Saturday, February 12, 2011

The Narcissism of Small Differences

Counterjihad: ur doin it wrong

“It is precisely the minor differences in people who are otherwise alike that form the basis of feelings of hostility between them.” — Sigmund Freud

“The person who agrees with you eighty percent of the time is a friend and an ally — not a twenty percent traitor.” — attributed to Ronald Reagan


I come in for a lot of criticism in this line of work. All in all, it’s a good thing — reasonable criticism forces me to look more closely at my positions and adjust them as necessary when I’m wrong. Even when I disagree with a friendly critic, I generally learn something from our exchange of views. Unreasonable or overly hostile criticism can simply be ignored — I don’t enjoy blog wars, so staying out of them entirely is always the preferred option.

The sustained process of this continual argumentation has made me realize that some of those who argue so passionately don’t always distinguish fact from opinion.

In the world of ideas, most assertions are the opinions of the author, and facts are relatively few. Because the facts are already accepted as true by almost everyone — the Flat Earth Society being one of those rare exceptions — they are not generally argued. Unless someone values contention for its own sake, he won’t tend to argue about statements such as “An electron carries a negative charge”, or “The Second Siege of Vienna was lifted on September 12, 1683”.

In contrast, the assertion that “Bob Dylan is a great songwriter” is obviously a matter of opinion. Nevertheless, there are many ardent fans of the Bard From Brooklyn whose logical skills are so rudimentary that they do consider this statement a fact, and view any assertion to the contrary as a lie, rather than a difference of opinion. The Earth revolves around the sun, chickens hatch from eggs, and Bob Dylan is a great songwriter — all three statements represent facts of the same order.

Between these two extremes lies a large murky area, which grades from near-facts on one side into considered opinion on the other. Certain opinions may eventually be transformed into facts when enough evidence is collected to support them, but most remain stubbornly in the realm of supposition and conjecture, and will for the foreseeable future.

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

It can be frustrating to argue with people who fail to distinguish clearly between opinions and facts. Opinions include a range of useful discursive elements — assumptions, conjectures, educated guesses, intuitions, personal feelings, and so on — but we are better served if we distinguish these from facts. From the point of view of mathematics or formal logic, facts comprise the premises which are agreed upon by all concerned, and the rules of logic may be used on them to reach carefully derived results, which in turn become facts, and may be used as premises in further logical analysis.

The above is belaboring the obvious, yet it seems that many people will argue vehemently on behalf of their own opinions as if they were facts, and heap scorn and vitriol on the heads of all who dare to disagree with them.

To descend from the airy empyrean and offer a specific example: consider the hypothetical existence of the “moderate Muslim”. This is a recurring argument, not just in the comments on this blog, but across all the forums and sites of the Counterjihad. I tend to assert the nonexistence of the moderate Muslim, but this is an opinion. It is not a fact.

In a century or two it may become established as a historical fact — “The Great Cataclysm of 2021 demonstrated that there had never really been a ‘moderate’ Muslim, much to the chagrin of those who survived the terrible events of that year.”

Or it may never be established one way or the other.

In any case, from our limited viewpoint at this historical moment, it remains an opinion.

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

My goal in pursuing this work is to facilitate as broad a coalition as possible among those who agree that Islam poses a grave threat to Western Civilization.

The range of opinion that would be acceptable in such a coalition warrants the inclusion of:

1. Those who see a threat from radical Islam, but attempt to find allies among “moderate” Muslims.
2. Those who see Islam itself as the problem, and wish to counter it ideologically with propaganda, education, and military action where required.
3. Those who would deport all non-citizen Muslims, revoke the citizenship of criminal Muslims, and institute draconian incentives for the rest to emigrate from the West.
4. Christians who view the main problem as the erosion of Christian faith in Western nations, and see the revival of muscular Christianity as our only hope.
5. Those who believe the most pressing issue is to preserve white Europeans and their descendants, whose very existence is under threat both genetically and culturally (a.k.a. “white nationalists”).
6. Jews who find common cause with gentiles against Islam, but are reluctant to work with those who may be “neo-Nazis”.
7. Social liberals (including feminists and gays) who regard with horror Islamic doctrines on women, homosexuals, atheists, etc.
8. Social conservatives who want to protect the most treasured customs, traditions, and institutions of European civilization.

Some might argue that certain other groups should be included. Communists such as Maryam Namazie, for example — although I would expect a committed Communist to become an eventual “wrecker” of the coalition in the interests of Communist domination. Or those who oppose jihad, yet consider Islam to be a religion like any other religion — can they ever really be an effective part of a joint effort?

It might also be argued that some of the groups I mentioned — the believers in “moderate Muslims”, for example, who often regard the rest of us with such distaste — should be excluded from a working coalition.

All of these interest groups base their differences on matters of opinion, and even the discussion of who should be included is itself a matter of opinion.

None of this is based on fact. It is based on intuitions and educated guesses about what might — just might — work. Our attempts will be based on trial and error, and we won’t know what the facts are until we find out what actually works, which won’t happen until long after I’m dead.

In any case, as you can see, there are large areas of overlap among these different and disparate groups, and an anti-jihad activist might fall into more than one of the categories. Some of them, however, are antithetical to one another, and mutually exclusive. Any coalition including such disparate elements can only be forged if all those involved agree to put aside their crucial differences until after the common objective is achieved. In this regard, we need to behave like the Shi’ites and the Sunnis under the umbrella of the OIC.

Needless to say, such a broad and inclusive enterprise is quixotic at best, and has a high probability of failure. Without a charismatic leader who is also an organizational genius, our chances of success are not encouraging.

Nevertheless, it’s worth a try. I didn’t get into this line of work for the money or the fame or the free chicks — I’m willing to cooperate with other like-minded people to try to make it workable.

I can’t think of anything better to do in the time that remains to me.

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

It’s important to remember that for some ideologues it is more important to adhere to strict principles than it is to succeed in the cause. If success means compromising those cherished principles, then failure is to be preferred.

The quest for doctrinal purity occurs more often in some groups than in others. Dogma looms large to certain elements of our coalition — and not just the religious ones. People who rule out all doctrinal variation will be of limited practical value to the common endeavor, even though their writings and analysis may be useful.

There will always remain those whose commitment to principles — which principles are entirely based on their opinions — is so complete that they cannot involve themselves with anyone who deviates from those narrowly defined principles. They refuse to heed Freud’s admonition about “the narcissism of small differences”, and hold those differences to be the most important facts of all. We need not bear them any animus, but we will have to soldier on without them.

The rest of us must resign ourselves to living with doubt and uncertainty. We will always be operating with less than complete information, but if we agree on a single fact — Islam is a deadly danger to us all — then we can work together.

Everything else is a matter of opinion, and I can live with differences of opinion.

201 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   1 – 200 of 201   Newer›   Newest»
john in cheshire said...

I can agree with 2,3,4,5,6 but not 1,7,8. None of those groups can be trusted and in my opinion are not normal. Anyone who defines themself in terms that include the word social are untrustworthy. And for goodness' sake, how can one count on communists for support; there is the 20th century of socialist/communist killing, lies, deceit and misery as proof of what they are prepared to countenance in furtherance of their aims. And I'm not persuaded by the argument that he who is the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Otherwise, I support your intent; normal people need to fight back and not leave politics to socialists/communists.

Dymphna said...

John--

You may have posted the perfect comment template, i.e.,;

I agree with ________________
(fill in the blank), but not ___________ (fill in the second blank)....[t]hose groups in my opinion are not normal.

I'm not persuaded by the argument XXX. Otherwise, I support your intent...


That sir, is the Platonic ideal of a counter-argument. It's impressive.

Thank you.

=============================

For many other commenters, I can't resist asking, along with Carly Simon, "I'll bet you think this song is about you, don't you?..."

Honest, it's not about you at all. I know, because I listened to the Baron while he wrote this screed.

Sagunto said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Nick said...

An interesting article. I tried to get a discussion on this topic going on the EDL forum recently. (See link to individual post.) (See link to thread.)

Sagunto said...

Discussion almost always ensues over this notorious claim:

"There are moderate Muslims, but there is no moderate Islam."

This axiom is often supplemented and given "street credibility" with personal experiences featuring friendly Muslims who show no overt signs of any offensive death wish because of some insulting cartoon. But these hastily dubbed "Moderate Muslims" do spread Islam. Moderate Muslims, as practising members of this collective, constitute an integral and vitally important part of this global and existential threat to freedom. In short: Islam is a take-over machine; violence is the core of its doctrine and "Moderate Muslims" are part and parcel of it.

I've talked to Muslims from countries all over the world - and didn't receive any frequent flyer miles, just by staying put in ye olde Amsterdam ;-)
Both personal experience and logic prompt me to turn the above slogan - with the artificial split between a religion and its followers, against itself.

My question would be:
As it is true - like everyone in the CJ initiative understands, that Islam shows no signs of any moderation, what are we to think then of the relative weight and significance of the highly ephemeral phenomenon of "Moderate Muslims" within an Islamic context?

In all of the decades that we have been witnessing our politicians playing midwife to the forced ascendancy of Islam in the West, I never ever saw an example of "moderate" Muslims fighting in our corner for the sake of freedom and liberty of all, and winning that battle. So isn't it true then that the best one can say about "moderate" Muslims, is what Pat Condell described as their main feature, i.e. that they have been quietist to the point of insignificance?

Is it just the alliteration that keeps them, the Moderate Muslims, alive in our thoughts? Or is there more substance to "moderateness" in Islam. I mean, poison, administered in moderate doses, will ultimately kill you just as well.

Kind regs from Amsterdam,
Sag.

Template endorsement: 2-6, 8 with some serious reservations about the point 5 "nationalism" (enlightenment state-worship, i.m.o.) and doubts about "conservatives" who seek to use (welfare) state-power to preserve tradition (point 8). Not in favour of 1, well, absolutely against, as a matter of fact. 7 seems not advisable because this group usually represents welfare state society, the other one of our existential FOE (Forces of Enslavement).

You New said...

Baron, you've been a good example of balance for all of us. I'd like to hear why you dislike blog wars.
I'd like to hear more different opinions on GOV but sometimes I think people are scared away by the nitpickers.

The modern anti-jihad is in it's adolescence. There are many good ideas that we need and much more solidarity to be gained. But if we are just a bunch of arguing ninnies, then ain't nothing much gonna happen.

My estimation is that we have about 40 per cent of the information that we need to make a good case for the unhealthiness of this religio-political system. We are missing huge pieces of the puzzle. We aren't as close to making a solid case as we think we are. This too is caused by narcissism. Let's stop the chest pounding and get back to the drawing board.

We need to start listening better to each other.

Religio-political retardation is an area where Christians, agnostics, Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists and Neo-Pagans can all come together.
But it hasn't happened, yet.

Where are all the anti-jihad religious organizations? If anyone knows of one, let me know, please.

Anyway, look at all the peoples who are naturally on our side. The anti-jihad peoples are utterly unorganized.

EscapeVelocity said...

Sagunto, Youve misread point 8.

aku said...

That whole "moderate" notion is IMO absurd. Islam is very well defined, and Muslims can adhere more or less to that definition. That is to say, one can be more or less Muslim. Is that what is meant by "moderate"? Less Muslim than "extreme"?

If that is so, those terms are really miserably chosen and they muddy the water.

FWIW, enemy of my enemy is my friend. It is just about priorities, we all have number one in common.

Sagunto said...

EscapeV -

You wrote:

"Sagunto, Youve misread point 8."

LOL, suffering a narcissist tia already? ;-)
But seriously, concerning point 8, what's the (little) difference here? Instead of doubting my reading skills, feel free to explain as to why you beg to differ. Of course, if I actually did somehow misread the crystal-clear description given by the Baron, I would be more than happy to stand corrected.

Sag.

IoshkaFutz said...

I like extremists. In my religion they're called saints.

Comparing extremisms is very instructive.

One Arab extremist, a greengrocer, lit himself on fire without hurting anybody else and toppled a boatload of Governments. Compare that to all the suicide bombers.

This Christianoid (not Christian but Christianoid)act should send the Imams scrambling to increase the allure of the 72 strumpets.

EscapeVelocity said...

Social Conservatism is not Welfare Statism.

It does however seek to promote laws which protect the traditions of Western Civilization, such as Traditional Marriage and the 2 Parent Nuclear Family.

EscapeVelocity said...

"We will always be operating with less than complete information, but if we agree on a single fact — Islam is a deadly danger to us all — then we can work together. -- Baron Bodissey"

As you will know this is considered the realm of opinion by many.

Anonymous said...

Nice example there, Baron -- in my opinion, Bob Dylan is a great songwriter, but I cannot assert that as a fact although (in my opinion) it is CLOSE to being a fact. (To those who wish to argue this: this is not the place, but you can go to the most recent "open thread" on my blog if you want to; however, only do so if you are familiar with ALL of Dylan's songs, since I base my statement more on his late work than on his well-known work from the 60's).

Would you also be willing to say that the statement (which I word carefully to avoid the authorship controversy) "the person who wrote Hamlet was a great playwright and poet" is a fact? Is there any degree of consensus which would allow such a statement to be regarded as a fact rather than an opinion? "Isaac Newton was a great scientist", maybe?

jeyi said...

"Brad from Brooklyn"? Jeesh, gimme a break!

I'm totally a Brooklyn boy and have been a passionate fan of Bob Dylan's work since 1963. But Dylan was born in Hibbing, MN and spent his childhood in Duluth MN. Far as I know, he never lived even semi-permanently in Brooklyn.

Juniper in the Desert said...

You said it, Baron!!

EscapeVelocity said...

Bob Dylan's Greatest Work aplies to the Anti Jihad...and this discussion.

"There must be some kind of way out of here,"
said the joker to the thief,
"There's too much confusion,
I can't get no relief.
Businessmen they drink my wine,
plowmen dig my earth
None of them along the line know what any of it is worth"

"No reason to get excited,"
the thief, he kindly spoke
"There are many here among us
who feel that life is but a joke
But you and I, we've been through that
and this is not our fate
So let us not talk falsely now, the hour is getting late"

All along the watchtower
Princes kept the view
While all the women came and went
Barefoot servants, too

Outside in the cold distance
A wildcat did growl
Two riders were approaching
And the wind began to howl...

Zenster said...

The above is belaboring the obvious…

Not at all. Most people's grasp of even the most basic forensics is dismal at best. This is a much needed primer.

… consider the hypothetical existence of the “moderate Muslim”.

Go right ahead but I would remind people that there is absolutely no proof regarding the existence of such a creature. To date, a near-complete vacuum occupies the region of space that supposedly moderate Muslims are alleged to occupy.

Perhaps later in these comments I will elucidate upon the facts that support this observation but do not wish to derail this thread at present.

In this regard, we need to behave like the Shi’ites and the Sunnis under the umbrella of the OIC.

If anything, we must meet and exceed this objective so as to outdo the Muslims.

That beggars an obvious question which I think can be introduced and summarily discarded:

DO NAZIS HAVE ANY PLACE BENEATH THE COUNTERJIHAD UMBRELLA?

My position is: NO. Any ideals of preserving White European culture are so outweighed by the notions of anti-Semitic genocide and eugenics in general that Nazis are precluded from the counterjihad.

Before much progress can be made, this is a touchstone issue that will need to have been ordained with majority concensus.

Needless to say, such a broad and inclusive enterprise is quixotic at best, and has a high probability of failure.

Perchance, but in the absence of such an attempt failure becomes a certainty. To quote The Great One™:

You'll always miss 100% of the shots you don't take.

As Dr. John Lewis is fond of noting with respect to Islam, there is No Substitute for Victory. This one is for all the marbles and anybody who thinks otherwise may as well be jihad roadkill already.

It’s important to remember that for some ideologues it is more important to adhere to strict principles than it is to succeed in the cause. If success means compromising those cherished principles, then failure is to be preferred.

This mulish sort of opposition arises quite frequently in discussions about the use of torture while interrogating terrorists. I've encountered people who would rather see the entire human race go extinct than ever resort to torture.

We need not bear them any animus, but we will have to soldier on without them.

I agree completely except for that part about not bearing them any animus. Certain of these ideologues can almost be construed as serving the enemy's interests for the way that they sow needless and, sometimes, crippling doubt.

I was going to reserve any further discourse for a separate post that dealt with subsequent comments but Sagunto has really nailed the "moderate" Muslim issue with his question:

… what are we to think then of the relative weight and significance of the highly ephemeral phenomenon of "Moderate Muslims" within an Islamic context?

Attempting to frame any discussion of "moderate" Muslims outside of Islam is not just a fool's errand but flat out suicide.

I'll leave that hanging in order to obtain some responses and then return to post further on topic and also regarding the comments.

Good job, Baron.

filthykafir said...

Well, I'm in this club for the easy chicks! Girls, it's time to deliver; papa's waiting.

Hesperado said...

Once again, commenter "ako" hits the nail on the head -- or at least gets closer than either Baron or other commenters.

To wit: The main problem with the concept moderate Muslim is that it tends to imply that Islam can be moderate; for "moderate" in this context would reasonably imply a Muslim who is moderate because he follows a moderate form of Islam.

I.e., the term is a positive term -- not a negative term denoting what the Muslim lacks (in this case, he would lack degrees of Islam: the less Islam the Muslim in question has, the more moderate he is).

Since those of us who are sufficiently literate in Islam know, there is no moderate Islam. Thus, the term moderate Muslim undergoes a sleight-of-hand -- either incoherently by people who are confused and/or who don't know how to articulate logical arguments, or cleverly by those who are trying to obfuscate.

The sleight-of-hand points to what is really being intended: what is really being meant by the term moderate Muslim is a Muslim who is less Muslim.

This sounds paradoxical, but it has a real, and massively represented analog, in the West: the so-called "nominal Christian", or the Christian-in-name-only. Watered down, diluted, decaffeinated, secularized, modernized -- call it what you will, it basically refers to the type that, again, exists massively throughout the West: Christians who don't go to church much, don't think much about Christian doctrine, aren't sure if Jesus was resurrected or not, etc. These types, if they are not comfortably agnostic and don't think about spiritual matters much at all may find more solace in a New Age retreat where Wayne Dyer is a featured speaker, and where they can spend one night in a sweat lodge, the next day doing za-zen meditation in a Buddhist rock garden, then later that afternoon get in touch with their Hindu "chakras", etc., than they would in old-fashioned Christian prayer and liturgy. (And this isn't even counting the millions of Christians who go to church more regularly who still don't really take it as seriously as they do the mundane realities of life).

The common assumption is that the Muslim world has experienced approximately the same erosion of belief as the modern West has -- an assumption, of course, which must surmount a mountain of contra-indicating data about Muslims all over the world; but PC MCs can scale, or ignore, the loftiest of mountains with the greatest of ease. The majority (even the "vast majority") of Muslims must be more or less like us; for, to be human is to be like us, and we don't want to deny humanity to Muslims, do we?

And so forth.

Hesperado said...

Baron's #3 --

3. Those who would deport all non-citizen Muslims, revoke the citizenship of criminal Muslims, and institute draconian incentives for the rest to emigrate from the West

-- implies that he would exclude from the coalition of acceptable positions those who would deport all Muslims, including citizens and non-criminals. If so, that's an unfortunate exclusion, for it is eminently reasonable to suppose that it is precisely the Muslims who can exist under the radar (i.e., as ostensibly model citizens) who are being used, and are going to be used -- and, of course, who are enthusiastically volunteering -- for the deadliest terrorist plots.

Ruby said...

So here's my laundry list: I can agree to 1,2,3,5, & 7 with modifications.

Islam is a problem (2) but we must (1) work with moderate Muslims. Many are already here, and citizens. The way that we treat others should reflect our values, not theirs. We should let the Muslim community know, however, that we intend to remain a people
(3 & 5) and that they have agreed to abide by our laws (3 & 7) by coming and staying.

I will never use the term "white nationalist” personally (5) but demographic realities make its main points sensible. There are plenty of places in the world for Muslims and non-whites to live, whatever they have chosen to make of these places. I would also like to have a place to live, for myself and my children, as these people undoubtedly have places to retreat to if they don’t like (7) abiding by the laws of our lands. They should certainly be deported
(3) if they don’t abide by our laws. There should be no attempt to change (3 & 5) Western population demographics. There is especially no reason to even consider it for the sake of minorities that are already well represented in terms of population throughout the world.

On the reasons why people leave the “3rd world” countries they come from, there are a few things that are frequently overlooked. Neo-colonialism, “1st world” exploitation/ political meddling/ and wars have had effects in these parts of the world. But these are the crimes of the elite, and crimes that they are simultaneously committing against us in many ways. These practices are no justification of mass immigration to the West as some sort of consolation prize.

This area is complicated: liberals want to act like throwing money at it and giving away our birthrights (citizenship and sovereignty) would actually make things better. Those “remedies” don’t address the root of that problem. Politicians don’t want to stop contributing to the migration because of how it benefits them personally or they actually don’t understand what is happening to indigenous rights everywhere, not just here.

Many conservatives, on the other hand, would like to say that it is only cultural practices or intelligence that lead to a 3rd world, unlivable status. If politicians, they are in it for the take as well. Cultural practices and intelligence may be significant factors in the problems that these countries face, but factors that we have no control over, and no hand in. The West is ultimately hated for meddling, it rarely helps, so at governmental and institutional levels most involvement should stop.

Both ignore the most important part: we as citizens are increasingly becoming marginalized by the extended privileges of corporations and global trade agreements that we generally have no representation in, in exactly the same way that people in the
3rd world have been. Current immigration laws work directly to support this system of global financial organization.

My 2 cents is that the answers lie in economic protectionism, practical populism, and even a degree of ethnic nationalism. We must have a coalition to accomplish anything. Once we have dealt with immediate problems, we can reconcile the rest.

Spinoneone said...

From what I have seen of history, religion tends to produce believers who are "extreme," "ultra-orthodox," and/or "committed" to the theology in question. We can, I suspect, each of us, produce examples in Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Islam, and so forth. No religion has a monopoly on violent action or atrocities against "infidels."

That being said, most "modern" religions/religious belief systems have undergone some sort of "reformation" in the last few centuries such that a significant proportion of the followers no longer consider the more extreme forms of worship in that theology to be either necessary or even condoned. So far as I am aware this has not happened in Islam. In fact, the divide between Shi'a and Sunni has sharpened. "Impure" sects are cast as heretical and can be as subject to internecine slaughter as the other "infidels" in the world. We also seem to find that even those Muslims who consider themselves "moderates" will nevertheless give financial support to imams and mosques which preach jihad. After all, Allah commands it.

It seems to me that our real battle lies with the left/liberal/socialist side of our population. They are unconvinced that Islam is a threat to them and the freedom they enjoy today to practice what they preach. They refuse to see and understand that Islam would take away that freedom. Perhaps many of them would not mind so much if they were allowed to remain in a position of relative power following an Islamic take-over. I suspect the majority of them would be quite willing to convert in order to maintain that "elite" status they so covet, and believe they have, today.

So, if we seek to accomplish something important in this movement, i.e., protecting and defending Western Civilization, let's make sure we recognize all of our enemies before we decide exactly who our friends might be.

Nick said...

Spinoneone,

I see what you're saying, but ... who do you believe are you referring to when you use the personal pronoun 'we' ...???

(Sorry, I just couldn't resist.)

Nick said...

Escape Velocity,

BSG fan?

Baron Bodissey said...

YouNew --

I'd like to hear why you dislike blog wars.

I abhor conflict. It's an innate emotional characteristic. If you follow the Enneagram, I am a Nine. Or, under Myers-Briggs, an INFJ.

That's why I'm drawn to building coalitions. I'm eager to help people meet on common ground, and thus reduce the incidence and intensity of conflict.

The LGF Wars hardened me, though. I can handle this crap a lot better now than I was able to do before October 2007.

Zenster said...

aku: Islam is very well defined, and Muslims can adhere more or less to that definition.

Actually, to "adhere more or less" isn’t even an option.

Around one millennia ago, by closing the door to ijtihad (independent analysis and interpretation), Islamic scholars opted for taqlid (blind obedience or imitation):

… in Islamic law, the unquestioning acceptance of the legal decisions of another without knowing the basis of those decisions..

For a vast majority of Muslims who are unlettered in Islamic jurisprudence, there is no "more or less" sort of option as to taqlid. Clearly, the clerical power structure found that blind obedience was easier to control, conducive to greater political power and, above all, far more lucrative.

Given that, let the festivities begin!

Hesperado: … there is no moderate Islam.

Fact or opinion, floor wax or dessert topping, how to tell?

While prominent Muslim politicians and clerics assure us of this, aren't they just voicing their own personal opinions?

Or does taqlid concretize Islamic practices to a sufficient degree whereby there can be no significant attenuation of them to qualify as "moderate". More importantly, is there an Islamic term that directly identifies such an ostensibly temperate format? If so, would the context which that alteration resides in help us to place this notion in the realm of fact?

The answer is a resounding yes. One pivotal term in question is takfir and it deals with “impurity” of or a lack of belief. For one Muslim to declare another as takfiri is Islam’s closest approximation of Western-style excommunication. Anyone declared to be takfir is fair game for summary execution. Promoting any sort of doctrinal aberration or deviance is an unforgivable breach that constitutes blasphemy and carries with it the penalty of capital punishment.

The historical record bears this out as fact. Of equal importance is that the most diligent adherents of Islam who comprehensively follow its most explicit tenets routinely declare as takfir what any reasonable person would call a “moderate” Muslim.

Further proof of this lies in how even Shi’ite terrorists − who differ from Sunni orthodoxy about the lineage of Mohammad’s successor − are routinely declared as heretical and blasphemers by the Sunni majority. Comparatively benign sects like the Ahmadiyya, Yezidi, Sufi and Kurdish are even more promptly declared takfir with all of its deadly implications.

Consider this; no less than supreme caliph wannabeTurkish Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, declared that, These descriptions [of a moderate Islam] are very ugly, it is offensive and an insult to our religion. There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam and that’s it.”.

Now, pause to reflect upon how nowhere in the entire world was Erdogan declared takfir for making such an unalloyed declaration about the immoderate character of Islam.

How much more abundant historical evidence and contemporaneous expert testimony is required to establish, as fact, that there is no moderate Islam and, therefore, no such thing as a moderate Muslim?

Again, I am obliged to note that devout Muslims, by all accepted and reasonable definitions, routinely declare supposedly moderate Muslims as takfir and kill them on a regular basis.

I invite any and all arguments against there being a factual basis for believing that there are no moderate Muslims.

Baron Bodissey said...

Hesperado --

...or at least gets closer than either Baron or other commenters.

Gets closer to what, precisely? What assertion about "moderate Muslims" did I make that you found distant from the truth?

#3 ... implies that he would exclude from the coalition of acceptable positions those who would deport all Muslims, including citizens and non-criminals. If so, that's an unfortunate exclusion...

On the contrary, no implication is present, merely your inference.

Notice that my introduction to the 8-point list said "such a coalition warrants the inclusion of..."

There is no statement that any other group was excluded. You leapt to a conclusion not warranted by the evidence at hand (as is your wont).

The only groups whose exclusion was actually implied were the Communists and those who think Islam is just a religion like any other religion, as mentioned in the section following the numbered list.

Methinks you would do well to study the precepts of formal logic more closely. Learning about the "excluded middle" might be instructive.

Zenster said...

Hesperado: … it is eminently reasonable to suppose that it is precisely the Muslims who can exist under the radar (i.e., as ostensibly model citizens) who are being used, and are going to be used -- and, of course, who are enthusiastically volunteering -- for the deadliest terrorist plots.

Anyone with even a cursory knowledge of taqiyya will comprehend the importance of the above statement.

Much as with the "Nazis: Yes or No?" qualifier that I posed earlier, so will group concensus upon this vital question play a critical role in future counterjihad strategy.

Zenster said...

Ruby: … we must (1) work with moderate Muslims.

I regret to inform you that you are assuming facts not in evidence. Please refer to my earlier post at length on this subject.

I look forward to your reply this topic and hope that it will encourage productive dialogue regarding how to resolve this major discrepancy in counterjihad perceptions.

EscapeVelocity said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

In 6, you forgot the other side: Gentiles who are reluctant to work with jews, as long as these continue to dodge essential issues like the one described by Kevin MacDonald ( http://tinyurl.com/46j2gzn ), and whose correctness was very well demonstrated by Barbara Spectre ( http://tinyurl.com/4rrmck8 ). If we swallow all that without demanding a jewish explanation, we only become victims of their next cabale. Remember, they are orientals after all, just as mohammedans.

EscapeVelocity said...

Moderate Muslims are a phantom. The ONLY Muslims that can be worked with are the Liberal Muslims, which constitute a Tiny Minority, maybe 15% on the other side of the Bell Curve. The only ones that virulently reject Shariah Law and much of the clear teachings of the Koran. They are considered apostates by most Muslims.

EscapeVelocity said...

Michael, there are a host of other Minority Groups that also support the Leftist PC Multicultural Diversity Promoting, rolling back the WhiteEuro Christian Zeitgeist/Power Structure/ Culture...special priveleges for minorities, etc.

We can confront the Left and all these Minority Groups, by regaining our cultural confidence.

Conspiracy Theories which give special powers to those crafty sneaky Jews....isnt productive. Its insane.

EscapeVelocity said...

PS - I am a BSG fan.

Great show.

Anonymous said...

EscapeVelocity: Instead of arguing around the issue at stake, with many words trying to make it look loony, I would have preferred an explanation on it from you - because the evidence is a bit too hard to just make it disappear by talking. But again, you failed to deliver. I cannot consider such people allies. This has nothing to do with vanity, it is a matter of core essence. I hope others see it too and become aware of this highly significant problem.

imnokuffar said...

Hi Baron, will attempt to give my responses to the questions posed in numerical order. This is not official BNP policy but is my personal response. Some of the answers given do however reflect BNP policy. For the sake of simplicity I will not seperate the two issues explicitly.

"My goal in pursuing this work is to facilitate as broad a coalition as possible among those who agree that Islam poses a grave threat to Western Civilization."

The range of opinion that would be acceptable in such a coalition warrants the inclusion of:

1. No Muslim would work with us and we would not work with any Muslim. We could never trust them or them us. A state of hostilities has commenced.

2. Yes

3. BNP policy is to revoke the citizenship of Muslim criminals not born in the UK and to deport them. We would certainly encourage by pecuniary means the emigration of other Muslims if they wish to go. We would deport all illegal immigrants regardless of race or religion and end all Muslim immigration.

4. We believe we are at heart a Christian nation, socially, politically, morally and by heritage. We have many Christians within our ranks as well as others who are not Christian. We welcome all who share most or all of our views, Christian and non-Christian.

5. You do not have to be a Nationalist to believe these things.

6. The Jews are as entitled to their homeland as we are ours. We have differing views within the party as to whether we could ever work with Jews but paradoxically enough have Jewish members/supporters who obviously see something in us that they can relate to. Anti-semitic jibes and comments are discouraged/banned from our site. Having Jewish family myself I can relate to both sides of the argument.

7. Social liberals are part of the problem being as they are mostly socialists and quasi-Marxists. We have no problems with peoples sexuality as we regard it as a private matter. We oppose the promotion of Homosexuality in the classrooms, gay marriage and adoption that we find abhorent. Personally, I am in favour of rights of inheritance for gay couples as this is only fair.
We do have gay members/supporters.

8. Yes

Hope this helps the debate.

fgd-anchorage said...

Regarding the adjective: Moderate.

Here in Alaska, my experience with "Moderate Republicans" is they are Republican In Name Only (RINO). This anecdotal evidence suggests a "Moderate Muslim" would be Muslim In Name Only (MINO). I cannot imagine such a creature living long in such a condition.

Based on my personal experience, I am doubtful there is such a creature as a "Moderate Muslim". At the very least, I need to have a definition, a yard-stick, criteria, against which to measure a live person to determine if said person is in fact a "Moderate Muslim". Perhaps I can be enlightened.

Thank you for a great thread.

Sagunto said...

Let's reconsider the slogan, "There are moderate Muslims, but there is no moderate Islam."

Inferring from personal experience, I have formulated 4 valid varieties of attributed meaning:

1) - Islam can never become moderate, but there are moderate Muslims, who can be considered possible allies even if they are part of Islam.
2) - Islam can never become moderate, but there are moderate Muslims, who can't ever be considered possible allies as long as they are part of Islam.
3) - Islam can never become moderate, all Muslims are inherently evil people, who can never be considered possible allies.
4) - There are moderate Muslims, and they are proof that Islam might become moderate, so we must consider them as possible allies.

Now, for entertainment purposes, this list can be restyled into a little multiple choice quiz:


Q: When someone, engaged in the CJ initiative, utters the above slogan, he can use it to mean:

a) Only option 4
b) Options 1, 2, 3 and 4
c) 1-4 and more options, being [...]

Note: Some have already provided their answer in previous comments. For the sake of fairness, they have been granted the possibility to reconsider and come up with the right solution.

;-)

Kind regs from Amsterdam,
Sag.

EscapeVelocity said...

Michael, Jews are/were hostile to EuroChristians for a reason.

That doesnt excuse their behavior, however they arent a lost cause.

And its a lot more complicated than you believe. The Orthodox Jews in Israel are hostile to Christians, but in the US the Leftist Jews are and the Orthodox Jews vote with the Christian Right.

Another factor is that Jews high intelligence means that they excel when allowed to in a free society. That puts them as thought leaders in both Leftist causes and orgs BUT as well as on the Conservative side.

Certainly the vast majority of American Jews are hostile to the EuroChristian and their culture, etct. But then again, so are a big group of Euros even some Christians...which are leaders and supporters of the Leftist zeitgeist.

Then a bunch of other minority groups have joined the Leftist coalition as well...and adopted Leftwing ideologies and narratives.

In Israel, the Christians are often allied with the Muslims against the Jews. Why, because of the dynamics of the situation. Jews are the powerful majority and other minorities organize together to promote their interests.

No different here. The problem here is that the Euro Christian is divided. The Israeli Jews have the same problem.

Interestingly enough, the Western Left has largely turned on Israel, treating them in the same manner as EuroChristians in EuroChristian Nations. Attempting to deligitimize them (and us)...and the Jewish nature of Israel (and the EuroChristian Nature of European Nations).

I suggest you read Poderetz Why Are Jews Liberals(Leftwingers)?

There was a WSJ article titled the same, plus a symposium at Commentary Magazine which is particularly interesting. Particularly Wolpe, Sarna, and Medved.

Link

African Americans have an obvious gripe as well.

But they wouldnt be getting one over on anybody without being empowered by the Euro/Christian Left. No minorities would.

EscapeVelocity said...

PS - That applies to the US, which has a large politically consequential population. In Europe, youve run the Jews off more or less as a consequence of WWII. There are no significant populationso fo Jews in Europe of political consequence, and the amount of attention that they recieve is indicative of a mental disorder, IMO.

People like Kevin McDonald have a point, and Im critical of Jews as well, they are afterall influential due to their success in all endeavors because of their high IQs and Education and the culture that produces that, and provide intellectual firepower for the Left (but also the Right).

The problem with McDonald is that he ascribes superpowers to Jews....which is also indicative of a mental illness.

Jews arent the only groups on the Left, and it is the Left that is the problem. The majority of the Left is made up of WhiteEuro Christians. Its the Left that is the problem.

Jesterhead45 said...

I agree with 2, 3, 6, 7 and 8.
My issue with 1, is that such people cannot be relied upon and are more or less ticking time bombs waiting to be lit.

Either through having a “crisis of faith” at any point in their lives and becoming radicalised while living a secular/ish lifestyle or by non-muslims civilisations taking steps to hold back the spread of islam / shariah / the implementation of the islamic vision (aka global caliphate) / etc.

For the sake of argument, I am defining “moderate muslims” as secular muslims (or minos, closet apostates / murtads) here rather than unarmed muslims who still seek through non-violent (machavalian) means to bring about the islamic vision in the nation they are currently residing in.

Personally, I can only see the former coming out of the woodwork or closet if you will, when islam itself is finally defeated and no longer seen as the strong horse. Until that time, such efforts at courting secular muslims are futile.

One thing you have to bear in mind about 6 is that it is not only a reluctance to work with those who may be “neo-nazis” but for many Jews who are sympathetic to the Counterjihad movement, it is a genuine fear of what the Counterjihad will evolve into regardless of whether they openly join or not.

And with history as a guide, the view is that Jews in the west are going to be damned either way, just like when Jews were caught between Christians and Muslims fighting over Spain or the wars between the Russians and the Ottomans when both sides were accusing (or waiting to accuse) the Jews for siding with the enemy. Or for a more recent example, when Jews were allied with African Americans during the Civil Rights Movement only for the latter to throw the former under the bus for being white and embracing Jew-haters like Malcolm X.

On 4 & 5, where does that leave non-white and non-muslim minorities in the West, who support the Counterjihad movement? Though they have thrown their lot with the West against Islam, many justifiably do not plan on becoming Christian or leaving the West due to their race and like the Jews it appears that they are also going to be caught between a rock and hard place.

aku said...

Zenster: Thanks for this info. One should know his enemy, but as an internal Islamic matter, I don't see how this is pertinent to my own reasoning. I can imagine that there is a Muslim who believes that Mohammad is God's last prophet, Koran is perfect revelation from God etc., but governs himself by following his internal feeling of right and wrong, picking from Islam what he likes and ignoring what he does not, all the while preserving outward appearance of not protruding above what his society considers acceptable. That one would be a "moderate" Muslim, or less than full Muslim. Let's say he is 15% Muslim, goes to mosque and fasts when it is prescribed, but not much else. In that sense it can be said that one can be a good person in exactly that measure in which he is not Muslim (even if he thinks of himself as a Muslim and would take offence if someone claimed that he is not), and vice versa.

However, most people do not think for themselves and are shaped by surroundings. Also, I've seen enough of them to know that feelings come first, reason comes second. People will reason and rationalize according to what they want, like and dislike. Having accepted this notion that Koran is perfect revelation from God, Muslims are susceptible to its contents. If this is instilled from early age, it can be really hard to get rid of it. Take that Muslim I described above, confront him with truth of Islam and it is highly probable that he will rationalize and defend it. Even is he is otherwise a decent human being, you can get him to the point where he defends and rationalizes murderous, deceitful and paedophilical ways of his prophet.

That is why for me "moderate" Muslims do not present a conflict. Not all Muslims are Talebans, they obviously can be converted, but also it is like in that Matrix movie, every sleeper inside Matrix can become an agent. Everyone who accepts Koran can become a Taleban. Muslims should be confronted with truth of Islam and asked to renounce it. If they don't renounce it they can fare the way, moderate or exterme or who cares what.


Sagunto: +1 for number 2.

Sagunto said...

aku -

your answer:
"Sagunto: +1 for number 2."

Thank you for participating. That would be your choice when asked what you yourself would mean when using the slogan, I reckon?

And what would your answer be to the a) b) or c) question?

Sag.

Ruby said...

It seems like people have gone round and round about number one. I just wonder what the suggestions are if we can not tolerate 50 million people already in our midst. Is tolerate, but not directly work with the suggestion?

If we deported criminals and illegals I'm sure that would cut that number in half. But deportation would then depend upon whether or not they are foreign born... What if they're not foreign born, or even the children of illegals, and actually have constitutional rights as full citizens, not naturalized citizens who can have the privelege of citizenship taken away?

I'm a little reluctant to get rid of constitutional government myself, or selectively apply rights outlined in it to only those who I like and agree with. I would rather not set a precedent of deporting people based on religion, either. Who could later use that precedent?

I'm open to the fact that if no mderate Muslims present themselves, we wouldn't have to "work with" anybody. But lets say none, zero, can be worked with? What are those who insist #1 is not possible actually suggesting is the next step? What do you want to do with the remaining people?

Blogger said...

I'm for #2. Number 5 is very disturbing. "Non white" has nothing to do with Islam, and I think this rhetoric about race harms our cause, which is to subvert the ideology of Islam. As for the preserving "blue eyes" issue, this is disturbing. Does that mean you only marry partners with blue eyes? What do you do with the 1000s of muslims who have blue eyes too? (ie the official teacher of Islam, when I was in France, was a blue eyed and blonde haired lady). I hope anyone who believes in the superiority of blue eyes takes a look at the movie "brown eyes blue eyes". I am brown eyed, with dark brown hair and olive skin, and I hope that one day I will not be excluded due to my looks, and that instead people will get to know me as a person instead. If you mix people of ethnic looks in with Islam, intelligent people will not take this fight against Islam seriously anymore.

sulber nick said...

I wonder if any Muslims read this blog and what they make of it.

4Symbols said...

In hoc signo vinces

It is clear that the only movements that will stop the encrochement of islam in Europe will be nationalist in essence, the counter jihad will be defined by the opposition they face, democractic politics and niceties must be suspended while the political civil war in Europe is fought to a point of nullification only then can the counter jihad advance to engage islam in totality.

Fortress Europe must become the political mindset and a territorial reality.

Anonymous said...

Nice quotation by Ronald Reagan.

Van Grungy said...

Here's a fact that cannot be assailed...

mecca must be erased to end islam.. The hajj must be ended forever..

The sooner this is done, the more lives of non-muslim and muslim humans will be spared..

===

Then it becomes a simple question to muslims after that event.. If allah wills everything, why did allah will the destruction of mecca?

===

That's the problem with islam, it relies on a terrestrial pillar to prop it up..

mohammad didn't predict Einstein and Oppenheimer...

===

I would also accept taking the borg cube away from mecca and dropping into the Mariana Trench or another such deep hole...

Baron Bodissey said...

Escape Velocity --

You've been around here long enough to know our rules of discourse. Cut the obscenities. I'll just delete them in the future.

-------

EscapeVelocity said...

You cant build a broad coalition with the Neo Nazis in play.


Anyways, Neo Nazis themselves and these White Nationalists (and believe me I have sympathy for some of their grievances) lumping all sorts of other groups into the deportation ships, is a BIG mistake.

Most of the problems that they gripe about can be fixed by a re-invigorated cultural confidence. One that was lost over the last century, we lost our Religion, and then we last faith in our rational selves via Communism and especially Nazism. Which led us (the collective us which includes Leftists pushing and the Middle conceding and retreating) to the place we are now.

Its OK to have policies which restrict immigration to those likely to fit into our cultures, other Europeans, Christians, etc.

It's OK to celebrate Christmas unashamedly, without apology.

That doesnt mean you have to treat "the Other," like [offal].

The problem is that we've swung the pendulum way to far to the Left, and we are now in dire straights, because of that Guilt and Doubt...having rejected our Faith and replaced it with a Moral and Cultural Relativist Abyss.

We dont want to overcorrect, and turn back into the Nazis....or Racist Blood and Honor Xenophobic Tribalists.

Sagunto said...

EscapeVelocity -

This is my statement about the Baron's point 8:

"Endorsement [but] doubts about "conservatives" who seek to use (welfare) state-power to preserve tradition (point 8)"

Your reaction:

"Sagunto, Youve misread point 8."

And after I asked you to explain this remarkable claim of yours, you wrote:

"Social Conservatism is not Welfare Statism."

So, no misreading here, at least not on my part. Just a small difference of opinion. Maybe I just didn't make myself clear enough.

But on the other hand, since I chose my words very carefully in expressing some doubt about certain self-declared "conservatives", lured into voting for big government because of promises of conservative social reform, I must conclude that you chose to misrepresent my point of view (yet again).

And for the sake of fair discussion, I can't allow that.
But thanks for the opportunity to share some observations about social conservatism.

In my opinion a true conservative shouldn't limit himself to social issues. And you are right: social conservatism is not welfare statism, but on balance, "social conservatism" as a political construct might very well lead to bigger government, so I'm a bit cautious here. And here's why.
In my view, it offers "conservative" politicians a window of opportunity to get away with anti free market, welfare state government, while promising to deliver on social issues. In my view, the construct of "social conservatism" can be used, and has indeed been used, as a device for conning conservatively minded people into endorsing big government, by drawing attention away from fundamental economic issues (like progressivist Central Banking, destroying the currency through monetary inflation).
Those monetary big Govt. policies - widely supported across the entire political spectrum, will ultimately undermine the most important institution of social conservatism, or any conservatism for that matter: the family.
Remember that lady from the audience talking to Mr. Bush? She had to work three jobs and he was proud of that, promoting it like something that was "uniquely American". That is the result when big government "conservatism" gets its way. Genuine conservatism in politics i.m.o. is about reducing centralized government and the power of the State to the maximum extent, and then take care of social conservative issues yourself.

Kind regs from Amsterdam,
Sag.

Baron Bodissey said...

Sagunto --

I'm with you -- I'm extremely leery of any "social conservatism" issues pushed via political means, with an eye towards government action. This includes issues that are so noble and good that people like me look mean-spirited and cruel for opposing them -- abstinence programs, for instance, or "faith-based initiatives", or "no child left behind".

When anything has to be promoted by the government, it's a sign that the most basic goal of a social conservative has failed. If one is truly conservative, one strives to keep the government out of people's private lives, period.

Dave Barry is a libertarian, and he once said (I paraphrase): "We must have laws against people having sex with dogs, because if we didn't, everyone would go around having sex with dogs. Right?"

The larger point is that society has already gone drastically wrong whenever you have to pass a law about something that used to be held as a common value, and was enforced by custom and social pressure. Passing laws forbidding this or encouraging that will not fix matters. This simply indicates that the tear in the traditional social fabric has grown too large to mend.

This does not, however, preclude social conservatives from being part of a useful coalition against Islam. Since Islam is a more pressing problem than government -- which has taken centuries to do its damage, and may take decades or centuries to dismantle -- we may reasonably work together until the objective is achieved. After that we will become honorable opponents once again.

Anonymous said...

I agree with the Baron's list.

Except there's one category missing : what about Muslims ?

Muslims who should be part of our coalition are a tiny minority if there ever was one, but they are a vital element !

By Muslim, of course, I mean a person who was born in a culturally Muslim community, regardless of his actual creed or opinion.

Obviously, people like Wafa Sultan or Ayaan Hirsi Ali are de facto, and should be considered, part of this coalition.

How further this coalition should be extended on the Muslim side is a thorny issue.

On one hand, we need those people, because they are waterproof to the usual "racism" slander, know the enemy from inside, and are in a unique position to convert their fellow Muslims (I use the word in a broad, not exclusively religious sense).

On the other hand, we should be careful about who we make friends with, since it's so difficult to make the difference between those who just reject terrorism, but would welcome a "pacific" jihad because they would benefit from it, and those who really oppose the very principle of islam.

Bright Muslim women in the West stand to gain a lot by siding with us. We should be ready to seize any sign, from one of them, that she is willing and ready to be deprogrammed from the deadly mental prison of islam (as Wafa Sultan had to deprogram herself, even after settling in America because of her fundamental rejection of islam).

As for excluding neo-nazis, well, yes, in principle, provided we agree on terms. I'm not even sure there's such a thing as a neo-nazi. Are there really any prominent individuals or political groups which describe themselves as neo-nazis nowadays, or would even agree to be qualified as such ?

Being branded a nazi by the PC brigade does not count.

Sagunto said...

Robert Marchenoir -

Speaking of the chimera of "Moderate Muslims", how about focussing on Muslim women and how they fit - or are raised and made to fit, their role as the bedrock of Islam. Here you have your "moderates" in the sense that they are subdued, and in a way, "don't exist", but for the purpose of propagation. That is enough to play their part in the grand take-over operation which is Islam. Evidently, a lot of doctrinal energy and violence is spent within Islam on Muslim women, with the exact purpose to keep them "moderate" and subdued inside the collective. With Muslim gynocide as a deterrent, family law and specific provisions to create submissive women, with all of this and lots more, Islam creates reproductive units that produce Muslims, spreading Islam. In short: Muslim women are a means for Islam to produce more Islam.

So my question to you would be: why care for their intentions? Why would their motives be of any consequence to us, as long as they are Muslims and thus part of the whole system of Islam?

Hirsi Ali and Sultan, defected from the Muslim tribe and that's great, but that was their own personal (and heroic) accomplishment, testimony to their enormous strength of character. No help required from CJ's here.

What I propose, is looking at Islam, not from the perspective of stated or inferred intentions of various sub-groups, which would guarantee an endless list of exegetical exercises (very interesting and important in its own right), but to consider the whole of it as a system, effecting systemic corrosion and decay trough violence, and judge it by how it works towards destroying freedom all over the world in societies playing host to this violent and parasitical foe.

Viewed from the perspective that I propose, it doesn't matter, at all, what so-called "moderate" Muslims' intentions or characteristics are (e.g., whether they are all "evil" or just "quietist" people, or whatever). Being Muslim is being part of the system of Islam as a whole, and just guarding their women not to defect from the tribe while breeding out Westerners with even "the best of intentions" [/sarc], is enough already to make them our existential foes.

On the point of "neo-Nazis", you asked:

"Are there really any prominent individuals or political groups which describe themselves as neo-nazis nowadays, or would even agree to be qualified as such?"

Yes there are. They share all leftist characteristics with their old school comrades, but their role is minute in the current political spectrum, that has already implemented many old Nazi policy recommendations and in economic issues is still applying leftist Nazi interventionism.
But to add another group, I'd say that self-described "anti"-fascists also make good candidates, in spite of their doubtless claims to the contrary.

Baron -

"This does not, however, preclude social conservatives from being part of a useful coalition against Islam."

I second that.

Kind regs from Amsterdam,
Sag.

4Symbols said...

In hoc signo vinces

The larger point is that society has already gone drastically wrong whenever you have to pass a law about something that used to be held as a common value.

In a free market there can be no common value or government as fundamentaly the market is king and currency the arbitrator, common value and govenment only serve to impose and inflict restrictive practices on a true free market.

Therefore in a free market economy an entrepreneur must be at liberty to have a dog pimping service or import aliens as slave labour otherwise the market is not free.

You New said...

Robert Marchenoir

Thank you Robert, regarding the Anti-religious Muslim.
Okay, they are rare, but then again, a few per cent of 1.5 billion...maybe they are not so rare. Folks, let's not confuse them with "moderate Muslims."

extremist Muslims = dangerous
moderate Muslims = dangerous
anti-religious Muslims = not dangerous, free thinkers, unique and valuable.

With the elimination of the religious sub-text, the mental indoctrination is freed. I say good on the anti-religious or agnostic MINOs.

If anyone is having trouble at the thought of anti-religious or agnostic Muslims, think of Robert's examples. Then just imagine how true Muslims freak out when they find out their friends are agnostic?

Nilk said...

If we deported criminals and illegals I'm sure that would cut that number in half. But deportation would then depend upon whether or not they are foreign born... What if they're not foreign born, or even the children of illegals, and actually have constitutional rights as full citizens, not naturalized citizens who can have the privelege of citizenship taken away?

That's what jail is for, Ruby.

If they cannot abide by the laws of the land, then they have privileges revoked.

If they have a problem with that, then they can always leave the country for a sharia paradise such as Saudi Arabia.

Zenster said...

Sagunto: Muslim women are a means for Islam to produce more Islam.

Exactly. Their state of relative oppression must not be taken as a call for inclusion, even if Islam is their oppressor.

As Sagunto has previously noted: Moderate Muslims do spread Islam and, per his previous comment in this thread, Muslimas − no matter how downtrodden or oppressed − also "produce more Islam". That Muslim women, unlike Muslim men, are forbidden to marry out of their faith only magnifies this fact.

Sagunto: What I propose, is looking at Islam, not from the perspective of stated or inferred intentions of various sub-groups … but to consider the whole of it as a system, effecting systemic corrosion and decay trough violence, and judge it by how it works towards destroying freedom all over the world in societies playing host to this violent and parasitical foe.

This frame of reference should always serve as a primary starting point. To Hell with examining Islam in the context of its impact upon our own respective societies and cultures; as there is enough diversity in its various harms and impacts to instigate endless disagreement.

Instead, merely assess Islam from “within an Islamic context” and there is more than enough damning evidence to show Islam as toxic to all other global civilizations. Bearing this in mind, the fact that “moderate” Muslims and however-much-oppressed Muslimas both “do spread Islam”, then their status as enemies of the counterjihad is sealed.

No one, absolutely NO ONE who has not openly declared their apostasy from Islam can have the least credibility or be allowed to participate in the counterjihad. Open and public apostasy is an indispensible requirement and one whose qualification is conveniently determined “within an Islamic context”.

Widely regarded as the “Pope” of Islam, supposedly “moderate” Muslim cleric Sheik Yusuf (“Beat Your Wife Lightly”) Qaradawi has this stand regarding apostates:

Apostasy is an explosive accusation. On another occasion, Sheikh Qaradawi explained that “Muslim jurists are unanimous that apostates must be punished.” He further acknowledged that the consensus view of these jurists, including the principal schools of both Sunni and Shiite jurisprudence, is “that apostates must be executed.”

Qaradawi’s own view is more nuanced, as he explained to the Egyptian press in 2005. This, I suppose, is where his vaunted reformist streak comes in. For private apostasy, in which a Muslim makes a secret, personal decision to renounce tenets of Islam and quietly goes his separate way without causing a stir, the sheikh believes ostracism by the Islamic community is a sufficient penalty, with the understanding that Allah will condemn the apostate to eternal damnation at the time of his choosing. For public apostasy, however, Qaradawi stands with the overwhelming weight of Islamic authority: “The punishment . . . is execution.”
[emphasis added]

Nobody with a Muslim background, save those who have publicly declared their apostasy can possibly be considered for inclusion in the counterjihad. Even then, the specter of taqiyya still looms large.

One useful aspect of Islam that can be turned against itself is that any publicly declared apostate attempting to infiltrate the counterjihad would be subject to immediate capital punishment by individual Muslims at any place or time. Thus, Islam would just as often execute its own spies on the counterjihad. Sad to say, not even this self-correcting aspect may warrant the inclusion of Muslim apostates in the counterjihad. So great is the risk.

EscapeVelocity said...

Baron and Sagunto,

Are you also leery of Libertarians, because some of them are open borders (free movement of labor) and almost all of them are Moral and Cultural Relativists?

I find your argument unpersuasive, although, no doubt that there are Social Cons, that not only are taken advantage of by pollies, but also are Government Paternalists in the old Catholic Mold.

Oh, well. I guess we can scratch the Christian Social Cons off the list of the Coalition of the Willing...or whatever.


I tend to think of Christianity and Social Conservatism as integral to the Classically Liberal System.


“To be attached to the subdivision, to love the little platoon we belong to in society, is the first principle (the germ as it were) of public affections. It is the first link in the series by which we proceed toward a love to our country and to mankind. The interest of that portion of social arrangement is a trust in the hands of allthose who compose it; and as none but bad men would justify it inabuse, none but traitors would barter it away for their own personal advantage.”

Baron Bodissey said...

EV --

It depends on the libertarian. There are a lot of flavors of libertarianism -- it's the nature of the beast.

Some of them are opposed to any anti-Islamic activity as an unwarranted interference in the private practice of religion. Others think more or less like we do.

And, as you mention, there is the open borders crowd, who are ready to let everybody in.

But there are also "liberty in one country" folks who favor tight border controls and a strong national defense.

So we have to take them on a case-by-case basis.

Zenster said...

You New: anti-religious Muslims = not dangerous, free thinkers, unique and valuable.

This is a perilously unwarranted supposition and one that is wholly unsupported by the facts at hand.

Consider the following examples:

Patience Will Be Rewarded

When We Meet Creatures From Space

In both cases, these are Muslim men − namely, those with the most to gain from participating in Islam − but, nonetheless, they are questioning the very foundations of Islamic orthodoxy.

Yet, again in both cases, neither individual is willing to reject Islam wholesale and openly declare themselves as apostates. Both of them live in modern, pluralistic Scandinavia where they are relatively well-protected from the traditional death penalty imposed in Islamic nations around the world. Again, they each recognize Islam as being thoroughly dysfunctional.

Somewhere in both of their minds is an apparently unbreakable bond to their respective Islamic identities. Were these bonds not indestructible, they would have been shattered by the simple realization − adequately displayed in each of their publications − of how primitively irrational and unworthy of regard orthodox Islam continues to be despite countless calls for reformation by Westerners and ostensibly well-intentioned Muslims alike.

This fact points towards another equally merited and very disturbing conclusion.

Both of these individuals are at high risk of reverting to the worship of orthodox Islam.

Such a reversion represents one of the only ways of mentally or emotionally reconciling their refusal to apostatize with whatever residual respect they continue to demonstrate for Islam by not rejecting it as a whole. Whether it is an inability to abandon fond childhood memories of Islam (“Patience Will Be Rewarded”) or the simple inability to fully accept and comprehend how deeply dysfunctional Islam truly is (“When We Meet Creatures From Space”), an absence of resolute migration away from Islam automatically implies a potential for return towards it.

A similar mechanism is constantly displayed by successive generations of immigrant Muslims. In a huge number of cases the offspring of immigrant Muslim adults become far more radicalized than their parents. Surrounded by innumerable benisons of Western culture, these relative newcomers nonetheless deem the violent imposition of Islam’s austere and puritanical doctrine − along with its retrograde culture and technological stagnation − to be a worthy cause.

This radicalization manifests in many different ways and can demonstrate either slow or swift onset. Occasions of Sudden Jihad Syndrome continue to plague the West as reputedly “moderate” Muslims unexpectedly open fire on crowds or plow their vehicles into public gatherings. Gradual radicalization poses an even greater threat as it is often accompanied by careful instruction regarding covert or guerilla tactics that mask such extremism until it is far too late.

The presumption that Muslims who have relaxed their observation of typically rigorous Islamic protocols have thereby proven themselves as qualified to be included in the counterjihad’s ranks is as foolish as it is unwarranted.

Again, only a public declaration of apostasy even remotely begins to fulfill the necessary security requirements needed for protection of those non-Muslims who will form the overall base of effective anti-Islamic movements.

Sagunto said...

EscapeVelocity -

"I tend to think of Christianity and Social Conservatism as integral to the Classically Liberal System."

I do too (with some reservations as to the "type" of Christianity). Problem is, there is no Classical Liberalism anywhere on the horizon. There also is nothing even remotely resembling free market economy, as long as the current Central Banking system is in place (both in the EU and the US); interest rates are not set by the market; the money supply is being inflated beyond belief; the people are being robbed through monetary inflation; and robbed again through the income tax (which is illegal in the US anyway).

This system feeds ambitious big government (not coincidentally also the prime enablers of Islam) that will always meddle in people's affairs in areas it has no authority whatsoever. I am not interested in "libertarianism", for that label - like the Baron indicated, covers a thousand different flavours. I am interested in genuine conservatism, in Natural Law, in the protection of traditional values by peoples (families) themselves and via institutions independent from state power. Religious institutions would be among the logical candidates to reclaim the open space that a substantially smaller government, more true to the original Constitution (US) and more in line with pre-war tradition in my own country (Netherlands), would leave.

Recommended (and fun) reading: three books by Dr. Thomas E. Woods:
- "The Church and the Market" (2005)
- "Meltdown: A Free-Market look at Why the Stock Market Collapsed, the Economy Tanked, and Government Bailouts Will Make Things Worse" (2009)
- "How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization" (2005)

Too bad that he seems to be completely clueless about Islam. Oh well, can't have 'em all.

Kind regs from Amsterdam,
Sag.

Anonymous said...

Regarding Muslim women, that's a case where we have to raise our heads off the book and look at how things really work out.

Yes, theoretically the punishment for apostasy is death, however this is almost never enforced in the West (and not very much in the Muslim world, either).

Also, what's apostasy ? Do you need to be baptised in order to become an apostate ? This is a very restrictive definition. Most "apostates" in the West just drift away -- or cut loose -- from the islamic universe, without necessarily entering another religion.

Unless I'm mistaken, Wafa Sultan, who is certainly a good measure of a reliable ex-Muslim and counter-jihadist, has not converted to any other religion. She says she still vaguely believes in some sort of deity, but in a very informal way. In other terms, she has become like many other Westerners.

Yes, theoretically Muslim women cannot marry non-Muslim men, however vast numbers of them do exactly that in the West, most of them get away with it, and I'd even venture that the overwhelming majority of them are not threatened because of that.

I believe it's a major motive for the permanent state of "anger" of their young male counterparts. A large number of Muslim girls (and here I speak from my French vantage point) cannot believe how lucky they are to have been born in the West.

They understand very well the value of their new-found freedom and the opportunity they have to escape the yoke of their family, brothers, fathers and islam.

On the opposite, Muslims boys, by the virtue of being born in the West, stand to loose the one major advantage islam gives them whatever their poverty, fecklessness, stupidity or misfortune : the power they have over their women.

They sense that immediately, too. They resent it tremedendously. Anybody would in their situation.

Many Muslim girls from Algeria are good-looking, work hard at school, and are determined to do something with their lives. Many of them do.

Rachida Dati is a good example of that : she became minister of Justice of Sarkozy and posed for glamorous shots in Dior dresses for Paris-Match photographers, while two (I think) of her brothers were in jail for drug trafficking.

Besides, how do you prove you're not a Muslim anymore ? There are no Muslim identity cards.

By encouraging the drift of women away from islam, we can recruit agents within the enemy, and work towards breaking Muslim men's morale as far as the umma mentality is concerned.

This is a very powerful wedge, that can and must be inserted and thrust upon between Muslim men and women. It goes straight to what's one of the strongest foundations of islam, which we have the opportunity of turning into one of its main weaknesses.

It's also a way to reciprocate -- although in a most civilised way -- the sexual war Muslim men wage against our women, through insults, harrasment, assault and rape.

I'm not saying it's easy or foolproof. I'm saying the weapon is definitely there, and therefore should be used.

Sagunto said...

Robert Marchenoir -

You wrote:

"Yes, theoretically Muslim women cannot marry non-Muslim men, however vast numbers of them do exactly that in the West, most of them get away with it, and I'd even venture that the overwhelming majority of them are not threatened because of that.

and:

"Regarding Muslim women, that's a case where we have to raise our heads off the book and look at how things really work out."

Well, I live in Amsterdam, which is a good place if you want to get to know a lot of Muslims from all over the world. So I have been "raising my head off the book" for years now, and I can honestly tell you with regard to your first assertion/claim/wild guess: It ain't happening, not at all.

Therefore, I'm rather interested as to where in France it is, that those Muslim women are marrying native French men by the droves. That would be news indeed ;-)

Take care,
Sag.

EscapeVelocity said...

- "How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization" (2005)

Ive read this one.

Hesperado said...

Baron,

You quoted the following from me --

...or at least gets closer than either Baron or other commenters.

Then you asked:

"Gets closer to what, precisely? What assertion about "moderate Muslims" did I make that you found distant from the truth?"

One can either make an assertion that is distant from the truth, or one can fail to include an assertion that is key to the elucidation of said truth. My argument in my comment, from which you quoted the above extract, concerned the latter. It's all there. There's no need for me to take the time and trouble to repeat myself.

As for your second point:

Again, you quote me --

#3 ... implies that he would exclude from the coalition of acceptable positions those who would deport all Muslims, including citizens and non-criminals. If so, that's an unfortunate exclusion...

-- and wrote:

"On the contrary, no implication is present, merely your inference.

"Notice that my introduction to the 8-point list said "such a coalition warrants the inclusion of..."

"There is no statement that any other group was excluded."

Yes, were this the only information we have to go by, this would be correct; and while I included the extra information from your own words that complicate this, I did not, apparently, make it sufficiently explicit. The extra information, in your #3, is your formulation for inclusion "Those who would deport all non-citizen Muslims, revoke the citizenship of criminal Muslims...". When you specify the qualifications "non-citizen Muslims" and "criminal Muslims", and no where else do you take the minimal time and trouble to include the same formula without those qualifications (e.g., "also, Muslims who are citizens and who are not criminals"), a reasonable person assumes you had a reason for such an omission -- namely, that you don't want to include as acceptable in the counter-jihad coalition people who want to deport all Muslims including citizen and non-criminal Muslims. If, however, you have no problem with including such people (who want to deport all Muslims including citizen and non-criminal Muslims), your omission of the unqualified position -- coupled with your specification of the same position only qualified -- reflects a most curious oversight.

Profitsbeard said...

Mohammadism is built on Sanctified Terror.

People who support this malignant element have no place in Civilization.

Those who want to establish any form of ideological totalitarianism, even as a way "to oppose Islam", have no place in the Resistance to the infiltration by Islam.

You need allies who promote liberty and decency and wisdom, not racial crankiness or cramped nationalistic nonsense.

This fight is: free humanity versus dogmatic slavery.

Any who want their own kind of slavery are no help.

Anonymous said...

Sagunto :

"I'm rather interested as to where in France it is, that those Muslim women are marrying native French men by the droves."

They are all over the place. I have just showed you one.

Granted, Rachida Dati is not married, and the name of the father of her child is a secret. But the different names suggested by the media did not include any Muslims.

Here is another one : the French ex-minister of... immigration, Eric Besson, just married a (much younger) woman from Tunisia. There was a rumour that he would convert to islam for the occasion, but it was denied.

The phenomenon is not limited to VIPs. I'm just quoting those two because they have been in the media.

In fact, it would be very surprising if this did not occur. A woman is naturally drawn to men from a culture who would hold doors for her, offer her flowers and earn good money in a legal way, rather than beat her when she comes home late, spend half their time in jail and generally be feckless loosers.

That's not to deny the very significant tendency of Muslims marrying their own, nor the large number of veils, hijabs and assorted tents.

But counter-jihadists are a tiny minority themselves. When we are speaking about potential allies, every individual counts.

Baron Bodissey said...

Hesperado --

...a reasonable person assumes you had a reason for such an omission -- namely, that you don't want to include as acceptable in the counter-jihad coalition people who...

Actually, a reasonable person would assume nothing of the sort.

A reasonable person, if any such existed among our readers, would assume that the author of the piece had neither the time nor the inclination to expand the listing of possible combinatorial groupings to be included in what was intended to be a brief numbered list.

A reasonable person would assume that the writer did not wish to burden the reader with elaborate exegetical verbal intricacies, which intricacies would be entirely unneccessary to enhance any reasonable person's understanding of the post.

At least that's my take on what a hypothetical reasonable person would assume.

Are there any reasonable commenters here who have an opinion on such matters?

Sagunto said...

Robert Marchenoir -

What I read from your comments: wishful thinking; wild assumptions; logical inferences from guesswork and above all, a good sense of humour ;-)

I mean:

"They are all over the place. I have just showed you one."

LOL

So you lifted your head off your book and turned to the tube.. Who cares about some French political vips? Do you have any stats to go with your guesswork? Because I have them for Amsterdam. That's about actual real life society, here in our neighbourhoods, and I repeat: it isn't happening. When a non-Muslim man doesn't convert to Islam and the woman stays the practising Muslim she was, there are no examples to be found. It only happens with apostates.

As we say over here in Amsterdam, Me thinks you're just "whistling dixie" here.

Kind regs from Amsterdam,
Sag.

Sagunto said...

Baron -

"Are there any reasonable commenters here who have an opinion on such matters?"

I think that perhaps Hesperado is being a little too reasonable.

While we're at it, anyone care for a little quiz?

A B or C Hesp, what's it gonna be? Tell me you disagree. Come on Baron, try your luck ;-)

Take care,
Sag.

Baron Bodissey said...

Sagunto, I decline to take the quiz, because I don't share its evident premises. The slogan you describe is not one that I like, and I don't use it. I understand why people feel the need to repeat it, but since I question the ontological construction bearing the label "moderate Muslim", I am unable to formulate any conclusions based on it.

Sorry. That was too verbose.

Short version: Garbage in, garbage out.

Zenster said...

Robert Marchenoir: … the punishment for apostasy is death, however this is almost never enforced in the West (and not very much in the Muslim world, either).

Cite please? From all indications, Muslim apostasy is quite rare and cases like that of Abdul Rahman, Said Musa (who faces immediate execution), or even young Rifqa Bary right here in America have all faced death threats.

Please produce verifiable statistics that the death penalty for whatever number of apostatizing Muslims "is almost never enforced in the West (and not very much in the Muslim world, either)."

Most "apostates" in the West just drift away -- or cut loose -- from the islamic universe, without necessarily entering another religion.

Cite please? You are asserting facts not in evidence. There are clear indications that European Muslim populations tend to concentrate. Given that well-established tendency, how likely is it then that those Muslims who "just drift away -- or cut loose -- from the islamic universe, without necessarily entering another religion" can do so without attracting any notice from the surrounding Muslim community?

Unless I'm mistaken, Wafa Sultan, who is certainly a good measure of a reliable ex-Muslim and counter-jihadist, has not converted to any other religion.

None of which has prevented routine death threats against Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Wafa Sultan or any number of other number of public apostates from Islam.

… theoretically Muslim women cannot marry non-Muslim men, however vast numbers of them do exactly that in the West, most of them get away with it, and I'd even venture that the overwhelming majority of them are not threatened because of that.

Cite please? While intermarriage between Muslim men and non-Muslim women is a relatively common occurrence, there are numerous reports of so-called "honor" killings involving young Muslim women who chose to fraternize with non-Muslim men.

The typical Muslim family structure alone militates rather heavily against Muslim women even having an opportunity to meet or marry non-Muslim men much less avoid early forced marriage to consanguineous Muslim cousins for the sake of forthcoming dowery or immigration rights that devolve from such individuals.

Rachida Dati is a good example of that : she became minister of Justice of Sarkozy and posed for glamorous shots in Dior dresses for Paris-Match photographers, while two (I think) of her brothers were in jail for drug trafficking.

From a subsequent post: Granted, Rachida Dati is not married, and the name of the father of her child is a secret.

It would seem that Rachida Dati might have some serious concerns regarding the welfare of her child and, even, of herself.

Again, please provide some sort of proof for the otherwise improbable assertions that you have made.

Sagunto said...

Baron -

The "quiz" is about exactly the same thing you and Hesp are having a dispute over: the assumed exclusion of alternatives. It is not really about the construct itself, or the slogan.

Like the short version: fair enough.



Hesperado -

You probably have written an essay on how you envision the deportation of all Muslims from our lands. How is it most likely to come about, who is going to organize the actual deporting, and so on. I'm interested to know.

Kind regs from Amsterdam,
Sag.

Zenster said...

Baron Bodissey: A reasonable person would assume that the writer did not wish to burden the reader with elaborate exegetical verbal intricacies, which intricacies would be entirely unneccessary to enhance any reasonable person's understanding of the post.

For which we reasonable people thank you very much.

Zenster said...

Sagunto: How is it [the mass deportation of Muslims] most likely to come about, who is going to organize the actual deporting, and so on. I'm interested to know.

The only detailed analysis of this by an author of merit is "To Push or to Squeeze?", as submitted by frequent Gates of Vienna contributor, El Inglés.

His options:

Option 1:
■ … pressuring them, in whatever fashion, to decide to relocate

Option 2:
■ … deporting them

Option 3:
■ … large-scale violence which, taken to an extreme, would constitute genocide


… all of which points towards what I mirthlessly continue to predict; a Muslim holocaust. Read the article and see for yourself just how unlikely any peaceable solution is in this matter.

I implore readers to please keep in mind that none of this would be possible or even probable were it not for Islam itself.

If Islam was not the triumphalist, supremacist, apocalyptic doctrine that it most certainly is, such a gruesome outcome would be far less likely.

Instead, all through history, Islam had made literally every confrontation with it totally binary in nature.

Live or die. Win or submit. Accept Islam or endure grinding deprivation on such a scale that your descendants will convert to Islam solely to avoid the abject misery being imposed upon them.

NO CULTURE ON EARTH HAS EVER ESCAPED BEING IN ISLAM'S THRALL WITHOUT BLOODSHED ON A MASSIVE SCALE.

Even just having a substantial Muslim minority within your midst has delivered the same sort of outcome time and again.

How it is that anybody should think today will turn out otherwise is nothing short of astonishing.

Engineer-Poet said...

Zenster, I think Wretchard's "Three Conjectures" deserves mention too.

That said, the tendency of Muslims to segregate into ghettos is a weakness (as I've said before, it creates a target-rich environment).  It takes little imagination to come up with ways to exploit this, and I won't list any.  Suffice it to say that DIY efforts will work at least as well against concentrations of Muslims as e.g. Hasan's assault worked against the Army, and once they begin the Muslims in the "Dar al Harb" may find it very urgent to return to their ancestral homes even if they've never seen them before.

Hesperado said...

Baron,

In response to my argument, you quoted a fragment of it --

"...a reasonable person assumes you had a reason for such an omission -- namely, that you don't want to include as acceptable in the counter-jihad coalition people who..."

-- and wrote:

"Actually, a reasonable person would assume nothing of the sort.

"A reasonable person, if any such existed among our readers, would assume that the author of the piece had neither the time nor the inclination to expand the listing of possible combinatorial groupings to be included in what was intended to be a brief numbered list."

This response of yours glosses over the crux of my argument in this respect: namely, that you took the time and trouble to include in your list a qualified version of deportation, but chose not to include the less complicated, unqualified form. Instead of including "all Muslims" without qualification, you chose to expend more words in constructing a qualification of that -- viz., "non-citizen Muslims" and "criminal Muslims". Your preference for more words rather than less would indicate that saving time and trouble, as you now imply, was not your concern in that respect.

In this context, you added:

"A reasonable person would assume that the writer did not wish to burden the reader with elaborate exegetical verbal intricacies."

To add "we also include those who wish to deport all Muslims without qualification" is hardly complicating matters; it is, indeed, simplifying matters.

Again, the reasonable reader would conclude that you chose to carefully articulate those added qualifications for a reason -- to exclude the formulation that fails to possess those qualifications.

It's hard to believe that adding a simple extra sentence of ten words such as:

4. Or, those who simply would deport all Muslims without qualifications.

-- would cause you to break a sweat.

Surely, it's not sweat that was keeping you from including that, but some principle, or an elementary oversight on your part (though it seems we're now long past entertaining the plausibility of the latter hypothesis). The time you are expending now quibbling like Shakespeare's gravedigger in Hamlet could have been spent adding eight additional items to your list.

Baron Bodissey said...

Hesperado --

If I had wanted to say those additional things, I could have done it.

If I had wanted to prove to you that I don't have the motives you repeatedly assign to me, I could have said all that, and more.

I could have listed other smaller subsets of possible coalition partners, but I didn't want to do that.

My list was never meant to be exhaustive. It was simply a representative sample of the most commonly articulated ideological positions on the issue.

In short, if I had wanted to be just like you and have everything the way you like it, I could have said all those things. But I didn't want to do that.

And my decisions were not in the slightest bit influenced by PC/MC conditioning.

Ain't that a bitch?

- - - - -

I assume that you realize that you have done Gates of Vienna readers a signal service by providing such a clear example of this post's topic: "the narcissism of small differences".

1389 said...

Hesperado,

I am heartily in favor of deporting all Muslims without exception, regardless of race, national origin, family ties, citizenship, or whatever else.

In my opinion, for a natural-born citizen to embrace Islam is tantamount to defecting to an armed and dangerous enemy, and should be treated as a renunciation of citizenship.

That having been said, I would prefer that you not devote your energies to quibbling with the Baron. He and Dymphna have put a great deal of effort into the work of rolling back the jihad. Filling up a comment stream with arguments about whether he phrased a set of alternatives sufficiently broadly is not the most productive use of your time.

Instead, you could be gathering more evidence and presenting arguments in a complete article of your own, regarding why Muslims should be deported, and regarding how this could be accomplished with a minimum of adverse consequences to the rest of us.

1389 said...

@Zenster,

I wish to point out that Muslims and Nazis are natural allies, as demonstrated by the fact that some of the Nazis of the Third Reich were Muslims, while other prominent Nazis, including Heinrich Himmler as well as Hitler himself, were openly sympathetic to Islam.

Nazis, and Nazi-sympathizers, are not on our side, and that's that.

4Symbols said...

In hoc signo vinces

As an observation there appears a blurring of the lines between banal nationalism and Nazism regarding European politics.

Strange that nationalist sentiment in the United States and elsewhere around the World are labelled patriotism but when Nationalist sympathies no matter how weak are expressed in a European context they are immediately branded as Neo-Nazi.

Why is it then that a good judeo-christian patriot in the United States would be deemed a Neo-Nazi in Europe?

Anonymous said...

Being concerned about white survival, including the survival of blue-eyed people, doesn't imply support for Nazism. Wanting one's own racial and/or ethnic group to survive doesn't necessarily mean that one believes one's own group is "superior" or wishes other groups to die. We need to be clear about this, because I saw a couple of comments in this thread, that seem to advocate that discussion of race and eugenics should be suppressed, and that the reason might be related to concern for the Jews.

That's nice, but not helpful, because it's based on a misunderstanding of what White Nationalism is. Rather than suppress this or that topic, it would be better to understand the topic better.

It doesn't help Jews at all, to prevent people from discussing something that some people think will hurt them. If many people harbor anti-semitic feelings, taking away their right of free speech won't make them like Jews any more; it will only turn lukewarm anti-semites into fanatical anti-zionists.

If race, HBD and eugenics are banned from the future CJ coalition, many allies will be missing, including me, because free speech is important, and so is race. If one can't express a preference for one's own race, what's left? Then one can only criticize ideologies but not people, and frankly, it's some people that motivate me to want to avoid and/or deport them, not something in a religious book.

Sagunto said...

1389 -

I second your comment (#80)

And I'd like to add, now in a more serious response to the Baron's question:

"Are there any reasonable commenters here who have an opinion on such matters?"

Suppose a reasonable commenter read a list and suspected one particular option to have been purposely left out.
Being a reasonable person he would check with the author and inform him about his suspicion. (#20)
The information provided by the author should close the deal here. Either the reasonable person's suspicion would be verified by the author informing him that he indeed did so on purpose, or his suspicion would be falsified by the author informing him that the list wasn't exhaustive. Implication would become mere inference. (#27)

And that's it. The reasonable person would thank the author for his clarification and "get on with it".


EscapeVelocity -

"- "How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization" (2005)

Ive read this one."


Great! One down, two to go. ;-)


Zenster -

Thanks a bunch for the link to the article by El Inglés, author of great merit indeed.


Profitsbeard -

"This fight is: free humanity versus dogmatic slavery.

Any who want their own kind of slavery are no help."


I have spent some time elaborating on this subject (our two FOE, Forces of Enslavement), using too many words because I haven't got a tight grip on the English language and sentences abound, galloping around like wild horses (with yours truly in pursuit, thrown out of the saddle), and now I read this comment of yours. Thanks, you nailed it squarely.

Kind regs from Amsterdam,
Sag.

Sagunto said...

Perhaps the distinction between contributor/ally can be of help here.

I'd say that anyone actually fighting Islam (not just paying lip-service to the CJ initiative) is a valuable contributor, no matter what his privately held and publicly voiced beliefs are. But I'd narrow this down to genuine allies, by using Profitsbeard's statement that the whole of the fight is about: "free humanity versus dogmatic slavery".

I reckon that for our mere survival, the existential fight that is warming up on the horizon will include contributors. Afterwards, the fight for our survival as free people will be about allies, just like after the defeat of Sauron, when there still was one final and essential battle to be fought, in "The Scouring of the Shire" (the part Tolkien loved so much, which was of course left out of that horrible movie adaptation).

Sag.

Anonymous said...

Sagunto :

I suggest you take a hint from the top post of this thread, and drop your belligerent and condescending ways.

I don't dispute your testimony about Amsterdam.

If you don't trust my testimony about France, I don't see the point of arguing with you.

I have enough trouble on my hands, fending off islamo-leftists thinking the default mode of interaction on blogs is they behave like cops and everybody else are crime suspects, to tolerate similar attitudes from supposed allies.

Anonymous said...

Zenster :

"Please provide some sort of proof for the otherwise improbable assertions that you have made."

Please read my answer to Segunto (and re-read the Baron's post).

Anonymous said...

"Frankly, it's some people that motivate me to want to avoid and/or deport them, not something in a religious book." (Latté Island)

Exactly. And I suspect it's the same for everybody else.

Therefore, while it might be polite, civilised and even politically clever to stress that "we criticise islam, not Muslims", we should not forget that islam, communism, nazism or whatever noxious ideology out there would not be problematic in the least if nobody believed in it and followed it.

If the Koran was just a dusty, bizzare and repugnant book on the top shelf of some obscure library, ignored by everybody, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

4Symbols said...

In hoc signo vinces

@Sagunto,

Your words are coming across as denunciations.

Anonymous said...

I agree with Sagunto and Zenster that ANYONE making the assertion that a major European trend is that Muslim women are marrying non-Muslim men would need to provide a legitimate citation for that claim - other than a couple of public exceptions.

All else is mere speculation which is worse even than personal opinion. In these anti-jihad discussions, any ray of hope would be much welcomed.

BUT, hope must be based on a realistic appraisal of the situation. We already meet too many people who assure us that the Muslim "problem" is all in our head....

I find Sagunto's phrasiology to be charming. Perhaps you are extra sensitive because you know that it will be hard to statistically support the idea that you are promoting? Otherwise, just link to a legitimate source the way that we would if asked.

For example:

"Here, we'd like also to cite the words of Sheikh Ounis Guergah, Head of the Fatwa House, Paris, France:

"The Muslim father should not agree to that kind of marriage. He should try to persuade his daughter not to marry a non-Muslim man, for it is unlawful [per Sharia Law] for the Muslim woman to marry a non-Muslim man. Such a relationship between the Muslim woman and the non-Muslim man is regarded in Islam as a kind of fornication. However, the parents should remain on good terms with their daughter, so that she may not turn away from Islam altogether. The parents also should be wise in dealing with their daughter's partner, so that he may one day accept Islam. If he embraced Islam, the contract of marriage would be rewritten, then, to be lawful in Islam."

French Imam regarding Muslim women unlawfully marrying non-Muslim men

Anonymous said...

Egghead :

I'm afraid your request for a "legitimate citation" (who gets to judge this "legitimacy" ?) is a result of the journalistic, Wikipedia and Internet sub-culture that seems to be the norm nowadays.

Most things in the world happen without resulting in a single "citation", and most people in the world live and die without, ever, producing a "citation" as a result.

If someone comes up to you and draws an "alleged gun" on you, are you going to ask him for a "legitimate citation", a "link" or a "statistic" before assessing the situation and deciding what to do next ?

Sagunto says mixed marriages are not happening in his place, and, well, maybe that's an interesting thing to hear and ponder because, after all, he lives there.

It's not scientific, you know, he wouldn't be able to publish it as is in an academic paper, maybe he's wrong, this is just a blog, but the personal knowledge and experience of people are among the things that make the Internet interesting.

I'm saying mixed marriages are happening in my place (and provide actual examples to support that), I've been living in this place for, well, a number of years that will have to remain confidential, I have come across tens of thousands, maybe millions of local people during all those years, but, suddenly, I'm ordered to bring to the table "proofs", "citations" and "statistics".

This is bad faith, plain and simple. You people are just not interested to challenge your ideological pre-conceptions.

By the way, those statistics exist. Whole books have been written on the subject.

I'm usually willing to spend a quarter of an hour to find out and point to those resources when I'm asked in a polite way, by someone who seems really interested to know.

I'm less inclined to do so when this is asked in a purely rethorical way, by someone who will say next that those citations or statistics are not "legitimate".

I'm afraid you'll have to do the research yourself. That is, if you're really interested in the result.

4Symbols said...

In hoc signo vinces

@Robert Marchenoir,

I'm afraid your request for a "legitimate citation" (who gets to judge this "legitimacy" ?) is a result of the journalistic, Wikipedia and Internet sub-culture that seems to be the norm nowadays.

So true this is a tactic the multikulti use to obstruct debate, they deploy an insatiable appetite for citation and links - evidence derailment.

Zenster said...

You New: Where are all the anti-jihad religious organizations?

This is a glaringly pertinent question and one that have I have been speculating upon for years hereabouts.

Either this world's genuinely spiritual faiths bind together and unite against Islam or they can face individual annihilation.

It is akin to the Roman fasci; any part of which can be broken with relative ease but, when bound together, is unbending.

So must this world's religions present a united and inflexible front against the one power that would undo them all. For such an effort to best succeed, I suggest that they all hold their collective noses and open the tent to Agnostics and Atheists alike.

Without such unanimous opposition, Islam's chances of victory are multiplied by comparison.

EscapeVelocity said...

I wont be allying myself with Eugenicists or Neo Nazis, period.

Zenster said...

Engineer-Poet: … I think Wretchard's "Three Conjectures" deserves mention too.

As one who routinely cites Wretchard's magnum opus, I can only agree. Without a doubt, Islam has "UNHAPPY ENDING" written all over it.

With respect to the topic at hand, "The Three Conjectures" should serve as a guidepost regarding why the counterjihad must be unflinching in its determination to see Islam defeated utterly.

It is the "unflinching" part that may be most important of all. One thing that constantly interferes when summoning the determination needed for this task is:

MORAL CERTITUDE

Many falter at the notion of applying collective punishment despite how Islamic terrorism is a pluperfect example of such punishment. Others balk at the necessity to disregard collateral damage when Islamic terrorism is almost wholly dedicated to producing that one effect.

Once an individual fully comprehends that Muslims will voluntarily inflict these exact same indecencies upon themselves in the quest for Islamic purity, then the way becomes more clear.

As Wretchard so gloomily noted:

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.

Much of my commentary in this thread has been devoted to showing that orthodox Islam is intrinsically radical by nature. It is a direct byproduct of how violence, fatalism, tyranny and blind obedience (taqlid) all converge within Islam's core doctrine and, thereby, emerge as this world's preeminent supremacist dogma.

The need for moral certitude is impossible to overstress.

Islam intentionally utilizes ultra-violence in order to demoralize any opposing forces.

I am going to take the liberty of re-posting my excerpt from Dan Brown’s book, “Demons & Angels”: (page 173)

”Terrorism,” the professor had lectured, “has a singular goal. What is it?”
“Killing innocent people?” a student ventured.
“Incorrect. Death is only a byproduct of terrorism.”
“A show of strength?”
“No. A weaker persuasion does not exist.”
“To cause terror?”

“Concisely put. The goal of terrorism is to create terror and fear. Fear undermines faith in the establishment. It weakens the enemy from within … causing unrest in the masses. Terrorism is not an expression of rage. Terrorism is a political weapon. Remove a government’s façade of infallibility, and you remove its people’s faith.”
[emphasis added]

The demoralizing effect of terrorism removes not just a people’s faith in their government but their faith in themselves. What better example of this than the oft heard Liberal refrain:

If we fight Islam at its own level then we have become terrorists ourselves.

Islam plays upon every civilized instinct of its foes and will always drive up the stakes to their very highest in order that enlightened opponents will blanch at employing surpassing countermeasures. Random terrorist acts that target civilian populations epitomize this strategy.

I believe that this is why the Baron emphasized facts in his opening statements. Whatever factual information exists about Islam must be marshaled against it so that the counterjihad obtains a maximum of moral certitude. Claiming that “God is on our side” will not carry the day. Muslims claim the exact same thing, regardless of how unworthy of worship Allah may be.

Zenster said...

EscapeVelocity: The ONLY Muslims that can be worked with are the Liberal Muslims, which constitute a Tiny Minority, maybe 15% on the other side of the Bell Curve. The only ones that virulently reject Shariah Law and much of the clear teachings of the Koran. They are considered apostates by most Muslims.

Such "Liberal Muslims" are not just "considered" to be apostates, they are apostates or blasphemers (take your pick).

Please feel free to explain how we are to sort out Islamically sanctioned Muslim liars who only pretend to reject Shari'a law in order to infiltrate the counterjihad.

One more time:

TAQIYYA IRREVOCABLY DAMNS ISLAM.

The counterjihad must be configured in such a way that it can succeed without the least iota of help from Muslims. To rely upon them is to weaken oneself beyond hope.

Islam is intentionally structured so as to assure that outcome.

Zenster said...

Jesterhead: My issue with 1 ["moderate" Muslims], is that such people cannot be relied upon and are more or less ticking time bombs waiting to be lit.

This is absolutely correct. Time and again, these so-called "moderate" Muslims have proven themselves to be nothing other than an untapped resource for the jihadists.

In truth they are already an enormous resource for the jihad because of the zakat (thithes) that they contribute in the billions of dollars each year.

So-called "moderate" Muslims are the sea in which Islamic jihadists freely swim about in.

One merely need examine how rarely supposed "extremist" (or orthodox) Muslims convert over to being "moderates" as compared to how often (and it is "often"), that "moderates" undergo SJS (Sudden Jihad Syndrome) or some other form of "radicalization.

Case closed.

Zenster said...

aku: Muslims should be confronted with truth of Islam and asked to renounce it. If they don't renounce it they can fare the way, moderate or exterme or who cares what.

Exactly what method will you use in order to validly determine that a Muslim has authentically renounced the "truth of Islam"?

Please remember that little Islamic bugbear, taqiyya.

aku: One should know his enemy, but as an internal Islamic matter, I don't see how this is pertinent to my own reasoning.

The Islamic practice of taqlid (blind imitation) is highly pertinent in that it forbids any partial or "cafeteria" approach to Islam. Muslims must swallow the camel whole even as Islam demands that they choke on such gnats as kuffar women going about unveiled somewhere on the other side of this earth.

Everyone who accepts Koran can become a Taleban.

Exactly, whereas it is very rare that a Taliban will become any sort of moderate.

I suspect that we may be in violent agreement and just not realizing it.

You New said...

Great thread on the topic of narcissism, Baron. I think you set a good trap, intentional or not, you got an amazing reply.

Zenster, I'm 100 per cent in agreement on religious and non-religious groups uniting on this front.

Zenster, Robert Marchenoir,

On anti-Islam Muslims, well I don't think I've taken the time to explain it so I have a few minutes here. Robert M and EV seem to have a similar view to what I'm saying. The problem with understanding this point is linguistic and cultural.

Just as every day there are people joining the cult, there are Muslims realizing that their religion is vacuous nonsense. Once this is deep enough, the truth becomes a kind of immunization.

Can't some of us be interested in helping those people with their realization? And though small in number, couldn't they be a help to us?

I see myself permanently as Italian, a Muslim sees themselves permanently as a Muslim. Most of them feel culturally Muslim as we do about our race. We can say one is race and one is a culture, but that's our definition and our mental reality, not theirs.

Some of you are saying that it is impossible to see oneself as a cultural "Muslim" and simultaneously ENTIRELY reject the religion aspect. But it can be done and it is happening. I have met such an animal and see the psychological plausability.


Like Robert said, it is a very small percentage. But it may be a crack in the wheel of Islam nevertheless.

Orthodox Muslims, moderate muslims, weak muslims....I consider them all dangerous. Get it? Don't confuse Islam-rejecting Muslims with weak Muslims.

Good is good, like Robert is trying to say.

If you think these Islam-hating Muslims say should be shouting their apostasy from the rooftops then my question is, why should they?

Anonymous said...

This is making me sigh. There are two flaws here:
1)any group living in the midst of another one wants power over the said group, regardless of their religion; you can look at this throughout history and what happens today in the world. Muslims are more straightforward about it since it is in their holy book.
2)if someone cares about restoring former Europe, just like you excluded a communist, they can't ally themselves with a feminist. This mindset comes from the belief that somehow numbers in a democratic fashion matters or changes anything. Having the superior means of applying force changes things.

The way I see things is this. The fundamental question is who are we? What does it mean to be European? We can focus on Muslims all we want, but until we can't answer this question in a coherent fashion, fighting Muslims is pointless. And #8 don't exist anymore. I suppose in that category would fit people who want to bring back the old institutions of Europe like monarchies, ethnic citizenship and so on. Because those are the traditional European institutions, not the ones we built post WW1, let alone post WW2. The institutions we have now are part of the problem entirely.

EV, the European tradition isn't the 2 parent nuclear family, but the extended family. The nuclear family became prevalent in Europe in the 19th century with the advent of industrialization. Still, the parents held sway over what their kids did in terms of marriage and family life.

To sum it up, knowing your enemy is pointless if you don't know yourself.

Zenster said...

Ruby: I'm a little reluctant to get rid of constitutional government myself, or selectively apply rights outlined in it to only those who I like and agree with.

It’s safe to say that many of us here at Gates of Vienna feel the same. However Islamic Shari’a law is not merely something that we, as Americans − or others who also live under their respective constitutions − can agree to disagree upon.

First off, Shari’a law is seditious. In its most basic and unvarnished form, Shari’s demands that Muslims actively work to overthrow non-Islamic nations by whatever means necessary. Sedition is illegal and constitutes legal grounds for revocation of citizenship, deportation, incarceration and − in times of war − execution, summary or otherwise.

I would rather not set a precedent of deporting people based on religion, either.

This is the main reason why it is so important to declare Islam a political ideology. If only because of its seditious nature, Islam can be legally adjudged as anti-Constitutional and its practice outlawed. While no simple matter, it nonetheless short-circuits all of the worries surrounding religious persecution as no other legitimate faith advocates the overthrow of host governments like Islam does.

Zenster said...

Blogger: I am brown eyed, with dark brown hair and olive skin, and I hope that one day I will not be excluded due to my looks, and that instead people will get to know me as a person instead. If you mix people of ethnic looks in with Islam, intelligent people will not take this fight against Islam seriously anymore.

Many dedicated participants in the counterjihad already are aware of your concerns and have made great efforts to address them. In fact, one of the most potent tools in fighting accusations of racism by opponents of the counterjihad is to point out how Islam is not a race. I have used this approach to silence idiots who hurl such unfounded and baseless accusations.

If anything, Islam itself uses the fact that a majority of its adherents are people of color to cobble up accusations of racism where none exist. This is why one often sees the equation: Islamophobia = Racism. It is just one of many moral inversions used by Muslims and their fellow travelers to trigger apprehension and fear in many Liberal or undecided people. The supposed “Anti-Fascist” movement who use masked, jackbooted thugs to violently disrupt peaceful counterjihad demonstrations is another prime example of this inverted morality.

Hesperado said...

Baron,

Rather than continuing to dispute form over content, why don't we shift the focus back onto the content of the matter. In this regard, you can assist me by answering two questions:

1) Do you support including in the counter-jihad movement those who want to deport from the West all Muslims without qualifications?

2) Do you yourself support the deportation from the West of all Muslims without qualifications?

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Baron Bodissey said...

Hesperado --

No, I'm not going to jump through any more of your hoops. I'll post about those topics when they come up, or when I'm in the mood to discuss them.

In the meantime, you're welcome to post your own opinions on such matters at your own blog, and then leave the links here so everyone can go over and read them.

EscapeVelocity said...

Well, as with the Western Left and their factions and various minority identity groups. We dont have to all work together to bring down the beast.

EscapeVelocity said...

One Neo Con, David Horowitz/Barry Rubin, Phyllis Chessler is worth a 100 Kevin McDonalds.

That is just a plain fact.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Zenster, I'd like to point out that all of us here are doing seditious activities(look up sedition if you disagree that what we do on this blog is sedition) to a degree or another. You merely do seditious activities for another reason. I suppose the government can withdraw your citizenship and deport you, right?

And under the first amendment, you can LEGALLY preach the overthrow of the US government without being investigated. Doing it is criminal. And I'd also like to point out that if you read the Declaration of Independence or quite a lot of the logic of the founders, overthrowing the US government is a fairly legitimate thing to do.

Good luck at twisting your mind in a pretzel like this. Also, when I questioned you about universalism, if I recall correctly, you said you're not a fan of it. Then what's the problem with taking rights away from some people? They're not universal, are they? ;)

And I can add to Robert's statement. In my country, there are mixed marriages of Muslim women and Christian men. Also, most of the interfaith children are raised as Christian, regardless of the faith of the parents. Obviously, this is anecdotal evidence.

Baron, I would like to point out to you that having a loose definition of who we are, which means that we don't fight for anything(social liberals and conservatives want opposite things - for example, I find feminism as disgusting as Islam) is pretty dangerous. It's the equivalent of the left's current victim group list, each of them having competing interests. I really would like to know what are we fighting FOR because this is more important than what are we fighting AGAINST. And an empty word like Western civilization is silly. For instance, a feminist probably has a different view of Western civilization than a devout Christian.

Just like I would never really bother to actually die for the equal rights of homosexuals, of Jews or other minorities and create this equal opportunity nonsense in Europe. They benefit from overtaking Europe - let them fight for it. I'm just curious about how you can reconcile groups with mutually exclusive interests. Otherwise we will be just as silly as the left is - deconstructing Islam endlessly and not propose any sane worldview in return.

Baron Bodissey said...

Rebellious V --

I'm just curious about how you can reconcile groups with mutually exclusive interests.

Well, obviously their mutually exclusive interests themselves can't be reconciled. If those interests are more important to them than resisting Islamization, then there will be no workable basis for any coordination.

However, all the categories mentioned in the post (as well as numerous others, including the 448 that Hesperado chided me for failing to include) have in common a strong opposition to Islamization. Some of them will be willing to overlook their mutual differences for the duration of their shared endeavor; others will not.

Some Jews, for example, are absolutely unwilling to join forces with any European nationalists, no matter how much those nationalists support Israel and the right of patriotic long-standing Jewish residents to live in peace. It's a categorical refusal; they just won't do it.

Their mirror image may be found, of course, among those White Nationalists who will have absolutely nothing to do with any Jews anywhere, no matter what, even if they agree with them on all other political matters. I assume such people are in the minority among White Nationalists, and I certainly don't judge the group by its Jew-haters. But the Jew-haters exist.

So some groups simply can't be reconciled, and there's not much we can do about it. But others are more flexible and are able to coordinate with one another.

They agree to disagree, and have decided to wait until Islam is crushed before they duke it out among themselves.

Zenster said...

rebelliousvanilla: Zenster, I'd like to point out that all of us here are doing seditious activities(look up sedition if you disagree that what we do on this blog is sedition) to a degree or another.

How ironic that a comment like yours should appear in a thread titled, "The Narcissism of Small Differences". Will wonders never cease?

Please be sure that I could just as easily point out to you in great detail how all sorts of insulting and misrepresentative labels might be applied to yourself if they are just twisted ever so slightly in the same way that you are so fond of selectively interpreting people's comments or definitions.

Personally, I'd rather spend the same amount of my precious time giving birth to a porcupine, backwards.

Zenster said...

Sagunto: But to add another group, I'd say that self-described "anti"-fascists also make good candidates, in spite of their doubtless claims to the contrary.

Absolutely so. One major task for the counterjihad will be to "out" various organizations and groups which shelter themselves beneath umbrellas that are, in fact, moral inversions.

The Antifa-types are a prime example. Another would be contortionist "anti-holocaust" groups that wail about Muslims being "the new Jews" in Europe.

In a similar category would be those who oppose FGM (Female Gender Mutilation) but not the general practice of purdah (abject gender apartheid).

Islam and the Left have been rather inventive with respect to conjuring up these deceptive group names and all of them will need to be exposed for what they are just moments before being given a hearty heave ho by the counterjihad.

Zenster said...

Profitsbeard: Those who want to establish any form of ideological totalitarianism, even as a way "to oppose Islam", have no place in the Resistance to the infiltration by Islam.

That is why reaching a broader consensus within the counterjihad community is so imperative. The numerous squabbles and incredibly petty snits just in this one thread alone are stark evidence of this fact.

Fortunately − presuming, for once, that silence is consent − there seems to be unanimity regarding the absolute exclusion of Nazi and Neo-Nazi types along with their preferred brand of eugenics. The BNP (British National Party) did itself irreparable harm by allowing even a smidgen of Nazi sympathizers into its ranks. The counterjihad must avoid this at all costs as squeals of “Nazi” rank among the most favored of smear tactics.

You need allies who promote liberty and decency and wisdom, not racial crankiness or cramped nationalistic nonsense.

This sort of expansive outlook is the only one with any hope of reaching the type of global audience needed to defeat Islam. Much as in the broad alliance of legitimate spiritual faiths that will be required, so must there eventually emerge a global coalition willing to dedicate the military manpower and financial resources necessary to crush Islam for once and all.

This fight is: free humanity versus dogmatic slavery.

Mankind has already endured slavery enough to outlast this planet’s remaining history. Slaves to Allah or any other ideology need not apply. It is much in the same with theocracy being a form of ideological slavery. Theocracy of any stripe or flavor will remain the worst enemy of human liberty for all time.

Anonymous said...

Robert Marchenoir: "I have come across tens of thousands, maybe millions of local people during all those years, but, suddenly, I'm ordered to bring to the table "proofs", "citations" and "statistics"."

Let's get this straight: Are you saying that because you live in a country with millions of people, you know who marries whom on a grand scale - without any census information? Doubtful. There is a distinct difference between one or two anecdotal examples as you gave - and general societal trends.

If the general societal trend was as you claim then I should be able to google key words and arrive at articles about the topic. As it was, the only information that I received described strict Muslim Sharia Law prohibition of the practice throughout Europe - although Muslim men are highly encouraged to marry non-Muslim women to convert them to Islam.

"This is bad faith, plain and simple. You people are just not interested to challenge your ideological pre-conceptions."

Actually, I am incredibly open to new ideas. I would LOVE if Muslim women rebelled against Islam and raised their children with human rights in the West. It would be a huge win-win for everyone in the West. BUT, you must back up your hypothesis with facts.

"By the way, those statistics exist. Whole books have been written on the subject."

If books have been written on the subject (other than Sharia Law books), then the books should pop right up on google. I personally did NOT find any books. Enlighten us with titles - or stop whining and attacking those who ask for the facts that support your hypothesis. To wit, why should I take your word as a stranger on any topic where facts could be presented?

Again, your claiming a general societal trend is different than your stating an opinion. When you say, the general societal trend is that a large percentage of European Muslim women marry non-Muslim men, you argue facts.

When you say, I wish that a large percentage of European Muslim women would marry non-Muslim men, that is your opinion.

As I have already stated, I myself would agree with this opinion, but I would need to see evidence to accept this as a fact - even a happy fact.

Anonymous said...

RV: "And I can add to Robert's statement. In my country, there are mixed marriages of Muslim women and Christian men. Also, most of the interfaith children are raised as Christian, regardless of the faith of the parents. Obviously, this is anecdotal evidence."

Right. Also, once these women violate well-established Sharia Law and raise their children as Christians, these former Muslim women are APOSTATES. If enough Muslims move into your country to create a tipping point, these women and their apostate families will be the first targeted for outright torture and murder by devout followers of Islam.

Anonymous said...

Too bad so many people aren't taking the title of this post seriously.

The subject is COUNTER-JIHAD. While it is true that there are other problems facing our civilization, about which we may disagree, the Baron is perfectly appropriately seeking to form the most powerful coalition he can AGAINST ISLAM.

(Already I have said something that could be controversial, since some will say that Islamism rather than Islam is the problem, but we have something of a consensus here that Islam itself is the problem in the sense that the counter-jihad movement cannot benefit from having Muslims in it [apostates are OK as far as I'm concerned, they are not Muslims in my book]).

It is a valuable observation that you must have something you are fighting for in order to defeat the thing you are fighting against; but this is mainly true at the level of individual motivation. It is indeed possible for people who are NOT fighting FOR the same thing to fight AGAINST the same thing, especially when the thing being fought is as monolithic and well-defined as Islam.

I made this point on the "Children of Amsterdam" thread as well. Defeating Islam, in the current state of the world, apparently requires also defeating (or greatly weakening) another force sapping our civilization, which is not quite as unified as Islam and which I cannot name in a single word but is strongly correlated with political correctness, multiculturalism, leftism, environmentalism in its religious rather than scientific manifestation, etc. (And there are yet other social enemies, whom I'd love to recruit allies here to fight against, but who are less directly related to counter-jihad, unlike the PC/MC leftist crowd who directly hinder counter-jihad and promote the destruction of our civilization by the importation and privileging of Muslims).

Anonymous said...

(continued)

And this fight can be fought by people with otherwise incompatible philosophies, since their first goal is to get rid of the existential threat in order to be able to then pursue their incompatible goals in a more civilized and peaceful social contest, through ordinary political and cultural means. (Of course Islam is not the only "existential threat", but I don't see that fighting Islam will weaken us in the struggles against other existential threats, rather it will make those struggles more likely to succeed.)

So who is with us? Whom do we accept into the counter-jihad movement? I don't see a problem making common cause with anyone except the following:

1) Muslims
2) ???

Lots of people want to exclude "Nazis" but are there actually any real Nazis around who would want to fight Islam? Hitler was closely allied with Muslims in the Middle East and the groups who self-identify as true heirs of Hitler don't seem to be trying to join us. Be very careful not to reject a group just because SOMEONE calls them Nazis or fascists; being called a Nazi will eventually be the fate of most of us at some point (it is the next step after being called a "racist", and should be ignored as meaningless noise in most cases).

I want the counter-jihad movement to include Jews and non-whites since they are obviously threatened by Islam just as I am, and any group willing to join a coalition with Jews and non-whites is not going to be either "Nazi" or "white supremacist" (which is different from "white nationalist" -- I draw the line only at people who want to kill or enslave non-whites as Muslims want to kill or enslave non-Muslims, but groups which just want to ethnically cleanse themselves by separation or deportation are fine, they can still have a common objective to fight jihadists and oppose Islam). IN ANY CASE I will only countenance excluding SPECIFIC groups or people after evaluating them, I am not going to fall for labeling tricks.

Even large differences, such as between Christianity and atheism, should not hinder the capability to unite against Islam or against its PC/MC leftist allies; different parts of the counter-jihad movement can attack from different directions. Obviously attacking Islam on Christian grounds will appeal most to other Christians, but it's still something Christians ought to do much more than they have been.

Anonymous said...

As a p.s. to my earlier comment, I realize some people here react to the word "eugenics," perhaps because they think it means something more harsh than it is. I'd agree that anyone who proposes to gas the mentally ill should be excluded. That's one type of eugenics I don't support.

However, there are other types. Even some of you who think you are against eugenics, actually support it. For instance, providing food and medical care to the third world is a form of eugenics, or rather dysgenics. It's only deliberately controlling the genetic composition of a population. Those do gooders who advocate giving free food and medical care, without requiring birth control, are doing something artificial, that has never been done before modern times. Withholding birth control is a type of eugenics, because that has an artificial effect on the population. It supports the growth of the part of the population with the least productivity.

In Singapore, the government pays productive, educated people to have more children. In the USA, the government pays unproductive, uneducated people to have more children. Both are examples of eugenics, or rather, Singapore practices eugenics, the USA practices dysgenics.

Do you see? No one is being dragged away and gassed. Just setting the record straight, for those who react to something that is already being done peacefully. I think pro welfare statists are wrong to do what they do, but they're not Nazis, and neither are people who advocate more sensible policies.

Hesperado said...

Baron,

Simple straightforward questions are not "hoops".

Had you asked me any questions like those, either here or on my blog or anywhere else, I would have shown you the respect of answering them.

Anonymous said...

EV, that isn't a plain fact, it is a matter of opinion. Not that I read any of MacDonald's stuff, while I read some of Horowitz's.

Baron, it isn't really about interests. People do things for a purpose. If one fights Islam because they want to preserve a certain feature of Europe, the correct position for them is to see as enemies people who want to destroy that thing, Muslim or not. Sure, maybe some temporary alliances can be forged, but their transitory fashion is quite obvious.

Just imagine a game with a single winner. You have a slot in which only a cube fits and three people have a cube. Sure, two might ally against the third, but they are just as much enemies. In the same fashion, there's only a way a place can be - it can't be both traditional AND feminist, for example. On another hand, there's the question of why would European men fight for feminism if this ends up in violence? If I was a European man, I'd rather convert to Islam if my choices were Islam or feminism. It's not as simple as you make it out to be - the reason why someone minds Islam is fundamental and that reason will draw the alliances. Minding Islam isn't some apriori position.

Zenster, Americanism is the biggest theocracy in the world, with its patron saint MLK, racists as heretics and Nazis as demons. What do you think the universal equality of everyone and everything is?

Egghead, there's no census information on Muslim men marrying non-Muslim women either, so I suppose that doesn't happen either. :)

Polymath, Islam isn't monolithic. If we wouldn't be fiddling with them and unifying them, they'd be quite fond of going to war against each other. Islam is monolithic against outsiders and it can be so because most Muslims share in common a great deal, which isn't the case for most groups in Baron's list. For instance, I'm an atheist, but I don't mind Christians since we agree on a lot of social issues. On the other hand, I can't really fight for feminism. I see leftism as a far bigger threat than Islam anyway. Without it, we wouldn't have any problem with Islam, since Muslims wouldn't be here and we'd have our own religion which would be enforced, with everyone not having it being excluded(especially from citizenship).

latté, great point. While I find a bunch of things you say bad, I agree on the eugenics and dysgenics thing. But you must understand that we live in the world of inverted morality of Christianity, where dysgenics are good and eugenics are bad.

‎"The rich man is not the one who has collected many possessions but the one who needs few possessions; and the poor man is not the one who has no possessions but the one who has many desires." --St. John Chrysostom
To give you an example. :)

EscapeVelocity said...

@Egghead,

You might want to look into that, Bulgaria and Romania have a lot of Muslims that have been there for centuries, from the old Ottoman days.

Anonymous said...

RV: "Egghead, there's no census information on Muslim men marrying non-Muslim women either, so I suppose that doesn't happen either. :)"

Yes, but I did NOT assert that facts support that Muslim men marrying non-Muslim women is a significant societal trend. I merely stated the fact that this situation is legal under Sharia Law (and, by the way, encouraged under jihad as a form of Western infiltration).

This is in direct contrast to other posters asserting the existence of a general societal trend that would need to be backed up by "happy" facts in order to be believable. I do believe that a relatively few modern secular Muslim women marry non-Muslim men - and in the process become Muslim apostates.

I do NOT believe that a few public anecdotes support the existence of a general societal trend, BUT I am totally open to examine factual evidence that disproves my belief. :)

Sagunto said...

EscapeVelocity -

I agree with both of your comments (#106/107).



Polymathblogger -

You wrote:

"I made this point on the "Children of Amsterdam" thread as well. Defeating Islam, in the current state of the world, apparently requires also defeating (or greatly weakening) another force sapping our civilization, which [..] I cannot name in a single word [..]"

Since you mentioned the "Amsterdam Children Experiment" thread, let me direct you to some of my own thoughts about our second FOE. Perhaps they can be of some use.

Sag.

Sagunto said...

Zenster, Egghead -

I submit to you the following figures, since you have shown a keen interest in facts to support personal opinion. As an extra service, I'll also provide some background information as to the interpretation of the data. I will also (later on) try to include a link to a special research project in Amsterdam, on behalf of the Municipal Statistical Bureau. The research was done by two senior anthropologists of the Free University of Amsterdam (VU), Bartels and Storms.

Disclaimer: as far as figures go, we have to "make do" here with Dutch institutions and researchers that "show multiculturalist bias", to put it mildly.

First some background info: a census done in 1971 (way before my time ;) that still involved actual counting.

28-02-1971

13.060.115 inhabitants.

35% protestant (33% calvinist, being 23% Nederlands Hervormd 9% Gereformeerd; 2% other, being Lutheran, Baptist, etcetera ad infinitum) 40,4% Roman-Catholic (0,1% other catholic); 23,6% no religious affiliation; 0,4% Islam. (being Dutch, I use the , instead of the .)

Recent CBS sampling data (Central Bureau of Statistics) show that in 2007, 28% of the Dutch population considered themselves Roman-Catholic, 19% protestant (including all 645 denominations), 5% Muslim, 4% other religions; and 44% without religious affiliation.

Now we turn the numbers on Islam, that is, to estimates about Muslims in the Netherlands, because that is the first caveat: they have not been counted. We are concerned with CBS estimates.

Concerning "mixed marriages", the CBS uses the following categories and definitions:

- Allochtoon: person with at least one parent born outside the Netherlands.

- 1st generation Allochtoon: allochtoon born outside the Netherlands.

- 2nd generation Allochtoon: allochtoon born in the Netherlands.

- Autochtoon: person with both parents born in the Netherlands.

Two remarks here:
- Autochtoon is not the same as a native or ethnic Dutch citizen.
- There is no such thing in the CBS stats as a 3rd generation Allochtoon; since with both parents born in Holland, they magically become "autochtoon".

[continue..]

Sagunto said...

Now for some stats.
With the abovementioned knowledge in mind, it is important to exclude the hidden 3rd generation allochtones that are now getting married and are counted as "autochtoon". If you go back some 10 years ago, there's no risk of confusion. In 2001, an autochtoon man marrying an allochtoon woman would not have been of Moroccan descent.

Here are the numbers over a 5-year period (direct link to pdf), from 1997-2001 (end Jan. 2002):

For the category that interests us: Autochtoon man marries 2nd gen. allochtoon woman from Morocco (born in NL):
126 cases nationwide, on a total of 19470 (man autochtoon, woman 2nd gen. allochtoon), that is 0,65%
For comparison, in the same period: 4593 with 2nd gen. German allochtoon women and 8540 2nd gen. Indonesian allochtoon women.

So there have been some 25 cases on average per year in Holland over the stated period. And that is as far as the numbers take us, for we have no figures that specify how many of those women were Muslim, though immigrant characteristics suggest that the chance of a non-Muslim Moroccan woman would be infinitely small. There are also no specifics as to the religion of the autochtoon man at the time of wedding, though it figures that most of them will have met with the requirement of becoming a Muslim (more on that educated guess in the follow up, presenting university research specific to Amsterdam).

Here's another figure from 2001 (it includes both 1st and 2nd gen. allochtoon women from Morocco and Turkey, married to autochtoon men).

In that period the "3rd gen allochtoons"-group was investigated, just before PC made it an anathema and dubbed them into "autochtoon". The conclusion was that this 3rd generation was very small, the cause being, that many 2nd gen Turks and Moroccans got their wedding partners from their countries of origin, so their children would appear in the stats as 2nd gen allochtoon, not 3rd gen or, as is mandatory now: autochtoon.

That's it for now.

[to be continued..]

Kind regs from Amsterdam,
Sag.

Engineer-Poet said...

I'm very happy to see that the GoV CJ crowd, at least, has stopped seeing atheists as enemies.  I am entirely with Pat Condell on the subject of Islam and Muslims, and I would not be surprised if his advocacy has changed several people's minds on the issue.  I also recognize that there are people who come to "atheism" because they have joined a cult which claims to be atheist; Marxism is such a cult.  The CJ is right to reject Marxists because they have similar aims to Muslims (a totalitarian state run by themselves) and also because they often ally with Muslims to defend Islam against even the mildest criticism, using draconian punishments when they are in government and extralegal means whether in or out.

I'm also (gasp!) a eugenicist.  I think our nations should stop paying dysfunctional people to have babies, and should instead pay them to get "fixed" or renounce their citizenship and leave (possibly attractive to certain ethnic nationalists); people who prove themselves intelligent, productive and not separatist should be encouraged to have more babies.  There's no element of coercion, just a reversal of our current incentives.

Have I offended everyone yet?  Should I try harder?  ;-)

I'd like to think that the point of the counter-jihad isn't just to fight Islam but to keep freedom alive, period.  It matters whether we lose freedom to e.g. communist totalitarianism versus Islamic totalitarianism, but not within the lives of most of the people posting here; only the future generations which would witness the collapse of the former would benefit.

This suggests a principle:  anyone whose principles align with "I'll do my thing and you do yours, and maybe we'll switch positions if someone else's thing works better than ours" is probably a friend of the CJ.  Anyone whose principles include "my way or the highway", including Muslims and Marxists, is certainly not.

Anonymous said...

EV, there are more Muslims living in France, UK, Sweden or any of these countries on a relative basis than here.

Egghead, since there is no information either way, your claim that Muslims marry each other more often than not is just as irrelevant since you have no statistic backing it up. Your assertion has as much factual evidence as someone saying the contrary.

Zenster said...

Robert Marchenoir: They are all over the place. I have just showed you one.

If examples of Muslim women marrying outside of Islam (i.e., to Infidel men who do not convert to Islam) are "all over the place", then such a highly significant deviation from typical intermarriage patterns would have drawn both major publicity and been documented accordingly. Such behavior is in direct opposition to centuries of well-established behavioral statistics.

One of the only upswings that remotely could be construed as supporting your, as yet, totally unsubstantiated assertion is the uptick in so-called “honor” killings. Such murders are justifiably interpreted as a Muslim family reaction to increased levels of cross-fraternization between 2nd generation Muslim daughters and non-Muslim males. Yet, at the same instant, the frequent death of young female victims who engage in this cross-fraternization demonstrates a distinct disincentive and potentially low success rate, if any.

In light of the foregoing, all readily available indicators point away from a high statistical frequency of Muslim women marrying outside of Islam. The dearth of publications which contradict such an observation only serves to reinforce this perception as documentation to the contrary would be so peculiar that it would draw a lot of attention. Nothing of the sort has happened and it is safe to conclude that Muslim women intermarrying outside of Islam continues to remain a rare occurrence.

In fact, it would be very surprising if this did not occur. A woman is naturally drawn to men from a culture who would hold doors for her, offer her flowers and earn good money in a legal way, rather than beat her when she comes home late, spend half their time in jail and generally be feckless loosers.

Save for the niggling little fact that Muslim women who are “naturally drawn to men from a [different] culture” more than frequently end up dead. That alone would constitute quite a substantial deterrent.

That's not to deny the very significant tendency of Muslims marrying their own, nor the large number of veils, hijabs and assorted tents.

All of which seems to contradict your still unsubstantiated assertions.

But counter-jihadists are a tiny minority themselves. When we are speaking about potential allies, every individual counts.

Especially individuals or allies who are scrupulous about NOT tainting public perception of the counterjihad by presenting facts not in evidence and then arguing in a narcissistic manner with those who challenge such forensic violations when such misconduct only serves to evidence deleterious internal splintering instead of the united front that today’s counterjihad is in such dire need of displaying to the world at large.

Zenster said...

1389: I wish to point out that Muslims and Nazis are natural allies, as demonstrated by the fact that some of the Nazis of the Third Reich were Muslims, while other prominent Nazis, including Heinrich Himmler as well as Hitler himself, were openly sympathetic to Islam.

Nazis, and Nazi-sympathizers, are not on our side, and that's that.


Unfortunately, such knowledge is relatively uncommon in Europe and America. One major task of the counterjihad is to highlight the significant interaction between Nazi Germany and Islam along with how their ultimate aims share anti-Semitic genocide as a common goal.

I mentioned Nazis early on in this thread in order to immediately draw out and discredit any who would consider such an alliance.

Additionally, it also provided a solid opportunity to dismiss the usual Liberal smears of counterjihad groups having anything even remotely in common with Nazism.

Zenster said...

latté island: If race, HBD [Human Bio-Diversity?] and eugenics are banned from the future CJ coalition, many allies will be missing, including me, because free speech is important, and so is race.

Thank you for speaking up on this matter. My original mention of eugenics was intentionally pejorative in order to establish one of the earliest associative links that originally drew Americans (e.g., Charles Lindberg) to Nazism.

Others here have voiced similar concerns about a total dismissal of eugenics from this discussion and the proper inclusion of this topic is something I intend to address in future comments.

Zenster said...

Robert Marchenoir: Please read my answer to Segunto [sic] (and re-read the Baron's post).

Funny that you should mention the OP (Original Post) of this thread as you, inter alios, stand as glaring proof of the Baron's concerns.

You have asserted facts not in evidence, sought to validate them with strictly anecdotal observations and then gone on to disparage those of us who have challenged your egregious breach of accepted forensic procedure.

"Narcissism" barely begins to address such behavior.

Hesperado said...

This "Robert Marchenoir" character seems to be doing a maneuver typical of the PC MC mentality, based in a broader PC MC axiom (which, unfortunately, has seeped into the anti-Islam movement to a discomfitting degree) -- namely, that Muslims must be more or less like us.

This axiom is prejudicially assumed from the start, and then data is analyzed and interpretations are put together based on that data, whilst guided by that axiom (and many other closely related axioms).

A mountain of data -- about Islamic psychology, sociology and ideology -- suggests to the reasonable person that in fact we should begin with the opposite prejudicial axiom:

Muslims are not like us, and in whatever context they could seem to be like us, we must first search for an explanation based in their dissimilarity to us, before arriving at a conclusion to the contrary.

Zenster said...

Robert Marchenoir: This is bad faith, plain and simple. You people are just not interested to challenge your ideological pre-conceptions.

Permit me to suggest that couching opinions as facts is a far more egregious demonstration of "bad faith, plain and simple."

Gates of Vienna is an openly viewed web site and thus subject to the courtroom of public opinion. Were it to routinely publish anecdotal accounts as factual evidence this site would rapidly lose all credibility within the Internet community.

Baron Bodissey has taken great pains to perform fact-checking on the vast majority of material presented here.

(Note: A singular exception is the News Feed which carries a disclaimer specifically advising the viewer of this in advance.)

I am able to recall more than one occasion when retractions or corrections have been published here in the name of maintaining accuracy.

Yet, for some unknown reason, Robert Marchenoir, having been provided with such a sterling example you feel no compulsion to meet this commonly held standard and merely insist that we will have to accept your comments as facts despite how they are totally contrary to well-established societal norms and the scant statistics that are available on this topic.

Then you have the additional nerve to belittle those who earnestly challenge your unsubstantiated assertions and smear us as being impolite.

I'm less inclined to do so when this is asked in a purely rethorical way, by someone who will say next that those citations or statistics are not "legitimate".

Your inclinations are meaningless if you have not even made a cursory attempt to provide citations in the first place. Were they challenged at that point, you might certainly be within your rights to say that those were the only links available. Instead, you have done no such thing.

I'm afraid you'll have to do the research yourself. That is, if you're really interested in the result.

While what you have done is most certainly not criminal, imagine an arrestee telling a judge, "you'll have to do the research yourself. That is, if you're really interested in the result."

Such impertinence would most likely be answered by being found in contempt of court and a summary verdict of guilty.

You have displayed a similar impertinence and done so in an exceptionally narcissistic fashion, much to the proof of this thread's original posting.

Congratulations.

Zenster said...

4Symbols: So true this is a tactic the multikulti use to obstruct debate, they deploy an insatiable appetite for citation and links - evidence derailment.

Quite the contrary. Liberals seem to be far more fond of misrepresentation. Consider the fascistic "Anti-Fascists", if you will.

In my own experience, Conservative web sites have traditionally allowed for a wider scope of opinions and have demonstrated a similar dedication to factual content.

I would invite you to please explain how fact-checking can "obstruct debate". Quite the opposite would seem true. People posing straw man arguments and other fallacious forensic methods are the ones most likely to derail honest debate.

Anonymous said...

"Egghead, since there is no information either way, your claim that Muslims marry each other more often than not is just as irrelevant since you have no statistic backing it up. Your assertion has as much factual evidence as someone saying the contrary."

RV: Wrong. :) The INTRINSIC doctrinal definition of a Muslim is a person who follows perfect and immutable Sharia Law as established by Allah through Mohammed. Sharia Law prefers that Muslim men marry Muslim women, but also allows Muslim men to marry non-Muslim women in order to convert them. Sharia Law forbids Muslim women to marry non-Muslim men because "men rule women" - and non-Muslim men might force Muslim women to abandon Islam and practice another religion.

Sharia Law is just as relevant to this argument as statistics because Muslim women who marry outside their religion can legitimately be considered to be apostates under ummah-wide instant death threat (commonly called honor killings when enforced by Muslims).

If a person must follow Sharia Law in order to meet the definition to be a Muslim, then it stands to reason that Muslims marry each other more often than not....

Anonymous said...

Sagunto: Thank you for your detailed statistical efforts on our behalf. :)

Zenster: "If examples of Muslim women marrying outside of Islam (i.e., to Infidel men who do not convert to Islam) are "all over the place", then such a highly significant deviation from typical intermarriage patterns would have drawn both major publicity and been documented accordingly. Such behavior is in direct opposition to centuries of well-established behavioral statistics."

If significant inter-marriage between Muslims and non-Muslims occurred with a presumed side benefit of "moderating" Islam away from violence against non-Muslims and towards acceptance of other religions through "blended" families, then the PC MC crowd would have documented that trend and shouted it from the rooftops - AND our Western societies would have been better off for it. It would indeed be de facto "proof" that the PC MC idea was working.

Instead, regular Europeans and their leaders are waking to the fact that Muslims create parallel societies within Europe - which are highly facilitated by tight-fisted Muslim control of Muslim marriage which is used as a way to encapsulate control of young girls before the Western age of marital consent and also increase Muslim population through immigration via marriage to cousins from whichever "old country."

One way to examine the incidence of Muslim-Muslim marriage is to look at the significant amount of handicapped resources that Muslim children consume in the West. Wherever Muslims arrive, an unusually high proportion of their children are the victims of extreme mental and physical handicaps based the high incidence of first cousin marriages "legitimized" by the example of Mohammed.

Sagunto said...

Egghead -

That's so funny :)
Just now, I was about to post this one:

Egghead, RV -
"There are statistics. Just look up a little in this thread."

Cheers,
Sag.

Hesperado said...

Egghead,

"If significant inter-marriage between Muslims and non-Muslims occurred with a presumed side benefit of "moderating" Islam away from violence against non-Muslims and towards acceptance of other religions through "blended" families, then the PC MC crowd would have documented that trend and shouted it from the rooftops..."

Unfortunately, not necessarily: for the premise implies that there's something bad about Islam: it implies that "less Islam is better for society" -- an implication PC MCs would not want to shout from the rooftops. No, they prefer to continue to purvey incoherent mush that simultaneously praises and damns Islam, all with the result of embracing Muslims.

Zenster said...

A second round of thanks to Sagunto for taking the time to provide verifiable data that pertains to Muslim intermarriage.

Anonymous said...

Egghead, the Sharia definition is of no consequence. Someone born a Muslim marrying outside of Islam is interfaith marriage. But again, apparently people around here just have a doctrinaire view of everything. I miss the time when people like Fjordman, Conservative Swede and people like this commented here.

Sagunto said...

Zenster, Egghead, RV -

This is the study (pdf) on the specific situation in Amsterdam, that I promised in an earlier comment. It is called "De keuze van een Huwelijkspartner" (choice of a future spouse). The research was done by Oka Storms Msc. and Dr. Edien Bartels and it was about forced marriages. Their findings were presented in November 2008, at a national conference on this subject. As I said before, these researchers "show bias". It is very ironical to read this report and see the two stumbling upon case after case of Islam induced violence and intimidation, coercion and social exclusion, and then, after all these undeniable facts, see them present Islam as kind of a "modernizing" unifying force, evening out all those nasty and primitive differences of ethnicity and old tribal customs.

The main points:

Moroccans:

page 41:
There is rivalry among Moroccans between Berbers and "Arabs" (arabized Berbers) that deeply influences the choice for a potential spouse. Researchers find that the one factor that goes even deeper and unifies all of them is: Islam. Whatever the differences in background (and they are extremely important), without Islam there's no marriage.

One participant in the large focus-group discussions said:
"My father and mother both came from the [Moroccan] countryside. Back there, religion wasn't all that important. My father just went on drinking beer until the beginning of the eighties... doing everything God forbid. It was only when he came to the Netherlands and brought his family over, that he came into contact with the mosque and really got back to the faith of real Islam. But if you go to the country-side, oh but now small mosques and schools are erected with the money of migrants. Where I'm from there was not a mosque to be found five years ago."

The researchers state:

"Finally the women all say unequivocally that boy can afford to marry a 'Western' girl, but for a girl this is not possible. [..] Women can only marry a Muslim man. This is because of Islam."

page 48:
It is explicitly stated by the researchers that:

"Mixed marriages with people from other ethnic backgrounds are a rare feat among Moroccans. The reasons are primarily stated in terms of religion and secondly in terms of cultural background" They quote a typical opinion among the focus-groups:

"The Koran says that a girl must marry a Muslim [..] Religion is essential when choosing a partner. My daughter can choose herself, it might be a Dutch guy, but then he will have to convert."

The researchers conclude:

"Having the same religion is vital. This is the opinion held by all respondents and subjects, without exception."


I'll keep it brief from here ;-)

Turks:

page 52/53:
Turks differ from Moroccans in the emphasis laid on nationality (being Turkish) and regional differences (inside turkey). Again, huge differences of opinion about these points are set against the background of one unifying force: the Islamic religion; it is mandatory for all potential partners and in fact taken for granted.

Kurds

page 63:
Ethnicity is deemed less important (marriage between Moroccan man and Kurdish woman) but there's one factor that decides. Take a wild guess.. - that's right, it is the religion of peace once again.

page 66:
Interesting case. Among the Kurds in one of the focus-groups was a Turkish woman, whose marital plans were fiercely denounced by the parents of her future husband, not because she was not a Kurd herself, but because they thought she wasn't a Muslim.

Somalis

page 98:
Most important for Somali women seems to be that their future partners don't chew qat and have legal status.

That's all folks!

Kind regs from Amsterdam,
Sag.

Anonymous said...

Sagunto, the analysis isn't made based on the vast majority of people. Most people marry both in their religion and in their ethnicity. Still, I'm waiting for a study with statistics in regards of the place where Robert lives, since he was referring to that place.

Zenster said...

rebelliousvanilla: Sagunto, the analysis isn't made based on the vast majority of people.

Your observation fails the "So What?" test rather miserably.

No analysis ever is or economically can be made "based on the vast majority of people". So, what's your point? That is, besides your usual divisive quibbling.

Sagunto said...

rebelliousvanilla -

"Sagunto, the analysis isn't made based on the vast majority of people."

LOL here. For a moment I got the impression that you were lecturing me on the assessment of research designs.

This qualitative study (that I read for you, as a service free of charge, as I can't expect you to read and understand Dutch) was deemed representative of the Amsterdam Muslim population by the Amsterdam Statistical Bureau. The Free University of Amsterdam promoted the findings on a national scientific conference on "forced marriage". The report unwittingly supports the statistical data I provided, i.e. that Muslim women in the Netherlands (Moroccans, Turks) don't marry outside Islam. [link to report is messed up by header that Blogger automatically puts in front, so: www.fsw.vu.nl/nl/Images/huwelijkenamsterdam%20Spdf_tcm30-60514.pdf]

I have gone to some length to provide the data for a more factual discussion, now everyone can think, evaluate - and chew their food well before swallowing, and then decide for himself what the facts are.

Kind regs from Amsterdam,
Sag.

P.s.:
I also miss those days, when Conservative Swede denounced me (and so many others) as a "fascist". Fond memories..

Anonymous said...

Sagunto, why did he say that you are a fascist? lol.

And to analyze trends you need quantitative, not qualitative studies. Did the Amsterdam Statistical Bureau make a quantitative study based on the findings of the study you cited? Because usually this is how it is done. That study would be far more conclusive. Not that I really care, I trust people when they make a claim online, considering that it isn't like they'd accrue some benefit out of lying.

Anonymous said...

Zenster, you fail at statistics miserably actually. What Sagunto cited are examples of a certain phenomena. The way you do statistical studies is you create a representative sample of the whole population and based on the results of the analysis of that sample, you can extend your hypothesis to the whole population with a certain degree of uncertainty. That's analyzing the vast majority of people because you extend the results to them.

So now go and buy a statistics book before you open your mouth and talk about things that are out of your league. But again, if you didn't do that, you wouldn't talk much, would you?

Anonymous said...

RV: Temper. Temper. :)

As the fundamental basis for all of Islam, Sharia Law MUST be highly relevant to Muslim marriage practices. Indeed, when only one partner is Muslim, then what a non-Muslim labels as an interfaith marriage is actually a Muslim apostate marriage. However, when a non-Muslim partner converts to Islam, then the marriage contract is re-written as a "Sharia legally recognized" Muslim marriage - rather than an interfaith marriage.

For non-Muslims, it is crucial to recognize is that Islam refuses to recognize non-Muslim marriages as being legally valid. Thus, when a Coptic woman who is married to a Coptic priest is kidnapped, raped, forcibly converted and married to a Muslim, Muslims believe that the Coptic woman has only been married to her second Muslim husband - rather than her first Coptic husband.

This is WHY the Muslims then claim that the Coptics are "kidnapping" the formerly Coptic woman when the Coptics rescue the woman from her ordeal. The Coptic woman's first marriage is invalid to the Muslims who only recognize Muslim marriage as being valid under Sharia Law.

Anonymous said...

Sagunto: You are truly a treasure! Thanks for both the translation and information. Of course, I really enjoyed reading it. :)

Anonymous said...

Egghead, that's like saying that one's ethnicity defines one's identity so nobody marries out of their race. lol

Hesperado said...

Egghead wrote:

"As the fundamental basis for all of Islam, Sharia Law MUST be highly relevant to Muslim marriage practices..."

I don't think you, and Sagunto and Zenster, have fully grasped the mentality of Robert and RV. They begin with the sweeping hypothesis that Muslims are more or less like us. Therefore, the profoundly pandemic social and psychological disease that is unique among Muslims can never be even entertained by the likes of Robert and RV: and, unfortunately for us, we cannot have smoking-gun evidence for our view (that is, if you agree with me about Muslims), which is an inference from connecting an ocean of dots.

So it doesn't matter if Sharia Law stipulates and reflects a worldview and sociology utterly unlike ours. The vast majority of Muslims cannot possibly be enamored of those laws and thus following them -- because if they did, those Muslims would cease being like us, and would be dangerous and pernicious fanatics. It's simply not possible, in the mind of Robert and RV, for the vast majority of an entire people to be that bad. Therefore, it cannot be true.

People like Robert and RV, due apparently to the residues of PC MC in them, refuse to connect the ocean of dots about Muslims that to our horror and disgust we have been familiarizing ourselves with for the past decade, no matter how many of those dots exist, no matter how dispersed around the globe, no matter how grotesquely ghoulish the behaviors and feelings and thoughts they indicate among masses of Muslims -- because such a connection leads to the terrible slippery slope of deeming an entire people as dangerously and perniciously unlike us (with exceptions proving the rule); and that is a conclusion from which the likes of Robert and RV recoil. I don't blame them for recoiling; but to continue to recoil after mountain upon mountain of dots scream connection, is to demonstrate a strange irrationality.

Anonymous said...

Hesperado: "Unfortunately, not necessarily: for the premise implies that there's something bad about Islam: it implies that "less Islam is better for society" -- an implication PC MCs would not want to shout from the rooftops. No, they prefer to continue to purvey incoherent mush that simultaneously praises and damns Islam, all with the result of embracing Muslims."

I hear you, BUT I respectfully disagree based on my application of your own important idea that has influenced me. :) Previously, you have indicated your opinion that the PC MC mentality of the general population of the West derives from positive motivations - rather than the desire to maliciously destroy the West (as I believe the leftist New World Order elites intend).

Based on YOUR important idea, I think that the reason that most Westerners have passively accepted massive immigration is the idea that most Westerners feel that immigrants will accept indigenous people and blend with Western societies via shared values and activities - including marriages which create blended families - with Western respect for various cultures and religions.

Indeed, blended families (and by that I mean truly interfaith marriages where both partners' faiths are equally honored) would bring more Islam to Westerners - as well as more Western ideas to Muslims. As an example, Romans used to encourage their soldiers to marry local girls from Roman-conquered communities and settle in those communities so that the conquered communities would view the Roman soldiers and their children as their own kin - and "moderate" any violence against the Roman soldiers and families.

Today, our Muslim invaders and would-be conquerers use the Roman marriage strategy in the West to the detriment of the West. BUT, Sharia Law instructs these same Muslims to deny Western men the ability to marry Muslim women to the point where these interfaith marriages are deemed as legally invalid under Sharia Law.

Here is the proof that the West is being conquered by Muslims: Here, there, and everywhere, Muslim men may marry Western women whereas Western men CANNOT marry Muslim women.

Note that when the USA invaded, conquered, and held Germany and Korea, significant numbers of American GIs married German and Korean women and brought the women home to the USA to successfully blended families.

Do we see the same trend when the USA invades Muslim countries? Why not? Why are American men unable to marry Muslim women and bring them home to successful blended families? Two words: SHARIA LAW.

Zenster said...

rebelliousvanilla, your contributions (to put it generously), in this thread continue to both reflect and prove Baron Bodissey's central point from his original post.

Congratulations on being a poster child for "The Narcissism of Small Differences".

Anonymous said...

Hesperado: "It's simply not possible, in the mind of Robert and RV, for the vast majority of an entire people to be that bad. Therefore, it cannot be true."

I really enjoy these philosophical conversations with you, Zenster, Sagunto, RV, and the Baron - among many others. I feel as though extended debate sharpens the expression of all of our ideas.

Regarding your comment above: The idea that the vast majority of an entire Islamic people located in various Middle Eastern countries CANNOT possibly agitate for EVIL is the reason that the Western press can seriously portray the leftist-backed Muslim overthrow of a semi-secular semi-sane nominally pro-American dictator or regime as being better than the nominally "democratic" imposition of an inherently dictatorial and excessively violent religious regime run by Muslims enforcing strict Sharia Law - whose devout adherents would use nuclear bombs against the United States and the rest of the West - directly or as a serious threat to obtain Western concessions to Islam - if given half a chance.

One question to the supporters of "democratic" Islamic overthrow of semi-secular Middle Eastern dictators and their governments: If recent Muslim "democracy" leading to Muslim governments with strict enforcement of Sharia Law is such a great idea, why are boatloads of Muslim immigrants abandoning their newly "liberated" countries and fleeing to the West - particularly Italy - which is governed by non-Muslims without strict enforcement of Sharia Law?

Anonymous said...

RV: "Not that I really care, I trust people when they make a claim online, considering that it isn't like they'd accrue some benefit out of lying."

Actually, people lie all the time - multiple times per day. This is in fact one topic which yields many statistical studies....

Just for fun (but serious, too):

"Men tell twice as many lies as women, it emerged yesterday."

"Researchers found they tell six fibs a day on average to their partner, boss and work colleagues, but women come out with just three."

"The study of 2,000 Britons also revealed that the most common lie told by both sexes was: 'Nothing's wrong, I'm fine.'"

We all lie, but men lie twice as much!

Indeed, the culture of the Middle East is widely known as a culture of lying. Islam and Sharia Law articulates several well-known and well-used jihad strategies that encourage Muslim adherents to lie to other Muslims and non-Muslims - with the biggest lie being that GOD approves of grown men forcibly marrying and raping little girls - and/or participating in long term pederasty between men and boys....

Anonymous said...

I wish people would read each others' posts more carefully, keeping in mind that they are sometimes written in enough haste that an Austrian judge might punish the writer for inaccurate use of words, as when ESW called Mohammed a "pedophile" when "child molester" would have been more precise (though of course "pedophile" is legally defensible too according to both vernacular and technical usage).

The debate about statistics of Muslim-nonMuslim marriages by gender and country should be settled by linking to the original research, which some of us are competent to interpret. It is sort of laughable to see RV accused of self-delusion about Muslims simply because her precise meaning was misunderstood and she likes to insult those who misunderstand her (rather than re-express her meaning more verbosely so that some require less effort to follow her).

Hesperado said...

Egghead,

"Based on YOUR important idea [that PC MC is basically derived from good], I think that the reason that most Westerners have passively accepted massive immigration is the idea that most Westerners feel that immigrants will accept indigenous people and blend with Western societies via shared values and activities - including marriages which create blended families - with Western respect for various cultures and religions."

This is mostly true of non-Muslim immigrants. The point and the problem is distinguishing Muslim immigrants from all other immigrants. PC MC may be derived from good, but it has deformed that good in certain ways -- resulting, in this particular case, with the incoherent mush I referred to. That incoherent mush is also operative with respect to non-Muslim immigrants: the PC MC mind knows semi-consciously that non-Westerners have cultures inferior to the West and that is the main reason why all those peoples would be benefited by immigrating into the West, so that over time they can acquire our culture and better themselves. But the PC MC is not able to simply think in these blunt terms -- We are better, they are worse, we want to help them get better and stop being worse by becoming more like us. The PC MC must mush over the implications of superiority/inferiority -- especially when the inferior peoples of the formula are not whites. The PC MC also recoils from the limitations on the unlimited praise for "diversity" which this implies. And yet, at the same time, they can't deny their humanitarian impulse to help all these poor non-whites of the world. PC MCs are not so far gone that they would conclude that the best way to help non-white non-Westerners is for them to continue doing all their cultural dysfunctions without change. So the PC MCs twist into logical pretzels trying to square the circle of the paradox that is created by denying the simple superiority of the West.

With Muslims, the problem becomes more acute, and more pretzelly. The blunt principle I expressed above --

We are better, they are worse, we want to help them get better and stop being worse by becoming more like us.

-- does not apply to Muslims, because they cannot undergo that cultural transformation in numbers sufficient to defuse the dangers their culture embodies.

The baseline dysfunction of Muslims and their culture -- uniquely distinguished in its dysfunctions from the cultures of all other non-Westerners -- warps the PC MC formula into even more grotesque paradox and incoherence, due in great part to the PC MC inability to distinguish Muslims from all other non-Westerners.

on-my-own-in-berkeley said...

Hesperado,

I'm sure that you know this, but just to round out the discussion of PC MC: behavioral dysfunctions in minority groups, especially among Muslims, are usually blamed upon either the terrible colonialist or Western-supported oppression of their countries of origin or else upon the hate-filled, bigoted, racist atmosphere of the Western country in which they reside.

So, really, according to the incoherent logic of PC MC, their cultures are not really inferior. It's all our fault--all the fault of the West, one way or another.

Anonymous said...

Zenster, actually, I think I am the only one that raised a legitimate question and didn't just voice her particular preferences for one of those groups or simply emulated leftists and just pointed fingers and said that the ones we don't agree with are narcissists, instead of Nazis.

Egghead, when American men were in Germany in 1945, the average age for German men was under 20. I'd pretty much marry anyone if I was a German woman back then. And I'd like to point out that I don't find something noble to share your women with someone else as a group. So Muslim women not marrying non-Muslim men is actually something good about Islam, in my opinion. In regards to this, we are the silly ones. I hope you realized that in all these examples you gave, it was the men of the victors marrying the women of the defeated. IT wasn't some sort of idiotic idea of inviting people in to share your own women with them. In most of these cases, the men didn't even bring the women home, but settled in the territory of the vanquished(my country is a great example - we are partially descendants of the Romans because of this).

Also, I highly doubt that many Muslim men marry European women. Sure, they might have sex with the ones that are stupid enough, but usually they marry their own.

Oh, and you can't equal both faiths or the ethnicity of both parents. Usually the kids became part of the tribe of their father.

Hesperado, your silly suppositions are stupid. You didn't read that other thread where I pretty much made it clear that my view on who is like 'us' is far more exclusive than most people on this forum? I don't even consider Americans or French to be like Germans and the differences are far smaller.

Zenster said...

You New: Can't some of us be interested in helping those ["moderate" Muslim] people with their realization?

There is nothing to prevent legitimately spiritual organizations from assisting Muslims with their abandonment of Islam. In light of Islam’s many cult-like characteristics professional psychological counselors and trained deprogrammers might more suited to the task.

And though small in number, couldn't they be a help to us?

Possibly, although to date it appears as though only those who voluntarily depart Islam unassisted and on their own initiative (e.g., Wafa Sultan, Ibn Warraq, Noni Darwish), have been able to contribute in any significant manner. Again, taqiyya plays an important role in this matter.

Consider the case of a prominent Muslim who supposedly defects from Islam only to conspicuously readopt it as a media event designed to expose some falsely alleged abuse or mistreatment at the hands of those who facilitated the defection. In such a case, the counterjihad could be done far more harm than help.

This is not to preclude Voice of America or Radio Free Europe-style broadcasts into Islamic countries that hammer upon the endless examples of hypocrisy and contradiction that riddle the Qur’an.

If you think these Islam-hating Muslims say should be shouting their apostasy from the rooftops then my question is, why should they?

It all depends upon whether they wish to be a part of the counterjihad which could save them (and their families or relatives), from those devout Muslims who are trying to kill these apostates. Even if these ex-Muslims are holding out hope for a “modified” or “reformed” Islam, they would still do better to advertize their apostasy. This should be done both as an encouragement for others to follow their example and to demonstrate the fallibility of jihadists who believe that they can kill every single one of these apostates.

After all, if Islam is so evil, wouldn’t it be unmerciful to depart it secretly and thereby not do one’s best to hearten others so that they might enjoy a similar liberation? Clearly, this is one goal of Islam having the death penalty for apostasy; namely, preventing any sort of “domino” or “knock on” effect that might deplete its ranks.

Of course, such a scenario also requires said apostates to put their lives on the line in the process, something that nobody is entitled to demand of them.

However, at the same time, should these apostates refuse to “go public” with their departure from Islam, then they have no right to complain about Islam’s death penalty because they have merely slunk away from the fray without engaging the real foe. Furthermore, if no protest is made then Islam is de facto empowered by their abject cowardice in that such threats are deemed effective without any need to carry them out. It is another case of the self-censorship which Islam manages to inspire in so many of its victims and would-be prey.

This also goes to the heart of whether apostate Muslims should be included in the counterjihad. It is all very well to be persuaded after one degree or another of deprogramming. It is another matter entirely to convince oneself unassisted that Allah is unworthy of worship and independently disconnect from Islam. None of this even addresses the more important case of those who successfully make a break and then publicly declare their apostasy like the brave individuals I have mentioned above.

It is only those sort of determined and courageous souls that should be granted any access to the ranks of the counterjihad.

Zenster said...

polymathblogger: The debate about statistics of Muslim-nonMuslim marriages by gender and country should be settled by linking to the original research, which some of us are competent to interpret.

Are you aware of the fact that numerous European nations purposefully hide or obscure crime and census statistics specifically to deter any demands for government accountability?

I refer you to, "The Price Tag on Dutch Multiculturalism":

The “traditional” parties, on the one hand, claim that immigration is a benefit to the economy and even a necessity, but on the other hand refuse to provide the data or help prove their viewpoint. In Flanders it became clear why: as it turns out, there is no benefit, but a loss of about €2 billion a year, a bill paid by the Flemish taxpayer. [emphasis added]

The Swedish authorities are at least as bad and probably far worse in that they intentionally disguise criminal ethnic identity so as to minimize public perception about the incredibly negative impact of Muslim immigration.

All of this makes it necessary to review well-established historical patterns and combine them with known tenets of Shari'a law so as to derive any sort of useful conclusions.

Hesperado said...

on-my-own-in-berkeley,

Correct. I was trying to abbreviate my already long comment and didn't mention that extra PC MC torque you cited -- though the torque doesn't reveal an underlying simplification, rather a further torsion of complication, which is best expressed through the following paradox, by which PC MC explains the relative difference between the West the non-West:

We are worse because we are better.

Our worseness due to our superiority then causes all significant pathologies among the non-West, so that they only seem worse.

As the reader can see, no amount of unraveling and explanation can save the fundamental incoherence going on here; its delineations and contours are merely increasingly illuminated -- sort of like trying to study and trace out an Escher diagram.

Lengthy and detailed analysis of this curious paradox -- not merely some abstruse hypothetical curiosity, but sincerely believed to one degree or another by millions of Westerners -- may be found here.

Zenster said...

rebelliousvanilla: … I think I am the only one that raised a legitimate question and didn't just voice her particular preferences for one of those groups or simply emulated leftists and just pointed fingers and said that the ones we don't agree with are narcissists, instead of Nazis.

Well goodie, goodie for you, you, you and you, Miss Poster Child.

Do we even need to put that comment through the "So what?" test? Let's not and say we did.

Anonymous said...

on-my-own-in-berkeley: Good point! :)

Hesperado: Great point! :) = "...a further torsion of complication, which is best expressed through the following paradox, by which PC MC explains the relative difference between the West the non-West: We are worse because we are better."

YES. I have thought for a long time that the PC MC crowd pressures the West to act like an intelligent person who is supposed to act "normal" - or even stupid - so that the stupidest person in the room will feel better about him or herself. It is the worst of affirmative action on an massive international scale.

P.S. I fully agree that PC MC imported Muslim immigrants offer an entirely different situation than non-Muslim immigrants.

What I am saying is that (in my search for positive PC MC motivations in the general American population - based on your important idea that I agree with - what I am saying is that I think that the general American population has been unable SO FAR to make a meaningful distinction between the assimilation chances of Muslim and non-Muslim immigrants.

Familiarity with Muslims (as Muslims increase in the general population and exhibit more and more aggressive behavior) should address this failure to separate immigrants into their two primary groups with distinct assimilation characteristics: Muslims who are unwilling and unable to assimilate into the American population - and non-Muslim immigrants who blend better into the general American population.

Anonymous said...

RV: "I hope you realized that in all these examples you gave, it was the men of the victors marrying the women of the defeated. IT wasn't some sort of idiotic idea of inviting people in to share your own women with them."

Do you see where we are in agreement here? I am saying that where Muslim men marry Western women (but NOT vice versa), Muslim men are indeed conquering the West - rather than the opposite. To "take" the women (and resulting children) of another tribe is to be the conquerer of that tribe.

By the way, the idea that Muslim men can marry four women gives them more chance to marry BOTH Muslim women from the old country and non-Muslim women from the new country....

But, we'll wait for a study to see if that happens.... :)

Hesperado said...

Egghead,

"It is the worst of affirmative action on an massive international scale."

Exactly.

Then we need to probe further to the irrationality behind this grand affirmative action. It has been a long and complex process of development. Part of it involves a sense of toxic shame, and a twist on the feeling of "survivor's guilt", where the "survivors" here have benefited from a civilizational survival of the fittest.

This dysfunction among PC MCs is more along the lines of a neurosis; whereas among Leftists it becomes a psychosis. That's the difference between the two; and that's precisely why PC MC -- but not Leftism -- has become dominant and mainstream. The mainstream of a great civilization (like the West) could not be sustained by psychosis; on the other hand, it's obviously not optimally healthy, else it wouldn't be defending Muslims left and right. Neurotic dysfunction, however, even in a great civilization, can become mainstream, at least with regard to this one issue, multiculturalism, and the sub-issue, Islam, that dwarfs its enveloping issue.

"...I think that the general American population has been unable SO FAR to make a meaningful distinction between the assimilation chances of Muslim and non-Muslim immigrants."

The primary difficulty here revolves around the massive fact that Muslims look ethnic; and whenever a PC MC person sees ethnic people -- particularly large groups of them -- he has an uncontrollable spasm that immediately sends messages to the brain: "Must not... discriminate... must not give in... to my natural white inclination to be racist... must respect their diversity.... cannot criticize them or their culture too much..."

The challenge ahead for the West will be to think outside the Box, and distinguish Muslims from all other non-Western peoples, and their culture Islam from all other non-Western cultures. Part of that process will be to learn that it's okay to criticize and even condemn a people and a culture the vast majority of whose members look non-white. It will take a long time, because the PC MC wiring is deeply embedded and complex.

"Familiarity with Muslims (as Muslims increase in the general population and exhibit more and more aggressive behavior) should address this failure to separate immigrants into their two primary groups with distinct assimilation characteristics: Muslims who are unwilling and unable to assimilate into the American population - and non-Muslim immigrants who blend better into the general American population."

It's not just the unwillingness of Muslims to assimilate; it's the violence in which that unwillingness manifests itself, and the seditious nature of that violence. Without all three ingredients -- 1) lack of assimilation; 2) violence; 3) sedition -- the problem of Muslims subsides back below the threshold of an existential problem.

Anonymous said...

Hesperado: I agree. :)

Anonymous said...

Is there a difference in between the meek will inherit the Earth and we are worse because we are better? Or that a rich person isn't the one who has stuff, but the one who doesn't need stuff. Pretty obvious where this is coming from.

Zenster, if there are no statistics on something, then the citation crowd can't prove anything either way and any claim is just as worthy.

Egghead, the aggressive behavior of any group increases as it is conquering another one. Just look at Mexicans. And I'd like to point out that blacks are far more violent and kill more people than Muslims on a per capita basis and they've been there for ages.

Engineer-Poet said...

I believe that the fact... no, the phenomenon of this thread going to 167 (now 168) comments in a couple of days is testimony to the truth of the title of the post.

All of this talk about leftists and PC (and related things like SWPL) is true enough to be useful.  The question is, what do we do with it?  You have to get people on board, which means showing them what's in it for them.  I humbly (yeah, right) suggest that giving people freedom from PC guilt could be a draw.  If you can find a way to encapsulate some of that in short, catchy slogans, suitable for bumper stickers or buttons, you'll have done more than a hundred Alan West videos.  The PC are going to turn off Alan West before his message gets through, but a dozen words of text can get into their consciousness unbidden.  Think of it as the injection method for a thought-virus.

Engineer-Poet said...

And good morning to you, RV. ;-)

Zenster said...

rebelliousvanilla: Zenster, if there are no statistics on something, then the citation crowd can't prove anything either way and any claim is just as worthy.

Once again you jump to wholly unjustified conclusions. Who said, "there are no statistics"? All I noted is that whatever statistics there may be are frequently contaminated or biased by intentionally skewed data gathering and labeling. That does not mean there are no numbers to be had at all.

What's more, well-established historical patterns permit a high degree of predictability when it comes to certain behavioral modes.

And I'd like to point out that blacks are far more violent and kill more people than Muslims on a per capita basis and they've been there for ages.

Either you prove such a wild-eyed assertion or retract it on the spot. While sub-Saharan Black Africa is certainly prone to high levels of violence that exceed even that of Blacks in the USA, Muslims are spead out over a much larger area of the earth's surface and commit violence with an intensity and regularity, especially over time, that could just as easily exceed that of the entire global Black population.

Unless you are prepared to provide verifiable statistical evidence for such a dubious proposition, it would be best for you restate such an assertion as one of personal opinion and most definitely not fact.

Without wasting my time to disprove that which you have not even bothered to try and prove; I will point out that Muslims exhibit a similar inclination to violence as Blacks.

In addition, only of late have worldwide black populations neared that of the global Muslim community. Islam's track record of conquest and domination extends across regions which far exceed that of continental Africa. Just the Mughal conquest of India alone may well have exceeded the entire African continent's recorded history of inter-tribal genocides and random slaughter.

Given those two simple statistics, it is far more likely that Muslims have killed more people throughout history than Blacks, African or otherwise, have managed to in the much more limited spheres of influence that they have occupied over the course of history.

You and Robert Marchenoir continue to comtaminate this thread with baseless and unsubstantiated assertions presented as fact and thereby demonstrate a peculiar sort of intellectual narcissism that I find to be particularly repugnant.

Zenster said...

Engineer-Poet: The PC are going to turn off Alan West before his message gets through, but a dozen words of text can get into their consciousness unbidden. Think of it as the injection method for a thought-virus.

That "thought-virus" is better known as a meme and was a central topic of discussion in the "This Flag Was Made for Burning" thread.

Your point is well taken as several of America's "television generations" now have the average attention span of a fruit fly. Reaching through their collective PC MC fog will require some particularly bright propaganda snippets.

Anonymous said...

Zenster, your comprehension of statistics is laughable. And your diatribe about statistics can be applied to your 'well established' historical patterns. Your inability to use logic pretty much makes it useless to debate with you, so from now on I will tune out your rambling, especially since you just repackage the same non-sense over and over again.

Sagunto said...

rebelliousvanilla -

"Sagunto, why did he say that you are a fascist? lol."

Dunno what it was. Probably something to do with a small difference of opinion on statistics.

Egghead -

You make the sharp but sometimes a bit dry analytical contributions of Hesperado really come alive. Keep it up!

Hesperado -

You wrote:

"I don't think you, and Sagunto and Zenster, have fully grasped the mentality of Robert and RV."

And of course you're right, in a way, as usual. Speaking for myself at least, I wasn't aware of the fact that I took the specific mentality you ascribe to Robert and RV for granted. Your post made it clear again and made me realize what I sort of knew already. Thank you for cleaning my windshield, now I can move on ;-)

Zenster -

You wrote:

"[..]numerous European nations purposefully hide or obscure crime and census statistics specifically to deter any demands for government accountability[..]"

Precisely.
That is why I made a point of supplementing the statistics I gave, with some background info as to the way these stats could be "purified" from bias (notably the fact that 3rd gen. Muslim migrants are made to disappear in the stats, as they are added to the same group that consists mainly of native Dutch).
Do you have any idea btw., why the debate is allowed to go on as if there are no stats to prove that there isn't any major trend among Muslims to marry outside of Islam?
I provided the numbers for Holland; detractors pushing the counter-"argument" have come up with diddly squat so far. I'd say that, until they deliver the goods (probably straight from the "black market" of opinion), there's precious little cause that would substantiate further debate. That is not to say that I don't thoroughly enjoy your spirited contributions ;-)

Kind regs from Amsterdam,
Sag.

Zenster said...

rebelliousvanilla: Zenster, your comprehension of statistics is laughable.

Very good, Miss Poster Child. Don't bother to provide any cogent debate or fact-based refutation, just launch an ad hominem attack. It's a favorite ploy of yours.

You might benefit from paying close attention to Sagunto's most recent post.

Sagunto: … there's precious little cause that would substantiate further debate.

Yoo hoo, that's you he's talking about, rebelliousvanilla. So far, you have brought precious little indeed to this debate − save for your usual abusive tone and some wild-eyed speculations that you have tried to tart up as fact − while most of your comments have only gone to further substantiate the Baron's observations in his original post.

Congratulations. Fortunately, the counterjihad will easily survive your sort of fangless ankle-biting.

Zenster said...

Sagunto: Do you have any idea btw., why the debate is allowed to go on as if there are no stats to prove that there isn't any major trend among Muslims to marry outside of Islam?

I can only suppose it is because of how the opposing team so resoundingly proves Baron Bodissey's initial assertion about "The Narcissism of Small Differences", much less large ones (perish the thought).

That said, this thread is certainly instructive enough whereby it should earn a permalink in the left-hand column.

Anonymous said...

Zenster, you realize that you should be looking in a mirror when you ramble about ad hominems, right? You're the one calling people narcissists when they disagree with you on this thread.

And I don't need to refute anything. I'm waiting for statistics - until then, any claim is just as valid.

Sagunto, the reason why I say there are no stats is because:
1)you need them for where Robert lives, which is France
2)what you translated out of the first link isn't very conclusive since you mentioned only how many marriages in between Dutch men and Moroccan women born in the Netherlands are per year and the frequency of these marriages within the total of marriages of Dutch men to 2nd generation immigrant women.

Now, in regards to the 2nd link, I can understand the graph and the situation isn't that bad. I'd say that on average, there are 5 times more marriages in between immigrant men with Dutch women than vice versa, which is normal(more men immigrate than women and so on).

Sagunto said...

rebelliousvanilla -

You wrote:

"Sagunto, [..]
2)what you translated out of the first link isn't very conclusive since you mentioned only [..] Dutch men and Moroccan women [..]"


I'd like to focus on this second claim of yours. I won't enter into any kind of debate, I'm here to provide a service, so tell me: what additional figures concerning which categories should have been mentioned, and why (don't forget the why, and show your firm grasp of data analysis), to give you "statistical satisfaction"?

I provided the original stats in a link, but I might even look them up for you myself, if that's what it takes.

Sag.

Zenster said...

rebelliousvanilla: You're the one calling people narcissists when they disagree with you on this thread.

Please re-read the original post of this thread. The only reason why you are being labeled as a narcissist is because of how your comments so perfectly reflect the topic under discussion.

It is also difficult to imagine anything more intellectually narcissistic than pulling opinions out of thin air and parading them before everyone as facts.

And I don't need to refute anything. I'm waiting for statistics - until then, any claim is just as valid.

By your above reasoning, if I claim that the moon is composed of partially fused silicates and you insist that it is made of green cheese, are we to accept your assertion on equal footing even though the earth's geological record supports my model and not yours?

Were I doing the same thing as you, others who eschew such intellectual dishonesty would be calling me on the validity of my posted content. Having disqualified yourself in this matter, your own protests are of insufficient consequence. It is also only slightly conspicuous that the one person who has taken the time to produce statistics happens to be in general agreement with my own observations.

Perhaps most telling of all is how you have had the temerity to demand that Sagunto now produce the statistics that Robert Marchenoir was responsible for providing in the first place. Running a close second is that nobody in this entire thread is coming forward to agree with your own suppositions.

Anonymous said...

Sagunto, polymathblogger is far better at statistics than me, despite me being pretty good at it, so he might be able to ask better things than me. Still, to give you an example, let's take the data in the graph in the 2nd link you posted and analyze Moroccans. About 92% are both Moroccan, about 6% are Moroccan men married to Dutch women and 2% are Moroccan women married to Dutch men. These results would have to be adjusted by the ratio of Moroccan men to Moroccan women and Dutch men to Dutch women, for one(for example, we know that more men immigrate than women). polymathblogger can come with other population adjustments that are needed to figure this out. Basically, you have to isolate all the other factors that would influence the likelihood of the two marrying besides Islam and control for them.

Otherwise you get stupid studies like the ones feminists make that say women make less without counting the hours we take off and all the other factors. Women make 60 cents on the dollar without controlling for education, hours and other factors, but 98 cents if you do, which is pretty much equal.

Sagunto said...

rebelliousvanilla -

"[..] have to be adjusted by the ratio of Moroccan men to Moroccan women and Dutch men to Dutch women, for one(for example, we know that more men immigrate than women)."

You speak of the fact that "we know", but what you apparently forgot or overlooked, is that I have already showed you that I know, for it is precisely the reason why in my comment I focussed exclusively on 2nd generation Moroccan allochtoon women. Because we know that for this group the male/female ratio pretty much evens out. But don't believe me, this is about the numbers, and I just provide them, free of charge as a service to the debate.

So here goes, the m/f ratios for Moroccans [look for "tweedegeneratiealloctoon" on the left].

There's another reason why I focussed on the Moroccan allochtoon women, born in the Netherlands (= 2nd gen.), because that is the group that would closely resemble the RM-libération fantasy: Muslim women, born in a Western country, showing by marrying Western men in large numbers "all over the place" - supposedly because these noble men keep the door open when they pass, that they are liberating themselves from Islam (PC MC doctrine would have one assume that they have been more exposed to Western culture than 1st gen Muslim allochtoon women).
We focus on the choices women make, because the original claim was, that Muslim women in a Western country (France) are saying bye-bye to the religion of Peace, through mariage mixté with a non-Muslim.

Now of course these are Dutch stats and, theoretically, it might be that the Muslims in nearby France have a completely different view on the Koranic prohibition for Muslim women to marry a non-Muslim man, but I think there's room for reasonable doubt here, wouldn't you agree? Anyway, I have shown you the numbers, with some more help as to their interpretation. Now you might show you can really handle them, yourself.

Kind regs from Amsterdam,
Sag.

Hesperado said...

Zenster,

Your rebuttal of RV's comparison of Black vs. Muslim violence ("...blacks are far more violent and kill more people than Muslims on a per capita basis and they've been there for ages") addressed the quantitative disparity, but could have benefited from a more explicit use of the qualitative disparity.

On one level, the quantitative disparity bleeds into the qualitative, insofar as a large chunk of the quantity of Muslim violence has been through military invasions, pogroms and massacres once they conquer a region, and paramilitary attacks (razzias, which = pre-modern terrorist attacks). Once that large chunk of data is heaved onto the table for discussion, RV has a choice of which tack to take:

1) dismiss them as wars and other political violence which are just part of the normal behavior of all regimes throughout history

2) realize that Muslim violence is framed by a blueprint of organization and ideological & sociological cohesion which moves the whole violence discussion onto a new level beyond mere criminal statistics.

This is where the qualitative disparity comes in. Outside of a brief window in time in the 1960s and 70s when American blacks tried to organize their militancy through the Black Panthers, blacks have never been able to muster the ideological & sociological organization and cohesion which Muslims, for all their own internecine strife and bickering, have been able to do. Moreoever, blacks don't have a complex unifying creed with a rich history going back centuries, which in addition has the prestige of having motivated several major conquests around the world.

RV just isn't thinking past first base here. There's no excuse for a GOV regular who's at least pointed in the right direction counterjihad-wise to blurt out something so preposterous as "...blacks are far more violent and kill more people than Muslims on a per capita basis...". It's akin to those attempts to soften the danger of Islamic terrorism by noting that "more people die in car crashes".

Zenster said...

Hesperado: Your rebuttal of RV's comparison of Black vs. Muslim violence … addressed the quantitative disparity, but could have benefited from a more explicit use of the qualitative disparity.

There is a good reason for that. Much of the dissenting opinions that are trying to be passed off as facts in this thread deal with information that should be available from one of two sources:

1.) Cataloged information from an online source

2.) Legitimate extrapolation from the historic record

I have sought to keep the discussion at a sufficiently general level whereby most people with a decent grasp of history and Islamic law would be able to quickly grasp the implications of my own inferences.

Seeking to provide statistical data about Muslim populations is also complicated by the exceptionally poor vital statistics recordkeeping in many Islamic countries.

Be that as it may, I sincerely appreciate you re-emphasizing the qualitative aspects of Black vs. Muslim violence which I was obliged to give a cursory treatment as your expanded treatment of the subject only serves to reinforce the basic conclusions that I originally posted.

RV just isn't thinking past first base here. There's no excuse for a GOV regular who's at least pointed in the right direction counterjihad-wise to blurt out something so preposterous as "...blacks are far more violent and kill more people than Muslims on a per capita basis...". It's akin to those attempts to soften the danger of Islamic terrorism by noting that "more people die in car crashes".

You are absolutely correct and good luck with that. The amount of dangerously confusing and totally unsubstantiated misinformation that has been posted in this thread is truly appalling. Again, thank you for the follow up.

Anonymous said...

Hesperado: I read your essay entitled "Montaigne: Godfather of PC MC?" - and I wanted to say that I believe that your essay is absolutely wonderful - and very pertinent to anti-jihadists who are wondering WHY both leftists and the general Western population supports Islamic immigration to the obvious detriment of Western civilization.

Montaigne: Godfather of PC MC?

Hesperado said...

Thanks, Egghead. More and more as I delve into the mass neurosis of PC CM, the more I am convinced its secret lies in its goodness. The trick is to figure out where, and why, our Western goodness has developed this bad habit of taking our virtues just a little too far.

Another essay along this line is:

Four phases of Western universalism, and the humanity of Muslims

A glibly fleeting remark by Rebellious Vanilla above points toward the crux of that essay of mine (though I doubt she realizes the full import and complexity of it):

"Is there a difference in between the meek will inherit the Earth and we are worse because we are better? ...Pretty obvious where this is coming from.

Two things wrong with that remark that come immediately to mind:

1) RV seems to have no hesitation, with blithe alacrity, in tossing out the baby of Western civilization (its Judaeo-Christian substance) with the bathwater (otherwise, if she protested yet again that she's misunderstood, and would preserve the baby, it would not be a realistic baby but some artificial doll).

2) As my essay intimates, the Western sources of the virtues which seem amenable to their Leftist and PC MC deformation are not merely located in the New Testament, but in its other three pillars as well -- the Judaeo, the Graeco, and the Roman.

I.e., this modern deformation of the West into PC MC is a complex and subtle phenomenon, and to conceive of it in terms of civil war or conspiracy-theory cabals or quasi-apocalyptic denouements is to botch the whole thing; and indeed to fall prey to a kind of sophisticated gnostic barbarism that is spiritually treasonous to the spirit of the West.

Just as Muslims will not be able to succeed in their ultimate goal of successful conquest, but will manage to engender untold misery and mayhem in merely -- unsuccessfully -- trying; so these various gnostic Westerners (many unfortunately within the anti-Islam movement) will not see the fulfillment of their deluded and curiously alienated predictions, but may well, if they keep up their irresponsible memes, contribute to more, rather than less, misery and mayhem as the West's PC MC paradigm slowly collapses in its reawakening to the perennial threat of Islam in the decades ahead.

Polymath said...

Zenster and Hesperado,

Why do you find the statement "blacks are far more violent and kill more people than Muslims on a per capita basis" to be "preposterous"?

In America, the fraction of murderers in the black population is 8 times that of the white population. The difference in propensity to commit murder between blacks and whites is comparable in ratio to the difference between men and women. They don't compile statistics on murders here by the religion of the murderer, and it's also complicated here because American blacks are more likely to be Muslim than whites are. But if you compare Muslim countries with majority-black countries the murder rates are much higher in the black countries (and quite similar to the rates for African-Americans considered as a separate "black country").

Of course the reasons for Muslim and Black violence are different, and I can believe that in Europe Muslims are committing murders at a much higher rate non-Muslims are, but RV's point was simply that if what you are worrying about is the physical danger of being killed rather than other problems, you should be much more afraid of living around blacks than living around Muslims.

Please justify why you think the statement about blacks being more violent than Muslims to be not only wrong but "preposterous".

Hesperado said...

Polymath,

"Please justify why you think the statement about blacks being more violent than Muslims to be not only wrong but "preposterous"."

I didn't say it was wrong; I said only that it was preposterous. It's also not incorrect that more people die from car accidents than they do from terror attacks. But to raise that in any context remotely related to the problem of terrorism is preposterous.

I don't deny that black violence is a problem. But innumerable blacks most of whom we cannot pinpoint are not assiduously planning long-range attacks involving WMDs, including suitcase nukes. It is eminently prudent to suppose that innumerable Muslims (most of whom we cannot pinpoint) are; and that, furthermore, they subsist ensconced in a larger sociological web of innumerable other Muslims who at the very least will not report them if they knew, and worse are actually assisting them in various ways (such as lending out the space of one's business for one's fellow Muslims to hold late-night "meetings"; etc.).

The two problems are separate; while each is a cause for worry and arouses the need for some kind of policy to manage it, they are different problems: Muslim violence, unlike black violence, rises to the level of an actual paramilitary invasion. Furthermore, Muslims are more fanatical and not only do not care about dying in the process of killing us, but are specifically encoded by their holy text to do so. When a unit of Muslims is actually seeking suicide martyrdom, it will be that much easier for them to deploy a WMD against us.

Hesperado said...

Another remark by Robert Marchenoir that reflects what I talked about earlier:

A large number of Muslim girls (and here I speak from my French vantage point) cannot believe how lucky they are to have been born in the West.

They understand very well the value of their new-found freedom and the opportunity they have to escape the yoke of their family, brothers, fathers and islam.

Notice how Robert Marchenoir is assuming these Muslim girls think like him and us ("they understand very well"...).

The more appropriate way of describing the sociocultural phenomenon to which Robert Marchenoir was adverting would be at the very least to characterize these Muslim girls as ungrateful parasites who are sucking on our Western infrastructure while continuing to nurture -- in their hearts & minds and in their sociological milieu (family, Muslim friends and associates) -- the hatred for non-Muslims that is encoded in their Islam.

Apparently, the sociopsychological complication of a people who avail themselves of enjoying the fruits of another society whilst at the same time hating that society, is beyond his understanding.

Zenster said...

Polymath: Why do you find the statement "blacks are far more violent and kill more people than Muslims on a per capita basis" to be "preposterous"?

Gates of Vienna is dedicated to advancing the counterjihad. Bearing that in mind, it is highly narcissistic to derail this thread with a red herring sort of statement that seems to diminish or minimalize the danger of Islamic violence.

If you examine my rebuttal to rebelliousvanilla's completely unsubstantiated assertion, I make very clear that in a historical context, Islam has far outscored African Blacks specifically, and the world's Black population in general, in terms of outright slaughter.

Consider this, while Muslims were busy butchering millions of Hindus in the Mughal conqest, 99.9999% of all Blacks who ever managed to kill a non-African only did so as an Islamic slave.

On a modern per-capita basis Blacks easily may be the kings of urban murder statistics. However, bringing that up within the larger context of Islam's existential threat to Western civilization −even while diminishing that threat − and doing so in direct contradiction to the historical record, is disingenuous at best and intellectually narcissistic at least.

Anonymous said...

Zenster, not really, I just got bored of going into stupid harangues with you, especially that you go running like a little girl and expect back up from others when you're losing out. In order to engage in a debate with someone, I must have a degree of intellectual respect for that person.

Hesperado, most Muslims aren't planning any kind of attack either. And it is prudent for me to expect to be killed by a black person before by a Muslim one. And most Muslims must be fairly bad at their religion if it asks them to kill us and they can't outdo blacks at it.

What I find amusing about most of the people who write at this blog is that while they identify Islam as something bad, quite correctly, they still have the typical hang ups about the other things(like being able to pinpoint blacks as a problem).

Polymath, they find it preposterous because they don't like it.

Hesperado said...

RV:

"most Muslims aren't planning any kind of attack either."

The problem is we don't know with sufficient reliability which ones are, and which ones aren't. If the attacks being planned were minor, and if there wasn't such a widespread culture of fanaticism in Islam, and if we hadn't already seen numerous attacks already attempted and some succeeded, this wouldn't be such a big problem. But we do; and so it is.

"And it is prudent for me to expect to be killed by a black person before by a Muslim one."

For now, perhaps; and depending on where you live. But that is simply a separate problem that need not impinge on the proper ordering of problems here.

"And most Muslims must be fairly bad at their religion if it asks them to kill us and they can't outdo blacks at it."

The violence of Islam is not merely geared to killing people at random; it has a blueprint for conquest, and on the long road there, inflicting terror in various ways. When a group has the long view of conquest; when they know that the people they are trying to conquer are currently stronger than them; then it would be counterproductive for them to kill willy-nilly. Muslims indeed have attempted that here and there, and in various parts of the world -- but contexts matter: Filipino Muslims for centuries would spontaneously run into crowds attacking random people with knives, and hope to be shot in the process. But that context presented a surrounding enemy considerably less sophisticated and strong than what the West presents now. A much more complex strategy of stealth combined with periodic attacks, but not too many, is being pursued.

Again, it would be reckless for us to think that innumerable, difficult-to-identify Muslims are not planning horrific attacks on us, using their imagination to devise ever new ways to do so (chemical, biological, suitcase nukes, dispersal of radioactive materials, etc.).

Anonymous said...

Hesperado, we can't really know which blacks are predisposed to murder and rape either. What's your point? Because it is the exact same thing.

And by the way, I'm not saying this because I think we shouldn't focus on Islam. But focusing on it while not only ignoring, but thinking that other outsiders are somehow noble and good is plainly idiotic.

Oh, and why people kill is irrelevant. The argument that Muslims do it for conquest is just as foolish as saying Nazism is worse because it killed in a discriminatory fashion compared to communism, who pretty much didn't discriminate in who ended two feet under, despite the latter killing far more.

Zenster said...

rebelliousvanilla: Hesperado, most Muslims aren't planning any kind of attack either.

More of your typically misleading rubbish. Devout Muslims follow the Qur'an and donate zakat as well. The Qur'an mandates attacks upon dar al-harb and zakat is used to fund them.

Being an accessory to murder is an actionable offense regardless of how much you try to whitewash over it.

rebelliousvanilla: And it is prudent for me to expect to be killed by a black person before by a Muslim one.

Despite the fact that, all through history − which remains the context of this discussion, no matter how much you narcissistically attempt to reframe it − you would look like an absolute monster raving loon to go about, anywhere outside of sub-Saharan Africa, fearing blacks more than Muslims.

And most Muslims must be fairly bad at their religion if it asks them to kill us and they can't outdo blacks at it.

Save for the fact that Muslims most likely kill more people on a worldwide basis, each and every day, than Blacks do.

Blacks aren't in Kashmir killing Hindus. Blacks aren't launching Qassams into Israel. Blacks aren't beheading Indonesian schoolgirls. Blacks aren't machine gunning down peaceful Buddhist monks in Southern Thailand. Blacks aren't murdering Hindus in Bangladesh. Blacks aren't setting off car bombs in Lebanon. Blacks aren't triggering bomb vests in Pakistan. Blacks aren't slaughtering entire Indian villages full of Hindus. Blacks aren't stoning to death Yedizi girls in Iraq. Blacks aren't killing Coptic Christians in Egypt. Blacks aren't butchering Chinese shopkeepers in Malaysia. Blacks aren't bulldozing busloads of journalists into mass graves in the Philippines. Blacks aren't killing foreign guest workers in Saudi Arabia. Blacks aren't beheading Coalition soldiers in Afghanistan.

Yeesh!

What I find amusing about most of the people who write at this blog is that while they identify Islam as something bad, quite correctly, they still have the typical hang ups about the other things(like being able to pinpoint blacks as a problem).

What part of:

"On a modern per-capita basis Blacks easily may be the kings of urban murder statistics."

… did you not understand?

As always, and like any good schoolyard bully, you descend into insults whenever there isn't any actual data to support your totally unfounded speculations. (Which is alarmingly often if your consistent resort to abuse is any indicator.)

Anonymous said...

What happened to the 5 comments limit per person ?

I think it is high time this thread is closed.

It is one more example of people relentlessly hammering ad hominems and demeaning personal remarks and not knowing when to let go, just because someone else begs to differ from their opinion.

The sense of entitlement and superiority oozing from this thread is disgusting.

Anonymous said...

Robert, I know when to let go. Why do you think I don't even read Zenster's posts anymore? :D

Zenster said...

Robert Marchenoir: What happened to the 5 comments limit per person ?

Whatever happened to the time honored tradition of providing hard data to back up assertions that would otherwise be reclassified as mere opinion?

The sense of entitlement and superiority oozing from this thread is disgusting.

Here, we are in agreement. Thinking that one is entitled to blat about unsubstantiated notions and then assail the character of those who strive to follow accepted forensic practice is disgusting, indeed.

Engineer-Poet said...

RV's failure to acknowledge her mis-reading of Zenster's plain language exhibits an entitlement mentality that's quite disgusting.  It reminds me of the insufferable b-words whose motto is "I have the p***y, so I make the rules."  Those rules appear to include privilege from the rules of reason and evidence.

I'm done with this thread, there's unlikely to be any further contributions worth the effort of sifting through the dungheap.  And you, overly-Rebellious Vanilla, can only thank yourself for that.

Hesperado said...

Zenster has provided sufficient counter-argument to RV's claims that black violence is a worse problem than Islamic violence.

I would only add that blacks have not been mounting major attacks such as 911 which mass murdered over 3,000 in one day. Many other attempts by Muslims since 911 would have been as bad or worse (e.g., the plot to blow up gas pipelines in a crowded suburb near JFK airport; the plot to blow up planes in mid-air en route from England to the US; etc.), and even the ones short of that (e.g., the Times Square attempt) dwarf what blacks are doing. RV has a strange inability to grasp the qualitative factor here, even when it has quantitative effects.

Anonymous said...

Hesperado, I did give bonus points to Muslims for the spectacular way in which they kill people. But besides this, in quantitative terms, the statistics go my way. What you do is special pleading(some deaths are worse than others based on your subjective criteria). And I'd like to point out that if you include failed terrorist attempts, you must include attempt of murders too.

And I stopped reading Zenster's posts when they began being comprised of just calling people narcissists. And I have better things to do than debate him considering he talks out of both sides of his mouth. He's probably the only person who denounces universalism, but believes in universal human rights. lol

Zenster said...

rebelliousvanilla: Hesperado, I did give bonus points to Muslims for the spectacular way in which they kill people. But besides this, in quantitative terms, the statistics go my way.

WHAT STATISTICS? No linky, no credibility. What part of this is unclear?

Polymath said...

Although RV did not provide a link, I provided an argument. The original context of RV's comparison of black and Muslim rates of violence was the distinction being drawn between dangerous Muslim immigrants and non-dangerous assimilable immigrants by Hesperado in discussion with Egghead and Zenster (and Sagunto, though Sagunto said only sensible things). RV was making the perfectly relevant point (and especially relevant in the American context which was being discussed, since Muslims are not an "existential threat" in America while one can make a case that they are in Europe) that if you are going to worry about groups of immigrants causing violence and failing to assimilate, Muslims are not the biggest problem.

Of course the effect of violence committed by Muslims in promoting the spread of Islam is a special factor, but if you are not worried about your country actually being taken over by Muslims and implementing sharia, but instead expect it to preserve its liberties, which is the situation in America, then Muslim immmigrants do way less damage to the society than immigrants from certain other groups.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 201   Newer› Newest»