governed territory re-taking the Islamic enclave by force. Again, I do not advocate this because war is always disastrous, and expansion by consent is always preferable. It is far better to work in a peaceful, orderly way, even if it means loss of life on your own side, because the aim is not to lash out but to prevail, and that aim is worth sacrificing for.

My point is that the self-government system I describe is flexible. It can push back against Islam using consensual means (purchase of land), it can defend itself and, if absolutely necessary, go on the offensive.

The state, on the other hand is inflexible. Its methods always boil down to coercion at some point. This is why European political elites are so averse to criticising the presence of Islam, and talk such witless nonsense to pretend it is a benefit: the only alternative open to the state is forcible ethnic cleansing. If that seems attractive to you in your moments of anger at repressive PC orthodoxy, reflect on the disasters such methods have darkened our continent with so often in the past. You cannot rein in mass killing once you have unleashed it, and the things you hold beautiful will probably get killed also. Is that worth it to you for the dubious satisfaction of lashing out?

The benefits of self-government

The benefits are many, but in the present context they are six-fold.

First, as set out above, the rollback of Islam can take place relatively peaceably.

Second, it allows non-Muslims to live in freedom, order and prosperity even while that rollback is accomplished. Europe doesn’t have to go to its dark side.

Third, it avoids the atrocities which have so often stained the towering values of our culture. As Europe’s bizarre flirtation with Islam comes to its sordid end, liberal critics of Europe will make sweeping generalisations about Europeans being genocidists. The solution I propose here will deny them that opportunity.

Fourth, and most significant, European state authorities are unlikely to survive. They face insuperable problems, besides the ethnic divide our elites are building up. So a good rule of thumb is to be suspicious of any anti-Islamisation plan which assumes the continued existence of the state authority. If I am right that the trigger for Europe’s breakdown will be the collapse of its welfare states, then its state authorities will collapse just as the violence mushrooms.

Fifth, the forces of freedom don’t need to be in a majority to prevail. The clock is not ticking for self government. This is in sharp contrast to democracy, where you have to be in the majority to prevail. Wilders is right that it is five-to-midnight for European democracy. But a self-government system can prevail at any time: if it is big enough to defend itself it will expand — economically, numerically, ethically and culturally. It will attract productive people, and it will expand, no matter how large the Islamic population.

Sixth, perhaps the greatest benefit is the psychological benefit. Europe goes on the front foot again. Freedom and civilisation can win, with a method that we don’t have to be ashamed of. We can cease apologising, and move forward.

The future

It is essential to look for non-state systems which will allow the base values of European civilisation to continue, if only because statist methods amount to nothing if the state is no longer there.

The underlying reality is that we are facing the beginning of the end of the age of democracy. There is no obvious way to save it in Europe. The self-government system I have outlined may simply be the next stage of civilisation.

The system of self-government proposed here would allow civilisation to keep going in the wake of the breakdown of democracy in Europe. It can solve the problems of ethnic division, and roll back the tide of Islam in Europe. And it can do so in a way which avoids ethnic cleansing and genocide.

132 comments:

Chechar said...

“For myself, I would not be prepared to participate in a really violent population transfer, and certainly not genocide, for the selfish reason that I don’t want it on my conscience, even if it means is the loss of western civilisation.”

Bad thinking...

While I agree that outright genocide, such as the one perpetrated by the Serbs in the 1990s is condemnable, at least some sort of violence to deport/incarcerate moderate aliens either overseas or in a ghetto prison-city within a European country prior to deportation is the most commonsensical approach to the problem. You can even see the visuals of it in the acclaimed film Children of Men (of course, radical aliens must be killed without mercy).

Self-government fantasias won’t do it. When I see articles like this one and phrases such as the one quoted above I cannot think but that Europeans have really lost their nerve, and this is why they will lose their culture.

Let’s face it: what we badly need are fascist states, well beyond the Geert Wilders scheme, throughout Europe.

Since the cultural pendulum has reached the far-left side by now, the Newtonian laws of fluxions tell us it’s high time for a far-right swing (actually, not that far: never reach eliminationist anti-Semitism again my lord…!). Only when Europe is saved in the future can the pendulum shift, hopefully, to the Aristotelian—or Geert Wilderian you may say—golden mean.

Sorry to say this: but it goes without saying that before that Europeans must, and will, pay the price for its heinous self-hatred, failure of the nerve and PC MC crimes.

Free Hal said...

Hi Chechar,

Thank you for taking the time to reply.

I will try to keep it short and readable for co-readers on this board.

Chechar said: “While I agree that outright genocide, such as the one perpetrated by the Serbs in the 1990s is condemnable…”

This is wrong. The Yugoslav wars were mainly about ethnic cleansing, rather than genocide. Wikipedia says: “To date, only the Srebrenica massacre has been found to be an act of genocide by the ICTY, a finding upheld by the ICJ.” My guess is that, besides being a savage act of genocide, Srebrenica was a major Serb blunder. Ethnic cleansing was workable in Bosnia because it was relatively easy to scare large populations onto their tractor-carts and over the nearest border and into the neighbouring territory. This wouldn’t be possible as regards European Muslims because the distance would be so great, the method would be airliners, the difference in living conditions so big, and the shame of defeat so heavy (please see my explanation above).
So if you are saying that “the genocide perpetrated by the Serbs in the 1990s is condemnable”, then how much more condemnable will you find the ethnic cleansing/genocide measures available to Europe in, say, the 2030’s. Your statement that Serb atrocities were condemnable is badly incompatible with your statement that “When I see articles like this one and phrases such as the one quoted above (that I would not be prepared to participate in a really violent population transfer or genocide) I cannot think but that Europeans have really lost their nerve, and this is why they will lose their culture”

If by loss of nerve you mean lack of stomach for atrocities then I see no grounds for this view. If one looks at violent crime rates, in England anyway, there seems to be no evidence of such squeamishness. Or the general decline of civility which some perfectly liberal commentators see as being at precipice levels. I’m quite sure virtually any 1930’s European would have been shocked at the out of control aggression on display in most provincial English towns at pub closing time.

In Edwardian England, there was no shortage of people saying that the century-old peace had rendered us soft, preoccupied with melancholy Elgar and the “gloom-pleased” Mahler. Some welcomed WW1 as a bracing civilisational tonic, and how wrong they were.

... cont.

Free Hal said...

... cont/.

Your observation may work the other way. El Ingles again:
“I am happy to be corrected on this point, but I have gained the impression from various sources over the years that it is precisely those who are plunged into violence without having been conditioned to deal with it psychologically, in whatever manner, that are most likely to commit atrocities (excluding those who are already ideologically committed to them). If violence does erupt in European countries between natives and Muslims, I consider it highly likely that people who had never done anything more violent than beat eggs will prove incapable of managing the psychological transition to controlled violence and start killing anything that looks remotely Muslim.”

My view is that the danger we face is not that Europeans are too peaceful but that, once their welfare morphine is yanked out of their arms, they are too violent. Ralph Peters makes a good observation about this.

Chechar quote: “Let’s face it: what we badly need are fascist states, well beyond the Geert Wilders scheme, throughout Europe.”
If democratic state authority breaks down then I think there will be no shortage of dictators and warlords. Fascist or not, their poverty and arbitrary violence are unlikely to make the lucky subjects yearn for more.

Finally, I don’t share your confidence that we will “never reach eliminationist anti-Semitism again my lord…!” Historically, Jews have been some of the first victims of whatever ethnic hostility develops – e.g. the crusades, or the Inquisition. To hope for an ethnic violence that sees the Jews left in peace, is naïve to put it mildly, and this is a major reason to forestall such conflict.

Thank you again for your comments, and please respond if I have
missed anything.

Best wishes,

Hal

Chechar said...

Have you missed the genocide TV images I saw in the U.K. in 1999 (at least I interpreted those images as genocidal ethnic cleansing)?

Yes: I remember pretty well El Inglés's words about "managing the psychological transition", and yes: it's a wishful hope that the Jews won't be the targets in the forthcoming Holocaust. But I'd rather wait and see what other commenters say of this thread before a substantive reply to your comments above...

R. Hartman said...

No non-violent measures are going to work, and even the violent ones won't. For starters, the non-violent measures will be responded towith mass violence from those to-be-deported.

Don forget these masses are not behaving rational, in the sound sense. They just need an excuse for getting violent, knowing they'll get away with it, and in the mean time get even more things going their way.

First thing that should happen is to do away with the welfare state, the land-of-milk-and-honey state that attracts undesirables like, well, honey.

Second is to enforce the laws already in place. There's no need for Patriot Act-like infringement of freedom and privacy; all the laws required (and more) to deal with scum are already in place. Whatś lacking is the political will to enforce them, simply because behavior like that shown by muslims makes people call for the government to DO something, giving government their consent to impose even more totalitarian laws upon them.

People are blind and stupid, unwilling to think, as seeing the real thing 'depresses' them. As long as they can close their eyes, it's not happening, is it?

And State news, by omitting the 'offending' bits in the news, leads them to believe it's all true, while showing them the 'desirable' bits, making them say: "See, I was right! It's not so bad, I saw it with my own eyes". Yeah, on TV you did...

Goebbels would have killed for having had TV back then, and being able to control it.

Solkhar said...

Two points here from my experiences and views...

First of all, those who consider any value in Wilders should remember that he also said that "he has no problem with Muslims but the Qur'an is evil and should be banned". By saying this contradiction he is basically saying that Muslims are evil and should be banned because you cannot separate the Qur'an and Muslims as one makes the other.

He also says that he supports "freedom of speech no matter what" and said that he would defend anyone's right to their opinion. Earlier this year there was a big issue in Holldand, including in parliament about the right to deny the holocaust. When the debate came out, Wilders walked out avoiding making a comment, he has since refused to discuss the subject in any question or forum and even his broadcasts in Denmark was on the basis that this question was not asked. Why? Because he has support, financing and an admitted love for his second-home in Israel. They would drop him in an instant if he actually says one word about the right to opinion on that matter. Double standards to the maximum.

The second point is in regards to the Massacres, ethnic cleansing in Bosnia by Serb nationalists. I know the subject well, I was part of the Dutch commission of inquiry into Srebrenica and any Dutch military wrong-doings.

What came clear out of the events, apart from attrocities and war crimes by all three communities (but the most by Serb Nationalists) was that the only evidence of an act of genocide was the Srebranica Massacre of over 8,000 Muslim boys and men. But, and this Free-Hall needs to understand, the charges that were against former Serb PM and the existing process against the Bosnian Serb leader includes "conspiracy of genocide" from at a national level. Thus it was the intention to do complete genocide of non-Serbs from territories that would constitute as the Greater Serbia. As the event did not happen, the only genocide that took place was at that very unfortunate city.

Solkhar said...

“When I see articles like this one and phrases such as the one quoted above (that I would not be prepared to participate in a really violent population transfer or genocide) I cannot think but that Europeans have really lost their nerve, and this is why they will lose their culture”

I find this sentance very disturbing.

Chechar said...

Very disturbing or common sense of what the UK will look like in the future? (By the way, I didn't write the phrase in Solkhar's parenthesis.)

Arius said...

Concerning Srebrenica there is more evidence that the Serbs were the victims of Muslim mass murder. For example reference the UN report “Memorandum on War Crimes and Crimes of Genocide in Eastern Bosnia (communes of Bratunac, Skelani and Srebrenica) committed against the Serbian population from April 1992 to April 1993” here.

There are many hundreds of bits of evidence not referenced or mentioned by the media that contradict the theme that the Serbs committed genocide. My continuous research since the late 1990s on the breakup of Yugoslavia has completely reversed my initial media driven position that the Serbs committed mass murder. The facts substantially demonstrate that the Serbs were the victims in BH. Also note that the largest act of ethnic cleansing in Yugoslavia was operation Storm, the Croatian ethnic cleansing and murder (with operational support of the US) of the 200,000 Serbs of the Krajina.

Here’s another article from the same site (they have a lot of useful material that I have verified), an article by Carlos Martins Branco, a “Portuguese military officer who served in Bosnia as a UNMO (UN Military Observers) Deputy Chief Operations Officer in the UNPF (UN Peace Forces) at theatre level. Meaning he knew a whole lot about what was happening on the ground”, here.

Arius said...

Here's one more article that references Srebrenica.

I have wanted to put up a web site that correlates the media reports on Yugoslavia in the 1990s with the multiple sourced facts to show how the media unjustly demonized the Serbs and how the media uses agitprop and disinformation to mislead the public.

One of my favorite examples is by the reporter Roy Gutman that received a Pulitzer Prize for his reporting on a Serbian rape camp that didn't exist. Four other reporters immediately followed up on his report to find the camp. When they arrived they found out that four women had been raped. Incredibly the Hague has arrested and sentenced Serbs for death or rape camps that didn’t exist.

Federale said...

One of your major mistakes is to equate ethnic cleansing with genocide. Forcibly removing someone from a neighborhood or a country is not the same as killing them. Mexicans in the U.S. are doing ethnic cleansing in the U.S. today. No one wants to live near Mexicans, so when Mexicans move in, whites and blacks move out. Mexicans also use property crime to drive out non-Mexicans. After that they use overt crime, assaults and robbery. Only after that do they use murder. For every one they murder, many more leave.

What can be done is a reverse of that. Moslems hate to be around non-Muslims. We can force them to live in non=Muslim areas, or, more specifically, prevent the creation of Muslim ghettos.

Next, we can make them feel unwelcome. Take away their welfare. Since they are lazy and refuse to work for the most part, that will drive them into abject poverty. They will then relocate to countries with better welfare.

Next, force the culture they hate uponthem. Take away the headscarf and burka. Muslims of the jihadist stripe will not live where their wives or daughters cannot be controlled.

Low level violence or resistance by local white communities to Muslims would also be effective. It does not have to be State directed, but at the level of street crime, of which the EU and foreign policy concerns will not appear.

Additionally, at least under American law, there is no right to immigrate. Just change the law, prohibit spousal immigration or the immigration of children born overseas. It is not that difficult. Make certain nationalities inelligible for immigration benefits.

Félicie said...

"First, I don’t think you can justify genocide, even if you claim to be saving western civilisation."

Wow, so you are saying that you can instead justuify the genocide of the European people and western civilization? Excuse me, if I don't allow myself and my culture to be slaughtered.

Free Hal said...

Hi Hartman,

Thank you – I strongly agree with you that: “First thing that should happen is to do away with the welfare state, the land-of-milk-and-honey state that attracts undesirables like, well, honey.” Besides the many other pressing reasons to get rid of the welfare state. This would be a good start, but not necessarily enough on its own.

This is one of the main benefits I see to the self-government solution I propose:

First, it stops the insane invitation, meticulously researched by Bat Yeor, to settle in Europe and receive welfare benefits. Non-entrepreneurial migrants motivated by welfare will cease. This is the kind of migrant no country wants, or can afford. Getting rid of the state gets rid of this problem by getting rid of the welfare state. The choice for welfare migrants is then between being poor at home, or poor on European streets. Genuine refugees, fleeing a real fear of persecution, may still come.

Second, it forces people to integrate. The need to earn a living, to run a business, borrow money, sell goods, and cultivate business relationships, forces people to integrate. The welfare state takes away any need, or opportunity, to integrate – e.g. the French “sensitive zones”.

Third, it repels, without force, citizens who have no intention of integrating. Such people will find their situation increasingly unattractive: unable to live on welfare; unable to make a living in a society they despise; finding an ever colder reception among those who share their background but would prefer to integrate than to support troublemakers. To the un-assimilable, the attraction of remaining will reduce, and the attraction of returning to a country where the majority share their outlook will increase.

I only partly agree with you that: “No non-violent measures are going to work, and even the violent ones won't. For starters, the non-violent measures will be responded towith mass violence from those to-be-deported.”

The only measures which the state can adopt are coercive, and I think the only coercive method which has any chance of being effective is genocide (which I don’t support). I see no reason why genocide shouldn’t “work” so long as you have methods for maintaining morale on your own side. E.g. had we not defeated Hitler then I don’t know what would have prevented Hitler, Himmler, and Eichmann from pursuing history’s biggest crime to its conclusion. My objection is that killing tens of millions of people is wrong.

My main point is that this is the only state-based method for rollback that will work. And that you, therefore, have to ask yourself if you are prepared to go that far? If not then you have to look at non-state methods for rollback, as I have suggested in my self-government approach (which I see no-one has so far addressed – ah well). The tragedy is that, once democracy breaks down in Europe, the warlords and dictators will attempt genocide-type measures.

Hartman said: “Second is to enforce the laws already in place. …all the laws required (and more) to deal with scum are already in place.”

This is naïve. It may be possible to defeat terrorism, by playing cops and robbers, although I’m sceptical. But the depth of ethnic division in Europe, coupled with the fast growth of Europe Muslim populations, will collapse the democratic state – eventually neither side, especially not the Islamic side, will accept the verdict of the majority. There is nothing that “the laws already in place” can do to prevent this.

You , therefore, have to consider non-statist methods.

Finally, Re your comments about TV, I think Enoch Powell said that in politics blaming the media is like blaming the weather.

Best wishes,

Hal

Solkhar said...

If the real idea or subject here is "getting rid of the Muslims" then I think that is already a dangerous line as it will result in the breaking of morale principles that the West cherishes so much.

If the line is getting rid of fundamentalism and stopping its spread - that is a different matter and I have an opinion myself on it.

Why do countries not enforce a migration contract (for any group, not only Muslims) that basically says that since you want to come here that you commit yourself to supporting the said country of its standards and norms, that you will do your best to integrate and support that nation and not harm its collective culture. That if you do not, you are not welcome and your application will be rejected. Being found to abuse this at a later date will find you expelled and any nationality being given cancelled. A single appeal is given to prove that you have not breached it.

Then enforce it.

This I think is were the mistakes were made and it shows in those countries that have or had large family migration systems - allowing for illiterates whom are mostly ultra-conservatives to arrive and become the sheep for smart and very dangerous clerics.

Euro Referendum 2009 said...

All european states should hold a simultaneous referendum on future levels of immigration from the third-world.

Family enlargement, not reunification, should not be allowed, and marriages between , for instance, a UK Muslim and Pakistani nationals should be the same as the current population but backdated:

If Pakistanis are 2% of the population then marriages between UK nationals and Pakistani nationals should only be 2% of the annual total but the count should be backdated for 10 or 15 years. This would mean that such marriages, which are a lot more than 2% of the total, would more or less be halted for a generation.

Free Hal said...

Hi Solkhar,

Thank you for your reply.

The Baron ran a thread about your comments, which I suspect says more about his highly developed sense of courtesy and love for open-minded debate than the helpfulness of your approach.

Besides the flaws the Baron found in your reasoning, I notice your manipulative and obfuscatory use of language. Be careful, because this is a hallmark of what Daniel Pipes has referred to as ‘fake moderates’.

Solkhar quote: “he (Wilders) also said that "he has no problem with Muslims but the Qur'an is evil and should be banned". By saying this contradiction he is basically saying that Muslims are evil and should be banned because you cannot separate the Qur'an and Muslims as one makes the other.”

This is just ridiculous. The difference between a doctrine and the person following the doctrine has been pointed out so often that I struggle to believe you’re ignorant of the mistake. It’s like saying that people who dance to techno funk are as annoying as techno funk – or actually the same thing. Or that I like everyone who listens to Mozart because I like Mozart. This daft argument was used to suggest that Reagan, by calling the Soviet Union evil, wanted to kill all Russians. How embarrassing that now looks!

I note your use of the slippery word “banned”, presumably to suggest that Wilders is a genocidist. Are you saying that Wilders is a genocidist? Also, are you saying that a doctrine (intangible, set of ideas, operates conceptually) is the same as the person (human being, usually possessed of arms, legs and cardio-vascular system)? This should be fun…

I also noticed your observation that “he (Wilders) has support, financing and an admitted love for his second-home in Israel.” He has been open about his love for Israel – so what?

Would you mind substantiating your comment that Wilders receives “financing” from Israel? Please be specific, because I seem to smell “zionist conspiracy” theory here, and will be interested to hear how the Israeli government is bankrolling a Dutch MP. So please clarify.

I understand that Wilders his yet to comment on Holocaust denial laws. Just supposing Wilders favours holocaust denial laws in Europe, but no other speech restrictions, I will be interested to see what heinous observations you can make from this.

... cont/

Free Hal said...

cont/...

Solkhar quote: “But, and this Free-Hall needs to understand, the charges that were against former Serb PM and the existing process against the Bosnian Serb leader includes "conspiracy of genocide" from at a national level. Thus it was the intention to do complete genocide of non-Serbs from territories that would constitute as the Greater Serbia.”

What you seem to be saying here is that the Serb plan was genocide but that it didn’t happen apart from Srebrenica. What is your point? The aim was to clear non-Serbs from greater Serbia. The main method used was ethnic cleansing, i.e. forcing non-Serbs into fleeing the border, rather than genocide, i.e. getting rid of non-Serbs by killing them.

If you’re saying that I underestimate the possibility of genocidal intent arising in Europe then please re-read my essay. I think that, regrettably, there will be an excess of such sentiments.

Solkhar quote: “ ’When I see articles like this one and phrases such as the one quoted above (that I would not be prepared to participate in a really violent population transfer or genocide) I cannot think but that Europeans have really lost their nerve, and this is why they will lose their culture’
I find this sentance very disturbing.”

Me too, but likely to be increasingly prevalent as European democracy cracks. And I think the heedlessness of such views is only helped by Islamic spokespeople for whom discussion of the issues is merely another opportunity to make demands and to propagate self pity.

I note you have nothing to say about my self-government proposal. May I, therefore, assume that you agree with it?

Thank you again.

Best wishes,

Hal

Watching Eagle said...

Solkar has some good points again.

Free Hal is right about the state being the problem. May I point out that to the "Secular Progressives" (Virtual Polytheists) the government is one of their chief idols, which they think can do anything they desire. While we are at it, check out this article (sorry Baron, I don't know how to do the links)

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/65628/


The title is:

Secret-plot-to-let-50million-African-workers-into-EU

When you read between the lines in this article,

It states: “Irregular migrants must not be treated like criminals. Many risk their lives seeking freedom or the means
of subsistence in Europe. As long as the EU has a higher standard of living than those countries to its south and east, the temptation to come will exist – especially if there are jobs to be had.”

The declaration calls on the EU to assist African governments to set up migration information centres “to better manage labour mobility bet­ween Africa and the EU”.

The first was the job centre opened in Bamako, capital of Mali, on Monday. Other centres are expected to open soon in other west African states and later in north Africa.

West and North Africa is mostly Muslim -- Mali is 90% Muslim, and just look at the line!!! Mali also has a literacy rate of about 25%-- hardly ideal workers. Mali also has one of the best human fertility rates on the Planet. I seriously doubt that it will take until 2050 for these 50 Million workers to arrive. The elites want to avoid the consequences of the demographic winter that they caused in Europe. These migrants will "become the sheep for very smart and dangerous clerics".

The whole thing shows the disastrous hubris of the PC MC governing class. Get them gone and out of power, or I can see the Eurabian Caliphate coming into being.

Free Hal said...

Hi Federale,

I agree with you that: “Forcibly removing someone from a neighborhood or a country is not the same as killing them.”

I don’t equate ethnic cleansing with genocide. In my essay I define ethnic cleansing as “the forced removal of an ethnic population from an area”, whereas genocide is generally defined as the extermination of an ethnic group. I say that the difference between ethnic cleansing and genocide is the difference between El Ingles’ 2 essays that I cited.

I don’t have your experience of Mexicans, but you have my deep sympathies if what you say is true.

I agree with you that putting a stop to welfare will do much to alleviate the problems associated with Islam in Europe. Please see my reply to Hartman, above.

I think your approach of “forcing the culture they hate upon them” combined with “low level violence… at the level of street crime” would amount to low-level ethnic cleansing. I think it would fail in that it would neither reduce the ethnic divide nor cause muslims to leave Europe. Visit Pakistan or Afghanistan and you’ll see why... actually, on second thoughts, don't.

Best wishes,

Hal

Free Hal said...

Hi Watching Eagle,

"Solkar has some good points again."

What good points has Solkhar made?

Best wishes,

Hal

Free Hal said...

Hi Felcie,

I suppose genocide might be justifiable if it is the only way to prevent a genocide of one’s own group, and the numbers are roughly equal. But I can’t think of a theoretical situation in which the only way to prevent your own race being wiped out is to wipe out the other race, as opposed to defeating them in a war.

I don’t think Islam is threatening to exterminate European people. The tendency of Islam appears to be to establish the tribalistic poverty, backwardness and brutality with which the Islamic paradises are generally associated. And I’m not sure that a tens-(or hundreds)-of-millions genocide would be justifiable to prevent this.

On a practical level, I think you’ll have trouble getting enough people to dirty their hands with it to see it through to the end.

Best wishes,

Hal

DP111 said...

The problem we have is not the first generation of Muslims, who for the most part, wish only to make a living. The problem arises with the subsequent generations, that are secure enough that they cannot be legally removed.

In the UK, the friction with Muslims is becoming noticeable. I truly fear for the future.

Free Hal said...

Hi Solkhar,

Thank you for a deliciously entertaning post!

Solkhar quote: “Why do countries not enforce a migration contract (for any group, not only Muslims) that basically says that since you want to come here that you commit yourself to supporting the said country of its standards and norms, that you will do your best to integrate and support that nation and not harm its collective culture.”

You mean a piece of paper – like Neville Chamberlain had? Yes that will do it!

Do you get paid to come up with ideas like this when serving in the diplomatic and national security fields?

“Being found to abuse this at a later date will find you expelled and any nationality being given cancelled.”

You mean a sort of ‘provisional citizenship’? Provisional for how long? Does it extend to children born in Europe? As someone ‘Serving both in the diplomatic and national security fields’ you will understand that this isn’t something that ‘countries’ can do unilaterally.

Actually your idea reveals that you don’t understand the main problem in Europe, i.e. the depth and extent of the ethnic division right across Europe, its danger to democracy, and its lethally violent potential. Cops-and-robbers with terrorists is a sideshow in comparison.

Best wishes,

Hal

Chechar said...

"sorry Baron, I don't know how to do the links" - WatchingEagle

It's not that difficult. Just copy and paste the format you see when clicking the words "Post a Comment": "To add a link in a comment, use this format... etc."

Profitsbeard said...

Basically:

1. Stop all Muslim immigration (since they are actually colonizers, not immigrants).

2.Expel all "illegal immigrant" Muslims found in the EU.

3. Cut off all social benefits to non-citizen Muslims ("guestworkers", et al) for the greater economic good of the native peoples.

4. Pay incentives for those Muslim citizens who will return to their home countries.

5. Mock and insult and debate and laugh at and jeer down those brutal, stupid, cruel, absurd, preposterous, retrograde, intolerant, misogynistic, anti-gay, anti-freedom, anti-humanistic aspects of the dismal dogmas of Islam, daily, in song, cartoons, literature, editorials, theater, film, comedy acts, street performance art, political rallies, etc., etc.

Make being Muslim in a free land EXTREMELY UNCOMFORTABLE.

6. Reinstall the death penalty for TERRORISM.

7. Elect leaders who care more about the survival of the West's Civilization than kowtowing to cretins for votes.

Pressure, from standing up for your own values, history and identity, can work wonders at promoting the exodus of Mohammedans from our midst long before the need for overt "ethnic cleansing" ever appears necessary.

Chechar said...

That would be the ideal scenario, Profitsbeard. But I remember El Inglés saying that the situation has gained such por-Islam momentum in the UK that his more pessimistic scenario is based on that. Right?

Chechar said...

sorry:

for "por Islam" above replace "pro Islam".

Solkhar said...

Free-Hal, I should point out that subscribe to the view that there is an ethnic/cultural/religous collapse in Europe and that the Eurabia term is just panic.

My understanding of the events is more than clear, I am a European who represented my state for 22yrs in the diplomatic field. I am also a Muslim European and I am involved and have been for a long period involved in the tracking of terrorism financing, mostly from Mediteranian sources, North Africa in particular to various groups.

My views on Immigration is based on the contract situation with a stick - otherwords it will never worked unless it is enforced with a commitment. As for children born in Europe, that cannot be helped but if the parents are towing the line, the children mostly do. If they are following the contract, the children will be more assimilated and not like the ghetto, poverty, us-and-them situation we have now - it improves everything including their own quality of life.

There is in my country, The Netherlands, two generations of integrated Muslims mostly from Indonesia that have assimilated, half are no longer religious but the other are almost entirely serious moderate Muslims. During the 1960s and early 1970s they came with that strict viewpoint by Dutch authorities that they subscribe to being Dutch first or they are not welcome. Obviously the situation was also very different then, 1979's Islamic Revolution in Iran changed it all.

As a Muslim I have no problem at all subscribing to a strong intergrate or go away policy, I encourage it - it would work without the bigotry and hate that Wilders demands. I also see no problem with the Netherlands voting for such a regulation now and adding a "radicalization" clause that says current immigrants that show anti-Netherlands/EU sentiment from a religous aspect will be deported, regardless of the punishment they face at home for returning.

A last point on ethnic cleansing. It would be a dishonor to all those victims in the Balkan War to give light to the Serbs intentions. Not all Serbs of course are bad but the leadership was and to say it was just population shuffling does not stick, as it beggers the question about the 8,000 plus men and boys who were executed - recognised by the UN as genocide.

Oh, just to point onother factor, the UN Charter allows for many inquiries, each sitting country is allowed to raise them. As one poster forgot to mention (and I am sure for a reason), as a deflection of the ongoing attrocities in Bosnia, the Serb Yugoslave leader Milosovic - who himself was facing genocide charges before his death - ordered his Ambassador at the time to counterclaim. Why this document does not come out with searches? It was withdrawn by the same Ambassador when it became clear it was going to be more embarassing especially when it would be found more than lacking. Nice try to the poster but does not stick - I worked at the Srebanica Inquiry.

4Symbols said...

"Islamic areas will fare badly without the welfare. Badly educated, tribally fragmented, hostile to innovation, highly criminalised, they will quickly revert to poverty."

Welfare in the U.K. is already at subsistence level, in fact the Welfare Reform Bill 2009 will enable the U.K. to be the first modern western society to abandon welfare period.

The people most undrmined by this are not in fact the muslims but the indigenous population.

The doppelganger propaganda attacks on the principle of welfare which have stunningly fooled people of conservative persuasions that enslaving their countrymen in welfare for work programmes will create economic survivors (entrepreneurs).

When in fact it will subvert the subsistence rights of the indigenous poor into that of a privileged victim of charity, then from victim hood to submission into the influence of the benefactor and for thousands in the U.K. that will be via the soup kitchen of the Mosque.

ChrisLA said...

This is an important discussion, and I hope it results in some tangible strategies.

Fundamentally, we are talking about an ideology and not a race. In our lifetime we have seen some widely-held ideologies - namely Nazism and Communism - virtually disappear because if their irrational and untenable precepts. This can happen to Islam, provided there is freedom of speech to challenge the retrograde ideology. That is why there is a major effort by OIC to squelch free speech.

Islam as an ideology is exploitive rather than productive. See Surahs 48:20 and 9;29. Judeo-Christian ideology holds work in high esteem. See Proverbs 24:27 and Galatians 6:5. When the welfare state collapses, the Judeo-Christian ideology will help people survive. Ideologies that "work" will survive, while ideologies that fail their followers will be abandonded when the going gets tough.

Self-governance means that Muslims will be governed by Allah's laws (Quran, Hadith, Sunna) which are hostile to secular laws based on Universal Human Rights. Self-governance will only result in Muslims continually vying for more territory and dhimmis to exploit.

Deporting immigrants who commit crimes or who advocate the overthrow of the "native" governments will not be offensive to the majority (including immigrants who have embraced their new homeland). China's harsh treatment of the Uyghurs may be the model for countries to follow to maintain their national integrity. Muslims who militantly refuse to integrate will eventually erode secular societies.

Watching Eagle said...

Hi Watching Eagle,

"Solkar has some good points again."

What good points has Solkhar made?

Solkar said,

This I think is were the mistakes were made and it shows in those countries that have or had large family migration systems - allowing for illiterates whom are mostly ultra-conservatives to arrive and become the sheep for smart and very dangerous clerics.

Bingo!!

The problem is that what people might call the "malcontents" (they would call themselves "true believers" went to the West and found the Left dedicated to protecting the clerics "human rights" above anything else. Keep in mind that Qutb was executed in 1966 by Egypt for sedition (talking about jihad).

I read another article that shows the leftist madness in Europe.

alarabiya.net/articles/2009/07/16/78914.html#003

It seems a Norweigan Muslim convert wanted to wear a burkini in Egypt to the swimming pool (a burkini is an aquatic jilbab designed with high-tech fabrics that looks like a power ranger suit with a miniskirt over it) and she was prevented from using the pool because "she was not allowed to be in the pool with a veil" (in Egypt). Well, the Muslim woman filed a compliant with the embassy, since she was insulted and disrespected.

Wow! what has PC MC done to us??

VH said...

@ Free Hall: the Self Government Theory as you describe it, somehow reminds of Hekim Bey's Permanent Autonomous Zones ("PAZ"), with as an example Freetown Christiana. Though its not fully similar, later on immigrants from an "Islamic area" walked in there with machine guns to settle a "trade" deal. I wonder therefore how those with a successful pact are going to protect their families, trade and pact-zones against those of lesser successful pacts, who might try to parasite them, if not terrorize and isolate. Another thing: since roughly half the population at present (in the Netherlands) lives off the taxpayers money and economic activity of the other half (directly and indirectly), I also wonder what the transition to Self Government will be like.

Solkhar, that "strict viewpoint by Dutch authorities" in the 60's and 70's as you mention, can you be more precise? Provide a link?
Further: "As a Muslim," you write, "I have no problem at all subscribing to a strong intergrate or go away policy, I encourage it". You also wrote "…you cannot separate the Qur'an and Muslims as one makes the other.". Will you be so kind to explain what that go-away policy should be like then and how you integrate those remaining Qur'annic Muslims?

(Off topic: Solkhar, making Wilders walk out the wrong debate for instance, as well your remark on "two generations of integrated Muslims", is quite inaccurate to say the least, certainly for a member of "the Dutch commission of inquiry into Srebrenica" [have you read this?]. Please don't twist and distort facts.)

Solkhar said...

ChrisLA

You said "Self-governance means that Muslims will be governed by Allah's laws (Quran, Hadith, Sunna) which are hostile to secular laws based on Universal Human Rights. Self-governance will only result in Muslims continually vying for more territory and dhimmis to exploit. "

Most Muslim governments have secular systems and secular courts with morale codes that are defined by the majority ethical demands of the people - as most countries in the world are. It would be rediculous to consider that all Muslim nations are Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Afghanistan, Iran or the mountains of Pakistan.

Your term of what is universal human rights is also skewered and perhaps make-believe and smacks of the insipid "we are better than them" attitude that makes for ammunition to support militant Islamists that they are right about the west's motives.

Solkhar said...

VH,

"making Wilders walk out the wrong debate "

I am not a native English speaker and do not understand this term.

As for your link, Serbian nationalists have copious amounts of websites attempting to justify themselves, all those were allowed to submit claims, inquiries and were either pulled by the Serb Yugoslave Government themselves or just thrown out. Do you think the media would not jump on showing any such scandal or misrepresentation? Journalists would love to show some NATO conspiracy.

DP111 said...

Profitsbeard

I agree with you. It is well known that no people have voluntarily handed over power to another group, especially if they are immigrants. I see serious civil conflict in the future. To avoid such a conflict leading to the unnecessary deaths of large numbers of people, that a separation from Muslims is required.

The question is simply how we arrive at a situation when those measures can be adopted. They will be adopted in the case if serious civil conflict, but I would rather they were adopted before unnecessary mortalities occurred.

So far, our leaders have caved in to all demands from the Islamic community. We have called this appeasement and dhimmification. From the politician’s point of view, what they have done is maintain civil peace by defusing a minor issue. Over time and over many such incidents, the result is the slow Islamification of the West. Sooner or later, the climate will change, and then the opposite will occur i.e., escalation.

Let us see how this will operate. Consider a small issue such as the wearing of the burqa. This can be banned on the grounds that it defeats the security cameras – cameras that were installed the threat from terrorists, among one - defeated by the very group that they are supposed to monitor. If the Islamic community protests, immediately up the ante. If they don’t, then continue with other small steps. Each step has the potential of escalation, and politicians need to continue upping the ante, rather then de-escalate as they have been doing till now. Each step in the escalation has the potential for further escalation. Given the Islamic penchant for escalation, slowly and surely, conditions are created where the measures you mention can be adopted. In any case, long before all this happens, many Muslims will have seen the light, and will have voluntarily left. As the main problem is the number of Muslims, this immediately has a positive effect. The main aim is to avoid a serious civil conflict that has the potential to become a civil war, leading to large-scale deaths of ordinary people – non-Muslims and Muslims.

It is a real tragedy that such a situation has arisen, basically because politicians tried to acquire a benevolent reputation by having a come-one-come-all immigration policy.

Free Hal said...

Hi VH,

Thank you for your comment. At last – someone commenting on my self-government proposal!

VH said: “I wonder therefore how those with a successful pact are going to protect their families, trade and pact-zones against those of lesser successful pacts, who might try to parasite them, if not terrorize and isolate.”

I think this is your most important question.

But the basic fact is that commercially free people are stronger than the commercially un-free.

First, free people are materially stronger. Free societies are richer because they allow people to do more or less what they want to do, and people want to get richer.

Material wealth is crucial to warfare because it translates into weapons, troops, intel, and alliances. It also enable borrowing, which is what finances war. Money buys more tanks and the generals to array them. Also, wars are financed by borrowing, and a free society, being commercially strong, can borrow money whereas no-one will lend to a sharia enclave or a biker gang.

Second, a self-government system will be easy to defend against potential enemies because, being tax-free, it will attract a investment quickly, and rich investors will be hard on threats against their investments – it’s cheaper than paying tax. The enemies ranged up against them (gangsters, Islamic ‘community leaders’, bankrupt dictators, rump parliaments) won’t be so imtimidating, and will have much less to gain by invading than investors have to gain by keeping the system going.

Third, if a self-government region gets invaded, it would become poor because investment would leave. I.e. the material temptation would be lost to a potential invader.

Fourth, self-government systems could do what states do now – pay people to defend them. E.g. require a contribution to a recognized defence organisation. Either a financial contribution, or a contribution in military service. Self-government areas will be attractive to residents because they are so prosperous. If a self-government area is vulnerable to invasion, its attractiveness, and therefore its prosperity, is reduced. So that the codes which survive financially and physically, will be the ones which make such a requirement. And this is quite foreseeable. In obedience to the stock markets if nothing else!

Before you laugh at the idea of voluntary military service, I invite you to look at the rush to enlist at the outbreak of the American Civil War, particularly the way Southern males were motivated by the idea of defending home, and the influence this had on Northern or strategy. Or you could look at the number of British volunteers during World War I, and the general resilience of their motivation despite appalling conditions.

http://www.anti-state.com/article.php?article_id=336 and http://www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/forep/forep007.pdf have some kind of OK-ish ideas if you’re really interested.

I think that history shows the defence of home to be a natural and involuntary instinct. I think this will be painfully apparent as the division between Islamic and ethnic-European populations hardens.

cont/...

Free Hal said...

...cont/

VH quote: “Another thing: since roughly half the population at present (in the Netherlands) lives off the taxpayers money and economic activity of the other half (directly and indirectly), I also wonder what the transition to Self Government will be like.”

I agree with you that the breakdown of Europe’s welfare states is going to cause appalling dislocation precisely because European populations are so welfare dependent. I would expect for example, a lot of single mothers in tower blocks to be in danger of perishing. The general sense of anger and betrayal will be very strong, and the violence will be deaf to words of restraint. I don’t look forward to European welfare collapse, after so many years of welfare dependence, in an atmosphere of ethnic hatred!

That is partly why I think non-state methods for providing law, order, and the ability to continue trading, such as my self-government proposal, will be popular. People don’t want violence, disorder and poverty. They want to be able to trade and produce, knowing that there property is theirs. Like it or not, people like property, and want to make more of it, and the a government system will enable them to do so.

I would guess that a self-government system would establish itself from a relatively small group that grows as onlookers see it relatively prosperous and peaceful, and want to join.

From quickly checking your links, the PAZ article is written in exciteable utopian-ese that I find it hard to know what the guy is going on about, and can’t be bothered to put in the effort to find out. From his generally aerated state I would say that he favours some kind of eco-dropout setup where people can join him in pious condemnation of materialism. It will be interesting to know if those participants use state healthcare when they’re sick, or travel on state-funded roads.

Similarly the Christiana commune strikes me as an almost harmless bit of foolishness that teaches Danish hippies that the mainstream society they enjoy condemning isn’t so bad after all. I note that the inhabitants are willing to take police help when it suits them, e.g. against the heroin trade, and I bet they too avail themselves of Danish healthcare when someone gets beaten up. I would guess that most normal people would, like me, be disgusted at the thought of living somewhere like this. In fact, if you imagine Christiana with no money for electricity and heating, barely enough for food, dilapidated streets, total control by biker gangs, and vicious ethnic gang-warfare, then I think you’ve a reasonable image for European society after fiscal and state authority breaks down.

Neither of these things bear much relation to what I’m talking about. Primarily because I think people like property rights, and will want to protect property if and when the state is no longer able to do so.

Best wishes,

Hal

Free Hal said...

Hi Profitsbeard,

Thank you for your comment, and I hope that my disagreement with what you say doesn’t come across as too disrespectful!

I just think that the desire to push back that you’ve outlined above illustrates why statist measures won’t work. Taking your points in order.

1. “Stopping all muslim immigration” is easier said than done, and is unlikely to effect the growth of European muslim populations which, along with the gulf between Islamic and European populations, is the main problem.

Please see my essay. How do you prevent the importation of spouses? How do you prevent muslims having lots of babies? I don’t think any politician will do it, for all the reasons I give in my essay.

2. Ditto for expelling illegal muslim immigrants in the EU. First you have to find them. If the current estimate of 750,000 illegals in the UK is right, then let’s say that’s 400,000 to 500,000 muslim illegals. This won’t greatly slow the rapid expansion of UK Islamic populations. The fact that disingenuous muslims like Solkhar agree with this sort of line suggests that they know it won’t have an effect.

3. Cutting off welfare to non-citizen Muslims is unlikely to make much difference. First, this probably means stopping social security and housing benefit. You probably won’t be able to stop them using the roads, schools, NHS, and working sewage systems – the things that the muslim homeland lacks. Similarly, the number of legal muslims far outweighs the illegals, so you’re only talking about a temporary slow-up. Birthrates and the importation of spouses will continue.

4. “Pay incentives for those Muslim citizens who will return to their home countries.” Which budget should this money come out of – schools, healthcare, or pensions? Voters vote primarily for welfare, and no government will cut it in order to pay for repatriation which will probably fall foul of EU single market law. Leave the EU? Fine, the economy will crash right there.

I think you would be surprised how much a Pakistani will want to be paid to make a life in Karachi look more attractive than Luton.

On top of this, Europe governments need the migrants to keep the welfare pyramid schemes going until the next election.

Again, it will feel good to retaliate against Islamic colonialism, but it is whistling past the graveyard. The aim is not to retaliate, but to prevail.

cont/...

Free Hal said...

...cont/

5. “Mock and insult and debate and laugh at and jeer down those brutal, stupid, cruel, absurd, preposterous, retrograde, intolerant, misogynistic, anti-gay, anti-freedom, anti-humanistic aspects of the dismal dogmas of Islam, daily, in song, cartoons, literature, editorials, theater, film, comedy acts, street performance art, political rallies, etc., etc.”

Most people can’t be bothered to do this. Most people simply want nothing to do with Islam. If this becomes impossible, as the Islamic population grows, then I think they will lash out. Unlike you and me they are not interested in analysing or mocking Islam. I don’t think you are going to get a nation of anti-Islamic satirists.

In any event, I don’t think this would cause muslims to leave Europe. At a guess I would say that a little British banter is easier to bear than life under the AK47 in somalia or afghanistan. It would simply harden the almost separation between muslims and ethnic Europeans. Ditto for, making “being Muslim in a free land EXTREMELY UNCOMFORTABLE”.

6. “Reinstall the death penalty for TERRORISM.” A sideshow. The sort of thing Solkhar would say. Won’t stop the growth and separatism of Islam in Europe.

7. “Elect leaders who care more about the survival of the West's Civilization than kowtowing to cretins for votes.”

Are you aware of the contradiction in expecting people to vote for politicians who are not interested in votes? Politicians who gain power will be the ones who kowtow to voters for votes. Wanting otherwise is like wanting a monogamous prostitute.

You’re really saying that democracy doesn’t work. I agree with you, and I see no way for democracy to survive in Europe. So I think that you need to examine non-democratic (i.e. non-state) systems.

Best wishes,

Hal

Free Hal said...

Hi Solkhar,

I also enjoyed the following crocodile tears from you:

“... it will result in the breaking of morale principles that the West cherishes so much.”

We feel your pain!

Best wishes

Hal

4Symbols said...

This definition of self-government is absolute nonsense it would put the population in a state of perpetuall war - every transaction would be a matter of life and death, the coinage would be violence. This is the perspective of a man who has watched too many survival movies where the main character is indestructible and can survive every violent transaction.

Go live in Somalia and enjoy your vision of utopia.

Free Hal said...

Hi 4Symbols,

Thanks for your comment. I think it’s useful because it shows how today’s welfare reliant European can move from multiculturalist dress-up to ethnic violence.

You have the sentiments, and the impenetrable writing style, of a socialist. But one who appears to link the growth of Islam in Europe with the guilty rich. As such you appear to be an early adopter of socialism with ethnocentrism.

Now where have we seen that before?

I don’t think there will be any shortage of European people, angry at the decline of the welfare state, and looking for someone to blame for it.

Your comment illustrates the shortness of the journey from welfare reliance to ethnic hostility.

Best wishes,

Hal

Free Hal said...

Hi 4Symbols,

Thank you for your comment, which enables me to explain the self-government system I propose.

The truth is the reverse of what you say.

The reason people will want to join a self-government system such as I propose is exactly because they will want to avoid the poverty, violence, disorder and disease of a hole like Somalia.

These are the conditions which will prevail, and with shocking speed, if state authorities go bust and collapse. If contracts can’t be enforced, then no-one can trade. If no-one can trade then things don’t get made. If things don’t get made then poverty sets in.

And if the police and courts system is replaced by the rule of the local ganglord, then the coinage is violence as you say. The brute becomes all powerful, and ordinary people must side with him in order to secure such protection as they can from the other brutes. Which means that, to be successful, each brute must show that he is more violent than the next. Hence Somalia.

That isn’t what people want. If they can sign up to a code of law, with an effective enforcement mechanism, then other people can live with them, and they with others – the law reigns rather than the will of the brute. And the route to riches remains transaction rather than violence.

Similarly, if they can sign up to a code of rules which forces them to keep to their contracts then they can carry on buying and selling things because other people know they can trust their word. If you can trade, then you can avoid poverty by working, creating wealth, and selling goods. I see no reason why a private legal system shouldn’t be every bit as sophisticated as current state law. Probably more so.

In Somalia there is no point entering into a contract because there is no way to enforce it. There is no way to enforce property rights so there is no point, for example, working on your house – someone stronger than you can take it away when you’ve done it.

Somalia is an example of a society without a legal system beyond the will of the local strongman on a horse. This is what Europe faces if and when the democratic state breaks down. It is to avoid this that people will look to private methods to secure law and order, as I propose.

Best wishes

Hal

PS I never got into the Rambo movies, and I’m not sure my enjoyment of Bach and Shakespeare would protect me for long in Somalia.

4Symbols said...

"But one who appears to link the growth of Islam in Europe with the guilty rich".

This is an interesting comment - Can you answer these questions who invited millions of Islamists into the U.K. and for what reasons.

Free Hal said...

Hi 4Symbols,

“Can you answer these questions who invited millions of Islamists into the U.K. and for what reasons.”

This is an interesting question, because the influx of unassimilable migrants has never been voted on.

But I would say that the culprit is the welfare state.

For two reasons. The first, economic, reason is that governments need to keep the welfare state going in order to get votes. Any party which said it would cut down the welfare state wouldn’t get elected.

The welfare state is a pyramid scheme, where people live off the labour of other people’s children. It was shaped during a baby boom, and needs a next generation as large or lager than the current one. If these aren’t being born in Europe then they must come from outside. People don’t care for that but they prefer it to the alternative which is welfare cuts. It’s a bit embarrassing, but it goes ahead.

This works because welfare costs mount up at the end of life, and migrants are usually young. 2 of the 3 branches of welfare (social security, pensions, and healthcare) apply to older people. This means that a politician can get elected by allowing migrants in: it keeps the welfare flow going, and leaves the costs to the next generation of politicians 30 years from now. Hence the claim a few years ago, that immigration benefits the economy. This has been debunked, but immigration now benefits today’s figures at the expense of tomorrow's, and this is irresistible to a politician whose first job is to get elected.

Before you curse politicians for such short-termism, ask yourself how well a politician would fare who said: “Good news! No more immigration!! Oh, by the way, we’re closing 50 hospitals and abolishing the state pension.”

The second reason is philosophical – the universalism on which welfare is based. Everyone has fundamental rights to this, that and the other, by virtue of drawing breath. Once you establish such nonsense it becomes hard to deny it on the grounds of origin. In fact the guilt-trip politics of multiculturalism are a good way to demonise opposition to such collectivist ideas.

Best wishes,

Hal

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

Hal said:

Before you curse politicians for such short-termism, ask yourself how well a politician would fare who said: “Good news! No more immigration!! Oh, by the way, we’re closing 50 hospitals and abolishing the state pension.”

But immigrants are net recipients of health care and so a politician could well say “Good news! No more immigration!! Oh, by the way, we’re closing 50 hospitals." Without immigrants the demand for hospitals would fall rapidly.

This debate on Islam in the West has raised some important issues but it seems to have missed the most important issue of all, that Islam is becoming the vehicle for anti-white racism. Whether we like it or not the coming conflict will be essentially racial.

islam o' phobe said...

FH,

"Also, wars are financed by borrowing, and a free society, being commercially strong, can borrow money whereas no-one will lend to a sharia enclave or a biker gang."

Won't the oil-rich Saudis (and other Gulf states) donate money to the sharia enclaves? They're never been shy of funding jihad before.

R. Hartman said...

Hi Free Hal,

My comment was oriënted inside the current system, hence the reference to the political will being absent. Problem is if you take the welfare state away, those dependent on it WILL riot, as they see their handouts a an acquired right, not even a privilege.

GoV is not a libertarian blog, and as such I did not advocate anarcho-capitalism, which is basically what you're referring to. And I couldn't agree more. Obviously, abolishing the state would abolish the welfare state. But lots of people can't imagine life without a state, even objectivists/libertarians, that hold the minarchist view.

But with current states not to be abolished soon, certainly not peacefully, the anarch-capitalist solution is too much of an Utopia, and measures will need to be step by step, unless you intend to 'do a Pinochet'.

Blaming the media, well, propaganda works. And if the majority rules (terror of 50%+1) the propaganda steers the voting. Which is how the current mob stays in power... So don't underestimate the role of the media. Ignoring that would be very naïve.

I don need any laws but the libertarian law "Initiation of violence, of any kind, is forbidden". Note that this only forbids initiation, violence used in self-defense is allowed.

Even for countering terrorism, the current abundance of laws suffices. The main proble at the moment is that more liberties are taken away by government than by terrorism. Governments have killed, and continue to kill, more poeple than any terrorist attack has ever done.

Chechar said...

Yeap! You hit the nail, islam o' phobe. That's why I believe armchair scenarios that want to avoid violence are kind of Qixotic. Let's nuke'em first, then we start putting house in order.

Chechar said...

"quixotic" I meant above. Sorry again for my spelling...

Graham Dawson (Archonix) said...

“... it will result in the breaking of morale principles that the West cherishes so much.”

When Moses came dwon from the mountain of God, bearing the laws God had written for his people, he found the camp in the midst of a huge celebration of worship of a golden calf. The people had turned their backs on the promise of God and in so doing had broken the covenant he made with them. Moses cast down the laws he had been given, breaking the tablets into pieces.

In doing this he destroyed the laws he had brought down from God, in order that they could be enforced.

Our moral principles are not chains that bind us into inaction, nor are they a cage others can put us in. They are the foundation of our way of life and the fortress that protects our culture but sometimes it is necessary to leave the foretress and engage in what might best be described as war. Our moral principles demand that there be no death but death is necessary in order to protect those moral principles from being destroyed. Like Moses we appear to cast down the law, seeming to destroy it, though in reality we are planting it ever more firmly in the ground in order that future generations will be secure.

The Israelites would never have followed the "moral principles" of God's law if they hadn't seen just how powerful the punishment for breaking it would be. We need to, likewise, remind both ourselves and the world that our "moral principles", the law of our culture, exacts a terrible punishment for those that attempt to bring it down. Our moral principles demand that we seemingly breach them in order to defend them.

Solkhar said...

R.Hartman,

I like your respone, logical and well put.

Solkhar said...

Graham Dawson (Archonix), many if not most would argue that by your presumption of protecting the moral code is by if necessity breaking it - a grave error.

First it assumes you have the right to break it.

Second it assumes that you are in equal terms, capacity and authority as Moses (ie the representative of the people or divine) and

Third and last - that your easily and willing to break your own codes of morality and begs the question if someone disagrees then with you that they have also the right to do so.

It is fact that attitude that starts wars, pogroms and harsh decisions that in fact the bulk of the citizens of whichever country do not want. All or most revolutions have been done claiming such a right.

Solkhar said...

Chechar,

"Let's nuke'em first, then we start putting house in order."

Really needs an explanation.

ChrisLA said...

Solkhar

When I say Muslims will be governed by Allah's laws, this conclusion is supported by the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1990 by the 56 member states of the OIC, which states in Article 24, "All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shari'ah." Yes, many Muslim countries have implemented secular courts and secular systems in certain legal areas because it is obvious -- even to Muslims --that portions of Shariah Law are barbaric. (See below.)

Regarding your suggestion that I am taking a sinister "we are better than them" stance which will provide ammunition to support militant Islamists, please tell GoV readers what other culture than Islam still adheres to such practices as death for apostates, stoning of adulterers, female genital mutilation, child marriage, 1/3 indemnity for killing a Jew or a Christian and 1/15 indemnity for killing a Zoroastrian, chopping off hands and feet of petty thieves, and wiping oneself with three pebbles -- all of which practices are prescribed by the Islamic Sacred Law -- vis. Reliance of the Traveller.

Because Muslims shy away from self-examination and reform, others must hold up the mirror to them. That is why free speech is so important, and that's why OIC is doing everything it can to squelch free speech. It ain't gonna happen.

Free Hal said...

Hi Hartman,

Thank you for your interesting comment.

“Obviously, abolishing the state would abolish the welfare state.”

I’m absolutely not advocating “doing a Pinochet” or any other kind of state overthrow. This is unnecessary because Europe’s elites, governments and voters are working harder than I can to overthrow it anyway. Unrepayable external borrowing ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_external_debt ) budget deficits, off-budget borrowing (health deficits, PFI, pension deficits -- http://burningourmoney.blogspot.com/search?q=scary+pension+numbers ) and the states’ dependence on lenders who will never get repaid, will bankrupt European states. Whilst European welfare dependence increases demand, reduces resilience, induces decadence, and generally infantilises people -- http://www.thewelfarestatewerein.com/ . To say nothing of the growing ethnic divide which I see no logical way for democracy to survive.

Hartman quote: “But lots of people can't imagine life without a state”.

I agree: imagine the single Mum up a tower block, who hasn’t seen a job or a father in 3 generations. I presume she will starve if/when the dole office closes its doors. And the welfare state has bred a lot of ladies like her.

This seems only to add to the violent prospect we’re facing when the state does break down. There are going to be a lot of angry people when the welfare dripfeed, which they were promised was a permanent fact of life, is torn out.

Hartman quote: “Problem is if you take the welfare state away, those dependent on it WILL riot, as they see their handouts a an acquired right, not even a privilege.”

Spot on. Although it isn’t me that is taking the welfare away. The welfare state will do that itself, by collapsing.

Whilst things are seldom inevitable, the collapse of Europe’s state authorities looks pretty near to it. The question is not what can one do to overthrow the state, but how can we mitigate the impact when it breaks down?

This is where my self government proposal comes into play. It offers a system which people can use to provide the order they need and to be able to continue trading.

I admit I think it will be better than welfare democracy, but that isn’t the immediate point: democracy is coming to the end of the road and we, therefore, have to find other ways to order society if we are to avoid going the way of Somalia.

I also think that my self-government, or ‘private law’, system offers the possibility to roll back the tide of Islam in Europe, without resorting to genocide or ethnic cleansing.

Best wishes,

Hal

Chechar said...

"Let's nuke'em first, then we start putting house in order." Really needs an explanation - Solkhar

The explanation is in my blog entry linked above ("nuke'em first").

Zenster said...

Simple expulsion is much more likely in the context of collapsed European state authorities.

I would go a bit further and speculate that "collapsed European state authorities" might indulge in far more reprehensible actions than simple "expulsion".

Mind you, how this is something that Islam literally demands from its hapless ranks of Muslim cannon fodder but that is of little significance overall.

I would like to use this increase in openness to suggest that state attempts to roll back Islam in Europe will either fail or result in carnage.

All of the rather undesirable implications notwithstanding, I could not agree more. A Muslim holocaust continues to loom upon Europe's horizon without the least efforts to assuage it.

The warlords and dictators who would probably follow such a breakdown are unlikely to adopt costly and sophisticated administrative measures out of squeamishness about physical force.

Yet another unfortunate vote for a Muslim holocaust. However, please be sure to keep in mind that:

ISLAM WOULDN'T HAVE IT ANY OTHER WAY!

A government that threatened the welfare state would be quickly replaced, and welfare implosion is more likely than [Muslim] aggression to be the trigger for European breakdown.

Something that few Europeans seem willing to recognize, no matter how urgent this notion might be.

The policy would simply force European Muslims, following the principle of taqiyya, to lie low until their numbers are greater. And even if you could weed out all disaffected Muslims, you would have to repeat the process every generation because basic Islamic tenets are unlikely to change.

A superb synopsis of why taqiyya is so supremely damning with respect to Islam. How can there be any diplomatically coherent or adequately orchestrated resistance against such thoroughly organized opposition to the West's Social Contract?

Palestinian self-destructiveness, the creation of Pakistan in 1948, the 1971 Pakistani genocide in Bangladesh, and now Darfur, all suggest that Muslims are prepared to live in misery, and see large numbers of Muslims die, rather than cede control of territory to non-Muslims.

From what a complete cesspit the entire MME (Muslim Middle East) has been throughout recent history, I would venture that Islam's power structure is specifically designed to yield this result.

Free Hal said...

Hi islam o' phobe,

I agree with you to the extent that I would expect the oil rich Arabs to adopt European Muslims in the same way that they have adopted the Palestinians. The cartoon jihad, and the French school burka ban gave the first indications of this.

So the Arab approach to Israel is instructive. What emerges from that is the incompetence and venality of the Arab states. Their main aim appears to be to keep stoking up the conflict in order to be able to blame the Jews for corrupt Arab rule. Their method appears to be to finance terrorism, rather than put together a strategy of war, which is beyond them – google “why Arabs lose wars” for some interesting studies.

Israel could clear the Palestinians from neighbouring territories in a few weeks flat if it chose, and the fact that it doesn’t is testament to Jewish morality, not Arab strength with or without oil money.

The bottom line is that Arab states my foolishly try to fund terrorism, but the military threat to the land of Sparta, Napoleon, and Cromwell is not something to worry about.

Best wishes,

Hal

Zenster said...

It would be simple for Islamic countries to refuse refugees, which they will surely do to prevent the loss of European enclaves.

I dispute this. If, say, Saudi Arabia were informed that an ocean liner full of deportees was going to offload and any resistance would be greeted with wholesale destruction of all palaces throughout the country, the royals might become rather tractable in short order.

First, I don’t think you can justify genocide, even if you claim to be saving western civilisation.

What if the only alternative is Islamic genocide against the West? This is the alternative that is rapidly presenting itself. A global caliphate would see a solid 25% of the world's population put to the Islamic sword. I would sooner see all Muslims perish than experience the tremendous loss of heritage and diversity that would accompany Islamic ascendancy.

For myself, I would not be prepared to participate in a really violent population transfer, and certainly not genocide, for the selfish reason that I don’t want it on my conscience, even if it means is the loss of western civilisation. This admission may condemn me as a weakling, but my guess is that there are others like me.

You have morally voided yourself. If you are hell-bent on suicide then, please, do nothing and you will be rewarded by a Muslim who would not hesitate to assist you.

Which is why I think it is important to find non-violent means to resolve Europe’s ethnic divide. I appreciate that this prospect sounds impossible, and perhaps disappointing to some.

The only problem being that Muslims will have nothing to do with a peaceful arrangement. Their goal is domination and only large scale bloodshed will deter them.

If you think this is a fanciful scenario, ask yourself what the alternative is? .

The alternative is that which Islam gives all of its opponents. Namely, be prepared to inflict greater harm and death than your foe or you will be conquered and likely die.

I am not responsible for the existing widespread ethnic division — there is plenty of that without my help. My aim is to resolve it without violence.

Please examine the historical record and see if you can find a single example of Islam peacably coexisting with any other culture that it did not eventually absorb and destroy. Your self-government fantasy is just that, a fantasy. Muslims will encroach or be killed for doing so and nothing you imagine or pen will change that consistent behavioral pattern.

Commercially able Europeans could simply buy up Islamic enclaves piece by piece, whereupon the new owners’ laws prevail.

You neglect to mention where all of these displaced Muslims will go. Most likely, they will not go quietly nor possibly even go at all but, instead, squat and violently resist all efforts to evict them.

Solkhar said...

ChrisLA,

Interesting contradition there, you just admitted that each of the Muslims countries have confirmed that their versions of Sharia Law or principles (which it appears you are not aware that there are multiple variations) complies with the Charter of Human Rights.

Yet you just did the famous blog-copy-rant about what you think is Sharia or in fact Qur'anic/Islamic.

"
Regarding your suggestion that I am taking a sinister "we are better than them" stance which will provide ammunition to support militant Islamists, please tell GoV readers what other culture than Islam still adheres to such practices as death for apostates, stoning of adulterers, female genital mutilation, child marriage, 1/3 indemnity for killing a Jew or a Christian and 1/15 indemnity for killing a Zoroastrian, chopping off hands and feet of petty thieves, and wiping oneself with three pebbles -- all of which practices are prescribed by the Islamic Sacred Law -- vis. Reliance of the Traveller. "

Shall we begin why you have confirmed the "we are better than them" stance that you deny, justifying your basis on what actually is incorrect information as well.

death for apostates - actually the Qur'an does not say that, some Haddiths have said it but the Qur'anic basis is that apostacy creates social disharmony and family disfunction.

stoning of adulterers - the same as death for apostates, but in this case Mohammed accepted the stoning at that time (not as an instruction for the future) due to the destruction that it was causing the Meccans
female genital mutilation - not Islamic, Qur'anic but a tribal/cultral habit in mostly sub-saharan Africa, preformed by Christians, Etheopian Jews, and black African Animist communities as much as by those ignorant Muslims. All recognized Islamic authorities have outlawed the practice as repugnant (your facts are getting pretty of-target here)
child marriage - a fundamentalist and tribal/cultral practice, not Qur'anic or Islamic. Marriage consumation ages from the Qur'an was around the age of 16 and in most Muslim countries it is now set in law as the minimum age.
1/3 indemnity for killing a Jew or a Christian and 1/15 indemnity for killing a Zoroastrian - a fundamentalist Shi'ite concept that no other Muslim nation even considers serious.
chopping off hands and feet of petty thieves - actually an old 7th century punishment that ME and European nations often did at the time, only fundamentalists consider that as of value and most countries have banned.
Wiping oneself with three pebbles - a phrase from the 7th century that is only ever raised by agenda based anti-Islamic websites.

I think your effort there was both typical agenda based and frankly speaking pathetic. All you have done is confirmed my thoughts and proven your lack of knowledge about the subject of Islam and questioning any justification for you to pontificate on the subect at all, especially to a practicing Muslim.

The only correct statement you made was probably targetted for the wrong reason. That there is no self-assessment and criticism and that is absolutely correct. Extreme and radical Islamists dominate the theological community in Islam and instantly drown out or condemn questions and thought and even governments are not willing to enter the debate because of the hold the clergy have over the illiterate masses - that is the entire problem with Islam - and only that.

Zenster said...

The state, on the other hand is inflexible. Its methods always boil down to coercion at some point.

You neglect to recognize that all dealings with Islam devolve into some form of coercion. It is the only tool that Islam uses and the only effective countermeasure against Muslim encroachment. Period.

Second, it allows non-Muslims to live in freedom, order and prosperity even while that rollback is accomplished. Europe doesn’t have to go to its dark side.

Third, it avoids the atrocities which have so often stained the towering values of our culture
.

You also neglect to recognize how Muslims will always weaponize Western "freedom, order and prosperity" in order that they can be turned against us for the purpose of obtaining Islamic ascendancy. What you propose is to enable this weaponization without any significant deterrent against such abuse.

As you seek to avoid atrocities, they will be inflicted upon us by Muslims. This is not an equitable exchange. I am not prepared to have the Louvre vandalized or watch priceless European landmarks be demolished to soothe your furrowed brow. Muslim and Western culture are imiscible and there can be no reconciliation between them. Muslims will not abandon their pursuit of their global caliphate save at the risk of perishing forever. This is the alternative that the West must deliver to them and no progress will be made until Islam is made to understand the price for being uncooperative.

The system of self-government proposed here would allow civilisation to keep going in the wake of the breakdown of democracy in Europe. It can solve the problems of ethnic division, and roll back the tide of Islam in Europe. And it can do so in a way which avoids ethnic cleansing and genocide.

Save that we are fighting an opponent who seeks only "ethnic cleansing and genocide" and uses them as principal tools in its quest for domination. As with any major forest fire, the only alternative is to fight fire with fire. Islam insists upon being paid in its own bloody coin and Western nations will come to realize this sooner or later. It is only a question of how many innocent lives will be lost before this lesson is learned.

Solkhar said...

Zenester,

you certainly have your right to opinion and thus I also have the right to say what trash you are expounding.

From the basic almost comical fear of watching the Louvre being pilliged to your rediculous assumption that Islam seeks only ethnic cleansing and genocide".

If I was to play your game and be the radical extremist - of which you are from the other side - it would be correct thus to request the roleback in southern spain to return to the 800 years of Islamic rule since the Castillians still have not reached that level yet.

Yes it is foolish at the same lenght as just about every remark you have made in your statements.

Again, you have your right to opinion and I have mine and I am happy to point out that what I also find in your posting is another danger - that from your hysterical (I refer to it in both serious and comical terms) ranting, you are in fact taking away from the real dangers of Islamist terrorism and extremist groups by concentrating on falicies instead.

In addition you are playing into their hands by allowing them to confirm that the west is out to destroy Islam and reassurt its cultural/christian dominance as it did over the last few centuries.

So I should say thanks for attempting to make it worse for all of us.

Free Hal said...

Hi Zenster,

I agree with much of what you say, and I think your realism about the potential violence, and self-delusion, in Europe is well-placed.

If I may add the following reservations.

“Yet another unfortunate vote for a Muslim holocaust.” Well put – unfortunate indeed. Although I’m squeamish about the term holocaust, partly out of sensitivity to Jewish friends, and partly because I think it will be different in Europe. I think we will more likely see a collection of appalling ‘acts of genocide’ in Europe, like Srebrenica, rather than Nazism. Imagine the Yugoslav wars, multiplied 10 or 20 times, in conditions where ethnic cleansing isn’t really possible but mass killings are.

“ISLAM WOULDN'T HAVE IT ANY OTHER WAY!”

But that doesn’t make it right, sensible, or worth dirtying your hands with. I think mass killing of civilians should be avoided first because it is morally wrong, and second for the practical reason that it is hard to build a functioning society on so dysfunctional a foundation. More orderly, peaceful methods may be dull, but they work better, faster. Don’t let Islamic doctrine make your choices for you.

I appreciate that angry people will want to lash out, and it will be satisfying to take it out on people they see as asking for it. But I repeat: the principle is not to retaliate but to prevail.

And, because of the towering achievements of western culture, that aim is worth thinking through. It is worth adopting self-control for.

And it is worth looking for methods to turn back the tide of Islam in Europe, without violence.

Best wishes,

Hal

4Symbols said...

Hi Free Hal,

good debate.

you said,

"It was shaped during a baby boom, and needs a next generation as large or lager than the current one"

This is a classic piece of neo-liberal propaganda that the right has swallowed and then regurgitated to attack welfare. Think about it how can 1 million unskilled unemployed immigrants benefit an economy more than 1 million unskilled indigenous unemployed. In the U.K. this justification for mass immigration has been discredited.

With 12% unemployment the schizophrenic American attitude to unconditional welfare will change, or do you want to reconstitute indenture contracts as part of your system.

Free Hal said...

Zenster,

I was responding to your first comment - I will respond to your latter two later.

Best wishes,

Hal

Solkhar said...

4Symbols,

my thoughts about Fre-Hall is that deep down he is a dangerous right-wing extremist who started "thinking to much" and has produced a doctrine in the way that many have. That is normally fine except that on occassions people such as he get into power to ultimate disasterous affect.

The signs are there, it is all theory base without any "humanity" within the thought process and in fact going so far as to ensure that the humanity (citizens and their freedoms and processes) are second or last priority in the pecking order of what is important.

The unemotional assumptions of ethnic cleansing, expulsions and even an acknowledgement of a "final solution" certainly proves the actual intention and morality (or should we say lack there of) from Free-Hal.

Though it is a good debate and discussion, the reality that there is a extreme-right neo-Nazi who is attempting is worth noting.

Zenster said...

Free Hal: My objection is that killing tens of millions of people is wrong.

Such blanket statements simply do not work. What if the alternative is billions of people dead?

For those who doubt that an Islamic global caliphate would prove so lethal to our world, please consider these cocktail napkin calculations:

Extermination of the Jews—however horrible—is but a small facet of the genocide planned by Islam. Imagine the death tolls arising from the establishment of a global caliphate:

1.) Extermination of all Jews:

Some 13.5 MILLION people, world-wide would most likely die at the hands of their Muslim oppressors.

2.) Extermination of all homosexuals:

I'm going to use what is called a "wildly exaggerated figure" for the sake of including the bisexual and transgender community plus other deviants who would all be put to death. Thusly, some 10% or 600 MILLION people would fall into this category. The ensuing numbers are much more difficult to quantify.

3.) Armed resistance to Muslim encroachment:

I think it's safe to say that nearly everyone here at this forum would perish fighting a Muslim attempt to overrun America. World wide, the numbers would most likely exceed that of the Jews. We'll place it at a meager 100 MILLION.

4.) Women denied access to medical care:

This is a huge number because under Islamic law women would only be able to be seen by female doctors—an exceedingly small fraction of this world's medical practitioners. I’ll use the figure for global female cancer deaths as an example of how reduced early intervention will escalate avoidable deaths, especially among women. That figure will be more than 3 MILLION per year.

5.) Execution of political prisoners:

Toss in another 10 MILLION.

6.) Execution of those who refuse to convert:

I’m going to use the world’s population of Catholics as a figure representing those who would adamantly refuse to convert or cooperate and be put to death. While the number would likely be much higher, this figure would approach over 1 BILLION.

We now have a total of 1.726 BILLION people who would die within the first year of Islam establishing its global caliphate. Millions more would die each year due to Islam’s heavy-handed shari’a law and its demands for capital punishment. Women would keep dying in droves due to the unavailability of female doctors. Emerging homosexuals would be killed as with many other deviants, be they political, religious or otherwise.

Do the math. The global caliphate would rise upon dead bodies numbering greater than this world’s entire Muslim population. My Iranian friend Ray agrees with me that the number who would perish would be closer to HALF this world’s population but that is far more speculative than the conservative numbers I’ve posted above.

So, the question remains:

HOW MUCH LONGER ARE WE TO PUT UP WITH AN IDEOLOGY WHOSE ULTIMATE GOAL IS TO BRING ABOUT THE DEATH OF MORE PEOPLE THAN ITS OWN NUMBER OF FOLLOWERS?

We've already seen an ideology do this exact same thing. It was called Nazism.

I’ve stated before that if Muslims cannot abandon their quest for a global caliphate, then I would just as soon see all of them perish rather than the larger numbers who would ultimately die by Islam’s brutal hand. The numbers—approximate as they might be—do not lie.

Solkhar said...

Zenster, nice imaginative rant but for the facts that there is no basis in your presumptions, be they historical or contemporary.

It is like the guy wandering around the streets of the big city carrying a billboard with the words "the world is about to end". If you ask him how and why, some unintelligable string of baseless phrases will come out that can only be considered amusing EXCEPT that in the end this guy basically is saying that he wishes to kill Muslims presumably on the basis that Muslims want to kill him. Of course, the later is his opinion but the former - the desire to committ genocide is confirmed as his wish.

A dangerous person who certainly needs to be kept away from any form of power over others.

Free Hal said...

Hi Zenster,

Zenster quote: “Please examine the historical record and see if you can find a single example of Islam peacably coexisting with any other culture that it did not eventually absorb and destroy. Your self-government fantasy is just that, a fantasy. Muslims will encroach or be killed for doing so and nothing you imagine or pen will change that consistent behavioral pattern.”

The evidence does appear to show that Islamic and western culture won’t mix – the official phrase is ‘parallel lives’. And I agree that there is a woeful Islamic predilection for violence.

My point about self-government is that, if an owner of land wants, he or she can prohibit the practice of Islam there because what he does with his property is his business. And people can band together to do this. That rules can then be enforced with force, the same way you could enforce the law about whom you choose to allow into your living room. I appreciate that this may require considerable force occasionally. But I see no reason why a self-governed people shouldn’t be able to do this.

This will be preferable, and more successful, than a welter of violence.

Zenster quote: “You neglect to mention where all of these displaced Muslims will go. Most likely, they will not go quietly nor possibly even go at all but, instead, squat and violently resist all efforts to evict them.”

It is not my business where the former owner of a property goes. If someone, muslim or not, refuses to vacate a property he has just sold, then he is only asking for forcible eviction, and greater force if he continues to resist. This is nothing new. I would have thought that a self-governed area, being commercially successful, would have more force at its disposal than an individual vendor who doesn’t understand what a contract is.

Best wishes,

Hal

ChrisLA said...

Solkhar

As I said, Muslims (in general) shy away from self-examination and reform. Let's take a look at the most widely-published English translation of the "classic manual of Islamic Sacred Law," The Reliance of the Traveller, published in the U.S. in 1994. This manual has the stamps of approval of religious bodies in Syria, Jordan, the Fiqh Council of North America, and Egypt (namely, Al-Azhar) -- all of which are predominately Sunni.
Please read the cited Shari'ah Laws calling for death for apostates (o8.1), stoning of adulterers (o12.2), female genital mutilation (e4.3), child marriage (n9.2), reduced indemnity for killing non-Muslims and women (o4.9), chopping off hands and feet (o14.1), and wiping oneself with three pebbles (e9.5).

You accuse me of lack of knowledge about Islam and call my effort "frankly pathetic." I will leave that for the GoV readers to decide.

Meanwhile, I agree that one of the biggest problems with Islam is the hold the clergy have over the illiterate masses. Unfortunately, most Muslims are "illiterate" when it comes to the contents of the Quran and Shari'ah Law. They only know what the clerics tell them. I will fully support any Muslim institution which has the courage to stand up against the clerics and implement a fundamental revision to the Quran (e.g., like puting the chapters in their true chronological order and eliminating commands that are in violation of international law) and revising Shari'ah law to conform with the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights. That would be a great start, and back to the topic at hand, it would eliminate the need for rollback or self-governed enclaves altogether.

Zenster said...

Free Hal: Don’t let Islamic doctrine make your choices for you.

Either you are new here or remain unfamiliar with my own personal strategy for dismantling Islamic jihad.

The Multinational Coalition is currently fighting Islamic terrorism using a bottom-up approach. It is a police action sort of methodology and seeks to fight this war one bullet at a time. IT WILL NOT WORK.

While killing Islamic terrorists DOES NOT create more terrorists, there are simply too many who are willing to carry on the cause of Islamic supremacy. Make no mistake, dead terrorists no longer commit any terrorist acts but we simply do not have the logistical ability to kill all Islamic terrorists.

With its disposal of Yassin and Rantissi, Israel demonstrated very clearly how to fight Islamic terrorism. To quote Wretchard:

The Israeli strike against the terrorist top tier exploits the weakness inherent in terrorist organizations which are unstable alliances based on a delicate balance of internal intimidation. None of them, the Palestinian Authority included, are either transparent or accountable. They are exceptionally vulnerable to changes in their leadership. They can stand the loss of any number of teenage fighters or youthful suicide bombers without much damage but are rocked -- as Yassin's death illustrates -- by death at the top.

[to be continued]

Zenster said...

I have long proposed that Western militaries should set about the elimination of jihadist Islam's top clerical, financial, political and scholastic echelons. To wit:

1. Ayman al-Zawahiri
2. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
3. Ayatollah Kahmeini
4. Mullah Muhammad Omar
5. Abu Bakar Ba'asyir (Bashir)
6. Moqtada Sadr,
7. Abu Hamza al-Masri,
8. Fateh Najmeddin Faraj — Mullah Krekar (AKA: Abu Sayyid Qutb)
9. Khaled Meshal
10. Sheikh Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah
11. Ismail Haniya
12. Mohammed Abbas
13. Yusuf al-Qaradawi
14. Tariq Ramadan
15. Sheikh Taj al-Din al-Hilali
16. imam Omar Bakri Muhammed Fustuq
17. imam Abdel-Samie Mahmoud Ibrahim Moussa
18. imam Sheikh SyeSyed Mubarik Ali Gilani
19. Sheikh Abdullah al-Faisal
20. Sheik Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi
21. Dr. Mahmoud al-Zahar
22. Prince Sultan Ibn Abd al-Aziz
23. Prince Bandar bin Sultan bin Abdulaziz
24. Prince Nayef bin Abdulaziz
25. Muhammad Taqi Usmani
26. Yasin al Qadi (Saudi terrorist financier)
27. Sheikh Abdullah bin Jibreen — top Wahabbi cleric
28. Sheikh Saleh Al-Fawzan — top Wahabbi cleric
29. Sheikh Nasser Al-Omar — top Wahabbi cleric
30. Sheikh Essa
31. Abu Waleed Ansari
32. Abu Yahya al-Libbi
33. Maulana Ilyas Kashmiri
34. Sheikh Abu Yahya al-Libi (al Qaeda CEO)
35. Sheikh Abdel-Aziz Al al-Sheikh — Saudi Grand Mufti
36. Ramadan Shalah — Islamic Jihad leader
37. Ali Abdullah Saleh – Yemini President
38. Sheikh Ibrahim Al-Ghaith — head SA’s Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice.
39. Imad Mugniyah — Iranian master terrorist – Killed 2/13/2008
Substitute: Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu — OIC Secretary General
40. Ahmed Abu Laban — DEAD unfortunately of natural causes— January 19, 2007
Substitute: Nour al Maliki or Hamid Karzai

Only a top down approach will work. Both Islamic society and terrorist circles tend to concentrate contacts, resources and other important operational aspects into a select few individuals. Elimination of these persons will not only deprive our enemy of vital players but also create a power vacuum which will see numerous young bucks eliminate each other in competition for these top slots.

As an example, consider Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and Mossad's assassination of his right-hand man, General Mohammed Suleiman. Do you think that Assad will bring in another even less experienced officer who could just as easily end up getting both of them killed next time?

Who can Assad trust? How badly will he now function without this important liaison with Hezbollah and internal Syrian security?

We must start with the horse's head and not its tail.

Free Hal said...

Hi Solkhar,

“The unemotional assumptions of ethnic cleansing, expulsions and even an acknowledgement of a "final solution" certainly proves the actual intention and morality (or should we say lack there of) from Free-Hal.”

Are you saying that I want to see ethnic cleansing, expulsions and "final solutions"? Where have I said this? I thought I had said the opposite.

For the record, I don’t want to see these things happen to people, whatever the religion or race of the victim.

Also, for the record, I have no desire to hold political, military, or temporal power. And from the reception I’m getting, that is probably just as well!

Best wishes,

Hal

Zenster said...

Solkhar: ... you certainly have your right to opinion and thus I also have the right to say what trash you are expounding.

You have already demonstrated a pronounced inclination to utilize traditional Islamic deceit in your arguments here. Having my obeservations called "trash" by yourself is a badge of honor. You only serve to confirm my suspicions by employing such methods.

You do seem to understand that it is Islam alone that must set its house in order. Only Muslims can purge their ranks of jihadis. The West's noble but futile efforts to set Islam aright would be hilarious if they were not so misguided and costly in both human life and wealth.

I urge you to direct your efforts at ensuring that Islam rejects terrorism in no uncertain terms. The tacit approval and thundering silence by the world's Muslims on this topic is polarizing our globe against Islam and for all of the right reasons.

Should Muslims continue to remain silent and thus by default encourage further terrorist attacks against the West, the entire MME (Muslim Middle East) may well end up paying for it when a frustrated world takes a nuclear shortcut towards a world without Islamic terrorism.

I would rather see Islamic jihad's top ranks denuded as a preliminary measure. Intelligent Muslims would be setting about this task right now if they were truly sincere about fighting Islamic terrorism. Nothing of the sort is happening and it is damning evidence of tacit support for ongoing terrorist atrocities.

Nearly all of Islam's history is drenched in the blood of conquered and annihilated cultures whose legacies are forever lost. I, for one, am past hoping for any possible reconciliation with this sort of barbaric savagery.

Islamic violence will be brought to heel. Either from within or without. Should this world be forced to do Islam's homework for it, do not hope overmuch that the task will be conducted with any delicacy or mercy.

Zenster said...

Solkhar: Why do countries not enforce a migration contract (for any group, not only Muslims) that basically says that since you want to come here that you commit yourself to supporting the said country of its standards and norms, that you will do your best to integrate and support that nation and not harm its collective culture.

Of what use is such a contract when Muslims are allowed to employ kitman and taqiyya? Any contracts are rendered less than meaningless and actually serve only to instill a false sense of security in those who issue them.

Taqiyya irrevocably damns Islam. It is one of several features that prohibits any constructive interaction with Muslims.

Even were Muslims to swear off taqiyya, how could anyone be sure? Such an oath could be sworn on the Qur'an itself and have exactly ZERO meaning. There is no reliable way of determining with any degree of authenticity that a Muslim is being honest.

This is not any fault of Western civilization. Islam has allowed itself this supreme ethical crime and it alone must bear responsibility for presuming to tilt the playing field in such an underhanded manner. By embracing and sanctioning taqiyya, Islam repudiates any legitimacy it might once have merited.

A cursory examination of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict reveals what to expect when dealing with Islam. It is a micro-model of the macro-global situation. Muslim majority nations promise whatever they think will get them short term rewards and then set about pursuing their usual long term Islamic agenda.

The Qur'an clearly states that "war is deceit" and Western powers are idiotic not to take this statement with all its implications at face value.

Zenster said...

Free Hal: For the record, I don’t want to see these things happen to people, whatever the religion or race of the victim.

What shall your response be to someone who wants these things (i.e., ethnic cleansing and genocide), to happen to you?

Zenster said...

Solkhar: ... nice imaginative rant but for the facts that there is no basis in your presumptions, be they historical or contemporary.

Tell that to some 50 million Hindus who died at the hands of Muslim invaders and their cruel Delhi Sultanate.

Be it against modern Armenians or ancient Persia's Sassanid Empire, Islam's history is one of inflicting extreme violence and the committing of genocide. This vile tradition is carried forward today with Islam's desire for genocide against the Jews.

Time and again Islam has demonstrated its adamant refusal to coexist in peace with other cultures. It is long past tea to begin judging Islam by its historical fruits.

Free Hal said...

Hi Zenster,

"What shall your response be to someone who wants these things (i.e., ethnic cleansing and genocide), to happen to you?"

If say, France made convincing threats wipe out every Brit, my response would be to declare war on France, prevent them from doing so by winning that war, and then dictating terms of peace further such threats.

I don't think it would be necessary to wipe out every Frenchman.

Best wishes,

Hal

Solkhar said...

ChrisLA,

The religious schools and associations that you mention aare not governments, they can spout about Sharia Law as much as they like but in the end, most Muslim Countries have secular legal systems, not Sharia and these so called opinions and fatwas make no difference to most Muslims.

The second point that you keep on forgetting is that there are as many opinions and version of what is Sharia as their are variations of Muslims schools of thinking. Are we talking North African Maleki, South Asian Hannafi, outlawed Saudi Wahhabist? Do you think that Iran accepts Sunni held Sharia?

You said: "implement a fundamental revision to the Quran (e.g., like puting the chapters in their true chronological order and eliminating commands that are in violation of international law) ...." is a statement from a non-Muslim and it shows. Because your inability to read the Qur'an or believe in it does not make it wrong or evil. There are no commands that are in any violation and I repudiate any such claim and question the motives of those that say it - ignorance or suspicious agenda being the only result.

Reform is needed, almost totally in the elimination of clergy and government and the best solution frankly speaking to the power of the clergy is two-fold. 1) Improved education and literacy in the Muslim World - which will take away the ignorant masses element from being unwitting slaves to the clergy and then after such a change, 2) a united "mass sacking/abdications" and forced change of the main schools of thought for allowing extremism dominate them.

If the clergy are controlled, the rest falls quickly. Mind you what you will still get is a mass exodus of these radicals to any country that accepts them and those poor nations will get more of what is happening in Europe, rediculous demands for a world that frankly speaking only they want and is rejected back home in the real Muslim World.

4Symbols said...

Zenster,

Some bacteria do not even completely wipe out an opposing bacteria.

It is interesting how Western civilisation is finding it so difficult to deal with Islam, is this a moral blind spot.

Solkhar said...

Zenester, I have seen to many times the futile tactic of claiming historical examples. It results in endless tit-for-tat and frankly futile points that have no reflection of the "today".

An example of your mentioning what happened under Dynasties (that happen to be Muslim) conquering and demanding whatever - that can be countered with the destruction of civizations in South America by Catholicism under the banner of Spanish Conquests. You will mention something else and I will retort about the First Crusade by Pope Urban II whom declared the first Holy War against Islam but the result was that for the first year the armies stayed in Europe - killing tens of thousand of Jews before even seeing their first Muslim.

The process is futile.

Your message is somehow trying to whitewash the fact that you discuss genocide and then come back with a threat that if you do not clean up your act - we will and it will not be simple does not wash - first of all it comes from someone who already has shown their extreme-rightwing violent processes and second, you certainly represent no significant group or opinion that frankly matters.

The other point is your views are already not only exposed for what horror they are, but you have already claimed that no matter what I say that I am committing taqqiya - again a word that is used by extremist clerics and actually mostly on right-wing websites than the average Muslim would know. I just tested it out by asking my Moroccan Arab wife and she just shook her head and said "something from the Hijra I think....".

Honestly, go back to your bomb shelter that you would have built from the invading Reds if you were 50 years older or join the battle against the Huns, Bolshaviks etc.... if you get what I mean.

Solkhar said...

Free Hal,

If I have confused or misread your intentions, please excuse it based on my language skill (I speak Dutch and French and English is a poor third) and the rantings from Zenester that I may have mixed and confused as your own.

I will try when I have time to sit and reread your postings.

I may have strong opinions but I certainly admit to errors when I make them.

Zenster said...

Solkhar: As a Muslim I have no problem at all subscribing to a strong intergrate or go away policy, I encourage it - it would work without the bigotry and hate that Wilders demands.

Then please share with us your reaction to the following:

A crowd of 16,000 expatriate Turks cheered Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan at a vast indoor auditorium in Germany on Sunday as he told them to resist assimilation into the West.

The political rally by Germany’s biggest ethnic minority upset German politicians, who objected to a major public event on German soil being advertised on posters in Turkish only.

Erdogan indirectly addressed those concerns, saying it was right for Turkish immigrants to learn German and other languages so they could integrate, but wrong to abandon their Turkish heritage and assimilate.

“Assimilation is a crime against humanity,” he told the crowd
. [emphasis added]

Solkhar said...

I said integrate, the Turkish PM said integrate, both of us say not to "assimilate" that is clear.

Integrate means to become part of, support and work together. Assimilate means to throw away the past and change and become the other.

There is no problem with being a German of Turkish origin, proud of your ethnicity and being a proud German national. Same with any cultural origin. I am a Dutch Muslim living now permanently in Morocco. I am integrating but I will remain proudly Dutch and I know my ancestry back 300 plus years.

So what was the point you were trying to make ?

Free Hal said...

Hi Solkhar,

Thank you for your reply.

In that case, whilst you are at it, I would be grateful if you could also reconsider the additional unsubstantiated comments:

"dangerous right-wing extremist"
"extreme-right neo-Nazi"
"who is attempting" (attempting what - a "final solution"?)
"certainly proves the actual intention and morality" (how has my "final solution" intention been "certainly proved"?)

I find the confidence of such abuse hard to square with your claim that you admit to errors when you make them!

Thank you.

Hal

PS It is possible that my thoughts are wrong, in which case I would be grateful to learn why - which is a main reason for discussing them on this board. Reason and evidence may do this, but not insults.

Zenster said...

Solkhar: ... I have seen to many times the futile tactic of claiming historical examples. It results in endless tit-for-tat and frankly futile points that have no reflection of the "today".

Save when those "historical examples" help to establish what then becomes a consistent and observable pattern of behavior.

This is not about "tit-for-tat", it is about Islam's persistent historical record and pseudo-religious imperative to establish a global caliphate that will permit no diversity.

An example of your mentioning what happened under Dynasties (that happen to be Muslim) conquering and demanding whatever - that can be countered with the destruction of civizations in South America by Catholicism under the banner of Spanish Conquests.

Another dose of tu quoque.

Spain's colonial record in South America has absolutely nothing to do with how Islam currently wishes to attain global ascendancy and is willing to employ Weapons of Mass Destruction to do so.

Spain is a has-been European power while Islam is a growing threat to global stability. Your attempt at diverting attention from the core argument regarding Islam's supremacist doctrine is duly noted.

Your message is somehow trying to whitewash the fact that you discuss genocide and then come back with a threat that if you do not clean up your act - we will and it will not be simple does not wash - first of all it comes from someone who already has shown their extreme-rightwing violent processes and second, you certainly represent no significant group or opinion that frankly matters.

In case you missed it, I am explicitly attempting to AVOID a Muslim holocaust.

This in no way changes how both Western political leadership and Islam itself are both hurtling towards the precipice of genocide.

I believe that the elimination of a few thousand Islmaic jihadists could put the brakes on this entire juggernaut. No such thing is happening and that is why I continue to predict a Muslim holocaust.

Just in case my point remains unclear, I DO NOT ADVOCATE GENOCIDE AGAINST MUSLIMS. It is just increasingly clear that the direction our world is heading contains that very bleak prospect.

The other point is your views are already not only exposed for what horror they are, but you have already claimed that no matter what I say that I am committing taqqiya - again a word that is used by extremist clerics and actually mostly on right-wing websites than the average Muslim would know.

Please show exactly where I have "already claimed that no matter what I say that I am committing taqqiya". A direct quote will be required for you to substantiate this otherwise a retraction is in order.

What I did say was:

"You have already demonstrated a pronounced inclination to utilize traditional Islamic deceit in your arguments here."

However, I will at this time invite you to express your own personal views about taqiyya and kitman with respect to their effect upon Muslim credibility in general. I would also be interested seeing you explain exactly how any non-Muslim can accurately determine whether a given Muslim is genuinely sincere about their rejection of taqiyya and kitman.

Honestly, go back to your bomb shelter that you would have built from the invading Reds if you were 50 years older or join the battle against the Huns, Bolshaviks etc.... if you get what I mean.

That you must descend to ridicule and insult goes a long way towards exposing how little actual substance your arguments possess. I am gratified to see that others have also noted this about your behavior.

While simultaneously bristling at any suggestion that you are being less than forthright, you continue to employ misdirection. I find that rather telling.

Free Hal said...

4Symbols,

"It is interesting how Western civilisation is finding it so difficult to deal with Islam, is this a moral blind spot."

If you want to find further fault with western Europe, you can refer to the long history of ethnic and religious persecution. I would say that persecution of the Jews is the best candidate for "moral blind spot".

But I don't think it is helpful to ask which side is to blame. Ethnic killing is awful, whoever the victim. Destructive for the perpetrator also in the long term. The important thing is not to apportion blame in advance, but to prevent it happening.

The problem is that this issue generates so much heat, which clouds the judgment and focuses on who is in the wrong. This does nothing to prevent atrocities, which is why I think it is a good idea to take a step back and think with a cool head.

Best wishes,

Hal

Zenster said...

Free Hal: If say, France made convincing threats wipe out every Brit, my response would be to declare war on France, prevent them from doing so by winning that war, and then dictating terms of peace further such threats.

I like the way you think. Conventional war needs to employed in resolving Islam's dispute with the West.

Sadly, Muslims award themselves the privilege of fighting out of uniform, using non-state actors to attack civilian targets and continuing to pursue WMDs for those purposes.

Due to these rather illegitimate tactics it seems that the West will be required to give Islam a thorough taste of the Total War it continues to clamor for so loudly.

Zenster said...

Solkhar: So what was the point you were trying to make ?.

Exactly how much verbal hair-splitting should be allowed if a rejection of assimilation is used as cover for an outright refusal to integrate?

All through Europe there now exist Muslim enclaves that clearly reject integration in any form. Assimilation does not even enter the equation and Erdogan's pandering to such cultural hostility is impermissible.

Try to remember that posters for Erdogan's speech were not even printed in German and only appeared in Turkish. That alone is rather demonstrative.

Zenster said...

Solkhar: If the real idea or subject here is "getting rid of the Muslims" then I think that is already a dangerous line as it will result in the breaking of morale principles that the West cherishes so much.

I congratulate you on your attempt to milk typical Liberal scaremongering. The Allies got rid of Nazis and Imperialist Japanese without any "breaking of morale principles that the West cherishes so much", and Islam will be dealt with similarly in due time.

Should Muslims desire a better outcome than that promised by the foregoing, then it is in their very best interest to begin policing their ranks of jihadists.

The longer they defer this onerous task, the greater penalty to be paid later on for such lax conduct. It is entirely up to Islam to put a halt to Muslim terrorism. Any continued refusal to do so will only up the eventual butcher's bill.

Zenster said...

4Symbols: Can you answer these questions who invited millions of Islamists into the U.K. and for what reasons.

The most concise explanation I have ever encountered (at another board), describes the individuals you want to identify as:

"Those who seek to create mendicant voter plantations."

4Symbols said...

Thanks Zenster,

That makes perfect sense as an explanation as to what is going on in the U.K.

Chechar said...

“An example of your mentioning what happened under Dynasties (that happen to be Muslim) conquering and demanding whatever - that can be countered with the destruction of civizations in South America by Catholicism under the banner of Spanish Conquests.” - Solkhar

This is a false analogy. Before the Spanish conquests Amerindians violated far more human rights on themselves than after the conquest. And I am not only talking about Mesoamerica, where child sacrifice and cannibalism were legally instituted but of the Inca Empire, and the “Aryan” natives of Canaria islands as well. I have written a lot about it in Spanish and can point out to a couple of links in English if requested.

In a nutshell: thanks to the Spanish conquest natives stopped sacrificing humans to their gods and also gave up their anthropophagic behavior.

Solkhar said...

Zenster,

"You have already demonstrated a pronounced inclination to utilize traditional Islamic deceit in your arguments here."

And what would that be? It should be pointed out that the words taqqiya has been yours all along. I have already explained how the word let alone the concept is not even known amongst all Muslims save some radicals.

I find it very intersting that you can insult me, mostly by blatantly telling me or by third-person to others that I an my fellow Muslim along with my faith is evil, dangerous, attempting world domination and extermination or subjegation of others. But then when I tell you what I think of your postings, you get all upperty and hurt.

The fact remains, your postings are a sham of imaginary boogey-men, a catalog of conspiracies and though I find it almost humerous that such a retentative view actually exists from people with access to facts, that there are people such as yourself who do not bother or want to see them. They would rather have their name up on the net because as psychologists note - some would rather be the harbinger of bad news (if they exist or not) then say nothing.

The problem with such people as yourself, is that the distraction that you create can mildly influence the real need to concentrate on tackling the radical and extremist elements that are a real threat and danger. But no, people like yourself in your desire to be seen as important prefer to have that fail then be not seen as important.

For that reason, your not funny, but a nuisance and a destraction to reality.

Solkhar said...

Chechar,
So let me get this right, it was worth the elimination of entire civilizations, spreading of disease, the forced conversion to Christianity that saved South America from a barbaric state.

Oh, and gold, power, control had nothing to do with it.

The reality is that people are greedy and power hungry and that they will use the name of God or their Gods if it helps or it was the way things were done in that period.

Let us not forget how convenient to count only those done by Muslims in history and forget the rest.

Chechar said...

“Chechar, So let me get this right, it was worth the elimination of entire civilizations, spreading of disease, the forced conversion to Christianity that saved South America from a barbaric state.”

* “worth the elimination of entire civilizations…”

The Aztec theocracy was based upon human sacrifice. You could never go up through the ladder of the Aztec society unless you were directly involved in the killing. And Mesoamerica’s Amerindians were cannibals before the conquest. They even ate children. Yes: it was a great civilization in maths and astronomy and architecture. I myself love the visuals of Tenochtitlan so much that would like to make a film about it. But on human rights issues pre-Columbian civilizations were barbaric. They had to go.

* “spreading of disease…”

What’s this?, taqiyya once more? 16th century Spanish were unaware that they carried viruses about which Europeans were inoculated since the Black Plage of the late 1340s.

* “forced conversion to Christianity…”

The Spanish never used the Inquisition against Amerindians. In the New World the Inquisition was used mainly against the Jews. Like leftists and West haters, I guess you have much influence of what Julián Juderías called the “Black Legend”.

ChrisLA said...

Solkhar

You say, "There are no commands [in the Qur'an] that are in any violation [of International Law] and I repudiate any such claim and question the motives of those that say it."

Well, let's look at the Geneva Convention on Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (12 Aug 1949) and compare it with the Quran:

Article 3.1.b outlaws taking of hostages. See Quran 47:3 -- When you meet the unbelievers in the battlefield strike off their heads and , when you have laid them low, bind your captives fimly. Then grant them their fredom or take ransom from them, until War shall lay down her burdens.

Article 27 Women shall be protected against any attack on their honor, in particular against rape. See Quran 33:50 -- Prophet, We have made lawful to you the wives to whom you have granted dowries and the slave-girls whom God has given you as booty. (Having sex with a captive is rape.)

Article 53 -- Destruction of real and personal property is prohibited except where absolutely necessary by military operations. See Quran 17:16 -- When We resolve to destroy a city, We first give warning to those of its people who live in comfort (i.e., civilians). If they persist in sin, judgement is irrevocably passed, and We raze that city to the ground."

I could go on, but your statement doesn't hold water. My motive is merely to illustrate that Islamic doctrines are a problem, resulting in this whole discussion about rollback. If they cannot be revised, there is no possibility of lasting, non-dhimmi peace between Muslims and non-Muslims.

Robin Shadowes said...

"The most concise explanation I have ever encountered (at another board), describes the individuals you want to identify as:

"Those who seek to create mendicant voter plantations.""

In Sweden we call them vote cattle but I loved your analogy as well. LOL

PRCalDude said...

I find this 'dialogue' with Solkhar to be rather idiotic, to be honest.

Asking him to repudiate anything unpleasant from what is so clear in the Hadith, Qur'an and jurisprudence is like basically asking him to go against his family, his ethnicity, and all of his history.

Sure, both Christian morality and natural law demands that he do it, because murder, rape, lying and theft are clearly sanctioned in various parts of the Qur'an and Hadith, but he's not going to, m'kaaaay?

We should all learn a lesson from him. What is that lesson? Say it with me: "Never apologize, immediately go on the offensive."

Most of us infidels here know the Qur'an and Hadith better than he does. In fact, I know them better than 90% of the Muslims I encounter. But that's not the point. They see everything from the point of view of Arab supremacism and make no apologies for it for the reasons I just outlined. You can try to reason with him until you're blue in the face, but as the Romans said, "There is no arguing with black is white."

laine said...

I'm late to this event but before various utopian schemes, shouldn't we discuss how the West hasn't even used all the tools at its disposal yet and why?

The West has people who earn six and seven figure salaries for flogging a particular brand of cereal. Why are these people not set the task of selling some critical number of Muslims on whatever messages are the most useful to the West?

There was a higher-up Muslim imam who took Bin Ladin himself to task for what he called "anti-Islamic" acts and said he should be ashamed of polluting young Muslims' minds and the death of innocents should weigh heavily on his conscience. I've got the reference somewhere. He spanked him good but that got almost no play whatsoever. That speech from one of their own should have been magnified by western megaphones until it reached even Muslim countries thru Al Jazeera or some such. Other Islamic authorities have disagreed on whether it is allowed or not allowed to attack your host country's citizens.

A clever West would be stirring up as much dissension as it could among Muslims themselves about what their faith commands them to do. The West should present the shabbier aspects matter of factly e.g. "No other immigrant group has come to our countries and attacked us from within. You are different from everyone else and not in a good way. You are disrupting our peaceable kingdoms. Apparently your faith commands you to do this? No? Just a few radicals? Why do we not see thousands of you on the street protesting against the supposed hijacking of your religion? What are we to conclude from this? Are you incapable of controlling these people who move through your mosques? We need to know." etc.

The whole game has to be flipped from playing defense (and appeasement) to playing offense. One doesn't even need to be offensive, just firm e.g." Name one out of 57 Muslim countries that give equal rights to non-Muslims. (Honest answer zero). Why don't you? Inquiring minds want to know before allowing any more mosques in the West. We'd also like to know why none of you have a problem with Muslims killing blacks of all religions including Muslim in Darfur. Why can't the OIC spare a minute to deal with that situation from chewing on Israel's leg?" etc.

laine said...

As to WHY this constant verbal pushback is not done, that is because we've allowed the Left to take over all our large scale organs of communication and flog their agenda which at this point still sees Islamists as a useful battering ram and promotes them through a) multicult and b) PC suppressing dissident voices. Hussein Obama is actually taking it a step further by actively propagandizing the Muslim worldview instead of exposing its lethality for western culture.

Leftists have crazy billionaires (Soros) funding them, billions worth of free media coverage from their over 80% staff infiltrators and finally are shameless in using tax monies for propaganda whenever they get their mitts on the levers of power.

Conservatives have to find ways to counter this behemoth leftist blocker that is letting a really weak quarterback Mo Islam score touchdowns.

On its own, Islam would be nowhere. The Western left is an enabling virus that is carrying the parasite into western DNA and allowing it to replicate uncontrollably. Sure, like the foolish sorceror's apprentice, leftists will drown first in the deluge of their own making, but that's cold comfort to those next in line. We need to throw off the shackles of PC and demonstrate to the non-aligned and even to leftists who are just ignorant instead of actively suicidal that the present course will not end well for any westerner, left or right.

This is the battle that needs to be won, the one of words and ideas with no one killing anyone yet in large numbers.

Whom can conservatives get as credible standard bearers? Are there any Republican senators up to the task? How about "wait a minute minutes" on national TV by avuncular Fred Thompson or other patriots willing to put themselves on the line? Can conservative pundits co-ordinate and prioritize instead of acting like a herd of cats? Where is Republican Big Money the equivalent of Soros? Obama is a disaster. Why not help fund "where's the birth certificate" court challenges?

Loud widely broadcast talk of the right kind is needed and fast.

By the way, if you get a few brave souls leading the way, more and more people will be emboldened to speak up. There's safety in numbers.

Zenster said...

Solkhar: It should be pointed out that the words taqqiya has been yours all along. I have already explained how the word let alone the concept is not even known amongst all Muslims save some radicals.

So, those parts in the Qur'an (as translated by Abdullah Yusuf Ali) regarding:

[3.28] Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah: except by way of precaution, that ye may Guard yourselves from them. But Allah cautions you (To remember) Himself; for the final goal is to Allah.

or,

[16.106] Any one who, after accepting faith in Allah, utters Unbelief,- except under compulsion, his heart remaining firm in Faith - but such as open their breast to Unbelief, on them is Wrath from Allah, and theirs will be a dreadful Penalty.

... has nothing to do with the sanctioned dissembling that so many Muslims demonstrate a fondness for?

Is it at all possible for you to understand how badly your own words compromise what you are seeking to convey?

The Baron has already caught you out repeatedly and thoroughly deconstructed your Islamist propaganda. Yet, somehow, I am supposed to take your criticisms to heart?

You are being given a rather comprehensive and fair hearing here at Gates of Vienna. I have yet to see where you have clearly demonstrated Islam to be of any worth save to those who would decieve and betray followers of other faiths.

Nowhere have you successfully refuted the Baron's allegation that the vast majority of terrorist violence originates with Islam, nor have you shown any plausible rationale for Islam's murderous onslaught against Western civilization.

VH said...

@ Free Hal: Thank you for taking time to answer my questions (sorry for the confusing Hakim Bey link: though almost unreadable, his PAZ-theory is very influential in leftist circles). You are right about that PAZ in Denmark: pull the plug and it comes squeeking to a halt:). Considering this, if you start a Self Government Zone (SGZ), shouldn't you be fully self supporting and capable of a sufficient defense right away? If so, it also should be of considerable size. But even then, I am still a bit pessimistic on the projected response of the environment of Muslims and Gutmenschen...

Solkhar said...

ChrisLA,

I have not time to answer this morning everyone but I will answer you as it is simple, and at least one of Zenster's comments come under the same categorie.

Your quoting the Qur'an of paragraphs of examples of events in the 7th century and claiming that it has some impact on an International Charter for the 20th and 21st centuries - good grief!

Where does it say these are Messages from God? Some crazed extremists perhaps but as I said, no government does and that is why I agree with all 56 OIC nations when they say that nothing in the Qur'an is at odds with international human rights conventions. If you want to play imagination games go ahead but then I suggest you go to a roleplaying or fiction appreciation website and try not to tell a real Muslim that your fantasy world is also mine.

That statement obviously hold true even more so for PRCalDude who thinks he knows more than Muslims, has already assumed too much and certainly has commenced his words already in error as he thinks that Islam and Muslims are only Arabs. Sheesh, guess one is born everyday.

Zenster's assumptions so far have all been way-off-target, dangerous in opinion and somehow he thinks he speaks on behalf of GoV. He again quotes the word taqqiya which as I have pointed out is not used except by theology students and clerics and he falls each time for the propoganda of antiIslamic sites that like to assume that instructions to 7th century Muslims about waging war. Those orderst a that time saying if you are forced to lie during war to survive then it is not going to be considered a betrayal.

Zenster, there has been no catching me out, that is your imagination, I have given the politness back to the Baron as this is his blog and he has given me the hearing and not just erased posts when the arguments given have not forced a concession like others have done.

The entire debate on these blogs is the argument that the cause of terrorism and violence is Islamic or socio-political and that is it. I continue to say and as far as I am concerned have so far proved that it is not Islam (Qur'an) inspired and I consider that the Baron is side-stepping and prodding from different angles each time and has as yet to give a convincing argument and returns to his principle that as long as most violence on this planet is by Muslims it must be.

As for most of the other postings, they are either baseless emotional rantings from those that read to much fiction or agenda based armchair bigots who from a PC think they have the right to tell the rest of the world what to do.

4Symbols said...

This article dismisses two of its main components in its conclusion welfare (burden sharing) and Islam (institution). As any one in the U.K. will know that if any form of burden sharing or institution is going to survive civil strife in the U.K. and emerge intact Islam is the main candidate, mass conversion is the more likely outcome as it will have the monopoly on social stability.

VH said...

@ PRCalDude: "Most of us infidels here know the Qur'an and Hadith better than he [Solkhar] does."

You are absolutely right.

Solhikar is a typical Muslim convert and leftist Wilders and conservatives-hater. As far as I found out, Solhikar is a Dutch convert, 49 years old and married to a Moroccan Muslim. He is at present a terror financing consultant based in Morocco. Before that he has been working ca. 20 years for the Dutch Diplomatic Service. His stand on the Yugoslav war ("It would be a dishonor to all those victims in the Balkan War to give light to the Serbs intentions.") says a lot about both himself as well as that Dutch investigation he claims to have been "involved in". Peculiar also that he doesn't know anything about Dutch Indonesians who integrated successfully in society (and are even categorized as "western" in the statistics). His study at the International School of the FBI College of Virginia seemingly didn't help broaden his views and general knowledge.

What maybe is interesting, is that he himself does not appreciate the very discussion technique he is using here himself. Quote: "when he [another commenter] cannot answer he just starts another subject or when we catch him without a response but is angry" and then the commenter "will accusse us of being the abusive". He also doesn't appreciate when others than himself use terms like "the fact is". Usually he gets away with a little bluff. Not here though.

Solkhar can be quite ruthless in his views by the way. He not just wants AQ to be "hunted down and destroyed," for instance, but adds "totally". (But I agree with him on that, including his addition.) Furthermore: Solkhar the Dutch convert is of the opinion that "The world must unite and be lead by other Muslim countries".

Since he gives the impression to know all on Balkan-issues and finds what happened to the Serbs irrelevant, maybe he should do some thinking on the quotes underneath. On why these respectable gentlemen were so straightforward in their views on Muslims and Islam, in response to what happened in the Balkans:

William Gladstone wrote: "Ottomans (Muslim Turks) are the one great anti-human specimen of humanity".

Gustave Flaubert wrote: "Without doubt due to my old Norman blood, since the war in the Oriënt [Aftermath of the Crimean War: France, England and the Turks together against Russia in a dispute over the Holy Land], I am outraged against England, and outraged about Prussia!* After all, what do they want? Who are they fighting against? That ambition in defence of Islamism (which in itself is a monstrosity) annoys me. I demand, in the name of humanity, that they pulverize the Black Stone, spread its ashes in the wind, that they destroy Mecca, and that they besmear the tomb of Muhammad. This is the least to demoralize that Fanaticism."

[*The British, supported by Prussia, forced Russia to accept a truce offered by the Turks that among others left Constantinople in Turkish hands and the (Orthodox) Christians at their will.]

ChrisLA said...

SOLKHAR calls my views frankly pathetic and providing proof of my lack of knowledge about Islam. He also claims that the 7th Century Quran verses have no relevence in the in the 20th and 21st Centuries. Right.

PRCalDude describes the debates with Solkhar as idiotic because there is no arguing with "black is white."

VH informs us that Solkhar is a Dutch convert and a terrorist financing consultant based in Morocco.

So, why bother to debate with such an obstinate Muslim? 1) While such dialogue will never change the likes of Solkhar, it will inform GoV readers of the fallacies of their arguments and their use of takiyya, kitman, and intimidation to squelch honest debate. 2) With militant Islamists the West faces an existential threat. In 659 Egypt was a predominately Christian nation with 8 million Copts. ("Egypt" is derived from the same root as "Copt".) Just 3,000 Arab Muslims were able to take over the country, and today the Copts are struggling for survival. Lebanon was a predominately Christian nation in the 20th Century. We should never underestimate the Islamic threat because of their being a minority, and so we should never let their deceitful claims go unchallenged. 3) The evil and destructive content of Islamic doctrines are shameful even to Muslims. (That's why they rarely quote the Quran when defending Islam. See ALL of Solkhar's posts.) We must continually shame them into self-reflection on whether the commands of the Quran are truly those of a compassionate God or merely the rants of an evil psychopath.

As I have said before, freedom of speech is our best defence because self-governance will only result in Islamic strongholds inside free societies and rollback will only backfire, as many GoV commenter have pointed out. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

PRCalDude said...

@ChrisLA

2) With militant Islamists the West faces an existential threat. In 659 Egypt was a predominately Christian nation with 8 million Copts. ("Egypt" is derived from the same root as "Copt".) Just 3,000 Arab Muslims were able to take over the country, and today the Copts are struggling for survival. Lebanon was a predominately Christian nation in the 20th Century. We should never underestimate the Islamic threat because of their being a minority, and so we should never let their deceitful claims go unchallenged.

I hate to be a Debbie Downer, but absolutely nothing is going to wake the liberal infidels up. Believe me, I've calmly explained from Islamic source texts over and over again why Christianity is different that Islam, why Islam teaches war on infidels until they submit, why shari'ah law is Bad, etc. They don't care. The best thing for you to do is to prepare for the inevitable.

Sure, this blog is good, but it's for people who've already "gotten it" to network.

Basically, liberal infidels need to be subject to enough violence/harassment from infidels for enough cognitive dissonance to shatter their illusions or they need to simply convert. If the former happens, then they will go looking for answers on their own.

You talk about "shaming" Muslims, but they have no shame. All they have is Arab ethnocentrism. Look at this guy Solkhar - he's a wannabe Arab. He married an Arab and is now setting about remaking the world in an Arab image so that we can all bang our heads for Allah 5 times a day. What on earth gives you the idea that he has any shame? How many Arabs have you actually talked to? They understand one thing - a fist in their faces.

Zenster said...

ChrisLA: So, why bother to debate with such an obstinate Muslim? 1) While such dialogue will never change the likes of Solkhar, it will inform GoV readers of the fallacies of their arguments and their use of takiyya, kitman, and intimidation to squelch honest debate.

I agree and encouraged Solkhar to participate here at Gates of Vienna for much the same reasons. Notice how quickly his own agruments devolved into ridicule and name-calling.

Also note the persistent use of misdirection in avoiding any explanation for why Islam continues to be the source of so much violence around the world.

As a putatively "moderate" Muslim, Solkhar displays many traits of his less moderate co-religionists. The intimidation, airs of superiority and generally dismissive attitude all indicate the usual elitist mentality exhibited by so many Muslims in general.

I also agree with your own analysis of why self-governance will not work. It is just one more less-controlled system for Muslims to weaponize and use against Westerners.

Solkhar said...

VH said "Solhikar is a typical Muslim convert and leftist Wilders and conservatives-hater".

Accepting the name spell error is nothing but I would love to know what he thinks is a typical Muslim Convert?

I actually do like most other converts as they either convert to become extremists or they convert so they can marry a Muslim girl and do not actually follow Islam (and are thus hypocrits).

There are aproximately 120 of us whom follow the same liberal-Qur'anic view which we call ourselves Sinasts. They are mostly academics based in the France, Spain and in the US. The group is named after Ibn Sina who was both a leading world philosopher, intellectual and Islamic thinker (not to mention the father of modern medicine) who rejected anything other than the Qur'an itself as being tainted by man, no matter how good intentioned that person was. The Sinasts have about another 300 members now whom were born Muslim with the two main organizors being professors at Columbia University in the US and the Sorbonne in Paris - that one being a close friend of mine.

I have mentioned on another thread about Indonesians in The Netherlands and how they not only integrated but assimilated which I think is a great shame for them - to lose culture and herritage that way.

All my comments about Serbs in the Balkan Wars were in response to denials from a particular poster whom I think was probably sourcing information from Serb Nationalist sources. All sides in the conflict suffered but it is recognised by the UN and all countries except the Government in Belgrade that the war started because of Serb Nationalism after Croatia and Bosnia wanted to separate. That the majority of war crimes was thiers and the attempt to cause both ethnic cleanising AND genocide was theirs.

My general knowledge is fine and certainly not tainted from extreme-right wing agendas.

Speaking of left/right, VH accuses me of being left wing. If anything I am a swinging centrist and see value in both political leanings. My views about immigration goes against the grain of most left-wingers to a point of bitter argument.

VH's most incorrect so-called quote from me is "The world must unite and be lead by other Muslim countries". The statement is that it is the Muslims themselves that must lead the battle against extremism or it will not work but in addition, it is a global issue and the entire world must support it actively for it to also work.

VH then goes into some rediculous almost emotive argument that it is Ottoman history that is to blame for Serb attrocities, almost to some how justify them - I guess because many of the victims were Muslims. He then cites 18th century opinions about the "Turks" to justify this stance.

Unfortunately for him, I studied modern history and international politics before becoming a diplomat, later a MA under scholarship on decolonization and was posted to Turkey for two very enjoyable years. The most interesting point is of course that Muslims were in the Balkans before the Ottomans, under an Ottoman Pasha, the administrators were locals of any religion and there was no movement of populations. Now the communist Yugoslavia under Tito was another thing, religious belief was forced to a minimum, ethnic groups were split to ensure that there were only Yugoslavs - but the military and Belgrade ensured a Serb leadership - the grounds for the conflict were made. That is it in a nutshell - proven and recorded history. VH either knows this but wishes to deny it or it is he(presume it is a he, sorry if not) that does not their history.

Gustave Flaubert is a favourite of mine, since I speak French as good as Dutch, I read L'Éducation Sentimentale and Madame Bovary when I was at university. That he is a great novelist does not make him an expert on Islam though, but his comments show the way people thought at that time. Also he was the father of modern cynisism and is the one who famously said that happiness only comes from being stupid and selfish along with being healthy enough.

Solkhar said...

ChrisLA continues to the end to use history to support a view that can be thrown back each time. Egypt had Christians before Islam came, it would be easy to throw back items like Al Andalous was Muslim for 800yrs before made by force Catholic or how the initial victims of all Crusades were Jews murdered on mass before the first Muslim was seen.

Interestingly ChrisLA and others instantly claim that I started insults but the very text and points made by him and most were in fact insulting to any Muslim let alone this particular one. Guess they can dish it out but cannot accept it - that was the point of my remarks and the test proved itself time and time again.

ChrisLA also has done the really strange by claiming that I do not use quotes from the Qur'an to defend while others accuse that I raise the subject of the Qur'an this or that to ad-nauseum. The answer to both is more than simple - as Baron agreed that the quoting game goes nowhere and can last for ever and secondly, it is the Qur'an that is attacked by these posters in the first place! You are telling me it is Evil and inspires violence and hatred and I disagree - what do you want to do, talk about something else and avoid the topic? Great tactic!

The subject of rollback that has been raised and mentioned on this thread I consider to be both idiotic in concept and practicality and to go down that path leads undeniably into bigotry and racism.

The unashamed bigot "PRCalDude" said "You talk about "shaming" Muslims, but they have no shame. All they have is Arab ethnocentrism. Look at this guy Solkhar - he's a wannabe Arab. He married an Arab and is now setting about remaking the world in an Arab image so that we can all bang our heads for Allah 5 times a day. What on earth gives you the idea that he has any shame? How many Arabs have you actually talked to? They understand one thing - a fist in their faces."

Apart from not knowing that the bulk of Muslims in the world are not actually Arabs, he has assumed that I wish to be a wannabe Arab. Funny, I am Dutch, always have been, continue to be and very proud of my heritage which goes back hundreds of years in recorded history. I guess he wanted it to be a personal attack but it fails both in facts - like his lack of knowledge about race as well as his use of the word Infidel - obviously from reading to many skewered web-sites.

His assumption that I support world domination does not stick at all, anyone reading my threads or my own blog will know how stupid is such a rediculous pipe dream by those anal-retentive Islamist extremists. Anyone, Muslim or non-Muslim mentioning the word Caliphate and world domination is either an extremist or a fool, anyone.

I ask this particular bigot his own question - "How many Arabs have you actually talked to?". I live in an Arab/Berber country, most if not all but a few radicals would not even know what you were on about.

Chechar said...

“Interestingly ChrisLA and others instantly claim that I started insults but the very text and points made by him and most were in fact insulting to any Muslim let alone this particular one.” - Solkhar

False analogy, again. The reason the other thread in which Solkhar was active has been closed a few hours ago is because, in a post that has been deleted, he used the epithet “scum” referring to another commenter. Until recently, in free societies it used to be legal to call names on Christianity, Judaism, Islam or any other religion; insulting Islam was a mere instance of free speech. For Western civility norms, this is a far cry from insulting the interlocutor. But for the Muslim mentality an insult to his/her religion is, by definition, a personal insult.

Solkhar, honestly: If you were a sitting judge in my country would you refrain from canceling my right to insult your religion (as it has been cancelled now throughout Eurabia)?

laine said...

"Your quoting the Qur'an of paragraphs of examples of events in the 7th century and claiming that it has some impact on an International Charter for the 20th and 21st centuries - good grief!

Where does it say these are Messages from God? Some crazed extremists perhaps but as I said, no government does and that is why I agree with all 56 OIC nations when they say that nothing in the Qur'an is at odds with international human rights conventions. If you want to play imagination games go ahead but then I suggest you go to a roleplaying or fiction appreciation website and try not to tell a real Muslim that your fantasy world is also mine".

Well, someone is living in a fantasy world all right and that would be Solkhar. Apparently he and a couple of hundred other Muslims follow the Al Sina school and on that basis he discounts pretty well everything he disagrees with about Islam using the non-argument that he is the Muslim and therefore must be right.

Well, the other over a billion Muslims don't accept this little cell as representing them. In fact, the views the non-Muslims have been presenting on this thread are sourced from mainstream Muslims and are more representative of them than a single word out of Solkhar's mouth.

And all his words, all his embroideries do not cancel out the DEEDS of Muslims around the world as the Baron has attempted to point out several times.

Why is Solkhar wasting everyone's time here including his own? Why is he not going to Islamic fundamentalist sites of which there is no shortage and arguing his case there where it might do some good? He says he abhors fundamentalists and terrorism so why isn't he arguing with the bombers and their supporters instead of us?

There are only so many hours in the day. Hours spent misrepresenting yourself on infidel sites as representative of Muslims (on the one hand Solkhar claims he doesn't do this, on the other hand he keeps reprimanding posters for daring to argue with him, the resident "real" Muslim) go where you might do some good. Try to subdue your co-religionists who are ignorant of Islam according to you. Enlighten them, not us.

And use the same brilliant techniques demonstrated here, calling them names and belittling them. Call them "crazed extremists" for believing that the Koran is the perfect word of Allah, immutable, or that Islam should reign supreme in the world. That should win a lot of them over to your side. Be sure to give them a lot of identifying information.

To summarize the Solkhar phenomenon:

Muslim A types kill non-Muslims and Muslims alike in large numbers around the world and cite the Koran and hadith as commanding these acts.

Infidels start talking quietly among themselves about what needs to be done to defend against these attacks.

Muslim B types while claiming to be the vast "moderate" majority do not protest against Muslim A. Instead they spend their time trying to convince the infidels that they are over-reacting, ignorant and bigoted for judging Islam poorly on the basis of thousands of hostile acts against all religions in all countries.

Whom is a Muslim B helping?

4Symbols said...

Unconditonal state welfare is christianity's last stand in the U.K. far from being the destroyer of the U.K. as the extreme-right, neo-liberals and socialists charge it with, it is the last standing christian principle in the U.K. and its last hope.

Why do you think they hate it so much.

PRCalDude said...

Apart from not knowing that the bulk of Muslims in the world are not actually Arabs, he has assumed that I wish to be a wannabe Arab.

Oh, oh, gee, really?!? I never knew that most of the Muslims in the world were not actually Arab. You sure got me there...

I never said that they were Arabs, I said that they were wannabe Arabs, as you surely are. Tell me, do you pray towards ARabia five times a day? Is the Qur'an an Arab text? Isn't one of the 5 Islamic pillars the hajj, in which you travel to Arabia and run around an Arab space rock? Don't most Muslims give their kids some variant of an Arab name? Wasn't your prophet an Arab?

His assumption that I support world domination does not stick at all, anyone reading my threads or my own blog will know how stupid is such a rediculous pipe dream by those anal-retentive Islamist extremists.

But I don't care! Why should I believe someone who follows a religion started by a guy who lied to people and killed them later and who, per Surah 3:23, is therefore considered an 'excellent model of conduct'? If you can't understand the law of noncontradiction, why should I care what you've written?

Broadcast into teh intewebz as much as you'd like, I've heard it all before.

Zenster said...

laine: Muslim B types while claiming to be the vast "moderate" majority do not protest against Muslim A. Instead they spend their time trying to convince the infidels that they are over-reacting, ignorant and bigoted for judging Islam poorly on the basis of thousands of hostile acts against all religions in all countries.

Whom is a Muslim B helping?
.

If only through inaction, Muslim B is helping to make sure that a huge number of Muslims in general die for the sins of their so-called extremists.

The Western world will not tolerate these atrocities for much longer. It may as well be guaranteed that some Islamic fanatic will eventually discover the right combination of gross mass murder, priceless landmark and irreplacable national heritage to destroy which will result in the entire MME (Muslim Middle East) paying for that and other terrorist atrocities.

Solkhar may feel free to piddle away the lives of his fellow Muslims here at Gates of Vienna instead of making the courageous stand at Islamic fundamentalist sites required of those who truly care about Islam's survival.

I care enough to continue predicting a Muslim holocaust in the hope that any followers of Islam who read my writings reconsider the horrendous toll that is being rung up in Mohammad's name. Soon enough the bill will come due and payment will not be a pretty thing at all.

Solkhar said...

Laine,

your said "Well, someone is living in a fantasy world all right and that would be Solkhar. Apparently he and a couple of hundred other Muslims follow the Al Sina school and on that basis he discounts pretty well everything he disagrees with about Islam using the non-argument that he is the Muslim and therefore must be right.

Well, the other over a billion Muslims don't accept this little cell as representing them. In fact, the views the non-Muslims have been presenting on this thread are sourced from mainstream Muslims and are more representative of them than a single word out of Solkhar's mouth."

Firstly I think a billion plus Muslims have variety of opinions at a variety of levels and that the numbers that would agree with me more than likely is way more than the numbers that actually would agree with what you say. The reality is that your extremist views is a large minority.

I do discuss the subject on the web and and it is even popular public debate here in Morocco and in neighbouring Tunisia. It is condemned by radicals and here radicals are dispised and if they cross the line into action they are arrested or expelled if they are followers. The last of the foreign Imams are gone and the country sighed collectively, the radical poor that they were prosthelized to has changed and the risk from bombers now comes from Algeria.

Solkhar said...

Chechar asked the question:

"Solkhar, honestly: If you were a sitting judge in my country would you refrain from canceling my right to insult your religion (as it has been cancelled now throughout Eurabia)?"

It raises some interesting questions, amongst most of what Eurabia? Was that some so-called-smart reference to existing governments in Europe being somehow accepted/receptive to Muslim demands? If anything it shows how the extreme-right are presuming they are right and much smarter than democratically elected governments in Europe.

My own view is that if you tell a religious and faithful person that his faith and religion is a pile of dung , evil and dangerous to mankind then it is an insult. Go tell the average American to his face that democracy and the US is evil and they will be insulted.

I am of course saying that as in my case, your postings are insulting, what I am not saying or justifying is violent reaction to insulsts. I appose such violence.

VH said...

Solkhar: "VH's most incorrect so-called quote from me is "The world must unite and be lead by other Muslim countries".

You didn't write "the Muslim counties must unite to battle AQ", but "the whole world". That is my point. And then you want Muslim countries in charge… If Muslims really want to show they are of good will and are Muslims-Light, they should get on the boat right now, and fix it, instead of the infidels doing it for them. I think you will agree to that. And when the Infidels get in, they should make them regret they didn't do that. But that is a private opinion.

"VH then goes into some rediculous almost emotive argument that it is Ottoman history that is to blame for Serb attrocities […] He then cites 18th century opinions about the "Turks" to justify this stance."

Dear "Solkhar", the Crimean War was not in the 18th, but in the 19th century. The aftermath actually was the prelude for WWI, and the Ottoman atrocities as Gladstone describes (did you read his well written report that I linked there for you?: not much has been learned from it) and all misery and bloodshed before and after (ever heard of the genocide by the Ustasha? That Izetbegovic was a Waffen SS recruiter?), all that adds to what happened in the 90's and later. I just read a comment by Homophobic Horse who provides an excellent link to an article by Bat Ye'or on this.

"Unfortunately for him [VH], I studied modern history […] and was posted to Turkey for two very enjoyable years."

I know where you have been stationed in the past, but "modern proven and recorded" history doesn't start at zero on May 4, 1980, nor in 1991 or so. A lot happened before that. "VH either knows this"… Indeed I know that, but its not the full story, and that was my point. Again: please read the links provided.

"That he is a great novelist does not make him an expert on Islam though […] but his comments show the way people thought at that time."

Good to hear you have read Flaubert! Then you know he traveled the Orient, and also know you can not just brush his writings away as being just cynical. Furthermore: his "comment" that I provided you, including some footnotes, still didn't outdate. That should make you think.

Solkhar said...

VH, his fame is for being a great novelist, not historian or sociologist. His reputation for cynisism is as great and his commentary on society was through that very cynisism.

The Bat Ye'or article is, if you read it, a grouping of opinions of people of that time and not a historical study of actual effects. Also, it does not reflect anywhere which was the point that you were somehow justifying the Ottomans for being responsible for modern day Serb nationalist attrocities or the actual cause of the conflict itself. You have erred I think as much as I missed the key when hitting 18 instead of 19th century - that scholar have clearly identified the Communist period and its moving of communities to be the cause that had Croats and Bosnians wishing to leave Yugoslavia and it also raised the ugly head of Serbian Nationalism.

Sean O'Brian said...

Since Solkhar mentioned Tunisia, here is an interesting article that was published in Vanity Fair in 2007 that is worth reading:

At the Desert's Edge by Christopher Hitchens

Where Africa faces Europe, on the ruins of Carthage's mighty civilization, Tunisia is holding fast against encroaching desert—and fundamentalism's arid tyranny. Five years after a brutal al-Qaeda bombing, the author explores the pressure points in one of the continent's most successful countries.

VH said...

@ Sean O'Brian: Thank you for the link to that very interesting article. "Tunisia is menaced by the harsh extremists of a desert religion, and ultimately by the desert itself."
Well said by Christopher Hitchens.

@ Robert Bosscher (also known as Solkhar): I missed the key when hitting 18 instead of 19th century…

Haha… No you didn't Bosscher. Otherwise you would have corrected it (as you did elsewhere sometimes trying to get away with your "mistakes"). Other mistakes, like the ones on Serbia, etc., have been dealt with in the comments above, no need to repeat that.

Solkhar said...

I have to ask why you keep on calling me after Robert Bosscher?

Presuming your talking about Ambassador Basscher whom I know very well, I am honored to be confused as being him but I am not and though Robert respects Islam and understands the issues well enough, he certainly is not Muslim.

As far as I understand it the Jazz Musician Robert Bosscher is also not a Muslim.

VH said...

I very well know you are not the jazz musician in the family.

rebelliousvanilla said...

I really don't get why genocide is morally wrong. If I have to choose in between the genocide of my people and of any other people on Earth, I will choose the other people every single time. And ethnic cleansing isn't even that bad and it was done throughout history countless times. Heck, I'm ok with ethnic cleansing just to remove a criminal group out of the area where I live in. We need to learn something from the Afghans and that thing is - me against my brother, me and my brother against my cousins, me, my brother and our cousins against the world. Screw egalitarian universalism and non-discrimination.

But we could solve the Islam problem a lot easier. Ban the building of mosques, the teaching of Islam in schools, halal food in schools, the burka, ban Muslims from political decisions, including voting and make it unpleasant for them to stay.

rebelliousvanilla said...

Oh, and I forgot to add something. Nobody will fight for "Western civilization". I won't and I could care the less about what will happen in Europe in 200 years if it won't be inhabited by Europeans. But people will fight for THEIR OWN people and sane people will do it regardless of how some arbitrary set morality says. Murder might be immoral, but if someone kills my child, he won't survive more than a couple of days after doing it. Same with populations.

Oh, and back before when Europe was homogeneous, the public choices were similar to private ones since most people agreed. Since Europe was destroyed in an illegitimate way, I don't see why I should care about the people who got here illegitimately. The problem is too much atomization of society, not too little of it. As I said before though, the values of European civilization are irrelevant. The survival of European people is relevant. I will answer the comments later on.

To make a summation, the blog post suggests complete ethnic division to solve ethnic division. That's like those men who fight against feminism by wanting paternity leave and being as equal as the feminists, instead of wanting to rollback the insanity. If these are the solutions because people are unwilling to fight, then good riddance Europeans and European civilization because neither of you are worth saving.

Chechar said...

RV,

You have touched thorny subjects that presently writers only dare to touch in novels (e.g., Harold Covington, the author of the Northwest Quartet and William Pierce, author of The Turner Diaries). Unlike these works of fiction, in my fifth and last book of the Whispering Leaves series I approach this subject from the very different POV of a hellish spiritual odyssey in the real world: too unusual a subject to comment at the boards.

rebelliousvanilla said...

Chechar, you don't need fascist states. You just need to get back to the proper way of giving citizenship that Europe had prior to the 19th century. You can just strip all dual citizens of their European citizenship and give them a couple of years to leave Europe and from then on them staying would be a felony. You can do a lot of things to get rid of the problem easily and effectively if you're having some cojones. Do away with welfare for non-citizens too and so on.

Free Hal, you don't need to move them yourself. You can make them leave by their own accord. This is what you people don't get. If you make them uncomfortable enough here, they will simply leave. Also, WW1 wouldn't have been that bad without the US getting into it. We would have had only some little border movement with no super harsh sanctions and all the things that led to WW2. Also, I'm curious what you consider as too violent. And by the way, doing away with the welfare that Muslims get and forcing them to integrate would lead to similar responses in terms of violence as outright forcing them to leave.

R Hartman, people will behave in violent ways if they will be made uncomfortable because Europeans have been spineless for over half a century and nobody believes they will get violent. If you put in the back of the heads of to be deported that things will get uglier for them if they get violent, they won't. But you need to do away with the incremental stupid thing of doing things since this will just escalate things. If they get violent, give them whatever you have.

Arius, ethnic cleansing and genocide are ok as long as the right people do it. I'm amazed that people never seem to realize this. This is why you won't find tribunals for the war crimes committed by the US or USSR in Germany, for example.

Federale, I agree. I think we should do away with spousal immigration. If you want to marry someone from overseas, have them immigrate and marry them afterwards.

Solkhar, the principles that the West cherishes now. It's not much of a problem if you consider the principles of the West in all its history except the last 150-200 years.

rebelliousvanilla said...

Free Hal, why is genocide of another group ok if their number is similar to my group? It's ok as long as it saves my group, regardless of numbers. If I had to choose in between the death of all non-Europeans on Earth and the death of Europeans of my age group alone, I'd choose the former any time of the day. Oh, and if the current situation continues, will Europeans still exist in 300 years? The answer is quite obvious and that is no. Actually, no group that shared its land with other groups, especially Muslims, still exists as a relevant thing in the world.

DP111, they can't be removed because you don't want to redefine what being British means. If being British means being ethnic British, you can remove anybody you want.

Profitsbeard, why should Muslims be citizens to begin with? Strip all Muslims with citizens of their European citizenship and cut benefits to all non-citizens? Oh, and besides the death penalty for terrorism, you can put the death penalty for a lot more things. And you can double the penalties for inter-ethnic crimes. There are a lot of ways in which you can deal with the problem.

Solkhar, a nation isn't a corporation that you join based on a contract. You join it only by blood. For example, I want to emigrate from my home country. Doing this would mean that when I will get the citizenship of my new country, I will adopt their language, culture and all that, including change my name into one of their names and marry some of their own.

4Symbols, stop rambling about welfare. Subsistence means not starving to death. People that afford air conditioning, a car, having children and all that aren't on subsistence level, they're doing quite well. And Free Hal is right - in a democratic society, importing people is a great thing to do as a politician, just like implementing welfare.

Hartman, I don't see living in an anarcho-capitalist system because most people are too stupid to do it, it doesn't work in any place that needs public goods(and I mean real public goods, not healthcare), which can't really be provided by the market and a billion of other reasons. Heck, people are stupid enough to invest in fancy derivatives they don't understand or deposit their money in risky banks since they can't figure risk out. It's impossible to make a society that is the way you make it to be. It's a similar utopia to communism.

Where Hal is absolutely spot on is that yes, we don't need a Pinochet to do away with welfare. The Club Med, France, the UK, most of Eastern Europe are bankrupt. Anybody with common sense in macroeconomics knows this. Heck, check the balance of payments of these countries. Where you are wrong Hal is that you think a Muslim matters to me as much as an European. Marginal utiliy? They're not equal. I might put worth on an European life as much as on 10 million Muslims. Then what?

Solkhar, apostasy creates social dysfunction in the same way in which Muslims existing in Europe does. Why is the former bad and the latter not?

rebelliousvanilla said...

Hal, the way it goes is that Swedes own Sweden, for example. This means that ethnic Swedes can ban Islam in Sweden. The proper way of citizenship that was in Europe in place goes along that way.

Solkhar, why should I accept unassimilated people in my country? The only way I'd see that work is if I rule over them. Not assimilating and moving to a country, while desiring to become the majority of that country is pretty fishy.