Oh, we’ve got great weapons, and our war-fighting capabilities have no historical precedent. But this technical and military superiority only serves to highlight the abject failure of our political and cultural defenses.For the last eight years, even as we waged magnificently successful military campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq, we have been surrendering piecemeal to our future Islamic masters. Somehow, despite all our firepower, the nations of the West are drifting a little further every year into the rule of Islamic law.
Don’t believe me? Consider some of the bellwethers.
We expended blood and treasure to defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan, and now, according to The New York Times, the Taliban are being invited back into polite society:
KABUL, Afghanistan — The leader of the United Nations mission here called on Afghan officials to seek the removal of at least some senior Taliban leaders from the United Nations’ list of terrorists, as a first step toward opening direct negotiations with the insurgent group.
In an interview, Kai Eide, the United Nations special representative, also implored the American military to speed its review of the roughly 750 detainees in its military prisons here — another principal grievance of Taliban leaders. Until recently, the Americans were holding those prisoners at a makeshift detention center at Bagram Air Base and refusing to release their names.
Together, Mr. Eide said he hoped that the two steps would eventually open the way to face-to-face talks between Afghan officials and Taliban leaders, many of whom are hiding in Pakistan. The two sides have been at an impasse for years over almost every fundamental issue, including the issue of talking itself.
This is what we spent billions of dollars and thousands of lives to achieve?
To make matters worse, since gaining our “victories” in Afghanistan and Iraq, we have eagerly enshrined sharia law in the Afghan and Iraqi constitutions. Oh, yes, the documents are prettied up with all the fine-sounding rights that we would like them to confirm. But both constitutions clearly state that nothing in them may be construed as going against Islamic law.
The most brutal and degrading legal system ever codified was written into those constitutions — by us.
Things weren’t always this bad. Back before 9-11, after the first World Trade Center attack, the Khobar Towers bombing, and the attack on the Cole, the nature of radical Islam was still widely discussed in the media. For a year or two after 9-11, “Islamic terrorism”, “Islamofascism”, and other terms identifying the nature of our enemy were still permitted. Our political and military leaders could still refer — albeit timidly — to “the threat posed by radical Islam”.
But no more. Now we have “violent extremism”, or, grotesquely, “acts that are contrary to Islam”. The Fort Hood report fails even to mention the “I” word. A troubled childhood, social isolation, too high a concentration of PCBs in the environment — anything but Islam is put forward as the cause of terrorist behavior.
The danger posed by Islam — which is a violent, insidious, and deadly political ideology — no longer exists in the public lexicon.
We have been silenced, and we did it to ourselves. No conquering army occupied our capitals to censor our discourse. It was our own doing.
We have denied ourselves the vocabulary to describe the enemy we face.
Before 9-11 an Islamic terrorist might make an occasional appearance as a villain in a movie. But now the fictional terrorists are all neo-Nazis, and any cinematic religious violence is generally restricted to fundamentalist Christians. By common consensus, depictions of Muslims in our popular culture have been sanitized.
And consider our wider cultural self-Islamization. The removal of piggy banks. The deference to Islamic customs during Ramadan. Halal meals in schools, even for non-Muslims. The suddenly-discovered obligation to avoid any and all depictions of Mohammed. The emergence of “Islamic finance”, which was all but unheard of ten years ago.
The most glaring examples of our surrender may be found in the criminalization of speech that criticizes Islam. In the years since 9-11, Europe, Canada, and Australia have seen an explosion of prosecutions for various forms of hate speech and “discrimination” against Muslims. The United States has recently lurched in the same direction with its newest federal “hate crimes” law.
Our ongoing defeat is underlined by the increasingly bold behavior of the Organization of the Islamic Conference. The OIC is an umbrella organization of fifty-seven Muslim countries (sometimes reported as fifty-six), and is the second-largest supranational group after the United Nations. It purports to represent the entire Islamic world, and styles itself as the Ummah, the collective of all those who worship Allah, follow Mohammed, and revere the Koran.
Up until the 1920s, when the institution was officially abolished by Kemal Ataturk, the Caliphate was the political entity that represented the Ummah. It was ruled by a single leader, the Khalifa, who answered solely to Allah. Mohammed’s leadership at the birth of Islam in the 7th century was succeeded by the four “Rightly-Guided Caliphs”, and after that the institution passed by bloody struggle through various dynastic groups until it finally ended up in the hands of the Ottoman conquerors of Anatolia and the Middle East. At its height under the Ottomans, the Caliphate encompassed the Arabian Peninsula, North Africa, Asia Minor, Persia, the Caucasus, and large chunks of Europe, Central Asia, South Asia, the Indian subcontinent, and the archipelagoes of the Indian Ocean.
During those heady days, the glory of the Ottomans was the glory of Islam. The plunder and slaves flowed into the imperial center from the infidels on the bloody borders. The mosques and minarets rose over the landscape, and the Sultan ruled it all from Istanbul as the Caliph. The Ummah and the Ottoman Empire and the Caliphate were one and the same thing. Until they were turned back at the gates of Vienna in 1683, devout Muslims had every reason to believe that they were on their way to achieving Mohammed’s dream: a worldwide Caliphate in which every human being bowed to Allah and recognized Mohammed as the Prophet of Allah.When the ascendancy of Europe began and Russia emerged from the yoke of the Tatars, the Ottoman Empire began to crumble. Bits and pieces of it dropped off as the superior technology and organizing skills of the Europeans took their toll. With the advent of the colonial era in the 19th century and the expansion of the European powers into Africa and Asia, the Ottoman dominions were further reduced, and Turkey became the “sick man of Europe”. From then on the power of the Turks steadily declined, and it was only the machinations of the British Empire — determined to contain the power of the Czar — which kept the Ottomans on life support into the 20th century.
The Great War gave the coup de grace to the Caliphate, which came to a formal end in 1924. But the Muslim world never forgot it, because the mandate for the Caliphate’s existence is fixed in the holiest scriptures of Islam. Every devout Islamic scholar dreams of the return of the Caliph.
Which brings us back to the OIC. Since the speakers at OIC events often refer to those assembled as “the Ummah”, what about the Caliphate? Might there be a nascent Caliphate in the current makeup of the OIC?
The OIC is certainly flexing its political muscles. It has devised a ten-year plan for fighting “Islamophobia” and intends to use the United Nations — in which it is the single largest bloc — to implement a ban on the “defamation” of Islam. The progress of this ten-year plan will be monitored by the OIC’s “Islamophobia Observatory”.
And now the outlines of a political structure within the OIC are beginning to emerge. According to the OIC website:
Ihsanoglu Calls for the Establishment of the OIC Peace and Security Council- - - - - - - - -The Secretary General of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), Professor Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, called the Member States to establish a department for peace and security within the OIC General Secretariat, an OIC Peace and Security Council and to activate the Islamic Court of Justice for the resolution of conflicts among Islamic countries.
He also called for the setting up of a collective mechanism with the objective of protecting and maintaining Member States’ collective peace.
Ihsanoglu expressed his regret that the Muslim world’s region is most besieged by conflict and instability. He stated that despite such a situation, there still is no collective outfit dedicated to the resolution of conflicts or the preservation of security and stability in the Muslim world, which has allowed others from outside the region to intervene to fill that gap according to their self-interests. He insisted, at the same time, on the need to set right for the Islamic world to take things in hand and be the main responsible for the resolution of its conflicts and the preservation of its security and stability.
Ihsanoglu said that the OIC General Secretariat, inspired by the stipulations of the OIC Charter and the Ten-Year Programme of Action, has made a number of important preemptive initiatives aimed at ensuring reconciliation and resolving and managing conflicts among OIC Member States. He also expressed his conviction that conflict prevention and peace-building require proper handling and management of the roots of the conflicts, not simply offering temporary tranquilizers which do not hold sway in the face of persistent differences. In this regard, he stated that OIC’s approach has been rooted in the in-depth management of internal conflicts and the resolution of these underpinning causes which manifest themselves in different forms such as political grievances, social injustice, economic lag and absence of good governance.
Such were the remarks of the Secretary General in his address to the Meeting of the Intergovernmental Group of Experts on the future role of the OIC in the maintenance of security, peace-keeping and conflict resolution in the Member States, held at the OIC headquarters in Jeddah on 23-24 January 2010.
[…]
Ihsanoglu added that the OIC General Secretariat has been, and still is, an active mediator in various conflicts such as in Palestine and Iraq, the issue of Sothern [sic] Philippines, Thailand, and Jammu and Kashmir, having designated special representatives for the Secretary General to follow up these conflicts at close quarters and in an effective and direct manner. He emphasized that OIC’s interest in the subject of collective peace and security is not a matter of mere intellectual luxury. It is rather deeply anchored in the social and political reality in Islamic world states, calling for the use of all possible means to firmly manage conflicts and crises and to preserve peace and security.
[…]
Ihsanoglu concluded his speech by calling for the organization of an Explorative Forum to be comprised of international authoritative experts and Muslim learned figures to examine the OIC’s prospective role in the area of peace and security preservation, and invited the delegates of the Member States to offer insights in this sphere in preparation for a comprehensive report to be submitted to the Council of Foreign Ministers.
You’ll notice that Turkey plays a very large role in the OIC. Secretary General Ihsanoglu is Turkish, and many of the most important OIC confabs are hosted and mediated by Turkey.
Turkey obviously sees itself as the rightful source of any emerging Caliphate, and its entrance into the EU is of paramount importance for the re-incorporation of Europe into the Ummah. The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe has even elected its first Turkish President:
(ANSAmed) — STRASBOURG — Mevlut Cavusoglu was elected President of the Parliamentary Assembly at the Council of Europe today. He is the first Turkish member to take the position since Turkey became a member of the pan-European organisation in 1949. “I am the first President of the Parliamentary Assembly born east of Vienna. For the last 60 years the Presidents have come from just ten countries,” Cavusoglu said, during his first meeting with the press as new President of the Assembly.
Mevlut Cavusoglu says that his presidency “will help Turkey to reach European standards and gain access to the European Union”. In this matter Cavusoglu stressed that “Turkey has done a lot, but not all that it needs to, but also pointed out that the European Union should encourage the process and not set up barriers”. Asked what advice he would give Ankara to facilitate the membership procedure for the EU, Cavusoglu replied that the current Constitution is one of the obstacles.
The current Constitution is an “obstacle” — it can’t get much more overt than that, can it?
So we Westerners are gradually being Islamized, sliding imperceptibly closer every year to the rule of Islamic law. What will it be like for us when we get there? For those who decide to convert — or “revert” — to Islam, it will be no problem (at least for the men). Show up at the mosque for prayers, give up pork and beer (at least where anyone can see you) , marry your four wives, and remember which hand to wipe yourself with — that’s about it.
For those who decline to be Muslims, a life of dhimmitude awaits. If you are lucky, your status under the new regime will be graciously tolerated, as long as you behave yourself and pay the poll tax. FACT International describes the conditions enjoyed by infidels in Morocco, which is probably about the best you can hope for:
Non-Muslims Enjoy Religious Freedom in Morocco
Government protects rights of religious minorities within tolerant Morocco’s borders.
Many people wonder what relevance shari’a — Islamic principles — has in the modern world. In Morocco it has influenced national laws, especially the civil code and family law, primarily in a positive sense. Coupled with the country’s tradition of tolerance and openness, this has provided the Moroccan government with a foundation for protecting the rights of religious minorities within its borders.
[…]
The law protects these religious spaces from violence. Most importantly, laws allowing freedom of expression and assembly, as well as the ability to worship both privately and publicly, are clearly stated in the Constitution and the Penal Code, both of which were written shortly after Morocco’s independence in 1956.
Morocco’s approximately 3,000 Shi’ites generally assemble freely, and have established organisations like the Organisation of Moroccan Shi’ites, Attawassoul Association in the city of al Housseima, Al Inbiaat Association in Tangier, and Al Ghadir Association in Meknes. Nor have they experienced any problems with holding their rituals publicly.
And for many years, Jews have been practicing their faith safely in synagogues and during regular pilgrimages to local Jewish saints’ shrines all over Morocco. The Christian community has established churches, schools, hospitals and orphanages without interference from the government.
The Catholic Archbishop of Rabat, Vincent Landel, says: “Muslims and Christians coexist and live in peace and fraternity.”
Although active proselytising to Muslims is illegal — a law based on Islamic principles — Archbishop Landel notes that Christians in the country can practice their faith freely. Furthermore, interfaith marriage is allowed, though only for Muslim men: Muslim women’s future spouses are expected to convert to Islam before marriage.
The government tries to maintain and promote positive attitudes regarding religious freedom. It is this peaceful co-existence between religious communities that Morocco hopes to perpetuate in order to be a positive example to the rest of the Muslim world. [emphasis added]
This is what lies in store for formerly infidel countries that move under the Islamic umbrella. The government tries to keep Muslims from doing anything bad to non-Muslims. Non-Muslims are not allowed to try to convert Muslims. And men may not marry into a Muslim family without conversion.
The Moroccan branch of the Ummah is what passes for tolerance in Islam, and it really is the best you can hope for, because it is not mandated by Islamic law. Such beneficent conditions depend entirely on the humane whim of the prince, king, sultan, or emir of the Islamic state in question.
Or the Caliph. Keep an eye on the OIC, because the Secretary General of the OIC is the proto-Caliph. Watch those “collective mechanisms” for protecting peace and security and managing conflict among the member states. It will be interesting to see what they morph into over the next five or ten years.
Previous posts about Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu and the OIC:
Hat tips: TB, KGS, Insubria, and TV.
18 comments:
It is impossible to win within the framework of the "exporting democracy and freedom" paradigm. We need an entirely new paradigm which says that Islam has no place in any European or Western country and should be forcibly expelled if necessary. Only then can we prevail. Which is incidentally what we here have been saying for years. Sadly, the entire crop of Western leaders must be replaced for that to happen.
The West is dying, and the rise of the Antichrist is obvious for all to see.
All the ugliness in the Jewish tradition which the Son of God specifically repudiated as having never been an eternal truth to begin with, is embraced and expanded upon in Islam. Everything from Holy Wars, to the denigration of unbelievers, to slavish adherance to brutal religious codes are exalted and made into a universal religion. As such, Islam is the great shadow of Christ's influence on earth, the AntiChrist, which we Christians were warned of many years ago.
It seems that a violent collapse of Pax Americana will soon be upon us, complete with wars and famines. And in the end, people will turn to Islam in the hopes of global peace, unity, and prosperity -the last great blasphemy before the end of time.
Happy New Year everyone!
A precursor to the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution was the Virginia Declaration of Rights, whose 16th Article was a precursor to the freedom of religion clause of the former's First Amendment. James Madison is known to be the author of the 16th Article, which reads:
“That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason or conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity toward each other.”
This final version adopted by the Virginia convention in 1776, however, was not Madison’s original draft of the article concerning religion. That, numbered 18 and collected in the Library of America edition of his writings, reads:
“That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore, that all men are equally entitled to enjoy the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience, unpunished and unrestrained by the magistrate, Unless the preservation of equal liberty and the existence of the State are manifestly endangered; And that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other.”
The redaction of the italicized words, and the subsequent omission of any similar qualifier from the First Amendment, have doubtless forestalled much mischief throughout the history of the republic. But today, “the preservation of equal liberty” is manifestly endangered by the free exercise of a religion -- to wit, Islam -- and serious thought should be given to restoring Madison's original text in a new amendment, that the menace posed by a totalitarian religious ideology might in due course be countervailed without caviling from the courts.
To make matters worse, since gaining our “victories” in Afghanistan and Iraq, we have eagerly enshrined sharia law in the Afghan and Iraqi constitutions.
If there is one single "war crime" that Bush, or any American politicians, should be charged with, it is allowing the exapansion of shari'a law in the MME (Muslim Middle East).
Fjordman: It is impossible to win within the framework of the "exporting democracy and freedom" paradigm.
Which is why the era of nation-building is over for once and all time. At least with respect to the MME. Afghanistan and Iraq should have been placed under a benevolent but strict military dictatorships with rigidly enforced curfews, summary execution for any insurgency and the prohibition of all shari'a based practices.
Instead, Afghanistan and Iraq are resurgent Muslim theocracies that will revert to becoming terrorist manufactories the instant military pressure is removed from their political landscapes.
[From the article]: Ihsanoglu expressed his regret that the Muslim world’s region is most besieged by conflict and instability. He stated that despite such a situation, there still is no collective outfit dedicated to the resolution of conflicts or the preservation of security and stability in the Muslim world, which has allowed others from outside the region to intervene to fill that gap according to their self-interests.
Perish the thought that this might be a direct result of the complete and total incompetence of Muslim political leadership to do much more than line their pockets and settle age old blood feuds over whose twice-removed granduncle cheated in a rigged camel race several centuries ago.
In this regard, he stated that OIC’s approach has been rooted in the in-depth management of internal conflicts and the resolution of these underpinning causes which manifest themselves in different forms such as political grievances, social injustice, economic lag and absence of good governance.
The terms "OIC" and "good governance" do not belong in the same sentence. Islam's only form of "in-depth management" for conflicts is GENOCIDE and nothing else.
Ihsanoglu added that the OIC General Secretariat has been, and still is, an active mediator in various conflicts such as in Palestine and Iraq, the issue of Sothern [sic] Philippines, Thailand, and Jammu and Kashmir ...
All of which, in typical Muslim fashion, are intractable and ongoing bloodbaths that present no likelihood of imminent resolution.
Re Fjordman’s comment:
We need an entirely new paradigm (---) Sadly, the entire crop of Western leaders must be replaced for that to happen.
This can never happen except after a sequence of:
(1) A military coup d’etat.
Followed, after an interval of a few years, by:
(2) Re-establishment of an elective junta style parliamentary system little different from the previous disaster.
Followed by a parliament full of the same type of person – brain dead ideologists and magical thinkers – that infest the parliaments of every single elective junta, bar none, on this planet.
A new paradigm cannot be conceived until the transparent lie that elective juntas are democracies and represent the will of the people is recognised for the fraud that it is.
Perhaps following a future military coup the leaders might consider copying something from the constitution of Solon. Perhaps a twenty member Areopagus, ten men and ten women, chosen by lot DEFINITELY NOT ELECTED from the electoral roll, to serve, with a Premier’s pay, for one month only, with the absolute power to dismiss, demote or fine politicians, judges and bureaucrats for abuse of power or failure and refusal to carry out duties as required under the law for anyone who is on a government payroll.
So if, for example, a judge approves a twelve month adjournment in a case where the Immigration Department wants to expel a terrorist from the country, the Areopagus would have a tyrant’s power to overturn such a ruling and dismiss the judge from office.
You’ll notice that Turkey plays a very large role in the OIC. Secretary General Ihsanoglu is Turkish, and many of the most important OIC confabs are hosted and mediated by Turkey.
Even as the EU's Mandarins debate the accession of this Islamic cesspit into their midst.
The current Constitution is an “obstacle” — it can’t get much more overt than that, can it?
I don't know. Flying fully loaded passenger jet airliners into occupied skyscrapers seems a tad bit more "overt" to me. Just saying.
Islam will NEVER be a united front or force. It has too many internal schisms. Moreover, by its own lights, it is steering itself straight towards a Muslim holocaust. Whether it is the West, the Far East, the Subcontinent, Israel or Russia, one of these nuclear armed entities will not tolerate Islam's persistent predations. Their approach will be to simply glass and Windex™ the entire MME at the first sign of real trouble and have done with it.
The timeline for this is far shorter than the several decades required for Islam to obtain a sizeable nuclear arsenal. What's more, even with such an armory, there is the equal chance Muslims will turn those weapons upon each other as they have through time immemorial.
As Wretchard noted in his "Three Conjectures":
Even if the President decided to let all Americans die to expiate their historical guilt, why would Islamic terrorists stop after that? They would move on to Europe and Asia until finally China, Russia, Japan, India or Israel, none of them squeamish, wrote -1 x 10^9 in the final right hand column. They too would be prisoners of the same dynamic, and they too have weapons of mass destruction.
Even if Islam killed every non-Muslim on earth they would almost certainly continue to kill each other with their new-found weaponry. Revenge bombings between rival groups and wars between different Islamic factions are the recurring theme of history. Long before 3,000 New Yorkers died on September 11, Iraq and Iran killed 500,000 Muslims between them. The greatest threat to Muslims is radical Islam; and the greatest threat of all is a radical Islam armed with weapons of mass destruction. [Emphasis added]
The best thing that cold
happen would be for Islam
to wipe itself out. The
internal workings of
Islam will never allow
it to be at peace within
itself,or with the
numerous warring
factions that are the
jumbled global mass of
Islam. Numerous points
have been raised by
previous commenters.
All of them vaild,
the west's reality.
It is just a matter of time
before some other power gets fed
up and just turns the Islamic
world into numerous parking lots.
Until this happens we will slowly
bleed by a thousand small wounds.
That we are so deaf, dumb and
blind is very sad to witness and
live through. We truly do have
scales over our eyes.
Baron,
Forgot to include what an
excellent article this is.
Cross posted to my blog.
For more reading that ties in
very well with Baron has
written, you may want to check
this out at SIOA:
Stop Islamization of America
Constitutionalism in Crisis: Afghanistan, Iraq, and Japan
http://sioanetwork.com/?p=647
The Brits withstood the Blitz and avoided Hitler's invasion force but I guess the colonization of Europe is beginning to reach it's zenith with the Islamic Invasion.
Want to find out?
Just try posting an anti-islamic comment on the Rants and Raves section of Craigslist. You might even try to say that Sharia is all bulls**t or to crack down on Muslim immigrant collection of public benefits or something similar.
Your comment will be pulled within 30 minutes or so. It is closely monitored.
Seems we don't want any riots or bombings over there so we must limit speech.
We here in the USA kinda wish free thinking Brits should migrate to our shores for a final stand. The rest of Europe is dhimmi. Count out Toronto and Canada. They will submit soon enough.
Go ahead, try to post something on Craigslist; something that would never be yanked in the US.
First of all, what a great text Baron! Superb!
"But now the fictional terrorists are all neo-Nazis, and any cinematic religious violence is generally restricted to fundamentalist Christians. By common consensus, depictions of Muslims in our popular culture have been sanitized."
I actually do not agree with this. I think we have more and more a muslim as the bad guy or the guy who should be made fun of. And it is rather good. But maybe this is just because we have been flooded with African muslims recently.
On the other hand, what sucks is that more and more it is fashionable to be a muslim and to enjoy muslim things. And this is worldwide. We should combat this.
Anyway, I not only think we increasingly see muslims as not good because of my National / Regional experiences, but because I see it in the media.
For instance, recently I saw a filme in which an American hero saved is daughter. From who? A net of Albanians who kidnapped young European women, mainly Americans and Northern Europeans, who were in vacation in Paris and offered them to Arabs and prostitution. It was not from Holywood but it was not a local production also. In "funny shows", weather American or European, it is increasingly common to see the muslim as the deranged guy we are invited to take a laugh of.
That's my opinion.
Regarding the Caliphate: LET IT COME! YES, LET THE CALIPHATE COME! IT WILL BE BETTER FOR EVERYONE. Not only will the muslims stabilise themselves (so that I may visit Morocco) but we, Europeans will know we have a real threat. We would act in a more right manner. And, for instance, we'd cease to attack Russia and find how much we have in common with them.
If the muslims want their caliphate: Let it come, it will be better for us and the muslims will have what they want.
WHAT WORRIES ME IS THE EUROPEAN CALIPHATES WE ARE BUILDING (THE EU, THE ONU, NATO, ETC). Those are the Caliphates that really threaten us. And we are also creating them by our own.
P.S. - TURKEY OUT OF EUROPE! LET'S NOT PERMIT TURKEY TO JOIN THIS PHONY UNION!
WITH A PEN, YOU CAN RISK TURKEY OFF THE MAP OF EUROPE ON YOUR EURON NOTES AND MAKE THAT NO TO TURKEY CASH CIRCULATE FREELY!
In the middle ages a certain paradigm was discovered. It was a combination of classical philosophy (Plato and Aristotle) and faith
This found it way to Thomas Aquinas and Maimonides
This seems to be to be the right paradigm
I have long though a little bit of classical learning would be good for civilization. There is nothing like those ancient Greeks.
The renaissance while opening the door to the enlightenment still does not seem to be to be much of an improvement on medieval philosophers who were simple more rigorous
While many books of philosophy were written after the middle ages none of them have the intellectual exact precision of thinkers during the middle ages.
In fact most books of thought after the Middle Ages are logically sloppy to put it mildly
I understand the modern age. There were problems in medieval thought
The enlightenment gave birth to philosophers that saw the problem but did not find decent solutions.
So we have entered the age of Hegel and Nietzsche
It is Nietzsche and Hegel. The American Left long ago fell in love with Nietzsche. Almost all modern thought has substituted Nietzsche for ancient values
Almost all modern concepts of value have their origin in Nietzsche after being sanitized by the left.
I have not really complained about this very much because when I look at the old Judaic Christian paradigm of the middle ages I realize it can't be taken simply as it is because of some flaws.
So I think we need the old neo platonic Aristotelian paradigm but with some type of correction that I simply have not been about to figure out yet.
This war is going to become much, much larger before it is over. One major problem is that so many leaders appear to believe that time is on our side. (Like England and France in 1939 and early 1940) This is incorrect.
It is only a matter of time before one of these Islamic organizations obtains and deploys an effective WMD. Containment of the war will become difficult, at best.
Interesting blog. I've been studying the attempted muslib conquest of Europe and will contribute when I've concluded my studies.
It is impossible to win within the framework of the "exporting democracy and freedom" paradigm.
Works exactly as well as it did in Vietnam (most people forget that it was applied there, too), but what we're supporting and abetting here is more evil.
Next time, I believe in "Fast in, pulverize enemy, leave." Like Gulf War I, that worked.
BTW, thanks a lot to Baron & GoV for watching the antics of Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu & OIC. I think the importance of doing so can hardly be overestimated.
An outstanding article, Baron. I wish there was some way to refute it, but everything you said is the sad Gospel truth.
And I second Mr. Klausen's thanks to the Baron for his continued spotlight on the OIC and it's efforts to impose Sharia Law on us all. This evil organization must be exposed. Too bad so many people are so willfully blind to the threat Islam represents to Humanity.
Zenster,
I think your view of islam is a bit biased and I think you fail to see their structure a bit:
"Islam will NEVER be a united front or force. It has too many internal schisms.
Long before 3,000 New Yorkers died on September 11, Iraq and Iran killed 500,000 Muslims between them."
It is true that Islam does have various schisms but their mentality of me against my brother, my brother and I against my cousin, my family against my tribe, etc. gives them a pretty good ground for union.
More than that, sharia is equal everywhere and, as a sacred text and as a sacred law that all good men should obbey, it founds an extremely deep comunion among all muslims. In fact, with sharia, there's litle space for debate in islam.
The debate with sharia is if muslims should live by their own super sacred legal and moral text or if they should be somewhat westernised. There's little room to escape Sharia and let me tell you that, unlike Christians who nowadays escape the Bible, a muslim that escapes Sharia is for sure not a good muslim (although he can be a good person).
Concerning the Iran Iraq war it was a very interesting ideological deflagration inside the muslim world. You had Iran, the heir of Persia, a proud centre of Islam, so proud a centre in fact that it is the centre of Shiism.
And then you have Iraq, a former little province of Iran, that happened to have been the centre of the great Caliphate of Baghdad.
Iran was a true Islamic Republic while Sadam just wanted to be a Islamic power. Sadam was more of an expansionist Socialist who wanted to rule all Arabs than an islamit.
Both different versions clashed. It will be difficult for islamists to clash.
P.S. - Historically, Islam has been much more united than nowadays.
Post a Comment