On December 18th there will be an international meeting in Paris on Islamization:
Defending secularism, defending the values of our civilization
On December 18, 2010, a new international event will be held in France. The main initiators of the earlier “sausage-cocktail” event are organizing an international conference on the Islamization of our country. Many personalities are gathering in Paris, intellectuals, politicians, and journalists, to discuss the reality in different European countries, including France.
Websites:
Associations and organizations:
- Résistance républicaine
- Actions Sita
- Free World Academy
- Institut Européen de Socialisation et d’Education
- L’Elan Nouveau des Citoyens
- Bloc identitaire
- Comité Lépante
- Ligue du droit des femmes
- Riposte Laïque
- Vérité, valeurs et démocratie
- Novopress
- L’Ordre républicain
- Liberty vox
- Rebelles.info
- Le Gaulois
- Puteaux-libre
- Union gaulliste
- Drzz.info
- SDF
- L’Observatoire de l’islamisation
- Parti de l’In-nocence
- Ligue de Défense française
Writers:
- Ralph Giordano
- Renaud Camus
- Elena Tchoudinova
Members of Parliament:
- Oskar Freysinger (Switzerland)
- Christian Vanneste (France)
Specialists of Islam & of the Arab world:
- René Marchand (inalco)
- Halim Akli
- Pascal Hilout
Tommy Robinson (English Defence League)
Contact: assises.islamisation@gmail.com
On Facebook
17 comments:
"Defending secularism" is believing that it is possible to have a void in Nature. Nature is incompatible with a void status. So, if you do not have a mostly Christian society then you will inherit a Islamic one. Believing otherwise is pure Utopia.
Well put, espectivas: "Defending secularism" is absurd.
If the secularists say "Defend secularism!", then I'd answer, "Why should I?"
If the secularists say "I will defend secularism!", then I'd answer, "Fine, but why?"
Any way you look at it, the secularists can have only one answer: Because I want it. And that's not really very compelling.
It is such a relief to see the French taking visible action. There is a huge amount of lost ground to make up for and the effort to do so cannot begin too soon.
Howevermuch others in Europe and America may be tempted to sneer at France, it is still a repository of Western culture like few others in existence. The Louvre, the cathedrals of Notre Dame, Reims and Chartres, France's entire winemaking industry would all dissappear over Islam's event horizon, sucked into the black hole of shari'a and its stupifying ignorance.
Consider this, if the entire MME (Muslim Middle East) were to be glassed and Windexed™, aside from some valuable archaeological ruins, what other stores of art and significant achievements of genius would be lost? Yes, there would be some serious losses but it would largely be ancient history.
A useful comparison is the GDP (Gross Domestic Product) of the MME. It has been said that if petroleum revenues were subtracted from the GDP of the MME, the region's total industrial output would amount to some $500 million per year.
To put that figure in perspective, Nokia Corporation, the Finnish telecom giant, grosses some $500 million per year. ONE SINGLE EUROPEAN COMPANY rivals the entire non-petroleum GDP of the MME.
In a similar manner, the destruction of one major European metropolis like Paris or London would see a loss of cultural heritage which would rival that of the entire MME.
Clearly, this comparison does not account for individual tastes with respect to personal priorities regarding what sort of art is most important but the overall analogy still holds true.
The MME has been in such a near-permanent state of stagnation whereby that region's loss would have little overall impact. The same cannot be said of our Western cities, Paris being one of them. The threat of demographic "slow" jihad is just as puissant as that of WMD-laden "fast" jihad and both are equally lethal to Western culture in all its forms.
Contrary to Rick Blaine's immortal line in "Casablanca", should the current status quo persist in France, we may not always have Paris.
"Defending secularism" is believing that it is possible to have a void in Nature. - espectivas
A man is necessary, a man is a piece of fatefulness, a man belongs to the whole, a man is in the whole; there is nothing that could judge, measure, compare, or sentence his being, for that would mean judging, measuring, comparing, or sentencing the whole. But there is nothing besides the whole. - Nietzche, Twilight of The Idols, 'The Four Great Errors', (8).
After seeing the fortunes of people like Geert Wilders, Elisabeth Sabaditch-Wolff, and in France Robert Redeker and Michel Houellebecq, one can only support this enterprise, for if nothing else it will establish that the teachings of Islam can indeed be discussed openly in France without fear of prosecution. A major step forward.
espectivas you are right, but the fact that every Utopia that has been tried failed miserably doesn't stop the left from trying again and again. Having said that we can take heart that the Europeans are starting to form alliances to fight their common enemy.
bartholomewscross: "Defending secularism" is absurd.
Out of curiosity, exactly what viable alternatives are there to "secular" government?
It would seem that secular government, as found in the United States, has been a inarguable success. Yes, some of the Constitution and legal code is based on Mosaic law but America's departure from monarchy and theocracy was a key factor in why this country has achieved more in a little over two centuries than many others have attained in TWO MILLENNIA.
So, once again, what viable alternatives are there to secular government? The floor is open to suggestions. I will posit one thing; Theocracy, in any form, is the ultimate enemy of all freedom and liberty. The most visible example of it being Islam and its myriad attendant evils but theocracy in any form is an evil.
Incidentally, let's please try not to confuse functional secular government with the Liberal Socialist claptrap that is currently being fobbed off on us as supposed leadership.
Zenster wrote,
"Incidentally, let's please try not to confuse functional secular government with the Liberal Socialist claptrap that is currently being fobbed off on us as supposed leadership."
Sure. And you will please not conflate secularism with secular government. The title of the essay was "defending secularism" not "defending secular government".
America has never been secular. As the Founding Fathers themselves said, our system of government would be impossible if it governed any but a Christian people.
Why? Minimal, secular government works if the governed behave well enough on their own not to require heavier policing. You get a "theocracy" or a marxofascist state precisely when the people become too morally dissolute to work within any other, freer kind.
So proud of Tommy Robinson!!
Bart gets it right Zenster - secular society is not secularism. If you must know, monarchies could be just as tolerant as intolerant (Britain was fairly tolerant, and in spite of what you might think, Austria-Hungary was hardly a basketcase ready to fall apart. I refer you to Alan Skeds The Decline and Fall of the Hapsburg Empire (a title he didn't choose, I might add).
So let us not quibble on definitions. Much as I wish to see the restoration of many of the old monarchies, it would help immensely if the ideals of the old society they ruled over could be brought back.
This is a first tentative step, and so they have my support.
Vive le Roi! Vive le France!
bartholomewscross: And you will please not conflate secularism with secular government.
I'll be happy to once we can properly extricate secularism from secular government.
As the Founding Fathers themselves said, our system of government would be impossible if it governed any but a Christian people.
Which begs the question of how America's government has, for much of its existence, been so spectaculary successful at governing such a, more recently, diverse population, not all of whom were Christian.
I have already conceded the integral aspect of Mosaic law in America's basic framework. It is also no problem to attribute some of Christianity's more benevolent aspects, such as charismatic persuasion, to its success.
That said, America could never have gotten to where it is without avoiding the pitfalls of theocracy.
I can only suppose this is where the issue must defer to your own observation:
Minimal, secular government works if the governed behave well enough on their own not to require heavier policing.
I really do not have any problem with the foregoing. It appears as though the slow infiltration of America's government by Cultural Marxism, in the form of Liberals, has eroded the proper punishment of criminal behavior to where there is insufficient penalty for being "too morally dissolute".
Again, I am obliged to caution that morality cannot be legislated and must be a voluntary effort. Again, it appears as though this is where the duscussion reaches directly back to secular government working " if the governed behave well enough on their own not to require heavier policing".
I will not argue that America now has a sufficiently large enough portion of its population which, quite simply, requires that "heavier policing" because of its either inherent (e.g., Islam) or inculcated (e.g., a noticeable percentage of Black society) criminal tendencies.
My major point was to examine how it is that secular government once seemed to work and now is exhibiting issues. I think you are correct to note how "morally dissolute" individuals are dragging down the system.
Cultural diversity in America continued to work so long as people assimilated. Once that legitimate form of diversification ended, the slow poison of Multiculturalism began. I do not think that secular government, or even secularism, is totally to blame.
The insidious nature of Cultural Marxism and Communism's incredibly destructive effect, via subversion, on all other types of government deserves some scrutiny.
Another facet of this entire issue is whether America's Black population eventually would have successfully assimilated were it not for Liberal welfare entitlements and the anti-competitive toxin of affirmative action.
Finally, with various degrees of success, there are numerous quasi-secular governments (e.g., India and Canada) that are, at least, in some ways functional. In the case of India, the Christian ethos does not play a part save that India's government was formed, in part, by Britain.
Again, my only point here is to wonder how intrinsically bad secularism might be if not for ill-intentioned parties distorting the process. After all, criminality is typically able to spoil most any honesty-based system. It is just a matter of making criminal behavior so physically uncomfortable that malefactors regard it as an unrewarding pursuit.
Zenster, about 91% of the US population calls themselves Christians, during most of our history the percentage was higher. This is why our government worked so well, it didn't start having trouble until secular people started trying to remove all Christianity from the US Government. If we were still a Christian nation in name as well as in fact we would be having a lot less trouble.
Richard: If we were still a Christian nation in name as well as in fact we would be having a lot less trouble.
Now that the keystone called "separation of church and state" has been dislocated from the Constitutional arch, what other structural block to you propose removing from that trembling edifice?
Or do you see nothing wrong with Government religion?
Richard isn't talking about government religion, Zenster, and neither am I.
We are both saying that if you do not have private religion, you must have governmental tyranny, either via Political correctness/Leftism, Shariah, etc.
Why? Because people who live together have to get along with one another. And the way you get along with one another is to avoid ticking the other guy off too much, i.e. doing what's wrong by him.
But how can you avoid doing wrong by him if you and he don't agree on what's wrong? You can't. Hence, why either you two are going to have to work out some system of right and wrong privately (e.g. on Sunday morning) or publicly (e.g. in front of a leftist court judge).
Also, you wrote,
"Again, I am obliged to caution that morality cannot be legislated and must be a voluntary effort."
Unfortunately, that's false. All laws, actually, are just someone's idea of morality put in print and backed by a gun.
If you want to avoid having to "legislate morality", then you've got to convince people to behave morally on their own, without the threat of a gun.
bartholomewscross: Richard isn't talking about government religion, Zenster, and neither am I.
Just making sure as I certainly hope we can all agree that theocracy is an ultimate evil.
We are both saying that if you do not have private religion, you must have governmental tyranny, either via Political correctness/Leftism, Shariah, etc.
Nowhere have I argued against private religion. Freedom of Religion (along with Freedom from Religion), is a major reason behind America's greatness.
Hence, why either you two are going to have to work out some system of right and wrong privately (e.g. on Sunday morning) or publicly (e.g. in front of a leftist court judge).
Again, we are in agreement as to a Liberal judiciary (e.g., activist judges), eroding whatever adequate disincentives that used be in place and are thereby deconstructing a once functional secular state.
Also, I'm certain that you recognize how your "privately" maintained method of dispute resolution only pertains if everyone is going to the same church each Sunday. I'll not try to poke holes in the religious mono-culture that is implied by your statement because I believe that you are using it as an example and not as an ironclad rule.
All laws, actually, are just someone's idea of morality put in print and backed by a gun.
I would argue that there is Right and Wrong that stands outside of individual interpretation. A prime example is rape, when is it ever Right?
While lots of laws have been passed to serve in a coercive capacity, they do not address the fundamental issue of individual morality.
If you want to avoid having to "legislate morality", then you've got to convince people to behave morally on their own, without the threat of a gun.
As with much of this exchange, we are in violent agreement. I believe in the perfectability of mankind but only in terms of voluntary compliance. You have, inasmuch, stated the exact same thing.
My main point is that secularism and secular government seem to be the only fair systems that allow for a truly diverse society to function in a productive manner. Yes, just like any system, secularism has its flaws. Most conspicuously, similar to Capitalism, it is quite vulnerable to dishonest players.
I find LAW Wells' suggestion of Monarchistic rule objectionable but recognize that the more significant point was the "old society" ideals being mentioned.
I think that Classical Liberalism embraced many of those same ideals but just as the Republican Party has very little to do with Conservatism, so does the Democratic Party have nothing to do with real (Classical) Liberalism.
Please correct me if I am mistaken but, again, I do believe that we are largely in agreement.
Post a Comment